Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » October 1st Predictions? (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   
Author Topic: October 1st Predictions?
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G3: "I just successfully piloted my car across town without the guiding hands of federal government."

It's interesting to see that this is just a joke for you and how little you care about what harm can come from it.

Was it a joke for NPR as well? That’s where I first heard the dreadful news I would not be able to get my fill of cute panda cam today. (sad that I learned of such an opportunity as it slipped away…)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, you have an awful lot of faith in an institution that's been run by big government statists for decades. What makes you think they haven't subverted the electoral process to avoid facing the consequences of their actions?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was being partly facetious. Liberty minded folks are always told by statists to win elections or shut up. Well that cuts both ways.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Republicans you are currently supporting, Seneca, are also the Statists you decry.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cutting both ways implies that there will be real choices between statist or non-statist in the elections. Or for that matter, between Democrat and Republican? How often does a party run a capable candidate in a district they're almost certain to lose? Given a choice between an experienced legislator and a neophyte with no connections, who do you think's going to win? (keeping in mind the Tea Party now counts as connections)

When the NDP swept Quebec in the last federal election, many of their new MPs were barely associated with the party. They certainly would have never won a riding on their own merit. I don't think the American system is set up for that kind of sea-change, but they're representive of the kind of people who run in non-competitive ridings.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to be clear, we're no longer making predictions says to what's going to happen today, and this is transformed into another thread of who's to blame, throw him in the pit? Just askin'
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Was it a joke for NPR as well? That’s where I first heard the dreadful news I would not be able to get my fill of cute panda cam today. (sad that I learned of such an opportunity as it slipped away…)"

Do you think G3's harping condescending smirks are in the same league as a misfired joke from NPR?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mormegil:
The Republicans you are currently supporting, Seneca, are also the Statists you decry.

You are mistaken if you think I support these republicans. My position is much more nuanced than that.

I support the shut down. [Smile]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I think we know what happened today. What happens next is really in the House GOP's hands. My guess is that Boehner is going to cave and tell his members to vote their consciences. Following that, the TP'ers will try to get him removed as Speaker. If they do try it, I hope they succeed. Not only is Boehner unable to control his own caucus, but giving the loonies free reign will help reinforce that they have no real interest in governing, only in reinventing our government in their own image.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh right, predictions. If they don't sort it out soon, they'll start bickering about the debt ceiling and the CR will be tied to that. A last-minute deal will get both a CR and debt-ceiling extension but the markets will freak and tank.

Going out on a limb: I think if there are major theatrics about the debt ceiling, the US's credit rating will be cut, again. You can only go to the brink so many times before going over. Everyone will ignore the cut, because no one has the slightest clue how to re-jig the global economy to work without triple-A+ (or whatever) US treasury bills.

ETA: I'm seeing mention of the "essential" personnel (except the military) working without pay, is that right or am I missing something?

[ October 01, 2013, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think G3's harping condescending smirks are in the same league as a misfired joke from NPR?
My sense of humor was not dry enough to even be sure it was a joke on their part. It came off as a rediculous point to make in much the same way G3 did. It's only value is to mock those who listing the harm caused by the shut down. "But don't worry, someone is still going to feed the panda."

I don't think they are in the same league. G3's was markedly more amusing. The NPR "bit" left me thinking the reporter was either a moron or lacked a funny bone.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

quote:
Our capital gains tax level is the third highest in the world.
What do you mean by 'tax level' - statutory capital gains rate? Or do you mean in tax revenues? Or something else?

All that actually matters is the effective capital gains rate - which was around 5.7% (I think it is currently about 2% for large corporations, the 5.7% was 1978, with far less favorable tax code and much less skilled corporate tax attorneys).

http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~rlwctr/papers/8219.PDF

quote:
Our revenues from them are record.
Revenues are fairly irrelevant for two reasons

1) Population increase means that on average each subsequent year will have record revenues compared to previous years

2) Capital gains are extremely flexible as to recognition, so revenue from any particular year will be based on whether recognizing the gain was favorable due to other factors (biggest factor for recognizing a gain is expectation of an upcoming increase in the effective rate; another big factor is ability to recognize an offsetting 'loss').

quote:
Our income tax rates are 16 th as of 2011 among OECD countries. Meaning we are one of the highest taxed in the world.
Again effective rate versus statutory rate. We have a high statutory rate, but probably the lowest effective tax rate in the world.

quote:
We are taxed massively. If you live in California and cross 400k in income you will pay 51% back to the fed and state.
First that is a marginal rate and secondly that is a statutory rate, and thirdly, it is impossible to hit a marginal statutory rate of 51% even with the highest state and federal rates.

Lets use your 400k example to find the effective tax rate of your hypothetical individual assuming zero deductions or other ways of lowering the numbers.

400k - california taxes
$2,059 + 353234*.093 = 32851+2059 = 34910 in California taxes

114,118$ in federal taxes

total liability

114,118+34910 = 149028

149028/400000 = 37.3% effective tax rate - ie 19% less than the marginal statutory rate you quoted.

Of course that assumed zero deductions, after deductions I'd expect something like 15% effective tax rate with even a ****ty tax accountant. For the wealthy you shift it so that it isn't recognized as income and you can get to effective rates of taxation in the 5-10% region.

quote:
Even Imperial Rome taxed only 5%.
About half of our taxes are military (current+previous adventures +ongoing obligations to past soldiers) - our per capita spending on military is probably about 10 fold that of rome - so if we cut our military by 90% we could cut our taxes about 45%. About a quarter of our taxes are spending on elderly (social security medicare), which is partially just a savings program and partially public support of the destitute - so if we let the elderly die we could cut our taxes by 20-25%. Then the remainder of our taxes go to roads, schools, fire, and police, judges, etc - of which the roman empire only supplied either not at all or vastly less of or in much inferior quality.

quote:
I'm sorry but stating that tax rate maximum has been higher offers no coverage from the fact that the rates applied to almost no one fifty years ago. Has the rate been higher? Sure. Was it as broadly applied? Not at all.
Yes, the wealthy have lowered their own tax rates and pushed taxes onto the middle class. So the poor and middle class pay far more in taxes, the wealthy pay far less. You seem to be supporting the claim that you were arguing against.

quote:
So what you have said is true in a very limited scope of argument. The Rockefellers were indeed taxed at a higher rate fifty years ago. They are also now taxed at a lower rate today but pay more in taxes as a result of the fact that there are almost no direct individual deductions anymore.
They pay about 1/4 - 1/8 the effective tax rate that they did historically, and most certainly do not 'pay more in taxes as a result of the fact that there are almost no direct individual deductions anymore'.

quote:
So yeah we don't have deductions and sky high rates. We do have some of the highest taxes in the world.
For the wealthy and for large businesses we have probably the lowest effective rates in the world. For middle class and the poor we have close to typical rates (but probably close to the lowest for first world nations) but get far less benefit since most of our spending is on military, and most of other nations spending is on social welfare.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I should start a new thread asking for predictions whether that world will end in 2012. Then we can argue whether the Republicans or Democrats deserve the credit

[ October 01, 2013, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
What do you mean by 'tax level' - statutory capital gains rate? Or do you mean in tax revenues? Or something else?

All that actually matters is the effective capital gains rate - which was around 5.7% (I think it is currently about 2% for large corporations, the 5.7% was 1978, with far less favorable tax code and much less skilled corporate tax attorneys).

Have you ever paid capital gains? Why don't you walk us through where you think the effective rate comes from.

It's interesting to consider it at a corporate level, exactly how do you think it applies in the corporate tax world?

Why would anyone cite a 30 year paper written about taxes?
quote:
Again effective rate versus statutory rate. We have a high statutory rate, but probably the lowest effective tax rate in the world.
Last time you made this claim it turned out we had both a high statutory and effective tax rate. Given, I've spent a long time with some very good tax planners, I'd be fascinated to hear how you think we can do a better job with tax planning.
quote:
Lets use your 400k example to find the effective tax rate of your hypothetical individual assuming zero deductions or other ways of lowering the numbers.

400k - california taxes
$2,059 + 353234*.093 = 32851+2059 = 34910 in California taxes

114,118$ in federal taxes

total liability

114,118+34910 = 149028

149028/400000 = 37.3% effective tax rate - ie 19% less than the marginal statutory rate you quoted.

Of course that assumed zero deductions, after deductions I'd expect something like 15% effective tax rate with even a ****ty tax accountant. For the wealthy you shift it so that it isn't recognized as income and you can get to effective rates of taxation in the 5-10% region.

None of your math actually works here. Anyone at that income level is on the AMT and the state tax deduction goes away (along with a bunch of other deductions). Of course I haven't checked if Red's math works either on this.
quote:
For the wealthy and for large businesses we have probably the lowest effective rates in the world. For middle class and the poor we have close to typical rates (but probably close to the lowest for first world nations) but get far less benefit since most of our spending is on military, and most of other nations spending is on social welfare.
I'm not aware that your claims on effective tax rates have ever proven correct. It's certainly not my experience that international actors seek to get the "advantage" of US tax raters.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's certainly not my experience that international actors seek to get the "advantage" of US tax raters.
Foreign companies operating in the US are not taxed the same as US companies. Whether or not the US would make a good tax haven for foreign companies is a separate issue from US corporate tax rates.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And Donald, I think I expressed myself in my first post on what I thought of this a bad tactic, didn't I?

Sort of - but you also suggested that you were confused why neither party would "budge an inch". This suggests that, even if you think it is "a stupid fight" and that "The Republicans don't have the votes to get this done" you still think that the Democrats share some part of the blame for not compromising with those threatening a government shut down. This a far cry from, for instance, taking a principled stance against caving in to what amounts to extortion, or even believing that the tactic should be ineffective given that you do expect that the Dems should rationally compromise in this situation.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A view from the outside

http://www.cbc.ca/news/the-perverse-math-behind-the-republican-budget-showdown-neil-macdonald-1.1873758

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
It's certainly not my experience that international actors seek to get the "advantage" of US tax raters.
Foreign companies operating in the US are not taxed the same as US companies. Whether or not the US would make a good tax haven for foreign companies is a separate issue from US corporate tax rates.
International companies have the ability to choose where they will be head quartered, and have lots of ability to choose where they will invest, hold excess cash and develop new business, and open new subsidiaries.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Sort of - but you also suggested that you were confused why neither party would "budge an inch". This suggests that, even if you think it is "a stupid fight" and that "The Republicans don't have the votes to get this done" you still think that the Democrats share some part of the blame for not compromising with those threatening a government shut down. This a far cry from, for instance, taking a principled stance against caving in to what amounts to extortion, or even believing that the tactic should be ineffective given that you do expect that the Dems should rationally compromise in this situation.

Fair enough, my lament was actually generalized that the parties refuse to compromise on anything (and I don't believe blame gets reasonably apportioned).

This specific situation is dumb on the part of the Republicans, the Democrats are going to get this 100% their own way (unless they decide to throw a bone) just by waiting, and the Republicans are spending good will uselessly on a hopeless fight.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

I'm was talking about corporate capital gains for large corporations and for wealthy individuals.

For most individuals who are not wealthy - capital gains is generally on sale of ones home or on stock for retirement savings. Since non wealthy individuals have far less discretion in recognizing gains they end up with much higher capital gains rates.

quote:
Why would anyone cite a 30 year paper written about taxes?
The methods are largely the same currently, however, most modern papers ignore a number of factors in estimating 'effective rates'. The numbers have stayed largely the same - statutory rate of 20% or so for a 'long term' (held greater than one year) gains; reduced to 12.8% via fairly easy and direct methods in the tax code; further reduced to 5.7% due to ability to manipulate when the gain is realized. Most modern papers ignore the effect of impact on being able to time the realization of the gain.

quote:
Last time you made this claim it turned out we had both a high statutory and effective tax rate.
Incorrect - last time I showed data that we had a effective rate that was equivalent or possibly a bit higher than the lowest effective rate world wide.

quote:
Given, I've spent a long time with some very good tax planners, I'd be fascinated to hear how you think we can do a better job with tax planning.
No disrespect, but given that you post here, I doubt you have the income to afford a 'really good' tax planner.

quote:
None of your math actually works here. Anyone at that income level is on the AMT and the state tax deduction goes away (along with a bunch of other deductions). Of course I haven't checked if Red's math works either on this.
15% is more than the AMT. 5-10% was with assumptions that you are wealthy enough to manipulate 'income' so it isn't structured as income, but instead structured as a long term capital gain.

quote:
I'm not aware that your claims on effective tax rates have ever proven correct.
That seems largely to be you unwilling to accept data that contradicts your premise. I've provided adequate sources to demonstrate the flaws with many of the widely quoted sources and sources that show my claim to be well founded. For instance the enormous flaw of calculating tax rates by including companies that have lost money is widespread in the most commonly quoted sources - which is just one among many forms of deception/error - with such a flawed methodology one could claim that the effective tax rate was infinite.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tell you what, it must be a dark day in the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for Interdepartmental Affairs offices:
quote:
The federal government's forced shutdown of vast swaths of its operations will send more than 800,000 federal workers home without pay, close national parks and cripple some programs, while leaving essential services up and running.
I have to wonder, how many businesses have 800,000 non-essential employees? Time for a meeting with the Bob's.

The good news is, that despite the shutdown, those thousands of federal employees continue their normal daily job routines - primarily looking at internet porn.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think if there are major theatrics about the debt ceiling, the US's credit rating will be cut, again.
My prediction: if the House is actually stupid enough to continue to extort demands over the debt ceiling, Obama will order debts paid via executive order. I'm not happy about that in the least, but I think it's the only logical and legal avenue available to him that doesn't wind up rewarding those idiots for refusing to govern.

-----------

G3, you continue to assume that "non-essential" means "useless." I note that entire divisions of the federal government -- like, say, most of the FDA -- provide actual services but not emergency services, and are thus often classified as "non-essential" in these scenarios because their services can be deferred or rescheduled.

[ October 01, 2013, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So CNN is doing their day long freakout coverage trying to convince people to be concerned about the fake shut down.

They reported that republicans have offered to fund specific items individually which was immediately preemptively rejected by Obama who said he would veto all of them even if the senate passed them. Very mature response from our Divider in Chief.

If Obama attempts to raise the debt ceiling or restart the government without Congress then hopefully Boehner would grow a spine and contact the military quick.

[ October 01, 2013, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you think this is a "fake" shutdown? I know several people who are not working today.

quote:
They reported that republicans have offered to fund specific items individually which was immediately preemptively rejected by Obama who said he would veto all of them even if the senate passed them.
This is, I submit, the only way to ensure that a shutdown is not a "fake" shutdown (i.e. does not shut down only services that idiotic Republicans dislike and already would like to see shut down.)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
G3, you continue to assume that "non-essential" means "useless." I note that entire divisions of the federal government -- like, say, most of the FDA -- provide actual services but not emergency services, and are thus often classified as "non-essential" in these scenarios because their services can be deferred or rescheduled.

You continue to assume that I said "useless".
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shut downs usually mean something is not running. The federal government is still running. Just because parts that statists like aren't running doesn't mean that the government is stopped.

The government used to have a military base near me but closed it, does this mean the government shut down?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the FLOTUS twitter account:

quote:
Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, updates to this account will be limited.
NOOOOO! It's almost dinner time, how will I know what I'm supposed to eat? Millions of Americans will go to bed hungry tonight.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The government used to have a military base near me but closed it, does this mean the government shut down?
If the base closes but keeps security and maintenance staff at the facility still did the base not shut down?

[ October 01, 2013, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have to wonder, how many businesses have 800,000 non-essential employees?
That's about 20% of Federal employees. How many businesses can furlough 20% of their staff for a few weeks while still completing "essential" tasks? Probably most of them.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's some free advice: if you ever find yourself in a situation where you're in that 20%, start applying for a new job immediately.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But where else does a Secretary of Caligraphy find work?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Here's some free advice: if you ever find yourself in a situation where you're in that 20%, start applying for a new job immediately.

Almost everyone in a large corporation is in that position. For instance, I work for a midsize software company with several hundred engineers. Provided you split the 20% evenly across the organization virtually anyone could be part of that 20%. On my team I've got five good engineers, but I could give up any one of them for a few weeks if necessary.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then pass my advice on to them.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, the pettiness. Barry gots it.

There was a Honor Flight of WWII vets in DC today. For those that don't know:
quote:
Honor Flight Network is a non-profit organization created solely to honor America's veterans for all their sacrifices. We transport our heroes to Washington, D.C. to visit and reflect at their memorials. Top priority is given to the senior veterans – World War II survivors, along with those other veterans who may be terminally ill.
Good stuff. But today Barry and his team decided to disrupt it. These guys were going to a memorial, not a building, like a museum, that has doors and staffers and guides, it is a wide open space out in the middle of a park. OK, got that? It's a memorial standing unsupervised out in the open, people can just walk through this thing in their normal transversing of the city. This is essentially scenery - it does not close. Here's a picture of it.

What did Barry do? Had barricades erected around it and refused to allow the veterans in:
quote:
“We got the heads up that they will be barricaded and specifically asked for an exception for these heroes,” Palazzo told TheDC. “We were denied and told, ‘It’s a government shutdown, what do you expect?’ when we contacted the liaison for the White House.”
quote:
Palazzo, a Gulf War Marine veteran who has participated in all five of the Honor Flights, blames the White House for making it harder on veterans and playing politics. “At first I thought it was a huge bureaucratic oversight,” Palazzo told The Daily Caller, “but having talked with the officials I can’t help but think this was politically motivated. Honor Flights, which bring WWII veterans to the nation’s memorials, are planned a year in advance and cost anywhere between $80,000 to $100,000. How low can you get with playing politics over our nation’s veterans?”

In a statement, Palazzo noted that he is introducing legislation to ensure that all Honor Flights are granted access this week. “This is an open-air memorial that the public has 24/7 access to under normal circumstances — even when Park Service personnel aren’t present,” Palazzo said in the statement. “ It actually requires more effort and expense to shut out these veterans from their Memorial than it would to simply let them through . My office has been in touch with NPS officials and the Administration to try to resolve this issue.”

What do I expect? I expect you to not go through additional expense and effort to block off open public areas in order to make political points against guys who have earned the right to be there. This is about as low a class move as I've seen Barry make.

How'd that go over? Eh... not so well. The vets stormed the barricades and walked through the memorial anyway. I suppose you could say, they crossed a "red line" that Barry drew...

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Then pass my advice on to them.

What advice? Don't be an employee of a company? These are professionals with 6 figure salaries and full benefits. Almost everyone everywhere is "non-essentials" over the short term. Hence paid vacations.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Then pass my advice on to them.

What advice? Don't be an employee of a company? These are professionals with 6 figure salaries and full benefits. Almost everyone everywhere is "non-essentials" over the short term. Hence paid vacations.
No, be essential to a company. Even professionals with 6 figure salaries and full benefits must be essential to a company or if/when things get tight they will be among the first to be considered for layoff. I'm not talking about paid vacations, nobody is. We're talking about when something happens and cuts have to be made or mergers create redundancies, things that will last more than the very short 1-2 week finite period of vacation. If you are not looking for ways to be essential to a company, then you are simply looking at being first in line at the unemployment office.

Some people, even professionals with 6 figure salaries and full benefits, are content to just float along and remain at the mercy of their employer and budget constraints that are largely outside of their control. That's fine if that all they want to be. But you know how long we need them? Only as long as convenient - they are not essential. When the cash flow tightens up, it'll be too late for them to help themselves.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am the only person at my company who understands our database infrastructure. This is completely untenable and am I trying very, very hard to convince the company that paying just one person to understand and manage their entire backend is an incredibly bad idea. This would of course make me less essential to them, but it would be horribly irresponsible of me to not advise against the status quo; while job security is nice, it is nicer to know that, in the event of my death, little old ladies will continue to get updated prescriptions and our actuaries can still get current numbers.

In my last three professional roles, in fact, I have worked fairly hard to ensure that I would not be the only person capable of doing my job if something were to come up.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can be very valuable as an employee (that is, earn lots of money for your company) without necessarily being essential.

Like a few others here, it seems, I also manage an engineering team. Having a single employee be "essential" to running a business is a sign of managerial incompetence, not efficiency. It would be even worse if 20% of your people were essential. Are you supposed to just shut down your business if one of your essential people leaves for another job?

Too much redundancy is a problem, too, of course.

Next up on Ornery: a three page discussion on the definition of "essential". [Smile]

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sounds like a nonessential discussion. And that's coming from me, the definition fairy. "Essential" means that which the speaker feels at the moment cannot be done without.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
You can be very valuable as an employee (that is, earn lots of money for your company) without necessarily being essential.

Like a few others here, it seems, I also manage an engineering team. Having a single employee be "essential" to running a business is a sign of managerial incompetence, not efficiency. It would be even worse if 20% of your people were essential. Are you supposed to just shut down your business if one of your essential people leaves for another job?

Too much redundancy is a problem, too, of course.

Next up on Ornery: a three page discussion on the definition of "essential". [Smile]

It seems we'd need that discussion because being essential to a company does not mean the being the sole resource for some specific need. Having a single employee being the only one able to do something is not a good deal if they decide to leave although, if it happens, did you know you can buy insurance for that?

If you can afford to have 20% of your people disappear for a extended period of time and your work is minimally or not interrupted, they they're dead weight and those jobs should be combined and the others either re-purposed to maximize their value or cut them loose. It's a company, not a charity.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1