Poverty

[Beck]

free for everyone!

 

Lower GDP doesn't equate to lower quality of living necessarily. Less money to buy less walmart crapola, maybe.

 

The economist is a good magazine

[cj001f]

you have all been trolled!

As opposed to responding to one of your posts? This ain't my real account anymore

[JayB]

The Euros can collectively do whatever they wish, but they should neither be surprised nor angry when they get their collective macroeconomic asses handed to them by the untold milions of people who are determined, ambitious, and hungry. There's just no way that the 26 year old programmer in Bangalore with an entire extended family to think about is going to cut Jacques and Heinrich some slack so that they can enjoy their six week vacations without the gnawing anxiety that comes along with knowing that somewhere out there, a hard-working person is eating their free lunch.

I don't begrudge either. Americans need to realize their is no intrinsic advantage to using us over any other 1st world work force. Yes we produce more, but we are also paid commensurate with our production - so on an outsourcing basis, Americans are no different than Dieter, Francois, Geoff, or Giovanni; all equally reproducable by Chang or Sandeep

 

All true, but if I'm an employer who's looking at an expensive American who is willing and able to work 50 hours a week to keep his job and and a Euro who can only legally work 37.5 hours a week - and we are just talking pay here - I am going to give Jacques' job to Sandeep first. More likely, I will simply do mire hiring elsewhere and let Jacques retire early.

[Off_White]

How many of you free enterprise types work 50 hours a week or more? How many of you are self employed entrepreneurs? Will, you actually work for the federal government, don't you? Do you suffer any kind of libertarian angst over being a burden to society, a leach on the face of American ingenuity?

[RobBob]

Anyone who has time to spray about poverty on this board needs to get his ass back to work!

[Greg_W]

Newt Gingrich told me that poverty didn't exist anymore and G. Gordon Liddy backed it up. What are you guys talking about?

[willstrickland]

Will, you actually work for the federal government, don't you? Do you suffer any kind of libertarian angst over being a burden to society, a leach on the face of American ingenuity?

 

Since I typically work 50 and get paid for 40, and am probably the 2nd or 3rd most productive person I know in my agency...no I feel pretty good about it. I hardly consider myself a "leech". I work in environmental protection (wetlands specifically) and regulation is inherently a govt activity. I am working to protect the integrity of OUR waters by administering Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

 

I could certainly work in the private sector and make probably 10-20% more in salary, but those private sector jobs in this field are aimed at avoiding, bypassing, and skirting regulation, or figuring out a way to do the absolute minimum to keep the regulators at bay. They are not tasked with environmental protection, but with saving money for their clients. Personally, as an environmental engineer I would be ashamed to work for most of the consulting firms that work in water or air regulatory compliance. Success is not only measured in money.

 

I do suffer from some libertarian angst over the implementation of the regs and the structure of the agency. We could be more effective with less staff and by spending much less taxpayer money if the regs were re-written via congressional legislation. We end up using some very convoluted means to take jurisidiction that are based on strings of district court precedents that are often challenged in court or appealed via the permit appeals process. Staff time sorting through the muck, legal costs, guidance documents and reg implementation memos, MOAs/MOUs with other agencies all eat up resources. Add to that the stereotypical government lazy/incompetent/confused/unempowered employee and the bureacratic clusterfuck (simple things like buying DEET for the field season are a major hassle with multiple approvals required, we have one vehicle for 6 people trying to do field work because last year when the office was down to 2 people they didn't put enough miles on the vehicle to justify another...well no shit eh, they were so swamped/understaffed they couldn't even get into the field)

 

Alot of things about govt work are anathema to a libertarian type, but I believe in the purpose of my work and I'd rather have someone competent (i.e. ME) doing it than some lazy joker who's just there to collect a check.

[RobBob]

Personally, as an environmental engineer I would be ashamed to work for most of the consulting firms that work in water or air regulatory compliance. Success is not only measured in money.

 

Nor is environmental regulation always rooted in honesty, Will, if you want to be cynical about it. I've spent my life on the water, around estuaries, marshes, creeks, swamps, you name it. But where I live, these areas have little in common with what is defined as a "wetland." Where we are, the vegetation and/or the soil definitions result in almost all wooded land being classified as "wetland." That's intellectually dishonest IMO. But anyway, that's another subject and I know you don't make the laws. My point is that there are two sets of 'extreme' constituencies in that issue.

[Off_White]

Thanks for the synopsis Will. While I was striking a pose, I was also curious just what your job was up there. on the good work.

 

I am curious how many here are self-employed. It struck me as funny that of the few I'm aware of, AlpineK, MattP and I land on the left end of the balance and only RobBob on the right. That's contrary to the mythology of just what sort of person is a self-starting entrepreneur.

[RobBob]

I only play right on cc.com. You and DFA drove me to it.

[badvoodoo]

joe bialek is a spambot

 

see here: spambot

 

you have all been trolled!

 

A philisophical/socioeconimic spambot... This is a new one on on me. Seems like special interest groups have a new propaganda medium. At least it's to "discussion" forums, and not just posted for ingestion with no discourse.

[willstrickland]

The definition is centered around the soil going anaerobic for long enough during the growning season to predominantly support hydrophytic vegetation. Swamps, marshes, and bogs are the public perception of "wetland" however, the biological/ecological function is similar in the areas that don't "seem like wetlands".

 

The definition is actually "For regulatory purposes, the Corps of Engineers defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

 

When we make a wetland determination it requires meeting 3 parameters: soils, vegetation, and hydrology. An area has to meet ALL THREE of these parameters. The soils must be hydric and show evidence of anaerobic conditions. 50% or more of the dominant vegetation species must be facultative or wetter, and there must be sufficient hydrology to make a case for saturation/inundation for more than 5% of the growing season.

 

Furthermore we do not take jurisdiction over any wetlands that cannot be hydrologically connected to a navigable water of the US. Isolated wetlands with no surface water connection to a naviagable water or one of it's tributaries are non-jurisdictional.

 

I don't think there is intellectual dishonesty taking place, I think there is a public perception of wetlands based on appearance rather than science. We do public outreach/education at the local home shows/building fairs etc. I do think there is some form of intellectual dishonesty in the way we take jurisdiction in some cases that is due to the legal precendent issues. Technicalities in some precedents, unrelated to the core issue have required some "creative" legal manuevering. I make the point to our upper mgmt all the time that the regs need to be re-written in light of these issue because our authority is derived in a convoluted and somewhat dishonest manner.

 

Here in Alaska, literally 50-60% of the land is technically wetlands. I am typically dealing with fill permits and my aim is to avoid wetland impacts first and minimize them second. Strategic planning during the design phase of big projects can often cut impacts in half without any impact on the permittee by simply choosing where to place structures or how to arrange a project layout.

 

I agree with you that alot of the enviro action groups are dishonest in their portrayal of the issues in these cases. They will often challenge any agency decision simply to delay the process whether the science is valid or not. They know that their extreme stance is not supported by the law, so they use any available method to legally monkeywrench the system. Last minute appeals after previously agreeing that their concerns were met, appealing everything on principle, etc. They are, in a manner, defeating their own cause because they:

 

1. Lose credibility with the public

2. Tie up agency money in legal wrangling that could be used to do more compliance and enforcement work

3. Lose the goodwill of regulators like me who are very much for protection, but a realist.

 

You are spot-on, there are two very extreme groups on both sides. Unfortunately for me, I'm in the middle and have only so much latitude within the law. Dealing with shady fuckers from both sides of the fence tries my patience sometimes. It also amuses me, because they usually think they are pulling one over on you.

[RobBob]

All I know is that I own some woodland that is a long way from even a creek much less navigable waters, no standing water on it, and I can't do shit with it!

 

Well, I take that back. I can let a timber company come in and log the everlovin' shit out of it, removing all the hardwoods. Then they'll plant pine on it, and it will become a totally different environment. What's the fairness in that? But that's the law.

[Bronco]

Thanks for the synopsis Will. While I was striking a pose, I was also curious just what your job was up there. on the good work.

 

I am curious how many here are self-employed. It struck me as funny that of the few I'm aware of, AlpineK, MattP and I land on the left end of the balance and only RobBob on the right. That's contrary to the mythology of just what sort of person is a self-starting entrepreneur.

 

I'm self employed and a right wing leaning son of a biatch.

[Bronco]

I'm pretty sure gotterdamerung and GregW are as well so that's 4 right vs 3 wrong.

[Off_White]

Hmmm, and I'm pretty sure that GD and GW actually work for someone else's companies, and while they may get defined as "independent contractors" that's really just a tax dodge, and unless their employer can't tell them how and when to do something, they're not really independent. As the IRS puts it, "A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the worker." I'm certain GD takes orders, but I haven't kept up with Greg's employment since he stopped working for that big concrete company.

 

Since Robbob has actually declined definition, that makes 3 left, 1 fringe, and 1 undeclared.

[Greg_W]

I ride both horses: Main check comes from a mid-sized GC, supplement my income with my own business ventures. I can't see how an independent businessman (or woman) can be a proponent of larger government intrusion, taxation, paperwork, etc.

[cj001f]

I can't see how an independent businessman (or woman) can be a proponent of larger government intrusion, taxation, paperwork, etc.

Ask any of the plethora of minority owned companies that do minor contract work for the government (probably not the example you had in mind)

[Fairweather]

Hmmm, and I'm pretty sure that GD and GW actually work for someone else's companies, and while they may get defined as "independent contractors" that's really just a tax dodge, and unless their employer can't tell them how and when to do something, they're not really independent. As the IRS puts it, "A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the worker." I'm certain GD takes orders, but I haven't kept up with Greg's employment since he stopped working for that big concrete company.

 

Since Robbob has actually declined definition, that makes 3 left, 1 fringe, and 1 undeclared.

 

Ok, OW,

 

I work about 55 to 60 hrs per week in the private sector as an account manager. I am paid salary plus bonus ( , these days) and have a company car I keep for both business and private use. I won't mention the company name, but it is one of the larger corporations in the world.

BTW, you don't see me posting here between 5am and 4pm.

 

I don't bear any animosity toward those who work government jobs be they Fed, State, County, but I do believe that about 25 to 40% of local government jobs are make-work. (Maybe I'm wrong on this...change my mind!) True, govt jobs pay slightly less, but this is adjusted up by generous insurance, retirement, PTO benefits...not to mention better job security than that found in the private sector. Again...if I'm wrong, help me change my mind!