Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[prole]

-5$ per hour as an entry point into the labor market is much better than being permanently unemployable at a higher wage rate and never entering the job market.

 

This might be more convincing if the actually existing pool of permanently unemployed in America was primarily composed of out of work minimum wage earners. It isn't.

[akhalteke]

I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees.

 

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today).

 

If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40?

 

Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too.

 

They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem:

 

Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing.

 

The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover.

 

 

[prole]

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

You got it ass-backwards. Most labor saving technology is geared toward dumbing down the operator, diminishing the skill set, and cheapening the cost of labor not skilling up.

 

If the owner is the operator what happens to the cost, and value of his labor in the above scenario?

 

WTF? This conversation and the scenario you outline above centers on employers and workers. Now you're shifting the goalposts? Get back to me when you find some intellectual honesty and/or a belief in the legitimacy of your own arguments.

Edited July 8, 2011 by prole

[Jim]

I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees.

 

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today).

 

If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40?

 

Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too.

 

They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem:

 

Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing.

 

The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover.

 

 

And I agree. Soldiers are in a separate category, asked to do what most would not consider at the whim of soft-handed politicians. The pentagon budget needs to be cut on some of the worthless programs pushed by bring-home-the-bacon pols. Do we really need to be spending twice as much for our military as the combined rest of the world? Pensions for the troops, medical benefits, family support, and post-conflict GI benefits should be solidified and increased. It is quite different than a public desk job.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees.

 

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today).

 

If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40?

 

Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too.

 

They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem:

 

Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing.

 

The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover.

 

 

And I agree. Soldiers are in a separate category, asked to do what most would not consider at the whim of soft-handed politicians. The pentagon budget needs to be cut on some of the worthless programs pushed by bring-home-the-bacon pols. Do we really need to be spending twice as much for our military as the combined rest of the world? Pensions for the troops, medical benefits, family support, and post-conflict GI benefits should be solidified and increased. It is quite different than a public desk job.

 

Much of our military budget does in fact go for just what you are proposing should be supported - even increased! Make up your mind. :-)

[akhalteke]

I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees.

 

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today).

 

If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40?

 

Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too.

 

They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem:

 

Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing.

 

The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover.

 

 

And I agree. Soldiers are in a separate category, asked to do what most would not consider at the whim of soft-handed politicians. The pentagon budget needs to be cut on some of the worthless programs pushed by bring-home-the-bacon pols. Do we really need to be spending twice as much for our military as the combined rest of the world? Pensions for the troops, medical benefits, family support, and post-conflict GI benefits should be solidified and increased. It is quite different than a public desk job.

 

Issue with the military is that a huge majority are no longer even "fighters." The beaurocracy has consumed the military. We are being told to get rid of 50,000 troops and unfortunately, we will be getting rid of the wrong ones. There are soldiers that are 300 lbs and pathetically ineffectual at a job that is not even necessary in the first place.

 

Marry that with a federal government that insists on fighting a war, while not trying to win it is a recipe for wasted money by the trillions.

 

[billcoe]

No doubt Scott. Everyone here, even those who think we are crazy to run off and fight non-essential wars for non-strategic reasons, wish you: all of you guys, well. I'd like to see you all back here safe and sound, raising familys and spending those military paychecks in the US.

 

.....ending wars means less employment and dumping a bunch of unemployed killers back into the streets. Increasing taxes also reduces jobs. ......

 

I think that you need to rethink your entire shtick buddy, {especially the "trained killer part as military personal tend to be as law abiding as they come) but to discuss only 2 of your points.

 

1st) price out a single JDAM (the best low cost way to kill the enemy) let alone a Cruise Missile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit If we can get out of tossing million dollar bombs out of airplanes alone in the 3 or 4 major active locations we are in now, we'd save a fortune. Running these sorties even with the lowest cost ordinance is very costly. No need to reduce the amount of military personal we have, rotate them home and let them be peacetime soldiers in US based locations: station them in places named Fort Lewis, Fort Sill, Fort Benning, Fort Ord or whatever. We'd retain their skill sets in case of a serious future need, and they and their family's would be spending those paychecks in the US. The operational costs to run F18's or B-2s on repetitive missions would drop radically, as would fleet costs to have aircraft carriers stationed out of these shitholes. Aircraft carriers have 4,000 sailors on them, and the price of fuel to run one within jet range to bomb a country like Libya alone is enough to fund most small 3rd world countries. Our military operational costs are huge to achieve these minor questionable goals.

 

2nd) on the increasing taxes issue you note. Let the Obama (formerly Bush) tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Why should we be borrowing and paying interest on that money from the Chinese to allow the rich to bank more money? They aren't creating more jobs as much as deepening their portfolios while the middle class gets stuck with having to repay the borrowed $ sometime in the future. Pulling money out of the hands of the many so that it can get locked into the bank vaults of the few has always been a recipe for disaster in this country. We've seen it occur in history, why do it again voluntarily?

 

We need to balance our budget badly. Reducing costs is critical, but as we do not seem to have the political will to easily do so those 2 methods noted above would be an easy start.

 

Start that out of box thinking revision with those 2 issues and see what ya think.

 

Interesting here's the army just flushed $3 billion down the toilet. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89048-us-army-spent-2-7-billion-on-a-battlefield-computer-that-doesnt-work

 

[akhalteke]

 

Much of our military budget does in fact go for just what you are proposing should be supported - even increased! Make up your mind. :-)

 

It ain't getting increased champ. Let me tell you! Our bennies are on the chopping block. Retirement is being pared and free health care culled.

 

Now, there are those that abuse the medical system in order to get over and get disability and they are ruining it for those that actually need it. Same goes to PTSD. When you have soccer moms in California claiming PTSD after watching 9/11 on TV, it becomes a joke really quickly.

 

In my line of work, sports medicine type injuries are extremely commonplace as are back issues. Now, the government wants us to pay a large copay to subsidize costs. As fucked up as my body is, that shit could bankrupt me! LOL

 

So, you see, the military is a mirror image of the problems in the Nation's economy. Our decline has just been accelerating exponentially, while the Nation's economy just continues its gradually accelerating decline.

[Jim]

Given that family housing for the military was -20% for fiscal 2011 and a measly +5% increase for personnel in 2011, here's a program summary:

 

 

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%

Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%

Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%

Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%

DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%

Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%

F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%

Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%

Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%

RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%

Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

 

 

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

[billcoe]

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

 

I'd say that the public, and the politicians shouldn't get to vote on this. Let the experts define what our countries strategic needs are based on an estimated budget to make our country secure and then execute that plan.

 

Realistically, we need to spend on space based weapons and drop the carrier. China already has cheap assed missiles that it is said can and will sink a carrier. Those assholes have sold it to Iran it's been said, and Iran has hardened sites in the Persian gulf to hit our ships with this Chinese missile. Congress exasperatedly publicly berated the pentagon for not developing a defense to this bullshit. We have enough carriers already. Develop a defense for the supersonic shore to ship missiles. Pull back from the bullshit we are wasting $ on, like being in Afghanistan. Support those in Afghanistan who support us (formerly the Northern Front, General Dostrum and his tribe). Pocket the difference, but fully fund the VA and space based weapons.

 

But it's not my call, nor the public's call, to make. Leave it to the experts who live and breath this issue.

[prole]

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

 

I'd say that the public, and the politicians shouldn't get to vote on this. Let the experts define what our countries strategic needs are based on an estimated budget to make our country secure and then execute that plan.

 

Realistically, we need to spend on space based weapons and drop the carrier. China already has cheap assed missiles that it is said can and will sink a carrier. Those assholes have sold it to Iran it's been said, and Iran has hardened sites in the Persian gulf to hit our ships with this Chinese missile. Congress exasperatedly publicly berated the pentagon for not developing a defense to this bullshit. We have enough carriers already. Develop a defense for the supersonic shore to ship missiles. Pull back from the bullshit we are wasting $ on, like being in Afghanistan. Support those in Afghanistan who support us (formerly the Northern Front, General Dostrum and his tribe). Pocket the difference, but fully fund the VA and space based weapons.

 

But it's not my call, nor the public's call, to make. Leave it to the experts who live and breath this issue.

 

Is this a joke?

Edited July 8, 2011 by prole

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Given that family housing for the military was -20% for fiscal 2011 and a measly +5% increase for personnel in 2011, here's a program summary:

 

 

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%

Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%

Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%

Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%

DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%

Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%

F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%

Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%

Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%

RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%

Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

 

 

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

 

I look at it this way Jim. We ("we") might like all these things to be the best-equipped, strongest military in the world, but you can't have everything you want. Our budget is bloated, our economy teetering, and we are overextended. So somebody has to make the tough calls to cut some of the above. Everyone who runs a household does this - so should the government. What programs specifically should be cut? Hell if I know but the cuts need to be made, and big cuts at that. Satisfied?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Much of our military budget does in fact go for just what you are proposing should be supported - even increased! Make up your mind. :-)

 

It ain't getting increased champ. Let me tell you! Our bennies are on the chopping block. Retirement is being pared and free health care culled.

 

Now, there are those that abuse the medical system in order to get over and get disability and they are ruining it for those that actually need it. Same goes to PTSD. When you have soccer moms in California claiming PTSD after watching 9/11 on TV, it becomes a joke really quickly.

 

In my line of work, sports medicine type injuries are extremely commonplace as are back issues. Now, the government wants us to pay a large copay to subsidize costs. As fucked up as my body is, that shit could bankrupt me! LOL

 

So, you see, the military is a mirror image of the problems in the Nation's economy. Our decline has just been accelerating exponentially, while the Nation's economy just continues its gradually accelerating decline.

 

Dude, you are depressing me. YOU have to pay a copay? Fucking make the congressmen and their staffs pay fucking copays.

[JosephH]

I look at it this way Jim. We ("we") might like all these things to be the best-equipped, strongest military in the world, but you can't have everything you want.

Damn straight! You go to war with the tired, brokedown, weary army you have [taken advantage of] -- not the army you might want but can't afford even at a later time.

[Jim]

Given that family housing for the military was -20% for fiscal 2011 and a measly +5% increase for personnel in 2011, here's a program summary:

 

 

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%

Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%

Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%

Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%

DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%

Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%

F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%

Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%

Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%

RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%

Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

 

 

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

 

I look at it this way Jim. We ("we") might like all these things to be the best-equipped, strongest military in the world, but you can't have everything you want. Our budget is bloated, our economy teetering, and we are overextended. So somebody has to make the tough calls to cut some of the above. Everyone who runs a household does this - so should the government. What programs specifically should be cut? Hell if I know but the cuts need to be made, and big cuts at that. Satisfied?

 

If I were king (and you were queen!) I'd bet that we could come to reasonable decisions over a couple of pitchers. Unlike the current political situation. Plus, we could drown jb in the bathtub!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Given that family housing for the military was -20% for fiscal 2011 and a measly +5% increase for personnel in 2011, here's a program summary:

 

 

Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%

Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%

Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%

Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%

DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%

Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%

F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%

Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%

Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%

RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%

Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%

 

 

I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

 

I look at it this way Jim. We ("we") might like all these things to be the best-equipped, strongest military in the world, but you can't have everything you want. Our budget is bloated, our economy teetering, and we are overextended. So somebody has to make the tough calls to cut some of the above. Everyone who runs a household does this - so should the government. What programs specifically should be cut? Hell if I know but the cuts need to be made, and big cuts at that. Satisfied?

 

If I were king (and you were queen!) I'd bet that we could come to reasonable decisions over a couple of pitchers. Unlike the current political situation. Plus, we could drown jb in the bathtub!

 

I always thought of Prole as a queen.

 

Honestly the bill for the F-35 bothers me the most. 2000+ planes and over a trillion lifetime costs.

 

[JayB]

Let's assume that there's a robot that amplifies a single worker's productivity 10-fold.

 

Same guy working with his hands cranks out 10X less stuff.

 

His employer invests in the robot and trains the employee how to use it.

 

Employee owns his new robot-operating skill set. Employer owns the robot.

 

How should the returns from the increase in productivity be divided?

 

Not an entirely trivial question when the employer is the one who identifies the opportunity to increase output by investing, takes the business risk by sinking the money into the investment, assumes all costs of maintaining it, training the employees to operate it, etc.

 

IMO the returns that the employee are entitled to are those that they arise from increasing skill, knowledge, etc.

 

You got it ass-backwards. Most labor saving technology is geared toward dumbing down the operator, diminishing the skill set, and cheapening the cost of labor not skilling up.

 

If the owner is the operator what happens to the cost, and value of his labor in the above scenario?

 

WTF? This conversation and the scenario you outline above centers on employers and workers. Now you're shifting the goalposts? Get back to me when you find some intellectual honesty and/or a belief in the legitimacy of your own arguments.

 

Per your original statement, a guy digging a ditch with a shovel will diminish his skills and his wages if he decides to become a backhoe operator.

 

His shoveling output is 10,000X higher but he only gets a measly doubling of his wage!

 

Ditto for the guy who has $100K worth of electric tools to make cabinets with, vs the guy who uses hand tools.

 

Same with the million dollar combine operator vs the guy with the scythe.

 

Et....cetera.

 

Were you really trying to make a serious argument?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You mean who is going to operate the robots? Anyone who is willing to accept the wages the owner is offering in exchange for doing so.

 

What if the wages are too low to be livable? Really there should be no protection against this?

[Jim]

Per your original statement, a guy digging a ditch with a shovel will diminish his skills and his wages if he decides to become a backhoe operator.

 

His shoveling output is 10,000X higher but he only gets a measly doubling of his wage!

 

Ditto for the guy who has $100K worth of electric tools to make cabinets with, vs the guy who uses hand tools.

 

Same with the million dollar combine operator vs the guy with the scythe.

 

Et....cetera.

 

Were you really trying to make a serious argument?

 

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

[Kimmo]

I've been shot twice

 

i have never been shot.

 

jesus, what is wrong with me?

[Kimmo]

i had someone poke a pistol at my head though. kinda sucked. well, in hindsight. at the time, what are you gonna do? immediacy rarely sucks, actually; it just is....

[JayB]

You mean who is going to operate the robots? Anyone who is willing to accept the wages the owner is offering in exchange for doing so.

 

What if the wages are too low to be livable? Really there should be no protection against this?

 

 

The ultimate protection would be the right of anyone who didn't want to accept a job at a particular wage to refuse it. That's what protects ~97% of the workforce that makes more than the minimum wage right now. No one will fix cars for minimum wage, for example, because there are lots of people who can profitably employ them at several times that rate and are willing to pay them much more.

 

For the rest, I don't think it'd actually be much of a problem in practice since virtually everyone that participates in the labor force picks up skills, habits, connections, knowledge etc that allow them to increase their earnings over time. Most are young and just entering the work-force, are living under someone else's roof, etc. Interns are an extreme case - many literally get paid nothing but are willing to work for free in exchange for training, connections, etc that they believe will result in bettor opportunities and higher pay later on.

 

Having said that - transfer payments in the form of a negative income (like the EIC) are a great way to foster work-force participation without pricing the least skilled people out of the labor market entirely.

 

Under that kind of a scheme it'd be possible for a single mom working to support her family to earn three times what a wealthy retiree was who was working just to get out of the house - even though they were working in the same capacity at the same place.

 

The long-term effects of being locked out of the workforce are so much worse than working for low wages for a period of time that we should be much more concerned with the former than the latter.

[prole]

It ain't getting increased champ. Let me tell you! Our bennies are on the chopping block. Retirement is being pared and free health care culled.

 

Now, there are those that abuse the medical system in order to get over and get disability and they are ruining it for those that actually need it. Same goes to PTSD. When you have soccer moms in California claiming PTSD after watching 9/11 on TV, it becomes a joke really quickly.

 

In my line of work, sports medicine type injuries are extremely commonplace as are back issues. Now, the government wants us to pay a large copay to subsidize costs. As fucked up as my body is, that shit could bankrupt me! LOL

 

So, you see, the military is a mirror image of the problems in the Nation's economy. Our decline has just been accelerating exponentially, while the Nation's economy just continues its gradually accelerating decline.

 

Dude, you are depressing me.

 

Yeah, me too. The military should start sharing another feature of contemporary American life with its civilian counterparts. Oh wait, it already has...

 

[E-rock]

Hey, Prole. Eat your own wad. You'll like it. I'm pretty sure you swing that way.

[tvashtarkatena]

The best idea here lately is to weaponize space. Rumsfeld pushed it, so you know its good. When it breaks, we can just thumb a ride up with the Russkies. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to help us secure our astro-hegemony if we help spring for the gas.

 

Military personnel will always be the last in the budget line because they pretty much have to shut up and put up while in the service. Defense contractors? Not so much. Plus, bennies are BORING. Death rayz from space? You don't have to be Anthony's Weiner to spring a woody over that shit. Get some dumb ass cracker congressman from Tay-haus or Bama in a 'working lunch' situ and they'll start drooling over all that hi tech, cost plus pork before the jalapeno poppers arrive. Just push a button and all your terrorist worries literally evaporate...no unintended consequences or local knowledge required! And hey, we can even sell the boyz ridin' those joysticks at Langley some flight suits...

 

 

It sucks if you're the dood sportin' 70+ lbs of expensive crap in 105 degree heat - most of which the grunt would gladly trade for some financial/health security, but it's always been this way.

Edited July 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena