Metro Jacksonville

Community => Transportation, Mass Transit & Infrastructure => Topic started by: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM

Title: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 16, 2012, 08:30:42 AM
Quotebtw...airlines are barely profitable and they have all those federally-mandated departure/landing taxes....which funds things including Taj Mahal-like airport terminals....imagine if the same taxes could be placed on train travel!

Based on the bailouts of GM and Chrysler and the bankruptcies of American Airlines, and the post 9/11 hangover, I don't think there is 1 commercial or public transportation company you can point to in this global economy as being successful. Ford did not take bailout money, but they are not exactly thriving either.

What do they all have in common? High Labor Union infestation.

Thank you Mtrain for this AHA! moment. I suppose no one is entitled to a decent wage but you?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
I suppose no one is entitled to a decent wage but you?

So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 

You're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract.  Thank you for your dues.

Edit below:

In the last 2 minutes, I gave this some more thought, walked into my boss' office and demanded more money, better benefits and a pension plan - you know, because I'm entitled to a 'decent' wage). 

If anyone out there has an opening for a Commercial Project Manager and are willing to pay the decent wage my previous employer didn't think I was 'entitled' to have, PM me so that I can forward my resume. 
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: bill on August 16, 2012, 10:56:56 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
I suppose no one is entitled to a decent wage but you?

So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 

You're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract.  Thank you for your dues.

Edit below:

In the last 2 minutes, I gave this some more thought, walked into my boss' office and demanded more money, better benefits and a pension plan - you know, because I'm entitled to a 'decent' wage). 

If anyone out there has an opening for a Commercial Project Manager and are willing to pay the decent wage my previous employer didn't think I was 'entitled' to have, PM me so that I can forward my resume.

+1-Union jobs are great until they are inevitably destroyed.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 10:45:34 AM
So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 

You're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract.  Thank you for your dues.

Fun hypothetical, got any data to back it up? Even an anecdote?
Do you propose making the organization of labor illegal? How does restricting the rights of workers fit into your idea of small government?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 10:45:34 AM
So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 

You're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract.  Thank you for your dues.

Fun hypothetical, got any data to back it up? Even an anecdote?
Do you propose making the organization of labor illegal? How does restricting the rights of workers fit into your idea of small government?

Well, PJ, once I back it up with data to support my claim it's no longer hypothetical, is it?

An anecdote?  Sure.

QuoteI was at the over at the electricians' shop today and as I passed by an office this is a converstaion that I overheard, "Jimbob, you're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract."  I almost fell down in disbelief.

Nope.

Where did I claim to restrict workers' rights?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Lunican on August 16, 2012, 11:58:03 AM
So how do you explain profitable companies with unionized workforces?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: bill on August 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Which ones?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Which ones?

How about MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, and every team in them?
Or Exxon-Mobile?
UPS, Caterpillar,  Southwest and Alaksa Airlines, AT&T, Verizon, Costco, Safeway, Kroger, US Steeel, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, GM and Ford (yes, its true!), Disney, Kraft, General Mills, Kelloggs,  Exxon, Consol, Peabody, Kimberley-Clark, Pepsi, all the major movie studios, in fact any profitable company that creates or distributes media, and the list goes on (including Newscorp).

Is it because of the unions that the Big 3 needed to be bailed out? Then what about AIG, BoA, Wells Fargo, et al?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: BackinJax05 on August 16, 2012, 01:09:43 PM
Quote from: Adam W on August 16, 2012, 07:44:50 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on August 16, 2012, 12:08:34 AM
I dunno. It seems to me EVERY politician has been trying to get rid of Amtrak since before 1971.  Gotta hand it to Amtrak, somehow they survive.

As for Carter, he was a p!$$ poor excuse for a president and a disgrace to the white house. Amtrak aside, under Carter we enjoyed stagflation, a second energy crisis, and a little dip sh!t 3rd world country (at the time) pushing us around.

How did ol' Jimmy respond? Enacted a grain embargo against the Soviet Union, and boycotted the 1980 Olympics. Im sure that made our 52 hostages, held by those sand fleas for 444 days, feel really good.

I hate to defend Jimmy Carter, but his grain embargo and Olympic boycott were in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His response to the Iraq hostage crisis was initially to launch a rescue attempt, which failed. That wasn't his fault (I'd assume it was a fault of the military guys who planned it poorly).

As far as stagflation and the energy crisis - I doubt he was to blame for that.

I think he does share the blame, somewhat, for Osama bin Laden and the current situation in Afghanistan. Perhaps.

True, he cannot be blamed for the failed rescue attempt. As I remember, an unexpected sandstorm caused the deadly accidents that killed 8 of our servicemen.

BTW, it was Iran - not Iraq ;) Ironically, we supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Adam W on August 16, 2012, 01:27:30 PM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on August 16, 2012, 01:09:43 PM
Quote from: Adam W on August 16, 2012, 07:44:50 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on August 16, 2012, 12:08:34 AM
I dunno. It seems to me EVERY politician has been trying to get rid of Amtrak since before 1971.  Gotta hand it to Amtrak, somehow they survive.

As for Carter, he was a p!$$ poor excuse for a president and a disgrace to the white house. Amtrak aside, under Carter we enjoyed stagflation, a second energy crisis, and a little dip sh!t 3rd world country (at the time) pushing us around.

How did ol' Jimmy respond? Enacted a grain embargo against the Soviet Union, and boycotted the 1980 Olympics. Im sure that made our 52 hostages, held by those sand fleas for 444 days, feel really good.

I hate to defend Jimmy Carter, but his grain embargo and Olympic boycott were in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His response to the Iraq hostage crisis was initially to launch a rescue attempt, which failed. That wasn't his fault (I'd assume it was a fault of the military guys who planned it poorly).

As far as stagflation and the energy crisis - I doubt he was to blame for that.

I think he does share the blame, somewhat, for Osama bin Laden and the current situation in Afghanistan. Perhaps.

True, he cannot be blamed for the failed rescue attempt. As I remember, an unexpected sandstorm caused the deadly accidents that killed 8 of our servicemen.

BTW, it was Iran - not Iraq ;) Ironically, we supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

D'oh. I cannot believe I typed "Iraq"  :-[

Thanks for that!
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Which ones?

How about MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, and every team in them?
Or Exxon-Mobile?
UPS, Caterpillar,  Southwest and Alaksa Airlines, AT&T, Verizon, Costco, Safeway, Kroger, US Steeel, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, GM and Ford (yes, its true!), Disney, Kraft, General Mills, Kelloggs,  Exxon, Consol, Peabody, Kimberley-Clark, Pepsi, all the major movie studios, in fact any profitable company that creates or distributes media, and the list goes on (including Newscorp).

Is it because of the unions that the Big 3 needed to be bailed out? Then what about AIG, BoA, Wells Fargo, et al?

Good examples! Most of the (real) companies have shrunk their workforce, renegotiated union contracts, moved factories over seas, hired more part time and non-union workers, shuttered plants and moved them to right to work states. Hell, US Steel made more steel 100 years ago than they do today. Quite a success story for the unions.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: thelakelander on August 16, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
How much does technological advances over the last century play in the reduction of workforces?  For example, Swisher's successful implementation of machine made cigars directly led to thousands of hand rollers losing their jobs in Tampa and Ybor going down the tubes.

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIJuSFmnP7jy5q9nCnOXa5xToEEiit1sMWYY9NfWIZojHvkco6aw)

You can find similar examples all over Detroit with the advances made in the auto industry.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Which ones?

How about MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, and every team in them?
Or Exxon-Mobile?
UPS, Caterpillar,  Southwest and Alaksa Airlines, AT&T, Verizon, Costco, Safeway, Kroger, US Steeel, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, GM and Ford (yes, its true!), Disney, Kraft, General Mills, Kelloggs,  Exxon, Consol, Peabody, Kimberley-Clark, Pepsi, all the major movie studios, in fact any profitable company that creates or distributes media, and the list goes on (including Newscorp).

Is it because of the unions that the Big 3 needed to be bailed out? Then what about AIG, BoA, Wells Fargo, et al?

Good examples! Most of the (real) companies have shrunk their workforce, renegotiated union contracts, moved factories over seas, hired more part time and non-union workers, shuttered plants and moved them to right to work states. Hell, US Steel made more steel 100 years ago than they do today. Quite a success story for the unions.

I like the throwaway implication that unions are the cause of the change in production of US Steel over a 100 year period. That seems well thought out and researched. Perhaps their steel production decline had something to do with being basically a steel monopoly in 1901, when they produced 2/3 of all steel. Competition (both domestic and foreign) dropped their share of the market to 50% by 1911, well before any organized unions. US Steel officially changed its stance to recognize unions in 1937. United Steel Workers was established in 1942. US Steel's production peaked in 1953. US Steel was on the decline (versus the market) from the day it was incorporated, well before it had organized labor. Their production rate peaked 10-15 years AFTER organized labor. Carnegie Steel was the most technologically advanced steel producers at the turn of the century. The decline in business was first to other unionized steel producers in America who were smaller and more capable of taking advantage of new technology. US Steel and the other enormous steel producers still dominated the industry through the 1970s. Newer furnace technology started to make steel from the old companies more expensive (obsolete). You see, there is a tremendous decline in the company that cannot be explained by "those friggin unions!" By the 1980s, US Steel was highly diversified away from steel production in that most of its revenue came through Marathon oil.

So, okay. US Steel has union workers and its no longer the biggest company in the world. I'm sure there's only one possible explanation! Nevermind that a considerable decline in its market share came before unions and the majority of its decline in production is a direct result of other factors. Those damn workers!

Which companies of those listed would you consider "fake" companies, as opposed to your select "real" companies?
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 16, 2012, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: Midway ® on August 16, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
I suppose no one is entitled to a decent wage but you?

So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 

You're late to work 6-7 times a month, you're productivity is in the bottom percentile of the company and you routinely smell like alcohol after lunch, BUT you have been with company for the past 12 years, so we're going to give you your annual raise per the union contract.  Thank you for your dues.

Edit below:

In the last 2 minutes, I gave this some more thought, walked into my boss' office and demanded more money, better benefits and a pension plan - you know, because I'm entitled to a 'decent' wage). 

If anyone out there has an opening for a Commercial Project Manager and are willing to pay the decent wage my previous employer didn't think I was 'entitled' to have, PM me so that I can forward my resume. 

So stop your rampant drinking, show up on time, and actually work for a half day and all your problems will resolve themselves.

Thank you for your cry for help. We all care about you.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quite a success story for the unions.

Of course shitty management decisions had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: BackinJax05 on August 17, 2012, 12:17:47 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quite a success story for the unions.

Of course shitty management decisions had nothing to do with it.

... or mob involvement :)
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: avonjax on August 17, 2012, 12:26:51 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on August 17, 2012, 12:17:47 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 16, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quite a success story for the unions.

Of course shitty management decisions had nothing to do with it.


... or mob involvement :)

Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on August 16, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: bill on August 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Which ones?

How about MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, and every team in them?
Or Exxon-Mobile?
UPS, Caterpillar,  Southwest and Alaksa Airlines, AT&T, Verizon, Costco, Safeway, Kroger, US Steeel, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, GM and Ford (yes, its true!), Disney, Kraft, General Mills, Kelloggs,  Exxon, Consol, Peabody, Kimberley-Clark, Pepsi, all the major movie studios, in fact any profitable company that creates or distributes media, and the list goes on (including Newscorp).

Is it because of the unions that the Big 3 needed to be bailed out? Then what about AIG, BoA, Wells Fargo, et al?

Good examples! Most of the (real) companies have shrunk their workforce, renegotiated union contracts, moved factories over seas, hired more part time and non-union workers, shuttered plants and moved them to right to work states. Hell, US Steel made more steel 100 years ago than they do today. Quite a success story for the unions.

I'm feel bad that I forgot it was only companies with unions that shrunk their workforce, hired part timers and sent their manufacturing overseas.
And Unions don't make employees good or bad. Bad employees are bad employees union or not.
Find a less lame argument to trash unions.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: avonjax on August 17, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 


Sorry but for many, many companies education, work ethic and determination mean nothing. They still pay crap. And when  you have all 3 and it comes raise time you still get crap.

Not a great argument.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: BackinJax05 on August 17, 2012, 12:35:48 AM
Quote from: avonjax on August 17, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
So now we're 'entitled' to decent wages?  Education, work ethic, determination be damned. 


Sorry but for many, many companies education, work ethic and determination mean nothing. They still pay crap. And when  you have all 3 and it comes raise time you still get crap.

Not a great argument.

Sad, but true. Nowadays its who you know - or who you blow :P
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: mtraininjax on August 17, 2012, 08:54:09 AM
QuoteI respectfully disagree. PBS has some good shows. As for the arts, they should be self sustaining.

Really, how many educational systems can stand on their own and be self-sustaining? Arts are in a similar situation, unless they own their own facilities and have more control of their destiny, the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra owns one of the amphitheaters in N. Georgia to help supplement their own revenues.  You have to get over some huge hurdles to become self-sufficient if you are not selling widgets, and even then every penny counts.

If the Arts and Humanties in the USA was selling something that was as popular as the items being sold by Apple, they would have all the money they need. Sadly, that is not the case. Much like Amtrak, people are tuning out the arts and humanities, or not enough people are attending/using them to generate the self-sustaining cash they need to survive. But they are a part of the American fabric.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: BackinJax05 on August 18, 2012, 12:26:58 AM
I know Im gonna get clobbered for this, but lets face it: arts & humanities are BORING!! ;)

At least trains are practical & serve a useful purpose.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 09:40:27 AM
QuoteI know Im gonna get clobbered for this, but lets face it: arts & humanities are BORING!!

Education is never a boring topic. I understand the sarcasm,  but we need more education, as evidenced this week!  ::)
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
QuoteFace it, if Romney gets elected, we're doomed. Not only in Amtrak, but in many other things as well.

I doubt Romney will expand the food stamp program the way it has become under Obama, who is now the Food Stamp President, 1 in 7 people in our country are on food stamps, with more to come. Governmental programs that we cannot pay for will grow and expand. 15 trillion in debt is only a beginning.
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: ChriswUfGator on August 18, 2012, 05:33:36 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
QuoteFace it, if Romney gets elected, we're doomed. Not only in Amtrak, but in many other things as well.

I doubt Romney will expand the food stamp program the way it has become under Obama, who is now the Food Stamp President, 1 in 7 people in our country are on food stamps, with more to come. Governmental programs that we cannot pay for will grow and expand. 15 trillion in debt is only a beginning.

Yes, the increase in people using food stamps is because Obama happens to be in the white house, surely it has nothing whatsoever to do with the recession. Lol
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
Quotesurely it has nothing whatsoever to do with the recession. Lol

Yeah, but Obama said the "Private Sector is doing fine". LOL!!!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/president-obama-the-private-sector-is-doing-just-fine/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/president-obama-the-private-sector-is-doing-just-fine/)

Don't forget that unemployment rose in July in 44 states. Nice!

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/18/unemployment-up-in-44-states/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/18/unemployment-up-in-44-states/)

All Romney needs to do is hit home on the economy and the job is his. Poor Obama, he is in the shadow of Jimmy Carter....
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: BackinJax05 on August 18, 2012, 06:25:07 PM
^^ I dunno. As much as I disagree with almost everything Obama, Carter seemed 10 times worse.

At least under Obama we dont have a little dip-sh!t 3rd world country pushing us around & holding 52 of our countrymen hostage.

On the other hand, unemployment remains sky high and gas is going up again. Memories of ol' Jimmy ;)
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: tufsu1 on August 19, 2012, 06:34:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
Yeah, but Obama said the "Private Sector is doing fine". LOL!!!!

Over 4.5 million new private sector jobs in 30 months...and many companies hoarding cash....so yes, there is an argument that they are doing ok
Title: Re: Speculation on a Mitt Romney Presidency
Post by: Adam W on August 20, 2012, 08:23:06 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 20, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on August 18, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
Yeah, but Obama said the "Private Sector is doing fine". LOL!!!!

Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. Yet conservatives say that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes."
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807feab8eaca7f00000c-619-464/corporate-profits-as-percent-of-gdp.png)
Of course never let the facts get in the way of what you "believe".

Yes, it's not about the truth, it's about perception. The official party line is that Barack Obama is a raging liberal (or "worse") and is strangling the economy and taking people's guns (and other rights) away. It doesn't matter if the facts show otherwise.