Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.

Where socialism is a problem, Trump's racism is a strength rather than a hinderance.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.

And never have I ever once on these forums seen concern trolling for those displaced fast food workers, the way suddenly some of you guys are pretending you give half a gak about 70k coal miners, despite the fact there are 3.5 million fast food workers so it would take far less automation to destroy significantly more jobs.

#alljobsmatter

Why do you think automation kept getting brought up?

It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.

I'll be honest, I wasn't politically aware during the Reagan/Bush administrations as I was in elementary/High School. I think it's a bit disengenuous to pull that argument by going that far into history.

And, furthermore, Green Energy are notoriously cost prohibitive to implement in a large scale right now. Hence why Coal/Natural gas power plants are thing.

Once Green Energy can compete on it's own, all things being equal, then we'd see more efforts to adopt these technologies and move away from the legacy power plants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Where socialism is a problem, Trump's racism is a strength rather than a hinderance.

wut?

I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think automation kept getting brought up?

It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.

Where was your concern about their lost jobs? Where was your argument that we need to try and slow the pace of automation so those displaced workers can find employment in other industries? Only 2% of fast food jobs lost would be just about 70,00 jobs, exactly the same as those coal miners.

 Ouze wrote:
I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.

Sure... okay.

I don't recall Billy 'o Clinton wielding the governmental hatchet like Obama did (or Hillary's claiming to do).

 Ouze wrote:
I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think automation kept getting brought up?

It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.

Where was your concern about their lost jobs? Where was your argument that we need to try and slow the pace of automation so those displaced workers can find employment in other industries? Only 2% of fast food jobs lost would be just about 70,00 jobs, exactly the same as those coal miners.

I was actually arguing that we shouldn't do anything that would accelerate the transfer to automation. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Automation is going to happen, abandoning coal in favor of more sustainable power generation is going to happen. But we shouldn't artificially accelerate the transfer because that causes massive short term harm by putting thousands or millions out of work all at once.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Automation is going to happen, abandoning coal in favor of more sustainable power generation is going to happen. But we shouldn't artificially accelerate the transfer because that causes massive short term harm by putting thousands or millions out of work all at once.

It goes both ways, as the industries are doing their best to artificially hinder the transfer with all the millions they're pumping into the politicians. Sure, it's capitalism for the market to decide which way to go, but in this country, it's also capitalism to buy the politicians to direct the market which way to go.

At some point there won't be any coal left. Will Clinton get the blame for that too?

I personally wish for us to, eventually, phase out coal. It's dirty and dangerous. I do, however, think there should be a push to reopen our rare earth metal mines, so we aren't relying on China.

 CptJake wrote:

Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.

The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.

Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.


Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.

The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.

Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.


Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.

The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.

Also so that they can point and say, "See look at what raising wages did!"

I find it odd to now see pro Dems saying "But I thought you Repubs said that you have to adapt, etc" totally ignoring that 1) this is a job loss from government intervention, not market forces and 2) the Dems are supposed to *not* mirror the opposition on that attitude.

It's not really a "gaffe" though. Just another statement by a candidate that doesn't really care how her policies might harm a certain job segment. Nothing terribly surprising as crony capitalism seems to be the norm.

I am with Ouze on Bernie v. HRC v, Trump. HRC mobilizes voters who would otherwise be lukewarm on Trump and Bernie mobilizes voter that are lukewarm on HRC. Peaceful socialism v. militant nationalism would also be a great narrative.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.

The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.

Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.


Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.

The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.

Offering breakfast all day also drive up the cost of consumables for McDonalds owners. Rent and taxes can also cost a pretty penny depending on the location.

Workers get paid based on the value of the work they do and the ease in which they can be replaced. The amount of profit ownership makes has very little to do with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not arguing that it's good policy, or bad policy. I don't know enough about energy policy to really make an educated decision. I'm just trying to establish that her position isn't a gaffe, and that, as has been pointed out, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to pretend to care about those 70k jobs when we all know damned well no1curr about the loss of the other 170k jobs under the Reagan/Bush administrations.

The people that should have been concerned for those jobs were the Democrats in DC, specifically the ones representing coal states. The Democratic Party likes to claim that they're the party that cares about unions and blue collar workers but from what I can tell those constituencies do more for the party than they ever get back from it. It certainly didn't stop Clinton from signing NAFTA.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Close, the exception is when you lose your job due to federal gov't regulating it into nonexistence.

The fast food jobs are actually an example, the Feds/States mandate a higher wage, those jobs get replaced by automation.

Minimum wage hikes only "cost" jobs when/because big time CEOs who are worth billions absolutely cannot reduce the amount of profit they live off of. The Walton family is worth $15 billion... if that got reduced to 13, they'd be absolutely poverty stricken.


Call it for what it is: jobs are only lost because of unabashed fething greed.

The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.

The people who start the franchises don't create jobs. Nice of you to bring up that debunked argument. Consumers create jobs. A business hires as a last resort when they have to have something done that their current employees can't do. Not to mention a straw man, since the unabashed greed was aimed at the CEO's/owners of big corporations that even though they don't work 5,000 times harder than their employees, they bring home 5,000 times the pay. If they weren't so greedy, they could share a bit of that with the people that actually make the money for them instead of relying on the government to subsidize their workers.

Given that we provide coal companies with billions in subsidies annually, it sounds like we're already picking winners. Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?

 Laughing Man wrote:
Given that we provide coal companies with billions in subsidies annually, it sounds like we're already picking winners. Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?

Because it's only "free market" when the companies that already exist get to write the laws that govern them so that they can make more money

You could probably equate the entire debate about Net Neutrality as having nothing to do with anything but who gets to benefit from government regulations and who doesn't.

The free market exists as nothing more than a political talking point, but that won't stop certain parties from trumpeting it like gospel.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At some point there won't be any coal left. Will Clinton get the blame for that too?

Current estimates of coal reserves is at the low end 110 years (proven reserves) at current rates of production to as much as 500 years (estimated, but unproven reserves) . Obviously Clinton or any other politician will be long dead before coal runs out. When we finally reach "peak" coal, the law of supply and demand will have taken over driving the market naturally to alternative energy sources, probably nuclear. Why? IMHO based on my understanding of existing "green" renewable energy technology capacity and infrastructure requirements, "green" energy cannot currently be installed to the scale necessary to meet current and expected energy demands. Combined with the negative impact on the environment current "green" energy technologies would have (amount of open land and sea required, the mineral resources required, the by-products of manufacturing solar cells and wind-mills, etc.), I believe anyone would come to the sensible conclusion that regardless of what any politician says, coal and other fossil fuel energy sources are here to stay for the foreseeable future, certainly a generation or more at the least, assuming no artificially induced shortage overnight or change in the ability to implement and pay for sufficient "green" energy.

I think ultimately that any of the candidates posturing on energy policy is designed to pander to those special interests or those who make such issues a priority. Something about politicians and when their lips are moving.......

Finally this dive into energy policy is interesting, however individuals gross over simplification, apparent ignorance, and word games is frustrating to say the least.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Why not pick ones that don't have a history of dropping mountains on their own employees?

Interesting suggestion. If I follow your reasoning we should pick winners based on how often people die in industry related accidents. If so, we need to start with Construction (nearly 1 out of every 5 deaths) and not focus on mining and O&G which appear to have a much better safety record by compairson. Full list in order of percent of fatalities below. Source http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013.pdf

Construction
Transportation and warehousing
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
Goverment -
Professional and business services
Manufacturing
Leisure and hospitality
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction
Education and health services
Financial activities - I guess if we really want a safe industry to work in we all need to go work for the evil wall street firms.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Miners don't lose their skills, but you've suddenly shut down all the mining in the area. So they have nowhere to use their skills. They'll be forced to move somewhere else where there are mining jobs, except those jobs are already being done. So you end up with a glut of miners looking for work. Not to mention the economic hardships of actually moving, especially when that's going to mean moving across the continent to areas which have large amounts of mining.

Why are you assuming that the skills acquired in the course of mining only enable a person to find employment as a miner?

Two of the best carpenters I worked with were former miners.

I'd think a lot of skills used in mining would translate to many "unskilled" labor type jobs.

Ben Carson is the master of endorsements:

"Even if Donald Trump turns out to be not such a great President, which I don't think is the case, I think he's going to surround himself with really good people. But even if he didnt, we're only looking at four years as opposed to multiple generations, and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever."

Showing up everyday, on time, and being able to pass a drug test counts for a lot among unskilled labor in my experience.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'd think a lot of skills used in mining would translate to many "unskilled" labor type jobs.

While true, they wouldn't be getting paid nearly as well. Miners and other similarly dangerous jobs get a lot of hazard pay.

But lets keep pretending that taking a severe paycut or being forced to move makes up for this. Plus they'd still be entering an established field that's already going to be at equilibrium in terms of the jobs it can offer and the number of potential applicants.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
pass a drug test

Don't tell Aussie miners that, most of the blokes who do it that I know are flying high whenever they're flown out.

 motyak wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
pass a drug test

Don't tell Aussie miners that, most of the blokes who do it that I know are flying high whenever they're flown out.

Well that depends on how much of a stickler their employer is. Some will turn a blind eye, others will not.

It's gonna be a hard night for Rubio. Trump is crushing it in Florida with more than 60% of the vote in.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'd think a lot of skills used in mining would translate to many "unskilled" labor type jobs.

While true, they wouldn't be getting paid nearly as well. Miners and other similarly dangerous jobs get a lot of hazard pay.

But lets keep pretending that taking a severe paycut or being forced to move makes up for this. Plus they'd still be entering an established field that's already going to be at equilibrium in terms of the jobs it can offer and the number of potential applicants.

I'm not. If you look at my post on the subject (only one other than this), you'd see that I have made no statements in that vein. Perhaps your comments would be better directed elsewhere.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I won't go back and edit that, but my post should be "previous administrations", as plenty of erosion in that sector happened under Clinton as well.

Sure... okay.

I don't recall Billy 'o Clinton wielding the governmental hatchet like Obama did (or Hillary's claiming to do).

Retroactive tax increases don't count?

 Grey Templar wrote:

While true, they wouldn't be getting paid nearly as well. Miners and other similarly dangerous jobs get a lot of hazard pay.

No, they really don't. Median pay for a guy who works in a mine, that is neither in management or an engineer, is about 40 thousand USD.