SSN Readiness

[taxi1]

Isn't pay of skilled laborers determined by the market (supply and demand)? A union would constitute forming a worker cartel in order to artificially increase the price of said labor (pay), wouldn't it?

Or it could be that the union ensures more equitable sharing of profits between labor and management.

 

[Random8145]

Or it could be that the union ensures more equitable sharing of profits between labor and management.

That argument unto itself is IMO too limited. Why should there be equitable sharing of profits between labor and management? Management, while very often a bunch of no good corrupt SOBs themselves, nonetheless are also priced via market forces. And profits do not belong to any of the employees, they belong to the owners (shareholders) as those are who are undertaking the risk in the enterprise. Now if the workers are being forced to work in dangerous conditions because management or the owners won't implement proper safety measures, that is different. So unions definitely have played (and can still play) a role. But the idea of unionizing just because the workers "think they should be paid more" I have issues with.

 

[robav8r]

*Sigh*

 

[croakerfish]

That argument unto itself is IMO too limited. Why should there be equitable sharing of profits between labor and management? Management, while very often a bunch of no good corrupt SOBs themselves, nonetheless are also priced via market forces. And profits do not belong to any of the employees, they belong to the owners (shareholders) as those are who are undertaking the risk in the enterprise. Now if the workers are being forced to work in dangerous conditions because management or the owners won't implement proper safety measures, that is different. So unions definitely have played (and can still play) a role. But the idea of unionizing just because the workers "think they should be paid more" I have issues with.

Maybe you should examine your core assumptions. Unions didn’t spontaneously emerge in a vacuum and gum up a perfect system.

 

[Swanee]

Yeah, but so what? The show is a commercial venture designed to make money. If the people footing the bill can replace any skilled trade in the making of such, they have every right to. Whether it's "art" or not is irrelevant, unless the customer base demands it be made by humans. I don't like the idea of AI replacing artists and professions, but the ultimate boss there is the business owner, not the worker possibly being replaced. Also more automation lowers prices and frees up people to do more things. I am curious as to what will happen if/when AI gets to the point where it can replace most professions, but we are not there yet.

Unions can be extremely selfish.

We define cultures by the art they produce. Art describes the human condition.

Everywhere we go we experience art, we expect it. I'm not okay with living in a society that doesn't make music, that doesn't draw or paint, that allows a couple of assholes to make stupid amounts of money in the short term to the detriment of society.

Unions are selfish to the benefit of their members. Executives are selfish to the benefit of themselves. Union members don't make millions in bonuses a year. I've never pulled up the AIS feed wherever my robot was flying that day and saw a teamster's flotilla of their yacht and the staff support ship(s).

 

[Random8145]

Maybe you should examine your core assumptions. Unions didn’t spontaneously emerge in a vacuum and gum up a perfect system.

Unions came about due to mistreatment of workers by businesses, which was fully understandable. But unions have their own history of extreme bullying, thuggishness, greed, and so forth, along with tie-ins with communists and organized crime (organized labor and organized crime go together like peas and carrots historically).

 

[Random8145]

We define cultures by the art they produce. Art describes the human condition.

Everywhere we go we experience art, we expect it. I'm not okay with living in a society that doesn't make music, that doesn't draw or paint, that allows a couple of assholes to make stupid amounts of money in the short term to the detriment of society.

Who says it would be to society's detriment? And a lot of the "art," it could be argued, is nothing of the sort, in particular much modern architecture and "abstract" art (that could be a whole different thread unto itself, in particular about the shenanigans of the architectural profession). More automation of these things will open the ability to create more things up to more people. And it will not eliminate human creation of such for those that want it.

There's also the issue of freedom. If I come up with an idea for a TV show and have the storyline thought out, but could use software to generate a decent script, why should I be forced to hire a scriptwriter?

Unions are selfish to the benefit of their members. Executives are selfish to the benefit of themselves. Union members don't make millions in bonuses a year. I've never pulled up the AIS feed wherever my robot was flying that day and saw a teamster's flotilla of their yacht and the staff support ship(s).

Union members aren't rich, but they can be extremely lazy and entitled, depending on the union. Remember unions are part of what almost drove Britain's economy over a cliff back in the late 1970s.

 

[Swanee]

Who says it would be to society's detriment? And a lot of the "art," it could be argued, is nothing of the sort, in particular much modern architecture and "abstract" art (that could be a whole different thread unto itself, in particular about the shenanigans of the architectural profession). More automation of these things will open the ability to create more things up to more people. And it will not eliminate human creation of such for those that want it.

There's also the issue of freedom. If I come up with an idea for a TV show and have the storyline thought out, but could use software to generate a decent script, why should I be forced to hire a scriptwriter?

Union members aren't rich, but they can be extremely lazy and entitled, depending on the union. Remember unions are part of what almost drove Britain's economy over a cliff back in the late 1970s.

False.

Language is the original artform. Stories, then music, then drawings.

We haven't been any type of British since 1776.


I'm going to go back to ignoring your posts. I do not enjoy any interaction I've had with you and I really don't think you're worth it, nor do I think you belong here. You're not in Naval Aviation, or in military aviation, or in the military at all. Good day.

 

[Random8145]

False.

Language is the original artform. Stories, then music, then drawings.

We haven't been any type of British since 1776.

Machines replacing craftsmen does not mean the elimination of said craftsmen, just the reduction of the need for them.

I'm going to go back to ignoring your posts. I do not enjoy any interaction I've had with you and I really don't think you're worth it, nor do I think you belong here. You're not in Naval Aviation, or in military aviation, or in the military at all. Good day.

Sorry you feel that way. You made an argument, I made a counterargument. If you don't want your views to possibly be challenged, you shouldn't post them.

 

[Flash]

Quite seperately, our very best colleges have endowments that could pay for student tuition in perpetuity. Fvck them. Be a part of the solution they helped make.

Actually...they often don't. While some of the more well known colleges have billons of $ in endowments they are often under varying degrees of restriction on just what that money can be used for and is just not free money for the schools. It is also not a small percentage of those endowments either, often the majority of money in a school's endowment is restricted in one form or another.

That said, at some of the more prominent and well known schools they have very generous financial aid programs that provide substantial assistance for many students.

 

[wink]

Actually...they often don't. While some of the more well known colleges have billons of $ in endowments they are often under varying degrees of restriction on just what that money can be used for and is just not free money for the schools. It is also not a small percentage of those endowments either, often the majority of money in a school's endowment is restricted in one form or another.

That said, at some of the more prominent and well known schools they have very generous financial aid programs that provide substantial assistance for many students.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 BILLION!! Restrictions on not spending it? They get millions of dollars and it is restricted to spending on a Chair in calypso music, so goes unspent? How about they spend a good portion of the interest on tuition or lowering tuition for all. I still call BS.

 

[Griz882]

God forgive me…I know the submariners won’t. The only way to force action on university endowments is to tax them. Once they are taxed…universities will spend those funds to keep from losing them.

 

[number9]

Actually...they often don't. While some of the more well known colleges have billons of $ in endowments they are often under varying degrees of restriction on just what that money can be used for and is just not free money for the schools. It is also not a small percentage of those endowments either, often the majority of money in a school's endowment is restricted in one form or another.

That said, at some of the more prominent and well known schools they have very generous financial aid programs that provide substantial assistance for many students.

Schools fight these cases, and often win. This is a very recent example: https://newhampshirebulletin.com/br...million-gift-differently-than-donor-required/

 

[nittany03]

Harvard's endowment is over 50 BILLION!! Restrictions on not spending it? They get millions of dollars and it is restricted to spending on a Chair in calypso music, so goes unspent? How about they spend a good portion of the interest on tuition or lowering tuition for all. I still call BS.

That’s like saying “the DoD budget is over $2 TRILLION! How about they spend a good portion of it on [insert hobby horse here]!”

Because budgets and endowments aren’t slush funds. The money is earmarked for specific things. And just like you can go to jail for spending the wrong color of DoD money on something, if a big shot donor gave you money to spend on X and you spent it on Y, they’d be within their rights to say “WTF, I want my money back or I’ll sue.”

 

[wink]

That’s like saying “the DoD budget is over $2 TRILLION! How about they spend a good portion of it on [insert hobby horse here]!”

Because budgets and endowments aren’t slush funds. The money is earmarked for specific things. And just like you can go to jail for spending the wrong color of DoD money on something, if a big shot donor gave you money to spend on X and you spent it on Y, they’d be within their rights to say “WTF, I want my money back or I’ll sue.”

Then how come the money isn't spent? And the interest? What strings are attached to the gains on investments?Sorry. It is BS.