Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2008

Dear Flaco,

I see that a change in topic does not bring with it the much needed change in your logic. To make an effective argument, you need to establish a proposition.  Then, once established, you have to link it to an effect.  Once linked, if the effect is significant enough, you have a case to address the proposition by suggesting a fix.  Much in the same way that your argument in the Minimum Wage case failed to link a proposition (head of household failing to make enough to live on) to the effect (he doesn’t make enough per hour) and finally suggesting a fix (raising the minimum wage), this argument suffers.   You fail to link a proposition to an effect and then finally propose a solution.  I could just walk away and wait for you to try to do that, but, sigh, I will have to fill in the blanks for you.

So, as best as I can tell it; here is your argument.

  1. The globe is warming (or the climate is changing).
  2. Due to this warming (or change) the globe faces catastrophic consequences.
  3. Humans are causing this warming (or changing).
  4. We must prevent humans from adding carbon to the atmosphere.

Does that sum it up?  In lieu of an answer (I waited 45 minutes) I’ll move forward that it’s correct.

Reading your entire post, twice even, I find meager support for Point #3 above.  Whats worse is that you have totally ignored the prerequisite points #1 and #2.  Assuming that I cede your argument for the fact that humans are “very likely the cause” of global warming I am at most only nodding at the fact that the globe is warming at all.  And, further, I fail to see that this will have dire consequences on the planet.

There is a lake, this lake is full of fish.  One day, man discovered how to fish, and the very first fish story came into existence.  The lake, and in fact the entire fish population, experienced its first man made decline.  And it only got worse from there.

Look, show me data, make a case, that the world is warming.  Then, then, tell me why that is such a bad thing.  Finally, convince me that reducing carbon emissions is the key to our future.

Oh, by the way:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

Before you present me an invalid argument, at least validate your data.

In short, I fail to be convinced that we are warming, that if we are it is catastrophic, that it is caused by man or that the only way to combat this is to reduce carbon emissions.

Regards,

-pino

P.S.  The alarmists have shifted from Global Warming to Climate Change because they could not confrim the presence of said warming.

Read Full Post »

Pino,

First off Goomba I reserve the right to rant, and go off on tangents, and to keep being correct all of the time.

So i’ll zoom off on a mini ‘tantrum’ and play with a part of the little paragraph you tossed out..

“Serious, lets break it down. What has to be true? I want to know what you think have to be the critical qualities that would make this true. Can you tell me what has to be true that would cause a rational normal human to think that man has caused catastrophic climate change? Data only please….no stories or rants or random thoughts……What would you have to prove to convince someone that Global Warming exists?”

so lets change a few words..

“Serious, lets break it down. What has to be true? I want to know what you think have to be the critical qualities that would make this true. Can you tell me what has to be true that would cause a rational normal human to think that there is a GOD ? Data only please….no stories or rants or random thoughts……What would you have to prove to convince someone that GOD exists?”

Sometimes dude it’s more than Data only please… no stories or rants or random thoughts… Sometimes a person needs to look at a situation from their mind, heart and soul. Not just scientific data.

In no way, shape, or form am I comparing GOD to climate change, … but I am comparing facts and facts only, vs. to  having a belief in something and not just dwelling on just scientific facts only…

So let’s get it on…

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Orginization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.  In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the Fourth Assessment Report.  According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

Here’s a list of scientifitic organizations that support the IPCC’s assessment..

The International Council of Acadamies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS).

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

Network of African Science Academies

National Research Council (US)

European Science Foundation

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Federation of American Scientists

American Meteorological Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Quaternary Association

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

International Union of Geological Sciences

European Geosciences Union

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Chemical Society

American Society for Microbiology

American College of Prevenetive Medicine

American Public Health Association

American Medical Association

American Statistical Association

The Institute of Engineers Austraila

The Environmental Protection Agency (US)

Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

Here’s some that agreed with the IPCC assesement who’s statement included the term scientific consensus…

American Association for the Advancement of Science

US National Academy of Science

American Meteorological Society

and here’s one that was noncommittal ..

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (weird huh?)

…actually in July 2007 the American Association of Petroleum Geologists revisied their statement.

That means no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

“The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.” The American Meteorology Society.

You mentioned a rational person.  Obviously not you.  So who am I trying to convince?

xoxo (your dumb friend who not’s smarter than all of the scientist’s who understand global warming…) billy.

check this out…http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Read Full Post »

Global Warming

Dear Flaco,

My dear dumb friend, lets address this now, once and for all. It seems to me that you support the notion that we are experiencing or have been affected by what the world calls Global Warming. Also, it seems equally clear that I do not feel the same way. So, lets get to it.

Global Warming

What is it? What would have to be true to make the claim that the globe is warming, and significantly and has been doing so because people have caused it? Serious, lets break it down. What has to be true? I want to know what you think have to be the critical qualities that would make this true. Can you tell me what has to be true that would cause a rational normal human to think that man has caused catastrophic climate change? Data only please….no stories or rants or random thoughts……What would you have to prove to convince someone that Global Warming exits?

Love,
-pino

Read Full Post »

Summation

Dear Flaco,

Sorry, have been away. We went down to Disney to let the Mouse pick my pocket.

My note tonight is in two parts; a response to your nonsense and then a closing.

We both seem to agree that minimum wage is completely impossible to live on.

We do agree. I do not recommend living on the minimum wage. Or, for that matter, starting a family on the minimum wage.

IS THAT NOT A SOCIALIST ACT OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?

I am not sure what that has to do with the minimum wage. I think it has more to do with your complaint against Republicans that called Obama’s tax plan Socialist. Please try to stick to one subject. Please. You damn Democrats.

SO WHY ISN’T OUR GOVERNMENT ENSURING (i.e. giving those benefits to ) THAT ALL TAX PAYING/WORKING CITIZENS TO GET FOOD, RENT ASSISTANCE (i.e. housing), AND HEALTH CARE ?????

Aren’t those basic standards of living?

Oh wait.  They are.  my bad.

And our government enforces them.  Eating (FOOD STAMPS).  Housing (H.U.D.).  Health Care(Medicare).  And every other thing I forgot.  I still think it’s not enough.

DAMN DEMOCRATS!

Don’t forget … I’m O.K. with this. I do believe that all Americans can/should  have these basics.  I’m still upset if they don’t work for them (really upset)  but I do believe that we all should have a system to ensure that we as american citizens have access (your better term) to these basic rights.

Dude.  Really.

Flaco, that rant is one for the record books. See here

In a perfect world …. an employer … not the government should take the responsibility to TRAIN/EDUCATE

No, the worker should take responsibility to train/educate himself. Sheesh.

Isn’t it the mantra of the Grand Old Party less government?

Look, its simple, just LESS government. If you think that you can get qualified help to run your lemonade stand for a dime an hour, go pay it. If not, pay what you have to too get that help. And, from the employee side….like I always said “Minimum wage…..minimum effort.” Slices both ways.

i.e social responsibility?

The democrats have a funny view of social responsibility. They are FOR it when they are taking MY money, but really really NOT for it when they are talking about their own money. For example, if you are so happy to just give away your money in taxes to the feds, what % of your income did you give to minimum wage earners this past year?

If the employers focused on making their employees happy

Employers should focus on VALUE. Happy employees is a part of value, but really, when does it end? I could pay Pete 80 bucks an hour, he’d be happy as hell. Still not qualified, but happy. That’s just dumb!

Do you honestly believe that a business would do this without a governing body?

Yes. In fact, you do it where you work. You admitted it. To get qualified workers to work for your slave company, you have to pay much much more than minimum wage.

Okay, part deuce:

Look, my heart goes out to people that find themselves living on minimum wage or, worse, supporting a family on it. Horrible. So, we can look to fix it. An easy fix is just to raise it. But wait, lets look. 98.9% of the people making minimum wage don’t need the raise…..they live in families making about 38k or more a year. So, yeah, I wanna help Johnny strugglin’ to make ends meet feedin’ two kids on 5.15. I just don’t think that the answer is giving EVERY SINGLE BODY a raise, especially when most don’t need it and some don’t want it.

Lets try something different. Lets educate Johnny. Or move him to a place where work is better paid. Or something! Just don’t make the only choice that is both the easiest and the worst.

Work harder. Work better.

Warmest reagards,

-pino

Read Full Post »

????

So…

Whats Up?   I’d like to point out you instigated this little post.

Is it that there isn’t a middle ground to the minimum wage?

But More Importantly…

Right now we as a country are faced w/ a huge crisis in our economy …   but lets focus on our automotive industry… and if even one of the big 3 should fold then our (America’s) unemployment will be 10%.

Should we bail out the big three?  I say no.

Good thing we’ve got that whole benefit thing working for the unemployed.

Over 700,000 people work for them(the big 3)  and they are supported by 700,000 suppliers.  That’s 1.5(ish) Million employees.

Right now my heart goes out to them (the employees of the big 3) and the suppliers (of the same).

They got good paying jobs (at the big 3) and the business to support their (small/medium) businesses when the economy was good.  When the economy tanks it should be of no surprise that they suffer as well.  It the basics of capitalism.

You know … the basics of that whole supply/demand thing you like…   (xoxo)

It’s not the taxpayers fault that they (the big 3) didn’t adapt to the needs/desires of the world/customers…  Sadly… screw ’em.

When the world went to war (II) they (the big 3) started building tanks.  Right away.  Changed the whole assembly line overnight.  Savin’ the world and keep good folk employed.

Oh… buy the way they still do.   Build gas-guzzling tanks.

But Foreign companies build what consumers want to buy.

And our Big 3 don’t.  Build good qualiy cars or keep good folk employed.  And with the mpg their cars offer they sure aren’t saving the world.

We (the honey and I) own a 10 year old Honda civic (32 mpg mixed use), Honda Element (22 city/ 28 Highway/a damn SUV), and an awesome and almost breathtaking … 1966 mustang (20 mpg mixed use) .

Kinda redefines the old American adage… they don’t build ’em like they use to.

xoxo billy

Post Script…   You do know that our kids will be paying off this fiasco… We as a country need to make critical desicions that impact not only our lives, but also impact the lives our our children.  Kinda like our next topic… Global Warming (the cool people call it climate change now).

Read Full Post »

One last volley…

Pino,

We are looking at a problem.  Differently.  So lets shoot for middle ground.

We both seem to agree that minimum wage is completely impossible to live on.  I know you think so based on the fact you are ADAMANT about not even acknowledging the challenge of living on that wage yourself for even one week.  <u r chicken poop  j/k>

(p.s. our beloved <seriously> government lists poverty level for one person to be $10,590 a year  – $5 dollars an hour.)  ( I was wrong – but not surprised)

Oh and touche .. this nugget … You stated ” most certainly NOT the role of government to afford basic standards of living”.

O.k.    But some one who is making minimum wage will qualify for food stamps (Federal Program – run by the states) , HUD  (subsidized housing – by the way to qualify; $17,100 or less (i.e. lower than minimum wage) a year in Seattle, $15,000 year (i.e. again)  in Durham <county> ), and let’s toss in medicade ( almost anyone).  My not-so-broke-ass-and even-less-educated-ass can’t think of more. But I’m sure there are more benefits… IS THAT NOT A SOCIALIST ACT OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?

So now I’ll contradict myself here…

SO WHY ISN’T OUR GOVERNMENT ENSURING (i.e. giving those benefits to ) THAT ALL TAX PAYING/WORKING CITIZENS TO GET FOOD, RENT ASSISTANCE (i.e. housing), AND HEALTH CARE ?????

Aren’t those basic standards of living?

Oh wait.  They are.  my bad.

And our government enforces them.  Eating (FOOD STAMPS).  Housing (H.U.D.).  Health Care(Medicare).  And every other thing I forgot.  I still think it’s not enough.

DAMN DEMOCRATS!

Don’t forget … I’m O.K. with this. I do believe that all Americans can/should  have these basics.  I’m still upset if they don’t work for them (really upset)  but I do believe that we all should have a system to ensure that we as american citizens have access (your better term) to these basic rights.

Dude.  Really.

So really.

In a perfect world …. an employer … not the government  should take the responsibility to TRAIN/EDUCATE AND PAY and ensure the well being of their employees, so they would not be subsidized by the government.  i.e. the employer  GET’S WHAT THEY PAY FOR.     Isn’t it the mantra of the Grand Old Party …less government?

IF THE BUSINESS TOOK CARE OF IT’S EMPLOYEE’S THE SAME AS IT’S STOCKHOLDERS WE’D BE TALKING ABOUT SOMTHING ELSE…. without a government or union… i.e social responsibility?

If the employers focused on making their employees happy  i.e. making a living wage? wouldn’t they get that return on productivity, sales, competitiveness among peers and service to their customer base?

So Let’s look at two president LBJ (medicare) and FDR (The FDIC, Social Security, Fair Labor Standards Act, and created the (your hated) minimum wage).  Both Democrats. Both reinforce that big business (i.e. the employers) can’t just play to the market (i.e. supply/demand)  and not also play the basic needs of the citizens/employees….  SO I.E. THE GOVERNMENT STEPS IN.

Do you honestly believe that a business would do this without a governing body?  DO YOU?

Dude… it looks like the democrats have it out for you…. (your) Insured Bank Deposits, <despicable> Minimum Wage, (who needs it) Social Security (that crazy program for the well to do rich people), and that whole 2nd Bill of Rights thing  (you know… for the democratic elite).

CRAZY DEMOCRATS!

The middle ground is… <I’ll let you toss it out there…>

I love and adore your wife and kids… you’re just o.k…. xoxo  billy

p.s.  Let’s play with global (democrat on democrat) warming… kisses

Read Full Post »

Dear Flaco,

I feel that I am going to have to correct you in some cases and just point out some things that I think are crazy in others.

One of the first things that you say is this:

it is not the responsibility of the government to support the working class, it is the responsibility of the employer.

It most certainly is NOT the responsibility of the employer to support the working class.  It is the role of the working class to support the working class.  The role of the employer is to make a profit.  By doing so, he continues to hire said working class.  And, if the profit increases, the need for even more working class is created.

Then, further, this nugget:

the necessity of the government to ensure that all American citizens can afford basic standards of living.

Not only is it not the role of the employer to support the working class, it is NOT the role of the government to afford basic standards of living.  I would agree that it is the government’s role to ensure that everyone has the same access to the basic standards of living as everyone else.  But certainly, the government does not ensure anything of the kind.

Note:  You may think it should, see here for an example.

And then this one:

employers get HUGE tax breaks

Data shows that as the tax rate increases, the revenue generated by the Federal Government goes DOWN.  Yes, literally, as the tax rate is lowered, you create more jobs.  In fact, Obama was asked about this:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Dude, what in the hell is THAT all about?  When taxes are low, revenues go up.  When they are high, revenues go down.

And your last question of the first post:

As Americans shouldn’t we have a decent standard of living?

We should have access to a decent standard of living.

Now, to your second post.  But before I do, I have to step away for a glass of wine.

Ok, I am back, and happier, and in a better mood.  But you are still wrong.  Funny how even wine can’t fix you.

I know you’re PRO republican…

You make it sound like that’s a bad thing.  Actually, I am PRO fiscal conservative.  PRO social liberal.  I would agree with you that in recent history, the Grand Ol’ Party has failed us who so love her.

Imagine all of those cities and all of those people making minimum wage. $13,624.00 Dollars a year (before tax).

You forget, or failed to read, that of all those people in all of those cities, fully 61% are only working a part job.  Typically, these are not the people supporting a family.  Further, 86% of your city’s population would be living with a relative, a working spouse or would be single without kids.  More than half are part of a family or household making at least 200% of the poverty line.  Flaco, only looking at the minimum wage does not give you a list of poor people.

Does that seem like very very few people?

Yes, 1.1% of a population seems like a small number to me.

Look, I get where you are going with this.  I suspect that you don’t really care about what the minimum wage is at, rather, you care that there are some number of people that are making less money than they need to live a minimum quality life.  And I agree with you.  There are people that are trying to support a family and are struggling because they don’t make enough to do that.

And I am interested in fixing that.

I just don’t see raising the minimum wage as a solution that is sound.  And here is why:

  1. When you raise the minimum wage, you are giving money to people who don’t need it.  See above.  There are a LOT of people who live in families that don’t need the help that we are trying to give here.
  2. If a person has 100k to invest and he can get 2% in the bank, do you think that he will start a business that will give him 2.5%?  Think he will risk his money and spend his time to get an extra .5%?  Me either.  How about, say…..5%?  Probably not.  But lets say that the number is 10%.  He will risk his money and spend his time when he can get back 10%.  This means he will lock into a margin of 10%, anything less and he will quit business or, or, new owners don’t make the jump
  3. Now, if you raise the cost of labor, you have eaten into that 10%.  The owner is going to raise prices.  This is inflation; the cost of goods has risen for no good reason AND not everybody got the raise that the minimum wage guy did.
  4. Or, he reduces the amount of labor he buys (people that he hires).  This means someone has to get fired.  And, most likely, the owner is going to rank his guys and let go the least valuable of them.  Oh, by the way, pay follows value, so the guy getting fired is most likely the guy making–you guessed it, minimum wage.  The very guy we are trying to help just got fired.

If you want to help the guy making minimum wage, start by asking yourself why he can’t get a job for MORE than the minimum wage.  Is it education?  Lack of skills?  Perhaps lack of jobs in the market?  Most likely, you’ll find it to be a combination of the three.  Regardless, the answer to our common dilemma is to address why he can’t get a better job, not overpay him for the one he already has.

And yeah, my heart goes out to that guy who has worked and worked hard.  Who has sacrificed for his family and for his future and because of bad luck, has to work for minimum wage.  But Flaco, from a Macro view, there are very very very few people in that situation.  To risk breaking the system by artifically inflating the pay he gets is missing the point.  ACT local; THINK global.  Find why this guy is in the situation he is in and remedy THAT.  The market works.

Regards,

-pino

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »