Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

The drunk driver is 13. And blind. And has narcolepsy.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

And keeps telling you what a great driver he is.

Re: But it's time you started living.
 

Nothing against Joan Jett, but c'mon: Husker Du!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0to2QuJtM

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

Almost 3 years as the Law Offices of (LessinSF), in-house coverage counsel for AIG.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This seems to be onto something.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

How is my assertion there's not enough blue state work to absorb the labor glut in red states undone by the argument that blue states cannot find enough workers? I'll grant you it's a related point worth making, but... really? Really?

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

You'll get no defense of WV, or any other backward shithole employing that sort of idiocy, from me. That's depressing.

BTW, I think you might want to swap "believe" for "recognize." Not believing in global warming assumes it's a thing to be believed, perhaps in debate. It's not a theory. One can probably poke larger holes in Evolution, comparing Wallace's work with Darwin's, than one could trying to refute global warming.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

There is a shit-ton of tech work out there and a handful of places capturing it. There is no reason Pittsburgh shouldn't be able to compete with Shanghai for some of that work, especially as labor costs for educated people in Shanghai approach Pittsburgh's over the coming few years. But it takes big investment in the universities and teaching hopsitals to kick it off (both of which Pittsburgh has and could work with).

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

First, because that isn't what you said:
And second, there probably is/could be enough blue state work to absorb red state labor capacity, because as usual your sense of magnitude is way off. Not that it matters due to skills mismatch, though.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

I don't think its a skills mismatch. A lot of jobs that are hardest to fill are fairly generic, like lab techs and software sales positions. The ultra-highly skilled people who fill the CEO and CSO jobs around which the larger number of jobs are built have become increasingly mobile; many of them will commute almost anywhere in the country and are will move mainly places in the country. A lot of them come here from abroad, and aren't deeply tied to one place.

It's a values mismatch. The blue state jobs get built around places with universities and hospitals and they want employees who are eager to learn, willing to work hard, and comfortable interacting with people all over the world. The places that attract them, including places in red states like Atlanta, Austin, Nashville, the Triangle, etc., are outward facing places or have turned themselves into outward facing places. The places Sebbie is talking about are more inward facing places.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Your inability to look past the very first level of this issue is fascinating. Although you seem to understand that technology has made whole industries outdated since the beginning of time, you simply cannot seem to comprehend that the fix in the current era is not protectionism, but evolution.

So you are absolutely wrong to say that we created this problem. Ty is absolutely right that Republicans have. If ditch digging with shovels is now obsolete because of earth movers, the correct approach isn't forcing industry to use workers with shovels. The correct approach is to teach those who used to dig with shovels to operate earth movers. This will necessarily mean there will be some shovelers who lose out. And here's the key (and you should unplug your ears now, so you can hear this): Those who lose out need to be trained in another field.

If you have a political party that feeds shovelers a bunch of bullshit about how they are going to protect their shoveling jobs while actively resisting investing in building the new industries as well as the training for modern options, that party is at fault.

Your solution of "placate them with some actual protectionism so you can capture their vote" is so fucking simplistic and short-sighted that I wouldn't understand how it was possible it could be made with a straight face if anyone else was proposing it.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

This is absolutely, positively not true. You are, once again, completely full of shit.

Banks hate regulations because of two reasons:

1. They want to do whatever the fuck they want because the people making the decisions make their money on bonus system which means they have no aversion to risk.

2. They are extremely lazy.

Regulation isn't the problem. It's the target of greedy, lazy bankers who want to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. And since they are almost always Republicans, as a pavlovian response they shit all over the regulation that aims to keep them from creating the same problems for everyone that they created in the lead-up to 2007.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

So apparently we're next going to see an E/O cutting back on H1B visas, which are critical for tech companies.

Maybe instead we could suggest not using them to get in visa slaves to work cheap at Mar-a-Lago but focusing them on folks whose work will create more jobs and sometimes whole industries? Or doctors who can save lives?

Hey, guys
 

It's sure a good thing that we never took Trump literally, right? And boy, he's sure no different than Hillary.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Speaking of literally, what is "a regulation"? I missed the part of law school where you learn to count them.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Not to worry, I'm sure Miller and Bannon defined it clearly in the order.

Re: Hey, guys
 

So Congress passes a law, and an agency promulgates a regulation implementing that law. In Trumpworld, the agency repeals the regulation, but the law is still on the book. Do the Trump people believe that this takes the law off the books, or do they think we are all better off being subjected to (more general) laws rather than (more specific) regulations? It seems to me that businesses are worse off, not better off, because there is more uncertainty about how an agency or court will enforce the law, but maybe in Trumpworld the government sees that as a feature, not a bug.

Re: Hey, guys
 

You're thinking to deeply. It sounded good to him, so he said he'd do it. Then he did.

Re: Hey, guys
 

All this. And also, this type of approach will lead to more general (less specific and therefore less clear), catch-all regulations since new regulations will be required no matter what he thinks and the old regulations will just be built in to the new ones.

Our government is being run by a fucking child.

TM

Re: Hey, guys
 

Sounds like our government is being run by Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Do Executive Orders count as Regulations?

Re: Hey, guys
 

I would like to think that Sessions, were he confirmed, might be able to prompt more thinking through of these things, but it is wishful, I know. But he would at least have a sense of the bureaucratic undertaking in implementing such matters.

I own my criticism of Obama regarding the excessive and improper use of executive authority by executive order and the overuse of his pen. I was joined by many Republicans in this outrage. I even think it's ok for something that lived only by executive order to die by it. But I am in the clear minority in pointing out the hypocrisy of whatever Trump is doing, just because he's Making America Great Again. I cannot decide which is the worst thing so far: the intentional exclusion of Jews from the Holocaust memorial statement that culminated today in Sean Spicer playing the victim; the crap can rollout of the immigration order; or the downgrading of the Joint Chiefs and director of National Intelligence on the NSC in favor of freaking Steve Bannon. It is clear that like the campaign, the Trump administration isn't rolling in competence.

If I had not already burned my GOP registration card, I would surely be doing it now.

Re: Hey, guys
 

A child who lacks the innocence and wonder and curiosity and kindness often found in children. A fucking lecherous, bullying, emotionally stunted, narcissistic piece of shit of a child. The idea that we have the most dangerously and ridiculously dysfunctional government right now make me want to reach right through the computer screen and drive an ice pick into Sebastian's nuts just as he starts explaining that this everyone's fault, or that we have the same government we would have had under Hillary but just with a slightly different type of erosion of freedom, or whatever fucking crapsense he is spewing those days.

But the Daily Dose must go on. So here's some groovy Jimmy McGriff to grease up the start of the week. "Groove Grease":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6oG7RTUJsY

Re: Hey, guys
 

I actually think it's pretty easy to choose the worst, it being yanking the Joint Chiefs and DNI from the NSC and putting Bannon on. Sooooooo much bad shit can come from that. The courts are going to work on fixing his immigration snafus until Congress shows enough gumption to step in and actually address immigration broadly.

We are now watching people who have abstained from engaging in lawmaking for the last eight years saying "Oh, shit, immigration is hard... or Oh, shit, healthcare is hard" while a 10 year old sits in the corner saying, naw, this is easy, watch me.

As the great Greek/Egyptian/Turkish poet Cavafy wrote, the barbarians are, after all, a kind of solution.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Disagree. Congress will do nothing until a bunch of people die or Russia's ties are proven or all of Trump's corruption comes out. Then the Republican assholes running things will act like they're shocked and impeach the fuck out of him. Pence will step in and we will deal with all the same shit, but from a more competent administration.

TM

Re: Hey, guys
 

I wasn't predicting, it may be congress just leaves the shit show to the courts to sort out.

Yeah, getting Congress to do much other than spend us into a massive deficit by cutting taxes and spending money (the Wall!) will be tough. Most likely, Rs throw a party, cut taxes, spend money, pass wacky laws, start wars, and then the wheel turns and the Dems are asked to come in, play the adults, and put things back together, Just like Obama did. Just like Clinton did. But worse.

Re: Hey, guys
 

Has anyone read the Order? How does it define a "regulation?" Can't an agency just stick a bunch of subparts together and say it is 1 regulation?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

This is really wild. Among other things, if you were looking for some way to turn the GOP Congress against Trump, this seems like a good start.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

You don't seem to understand that the "evolution" and "retraining" will not address within any meaningful timeframe an enormous number of displaced workers, unlike any such labor glut in the past. Including a number of people right here.

I guarantee several posters will see their economic futures diminished, perhaps shattered, by automation. This conversation will get really interesting in about a decade.

I don't advocate placating anyone to get votes. My aim is to retain the social fabric, to attempt to allow for a more smooth "evolution." I don't even think that will work, really. But I can't think of anything else save a guaranteed income, which is politically impossible.

Retraining and education are jokes, tired fixes of an uncreative establishment of yesterday. The losers here are too far disconnected from the growth areas, often too old, and too numerous for that sort of theoretical cure.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

That may be true for investment bankers, and big banks. It is not true for smaller and community banks.

You need to strip "completely" from your vocabulary when offering Pavlovian responses.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

You are absolutely wrong. I understand that perfectly. What you don't seem to understand is that the shift in moving away from manual labor takes ongoing, continual, funded training--you know, the kind government can fund as part of a larger, long-term plan to keep people employed.

The fact that some people will lose their jobs is not in question. But your extreme focus on this while proposing either lying to these people or forcing outmoded jobs on industries as a way to placate a few voters is just plain stupid. Did it help win this election? Sure. People are stupid. Is it a plan that will help any of these people or this country for more than an extremely short time period? Why am I asking this? You know the answer already.

Do you think anyone on this board will sit around whining about it and hoping the government forces our firms to keep our jobs? Or do you think we shape our careers to fit with the next opportunity? I'm guessing you've done this once or twice already--as have many here.

Bullshit. This has been your argument for months.

These are just words you've grouped together in front of a period. They don't mean anything.

This is stupid. And you are, once again, showing your limited ability to think past whatever is right in front of your face.

It may not be a feasible option for the coal miner who spent 40 years digging. But training people who live in coal country to work in geothermal energy or whatever because the coal miner's representatives were able to secure a plant within that community means that community has jobs going forward and doesn't die. And even though the guy who spent his life mining coal may not catch on, his little brother, son, daughter, niece, whatever would.

Right. So give up on generations because you can't focus on anyone but those who are so tied to their jobs that they have no options. You should join the Trump administration. They're looking for "thinkers" like you.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

More bullshit.

You need to go back and study the causes of the 2007 crash. Smaller community banks couldn't sell, package, and buy bullshit mortgages to sell for a quick profit to investment banks fast enough.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

There were over 300 failed banks following the last banking crisis. Mostly community banks.

On top of that, there is a big tendency in the market right now that is very dangerous. There are a lot of community banks looking to bulk up for sale, and they're ready to do all kinds of loans, not caring about what happens because they're going to offload them, show a spike in lending, and then exit. This is the next crisis brewing, and its brewing in the small banks.

Most of the biggest banks have hit the point where it is hard for them to do acquisitions, they just already have too much market share. So there are a bunch of banks in the $10+ billion range out there getting financing to bulk up by buying smaller banks, hoping to be the next big bank.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Fair point, and as one who earlier this month took an anti-hyperbole stance, I will amend Thurgreed's statement on his behalf to say that you are, once again, almost entirely full of shit. Good edit! That rings more true.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

This I agree is a legitimate issue. But it depends a lot on geography. In PA/MD/DE, the regs inhibit small business lending too much. Where you are, a much stronger area economically, I've no doubt the phenomenon you describe is an issue, as risky loans are easier to disguise.

As to TM's point on flipping, he's right - completely - that community banks pumped out mountains of garbage pre-2008. But that sort of thing can be stopped with the regs we put in place regarding loans to be flipped, while relaxing regs on loans to be held by those community banks. The answer isn't blanket reg enhancement or relaxation, but selective smarter regulation.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I'm going to bet I'm exposed to a lot more of these obsolete Trump voters than most here. I see little hope of retraining even the young of them. And, tech eliminates jobs at a rate in excess of the pace at which it creates new ones. Retaining, investing in alternative energy, etc. -- these are worthwhile things. But they'll fix maybe 20% of the problem.

As to the other 80%, the options I see are:

1. Fuck the obsoletes; let the market do what it will to them; or,
2. Guaranteed income

The problem with #1 is, they vote, as you've seen.

Ryan Secreast Can Announce the Winner
 

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I believe the Trump approach is to hire these folks to police the rest of us. Expect one of them to knock on your door soon to administer the oath of loyalty to Trump.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I don't know if you are correct about this and neither do you. But be aware that when I see you giving percentage probabilities about what will happen in the future, I feel compelled to remind you that you have already personally acknowledged the dubious credibility of your predictions on pretty much all subjects.

Today's Daily Dose is a tasty slab of funk from Jean Knight. "Do Me":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwJH6SepXCQ

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

While we are on the topic, fuck everyone.