ViperMan

The Rock?

I suppose I basically agree with you, if the only way forward for NK was welfare... Another perspective, though, is that there are companies that are DYING to invest money into NK because what it actually represents is massive, latent economic output which is currently handicapped because of its government...never mind the hundreds of thousands of SKs that have relatives in NK they'd like to reunite with. While it would take "trillions" to repair it, I think the ROI would be positive. Take a look at SK for two seconds...what makes them so different? Nothing. 0. Currently, we're "investing" much more in Africa, which has two things: far more potential, and far, far more cost to getting up to the modern world...yet no one scoffs. NK is NOT far behind what East Germany was post war - they are a nation that currently has the ability to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, yet most of the population lives off of rotten cabbage and a little tiny rice bowl three times a week. They have every bit of potential to be as productive as SK given the opportunity. A lot of trade and "economics" already happens between the two states. Their problem is 100% political. The problem isn't how much it would "cost" - the problem is letting a festering wound continue to fester. Worrying about a 1.2 trillion dollar "hole" misidentifies the root cause. Here's an article calling Corona a $16 trillion dollar event (https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/video-player/18553761#:~:text=The costs of the coronavirus,costs%3A the %2416 trillion virus.). Do you really think Corona is going to end the world...really?.. REALLY? Get some perspective. 20% of all money has been "created" in the last year (https://moguldom.com/310861/strategist-almost-20-percent-of-all-u-s-dollars-were-created-in-2020-alone/). Worrying about cost is cute, but that position has to ignore the broader context. What is the cost of continued conflict in that region for the next 350 years? Hint: far more than 1.2 trillion.

IMO, the condition is a population that knows something about the greater world (Iran) that you can apply indirect pressure against. That's why a strategy like that would work. As far as NK, they don't have a populace that knows much about the outside, so there's no real hope that change can arise internally.

100% in agreement. I say we continue with our current plan...it seems to be working.

I recommend writing a strongly worded letter to them.

Do you think she will?

Soooooo...war or war. Ok. We're not threatening them with destruction - we're giving them a choice between pursuing a policy that will result in them possessing something that will result in their upending, or not doing that thing and continuing with the status quo. Right now, they don't possess nuclear weapons, and we're NOT overthrowing them. So the idea that they have a legitimate right to pursue nukes in order for their own security is a non-starter. NK doesn't give one F about the US - it's a performance. It's a show. We are their boogeyman so they have something to justify their poor existence. 0 reason they actually want to use nukes on us or SK. Iran views Israel as illegitimate and has made statements to the effect that they should be destroyed. That, combined with a desire to use non-conventional means to implement their policy, puts them into a category altogether different from NK - it makes them an actual threat. Like it or not, we are the world's police, and the world order is dependent on us - right or wrong, that gives us the responsibility to ensure suitcase nukes don't blow up in Jerusalem. If that pisses off some al-whoevers, IDGAF.

Nah. The best deal is a simple and clear foreign policy that states "You can't have nuclear weapons. And if you build them, we'll take them away from you and destroy your government."

I guess I just felt like making a point as irrelevant as yours.

That's true, and it's BS. Businesses should be enforcing the mandates in order to minimize the potential for spread. And I have zero toleration for the "F you, I'm good" crowd. That said, those people are a fact of life and it's impossible to avoid them. I'm more irritated by the larger political context that is screaming that the sky is falling and what I consider a fairly immature response across the board.

Yes, it is virus theater - we either don't know exactly what to do, or we do know exactly what to do but it's so hard that we can't do it. Instead we all collectively play make-believe that wearing a mask while you transit a restaurant is doing something will have an effect. It won't, and newsflash - it isn't. COVID is raging right now and I literally do not see anyone not wearing a mask while I'm out. I've eaten in restaurants weekly since COVID began - no issue. That's not to say I don't take it seriously or that I don't think we should wear masks, but to say there is no "theatrical" component to this whole thing is to be denying reality.

I wonder if the Third Reich would have been successful if the internet existed back then. 🤔

False choice. The threat is anytime your perception doesn't match or correspond with reality.

If incognito doesn't work, disable javascript - there's a chrome extension. Works like a charm on NYT. $0 spent.

I was mostly referring to the displacement of basic job competency and it's replacement with "leadership" that has occurred throughout all levels of our society - including the Air Force. Good leaders can be many different things - one thing they ALL must be is extremely competent in their basic job responsibilities. I think there are valid complaints throughout the AF that such a reversal of priorities has taken place. I fully support the notion that EQ and people matter and agree that there is a mindset of "hacking the mish is all that matters" is sometimes used to disparage all the "queep" that exists in the AF. Some of that is justified, but it is usually used to justify laziness or neglecting other important shit. That doesn't mean leadership is more important than basic job ability. Cynical? Myopic? Ok. Sure. Do you have a counter argument? Or are Clark Griswold quotes valid for kills in this debrief now? My test for racism is swapping some of the variables and seeing what it looks like. Donald Trump saying he's only going to hire straight, white males is the same thing as Joe Biden saying he's going to only hire a woman of "color." One of those gets a pass (nay, applause) - one most certainly doesn't. Undergirding both of those different (but same) statements is the tacit argument that those immutable characteristics provide value in a place where the other person cannot. i.e. it values man over woman, or white over black, or woman over black, or black over white. No one I know is comfortable making that argument. If they're put to the task, some sort of hand-waving like "representation" comes out, but that just shifts the racism to who's being represented...we keep it treetop, but at the end of the day, it's racism. Frankly, none of this (IMO) should even require defense or justification - it should be common ground we all can agree on. California is an example of a democrat monolith that is completely out of control and is trying to do absolutely ridiculous things. I don't live there, either. I just worry about what might come out of there. Wasn't asking you to care about CA, I brought it up to help you see "my" bigger picture and where I'm coming from re: the democrat establishment. To bring it back to the original point, again, I'm much more worried about an empowered democrat establishment that has the entire corporate media complex carrying water for them, as opposed to one singular personality, such as Trump or Obama.

Thanks for the response. First, my broader point is that making an argument about Trump being an outlier, bad-(leader/executive/whatever), or otherwise for firing people isn't a good point. The man fires a lot of people, has fired a lot of people in the past, and will probably fire a lot of people in the future. We knew this before he was president and now we feign surprise? Or use it to make some meta-point about him being X? I just don't think arguments that ignore the context of who someone is really get anywhere - that's what I was trying to get at. Honestly, I have been basically pretty neutral about ALL the presidents I have served under and if I'm being honest, haven't seen that big of a difference between Bush, Obama, and now Trump. My day-to-day has been fairly consistent and IMO not tied to who was in the white house. What I don't like is the hyper focus on personalities that we (meaning smart officers) are exhibiting throughout this tumultuous time. If I could go back four years and examine my opinion about what the impending Trump presidency would have looked like, I would have proved myself 100% correct - which is to say he didn't change all that much. The political and media apparatus was fully united against him and invested in a useless presidency. And low and behold, that's more or less what we've had. So all that is to say I don't worry too much about any one individual, as much as we like to pin the tail on the donkey, some of these problems require more that one person to address. That said, I am extremely concerned about what I see taking place within the democrat party. To your point about leadership, fine, I guess, but I've never been one to drink the AF's koolaid that leadership is a magical panacea for each, every, and all problem. That's a meme, and one that I think infects a lot of peoples' mindset in the AF. What we're missing most, IMO, is job competence and accountability. Are those functions of leadership? I suppose depending on your frame, more or less so. But when we call literally everything a leadership problem, we lose focus on how to solve problems because everything becomes the proverbial nail. Re: MX officers being better able to lead the USAF. This argument is the literal manifestation of "my dick is bigger than yours so I should be in charge." God bless our MX leadership - lord knows I don't want to do it. That said, the size of the organization they've "led" doesn't lead to them knowing the first thing about winning an air war or leading an air campaign. Nope. That's why they're not in charge of the Air Force and also why they should never be in charge of the Air Force. It's also why the type of leadership (or skillset, perhaps) disparaged above is exactly what's required - because it's serves the greater, fundamental purpose of our organization. No matter how many 0700 meetings some O-5/6 spends going over the blotter, they won't ever have the experience garnered only from Red/Green Flag, combat, pilot training, etc. They work a critical piece of the USAF, but it still only serves a supporting role. Finally, about DT's racism. Fine - he's extremely crass and says shitty things. But consider, if you will, that Joe Biden chose a running mate based on two primary factors: a v_gina and dark skin. Which of those (or both) qualifies you to lead the free world? Maybe it wasn't either. Maybe it was her ability to garner peak support of 15%? Maybe it was her ability to drop out of the race when she was teetering at about %1? The point is that the democrats are literally choosing their leadership based on what flavor of ice cream you are - it's not about any ability - let's not kid ourselves. That is racism - any which way you slice it. And it's particularly dangerous because it's "acceptable" - it's disguised. It is all done in order to create the facade of a "diverse coalition" in order to implement whatever bullshit they know they wouldn't be able to get done with white guys at the helm. Their "diversity" is a tool. Consider, if you will, California's most recent attempt to instantiate a racist policy into law (https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/prop-16-failed-in-california) - thankfully it failed. Consider the numerous other examples from the democrat party wherein they are attempting to do wildly Un-American things (i.e. blanket student debt forgiveness). So while DT may be an incompetent, racist, homophobe and everybody knows it - look at what the "woke" democrat party is trying to do - and they have the media on their side. That worries me a lot more than one Obama or one Trump. Hence, my disillusionment with the hyper-focus one individual.

Shoot, I meant to make my post about the guy being a big deal in another thread - my bad. Also, you forgot to mention he was a community organizer, too. Which, also, makes him a big deal. That is amazing - but we were talking about executive-level decision-making. This is basically the exact corollary to Obama (i.e one who "checks all the boxes" sts) - are you saying the Obamas in the MAF are where they should be?

To be clearer though, you are surprised that a president who was previously a reality TV show host who's tagline was "you're fired" is firing people at an ABOVE AVERAGE rate? You find that surprising? I'm surprised with your surprise. Comparing Trump (who has been an executive for decades) with Obama (who had never been an executive) is not a valid comparison. WTF had Obama led before he became the leader of the free world? Seriously?

To be fair, I don't think we know what the "long term" effects of this are since it's been around < 1 year. What we "know" is speculation.

First, that seat should have worked. The fact that it didn't while it was an "in" envelope ejection is the primary reason this young man lost his life. Second, everything everyone else says about the leadership failing this poor kid from AETC (or above) all the way down through the SOF is correct. We do have major, latent problems on the grill that need immediate intervention. Third, we all need to be able to put a shitty part of a mission behind us and be able to move forward and complete a basic flying task with an otherwise good airplane. If anyone else thinks you're flying a perfect airplane that will work 100% (even a brand new 0.0 hour one), you're high. Step one is to control what is in your power which means #1 maintain aircraft control. Sometimes this means shaking off a up (even one that is not your fault) and focusing on the task at hand and saving your feelings for the debrief. Landing at night is a basic flying task and check rides have meaning. I should be able to clear off a student and trust they can aviate, navigate, and communicate. Some major screw ups all around on this one - which is not confidence-building for our Air Force.

I found your post from August 1st? I have to admit I had never even heard the word monopsony before your post tonight. So with that said, I've spent about 10 minutes thinking about it and I'm not sure who the single buyer for cheap labor is? I feel like there are a great many buyers for cheap labor and only a few buyers for very expensive labor. My gut tells me that it is unavoidable and has been an economic law since before we had a name for it. It just seems to me that as you lower the wage you're willing to work for, the greater the number of potential employers becomes? "Hey I'll work for $10K/hr" vs "I'll work for peanuts." "While the imposition of a minimum wage on a monopsony employer could increase employment and wages at the same time, the possibility is generally regarded as empirically unimportant, given the rarity of cases of monopsony power in labor markets." (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microeconomics/chapter/monopsony-and-the-minimum-wage/#:~:text=In a competitive market%2C workers,are less than their MRPs.&text=In a monopsony market%2C however,time as it boosts wages!) I must not be understanding something. What am I missing?

My point wasn't that $0/hr was a just minimum wage for actual work. My point was that the unintended consequence of increasing the minimum wage reduces the employment level, thereby leading to layoffs, which in turn, pays $0/hr. You can't employ someone for $15/hr when the value they produce is only worth $10/hr. No website will ever convince me that math is wrong.

It'd be great if everyone could make more money, but honestly, the only thing raising minimum wage does is push current workers (i.e. me) closer to it. It's nice to make a high(er) multiple of the minimum wage - it's dangerous the lower that multiple becomes. Two other things are overlooked with this argument. The first is that the true minimum wage is $0/hr - no matter what anyone says. The second is that the value of someone's hour of labor is not a fixed amount, and in some cases it's actually negative. Minimum wage seems like a "quick fix" because it appears to immediately get you to the desired end-state, but neither of those facts is side-stepped by it, but it sure does play well with a sector of the working class. Not to mention employers simply adapt the number of employees or the number of hours they work. These things always have unavoidable "side-effects." The other major factor (or multiple factors) in reference to wages is deflation. We're all worried about inflation, but ask yourself why the Fed is struggling so hard to get it up (sts). It's because there are MAJOR deflationary forces in operation right now. One is technology - which is hugely deflationary (https://www.zdnet.com/article/unstoppable-tech-driven-deflation-will-be-the-next-economic-challenge/). The second is the aging demographic make-up of our society and the concordant reality that people achieve peak spending at an approximate age of 46, at which time it begins decreasing. The higher the average age of an American becomes, the further from that magic number (46) we'll get, and the harder deflation will bite. In reference to student loans, the moral hazard is extreme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard). Loaning money is a risky proposition, but at the same time, making good loans is a money-making opportunity. So my question is 'why doesn't the university system back the loans themselves' since they stand to profit from it? Could it be because they don't believe in their own product? The question immediately answers itself. Good loans make money and net positive return. It's because all of the risk has been externalized to the US taxpayer courtesy of the US government. With cost and risk externalized, what incentive is there to not admitting literally everyone? The only long-term solution to this problem is to fully remove the government from the student loan business and allow universities to provide loans to their most promising candidates. As a side-benefit, the positive effect on "X-studies" degrees would be almost instant. The current system is unsustainable. What's in a name? That which we call communism, by any other name would smell just as sour. That said, I do agree that student loan debt is a problem, but if we're going to agree to waive a magic wand and "forgive" debt, then we absolutely do need to address restitution for those guys that are like him: To address the Fed, I agree wholeheartedly. I would only add that we've been overspending for a much longer time than Trump has been in office. Conventional wisdom holds that the Obama years were prosperous, but would you call running up massive credit card debt prosperity when you're unable to pay your bills?

I'm gonna try to answer a few responses at once, coherently. Maybe, but I disagree because I think there is a much more likely explanation: men and women express different preferences in their lives and their choice of profession reflects those (innate) differences (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm). This is (by far) the reason for the differential outcomes observed in certain professions. Take being a teacher, for example. In elementary and middle school, women make up 80% of the teaching force (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html). In kindergarten they make up 98% (https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/10/a-male-preschool-teacher-reflects-on-the-stigma-keeping-men-out-of-pre-k-classrooms.html). Surely you will agree that there are no barriers preventing men from getting into either of these professions, no? What causes this immense disparity, then? I contend that it is social and biological factors at work. There are numerous other disparate cases as well: nursing, engineering, oil-rig working, construction worker, dental hygienists, and yes, pilots. Taking that, there is a much higher likelihood that that a man wants to become a fighter pilot (or other pilot) than a woman. Maybe it's on the order of 10 times as much. Hence, if you took a random sample of the population (men and women), asking each whether or not they would want to be a fighter pilot, you'd probably wind up with something like 9:1 male:female. Now the interesting part is that about 25% of women (in the general population) are shorter than 5'2". In the military (this is completely anecdotal) they are taller on average. The same is true of my male colleagues. I'm of 100% average male height - yet I'm on the shorter end of the spectrum among F-16 pilots - so we skew taller as a group. Don't ask me for actual data - I don't have it. Look around though and I'm sure you will fairly conclude the same thing. It is likely that people in the military skew taller than average because you generally have to be of better health and athletic ability. So you made a point about women being excluded, but don't forget, there are large numbers of men who are precluded from flying since they are shorter than 5'2", as well. Lessening the height requirement opens the door to all of them, too. Thus, if 10% of those 25%, of say 100 women are now interested in the career, that's a grand total of 2.5 (call it 3) women. And if there are 9x as many guys in that last 1% of short males (those less than 5'2") interested there are going to be 1% X 900 = 9 extra guys eligible as well. So even if you eliminate height requirements completely you are still going to wind up with more men in that last outlier group than you do women. And if you're being fair to both groups, you'll likely wind up with about 4 more males and 1 female pilot if you choose 50%. So this doesn't "solve" the "problem." Finally, please note that absolutely none of this is to say that I think women should be excluded from flying if they want to. I honestly welcome it; I just don't think we should break our backs trying to fix nature. Thank you. This is predictably rolled out as evidence of systemic discrimination against minority groups. The problem is there are groups of whites who are prosecuted at disproportionately higher rates than blacks for different (but equivalent) crimes. See crack vs meth (https://medium.com/@JSlate__/the-myth-of-racist-crack-laws-63d7a7554cae😞 "Moreover, the press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants were 54% white, 39% Hispanic and 2% black. No one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.The press has also served up a massive dose of crack revisionism aimed at proving the racist origins of the war on crack." I agree with you in the sense that it wasn't done as part of a conscientious act to disallow women into certain career fields, but I don't agree that there was any "thought process" that excluded them either. Rather it is the results of the sum total of choices groups of men and women make - which are different. Minorities were more "likely" to be accused because they come from groups that have a higher (background) levels of crime - so that is not a surprise. Since they are not convicted at a higher rate than whites, this means that justice system is fair. To your second point, that is not a problem, though it is framed as such. Innocent men are more likely to be accused than women. Problem? The problem was identified by Slackline (and maybe others, including you), and that is that there are after-effects on one's career even after charges are dropped or the accused comes out clean. That is a problem that can be solved. Here is the study in question: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699380.pdf. It says this: "GAO’s analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process." What this means is that within the microcosm of the military, different racial groups reflect the same level of background noise (crime) that is present in society. This is completely unsurprising. What would be indicative of systemic bias is if one group, say blacks, was convicted at a much lower rate than whites. This would indicate some sort of command-level animus towards blacks serving in the ranks, with commanders at all levels proffering charges against black members - using the UCMJ as a bludgeon - only to have the military justice system be the final backstop that provides some sort of relief/justice - since they're not convicted at higher rates. But that's not what's happening. In actuality, Blacks, Hispanics, and males commit crimes inside the Air Force at similar rates as those outside the Air Force, and this data shows it.

Completely agree that they're complex issues that require study, and I know everyone here is actually concerned about solving these problems, it's more just a disagreement about what the core problem is, and what the solution should be. I think that when there is such vehement disagreement on what the problem is and what the solutions are, doing something contentious is very risky. Any solution we implement will absolutely require broad (bipartisan) buy in. And actual, no shit, buy in. Not "pretty darn good," high-level hand-waiving buy in.