The Next President is...

[SurelySerious]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I didn’t say anything like that and you know it.

If you think that you didn’t say that the workers were exploited (doing their paid job) then you’re feeble minded. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by SurelySerious

[Negatory]

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

[HossHarris]

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

So start one.  Let me know how the economics work out for you. 
 

be the change you want to see... or some such shit 

[DosXX]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trump-berates-georgia-secretary-of-state-urges-him-to-find-votes/2021/01/03/aba64f5f-8c3c-490f-af34-618ccea732d7_video.html

 

(Don't) Stop The Count?

 

 

[Negatory]

23 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

So start one.  Let me know how the economics work out for you. 
 

be the change you want to see... or some such shit 

Your point doesn’t make sense. Almost all organizations are already like that. They aren’t single paid single run organizations.

The point was the slippery slope fallacy.

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

You can have organizations that pay more equitably that aren’t run by single persons. This is not black or white.

It's not black or white, except all these places below where you're saying that because CEO X or Investor Y made money, that the working class loses.  Keep bashing capitalism there, Charlie; you're so confused you're tripping over yourself.

On 1/2/2021 at 11:36 AM, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

 

On 1/2/2021 at 12:26 PM, Negatory said:

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

 

On 1/2/2021 at 8:23 PM, Negatory said:

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

 

On 1/2/2021 at 8:36 PM, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

 

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem.

To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better?

Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%.

My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address.

For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age.

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12

Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades.

https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation.

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation.

My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve.

 

Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

 

5 hours ago, Negatory said:

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

 

[Lord Ratner]

I don't think he's made the point well until his recent long post, but Negatory is on to something that (R) have been blind to.

The generational wealth disparity, home price increases, education cost increases, purchasing power stagnation, consumer debt increases, all coupled with the near-requirement for dual income households is a gigantic Master Warning light that we're ignoring. 

The government is shoveling as much fake money into the stock market as it can to stabilize the 401k accounts and underfunded state and local pensions that are heavily invested in equities to make up for their poor balances. And because the interest rates are still at zero in an effort to prop up the markets, there's nowhere else to put your money where it will grow. The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them.

 

And the government is pouring gas on the already immolated future of the millennials and Gen Z in order to save boomers from a lifetime of abdicating responsibility.

 

Buckle up.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Sua Sponte]

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them.

The real reason why politicians/Trump want the economy fully opened.

[jazzdude]

Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how much the people below them make.  They're selling goods and services, not stealing from people.

On one hand, I tend to agree with your sentiment here, at least on face value.

On the other hand, I see Negatory's points as well, many of which I think are valid shots that need to be addressed.

TL;DR: What responsibility do companies have to their employees, and to the society they operate in?

Here's a few questions that come to mind for me, and it's all shades of gray to me.

Are employees people to be invested in to help the company grow, or an expense to be minimized?

What is a fair wage to pay an employee: the value they bring to the company, or the minimum you can pay them while minimizing turnover and associated costs (or can you just ignore turnover costs)?

How much profit is ethical for a company to make? (A contracting officer could give you what the government's answer here as it relates to federal contracts)

How much profit is ethical for a company to make when it pays low wages that causes a good portion of their workers to require government assistance, transferring the burden of wages to society (aka funded by taxpayer money)? Does the size of the company change this answer, and where do we draw that line (mom & pop restaurant with a 2-3 extra employees vs Walmart or Amazon)?

Are corporate taxes an unfair expense on job creators (that money could instead be left at the company, where it would trickle down to the lower earning front line workers), or are they the cost of maintaining the greater economic system the companies operate in? Things along the lines of ensuring a fair market (like preventing/persecuting insider trading or preventing monopolies, water rights, land usage, etc), ensuring consumer protection (FDA, OSHA, enforcing public safety standards), or common infrastructure that enables many businesses (roads, ATC, etc). Companies benefit from the environment our government creates (to include foreign trade policies, taxes/tariffs, infrastructure, education, etc), but maintaining that environment costs money.

What if the AF tomorrow said "we're no longer paying flight pay during your initial UPT commitment?" Would that impact recruiting pilots? I'd bet probably not-there's still plenty of kids willing to sign at 11+ years of their life to fly a jet. Would it change retention? Again, I'd bet probably not, especially if some of the AF's flight pay savings were added to beef up the pilot bonus. Those that are career minded would still likely stay, as a government pension and healthcare access for life are still attractive items to get people to stay in until 20 (same incentive as our non-rated peers for staying in to retirement). We'd still have a competitive compensation package for pretty much anything besides working at a major airline (TA, GI Bill, GI Bill transfer, tax benefits associated with allowances). But cutting flight pay would send a pretty clear signal that pilots aren't valued in the AF. Fortunately, the AF doesn't have a profit motivation to drive down flight pay. Though DoD is looking to reduce personnel costs elsewhere (restructuring retirement with BRS, transitioning the military healthcare system to focus on military and push dependents out onto the market). And we've lived though decades of doing more with less (maintaining high ops tempo while shrinking the end strength), which gave us a small taste of some of the economic forces our general public deals with.

While people out in the civilian world may not have a legal commitment like an ADSC to their employer, they may be stuck due to financial commitments, such as repaying student loans or rent/mortgage. Sure, sometimes they can take some personal blame (state school vs private, choice of degree, bigger house than needed, family planning, etc), but circumstances can lock them into keeping a job where they can barely make payments, since quitting or trying to job hop may not be practical (restarting at a lower wage that doesn't cover the bills). And this ignores any medical issues or emergencies that may happen that can wipe out any savings/retirement unless you're employee has a good/great health plan. (And if you've never shopped the open market for personally procured health insurance, it's stupid expensive, easily $450/mo for an individual on a "silver plan", and you'd still likely be bankrupted if you have a major illness or significant emergency).

It's easy to point fingers at people who are struggling, but the truisms in an AF career apply to life in general: better lucky than good, life's not fair, and there is no justice. Then again, government is a reflection of what our society values, and can move to make things more "fair", it's just that what is "fair" is open to debate and should be debated vs solely black and white arguments.

[FLEA]

23 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The real reason why politicians/Trump want the economy fully opened.

To keep the markets healthy for boomers or to kill them all off before they sink? 

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

To keep the markets healthy for boomers or to kill them all off before they sink? 

You know which one. The vast majority of Boomers have only cared about themselves since, well, forever. 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

You know which one. The vast majority of Boomers have only cared about themselves since, well, forever. 

They aren't the only ones.  Which generation is demanding other people pay for the student loans they signed for again?

[Swamp Yankee]

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  

Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

[Guardian]

Every airframe thinks they are more important than the next. And it’s important to be that way. Competition is a good thing. Kinda like capitalism with competition.

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

They aren't the only ones.  Which generation is demanding other people pay for the student loans they signed for again?

From what I’ve seen, some Gen-Xers, Millennials, Zoomers, take your pick. Pretty much all of them who didn’t go to college when tuition was $200 a year and could be paid for by working part-time like Boomers.

[slackline]

From what I’ve seen, some Gen-Xers, Millennials, Zoomers, take your pick. Pretty much all of them who didn’t go to college when tuition was $200 a year and could be paid for by working part-time like Boomers.

True statement. I don’t hear any Gen Xers out there saying, “hey, we’re happy to pay our debts! Leave us out of this conversation...”. We’re all too happy to let someone fight the fight and look like the mooches because we know it will benefit us to get loan forgiveness. I paid mine off long ago by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

24 minutes ago, slackline said:

True statement. I don’t hear any Gen Xers out there saying, “hey, we’re happy to pay our debts! Leave us out of this conversation...”. We’re all too happy to let someone fight the fight and look like the mooches because we know it will benefit us to get loan forgiveness. I paid mine off long ago by the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gen X here.  Happy to pay my own debts.  

Or are generations now based on political views instead of when you were born?  Lord knows I've been called "boomer" plenty of times.

[ViperMan]

RE: education

One thing we need to do if we really are concerned about the rise in education costs is ask ourselves why the cost of education has gone up. It's all well and good to lament the cost of higher ed and just throw more money at the problem - which is exactly what student debt "forgiveness" (transfer) is, in actuality. The solution is likely counter-intuitive, though, and IMO this means eliminating all (yes, ALL) student loans from the federal government.

I get that this is a problem affecting a generation, but if we are going to solve this problem, let's solve it permanently, and avoid going around the merry-go-round for another lap. There is good evidence that the student loan program which has swelled from $3B in 1970 to over $160B in 2017 (https://www.mercatus.org/publications/education-policy/reevaluating-effects-federal-financing-higher-education) is driving up the cost of college - it just makes sense, right? I mean, if you're an institution of higher learning, what incentive do you have to not raise the price when there is effectively and unlimited stream of money to tap into?

Other studies have determined that for every $1.00 subsidy (in student loans) the price of college rises between $0.58 and $0.78 - not much bang for our tax buck (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/).

My compromise? Fine, let's all "forgive" student debt, but any discussion along those lines needs to come with an admission that the student loan program has unequivocally failed, having had the opposite effect from its stated goal, and hence will be permanently scuttled.

Edited January 4, 2021 by ViperMan

[jazzdude]

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  
Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

Interesting argument, I'll take the bait.

Forget airframes-should a flight commander be compensated more than a line pilot or line instructor since they are in a supervisory position?

Should flight commanders be the most experienced person available in the organization (say a major or an extra Lt Col in a sq) since they are already being compensated more for their leadership potential, or should it be filled by someone younger to check a career advancement box? (For an organization that likes to say it's a meritocracy, we do a lot of things that don't really fit in a true meritocracy, but I digress)

Should instructors make more than copilots? What if the copilot was a cross flow instructor/evaluator from a different airframe?

Is getting passed over for major because you just flew the line and didn't do SOS or a master's the same as a civilian not getting a promotion to a supervisory job because they didn't take on extra responsibilities in their current job to improve their company or take night classes to get a degree the company wants at that level?

Lastly and most importantly, a C-17 pilot clearly should make at least twice what a C-130 pilot makes: twice the cargo at twice the speed! (I'd say 4 times the pay, but sometimes the gear is not down before landing or the cargo/pax arrives at the wrong destination...so deductions were made)

[FLEA]

7 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I find it interesting that many on the thread espouse the need for raw capitalism in the private sector. Fair enough.  However, as a thought exercise, let's apply that logic to the AF.  Instead of rank and time-in-service based compensation (admittedly with some rather arbitrary come-and-go incentives) let's be more like the private sector, with compensation tied to productivity.  In that case, C-130 guys (I'm biased) should be compensated significantly more than Eagle guys because arguably their contribution to actual productivity is significantly higher in the current environment.  Yes, yes, I know you've got to rank higher in UPT but that logic only matters so much.  In most white shoe firms, the Univ of X state grad who brings in more $billing will ultimately make more that the Harvard Law guy who is middling.  

Hmmm, maybe there is some room for debate here.  

Isn't this what we've been asking for? Compensating pilots as pilots, doctors as doctors, lawyers as lawyers, etc.... And that as a Major/Instructor, I should be making significantly more than a Public Affairs specialist or personnelist, with significantly less training and transferable skills? 

[jazzdude]

Isn't this what we've been asking for? Compensating pilots as pilots, doctors as doctors, lawyers as lawyers, etc.... And that as a Major/Instructor, I should be making significantly more than a Public Affairs specialist or personnelist, with significantly less training and transferable skills? 

The hard part is determining what is the appropriate civilian counterpart. For a mobility pilot/AC, is it the UPS 777 Captain (legacy airline)? The Atlas Air 767 Captain (ACMI carrier, roughly same cargo capacity as a C-17, similar schedules as an AMC line flyer)? Jet Blue A320 Captain ("lower tier" major airline, similar size to C-130)? Should our helo pilots get paid what helo pilots get paid on the outside (aka peanuts)? What happens when someone moved onto a staff job? Do they take a pay cut from pilot to get paid as a low-mid level manager? Should your initial UPT commitment be compensated at the regional airline level (argument here is that if you pursued a purely civilian airline career, you'd likely spend 5-15 years at a regional, so that level of compensation could be seen as "fair")?

What about AF engineers? They are paid way less than their civilian counterparts, and have no bonuses or incentives outside of basic pay/bah/eyc. I know I had an engineering job offer out of college that my AF pay didn't match until I pinned on major, including accounting for my additional flight pay.

Realistically, the AF will never win the pay battle against the airlines (short of when, not if, airlines go through tough times and furlough). Even military doctors could probably make more on the outside, especially working in a big city. But at some point, serving our nation is it's own reward to some degree, and it's not all about the cash in the bank account. Same goes for people who elect to work for a non profit vs a for profit company.

[slackline]

Can some of you MAGA/Trump diehards explain why every Republican that doesn’t outright support the unsupported claims of fraud and overturning of Democracy as we know it is now labeled a RINO, or has to worry about reelection? How is this turn of events not seen as a problem on the right? It is totally possible that the GOP loses the Senate because of this sentiment and Trump’s inflammatory words. That is an outcome that is highly undesirable, but they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. Trump and his MAGA crowd will have effectively handed the senate, and therefore, tons of control to the Dems. Great... I just don’t get it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

i don't either. it's a losing strategy.

best case for them: the election is overturned....great...what will THAT do to the country?

it's in the nation's (and GOP) best interest for trump to concede.

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

i don't either. it's a losing strategy.

best case for them: the election is overturned....great...what will THAT do to the country?

Well, I get to participate in my first protest. So I got that going for me.

[Pooter]

I don't think there's any strategy at all. They lost, they know they lost, so they're defensively lashing out in all directions. 
 

I love pointing out how the democrats are being idiots when they do things that are logically inconsistent or harmful to their own cause, but republicans are putting on a spectacular display of the same thing right now. The fact that trump bandwagoners can't see that he is taking their own party to a very unproductive place blows my mind. 
 

It used to be nice being on the right because I could reasonably tell myself that republicans generally stick to some core values and respect our institutions. Lol not anymore.