|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company.
|
On August 28 2013 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:21 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it. This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial. I'm arguing what you said. If you want to debate the impact on employment of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to claim, as you did, that "it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate" (emphasis mine), then don't expect people not to notice that you just said something that is blatantly false in order to paint the ACA as negatively as you can. "Blatantly false?" Are you crazy? EVERYONE admits that the ACA is adversely affecting employment. EVERYONE admits that the ACA significantly contributes to the disproportionately high number of part time jobs, because the ACA so dramatically skews employee cost curves. There's nothing blatantly false about what I am saying. This shit is self-evident.
Seriously, do you somehow not understand your own words? You were referring to the portion among employed people of people who have part-time jobs. It is clearly false to assert that the ACA is a "very significant" reason why among those who are employed, there is a high portion (about 19%) of people with part-time jobs. In fact, the portion of people with part-time jobs was higher before the ACA even passed than it is now. Now, debate the current and future impact of the ACA on part-time employment all you want, but don't refer to the levels of part-time employment with regards to overall employment and claim that they are very significantly due to the ACA, because that is factually incorrect.
On August 28 2013 05:27 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:21 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:59 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 legor wrote:
Graphs 30 years into the past till 2012 don't show anything relevant for this discussion. They do, and you'd know that if you had paid attention to the claim I was replying to. On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. You're the one who made a claim that went way beyond looking at the actual effects of the ACA on employment. Nobody's ignoring the CBO reports - you're the one who's ignoring the reality of the overwhelming majority of part-time jobs in the U.S. having absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. You tried to sneak in a ridiculous hyperbole into your attack of the ACA, and you've been called out on it. This is why I used to ignore your posts. You aren't arguing anything meaningful. All of your responses to my original post can be distilled to "I disagree with xDaunt's use of the term 'significant.'" Arguing semantics is a bore. There's no hyperbole in what I said. In fact, what I said shouldn't even be controversial. I'm arguing what you said. If you want to debate the impact on employment of the ACA, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to claim, as you did, that "it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate" (emphasis mine), then don't expect people not to notice that you just said something that is blatantly false in order to paint the ACA as negatively as you can. edit: in fact, sam!zdat addressed this even before I did, when he wrote in his reply to you "romneycare at worst somewhat exacerbates an already very serious trend towards precarious employment which has been underway for 30 years and will continue into the foreseeable future". + Show Spoiler +
Thank you for taking the time to show us you're incapable of paying attention to what I'm reply to.
|
On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company.
If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page.
The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations.
|
On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company.
Hell, the government is incentivising what they are doing. The company exists to make a profit for its shareholders, not to employ workers at a loss.
|
On August 28 2013 03:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 03:06 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's? Are you seriously trying to equate Syria and Iraq? And the U.S. actions towards both?
On August 28 2013 03:58 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2013 03:06 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
By the way, does anyone find it a bit ironic that Obama is about to bomb a middle eastern country without UN approval because of WMD's? Are you seriously trying to equate Syria and Iraq? And the U.S. actions towards both? Its mind-boggling that people try to do this very equation. It sickens me that anyone would compare the stable Iraq, and the questionability of the US entering Iraq to the Syrian civil war and its 100k+ casualties.
Wow you guys... I was just pointing out that it was a bit ironic.
The overwhelming partisanship in here.
|
On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations.
I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more 
Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss.
|
On August 28 2013 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations. I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss.
Great. Then all you have to do is provide Walmart with a retail monopoly and we're all set...
|
On August 28 2013 06:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations. I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss. Great. Then all you have to do is provide Walmart with a retail monopoly and we're all set...
I was under the assumption that Walmart already operated under one.
|
On August 28 2013 02:35 crayhasissues wrote:
The problem is that no one was really asking for "reform." Obama just wanted to make it look like he "got something done," and used the economic panic to push it through.
I am one of the lucky few able to get a good full time job in the US. I've been in school for about 5 years, and finally was able to land a job that actually had health benefits. I was looking for over 3 years total, working part time jobs (and not being able to afford healthcare) just to be able to eat.
I have a feeling a lot of the people who think they know best for the US aren't actually from the US. Its a big country, with tons of problems. Reforming a problem doesn't mean its a good thing (if its the wrong kind of reform), even though the connotation of the word works in the favor of reformers.
So now watch as the US becomes an even more under/unemployed, under/uninsured morass. Unintended consequences are real, and the ACA has a lot of them.
If the bill did what it promised, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I never bought into the promises in the first place. The data won't lie. The government is simply too large to be cost-efficient. They have no incentive to be cost-efficient anyways.
I live in a country with socialized insurance and we on average pay less than the American citizen for health care. Every socialized insurance and socialized health care system gets to brag that their health care system is less of a drag on their economy than the American health care system is on the American economy. What data are you referring to when you say government is too large to be cost efficient?
|
On August 28 2013 06:01 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations. I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss. Great. Then all you have to do is provide Walmart with a retail monopoly and we're all set... I was under the assumption that Walmart already operated under one.
It doesn't, and that's a problem because you can't write a law that only applies to Walmart (not that it would be a good idea if you could).
|
On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking.
if only you felt this way about global climatic disruption...
|
On August 28 2013 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:01 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 06:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations. I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss. Great. Then all you have to do is provide Walmart with a retail monopoly and we're all set... I was under the assumption that Walmart already operated under one. It doesn't, and that's a problem because you can't write a law that only applies to Walmart (not that it would be a good idea if you could).
Sarcasm. The text that you highlighted of mine was an appeal not a law. I wasn't talking about just Walmart with the 1 hour mandate.
|
On August 28 2013 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. if only you felt this way about global climatic disruption...
I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks.
|
On August 28 2013 06:13 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 06:01 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 06:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:On August 28 2013 05:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2013 05:35 Livelovedie wrote:
No, walmart is turning walmart workers into temps by being a deplorable company. If Walmart was uniquely evil, you must wonder why the change to part time workers is a new change in their company policy. Were they a beneficent company until recently, in your mind? Secondly, Walmart is joined by the generalized trend of companies relying more and more on part time workers in many sectors of the economy. They are not the sole actors. This should be obvious to anyone who read the articles on the previous page. The congressional Left's brainchild, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is pushing companies toward part time employees. They are relying on useful idiots to misattribute the blame to a different party. It won't be the first time nor the last time the predictable consequences of their legislation are blamed on greedy corporations. I didn't say other companies aren't doing the same deplorable things. Well since the companies are already crying mine as well just mandate companies provide health insurance for any employee that works 1 hour or more Providing health insurance for employees to work 30 hours or more wouldn't cause walmart to operate at a loss. Great. Then all you have to do is provide Walmart with a retail monopoly and we're all set... I was under the assumption that Walmart already operated under one. It doesn't, and that's a problem because you can't write a law that only applies to Walmart (not that it would be a good idea if you could). Sarcasm. The text that you highlighted of mine was an appeal not a law. I wasn't talking about just Walmart with the 1 hour mandate.
I know, and that makes it worse 
|
On August 28 2013 06:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. if only you felt this way about global climatic disruption... I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks.
Uhm. Yes. Yes it will. I don't know why you would necessarily say that. Seems like an unsupported assertion to me.
Not to mention that the possible technological drive would also go over to other countries as well. I have no idea where you get that America's policies have no effect on other countries' policies.
And environmentalism has come a long way. Saying it would cripple our economy is honestly just old-fashioned nonsense, making me think that you're still living in 1980s. I'd say it's short-sighted, but honestly it's not even that. There's a ton of economic power in environmentalism. If anything, environmental policies is the economic boost that our country needs right now.
|
On August 28 2013 06:27 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. if only you felt this way about global climatic disruption... I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks. Uhm. Yes. Yes it will. I don't know why you would necessarily say that. Seems like an unsupported assertion to me. Not to mention that the possible technological drive would also go over to other countries as well. I have no idea where you get that America's policies have no effect on other countries' policies. And environmentalism has come a long way. Saying it would cripple our economy is honestly just old-fashioned nonsense, making me think that you're still living in 1980s. I'd say it's short-sighted, but honestly it's not even that. There's a ton of economic power in environmentalism. If anything, environmental policies is the economic boost that our country needs right now.
If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet.
Case in point: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/
I'm all for it, but funding failed companies just isn't the economic boost America needs right now.
|
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised a "whale of a fight" over the debt ceiling Monday and said that he wanted cuts greater than the increase in the limit.
"I've made it clear that we're not going to increase the debt limit without cuts and reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit," he said at a Boise fundraiser for Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), according to the Idaho Statesman. "The president doesn't think this is fair, thinks I'm being difficult to deal with. But I'll say this: It may be unfair but what I'm trying to do here is to leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would produce if left to its own devices. We're going to have a whale of a fight."
Said Boehner, "I wish I could tell you it was going to be pretty and polite, and it would all be finished a month before we'd ever get to the debt ceiling. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way."
His comments signal that he and House Republicans will fight to link spending cuts to the debt ceiling -- an approach that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have flatly rejected.
Source
|
On August 28 2013 06:27 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On August 28 2013 04:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 04:28 kwizach wrote:The graphs "don't show anything"? Here's what you wrote: On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
[...] it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. The two graphs I presented you with clearly show that your statement is completely false, unless by "a very significant reason for that" you meant "the potential reason for a very small percentage of that amount". Also, nice source of yours - even your heritage foundation blog only provides speculation and not actual data to back up its claim. Regardless, there is a difference between having an small negative impact on employment and being a "very significant reason" for the high levels of part-time employment in the US, like you originally claimed. Okay, have it your way. Let's ignore what congress is doing. Let's ignore the pleas from the employers. Let's ignore the CBO reports. We can just stick our head in the sand because the adverse impact hasn't been sufficiently quantified to your liking. if only you felt this way about global climatic disruption... I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks. Uhm. Yes. Yes it will. I don't know why you would necessarily say that. Seems like an unsupported assertion to me.
There's nothing unsupported about my assertion. The elimination or significant reduction of carbon output necessarily includes eliminating our usage of our cheapest sources of energy. Doing so would make everything more expensive.
Not to mention that the possible technological drive would also go over to other countries as well. I have no idea where you get that America's policies have no effect on other countries' policies.
Why would developing country A spend $X on a "clean energy" when they can spend a fraction of that on a coal plant? China sure as shit prefers coal, as do the other developing countries.
And environmentalism has come a long way. Saying it would cripple our economy is honestly just old-fashioned nonsense, making me think that you're still living in 1980s. I'd say it's short-sighted, but honestly it's not even that. There's a ton of economic power in environmentalism. If anything, environmental policies is the economic boost that our country needs right now.
This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile.
|
The environmental movement hasn't come a long way since it's inception, and that is one big reason for its identification with policies that cripple the economy. It's still centralized harmful regulations and measures engineered to kill businesses. They've tried to shrug that label off time and time again, but it sticks because it defines their policies that stem from the green ideology.
If it was even close to unleashing an economic powerhouse, capitalistic forces would've uncovered the good parts of it long ago. What remains is a poison they want everyone to swallow.
|
If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet.
There's plenty of reasons. First of all, we are rather entrenched in the system we have now. Why would companies change when what they're doing now is making lots of money now? It's not like transferring to sustainable energy is going to be cheap. That's part of the problem with the private industry, is that it's vulnerable to that kind of short-sightedness.
The fact is that we've invested a shit ton of money into never ever ever switching out of fossil fuels. Which is a big reason why we have such resistance to do so.
Why would developing country A spend $X on a "clean energy" when they can spend a fraction of that on a coal plant? China sure as shit prefers coal, as do the other developing countries.
So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma.
This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile.
Oh my god, will you shut up about solyndra? Jesus fucking christ. All of environmentalism is not debunked by the word "solyndra". Bullshit simplistic thinking.
We're not going to get a viable replacement for fossil fuels without goddamn trying. And fossil fuels are an assortment of technologies, so you're going to have an assortment of technologies to replace them. Fossil fuels are not the be-all, end-all of energy, and it's honestly pretty silly to pretend that it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
