|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 09 2018 01:45 Simberto wrote:
Indeed. What people need to realize is that a strike hurts both sides. The workers don't make money because they don't get paid, and the owners make no money because the factory doesn't work. Both sides can only do this for a limited amount of time, and both sides don't actually want to do it either. A strike is the only pressure the employees have in negotiations, but they can only employ it if they topic at hand is important enough for them. You are not going to be able to keep up a strike for a totally ridiculous reason for a long period of time, because they workers won't be happy to not be able to work and get paid for nonsense. On the other hand, if the reason for the strike is really important to the workers, they can possibly keep a strike up for longer than the owners are willing to tolerate it.
Unions and the ability to strike are incredibly important for workers rights, and honestly, the US could use a lot more of them.
more unions, or more strikes?
it's too bad we don't have more euro-style union relationships (from what I recall hearing, euro unions are much more working with the owners on things, whereas the US setup tends to be very adversarial)
what's your opinion on strikes that hurt innocent third parties? (a very broad category admittedly)
it'd be nice if we could find less costly dispute resolution mechanisms than striking.
|
On July 09 2018 01:57 a_flayer wrote:Here's a fun article on how the United States tries to push corporate bullshit on poor countries. I always assumed Putin was exaggerating when I heard him and some white-haired British lady (that has some connections to China/Asia) talking about this sort of thing at economic forums in Russia. Of course, people over at /r/politics are all about blaming this on Trump, even though I'm pretty sure you can look around in history and find dozens of stories like this (John Bolton threatening kids back in the early 2000s comes to mind): Show nested quote +Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.
The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.
Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.
“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.
“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said. Luckily the United States didn't succeed this time: Show nested quote +In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.
A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle.
“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Source
The most classical case of US aid rumours is promoting abstention as part of aid requirements leading into HIV epidemics in Africa.
|
On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point...
Why wouldn't they be?
Sounds legal in a lot of places:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker
Not sure how much you want to panic over a 'no-strike promise'? This sounds like the most boring non-issue of the week.
|
On July 09 2018 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point... Imagine a hypothetical situation where the unionized workforce walked out because they wanted wages increased to $100 an hour or something similarly ridiculous, and the employer was not allowed to bring in contractors, etc. to continue work. That would be a little unfair. The FLSA puts a fair amount of power in the hands on the employees, generally speaking, but that would be a little much. As P6 alluded to, a "no strike" clause means striking is not protected and employees can be fired for it. But that is typically not a good idea for the employer because good luck replacing your skilled workforce when you've shown you're willing to screw them over. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to suffer from that problem despite many countries having outlawed them.
I mean, if US employee-employer relationships were the exact same as other countries but for this that would be a valid point to make.
By not allowing employers to hire temp labor in the case of a strike, it means the unionized labor force can demand anything they want and the employer has no choice but to acquiesce or prolong the strike or (eventually) go out of business. The union as the representative of the labor force should negotiate benefits and rights based on the value and expertise the employees bring, not because they have infinite bargaining power. Most nations which have the no strikebreaking rules also have much more extensive regulations governing how negotiations and arbitration work - it's one piece of an entirely different puzzle.
|
On July 09 2018 03:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2018 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point... Imagine a hypothetical situation where the unionized workforce walked out because they wanted wages increased to $100 an hour or something similarly ridiculous, and the employer was not allowed to bring in contractors, etc. to continue work. That would be a little unfair. The FLSA puts a fair amount of power in the hands on the employees, generally speaking, but that would be a little much. As P6 alluded to, a "no strike" clause means striking is not protected and employees can be fired for it. But that is typically not a good idea for the employer because good luck replacing your skilled workforce when you've shown you're willing to screw them over. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to suffer from that problem despite many countries having outlawed them. I mean, if US employee-employer relationships were the exact same as other countries but for this that would be a valid point to make. By not allowing employers to hire temp labor in the case of a strike, it means the unionized labor force can demand anything they want and the employer has no choice but to acquiesce or prolong the strike or (eventually) go out of business. The union as the representative of the labor force should negotiate benefits and rights based on the value and expertise the employees bring, not because they have infinite bargaining power. Most nations which have the no strikebreaking rules also have much more extensive regulations governing how negotiations and arbitration work - it's one piece of an entirely different puzzle.
They do not have infinite bargaining power, if the company goes down they lose their job and the strike is pretty much pointless. In my opinion the right to strike gives them a better position, but usually the power still lies mainly with the employer...
|
|
|
On July 09 2018 05:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 01:27 Slydie wrote:On July 09 2018 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2018 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point... Imagine a hypothetical situation where the unionized workforce walked out because they wanted wages increased to $100 an hour or something similarly ridiculous, and the employer was not allowed to bring in contractors, etc. to continue work. That would be a little unfair. The FLSA puts a fair amount of power in the hands on the employees, generally speaking, but that would be a little much. As P6 alluded to, a "no strike" clause means striking is not protected and employees can be fired for it. But that is typically not a good idea for the employer because good luck replacing your skilled workforce when you've shown you're willing to screw them over. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to suffer from that problem despite many countries having outlawed them. Yes, there has to be a balance of power. In Norway there have been strikes in niche professions (notably elevator reparimen!) for pretty crazy demands, but remember that the strikers are also not payed, so what you are picturing is really a non-issue. It is actually in the worker's interrest that their company does well, but not that the boss and owner takes too much of the profit. One worker is weak compared to their superiors, but united they are a force to be reconned with. Preglobalization one of the benefits of skilled labor banding together from different businesses they could take wage out of the competition of price and make it down to quality or efficiency. Sadly now many companies can just move their factory/workforce somewhere cheaper.
One solution to that is a form of global equality that pays the workers on cacao fields and mines in Africa and factory workers in Asia the same as we would our own so they can afford the same luxuries for the same prices. There would be no financial motivation to outsource companies if that was the case.
|
|
|
On July 09 2018 06:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 05:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 09 2018 01:27 Slydie wrote:On July 09 2018 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2018 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point... Imagine a hypothetical situation where the unionized workforce walked out because they wanted wages increased to $100 an hour or something similarly ridiculous, and the employer was not allowed to bring in contractors, etc. to continue work. That would be a little unfair. The FLSA puts a fair amount of power in the hands on the employees, generally speaking, but that would be a little much. As P6 alluded to, a "no strike" clause means striking is not protected and employees can be fired for it. But that is typically not a good idea for the employer because good luck replacing your skilled workforce when you've shown you're willing to screw them over. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to suffer from that problem despite many countries having outlawed them. Yes, there has to be a balance of power. In Norway there have been strikes in niche professions (notably elevator reparimen!) for pretty crazy demands, but remember that the strikers are also not payed, so what you are picturing is really a non-issue. It is actually in the worker's interrest that their company does well, but not that the boss and owner takes too much of the profit. One worker is weak compared to their superiors, but united they are a force to be reconned with. Preglobalization one of the benefits of skilled labor banding together from different businesses they could take wage out of the competition of price and make it down to quality or efficiency. Sadly now many companies can just move their factory/workforce somewhere cheaper. One solution to that is a form of global equality that pays the workers on cacao fields and mines in Africa and factory workers in Asia the same as we would our own so they can afford the same luxuries for the same prices. There would be no financial motivation to outsource companies if that was the case.
If no one is outsourcing / off-shoring, wouldn't that just throw hundreds of millions back into extreme poverty?
|
On July 08 2018 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2018 20:25 gobbledydook wrote:On July 08 2018 17:44 a_flayer wrote:The kind of socialism that I like is the kind where the collective production of society is not geared towards making weaponry, war and keeping prisoners, but providing health care, education and housing to free men. That's basically it. There's many disagreements on specifics (get rid of ICE, merge it with INS, open borders or not, etc), but that's really mostly irrelevant. Alexandria supports the federal legalization of marijuana, ending for-profit prisons and detention centers, the release of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, the end of cash bail, and automatic, independent investigations each & every time an individual is killed by law enforcement. We must also fully fund the offices of public defenders, decriminalize poverty, end arbitration clauses that shield corporate abuses of everyday Americans, and provide comprehensive mental health care to both incarcerated communities and law enforcement. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars, all to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and re-fighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez The only major issue that I see is that socialists want to vote for people who point out the root causes of problems in their platform. But all the candidates keep running on platforms that have the duplicitous meaning of "we must drop bombs everywhere, cops should get surplus military grade equipment to oppress people, and it's too expensive to provide health care and education because we need all those bombs and equipment" and a lot of things similar to that where public funds are invested in all sorts of dehumanizing practices. Meanwhile self-described "moderate" people keep voting for those obvious extremist oppressive assholes for some reason. Hour Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free - Eugene V. Debs. Defense is so expensive not because of all the new tech. It's expensive because it's a huge scam for contractors to make money off the government. Apparently the last time they audited the Pentagon they found it had wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and no one got fired for that. We did flush about a $1,000,000,000,000 down the toilet with the f-35 as far as the "new tech" part.
And people are honestly concerned about taxes going towards paying for abortions, medicare/caid etc? It's headache inducing.
|
There is always money for guns, there is never money for people.
|
On July 09 2018 14:15 Simberto wrote:
There is always money for guns, there is never money for people.
The funny thing is the exaggeration in my post was the "new tech" part. the f-35 is already outdated tech that's worse then the last few generations and it basically never worked.
There's almost no worse way they could have blown the money. Would have been better to just give the MIC half that and tell them to spend it on hookers and blow. People should be pelted with rotten fruit if they ever try to counter a proposed social program with any variation of "we can't afford it" in public.
|
5930 Posts
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible.
|
On July 09 2018 15:20 Womwomwom wrote:
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible.
Oh, I would love some details here. What exactly does it well?
|
On July 09 2018 16:18 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 15:20 Womwomwom wrote:
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible. Oh, I would love some details here. What exactly does it well?
Information management. The sensor + networking package makes it that pilots can have access to way more knowledge of what is going on, and it gets shared between the planes. Knowing where the enemy is (and your allies are) is the most important part and the F35 does this better than any. So a pilot can have way more knowledge to make his decisions instead of having to rely on AWACS planes and external communication to guide him. Information is king and F35 is king of information.
It's still a very questionable way to spend money and we'd be better off buying triple the number of normal jets imo (we are going from 68 F16s to 37 F35 just because the cost :X), but you really can't call the F35 outdated.
|
On July 09 2018 16:32 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 16:18 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2018 15:20 Womwomwom wrote:
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible. Oh, I would love some details here. What exactly does it well? Information management. The sensor + networking package makes it that pilots can have access to way more knowledge of what is going on, and it gets shared between the planes. Knowing where the enemy is (and your allies are) is the most important part and the F35 does this better than any. So a pilot can have way more knowledge to make his decisions instead of having to rely on AWACS planes and external communication to guide him. Information is king and F35 is king of information. It's still a very questionable way to spend money and we'd be better off buying triple the number of normal jets imo (we are going from 68 F16s to 37 F35 just because the cost :X), but you really can't call the F35 outdated.
Well... When you consider that USN test pilots describe the F-35C as "substantially inferior to the F-15E" in air combat (F-15 started serving in '74), I'm not so convinced about this "it ain't outdated, because it has great IT" argument.
It is also unusable as interceptor due to it's limited after burner...
So we can't fight fighters, we can't reach bombers. What are we fighting? Ground targets? Pretty sure there are cheaper and more effective platforms for that.
And let's better not talk about this great stealth gimmick? If you drop all your weapons, the enemy can't recognize you! Whoa, did they learn this from urban guerrilla warfare?
|
On July 09 2018 17:05 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 16:32 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On July 09 2018 16:18 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2018 15:20 Womwomwom wrote:
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible. Oh, I would love some details here. What exactly does it well? Information management. The sensor + networking package makes it that pilots can have access to way more knowledge of what is going on, and it gets shared between the planes. Knowing where the enemy is (and your allies are) is the most important part and the F35 does this better than any. So a pilot can have way more knowledge to make his decisions instead of having to rely on AWACS planes and external communication to guide him. Information is king and F35 is king of information. It's still a very questionable way to spend money and we'd be better off buying triple the number of normal jets imo (we are going from 68 F16s to 37 F35 just because the cost :X), but you really can't call the F35 outdated. Well... When you consider that USN test pilots describe the F-35C as "substantially inferior to the F-15E" in air combat (F-15 started serving in '74), I'm not so convinced about this "it ain't outdated, because it has great IT" argument. It is also unusable as interceptor due to it's limited after burner... So we can't fight fighters, we can't reach bombers. What are we fighting? Ground targets? Pretty sure there are cheaper and more effective platforms for that. And let's better not talk about this great stealth gimmick? If you drop all your weapons, the enemy can't recognize you! Whoa, did they learn this from urban guerrilla warfare?
These days, a lot of air to air combat would probably be well beyond visual range. Dogfighting is a relic for the most part. It might fly like a pig, but it's a stealthy pig. The advantage of stealth is that if you had equivalent missiles and radars, you can get 20(example)% closer before showing up on radar as a target. It's definitely a compromised platform, but it's not godawful at the role it's doing like people make it out to be.
|
5930 Posts
A lot of the kinematic problems of the F35 aren't really huge problems in the actual modern world. Even if you do get into a dogfight, the RAAF have determined that your situational awareness becomes so poor in a dogfight that you're at a higher risk of getting shot down by something that is not in the fight than the actual aircraft you're battling. Its something a fighter jet doesn't want to engage in with today's weapons.
Like I said, its still a cutting edge piece of tech. Its just very poor value for money with a lot of its intended tasks being done better with retrofitted aircraft or unmanned platforms that are just getting better and better. It doesn't mean it wasn't a colossal waste of money, it just means it isn't a complete hunk of junk like a lot of people like to point out.
|
On July 09 2018 05:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 01:27 Slydie wrote:On July 09 2018 00:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2018 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 08 2018 17:38 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2018 08:56 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2018 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:
"Please sign this contract that removes your only means of negotiation so we can then mercilessly exploit you".
Waiving your right to strike should not even be possible, same for lawsuits. Contracts are not magic and cannot stop people from striking. The company can fire and replace the striking employees with scabs. But that has a history of only escalating issue. Wait what? Strikebreakers are legal in the US? Why does this even surprise me at this point... Imagine a hypothetical situation where the unionized workforce walked out because they wanted wages increased to $100 an hour or something similarly ridiculous, and the employer was not allowed to bring in contractors, etc. to continue work. That would be a little unfair. The FLSA puts a fair amount of power in the hands on the employees, generally speaking, but that would be a little much. As P6 alluded to, a "no strike" clause means striking is not protected and employees can be fired for it. But that is typically not a good idea for the employer because good luck replacing your skilled workforce when you've shown you're willing to screw them over. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to suffer from that problem despite many countries having outlawed them. Yes, there has to be a balance of power. In Norway there have been strikes in niche professions (notably elevator reparimen!) for pretty crazy demands, but remember that the strikers are also not payed, so what you are picturing is really a non-issue. It is actually in the worker's interrest that their company does well, but not that the boss and owner takes too much of the profit. One worker is weak compared to their superiors, but united they are a force to be reconned with. Preglobalization one of the benefits of skilled labor banding together from different businesses they could take wage out of the competition of price and make it down to quality or efficiency. Sadly now many companies can just move their factory/workforce somewhere cheaper.
Globalisation is part of the puzzle. The question is if the workforce is really interrested in competing with lowcost countries in terms of salary. In most western countries, the answer is a big NO, and entire industries has fallen apart because of it, most notably textile.
The industries in the west that remain are the ones that are competetive in terms of quality, reliabilty, technology or even price. There are eventually so few workers left in many factories the high salaries do not matter much anymore.
It surprises me that so many in the US seems to want to go back to the olden days with low waged industrial jobs with terrible conditions for everyone. It seems to be the fantasy of Trump, at least, and it mostly benefits the owners.
|
On July 09 2018 18:00 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2018 17:05 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2018 16:32 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On July 09 2018 16:18 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2018 15:20 Womwomwom wrote:
That's not exactly true, the F35 is still a cutting edge piece of hardware that can do a whole host of things well. Its just its main goal of delivering munitions deep in enemy territory is becoming less and less of a thing you expect from fighters. I don't think the people who pitched the F35 in 1992 quite expected unmanned aircraft and computers to become this good in such a short time.
Its not really that unexpected, this happens with all top militaries in the world. When the Germans and British were messing around with optical rangefinders and focusing on battleships, the US were messing around with radar and carriers.
The budget bloat of the F35 is 100% because Lockheed Martin doesn't have any shame when it comes to defense budget grafting. Honestly though, you can't blame Lockheed for being a taxpayer parasite when the US doesn't seem to mind letting them suck as much money as possible. Oh, I would love some details here. What exactly does it well? Information management. The sensor + networking package makes it that pilots can have access to way more knowledge of what is going on, and it gets shared between the planes. Knowing where the enemy is (and your allies are) is the most important part and the F35 does this better than any. So a pilot can have way more knowledge to make his decisions instead of having to rely on AWACS planes and external communication to guide him. Information is king and F35 is king of information. It's still a very questionable way to spend money and we'd be better off buying triple the number of normal jets imo (we are going from 68 F16s to 37 F35 just because the cost :X), but you really can't call the F35 outdated. Well... When you consider that USN test pilots describe the F-35C as "substantially inferior to the F-15E" in air combat (F-15 started serving in '74), I'm not so convinced about this "it ain't outdated, because it has great IT" argument. It is also unusable as interceptor due to it's limited after burner... So we can't fight fighters, we can't reach bombers. What are we fighting? Ground targets? Pretty sure there are cheaper and more effective platforms for that. And let's better not talk about this great stealth gimmick? If you drop all your weapons, the enemy can't recognize you! Whoa, did they learn this from urban guerrilla warfare? These days, a lot of air to air combat would probably be well beyond visual range. Dogfighting is a relic for the most part. It might fly like a pig, but it's a stealthy pig. The advantage of stealth is that if you had equivalent missiles and radars, you can get 20(example)% closer before showing up on radar as a target. It's definitely a compromised platform, but it's not godawful at the role it's doing like people make it out to be.
Forgetting for the moment that it's supposed to be better at all of those things and progressively got worse until the only thing it was supposed to be better at was it's long range air to air combat. Problem there is that the stealth doesn't work if you want to use your weapons and when you open the bay the plane loses stability and will turn hard and crash without a skilled pilot managing the planes suck.
Tack onto that the suxor range and that the stealth paint cost millions each application and has to be reapplied every flight to maintain integrity. Oh and will flake off midflight in the rain.
Almost forgot that the heads up display is on a shitty VR helmet, so if the shitty software crashes, or a hard drive fails the pilot is effective blind and loses all potential advantage in targeting. Oh and the target acquisition software is networked, so when one starts bugging it sends a cascading effect through any connected fighters.
There's more but the thing is a trillion dollars of wasted money (and that's what's on the books).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
