Furlough Estimates

AAPalmTree said:
I really can’t understand the confusion.
This country survives and prospers on jobs.
Click to expand...
Yeah but not all jobs are equal. Chinese laborers building the railroad, or 10 year olds working in a factory - those are jobs that helped American companies prosper and profit massively. But they aren't good for our society. It took decades of effort from labor and unions to enact change and get to where we are today, I'd argue we aren't all the way there yet.
 
Skåning said:
Yeah but not all jobs are equal. Chinese laborers building the railroad, or 10 year olds working in a factory - those are jobs that helped American companies prosper and profit massively. But they aren't good for our society. It took decades of effort from labor and unions to enact change and get to where we are today, I'd argue we aren't all the way there yet.
Click to expand...

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say.
 
HJB said:
Yeah it actually is. Not many if any business generate and sit on cash. Most businesses in this country are small business, some that generate millions in revenue. What’s considered small business here in the US is laughable. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, if you want to lower or eliminate your tax bill as a small business it’s beyond easily done. You can generate all the cash you want, but any CPA can show the IRS that “cash” went to “something” that generated a write off or loss.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I know that plenty of people believe this pablum, but it simply isn't so. Yes, most businesses are small businesses, and only 40% of small businesses generate a profit in a given year, but that's because most small businesses fail within a few years of starting up. Businesses that don't fail do generate profits, do have to show them on their tax returns, and do pay taxes. This is reality. Not talk radio spin.

You sound like Kramer on Seinfeld talking about write-offs when he couldn't explain to Jerry what a write-off actually was.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
I'm sorry, I know that plenty of people believe this pablum, but it simply isn't so. Yes, most businesses are small businesses, and only 40% of small businesses generate a profit in a given year, but that's because most small businesses fail within a few years of starting up. Businesses that don't fail do generate profits, do have to show them on their tax returns, and do pay taxes. This is reality. Not talk radio spin.

You sound like Kramer on Seinfeld talking about write-offs when he couldn't explain to Jerry what a write-off actually was.
Click to expand...
Never found that show funny, so no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I listen to any talk radio. I’m only going off of what I’ve seen. I’ve been around it my entire life. If you don’t think CPAs/ accounting firms can manipulate numbers to see fit then there’s not much to talk about. I’ve seen “small” businesses that have been around for over 30 years, and never shown a profit to the IRS.
 
HJB said:
Never found that show funny, so no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I listen to any talk radio. I’m only going off of what I’ve seen. I’ve been around it my entire life. If you don’t think CPAs/ accounting firms can manipulate numbers to see fit then there’s not much to talk about. I’ve seen “small” businesses that have been around for over 30 years, and never shown a profit to the IRS.
Click to expand...
It’s a lot harder to prosecute this behavior than it should be. See: ‎LRC Presents: All the President's Lawyers: Tuesday’s other sh*t show on Apple Podcasts
 
RMCBear08 said:
The “rules” that were established, at least by McConnell back in 2016, was that no Supreme Court vacancy should be filled until after the election, when the American people could decide who should be elected president, and thus who should be appointed to the court. That was 11 months prior to the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Actually, it goes even further back then that. In summer 2007 a full 15 months before the 2008 election, then Senate majority leader Schumer said that they would NOT confirm a potential Bush SCOTUS nominee in case one opened up until after the 2008 election. He said this well over a year+ from the election, even though no one died/retired at the time he made that comment. The Democrats clearly and explicitly set that expectation, and said they would use their power of the Senate majority and not confirm a potential Bush nominee.


It’s now less than 2 months to the 2020 election and McConnell and the Republicans are saying the EXACT opposite thing. Let’s not pretend that there are RULES and DECORUM that are being followed here and call it for what it is; they’re taking advantage of their current political power, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

No different than what Schumer said he'd do in 2007. It's just that the gloves are on the other party now.

If/when the Democrats retake the Senate, I imagine they’ll start taking advantage of their political power as well. Knowing that bipartisanship is a relic of a bygone era, they know they’ll need to do something drastic to pass their legislative agenda, lest the Republicans just stonewall everything. Given the lackadaisical attitude towards Senate rules (see above) I think it’s almost a forgone conclusion the filibuster goes bye-bye in a Democratic-led Senate. Republicans will scream about RULES! and Senate DECORUM! and the INSTITUTION! to anyone that will listen, but it will be hard to ignore what they just did, ramming through ACB while conveniently forgetting their own previous “rules”.

Btw, I’m not advocating for any of that or for the other options I listed in my last post. I think if what I laid out happens (and I believe it’s a high possibility that it will) then we will have truly passed the rubicon and I fear our political institutions will be forever fractured beyond repair. It’s close right now, but something as seismic as that would certainly be the end.

Like I said, we’re all f’d.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of the filibuster can easily come back to haunt the Democrats, as can packing the Supreme court. It's a huge case of careful what you wish for. Bottom line is what the Republicans did in 2016 wasn't anything special. The Dems would have done the same thing if a Bush appointee came in 2007 or 2008. They made it clear if the Dems ruled the house, no Bush SCOTUS appointee was gonna get approved.
 
Getting back to layoffs............................................


CNN published an article that there is no going back to normal. I think that's sensationalist horse crap, but the media is strong and they have a following. Ultimate bottom line, so as long as we use terms like "social distancing," airline travel is not going above 50% of 2019 levels, hotels and restaurant business will continue to be decimated, normal jobs are not going back to the office, and life as it existed prior to March is not coming back. This vaccine better work. Volunteers are reporting severe chills (one candidate broke his own tooth with chattering from the chills), some are reporting severe headaches, and according to that CNN article, "all say it's worth it to fight Covid."

It's clear at this point the ENTIRE country's hopes are pegged on an effective vaccine. I pray it works - God forbid if any people come down with neurological issues like the one volunteer did with Astra Zeneca's vaccine in England. If there is any failure like that with the vaccine once it is out, then it is game over.
 
GypsyPilot said:
100% agree. I’m also fiscally conservative, but very liberal socially. The fact that we don’t have real, first world Universal Healthcare in the US is just embarrassing, scary, and unacceptable.

Hopefully it’s just a generational thing, as I think most people around my age and younger are totally for it.
Click to expand...
You can’t be fiscally conservative and for universal healthcare.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Getting back to layoffs............................................


CNN published an article that there is no going back to normal. I think that's sensationalist horse crap, but the media is strong and they have a following. Ultimate bottom line, so as long as we use terms like "social distancing," airline travel is not going above 50% of 2019 levels, hotels and restaurant business will continue to be decimated, normal jobs are not going back to the office, and life as it existed prior to March is not coming back. This vaccine better work. Volunteers are reporting severe chills (one candidate broke his own tooth with chattering from the chills), some are reporting severe headaches, and according to that CNN article, "all say it's worth it to fight Covid."

It's clear at this point the ENTIRE country's hopes are pegged on an effective vaccine. I pray it works - God forbid if any people come down with neurological issues like the one volunteer did with Astra Zeneca's vaccine in England. If there is any failure like that with the vaccine once it is out, then it is game over.
Click to expand...
I called this would happen back in May when it became obvious the psychological trauma this has had on people. They’re already starting the shift from coronavirus to include the flu and common cold as grounds for social distancing and wearing masks. I thought that wouldn’t happen until after Covid had completely faded but here we are. As long as infectious diseases exist it’s game over.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
This is blatantly false. What you're calling "supplemental health insurance" is actually premium boutique care insurance. It allows those people to get premium care like home visits by health care professionals. In other words, the kind of stuff that only rich people get here.

You should talk to the thousands of Canadian ALPA members about how this stuff really works in Canada. I was fortunate to serve in a national position where I got to talk to them on a regular basis. Whenever somebody from the States said something like you said above, they'd look at him like he had three heads and ask where he got that nonsense, then tell us how the rest of the the world thinks we're a bunch of backwardsass fools for clinging to the abhorrent system that we have.
Click to expand...

BOOTY CARE INSURANCE
 
jtrain609 said:
You're (probably not) forgetting to factor in the reduction in state funding to universities and the affect it's had on tuition.
Click to expand...

Per student yes, but an overall reduction is a common misconception. This article is from 2015 so the numbers will be a little outdated, but I doubt much has changed since then. Two quotes for those among the JC group who refuse to click on news article links.

"In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher."

"As the baby boomers reached college age, state appropriations to higher education skyrocketed, increasing more than fourfold in today’s dollars, from $11.1 billion in 1960 to $48.2 billion in 1975. By 1980, state funding for higher education had increased a mind-boggling 390 percent in real terms over the previous 20 years. This tsunami of public money did not reduce tuition: quite the contrary."

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The Real Reason College Tuition Costs So Much (Published 2015)

It’s not because states have cut funding for higher education.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top