On 9/22/2021 10:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 11:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>>>> enough of them into
>>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>>>> all coming
>>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>>>> much influence
>>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them
>>>> uneducated.
>>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>>>> influence then a
>>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>>>> whether you get
>>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>>>> quite happy to
>>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>>
>>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>>
>>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
>>> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
>>> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
>>> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>>
>>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
>>> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
>>> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>>>
>>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
>>> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
>>> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
>>> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
>>> far more impact.
>>>
>>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
>>> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
>>> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
>>> whatever he can.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All those scenarios are probable.
>>
>> And yet among the largest campaign contributors are
>> unions, year after year.
>
> John was contrasting the influence of poor people vs. rich
> people.
>
> Poor people do not tend to belong to unions.
>
> And more's the pity. The rise of union power led to the rise
> of the middle class, plus things like pensions, medical
> coverage, overtime pay, weekends, etc.
>
> I'm well aware of certain union abuses. I've run into some.
> But I don't believe that _all_ power should lie in the hands
> of corporations or company managers.
>
> Had strong unions existed at the right time, plant safety
> regulations might have been more stringent, and I might have
> gotten to meet at least one of my grandfathers. I'll always
> regret that I never knew them.
>
>

Workplace safety has improved at about the same rate as
union decertification in US workplaces:

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/workplace/fatalrate.gif

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/union%20membership%20chart%20bbg.jpg

If unions cause safety it's not clear from the data trends.

In fact, aside from the big public employee rackets[1] US
workers seem not to prefer union membership.

[1] Closed shop- 'join or quit'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:

> >
> >
> Workplace safety has improved at about the same rate as
> union decertification in US workplaces:

That's a false correlation - Workplace safety was driven by the unions before being codified by OSHA and the insurance industry. We have that legacy (including things like a 40 hour work week and overtime) because of unions. Now that those benefits are codified by law, unions don't serve the benefit they used to.
>
> http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/workplace/fatalrate.gif
>
> https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/union%20membership%20chart%20bbg.jpg
>
> If unions cause safety it's not clear from the data trends.
>
> In fact, aside from the big public employee rackets[1] US
> workers seem not to prefer union membership.
>
> [1] Closed shop- 'join or quit'.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:57:18 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:40:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/21/2021 8:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
> > >>>
> > >>> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
> > >> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
> > >> problems.
> > >
> > > It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face?
> > Tom, you're pitiful.
> Are those tears of fears in your eyes? Are you afraid that once in a courtroom Fauci would have to answer questions under oath? That he would lie and when proven those lies would send him off to a place where they don't treat people like him well? That Jay, pretty obviously couldn't defend a beaver for building a dam.

WTF are you talking about? Or to satisfy the grammarians, about WTF are you talking? I don't think beavers need a defense. Nutria need a defense -- and spiders, one of which I summarily executed in my sink this morning. "I find you guilty of being a large spider . . . in my sink! You are sentenced to being squashed with a sponge, sentence to be carried out immediately!"

-- Judge Dredd

BTW, every time Fauci testifies in front of Congress, he's subject to prosecution if he lies, regardless of whether he is testifying under oath.

I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.

I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> > I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.

WC premium typically is based on classification and experience (classes of workers and injury magnitude/frequency), and I'm not aware of discounts for safety programs, except to the extent those programs reduce losses. https://www.saif.com/news/safety-pays-dividends.html In the olden days, WC insurers did routine safety inspections, but that' kind of faded away in the '80s.

Serious employers want to avoid injuries to avoid corresponding increases in WC premium -- sometimes huge -- and to reduce OSHA liability. Some employers have incredibly robust safety programs -- practically Draconian. Gypo employers don't care and will be gone next week anyway. Go past any subdivision under construction and look at all the meth-crazed roofers running around without being tied-off. That sub will be gone next week and reemerge a week later as a different company, owned buy the guy's sister. Large unions police safety, often as a means of justifying more workers -- one to work and five to ensure safety.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/22/2021 1:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:57:18 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:40:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 8:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
>>>>> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
>>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face?
>>> Tom, you're pitiful.
>> Are those tears of fears in your eyes? Are you afraid that once in a courtroom Fauci would have to answer questions under oath? That he would lie and when proven those lies would send him off to a place where they don't treat people like him well? That Jay, pretty obviously couldn't defend a beaver for building a dam.
>
> WTF are you talking about? Or to satisfy the grammarians, about WTF are you talking? I don't think beavers need a defense. Nutria need a defense -- and spiders, one of which I summarily executed in my sink this morning. "I find you guilty of being a large spider . . . in my sink! You are sentenced to being squashed with a sponge, sentence to be carried out immediately!"
>
> -- Judge Dredd
>
> BTW, every time Fauci testifies in front of Congress, he's subject to prosecution if he lies, regardless of whether he is testifying under oath.
>

'subject to prosecution' and actual likelihood under the
present regime are two very different things.

I heard this Senate hearing live and was appalled at even
that weasel Fauci's chutzpah:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-sends-criminal-referral-doj-fauci-lied-gain-of-function-research

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
>
> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
>

All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother Theresa
on the board of directors to embrace safety measures &
policies; they pay off in many was, insurance expense high
among them.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell
>> wrote:
>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in
>>> workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For
>>> example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15
>>> minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't.
>>> The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their
>>> employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a
>>> greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>> therefore work more safely.
>>
>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine
>> empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be
>> willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such
>> programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety
>> program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented
>> and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
>>
>
> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a valuable and
> treasured thing. You don't need Mother Theresa on the board of directors
> to embrace safety measures & policies; they pay off in many was,
> insurance expense high among them.

I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the pre-union
days. Getting product shipped was the primary concern, and if workers
didn't like being exposed to risk, their only option was to quit.

I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union representation
in the factory where my grandfather was killed. But there was such a
committee in the plant where I worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was
sometimes an annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made
labor jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off financially.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Workplace safety has improved at about the same rate as union
> decertification in US workplaces:
>
> http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/workplace/fatalrate.gif
>
> https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/union%20membership%20chart%20bbg.jpg

I think the real driving force is the consumption of margarine. See
graph #4:

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 12:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 10:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 8:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>>>>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>>>>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>>>>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>>>>> neighborhood.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when
>>>> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
>>>> first time he went into an American convenience store and
>>>> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd
>>>> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
>>>> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable part of
>>>> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family did the
>>>> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old but
>>>> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But the
>>>> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
>>>> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
>>>> machinery and doing very well.
>>>>
>>>> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
>>>> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
>>>> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
>>>> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
>>>> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
>>>> international company where he specialized in satellite
>>>> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his
>>>> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
>>>> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was using
>>>> his retirement to teach yoga.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
>>>> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to work
>>>> hard and be prudent with their money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager
>>> means without high society connections were doomed.
>>
>> As I said, I'm a big fan of Normal Curves. Every normal
>> curve has two tails. But competing Normal Curves have
>> different means, or different most likely values.
>>
>> In any case, the two individuals I mentioned both came from
>> Soviet imposed poverty and suppression of opportunity. I
>> suspect that the people coming to the U.S. from such
>> circumstances (including south of our border) are the ones
>> chomping at the bit to take advantage of every opportunity.
>> After all, emigrating and leaving behind everyone and
>> everything that was familiar is a huge, scary step; they
>> must be highly motivated. And since the two guys I mentioned
>> were both pale skinned, I suspect they had an easier path
>> than many darker folks.
>>
>> By contrast, I think lots of poor people in the U.S. have
>> had ambitions suppressed since birth. They've been raised
>> among people who either never tried very hard, or tried hard
>> yet failed. They're asked to meet only low standards - as in
>> "just stay out of jail" - and, if dark enough, likely meet
>> other barriers to real success.
>>
>> In brief, all poor people are not alike. All do not have the
>> same opportunities or drive.
>>
>
> There's a video of a black celebrity discussing his childhood and
> career. The interviewer says that not everyone can leave the 'hood, to
> which he replies, 'Bus leaves every day.'

IOW, "It's so easy"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>
>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>> latter.
>>>
>>
>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>> expense high among them.
>
> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
> their only option was to quit.
>
> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
> financially.
>
>

A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways,
I could go on. If workplaces had not changed along with
every other part of our culture _that_ would be news.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 2:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Workplace safety has improved at about the same rate as
>> union decertification in US workplaces:
>>
>> http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/workplace/fatalrate.gif
>>
>>
>> https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/union%20membership%20chart%20bbg.jpg
>
>
> I think the real driving force is the consumption of
> margarine. See graph #4:
>
> https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
>
>

You make my point very well thanks.

The snipped part:
"If unions cause safety it's not clear from the data trends. "

A statement on which we agree.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>>
>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>>> latter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>>> expense high among them.
>>
>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
>> their only option was to quit.
>>
>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
>> financially.
>>
>>
>
> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
> culture _that_ would be news.

But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
workers.

And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 2:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 12:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 10:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 8:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>>>>>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>>>>>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no
>>>>>> speak
>>>>>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>>>>>> neighborhood.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager
>>>>> when
>>>>> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
>>>>> first time he went into an American convenience store and
>>>>> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods
>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although
>>>>> they'd
>>>>> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
>>>>> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable
>>>>> part of
>>>>> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family
>>>>> did the
>>>>> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old
>>>>> but
>>>>> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But
>>>>> the
>>>>> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
>>>>> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
>>>>> machinery and doing very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
>>>>> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
>>>>> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
>>>>> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
>>>>> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
>>>>> international company where he specialized in satellite
>>>>> communication. For several years, they supplied him and
>>>>> his
>>>>> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
>>>>> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was
>>>>> using
>>>>> his retirement to teach yoga.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
>>>>> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to
>>>>> work
>>>>> hard and be prudent with their money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager
>>>> means without high society connections were doomed.
>>>
>>> As I said, I'm a big fan of Normal Curves. Every normal
>>> curve has two tails. But competing Normal Curves have
>>> different means, or different most likely values.
>>>
>>> In any case, the two individuals I mentioned both came from
>>> Soviet imposed poverty and suppression of opportunity. I
>>> suspect that the people coming to the U.S. from such
>>> circumstances (including south of our border) are the ones
>>> chomping at the bit to take advantage of every opportunity.
>>> After all, emigrating and leaving behind everyone and
>>> everything that was familiar is a huge, scary step; they
>>> must be highly motivated. And since the two guys I mentioned
>>> were both pale skinned, I suspect they had an easier path
>>> than many darker folks.
>>>
>>> By contrast, I think lots of poor people in the U.S. have
>>> had ambitions suppressed since birth. They've been raised
>>> among people who either never tried very hard, or tried hard
>>> yet failed. They're asked to meet only low standards - as in
>>> "just stay out of jail" - and, if dark enough, likely meet
>>> other barriers to real success.
>>>
>>> In brief, all poor people are not alike. All do not have the
>>> same opportunities or drive.
>>>
>>
>> There's a video of a black celebrity discussing his
>> childhood and career. The interviewer says that not
>> everyone can leave the 'hood, to which he replies, 'Bus
>> leaves every day.'
>
> IOW, "It's so easy"?
>
>

He did it.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 3:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>>>> latter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>>>> expense high among them.
>>>
>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
>>> their only option was to quit.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
>>> financially.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided
>> highways, I could go on. If workplaces had not changed
>> along with every other part of our culture _that_ would be
>> news.
>
> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they
> peaked at over 1/3 of the labor force, produced no
> significant benefits for those workers.
>
> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always
> enjoyed my weekends, as well as other benefits that unions
> provided.
>

Weekends of course predate widespread penetration by unions.
Started in USA, in New England mills, in the 19-oughts to
accommodate both Christian and Jewish workers with two days
off per week when the rest of the world had one or none.

A 5-day week got a big boost by notoriously anti-union Henry
Ford, not doing a Mother Theresa impersonation either. It
made perfect sense to making more money through higher
productivity and retention to better amortize training
expense and reduce absenteeism.

Plenty of people work six days now. Rare in your upper
middle class world, but usual out here in America.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:21:01 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
> >>>>>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the rest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
> >>>>>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
> >>>>>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
> >>>>>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
> >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
> >>>>>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy..
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
> >>>>>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
> >>>>>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
> >>>>>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
> >>>>>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
> >>>>>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
> >>>>>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
> >>>>>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
> >>>>>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
> >>>>>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
> >>>>>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
> >>>>>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
> >>>>>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
> >>>>>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
> >>>>>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
> >>>>>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
> >>>>>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
> >>>>>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
> >>>>>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
> >>>>>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
> >>>>>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
> >>>>>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
> >>>>>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
> >>>>>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
> >>>>>>>>> means who work and save.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
> >>>>>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
> >>>>>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
> >>>>>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
> >>>>>>>>> the wilderness.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
> >>>>>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
> >>>>>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
> >>>>>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
> >>>>>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
> >>>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
> >>>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
> >>>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
> >>>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
> >>>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
> >>>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
> >>>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
> >>>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
> >>>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
> >>>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
> >>>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
> >>>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
> >>>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
> >>>>>> auto.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
> >>>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
> >>>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
> >>>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two)..
> >>>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
> >>>>> making broad generalizations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
> >>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
> >>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
> >>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
> >>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
> >>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
> >>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
> >>>
> >>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
> >>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
> >>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
> >>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
> >>>
> >>> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
> >>> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
> >>> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
> >>> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
> >>> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
> >>> from voting.
> >>>
> >>> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
> >>> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
> >>> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
> >> unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
> >> please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.
> >>
> >> Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
> >> https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf
> >>
> >> Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
> >> registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
> >> be a good thing.
> >
> > Actually I don't know a damned thing about Texas voting laws. Except
> > what I read in the news. And that seems to be that the new laws will,
> > somehow, infringe or limit, the rights of (it seems to be implied) "po
> > folks".
> >
> Despite the actual text of the statute. Much like 'Larry
> Elder is a white supremacist' which was the only story on LA
> news for weeks. pfffft.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
> >>>> William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
> >>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
> >>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
> >>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
> >>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
> >>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
> >>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
> >>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
> >>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
> >>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
> >>>>> therefore work more safely.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
> >>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
> >>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
> >>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
> >>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
> >>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
> >>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
> >>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
> >>>> latter.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
> >>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
> >>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
> >>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
> >>> expense high among them.
> >>
> >> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
> >> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
> >> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
> >> their only option was to quit.
> >>
> >> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
> >> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
> >> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
> >> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
> >> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
> >> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
> >> financially.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
> > on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
> > culture _that_ would be news.
> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
> workers.
>
> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.

As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:13:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:57:18 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:40:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 9/21/2021 8:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 4:51:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Good, then I will be within range of you and Fauci in the same court room. That's a dream come true.
> > > >> That's yet another sad fantasy, and more proof that Tom has very serious
> > > >> problems.
> > > >
> > > > It scares hell out of you what I am well capable of doing to Fauci if I were to meet him face to face?
> > > Tom, you're pitiful.
> > Are those tears of fears in your eyes? Are you afraid that once in a courtroom Fauci would have to answer questions under oath? That he would lie and when proven those lies would send him off to a place where they don't treat people like him well? That Jay, pretty obviously couldn't defend a beaver for building a dam.
> WTF are you talking about? Or to satisfy the grammarians, about WTF are you talking? I don't think beavers need a defense. Nutria need a defense -- and spiders, one of which I summarily executed in my sink this morning. "I find you guilty of being a large spider . . . in my sink! You are sentenced to being squashed with a sponge, sentence to be carried out immediately!"
>
> -- Judge Dredd
>
> BTW, every time Fauci testifies in front of Congress, he's subject to prosecution if he lies, regardless of whether he is testifying under oath.
I have shown you how many times (?) that there were only 2,000 actual excess respiratory disease deaths and they were in March and April of 2020. Covid-19 is caused by SARS-Cov-2. SARS is initials for Severe Acute RESPIRATORY Syndrome. EVERY single time that Fauci has gone before the Congress he had lied and lied and lied. Since you seem to be this great legal mind - why hasn't he been prosecuted? For the first half of 2021 cases of ALL diseases except dementia were BELOW NORMAL. It has returned to on the low side of normal using the 10 year average that the CDC uses.

Fauci recommended the use of masks before Congress DESPITE the fact that the study by the CDC in MAY of 2020 said plainly that they had NO EFFECT on viral diseases. Do you know what "NO EFFECT" means? That study was given to me by a SURGEON.

So here you are in the middle of fuck all - knowing nothing and trying to tell me that the Democrats are not protecting each other with their NORMAL complete corruption.

What I see is that you haven't even a passing respect for the law. It is only a means of making money to you. So go hide your head under your pillow unless someone is willing to pay you.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:14:40 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
The unions very rapidly went into a mode of partnership with businesses. AS right-to-work laws were passed individuals would hire their own lawyers who would sue business. This meant that business had to take safety issues seriously.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:56:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> > > I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
> > I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
> WC premium typically is based on classification and experience (classes of workers and injury magnitude/frequency), and I'm not aware of discounts for safety programs, except to the extent those programs reduce losses. https://www.saif.com/news/safety-pays-dividends.html In the olden days, WC insurers did routine safety inspections, but that' kind of faded away in the '80s.
>
> Serious employers want to avoid injuries to avoid corresponding increases in WC premium -- sometimes huge -- and to reduce OSHA liability. Some employers have incredibly robust safety programs -- practically Draconian. Gypo employers don't care and will be gone next week anyway. Go past any subdivision under construction and look at all the meth-crazed roofers running around without being tied-off. That sub will be gone next week and reemerge a week later as a different company, owned buy the guy's sister. Large unions police safety, often as a means of justifying more workers -- one to work and five to ensure safety.

I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer? If that is the case, why would you mention workman's compensation? That does NOT prevent businesses from being sued for any safety violations.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 12:36:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell
> >> wrote:
> >>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in
> >>> workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For
> >>> example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15
> >>> minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
> >>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't.
> >>> The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their
> >>> employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a
> >>> greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
> >>> therefore work more safely.
> >>
> >> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine
> >> empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be
> >> willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such
> >> programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety
> >> program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and
> >> other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented
> >> and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
> >>
> >
> > All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a valuable and
> > treasured thing. You don't need Mother Theresa on the board of directors
> > to embrace safety measures & policies; they pay off in many was,
> > insurance expense high among them.
> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the pre-union
> days. Getting product shipped was the primary concern, and if workers
> didn't like being exposed to risk, their only option was to quit.
>
> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union representation
> in the factory where my grandfather was killed. But there was such a
> committee in the plant where I worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was
> sometimes an annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made
> labor jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off financially.

I will agree that employees were less valued before the first unions. But there is a reason that most Union Bosses are now multimillions and employees are now reduced to suing for safety issues.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
> >>>> William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
> >>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
> >>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
> >>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
> >>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
> >>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
> >>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
> >>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
> >>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
> >>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
> >>>>> therefore work more safely.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
> >>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
> >>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
> >>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
> >>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
> >>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
> >>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
> >>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
> >>>> latter.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
> >>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
> >>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
> >>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
> >>> expense high among them.
> >>
> >> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
> >> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
> >> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
> >> their only option was to quit.
> >>
> >> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
> >> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
> >> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
> >> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
> >> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
> >> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
> >> financially.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
> > on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
> > culture _that_ would be news.
> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
> workers.
>
> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.

Implausible? You don't remember the time before unions, then the unions were FORCING union membership upon people. There was a REASON that Right to Work laws were passed.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:31:29 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:56:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
> > > I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
> > WC premium typically is based on classification and experience (classes of workers and injury magnitude/frequency), and I'm not aware of discounts for safety programs, except to the extent those programs reduce losses. https://www.saif.com/news/safety-pays-dividends.html In the olden days, WC insurers did routine safety inspections, but that' kind of faded away in the '80s.
> >
> > Serious employers want to avoid injuries to avoid corresponding increases in WC premium -- sometimes huge -- and to reduce OSHA liability. Some employers have incredibly robust safety programs -- practically Draconian. Gypo employers don't care and will be gone next week anyway. Go past any subdivision under construction and look at all the meth-crazed roofers running around without being tied-off. That sub will be gone next week and reemerge a week later as a different company, owned buy the guy's sister. Large unions police safety, often as a means of justifying more workers -- one to work and five to ensure safety.
> I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer? If that is the case, why would you mention workman's compensation? That does NOT prevent businesses from being sued for any safety violations.

One more time with emphasis: employers want to avoid worker injuries because they drive up the cost of workers compensation insurance. Like Andrew mentioned, experience ratings are coveted, and in Oregon at least, they follow a business post-sale in many cases.

No, I am not a personal injury lawyer. And yes, workers compensation exclusive remedy provisions DO prevent employers from being sued for safety violations that cause injuries, subject to tag-out lock-out statutes and other exceptions. Workers compensation statutes do not prevent OSHA enforcement and penalty actions. When an employee is injured, and employer is looking at potentially higher WC premium rates and an OSHA penalty action, which are a PITA -- particularly Federal OSHA. OSHA also has penalty multipliers for recidivists.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:31:29 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:56:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > > I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
> > > > I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
> > > WC premium typically is based on classification and experience (classes of workers and injury magnitude/frequency), and I'm not aware of discounts for safety programs, except to the extent those programs reduce losses. https://www.saif.com/news/safety-pays-dividends.html In the olden days, WC insurers did routine safety inspections, but that' kind of faded away in the '80s.
> > >
> > > Serious employers want to avoid injuries to avoid corresponding increases in WC premium -- sometimes huge -- and to reduce OSHA liability. Some employers have incredibly robust safety programs -- practically Draconian. Gypo employers don't care and will be gone next week anyway. Go past any subdivision under construction and look at all the meth-crazed roofers running around without being tied-off. That sub will be gone next week and reemerge a week later as a different company, owned buy the guy's sister. Large unions police safety, often as a means of justifying more workers -- one to work and five to ensure safety.
> > I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer? If that is the case, why would you mention workman's compensation? That does NOT prevent businesses from being sued for any safety violations.
> One more time with emphasis: employers want to avoid worker injuries because they drive up the cost of workers compensation insurance. Like Andrew mentioned, experience ratings are coveted, and in Oregon at least, they follow a business post-sale in many cases.
>
> No, I am not a personal injury lawyer. And yes, workers compensation exclusive remedy provisions DO prevent employers from being sued for safety violations that cause injuries, subject to tag-out lock-out statutes and other exceptions. Workers compensation statutes do not prevent OSHA enforcement and penalty actions. When an employee is injured, and employer is looking at potentially higher WC premium rates and an OSHA penalty action, which are a PITA -- particularly Federal OSHA. OSHA also has penalty multipliers for recidivists.

How many states have the WC bar?