Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,272
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Iceberg
    Newest Member
    Iceberg
    Joined

Met Summer Banter


HoarfrostHubb
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, PhineasC said:

I guess those of you with pools have been hit by this "chlorine shortage" deal? I have a saltwater pool but the chlorine generator died so I have to add chlorine myself until it can be fixed. Sheesh, had to go to different stores and then finally got the last box of tablets I could find and it was 90 bucks! I bought some regular household bleach last night to pour in just to clear it up as it was starting to turn green. But it takes many jugs of regular bleach to do the job.

First a lumber shortage and now a chlorine shortage? I wonder what random thing will suddenly be suffering from a scarcity problem next... perhaps waffles or vacuum cleaners?

I had to buy a new chlorine generator last year. Old one lasted 10 years. I have a big bucket of tabs from last year I use when the water is too cold beginning of the season for the generator to work. 
Regular chlorox will do the trick

 

My Hayward heater threw an IF code. Thing was running then just quit. Tried to restart and got the IF. Blower works. Need to check the igniter, see if I’m getting 24VAC to the gas valve while it’s trying to fire, then clean the flame sensor. I ordered a new board, igniter, and flame sensor. So unless it’s the gas valve itself or a pressure problem, I should have it covered. If none of that fixes it, it’s the valve or pressure. If that’s the case I’ll have to call the propane company and out a manometer on the intake and the manifold . 
I hate this crap. Just work dammit.

Since it quit in the middle of a run, and I can’t smell gas when it’s trying to go thru the light cycle, my guess is the board shyte the bed and closed the valve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Covid closures were the main culprit for supply chain disruptions 

Mostly, yes. Containers were being displaced all over the world as the shutdowns happened. Now with demand way up, supply is severely lagging because of how much we rely on Asian imports...there’s just not enough containers in the right places to keep the flow going. 
 

We typically import around 1500 containers/mo but could only book 400 in May and 700 in June (after paying a premium to secure an extra 300).  Shipping companies are trying to recoup their losses from last year and they have all the leverage…a 20ft container ran about $2500 pre pandemic for a Shanghai to Savannah route but it’s running around $10k now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Mostly, yes. Containers were being displaced all over the world as the shutdowns happened. Now with demand way up, supply is severely lagging because of how much we rely on Asian imports...there’s just not enough containers in the right places to keep the flow going. 
 

We typically import around 1500 containers/mo but could only book 400 in May and 700 in June (after paying a premium to secure an extra 300).  Shipping companies are trying to recoup their losses from last year and they have all the leverage…a 20ft container ran about $2500 pre pandemic for a Shanghai to Savannah route but it’s running around $10k now. 

I always figured this type of thing would be drive by some sort of fuel market disruption that made transport costs prohibitive. Never figured on actual containers being stranded in the wrong places being an issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mreaves said:

I always figured this type of thing would be drive by some sort of fuel market disruption that made transport costs prohibitive. Never figured on actual containers being stranded in the wrong places being an issue. 

I’ve never seen anything like this in my 20yrs in supply chain. Folks who have done this for 40yrs+ say the same. It sounds like a bizarre problem that should be easily solved…”just put the blocks back in their proper places.” But Unless demand slows down enough or empty containers can be magically teleported, it will take many months. We started seeing the problem back in Feb but it has really exasperated the past two months. It’s projected to continue thru the summer too and no one knows when it will ease up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

But that may mean CEOs and shareholders may actually have to make a little less millions and billions to make this change sustainable. 

Yeah, good luck with that.  zombie reaganites will fight tooth and nail to never let this happen.  after all, the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value (Friedman doctrine), and the sole objective of antitrust law is to minimize consumer prices (Robert Bork doctrine).  this toxic value system has been indoctrinated in our business schools since the 1980s and it's going to take a while to undo that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fujiwara79 said:

Yeah, good luck with that.  zombie reaganites will fight tooth and nail to never let this happen.  after all, the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value (Friedman doctrine), and the sole objective of antitrust law is to minimize consumer prices (Robert Bork doctrine).  this toxic value system has been indoctrinated in our business schools since the 1980s and it's going to take a while to undo that.

I am wondering why you guys keep pinning this entirely on the rich fat cats when there is an entire consumer side of the equation that demands extremely low prices for luxury goods and will have a fit if those prices go up?

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This whole ordeal was a dress rehearsal - a test, to see if RNA delivery systems can be used efficiently on live targets for the eventual d-day trigger event.  Population and resource procurement is an unattainable, unsustainable physical impossibility so...wipe out 97% of the population, leave the tech infrastructures and libraries in place.  

Boom, problem solved.  Enough pop density for a viable species health remains alive, and the wheel doesn't have to re-invented.  

Dude that is scary. I never heard of this theory before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fujiwara79 said:

not really.  over-reliance on "just in time" manufacturing is a much bigger reason.

Interestingly Toyota, which sort of invented the just in time model, learned from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that they shouldn’t rely too much on one supplier.  They stocked up on chips before Covid and are in good shape. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because when the rich fats have control, this happens:

More tepid growth in the income of middle-class households and the reduction in the share of households in the middle-income tier led to a steep fall in the share of U.S. aggregate income held by the middle class. From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.

These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me one of the main victims of any US potential findings of a Wuhan lab leak would be the US economy itself .
 

The US has outsourced nearly everything these days (so much of which to China ) from apple juice production to Salmon processing because the big corporate pigs found they could save a few dollars doing this . Any finger pointing and the necessary populist push (probably global) on sanctions for carelessness and a early cover up/ denial would no doubt give China a big reason to leverage their ability to cut off / disrupt the US economy severely by discontinuing many basic needs that are now outsourced To them .

I think think this maybe the can of worms that is one issue preventing  a genuine deeper Look  into a source of the pandemic that killed so many 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Because when the rich fats have control, this happens:

More tepid growth in the income of middle-class households and the reduction in the share of households in the middle-income tier led to a steep fall in the share of U.S. aggregate income held by the middle class. From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.

These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980.

I feel like more of you need to pull back from the economic numbers and spend some time studying historical information on people’s lifestyles, quality of life, and spending habits under various economic and political systems across time. The “poor” in this country today are very rich in a relative sense and have access to luxury goods that people in past generations never dreamed of. The basic “starter” home is enormous compared to what it was in the past. Home ownership itself is mostly a dream even in large parts of Europe. Are you and your comrades ready to go back to a time when all you might have would be a small govt-subsidized apartment and a bus token? If you implement crushing taxes on the producers and cut-off foreign trade that’s what will happen to most middle class and below Americans because that’s how most urban dwellers lived in the past and how most people still live today in Europe and Asia. A reset in standard of living might be a good thing, I just find most of the suburban socialists expect that they will still be living in a McMansion and buying a new car each year even after the socialist paradise is implemented. 

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I feel like more of you need to pull back from the economic numbers and spend some time studying historical information on people’s lifestyles, quality of life, and spending habits under various economic and political systems across time. The “poor” in this country today are very rich in a relative sense and have access to luxury goods that people in past generations never dreamed of. The basic “starter” home is enormous compared to what it was in the past. Home ownership itself is mostly a dream even in large parts of Europe. Are you and your comrades ready to go back to a time when all you might have would be a small govt-subsidized apartment and a bus token? If you implement crushing taxes on the producers and cut-off foreign trade that’s what will happen to most middle class and below Americans because that’s how most urban dwellers lived in the past and how most people still live today in Europe and Asia. A reset in standard of living might be a good thing, I just find most of the suburban socialists expect that they will still be living in a McMansion and buying a new car each year even after the socialist paradise is implemented. 

Lots of people in my town love socialist policies while living in $2 million homes. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I feel like more of you need to pull back from the economic numbers and spend some time studying historical information on people’s lifestyles, quality of life, and spending habits under various economic and political systems across time. The “poor” in this country today are very rich in a relative sense and have access to luxury goods that people in past generations never dreamed of. The basic “starter” home is enormous compared to what it was in the past. Home ownership itself is mostly a dream even in large parts of Europe. Are you and your comrades ready to go back to a time when all you might have would be a small govt-subsidized apartment and a bus token? If you implement crushing taxes on the producers and cut-off foreign trade that’s what will happen to most middle class and below Americans because that’s how most urban dwellers lived in the past and how most people still live today in Europe and Asia. A reset in standard of living might be a good thing, I just find most of the suburban socialists expect that they will still be living in a McMansion and buying a new car each year even after the socialist paradise is implemented. 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/prospect.org/api/amp/power/libertarian-delusion/

A third grotesque case of market failure is the income distribution. In the period between about 1935 and 1980, America became steadily more equal. This just happened to be the period of our most sustained economic growth. In that era, more than two-thirds of all the income gains were captured by the bottom 90 percent, and the bottom half actually gained income at a slightly higher rate than the top half. By contrast, in the period between 1997 and 2012, the top 10 percent captured more than 100 percent of all the income gains. The bottom 90 percent lost an average of nearly $3,000 per household. The reason for this drastic disjuncture is that in the earlier period, public policy anchored in a solid popular politics kept the market in check. Strong labor institutions made sure working families captured their share of productivity gains. Regulations limited monopolies. Government played a far more direct role in the economy via public investment, which in turn stimulated innovation. The financial part of the economy was well controlled. All of this meant more income for the middle and the bottom and less rapacity at the top.

Clearly, a more equal economy performed better than a more unequal one. Families with decent incomes could recycle that purchasing power back into the economy. Well-regulated financial institutions could do their job of supplying investment capital to the real economy rather than enriching their own executives with speculative schemes-ones that left the rest of the society to take the loss when the wise guys were long gone. In the case of labor, there was not a single, "accurate," market-determined wage for each job, but a wide range of possible wages and social bargains that would attract competent workers and steadily increase the economy's productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

I think the “leadership” of Baltimore is content to just let all legit businesses leave and continue to simply panhandle for handouts from the counties. The victim mentality is very deeply ingrained there now.  Basically all of the customers of these bars and restaurants live in the county now anyway so it’s time for these businesses to move. I bet the county executives would give them a really sweet deal to relocate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/prospect.org/api/amp/power/libertarian-delusion/

A third grotesque case of market failure is the income distribution. In the period between about 1935 and 1980, America became steadily more equal. This just happened to be the period of our most sustained economic growth. In that era, more than two-thirds of all the income gains were captured by the bottom 90 percent, and the bottom half actually gained income at a slightly higher rate than the top half. By contrast, in the period between 1997 and 2012, the top 10 percent captured more than 100 percent of all the income gains. The bottom 90 percent lost an average of nearly $3,000 per household. The reason for this drastic disjuncture is that in the earlier period, public policy anchored in a solid popular politics kept the market in check. Strong labor institutions made sure working families captured their share of productivity gains. Regulations limited monopolies. Government played a far more direct role in the economy via public investment, which in turn stimulated innovation. The financial part of the economy was well controlled. All of this meant more income for the middle and the bottom and less rapacity at the top.

Clearly, a more equal economy performed better than a more unequal one. Families with decent incomes could recycle that purchasing power back into the economy. Well-regulated financial institutions could do their job of supplying investment capital to the real economy rather than enriching their own executives with speculative schemes-ones that left the rest of the society to take the loss when the wise guys were long gone. In the case of labor, there was not a single, "accurate," market-determined wage for each job, but a wide range of possible wages and social bargains that would attract competent workers and steadily increase the economy's productivity.

There was a massive world war in the middle there that literally destroyed our global competition and the US became outrageously rich and powerful rebuilding Asia and Europe. The standard of living before the rise of the suburbs in the 1940s and 1950s was very different. Would seem foreign to you now. “Income equality” as you are envisioning it will mean everyone has less spending power due to higher prices and fewer goods, despite more money nominally being in the hands of the lower classes. Again, maybe not a bad thing but be prepared to stretch that used car several more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like this debate only exists because certain people just don’t have the balls to say they want to implement a system wherein the “means of production” are owned by the “people” and the “rich” are liquidated with the funds being transferred to the “people.” Why be afraid to just say what you want? The world of 1935-1980 isn’t coming back via tax increases. It existed under very different global conditions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

There was a massive world war in the middle there that literally destroyed our global competition and the US became outrageously rich and powerful rebuilding Asia and Europe. The standard of living before the rise of the suburbs in the 1940s and 1950s was very different. Would seem foreign to you now. “Income equality” as you are envisioning it will mean everyone has less spending power due to higher prices and fewer goods, despite more money nominally being in the hands of the lower classes. Again, maybe not a bad thing but be prepared to stretch that used car several more years.

And starting in 1935 during the great depression is like tracking global warming with "New Ice Age" 1970 as the starting point - only one way to go from there.  GW is real and adverse income distribution is real, but as Phin noted above, there were some (fortunately for humanity) unique factors included. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

And the offer from my employer for a raise this year was 1.3%. A 1.3% cost of living raise, and we haven’t had a raise of any kind in 2 years now 

It's possible they are being greedy. It's possible they are operating under very thin margins and just don't have the money. It's possible they consider you easily replaceable and are not worried that much about retaining you.

As a business owner, I can tell you that it's one of these three things. You have to decide if it's worth the risk to jump. There are a lot of jobs out there now. Employees have a lot of power. More than they think.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...