Printable View
Wait a second. You're living off free solar. That can't be true. They tell us that these EVs are a way to control us, but you are almost living off-grid independence, just the opposite of what Joe says is happening. Oh, lord, how can that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by fixer68
AND HERE IS THE START OF SOCIALISM WHICH LEADS TO DICTATORSHIP (history has proven this process and failure numerous times) Any government that is big enough to give you handouts is also big enough to take it all back. You sure would think that in America we would have a vote where our money went (just maybe we would not have the giant deficit).Quote:
Originally Posted by fixer68
Joe
So Big Oil can get all the subsidies they want, but an honest taxpayer can't?
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/f...big-oil-FS.pdf
Every year, oil, gas, and coal companies harvest billions of dollars in Federal subsidies. Below
are 6 essential facts every taxpayer should know about these century-old giveaways to some
of today’s biggest, most lucrative, and most polluting industries—and why it’s long past time
to put a stop to them.
For more
information,
please
contact:
www.nrdc.org/policy
www.facebook.com/nrdc.org
www.twitter.com/nrdc
Subsidies Cost Taxpayers
Tens of Billions of Dollars
Every Single Year
Subsidies exclusive to oil and gas cost taxpayers
about $4 billion per year. Add to that the oil and gas portion
of broader deductions and loopholes and the total nearly
doubles. The exact cost will change from year to year along
with drilling activity. But it is clear that Big Oil is siphoning off
billions of dollars annually—and they’ve been at it for nearly
a century.
Oil Subsidies Are a Century Old
Subsidization of the fossil fuel industry started
nearly a century ago. Some subsidies, like the
deduction of Intangible Drilling Costs, were
originally put in place in 1916, when energy markets,
technology, and our understanding of fossil fuel’s impacts
were starkly different. Today, Big Oil continues to feed
off taxpayers despite being fully entrenched politically,
economically, and supported by a massive infrastructure
network.
Oil Subsidies are Permanent
Many subsidies for polluting oil and gas do not
expire. In contrast, and despite their benefits
to human health and the environment, clean
energy incentives must be actively renewed by Congress—
sometimes every year.
Oil Subsidies are an Out-of-Date
Corporate Entitlement
Big Oil and gas companies represent some of the
most mature technologies and most profitable
companies on the planet. Oil is a globally traded commodity.
Americans spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars
purchasing it every year. Companies like Exxon don’t need
taxpayer dollars to help gain a foothold in the marketplace.
Burning Fossil Fuels is the
Nation’s Largest Source of
Carbon Pollution
According to the Energy Information
Administration, oil is the economy’s largest source of carbon
pollution and is predicted to be so for the foreseeable future.
Americans should not be forced to permanently subsidize
companies that jeopardize the health of future generations
for decades to come.
Oil Prices Don’t Justify
Subsidizing Oil Production
In 2005, President Bush stated that “with $55 oil we
don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies
to explore.” Since then, crude prices have soared to roughly
$100 per barrel and are expected to climb steadily into the
future. It makes no sense to continue paying these companies
to drill when current and expected oil prices already provide
ample motivation.
Big Oil: Old, Rich, and Dirty
Six Essential Oil Subsidy Facts
NRDC fact sheet April 2014
FS:14-04-B
Stop Big Oil’s Corporate Entitlement Program
It’s time to stop forcing taxpayers to funnel billions of dollars to the largest, richest companies in
A subsidy is a possible government response to a market failure. Market failure is understood in economics. It's not a Marxist concept. You could argue that the market failure in this case is not real. You could also posit that this specific subsidy is not the most efficient response to the market failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
As stated, your position makes me think you and Cuda should study economics together, LOL.
I'm starting to feel there are too many people getting the free stuff, to understand or to question where its coming from. They will know when it starts coming unglued. (which it seems to be happening with the current powers to be)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
Again, no complaints from Joe about the "socialist" subsidies for big oil and farmers...hypocrisy at its finest.
Every cybertruck under a recall. What I find more interesting is only 3800 total have been sold. That's a whole lot of publicity given this truck for a measly 3800 units sold. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/19/tesl...ral-video.html
Here you go, Einstein,
Tesla is recalling all the Cybertrucks it has shipped to date because its accelerator pedal can get stuck, increasing the likelihood of a crash. The recall affects all 2024 model-year Tesla Cybertrucks, according to a notice the company filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (PDF)
Let us see if you have all brand-new equipment, brand-new employees from mechanics to assemblers to supervisors,
I started working for Miller Brewing Co. in February 1977, and everything was a brand new 14 million barrel-a-year brewery,
We used twice as many people to run a bottle line in the beginning to get the job done as we did two years later because everyone
knew what they were doing, and this was all common equipment not newly developed like the cybertruck.
Believe me I'm not a fan of the cybertruck, because it's another Musk LIE,
The only reason I gave an early deposit was his claim of over 500 miles range,
I'm all about range, the truck has 160 fewer miles than he promised,
Someone has opened up the cybertruck and they found the battery storage area only 1/2 full,
So he intentionally short-changed everyone, not me; I don't like bait and switch.
Ford did the same stupid thing, installed a small battery pack so no one is buying them,
GM is the ONLY company that has a brain so far, they come with over 400 mile range.
https://youtu.be/7lXS6_y-gjY
https://youtu.be/ipe5A4ZN3Gc?si=RFpukWxnWJwN_Rh3
j
Munro and Associates think the battery pack is only partially full so that if a rock dings the bottom, the battery cells are not damaged.
I am not about range. It’s very expensive in both $ and CO2 emissions. If you need range, buy an ICE or a hybrid.
Einstein huh? Well at least you are consistent. Be-little anyone that has an opposing point of view than you. Carry on.
The thing that stood out to me was the low volume of Cybertrucks sold to date.
I noticed the reason for the recall and also thought it minor, but some here think that Tesla’s never break. Not true and also one of my major concerns with the high tech EV’s. Around here, there is not enough good techs for ICE vehicles which have been around forever, that will be much worse with EV’s.
Consider me skeptical of GM’s claims. GM can’t get the pushrod V8’s right with all the lifter issues and they have been making V8’s since the 50’s. They will have to prove it before I believe it.
Let’s see Ford had “optimistic” range claims on the lightning. When it finally came out was a worthless for using as a truck. 80-120 miles loaded is not even close to being an option.
Rivian same range issues
Tesla same range issues. If Elon can’t get it done doubtful anyone will.
Several revisions to the current battery tech then maybe something practical will come out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
LOL When a snowflake runs out of legitimate things to say he starts crying about Socialism and Dictatorship. I got my solar system in 2018 before Trump told you to be outraged about it. 30% rebate then also. Biden just extended it.
They had a woman on the news somewhere, yesterday, who is getting $500 a month “guaranteed income” and saying how much she loved it!
So raise min wage for min wage jobs instead of people working harder/smarter like we all did.
Now we’ll give you some free money too!
Dont see this ending well.
Theyve done this test over and over and it never works.
Several yrs ago, a hard core socialist who owned a large, multi million dollar company did his own social experiment.
Studied what a good income should be, then applied to his entire work force.
The low level guys we’re now making double.
The top level guys now made 30% less.
As expected, the low level guys worked at same level they had while laughing all the way to the bank!
The top level guys who were busting their asses working 60 hr weeks said screw this and quit.
The company then went bankrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NICE PAIR
Is Gravity Payments the company that you are referring to? It’s still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments
“The company received media attention in 2015 when CEO Dan Price announced that his employees at the Seattle office would receive a minimum salary of $70,000.[3] In September 2019, Price issued an additional increase of $10,000 to all employees in the Boise office, with salaries increasing every year until 2023, when it would reach $70,000.[4] In August 2022, the company's minimum salary was $80,000 per year.[1]… In 2015 it had 91% employee retention rate (with industry average of 68%). Customer retention rate increased from 91% to 95% and company profits have doubled.[6]”
Corporate pay is an interesting topic. I’ve had a few different experiences. In the mid 1980’s, I was working for a car company with a bunch of other young engineers. We compared salaries and saw that essentially the company paid linearly for experience. Shortly after that, the company changed to a more merit-based system, and I did well. A few years later I was working for a tier 1 auto parts company. The company got a new CEO who was a Jack Welch disciple. They brought in a new system where if one got a good review, one got a bigger increase, and then received more frequent reviews. That was great for my pay. As an engineer, my merit-based pay experiences were great.
Once I moved into management, pay became trickier. I learned that if we were given a 3% budget, everyone in the staff knew it, and expected a minimum of 3%. If a manager tried merit-based increases, giving 4% to person A meant giving 2% to person B. No one was thrilled getting 1% more than average. 4%. Anyone who got 2% was livid.
At another employer, an outside consultant was brought in to assess everyone’s job and pay, and the company followed the recommendations. It resulted in a lot of the young bright engineers in my staff getting big increases. On the other hand, our admin was told she was overpaid for her duties. I suggested increased responsibilities she could take on to move up the pay scale, but she did not want more responsibility and thought the whole process unfair. The president correctly remarked that everyone but the incompetent thinks they are above average and the incompetent perceive themselves as average. Not that she was incompetent, far from it. But she wanted a raise, and objectively it was not justifiable.
At my last stop before retiring, my last experiences with pay were frustrating. My goal was always to pay the good employees what they were worth. The company’s unstated goal seemed to be to underpay and to replace the ones that quit with cheap new university grads. Grade levels were confidential. Even managers would not know what grade level their employees were or what the criteria was for promotion. My staff had wide variations in pay that did not correspond to performance, and I had no means to correct this.
Although I benefited greatly from merit pay, I can see the advantages of just paying people the same.
Sorry for the long post.
Nice Catch David...
Is it not amazing how they change everything about the story to fit their mindset?
Repeated pay increases resulted in "surprising" productivity jump from 30% to 40%, as did overall company profits. The company faced harsh criticism from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who said he hoped the company would become "a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail".[6]
In April 2015, Dan announced that over the next three years, the company would raise the pay of all employees to at least $70,000 per year, stating this was the minimum needed to secure them from financial hardship when hit by unexpected expenses.[9][10] Price, who previously paid himself a $1 million yearly salary, cut his own salary down to $70,000 to partially cover the increased pay for employees.[3][11] The change lost the company two long-standing employees due to the flat payment structure.[11][12] Price quoted Daniel Kahneman's research on salaries as inspiration.[6]
In October 2015, Dan was sued by Lucas over claims that Dan received excessive compensation and that he had been working against Lucas' interests.[13][14][15] Dan prevailed in the case in July 2016 and was awarded attorney's fees and other expenses incurred from the lawsuit.[16][17][18][19]
The company processed $3.4 billion in payments in 2014 and $10.2 billion in 2018.[17]
In 2015 it had 91% employee retention rate (with industry average of 68%). Customer retention rate increased from 91% to 95% and company profits have doubled.[6]
In 2020, the company was making $4 million per month in revenue but faced a drop of 55% in card processing fees as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The company said that employees proposed voluntary pay cuts to preserve employment,[20] although 10 employees later told The Seattle Times that employees were given a choice to take a pay cut or face layoffs, and those who opposed the pay cut felt ostracized.[21] As of August 2020, layoffs have been avoided and workers' salaries have been restored, with the company paying back the salaries lost from the pay cuts.[22]
Instigator does not have internet except for his phone, so was posting on memory of what was reported back in the day, and we are assuming that the same company is under discussion
My corporate career is over and I no longer go to meetings:). I am not sure I ever saw a good pay system, so paying everyone the same might not be the worst approach.