Your personal inconvenience is only one part of what I would use to judge "competence". The airline-hired companies had a lot more incentive to provide customer service, since that is where their bread was buttered. Effectiveness at detecting explosives or firearms would be a very important thing to measure.
No question that this happens with private companies. Back to the internet, look at the current state of telecommunications in places with a private telephone monopolies... Verizon in my area still only offers copper service. And while it generally "works", it hasn't had any updates since the 90s, yet the rates constantly go one direction - up.
I was just pointing out that handing the responsibility over to the government won't necessarily buy you anything. If they don't have the will to regulate a monopoly provider, they probably aren't going to be very responsive when they own the business. It's practically the same situation.
It depends on your community. Philadelphia owns their water and natural gas infrastructure, but over the years they have taken the profits to plug budget holes rather than reinvest in the infrastructure. The result is something of a crisis - the natural gas pipelines are borderline dangerous and their current capital plan would take 66 years to replace them.
On the other hand, out here in the 'burbs we have privately run water, electric, and gas. Only the sewer is run by the township. And guess which one was under-capitalized? Currently, nearly all development has stopped in the township while we wait up to 25 years for them to finish updating the sewer system. This is not a result of over-development - our suburb is very old and was almost fully developed in the 20s. This is a result of decades of neglect. I'm certain they would have let a communications infrastructure die slowly as well.
Yes, as I said the 10 year catchup time was ridiculous (and probably a ploy in part to make the Post Office look bad). But the law itself is "the right way" to do accounting, and is what has been required of private enterprise for 30 or 40 years. For most of the federal government, I'd say that you can get away with pay as you go - but the post office is shrinking and so their liabilities were going to get out of hand as their revenue declined. The military is in a similar position - most of it's budget will be for veteran benefits as the overall size declines. But veterans have a lot more pull than "former postal workers" politically. If pensions aren't well funded, then the workers will eventually get screwed. There is a special place in hell for union leadership and politicians (and in the old days, business leaders) who trick workers into believing that their future is secure with empty promises.
That is a gross distortion of what is being done, propagated by people with agendas. I suggest you read the actual language of what was required of them.
The pre-funding "misunderstanding" (I'll be generous) is a result of the requirement that the Post Office project future liability. While they are required to calculate it, they only have to pay for current and past employees. In short, they are using industry-standard actuarial tables, and these tables are based on 75-year timeframes. So yes, in raw mathematical terms the actuarial tables are based in part on the lifetimes of people who are not yet born - but that is a far cry from actually funding "future employees". They are simply using good accounting practices now, which is quite a shock to a government organization. When the dust settles, the employees and Post Office will be on far better financial footing.
Most private companies gave up pensions long ago because the government required them to be funded and it became clear how expensive they were. The government can still offer them because they are exempt from those rules and so the money is "free".
I've lost track of the federal rules, but historically the government gets away with a lot more than private industry when it comes to pensions. PA is currently in the middle of a crisis for raising pension promises and not payments. The Post Office is in trouble because congress had the audacity to ask them to actually pay for the benefits they were promising (albeit over a ridiculously short period). There are some high-profile examples of private pension failure, but recently (like, last 20 or 30 years) they were also generally paying insurance.
It was a lot of things to a lot of opportunists, but the main driver in the creation of the TSA was the fear after 9/11. This was an irrational response, since airport security did not "break down" and allow 9/11 to occur - box cutters were allowed on planes because it never occurred to anyone that someone would be able to hijack an airplane with a razor blade.
On the bright side we have another example of how expensive and incompetent the government is at doing a straightforward task. I'm not saying that the private sector would be more competent, but they sure would be cheaper.
Education is extremely well-funded in the US. We are, depending on how you measure, either #1 or #2 in the world. Funding is very uneven and the money is often not spent well. But you cannot say we don't fund education adequately. Reform is the answer, not more money.
Money is fungible, but the word "subsidy" does imply a flow of government to someone. Tax break is the proper term to use unless you are deliberately trying to mislead people. See also "corporate welfare".
In this case, the "subsidy" flows to anyone in the same position as Musk. It's not a special favor or anything evil - it's just the government staying hands-off on a certain industry in order to encourage growth and an attempt to stem the flow of jobs overseas.
I actually like the idea of abolishing corporate taxes to extend this benefit to all businesses, and to simplify the costs of doing business - no need for a big expensive accounting department. The loss of revenue can be more than made up by closing loopholes and writeoffs in the personal income tax, raising the capital gains rate, and abolishing "qualified" dividends. This would make the US even more attractive to multinationals, which would somewhat mitigate the loss of accounting jobs.
Those things are great - they sell a 3-gang "tandem" that gives you one 220 and two 110 breakers in 2 slots. Most of my 220 circuits are done this way... can make it more of a challenge when a breaker goes bad, but oh well. Last year my heater circuit went bad and so I had to poach from elsewhere in the house until the online order was delivered. None of the local electrical supply places had my odd combination of 220 and 110V 15 and 20 amp circuits.
If you haven't already, get some tandem breakers:)
My service was upgraded to 150, and I have natural gas. My panel is completely full, and that's with tandem breakers (and a sub-panel!). Very few singles left.
You probably already have 220 in your kitchen if you have an electric oven or range. Dryers, hot water heaters, HVAC compressors, and often electric baseboard heaters are also 220. I have at least half a dozen 220 circuits in my electrical panel. Not exotic at all.
To be fair, MS sort of decimated any other competition in the computer arena - almost got Apple, too. It's hard to not look innovative compared to MS. "Look, we made the Start Menu ROUND!"
Android similarly makes it very hard for the many manufacturers to differentiate themselves from the pack - they are all selling very similar devices. Few use anything custom inside, so competitors quickly emulate anything even remotely advantageous in the market.
And finally the ridiculous profit margin that Apple commands means that they can make their hardware $0.10 more expensive, but spend that handful of change in areas that the consumer will notice: slightly higher quality finishes or some purely decorative item. It makes their gear stand out.
I get that, but it is an emotional response and doesn't actually help the less fortunate. The Red Cross helps people in a very real and effective way, and in a way that is completely unique. You simply cannot find a low-overhead charity with their mission, outreach, or effectiveness. IMHO, judge charities on the good that they do, not how they get around to doing it. But it is your money.
Anyway, most charitable executives make substantially less than they would in a similarly-sized private organization. Yes, they are still making a lot of money - but they are "donating" whatever the difference in salary would be - which is likely quite substantial. The Red Cross took in $3 billion last year and has 30,000 employees who co-ordinate 500,000 volunteers. A similar-sized company (in revenue terms) is Analog Devices, but they only have 10,000 employees. Total executive compensation at the Red Cross is $4.5 million (that's from 2010). Analog Devices pays $17.7 million to it's executive team. The CEO alone makes $6 million - more than the entire Red Cross executive team. You want charity? How about working for $5.5 million less than the market would otherwise pay you?
And a lot that they did write. That's the beauty of open source - no need to reinvent the wheel, and returning your code means you don't have to maintain a fork.
So you'll reduce the effectiveness of your charity just to stay ideologically pure? That's your prerogative, but it seems at odds with the mission of helping.
Slashdot Mirror
Your personal inconvenience is only one part of what I would use to judge "competence". The airline-hired companies had a lot more incentive to provide customer service, since that is where their bread was buttered. Effectiveness at detecting explosives or firearms would be a very important thing to measure.
I don't think Storm Trooper blasters can actually hit anything, judging by the movies.
No question that this happens with private companies. Back to the internet, look at the current state of telecommunications in places with a private telephone monopolies... Verizon in my area still only offers copper service. And while it generally "works", it hasn't had any updates since the 90s, yet the rates constantly go one direction - up.
I was just pointing out that handing the responsibility over to the government won't necessarily buy you anything. If they don't have the will to regulate a monopoly provider, they probably aren't going to be very responsive when they own the business. It's practically the same situation.
It depends on your community. Philadelphia owns their water and natural gas infrastructure, but over the years they have taken the profits to plug budget holes rather than reinvest in the infrastructure. The result is something of a crisis - the natural gas pipelines are borderline dangerous and their current capital plan would take 66 years to replace them.
On the other hand, out here in the 'burbs we have privately run water, electric, and gas. Only the sewer is run by the township. And guess which one was under-capitalized? Currently, nearly all development has stopped in the township while we wait up to 25 years for them to finish updating the sewer system. This is not a result of over-development - our suburb is very old and was almost fully developed in the 20s. This is a result of decades of neglect. I'm certain they would have let a communications infrastructure die slowly as well.
Yes, as I said the 10 year catchup time was ridiculous (and probably a ploy in part to make the Post Office look bad). But the law itself is "the right way" to do accounting, and is what has been required of private enterprise for 30 or 40 years. For most of the federal government, I'd say that you can get away with pay as you go - but the post office is shrinking and so their liabilities were going to get out of hand as their revenue declined. The military is in a similar position - most of it's budget will be for veteran benefits as the overall size declines. But veterans have a lot more pull than "former postal workers" politically. If pensions aren't well funded, then the workers will eventually get screwed. There is a special place in hell for union leadership and politicians (and in the old days, business leaders) who trick workers into believing that their future is secure with empty promises.
That is a gross distortion of what is being done, propagated by people with agendas. I suggest you read the actual language of what was required of them.
The pre-funding "misunderstanding" (I'll be generous) is a result of the requirement that the Post Office project future liability. While they are required to calculate it, they only have to pay for current and past employees. In short, they are using industry-standard actuarial tables, and these tables are based on 75-year timeframes. So yes, in raw mathematical terms the actuarial tables are based in part on the lifetimes of people who are not yet born - but that is a far cry from actually funding "future employees". They are simply using good accounting practices now, which is quite a shock to a government organization. When the dust settles, the employees and Post Office will be on far better financial footing.
Most private companies gave up pensions long ago because the government required them to be funded and it became clear how expensive they were. The government can still offer them because they are exempt from those rules and so the money is "free".
I've lost track of the federal rules, but historically the government gets away with a lot more than private industry when it comes to pensions. PA is currently in the middle of a crisis for raising pension promises and not payments. The Post Office is in trouble because congress had the audacity to ask them to actually pay for the benefits they were promising (albeit over a ridiculously short period). There are some high-profile examples of private pension failure, but recently (like, last 20 or 30 years) they were also generally paying insurance.
According to Wikipedia, they employ 47,000 screeners. I don't know what those jobs you linked to are, but the first one is to a cargo company.
You'll need to back that assertion up. They are federal employees with federal benefits.
Until 30 years later when you realize you have to pay pensions...
It was a lot of things to a lot of opportunists, but the main driver in the creation of the TSA was the fear after 9/11. This was an irrational response, since airport security did not "break down" and allow 9/11 to occur - box cutters were allowed on planes because it never occurred to anyone that someone would be able to hijack an airplane with a razor blade.
On the bright side we have another example of how expensive and incompetent the government is at doing a straightforward task. I'm not saying that the private sector would be more competent, but they sure would be cheaper.
I'm hoping for all triangles.
Profits would still get taxed at their exit point. If companies start hoarding money, I'm sure we can think of a counter-incentive :)
10th would be pretty good - better than average. It certainly would not explain the chronic underperformance. The US government says we are only below Switzerland, Norway, and Austria by one measure and only behind the Swiss by another measure.
In any case, the meme of "Americans don't invest in education" is a faulty one. We just don't invest our dollars very well.
Education is extremely well-funded in the US. We are, depending on how you measure, either #1 or #2 in the world. Funding is very uneven and the money is often not spent well. But you cannot say we don't fund education adequately. Reform is the answer, not more money.
Money is fungible, but the word "subsidy" does imply a flow of government to someone. Tax break is the proper term to use unless you are deliberately trying to mislead people. See also "corporate welfare".
In this case, the "subsidy" flows to anyone in the same position as Musk. It's not a special favor or anything evil - it's just the government staying hands-off on a certain industry in order to encourage growth and an attempt to stem the flow of jobs overseas.
I actually like the idea of abolishing corporate taxes to extend this benefit to all businesses, and to simplify the costs of doing business - no need for a big expensive accounting department. The loss of revenue can be more than made up by closing loopholes and writeoffs in the personal income tax, raising the capital gains rate, and abolishing "qualified" dividends. This would make the US even more attractive to multinationals, which would somewhat mitigate the loss of accounting jobs.
Those things are great - they sell a 3-gang "tandem" that gives you one 220 and two 110 breakers in 2 slots. Most of my 220 circuits are done this way... can make it more of a challenge when a breaker goes bad, but oh well. Last year my heater circuit went bad and so I had to poach from elsewhere in the house until the online order was delivered. None of the local electrical supply places had my odd combination of 220 and 110V 15 and 20 amp circuits.
Here's an example of a "triplex" breaker.
If you haven't already, get some tandem breakers :)
My service was upgraded to 150, and I have natural gas. My panel is completely full, and that's with tandem breakers (and a sub-panel!). Very few singles left.
You probably already have 220 in your kitchen if you have an electric oven or range. Dryers, hot water heaters, HVAC compressors, and often electric baseboard heaters are also 220. I have at least half a dozen 220 circuits in my electrical panel. Not exotic at all.
To be fair, MS sort of decimated any other competition in the computer arena - almost got Apple, too. It's hard to not look innovative compared to MS. "Look, we made the Start Menu ROUND!"
Android similarly makes it very hard for the many manufacturers to differentiate themselves from the pack - they are all selling very similar devices. Few use anything custom inside, so competitors quickly emulate anything even remotely advantageous in the market.
And finally the ridiculous profit margin that Apple commands means that they can make their hardware $0.10 more expensive, but spend that handful of change in areas that the consumer will notice: slightly higher quality finishes or some purely decorative item. It makes their gear stand out.
We don't need them, but the people who use them haven't died yet.
There will always be a need for promoters - musicians will need to fill venues somehow.
I don't need windows - just gun ports.
I get that, but it is an emotional response and doesn't actually help the less fortunate. The Red Cross helps people in a very real and effective way, and in a way that is completely unique. You simply cannot find a low-overhead charity with their mission, outreach, or effectiveness. IMHO, judge charities on the good that they do, not how they get around to doing it. But it is your money.
Anyway, most charitable executives make substantially less than they would in a similarly-sized private organization. Yes, they are still making a lot of money - but they are "donating" whatever the difference in salary would be - which is likely quite substantial. The Red Cross took in $3 billion last year and has 30,000 employees who co-ordinate 500,000 volunteers. A similar-sized company (in revenue terms) is Analog Devices, but they only have 10,000 employees. Total executive compensation at the Red Cross is $4.5 million (that's from 2010). Analog Devices pays $17.7 million to it's executive team. The CEO alone makes $6 million - more than the entire Red Cross executive team. You want charity? How about working for $5.5 million less than the market would otherwise pay you?
And a lot that they did write. That's the beauty of open source - no need to reinvent the wheel, and returning your code means you don't have to maintain a fork.
So you'll reduce the effectiveness of your charity just to stay ideologically pure? That's your prerogative, but it seems at odds with the mission of helping.