The decision was finalized and announced January 13th, 2017 for the rules through 2025. In other words, on the way out of town by the Obama Administration.
On February 21st, 2017, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing the 12 major automakers, sent a letter to the Trump Administration asking for the rules to be reversed, stating the decision was “the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects” and is “riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis and a failure to engage with contrary evidence.”
So sure, maybe in that last week of the Obama Administration some car companies "spent a fortune preparing" before asking for the rules to be repealed, but I doubt it.
You may have missed that it's only the electric vehicle manufacturers (who aren't really directly affected, they just don't get to handicap their competition further) who have come out against the repeal.
There's nothing legally in the way of any automaker who wants to meet the old targets instead.
Well, except for their customers who may want to purchase something other than what they'd otherwise be forced to buy.
But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.
For supposedly someone who RTFA, you don't have many facts at your command.
Here are the details. It's a joint resolution of Congress, AKA a proposed law. The CRA process requires it to be passed within 60 legislative days, so no waiting until after the next election. Also, anything passed by this Congress (including this) in the Senate would have to start completely over during the next Congress in January. Nothing is held over.
Plus, the House is very unlikely to even bring it up for a vote and the President isn't going to sign it. So it's already dead and this vote is merely symbolic.
they have to give up a 50% stake in their company if they move out
Right, 'cause that's going to pass muster at any level of our court system.
You know the Seattle City Council isn't an oligarchy, able to just do anything they want, right? It has to actually be legal and within their limited powers?
How about instead they just pass a law saying you personally need to take care of every homeless person in Seattle. Problem solved, and just as legally, with negative impacts to only one single person instead of all the people who benefit from and/or work for Amazon!
As long as they are building new ones, then yep, that will lead to more lower cost housing as well, because the people who move into those new places have to move out of their old places, freeing them up for others to live in, right down the line, affecting the whole housing market.
It's well established economically that taxes per employee, even if nominally supposed to be from the employer, actually cost the employee money, not the employer.
That said, most employers care about their employees needs and will notice that employees prefer to be paid a little more instead of working in downtown Seattle.
Sorry, but only 7% of prisoners are in private prisons in the United States. It's a minor part of the system and certainly not a major driver of crime nor incarceration rates.
Again, "paying 200 grand per job" wasn't one of the options. Being paid less taxes per job was what was passed. You're missing the point. No one is taking cash and paying the factory owners. The factory owners aren't having to pay as much in taxes for the first few years as they normally would.
The problem you're having is that you're reading news reports which purposefully try to confuse their readers by using false language to shade what was passed and make it sound like the State is giving the factory owners money. They aren't, they just aren't taking as much of a cut from the factory as they normally would over time.
Germany: Why wouldn't slavery under the Nazi's count? They ran the country at the time... Spain: The 1818 treaty banned the slave trade, not slavery. They didn't ratify the slavery convention until 1927. Portugal: Slavery wasn't abolished in all territories until 1869. Again, you seem to be confusing the slave trade with slavery. The United States banned the international "slave trade" in 1807. Italy: Ratified the 1926 Slavery Convention in 1954. Until then, Italian Somaliland (their colony) still allowed slavery. France: I missed. 1794 is right. Netherlands: So the same time as the emancipation proclamation and when slaves were freed in the United States. Russia: You're forgetting about the Soviet forced labor camps during WW II, among other things.
So you're 1/7 right. Does that mean you get a klaxon? It pays to know what you're talking about, before talking about it.
P.S. The UK had plenty of slaves, especially in colonies, but they also essentially were the first to lead the fight to abolish it around the world, including in their colonies and territories, so it seems churlish to try and get them on a technicality.
America didn't invent slavery, but it was the last western nation to make it illegal
You mean, besides Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Brazil, Italy, France, Netherlands, Russia, Germany, among others? Don't forget to include their full colonies and territorial possessions.
If the options are: 1. Build plant, hire workers, pay less taxes from plant itself for a few years (although others involved will pay more taxes) vs 2. Don't build plant in WI at all
Which one do you think results in more taxes to WI? The State isn't paying them for building the plant, they're giving them tax incentives (i.e. reducing their taxes) for building it in WI. There is a new tax benefit per job, not a "cost per job". You seem to be imagining the comparison point is if they built the plant with no tax incentives, which no one is contemplating happening. The alternative is no plant at all, not a plant with no break on their taxes.
I didn't say they hadn't been assessed. I said the articles (meaning the links in the summary) didn't quantify it.
Thanks for the quote, although it would have been more helpful if you'd also have provided a link to the article which contains the quote to get the full context.
So Wisconsin, where the plant actually is, was fine with it, to the point of cutting their taxes on revenue from the plant to encourage it to be built, but I guess since Illinois isn't going to see much revenue from it, they want to line up to stop it, instead?
(BTW, in case you wondered, like I did, Racine County ends about 6-8 miles from the Illinois border. The plant location itself is about 15 miles away.)
So still curious, I took a look at the WI site for air quality and Racine, as well as the County between it an Illinois, looks fine. Even if you go to the highest ozone level report, it's still maxing out at 47ppb. So it may have hit 70 at some point (Summer is usually worse), but it's probably not a frequent occurrence that it's up there. Certainly nothing to shut down a plant hiring 3k -13k workers over. I notice none of the articles attempt to quantify what, if any, difference the plant will make to ozone levels.
I guess mi technically asked you to tell him that, and you did.
But still, maybe read a little about Race and Justice in the U.S. before spouting off on it. For example:
New York City data suggests no bias of officers towards shooting black suspects compared with their representation among dangerous police encounters, and if anything the reverse effect.... There is no support for the contention that white officers are more likely than officers of other races to shoot black suspects.
Compared to most countries, America is a paradise of opportunity, welcomes immigrants and foreign workers, and has non-existent issues with racism, sexism, historical inequities, etc... You probably also think Americans invented slavery...
Of the roughly 3,500 ads published this week, more than half — about 1,950 — made express references to race. Those accounted for 25 million ad impressions — a measure of how many times the spot was pulled from a server for transmission to a device.
At least 25% of the ads centered on issues involving crime and policing, often with a racial connotation. Separate ads, launched simultaneously, would stoke suspicion about how police treat black people in one ad, while another encouraged support for pro-police groups.
Only about 100 of the ads overtly mentioned support for Donald Trump or opposition to Hillary Clinton. A few dozen referenced questions about the U.S. election process and voting integrity, while a handful mentioned other candidates like Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush.
Appears to be way more related to racism vs. police than it does to influencing votes directly for/against politicians.
Can you be more specific? i.e. actual union names?
My experience with teaching unions is that they are among the most militant. Where I live, in the last couple of weeks they had a 5 day strike at the end of the school year breaking their contract terms because the legislature hadn't yet gotten to voting on what the governor promised them in terms of a future pay raise.
My experience with nursing unions is that they spend a lot of effort co-opting other groups, like home health care workers, attempting to force their employers to become union-only shops.
I'm not as familiar with engineering unions, but here's the first Google result I found, which doesn't sound very promising...
There isn't even any evidence here that the goal of these ads was to influence voting, elections or politics. The ads were all over the place, basically promoting anything which might have gotten a response from someone, including lots of contradictory things like rallies for opposing candidates and causes. Examples from the article: "pushing arguments for and against immigration, LGBT issues and gun rights". It wasn't exactly just politics, either. For example, there were Pro-Beyoncé vs. Anti-Beyoncé ads as well. (Same article, but the longer version.)
They ads didn't stop with the election, meaning they obviously weren't just an attempt to influence votes.
This was an operation (lost in the noise of politics as usual) trying to stir up likes and shares, most likely with a spam/profit motive in the long run, not an ideological motive. Again, from the article: "They sought to hook American voters into clicking “Like” or following Russia-created Facebook profiles and pages, which published organic content, like status updates, videos and other posts, which would later appear in users’ News Feeds."
So yeah, utility solar is about 3.36 time as efficient as residential solar. These costs include land costs or lack of land costs for both situations. Also, CA has vast expanses of cheap open desert currently not used at all and suitable for utility solar (I was a teenager living in the CA desert, very familiar with the area). You can even put them in a neighboring state and pipe the energy into the State if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
The decision was finalized and announced January 13th, 2017 for the rules through 2025. In other words, on the way out of town by the Obama Administration.
On February 21st, 2017, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing the 12 major automakers, sent a letter to the Trump Administration asking for the rules to be reversed, stating the decision was “the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects” and is “riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis and a failure to engage with contrary evidence.”
So sure, maybe in that last week of the Obama Administration some car companies "spent a fortune preparing" before asking for the rules to be repealed, but I doubt it.
You may have missed that it's only the electric vehicle manufacturers (who aren't really directly affected, they just don't get to handicap their competition further) who have come out against the repeal.
There's nothing legally in the way of any automaker who wants to meet the old targets instead.
Well, except for their customers who may want to purchase something other than what they'd otherwise be forced to buy.
But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.
A more cynical version would be:
For supposedly someone who RTFA, you don't have many facts at your command.
Here are the details. It's a joint resolution of Congress, AKA a proposed law. The CRA process requires it to be passed within 60 legislative days, so no waiting until after the next election. Also, anything passed by this Congress (including this) in the Senate would have to start completely over during the next Congress in January. Nothing is held over.
Plus, the House is very unlikely to even bring it up for a vote and the President isn't going to sign it. So it's already dead and this vote is merely symbolic.
"Seattle is nudging Amazon by taking more and more."
There, fixed that for you...
Right, 'cause that's going to pass muster at any level of our court system.
You know the Seattle City Council isn't an oligarchy, able to just do anything they want, right? It has to actually be legal and within their limited powers?
How about instead they just pass a law saying you personally need to take care of every homeless person in Seattle. Problem solved, and just as legally, with negative impacts to only one single person instead of all the people who benefit from and/or work for Amazon!
As long as they are building new ones, then yep, that will lead to more lower cost housing as well, because the people who move into those new places have to move out of their old places, freeing them up for others to live in, right down the line, affecting the whole housing market.
Now read up on employment tax incidence.
It's well established economically that taxes per employee, even if nominally supposed to be from the employer, actually cost the employee money, not the employer.
That said, most employers care about their employees needs and will notice that employees prefer to be paid a little more instead of working in downtown Seattle.
Yeah, Amazon will never leave. Why, if they were planning that, first they'd have to figure out how to open up a second headquarters somewhere more conducive, right? They'd never even consider that!
Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.
A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.
Sorry, but only 7% of prisoners are in private prisons in the United States. It's a minor part of the system and certainly not a major driver of crime nor incarceration rates.
The war on drugs, on the other hand....
Again, "paying 200 grand per job" wasn't one of the options. Being paid less taxes per job was what was passed. You're missing the point. No one is taking cash and paying the factory owners. The factory owners aren't having to pay as much in taxes for the first few years as they normally would.
The problem you're having is that you're reading news reports which purposefully try to confuse their readers by using false language to shade what was passed and make it sound like the State is giving the factory owners money. They aren't, they just aren't taking as much of a cut from the factory as they normally would over time.
You obviously didn't read the link, because all the conclusions are based on and cite academic studies, official statistics and academic meta-studies.
So stop arguing out of your ass and do a little research.
Germany: Why wouldn't slavery under the Nazi's count? They ran the country at the time...
Spain: The 1818 treaty banned the slave trade, not slavery. They didn't ratify the slavery convention until 1927.
Portugal: Slavery wasn't abolished in all territories until 1869. Again, you seem to be confusing the slave trade with slavery. The United States banned the international "slave trade" in 1807.
Italy: Ratified the 1926 Slavery Convention in 1954. Until then, Italian Somaliland (their colony) still allowed slavery.
France: I missed. 1794 is right.
Netherlands: So the same time as the emancipation proclamation and when slaves were freed in the United States.
Russia: You're forgetting about the Soviet forced labor camps during WW II, among other things.
So you're 1/7 right. Does that mean you get a klaxon? It pays to know what you're talking about, before talking about it.
P.S. The UK had plenty of slaves, especially in colonies, but they also essentially were the first to lead the fight to abolish it around the world, including in their colonies and territories, so it seems churlish to try and get them on a technicality.
You mean, besides Spain, Portugal, Cuba, Brazil, Italy, France, Netherlands, Russia, Germany, among others? Don't forget to include their full colonies and territorial possessions.
Your comment makes no sense.
If the options are:
1. Build plant, hire workers, pay less taxes from plant itself for a few years (although others involved will pay more taxes)
vs
2. Don't build plant in WI at all
Which one do you think results in more taxes to WI? The State isn't paying them for building the plant, they're giving them tax incentives (i.e. reducing their taxes) for building it in WI. There is a new tax benefit per job, not a "cost per job". You seem to be imagining the comparison point is if they built the plant with no tax incentives, which no one is contemplating happening. The alternative is no plant at all, not a plant with no break on their taxes.
I didn't say they hadn't been assessed. I said the articles (meaning the links in the summary) didn't quantify it.
Thanks for the quote, although it would have been more helpful if you'd also have provided a link to the article which contains the quote to get the full context.
So Wisconsin, where the plant actually is, was fine with it, to the point of cutting their taxes on revenue from the plant to encourage it to be built, but I guess since Illinois isn't going to see much revenue from it, they want to line up to stop it, instead?
(BTW, in case you wondered, like I did, Racine County ends about 6-8 miles from the Illinois border. The plant location itself is about 15 miles away.)
So still curious, I took a look at the WI site for air quality and Racine, as well as the County between it an Illinois, looks fine. Even if you go to the highest ozone level report, it's still maxing out at 47ppb. So it may have hit 70 at some point (Summer is usually worse), but it's probably not a frequent occurrence that it's up there. Certainly nothing to shut down a plant hiring 3k -13k workers over. I notice none of the articles attempt to quantify what, if any, difference the plant will make to ozone levels.
I guess mi technically asked you to tell him that, and you did.
But still, maybe read a little about Race and Justice in the U.S. before spouting off on it. For example:
Compared to most countries, America is a paradise of opportunity, welcomes immigrants and foreign workers, and has non-existent issues with racism, sexism, historical inequities, etc... You probably also think Americans invented slavery...
Here's a better breakdown of the ad contents:
Appears to be way more related to racism vs. police than it does to influencing votes directly for/against politicians.
Can you be more specific? i.e. actual union names?
My experience with teaching unions is that they are among the most militant. Where I live, in the last couple of weeks they had a 5 day strike at the end of the school year breaking their contract terms because the legislature hadn't yet gotten to voting on what the governor promised them in terms of a future pay raise.
My experience with nursing unions is that they spend a lot of effort co-opting other groups, like home health care workers, attempting to force their employers to become union-only shops.
I'm not as familiar with engineering unions, but here's the first Google result I found, which doesn't sound very promising...
And from your analysis, which was the point of the post-election advertisements? Pump up Trump voters and suppress Hillary voters?
So, you're saying the actual contents of the ads, as released by Congress, are not accurate? Because that's what it's based on....
There isn't even any evidence here that the goal of these ads was to influence voting, elections or politics. The ads were all over the place, basically promoting anything which might have gotten a response from someone, including lots of contradictory things like rallies for opposing candidates and causes. Examples from the article: "pushing arguments for and against immigration, LGBT issues and gun rights". It wasn't exactly just politics, either. For example, there were Pro-Beyoncé vs. Anti-Beyoncé ads as well. (Same article, but the longer version.)
They ads didn't stop with the election, meaning they obviously weren't just an attempt to influence votes.
This was an operation (lost in the noise of politics as usual) trying to stir up likes and shares, most likely with a spam/profit motive in the long run, not an ideological motive. Again, from the article: "They sought to hook American voters into clicking “Like” or following Russia-created Facebook profiles and pages, which published organic content, like status updates, videos and other posts, which would later appear in users’ News Feeds."
Considering I originally cited economists on the issue explicitly backing the view up, you'd think you might recognize that the numbers have been run.
Quick googling....
Cost of rooftop solar according to a biased supporter of it: $3.36/watt
Cost of utility solar from an industry magazine: $1/watt
So yeah, utility solar is about 3.36 time as efficient as residential solar. These costs include land costs or lack of land costs for both situations. Also, CA has vast expanses of cheap open desert currently not used at all and suitable for utility solar (I was a teenager living in the CA desert, very familiar with the area). You can even put them in a neighboring state and pipe the energy into the State if you want.