OT: Union Pacific

[RealTucoSalamanca]

This, my friends, is the NCAA and it's member institutions.

Yet those same free market people on here will tell you that the athletes are getting plenty. Maybe the real issue is that Presidents, ADs, and coaches want to limit the earnings of some (athletes) so they (Presidents, ADs, and coaches) can make more.

Just when I think I'm out.

If you want student athletes to be employees, that's fine and I will be in full support. Pay the athletes a salary, tax it, charge them to attend school, make them pay rent, and for their books, have them pay for their food.

 

[TheBeav815]

This, my friends, is the NCAA and it's member institutions.

Yet those same free market people on here will tell you that the athletes are getting plenty. Maybe the real issue is that Presidents, ADs, and coaches want to limit the earnings of some (athletes) so they (Presidents, ADs, and coaches) can make more.

Well a lot of the problem with that notion is how do you come up with a fair compensation structure? First off you'd have to kill Title IX because only the rarest of womens' sports are profitable. So if you treat college athletics like a business, kiss ladies' anything goodbye immediately.

Next, say farewell to non-revenue sports like swimming, diving, gymnastics, track, field, volleyball, lacrosse...everything but football and basketball and a select few hockey teams.

After that, how do you pay Tanner Lee vs how you pay Kade Warner? One is the #1 reason to buy a Spring Game ticket. The other might play, maybe, someday.

 

[TheBeav815]

1. I imagine many people would view limiting income and increasing taxes as one and the same.
2. Of course.
3. And so we'll keep working to improve. In reality, it will never end.

On point 1, those are very different things. Setting a hard cap on income cuts everything off above a certain level. Moral thoughts on that aside, you cap the amount of tax revenue such a person could generate. With more high-end tax brackets, they're free to make as much as they want, but they incur diminishing returns for exorbitant salaries. So if they wanna chase money that's fine, they can generate more revenue.

People like to forget their history when it comes to wealth. There used to be much more in the way of "luxury tax." All that happened in that era was we built the most powerful nation in the world. So I don't think it's the poison pill people make it out to be.

 

[Enrozes]

Just when I think I'm out.

If you want student athletes to be employees, that's fine and I will be in full support. Pay the athletes a salary, tax it, charge them to attend school, make them pay rent, and for their books, have them pay for their food.

I agree. I imagine it might be a bit tricky to force them to be students as well when there are other employees who are not students. I would add "allow them to bargain collectively."

 

[SnohomishRed]

If it is not finite, why so much opposition to sharing it?



The Roman Empire created more wealth and raised the standard of living of its citizens more than any society that preceded it. Subsequent societies improved upon that further. We can always do better. This is the nature of progress.

Answer to first question - If you take a trip to yellowstone they tell you not to feed the bears why?? because if you do the bears come to rely on it and ultimately cannot fend for themselves - Humans are no different - pay someone not to work and guess what they will not work - give them things money shelter food and you take away self esteem that they need to then go out and provide for themselves - the givers sometimes hurt society worse than the takers

2nd question - The poor today is a relative term - they are much better off than at anytime in this nations history - they are much better off than the middle class in many developed nations - so yes it has improved dramatically

 

[Enrozes]

On point 1, those are very different things. Setting a hard cap on income cuts everything off above a certain level. Moral thoughts on that aside, you cap the amount of tax revenue such a person could generate. With more high-end tax brackets, they're free to make as much as they want, but they incur diminishing returns for exorbitant salaries. So if they wanna chase money that's fine, they can generate more revenue.

People like to forget their history when it comes to wealth. There used to be much more in the way of "luxury tax." All that happened in that era was we built the most powerful nation in the world. So I don't think it's the poison pill people make it out to be.

I agree, but I'm referring to the perception. All the time I hear people argue that if you tax higher earnings, people won't be incentivized to make more money.

 

[Enrozes]

Answer to first question - If you take a trip to yellowstone they tell you not to feed the bears why?? because if you do the bears come to rely on it and ultimately cannot fend for themselves - Humans are no different - pay someone not to work and guess what they will not work - give them things money shelter food and you take away self esteem that they need to then go out and provide for themselves - the givers sometimes hurt society worse than the takers

2nd question - The poor today is a relative term - they are much better off than at anytime in this nations history - they are much better off than the middle class in many developed nations - so yes it has improved dramatically

1. I'm not a wildlife expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't want people to feed bears because they don't want bears to associate people with food and seek them out. Humans will always want more. If you provide the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, health care) they will still be willing to work for funds for leisure, luxury items, prestige, etc).

2. Of course things have improved. I think we should strive to continue progressing at as fast a rate as possible.

 

[TheBeav815]

I agree, but I'm referring to the perception. All the time I hear people argue that if you tax higher earnings, people won't be incentivized to make more money.

I know of a Mr. W. Buffet who has said on record that's a bunch of BS.

That's the old paradox. "You can't give poor people more money, you'll make them lazy." "You have to give rich people more money or you'll make them lazy."

 

[TheBeav815]

1. I'm not a wildlife expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't want people to feed bears because they don't want bears to associate people with food and seek them out. Humans will always want more. If you provide the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, health care) they will still be willing to work for funds for leisure, luxury items, prestige, etc).

2. Of course things have improved. I think we should strive to continue progressing at as fast a rate as possible.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's more to do with how easy it is for a bear to kill you than it is about whether a hungry bear would try to figure out a way to eat if there were no people around.

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's more to do with how easy it is for a bear to kill you than it is about whether a hungry bear would try to figure out a way to eat if there were no people around.

Why don't they want you to feed the ducks or any other less dangerous animal. Still fear of a mauling?

 

[TheBeav815]

Why don't they want you to feed the ducks or any other less dangerous animal. Still fear of a mauling?

People feed stuff to the ducks they're not supposed to have and it's bad for them. Also they crap everywhere. Pigeons are the worst with that, I find.

When you think about it, lots of animals starve to death without anyone trying to feed them. The animal might live or it might not.

 

[TheBeav815]

Why don't they want you to feed the ducks or any other less dangerous animal. Still fear of a mauling?

wait wait wait I wanna change my answer:

 

[Toms Wife]

Well a lot of the problem with that notion is how do you come up with a fair compensation structure? First off you'd have to kill Title IX because only the rarest of womens' sports are profitable. So if you treat college athletics like a business, kiss ladies' anything goodbye immediately.

Next, say farewell to non-revenue sports like swimming, diving, gymnastics, track, field, volleyball, lacrosse...everything but football and basketball and a select few hockey teams.

After that, how do you pay Tanner Lee vs how you pay Kade Warner? One is the #1 reason to buy a Spring Game ticket. The other might play, maybe, someday.

I get that. But the free market warriors feel that controls on compensation aren't necessary and not only stifle the market but freedom as well. Yet, these controls are placed there by the NCAA for the good of many over the good of a few. So this begs the question:

Why is significantly limiting the free market OK in college sports, but the idea of limiting it for the good of many beyond the college years is seen as anathema by most conservatives?

P.S. I personally think we should limit college athletes to their current compensation. I would also say that the NCAA should limit coaches and AD salaries to a certain standard as well and those savings should then be passed along to coaches in other sports. If they want to make more money...go pro. The wealth ought to be shared throughout college athletics.

 

[SnohomishRed]

1. I'm not a wildlife expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't want people to feed bears because they don't want bears to associate people with food and seek them out. Humans will always want more. If you provide the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, health care) they will still be willing to work for funds for leisure, luxury items, prestige, etc).

2. Of course things have improved. I think we should strive to continue progressing at as fast a rate as possible.

1. Ok forget the bears - but do you really believe someone on section 8 with food stamps and free health care is busting their *** because they want to save for a trip to Hawaii - come on man - first they know if they make income the other benefits are cut - so yes they are now reliant and they are not saving for a new car

2. Agree everyone wants to hep people - it would be a wonderful world if there was no poverty - but communism is not the answer nor is socialism - that has been shown many times over to hurt people - ask Venezuela

 

[GretnaShawn]

1. Ok forget the bears - but do you really believe someone on section 8 with food stamps and free health care is busting their *** because they want to save for a trip to Hawaii - come on man - first they know if they make income the other benefits are cut - so yes they are now reliant and they are not saving for a new car

2. Agree everyone wants to hep people - it would be a wonderful world if there was no poverty - but communism is not the answer nor is socialism - that has been shown many times over to hurt people - ask Venezuela

But there is no income inequality in Venezuela.

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

I get that. But the free market warriors feel that controls on compensation isn't necessary and not only stifles the market but freedom as well. Yet, these controls are placed there by the NCAA for the good of many over the good of a few. So this begs the question:

Why is significantly limiting the free market OK in college sports, but the idea of limiting it for the good of many beyond the college years is seen as anathema by most conservatives?

P.S. I personally think we should limit college athletes to their current compensation. I would also say that the NCAA should limit coaches and AD salaries to a certain standard as well and those savings should then be passed along to coaches in other sports. If they want to make more money...go pro. The wealth ought to be shared throughout college athletics.

What controls and limitations are there over the size of a congregation?

 

[Toms Wife]

What controls and limitations are there over the size of a congregation?

Size of the congregation? None. Size of the pastor's compensation? The same rules generally apply to pastors and private business workers alike.

 

[Enrozes]

1. Ok forget the bears - but do you really believe someone on section 8 with food stamps and free health care is busting their *** because they want to save for a trip to Hawaii - come on man - first they know if they make income the other benefits are cut - so yes they are now reliant and they are not saving for a new car

2. Agree everyone wants to hep people - it would be a wonderful world if there was no poverty - but communism is not the answer nor is socialism - that has been shown many times over to hurt people - ask Venezuela

1. To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

2. I'm not advocating for communism or even socialism. I'm arguing for constraints and improvements to our current system to improve it incrementally until someone comes up with a revolutionary idea that lets us move beyond anything out there right now.

I am concerned that automation is pushing us toward a reality where we no longer have jobs for everyone. When robots are doing not only the grunt work, but also designing and servicing the other robots, we're going to have to do something to support all those people who can't find work. Not everyone can be a CEO (and the AIs will come for their jobs, too).

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

Size of the congregation? None. Size of the pastor's compensation? The same rules generally apply to pastors and private business workers alike.

So you would be cool if it was decided that Joel Osteen is too rich. We need to limit his earning potential. Is his $10 million home too much considering the number of people living in poverty. Is he disrespecting those people some how? Does he make significantly more than the employees at Lakewood? Shouldn't the wealth of the church be shared equally amongst the employees?

 

[Toms Wife]

As a matter of principle for Joel Osteen, yes, he is way too rich and a blot on those who carry the name pastor. Second, I have no problem with pay being based upon things like length of service and/or educational attainment and equalizing it for everyone in a church. I also have no problem with a progressive tax system that is much more progressive than the current one. Why not go back to the system of those in the greatest generation?

Finally, before you ask, "Yes, I do believe that churches should be taxed."

 

[SnohomishRed]

1. To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

2. I'm not advocating for communism or even socialism. I'm arguing for constraints and improvements to our current system to improve it incrementally until someone comes up with a revolutionary idea that lets us move beyond anything out there right now.

I am concerned that automation is pushing us toward a reality where we no longer have jobs for everyone. When robots are doing not only the grunt work, but also designing and servicing the other robots, we're going to have to do something to support all those people who can't find work. Not everyone can be a CEO (and the AIs will come for their jobs, too).

To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

This has been tried before - where was that ?? oh yes Russia - Those Russians were so drunk at work they could have cared less if they went on holiday somewhere - even if it had been allowed

 

[TheBeav815]

To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

This has been tried before - where was that ?? oh yes Russia - Those Russians were so drunk at work they could have cared less if they went on holiday somewhere - even if it had been allowed

This comment is so bad and ignores so many things about why Soviet-style communism isn't feasible (that have nothing to do with claiming with zero proof that Russians were all drunk at work ) that I don't know where to begin...

 

[Enrozes]

To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

This has been tried before - where was that ?? oh yes Russia - Those Russians were so drunk at work they could have cared less if they went on holiday somewhere - even if it had been allowed

I can tell you gave my idea a lot of thought before responding.

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

As a matter of principle for Joel Osteen, yes, he is way too rich and a blot on those who carry the name pastor. Second, I have no problem with pay being based upon things like length of service and/or educational attainment and equalizing it for everyone in a church. I also have no problem with a progressive tax system that is much more progressive than the current one. Why not go back to the system of those in the greatest generation?

Finally, before you ask, "Yes, I do believe that churches should be taxed."

What about things done outside the church. Like writing books or speaking engagements. Isn't the mission to spread the word? Personally I don't have a problem with Osteen. The leaders of the church I attend live closer to the means of the welfare recipient than the luxury that Osteen does. Anyway.

I am not in favor of limiting what anyone earns, pays for or works for as long as its legal. Simple as that.

 

[RealTucoSalamanca]

To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

This has been tried before - where was that ?? oh yes Russia - Those Russians were so drunk at work they could have cared less if they went on holiday somewhere - even if it had been allowed

So are we using the cost of shelter, food and water in Los Angeles or Boone, Iowa? Do you limit where a person can live in order to keep the stipend consistent? Will there be rules and enforcement in place that prevents me from working for cash to supplement my stipend without any further obligation? Who funds this base level stipend? Will the publicly funded healthcare resemble the Canadian model where the "state" determines what is considered a necessary procedure? Will we all get to go to Stanford or Harvard? Who determines who gets what education?

 

[TheBeav815]

So are we using the cost of shelter, food and water in Los Angeles or Boone, Iowa? Do you limit where a person can live in order to keep the stipend consistent? Will there be rules and enforcement in place that prevents me from working for cash to supplement my stipend without any further obligation? Who funds this base level stipend? Will the publicly funded healthcare resemble the Canadian model where the "state" determines what is considered a necessary procedure? Will we all get to go to Stanford or Harvard? Who determines who gets what education?

I don't know how I feel about the idea of Universal Basic Income. If it worked and cost less than the collection of current stuff, I guess I could be ok with that. But these questions are all valid.

As far as having education paid for, I'd consider it just fine to expand on the setup of having public and private universities. If you want an adequate dorm room and a solid education at a perfectly fine university, you can get it paid for. If you want suite-style dorms at a prestigious private school, shell out yourself. The arms race of college amenities needs to stop.

I don't know how you solve that other than to have people default en masse on their student loans and make the lenders not want to hand out $80,000 to people who have no jobs. Once the easy money stops flowing, the colleges will stop trying to spend it.

I see no problem with single-payer handling necessary procedures (and ones that save money over the cost of managing a chronic ailment) and the patient paying for elective procedures.

 

[Enrozes]

So are we using the cost of shelter, food and water in Los Angeles or Boone, Iowa? Do you limit where a person can live in order to keep the stipend consistent? Will there be rules and enforcement in place that prevents me from working for cash to supplement my stipend without any further obligation? Who funds this base level stipend? Will the publicly funded healthcare resemble the Canadian model where the "state" determines what is considered a necessary procedure? Will we all get to go to Stanford or Harvard? Who determines who gets what education?

All important questions and clarifications that would need to be hashed out. I won't pretend to know the best answers.

UBI strikes me as a system that, if implemented correctly, might appeal to conservatives over the current bloated mess of entitlements, means testing, accusations of fraud and gaming the system, etc. It rewards personal responsibility quite efficiently -- this is what you get, spend it wisely. If you want more, go work for it.

 

[HuskerO58]

I don't know how I feel about the idea of Universal Basic Income.

UBI will only work when robots are doing everything for mankind.

 

[Enrozes]

UBI will only work when robots are doing everything for mankind.

Go on. Because...

 

[TheBeav815]

UBI will only work when robots are doing everything for mankind.

We can hope. When trucking goes driverless it's gonna put a LOT of people out of work. You watch, somebody will lobby and get a law passed that you gotta pay a guy to sit in the truck while it drives itself. I'm not even joking.

 

[GretnaShawn]

We can hope. When trucking goes driverless it's gonna put a LOT of people out of work. You watch, somebody will lobby and get a law passed that you gotta pay a guy to sit in the truck while it drives itself. I'm not even joking.

The same thing was said about the tractor when everybody worked on a farm. The market will adapt.

 

[SnohomishRed]

I can tell you gave my idea a lot of thought before responding.

Look I would love everything to be free and the world filled with sunshine everyday but unfortunately I live in a real world where nothing is free - want to make food a public right - good luck on finding the funds. In fact your basic rights of food, shelter, health care and education would break this country. And dont bring up Norway as an example its small and has no correlation to the US
As far as drunk Russians - my information there comes from my mother - i - law who lived and worked under that system and yes there were lot of drunks - but the basic problem was people did not care. If it made no difference to your station in life how hard you worked why work hard

You seem to think the best of everyone - good for you I wish the world actually worked that way - its not all bad to be sure but not everyone is acting in the societies best interests

 

[SnohomishRed]

So are we using the cost of shelter, food and water in Los Angeles or Boone, Iowa? Do you limit where a person can live in order to keep the stipend consistent? Will there be rules and enforcement in place that prevents me from working for cash to supplement my stipend without any further obligation? Who funds this base level stipend? Will the publicly funded healthcare resemble the Canadian model where the "state" determines what is considered a necessary procedure? Will we all get to go to Stanford or Harvard? Who determines who gets what education?

The government does silly

 

[SnohomishRed]

We can hope. When trucking goes driverless it's gonna put a LOT of people out of work. You watch, somebody will lobby and get a law passed that you gotta pay a guy to sit in the truck while it drives itself. I'm not even joking.

May be insurance requires it otherwise who is at fault. but you guys do make good points about automation it will costs jobs but it should also cut cost so maybe deflation is the concern.

 

[TheBeav815]

May be insurance requires it otherwise who is at fault. but you guys do make good points about automation it will costs jobs but it should also cut cost so maybe deflation is the concern.

Who is at fault for all the accidents the AI won't get in? The company that uses it. If they wanna try to sue their AI vendor that's fine but if I'm the insurer I'll tell you 2 things:

1) I would LOVE to insure AI vehicles because they're exponentially safer drivers than humans
2) I would charge less to insure them because they'll basically be free money

I'm aware of one "at fault" crash of a a vehicle on autopilot and the Tesla was the only vehicle damaged when it collided with a construction barrier.

The one where the truck turned in front of the Tesla I would consider a failure of the AI to prevent the crash, but the truck was the one that broke the rules regarding right of way.

The Google cards have driven millions of miles and their only collisions have been when a human screwed up and hit their AI car.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan_rivals19671]

After that, how do you pay Tanner Lee vs how you pay Kade Warner? .

I FORGOT WE KURT'S SON ON OUR TEAM!!! We're going to be so awesome.

Seriously, we still talking about this? Season can't start fast enough!!!!

 

[Enrozes]

Look I would love everything to be free and the world filled with sunshine everyday but unfortunately I live in a real world where nothing is free - want to make food a public right - good luck on finding the funds. In fact your basic rights of food, shelter, health care and education would break this country. And dont bring up Norway as an example its small and has no correlation to the US
As far as drunk Russians - my information there comes from my mother - i - law who lived and worked under that system and yes there were lot of drunks - but the basic problem was people did not care. If it made no difference to your station in life how hard you worked why work hard

You seem to think the best of everyone - good for you I wish the world actually worked that way - its not all bad to be sure but not everyone is acting in the societies best interests

We're close to having food, shelter, education, and health care for all as it is. If our current welfare apparatus is as broken and inefficient as I hear, it stands to reason that a more efficient system would get us closer.

I don't think the best of all people, but I do think the best of this country. I think if Americans cared about creating a society where no one lacked for basic necessities, we could do it. It just has costs people aren't willing to pay.

I'm getting on the road back to Lincoln for the weekend now. Thanks to everyone for a polite exchange. Have a great weekend.

 

[GeorgeFlippin]

Meanwhile back in Omaha, the UP says it will cut 750 jobs. Just trying to get the thread "back on track." Pun intended. :Cool:

 

[oldjar07]

1. To avoid the paradox where people on "welfare" avoid increasing their income so they don't lose their support, I would divorce the safety net from income level. Everyone gets a stipend sufficient for shelter and food/water. Health care and education are publicly funded. Then you can scrap other forms of welfare (efficiency!) and even get rid of the minimum wage - employees won't be obligated to work to keep food on the table, so they can negotiate from a fairer standing.

2. I'm not advocating for communism or even socialism. I'm arguing for constraints and improvements to our current system to improve it incrementally until someone comes up with a revolutionary idea that lets us move beyond anything out there right now.

I am concerned that automation is pushing us toward a reality where we no longer have jobs for everyone. When robots are doing not only the grunt work, but also designing and servicing the other robots, we're going to have to do something to support all those people who can't find work. Not everyone can be a CEO (and the AIs will come for their jobs, too).

1. I do agree with the idea of implementing a basic income, and I think a basic income will even be necessary when automation starts replacing jobs at a rapid rate. Automation is going to replace the majority of current day jobs throughout the next couple decades, and unlike previous periods of history, there is going to be nothing productive for these replaced workers to do as automation will be better than them in every conceivable way. Some sort of basic income will be necessary, otherwise there will be massive unrest in society.

Although I do think it would be beneficial to implement a basic income in the present day, I don't think it would need to fully cover basic needs such as food and housing right away. I also think public funding of health care and education is a completely separate topic and isn't necessarily associated with basic income. If you wanted to implent basic income right away, I think the best way would be to partially cover everyone's needs, you could replace some other welfare policies but certainly not all.

I don't think wages have anything to do with welfare, including the minimum wage. Repealing minimum wage laws due to basic income doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[huskerfan1414]

When I read some of the thoughts on this thread I cant help but think our country is royally ******. Such ignorance out there.