Lots of interesting news today

1-tonmudder said:
Republican lawmaker files bill to chemically castrate convicted sex offenders and make em pay for it.
Click to expand...
So apparently "chemical castration" doesn't mean what I thought it did.
"The bill defines chemical castration "treatment" as receiving medication that "reduces, inhibits or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person's body." "


This is an interesting approach:
"Castration would only occur, according to the legislation, if the person convicted were eligible for parole. Griffey included a provision that does allow those convicted to halt the chemical castration treatment.

The person may elect to stop receiving the treatment at any time and shall not be forced to receive the treatment; however, such refusal constitutes a violation of the person's parole and the person shall be immediately remanded to the custody of the department of correction for the remainder of the person's sentence," the bill states.
"
 
1-tonmudder said:
So is that better or worse than you were thinking??
Click to expand...
I figured it was burning testicles off with acid. Now I'm disappointed, and take back every time I've used the phrase "chemically castrated".
 
jeepinmatt said:
I figured it was burning testicles off with acid. Now I'm disappointed, and take back every time I've used the phrase "chemically castrated".
Click to expand...
If you're really interested to know more about what chemical castration actually is, and isn't, especially t, regarding long-term effects both on the patient and society., here's some relevant reading
Chemical Castration for Sexual Offenders: Physicians' Views
As always, its not as simple as one might think (hope).
 
jeepinmatt said:
It should be no surprise that there is pain when trying to break free of an addiction. Anyone who looks at this in terms of months or even a couple years is being rather shortsighted about the long term implications of bringing manufacturing development and resources back, and avoiding the massive unaccounted cost of low quality, cheap Chinese crap.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a long term thing, and it has been painful for some already. However, cost accounting 101 states you introduce a new expense the cost goes up. Getting cheap stuff from China was a short term game, but so is the outlook that bringing it all back will boost the economy long term. If I go from $5/day labor to $15/hr labor, the business can absorb that cost for a little while...but once the market understands how it's moving, it'll get passed through and/or shared elsewhere. That cheap $600 tv we all love, with $15/hr labor plus benefits becomes a hypothetical $1000. In the other trade war thread, I already showed with Nucor going unchecked without Chinese competition, they spiked steel prices 2-3 times during these tariffs...and since they're the 'leader' in the industry, everyone else did too. Those costs aren't recognized by the consumer in a few months or a couple years either, it gradually bleeds in to their lives. Then guess what, Ben still wants that $1000 tv because it's what he's used to, so I go talk to my boss about giving me a raise so I can afford the same quality of life, and the cost increases begin to spider web and bleed in to other sectors. It's the exact same argument as raising fast food workers to $15/hr. Sure it sounds good, until your McDouble goes from $1.99 to $6...or Suzy is replaced with a touch screen. Part 2 of this scenario is it's a thinly veiled attempt at 'bringing back jobs'...sure, in the short term while companies are scrambling to maintain production, they're bolstering their domestic head count...but if you don't think they have an eye on other attractive LCC's, I'd look again. Part 3 of this is, what's an acceptable trade ratio? How long will implementation take? Do we still care about proprietary trade secrets? Etc Etc. This entire charade is a pound-on-my-chest, stroke my ego, look at what I'm doing and who I'm standing up against to get re-elected, that I really don't think can be adopted as a sustainable course of action. Now, that being said, if we want to regain our independence through protectionism, that's a different discussion. As noted previously, I voted for him, I'll vote for him again. I think he's what the country's morale needed to swing the political pendulum, but I think the great negotiating businessman is solely operating for the short term, he doesn't care if we're buying $100,000 Kias 10-20 years from now because the steel and electronics are US $30/hr union plant sourced (all hypothetical again)...he just cares that he can say he brought that work back.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
If you're really interested to know more about what chemical castration actually is, and isn't, especially t, regarding long-term effects both on the patient and society., here's some relevant reading
Chemical Castration for Sexual Offenders: Physicians' Views
As always, its not as simple as one might think (hope).
Click to expand...

There is a pretty large tin foil hat society that would suggest the US gov't has been practicing strategic long term chemical castration on its entire populace.
Test levels declining, toxic masculinity, and the most recent evidence is the pressure exerted on China to ban the production of legal research chemicals that are used within the muscle building community...but I digress...

then we get into the shade of grey of the dude who pisses behind a dumpster at a bar and gets an indecent exposure charge and forced to register...and
 
UTfball68 said:
I agree this is a long term thing, and it has been painful for some already. However, cost accounting 101 states you introduce a new expense the cost goes up. Getting cheap stuff from China was a short term game, but so is the outlook that bringing it all back will boost the economy long term. If I go from $5/day labor to $15/hr labor, the business can absorb that cost for a little while...but once the market understands how it's moving, it'll get passed through and/or shared elsewhere. That cheap $600 tv we all love, with $15/hr labor plus benefits becomes a hypothetical $1000. In the other trade war thread, I already showed with Nucor going unchecked without Chinese competition, they spiked steel prices 2-3 times during these tariffs...and since they're the 'leader' in the industry, everyone else did too. Those costs aren't recognized by the consumer in a few months or a couple years either, it gradually bleeds in to their lives. Then guess what, Ben still wants that $1000 tv because it's what he's used to, so I go talk to my boss about giving me a raise so I can afford the same quality of life, and the cost increases begin to spider web and bleed in to other sectors. It's the exact same argument as raising fast food workers to $15/hr. Sure it sounds good, until your McDouble goes from $1.99 to $6...or Suzy is replaced with a touch screen. Part 2 of this scenario is it's a thinly veiled attempt at 'bringing back jobs'...sure, in the short term while companies are scrambling to maintain production, they're bolstering their domestic head count...but if you don't think they have an eye on other attractive LCC's, I'd look again. Part 3 of this is, what's an acceptable trade ratio? How long will implementation take? Do we still care about proprietary trade secrets? Etc Etc. This entire charade is a pound-on-my-chest, stroke my ego, look at what I'm doing and who I'm standing up against to get re-elected, that I really don't think can be adopted as a sustainable course of action. Now, that being said, if we want to regain our independence through protectionism, that's a different discussion. As noted previously, I voted for him, I'll vote for him again. I think he's what the country's morale needed to swing the political pendulum, but I think the great negotiating businessman is solely operating for the short term, he doesn't care if we're buying $100,000 Kias 10-20 years from now because the steel and electronics are US $30/hr union plant sourced (all hypothetical again)...he just cares that he can say he brought that work back.
Click to expand...


But if you listen to Joe Biden, coal workers could just "learn to code" and then they would have high paying jobs instead of mining coal. And of course, it a coal miner can just "learn to code", then surely the "do you want fries with that?" guy can easily "learn to code". And all the sudden we have a whole society of coders driving $100,000 Kias.
 
UTfball68 said:
I already showed with Nucor going unchecked without Chinese competition, they spiked steel prices 2-3 times during these tariffs...and since they're the 'leader' in the industry, everyone else did too.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... but steel is cheaper now than it was pre-tariff.....
 
ManglerYJ said:
But if you listen to Joe Biden, coal workers could just "learn to code" and then they would have high paying jobs instead of mining coal. And of course, it a coal miner can just "learn to code", then surely the "do you want fries with that?" guy can easily "learn to code". And all the sudden we have a whole society of coders driving $100,000 Kias.
Click to expand...
you ever tried bidding coding jobs, like on coderplanet or whatever... Ha, that's a joke. They have high expectations, short time frame.. and some one in India willing to do it for $50 for 20 hours of work. (Yes.. I was supposed to be an ECE. Then life got in the way. A quick search with misspelling my last name and the school I used to attend in Dartmouth, MA will tell you how involved I was in projects "above my academic level"... I'll keep my toolbox. I know nothing about computers or electronics)
 
Screenshot_20200107-163537.png

@CasterTroy
Armed robbery of NC cab driver sparks multi-county chase; ends in fatal shooting of suspect
 
UTfball68 said:
I agree this is a long term thing, and it has been painful for some already. However, cost accounting 101 states you introduce a new expense the cost goes up. Getting cheap stuff from China was a short term game, but so is the outlook that bringing it all back will boost the economy long term. If I go from $5/day labor to $15/hr labor, the business can absorb that cost for a little while...but once the market understands how it's moving, it'll get passed through and/or shared elsewhere. That cheap $600 tv we all love, with $15/hr labor plus benefits becomes a hypothetical $1000. In the other trade war thread, I already showed with Nucor going unchecked without Chinese competition, they spiked steel prices 2-3 times during these tariffs...and since they're the 'leader' in the industry, everyone else did too. Those costs aren't recognized by the consumer in a few months or a couple years either, it gradually bleeds in to their lives. Then guess what, Ben still wants that $1000 tv because it's what he's used to, so I go talk to my boss about giving me a raise so I can afford the same quality of life, and the cost increases begin to spider web and bleed in to other sectors. It's the exact same argument as raising fast food workers to $15/hr. Sure it sounds good, until your McDouble goes from $1.99 to $6...or Suzy is replaced with a touch screen. Part 2 of this scenario is it's a thinly veiled attempt at 'bringing back jobs'...sure, in the short term while companies are scrambling to maintain production, they're bolstering their domestic head count...but if you don't think they have an eye on other attractive LCC's, I'd look again. Part 3 of this is, what's an acceptable trade ratio? How long will implementation take? Do we still care about proprietary trade secrets? Etc Etc. This entire charade is a pound-on-my-chest, stroke my ego, look at what I'm doing and who I'm standing up against to get re-elected, that I really don't think can be adopted as a sustainable course of action. Now, that being said, if we want to regain our independence through protectionism, that's a different discussion. As noted previously, I voted for him, I'll vote for him again. I think he's what the country's morale needed to swing the political pendulum, but I think the great negotiating businessman is solely operating for the short term, he doesn't care if we're buying $100,000 Kias 10-20 years from now because the steel and electronics are US $30/hr union plant sourced (all hypothetical again)...he just cares that he can say he brought that work back.
Click to expand...
The flip side of some of that argument though, is there is 1 worker in the US doing the job compared to 10+ in the cheap labor rate, and the China product meets producer expectations 60% of the time upon arrival to the US.

Not saying this happens everywhere, but I have seen companies that are so invested in foreign countries that they won't move back, even when it costs them more to produce there.
 
paradisePWoffrd said:
The flip side of some of that argument though, is there is 1 worker in the US doing the job compared to 10+ in the cheap labor rate, and the China product meets producer expectations 60% of the time upon arrival to the US.

Not saying this happens everywhere, but I have seen companies that are so invested in foreign countries that they won't move back, even when it costs them more to produce there.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...one of the first things I do anywhere I go is open up for quotes and analyze manufacturing and distribution. Contrary to popular belief there is good Chinese/LCC quality out there. But I’ve absolutely been on the other side of LCC analyses where companies were literally seeing 50% defect rates and you’d have half a plant trying rework the failures. Some times it is still more cost effective though, but in my experience with those scenarios it’s usually been tied to someone’s bonus requiring ‘cost reduction’.
 
Back
Top