Update: Prince Aaron demands Packers fire GM

[Deus Irae]

LMFAO that you think Rodgers style of play can even last until 45 even if he wanted to which he doesn’t.

He's made it this far.


Rodgers isn't really a runner. He's a scrambler. And his big injuries have been upper body, other than his foot injury all the way back in 2006.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm not 100% sure the guy even likes football tbh.

I think he likes adulation more than he likes football.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think he likes adulation more than he likes football.

100% agree. He doesn't seem to LOVE football like say TB12. Hes good at it so he is ok making it his vocation and career

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I’m kind of confused why there is so much commercial construction going on in Boston with new high rises when existing ones sit empty and many companies are moving more and more to remote work. As you’re in the industry, who will be leasing these new buildings and what happens with the existing ones that sit vacant?

So many people want to live here believe it or not, it's unbelievable. That's where it all stems from. So a ton of our work are these pricey condos filling all the new bodies. All those have waiting list miles long from people wanting to live there, companies will buy floors for the staff-conventions, rich people wanting to stash their money and they'll never even step foot in them. I'm sure there are some empty but I couldn't speak to that or what happens. I don't worry about that too much. Honestly wouldn't know but I'm guessing there's not a lot are or enough that it's an issue.
I guess one example is Dalton St. I was there for two years. First 25-26 floors are a four seasons and the next 40 were Boston big shots like Herb Chambers, Ernie Bach, supposedly Cam Neely (). Chambers bought top two floors for like 80 million and that's literally - no joke a slab of concrete. It could have been a little less but the top floor went for 40 I know that. So guys like that pay for it off the bat. I talked to a doctor and lawyer that both bought two units for like 8 million each and they'll never stop foot in the other one they own. They'll wait to flip for an acceptable profit.
Little story along the same lines. John Fish, CEO for Suffolk which has like half the work in Boston. Wanted the building. It was a Moriarty job, they had their stuff and workers in the building lol, I'm sure some stuff had to have been signed bc again they had their stuff on site. Anyway Fish wanted the building bc it's arguably the tallest building in Boston or 2nd and he was also doing the Everett Casino. He really wanted to say he built both. Anyway he kept getting shut down and finally said Wtf is it going to take. Whoever really owned the building told him the job would be his if he bought unsold floors totalling around 60 million I believe. He cut the check and it was his job. A few months later supposedly he sold those floors for like 12 million profit. Who knows but that was the story going around about how he landed the job in the first place after not having it. Nice to be rich.

I mentioned the Casino, that was the biggest job in the country for almost 2 years. I believe they had over 1000 workers there everyday for almost 2 years working almost around the clock. So we'll do stuff like that.

I'm working at a hotel now, this is garage across the street. Big job a lot of guys, trades staying busy.

This is right down the street from me. We (laborers) do a ton of concrete/road work - sidewalks, run pipe, turnarounds. That whole square was dug up not too long ago.


We think and talk about the economy but we have a ton of work on the books and mythical projects in the works for years like Suffolk Downs finally starting later this year. Hopefully it's been like 10 years in the making. Former race track that'll be turned it a little city. 10000 people living there and 25000 workers. I'm sure some ******* politician could wipe away a lot with a pen but there's so much work out there. A lot of untouched stuff in different areas still.

Again it just goes back to the influx of people living, commuting and working in the area.

 

[Tony2046]

Not for long. Pretty soon, a number of jobs will be phased out in favor of automation.

Automation makes one person more productive, makes a company more competitive and is one of the key ways to compete with foreign cheap labor competitors.

So while I do agree that it phases out particular jobs it doesn't eliminate the workforce demand.

For example, right now, at the company I'm working at, we are adding automation to some of our departments that hand assemble certain products. No one is getting phased out rather retrained to operate the automation and additional QC test equipment. Same amount of people will be able to produce ten times more production.

 

[NormZauchin]

What happens to NFL players matters. Take Brady for example; his defeat in court during defamegate will have ramifications for what happens to employees across America, regardless of their wages. We may not perceive that highly paid NFL players are being abused by their employers because they make so much money, but in the eyes of the law, we all have the same protections because the relationship between those players and their owners is legally similar to the relationship many Americans have with their employers.

I am also sad that, given all the great content in this thread, I responded to a serious post...

My issue wasn't with protections that NFL players have under the law or that they have bargaining rights vis-a-vis owners. With regard to safety issues, particularly concussions, the NFLPA has done good work. I was responding to what for many years has been a characterization of professional athlete unions as representing labor. Millionaire athletes share few of the financial concerns of people who work in ordinary jobs for modest or low wages. A work stoppage in MLB or the NFL is hardly equivalent to the Homestead Strike. This doesn't mean I'm a partisan for club owners. I'm not. But I remain more sympathetic to the millions who are trying to keep a roof over their head and bread on the table.

 

[Deus Irae]

 

[Kontradiction]

Automation makes one person more productive, makes a company more competitive and is one of the key ways to compete with foreign cheap labor competitors.

So while I do agree that it phases out particular jobs it doesn't eliminate the workforce demand.

For example, right now, at the company I'm working at, we are adding automation to some of our departments that hand assemble certain products. No one is getting phased out rather retrained to operate the automation and additional QC test equipment. Same amount of people will be able to produce ten times more production.

I made the recommendation to the board last year to automate our solar farms because there was no feasible way to lower costs without doing so. Instead of laying off those engineers, we just reassigned most of them. I hope that’s the way it continues to go with all companies across the board, but I have some doubts.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Patriots (2002-present)
Jimmy Garoppolo (Round 2)
Jacoby Brissett (Round 3)
Ryan Mallett (Round 3)
Kevin O'Connell (Round 3)
Jarrett Stidham (Round 4)
Rohan Davey (Round 4)
Kliff Kingsbury (Round 6)
Matt Cassel (Round 7)
Zac Robinson (Round 7)
Danny Etling (Round 7)

Packers (2009-present)
Jordan Love (Round 1)
Brett Hundley (Round 5)
BJ Coleman (Round 7)

 

[Galeb]

Not for long. Pretty soon, a number of jobs will be phased out in favor of automation.

There will still be people working driving the decisions and doing the complex tasks... at least for a two or three decades. That said, I was speaking about now.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Patriots (2002-present)
Jimmy Garoppolo (Round 2)
Jacoby Brissett (Round 3)
Ryan Mallett (Round 3)
Kevin O'Connell (Round 3)
Jarrett Stidham (Round 4)
Rohan Davey (Round 4)
Kliff Kingsbury (Round 6)
Matt Cassel (Round 7)
Zac Robinson (Round 7)
Danny Etling (Round 7)

Packers (2009-present)
Jordan Love (Round 1)
Brett Hundley (Round 5)
BJ Coleman (Round 7)

WFC?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

WFC?

Not sure what that means? Who freaking cares? Wells Fargo Corporation?

I think it's relevant just to show the Patriots have spent at least as much draft capital on quarterbacks on a per-year average than the Packers. Jordan Love was picked in the late first round...big whoop. The Packers have probably avoided drafting QBs because a certain someone's vagina might become inflamed quickly. Meanwhile, the Patriots have spent just as much draft capital and Tom wasn't a mega ***** about the draft picks being used that way. And the Patriots benefitted from solid QB play when Tom got injured/suspended. The Packers were an absolute joke with scrubs coming in when Rodgers got hurt.

Just another But lOoK WhAt tHeY DiD To pOoR AaRoN cry fest that really isn't such a big deal.

 

[Nikolai]

My issue wasn't with protections that NFL players have under the law or that they have bargaining rights vis-a-vis owners. With regard to safety issues, particularly concussions, the NFLPA has done good work. I was responding to what for many years has been a characterization of professional athlete unions as representing labor. Millionaire athletes share few of the financial concerns of people who work in ordinary jobs for modest or low wages. A work stoppage in MLB or the NFL is hardly equivalent to the Homestead Strike. This doesn't mean I'm a partisan for club owners. I'm not. But I remain more sympathetic to the millions who are trying to keep a roof over their head and bread on the table.

Sure, I think most would, but they do represent labor in that, what happens to them has repercussions for workers with modest wages.

 

[Galeb]

Before proceeding, I would like to make clear that I am referring to large companies. Small businesses are a different animal, and we were a lot better off when they were the backbone of our economy.

It's also worth noting that I am not arguing with you in an attempt to change your mind. Even though you are the first to say that you'd be the first to say you were wrong, it would be a fools errand. I am putting this forward to combat the idea you're spreading as it is toxic and has already caused potentially irrevocable damage to our culture and the biosphere.

Regardless of the validity of your latest claim ", your original statement, "But the worker needs the job more than the company needs that worker.", has already been proven false by this reply, "Except that without workers, companies cease to exist. There are many who are self employed.". One would have to be pretty delusional to argue against such an obvious point.

Which brings us to this gem;

Companies bring everything except the labor to the equation.

All the ideas, innovations, intellectual property, policies, organizational optimizations etc. are developed by the workers. Pretty much the only thing provided by the company is the capital. I have met many who believe that "capital" is more important than the contribution of the workers, but everyone one of them was born on third base and thought they hit a triple. These are the same assholes who in "All Hands" Meetings that state things like "our employees are our greatest resource" a month before they lay off thousands.

Although it's unlikely to happen, I encourage you to actually try to understand the point that is being made rather than going through a regiment of mental acrobatics trying to justify your position and attack the other. As damaging as this pattern of behavior is, the skills required for such mental gymnastics that you so regularly exhibit in doing so is quite impressive. If you could ever focus those skills on seeing the universe for what it actually is, instead of trying to be "right", you could become a truly formidable person.

 

[Galeb]

Automation makes one person more productive, makes a company more competitive and is one of the key ways to compete with foreign cheap labor competitors.

So while I do agree that it phases out particular jobs it doesn't eliminate the workforce demand.

For example, right now, at the company I'm working at, we are adding automation to some of our departments that hand assemble certain products. No one is getting phased out rather retrained to operate the automation and additional QC test equipment. Same amount of people will be able to produce ten times more production.

Not yet. If we keep advancing at the current pace, as we approach an AI singularity, AI and robots will far exceed humans in every field and job. AIs will begin to write better AIs than people can, which in turn will write better AIs still.

Odds are, we'll start going down hill before that, but if we can maintain a similar rate of progress,, the singularity is probably within 40 years, perhaps much sooner.

 

[Galeb]

I made the recommendation to the board last year to automate our solar farms because there was no feasible way to lower costs without doing so. Instead of laying off those engineers, we just reassigned most of them. I hope that’s the way it continues to go with all companies across the board, but I have some doubts.

Here's a small snippet of a much longer conversation. Ben Goetzel gives some great insight on this topic.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It was more of a post directed towards Dooch than you.

Not sure what that means? Who freaking cares? Wells Fargo Corporation?

Who F******* Cares

I think it's relevant just to show the Patriots have spent at least as much draft capital on quarterbacks on a per-year average than the Packers. Jordan Love was picked in the late first round...big whoop. The Packers have probably avoided drafting QBs because a certain someone's vagina might become inflamed quickly. Meanwhile, the Patriots have spent just as much draft capital and Tom wasn't a mega ***** about the draft picks being used that way. And the Patriots benefitted from solid QB play when Tom got injured/suspended. The Packers were an absolute joke with scrubs coming in when Rodgers got hurt.

Just another But lOoK WhAt tHeY DiD To pOoR AaRoN cry fest that really isn't such a big deal.

No question AR had Ted Thompson by the sack.

 

[Ring 6]

Before proceeding, I would like to make clear that I am referring to large companies. Small businesses are a different animal, and we were a lot better off when they were the backbone of our economy.

It's also worth noting that I am not arguing with you in an attempt to change your mind. Even though you are the first to say that you'd be the first to say you were wrong, it would be a fools errand. I am putting this forward to combat the idea you're spreading as it is toxic and has already caused potentially irrevocable damage to our culture and the biosphere.

Regardless of the validity of your latest claim ", your original statement, "But the worker needs the job more than the company needs that worker.", has already been proven false by this reply, "Except that without workers, companies cease to exist. There are many who are self employed.". One would have to be pretty delusional to argue against such an obvious point.

[/QUOTE]
Everyone is not self employed.
Companies provide the means of production, employees provide the labor.
A company can replace a worker much more easily than a worker can find an equivalent job, but that aside a company can survive without one worker much longer and more readily than a worker can survive without a job.
Note that I said THAT worker not ANY worker.

Which brings us to this gem;



All the ideas, innovations, intellectual property, policies, organizational optimizations etc. are developed by the workers.

All of which are owned by the company.

Pretty much the only thing provided by the company is the capital.

Which is necessary for anything else to occur.

I have met many who believe that "capital" is more important than the contribution of the workers, but everyone one of them was born on third base and thought they hit a triple.

that depends upon how you define “more important”. And the workers are part of the company contributing what they contribute in return for a pay check.

These are the same assholes who in "All Hands" Meetings that state things like "our employees are our greatest resource" a month before they lay off thousands.

It appears you are looking at this from an emotional viewpoint. I am not I am talking about economics.

Although it's unlikely to happen, I encourage you to actually try to understand the point that is being made rather than going through a regiment of mental acrobatics trying to justify your position and attack the other. As damaging as this pattern of behavior is, the skills required for such mental gymnastics that you so regularly exhibit in doing so is quite impressive. If you could ever focus those skills on seeing the universe for what it actually is, instead of trying to be "right", you could become a truly formidable person.

Lol. There are no mental gymnastic involved in looking at the economics of the situation. You seem to be trying to argue about the value of a human vs the value of an organization which is not close to what I am saying.

Let me put it a different way.
If you have a pencil factory there is an entity that provides the factory and the raw materials. It also hires a staff to manage the process, improve the process, manage the cost, and sell the product.
The company, because it owns the means of production, and takes 100% of the risk, receives the profit or loss, while the employees receive a paycheck. That paycheck is a negoatiation between the value they add to the company, their value of their time, and what others would oat them.
Ultimately the company exists because an entity is willing to take the risk and supply the capital. Without that there are no jobs to have. People need jobs, and in order for them to have jobs they require someone to put up capital and take the risk.
If the company doesn’t exist the employee doesn’t have a job. If AN employee doesn’t want to work there, the company finds another, theoretically a lesser skilled one that they pay less and profits are reduced, yet the company persists.

I am not sure why “capital is more important than the contributions of workers” is offensive to you, because the capital purchases those contributions in the form of payroll. One of the most important functions of the company is to maximize the overall contributions of the employees it pays. A company and its employees are not enemies they are symbiotic. But the reality is that without capital the organization cannot exist and the jobs are dependent upon that.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ring 6]

Automation makes one person more productive, makes a company more competitive and is one of the key ways to compete with foreign cheap labor competitors.

So while I do agree that it phases out particular jobs it doesn't eliminate the workforce demand.

For example, right now, at the company I'm working at, we are adding automation to some of our departments that hand assemble certain products. No one is getting phased out rather retrained to operate the automation and additional QC test equipment. Same amount of people will be able to produce ten times more production.

But in most industries that would put a lot of people, the competition, out of work.

For example, if the demand for widgets is 1,000,000 per year and current automation (plus pool of workers,etc) says a company can produce 1000 of then with 20 workers, then there is room in the economy for 1000 widget producing companies and 20000 workers.
If you automate so that the same number of people can produce 10 times as more, now a company of 20 is producing 10,000. You haven’t created more demand so ultimately 900 of those 1000 companies and 18000 of those workers will end up eliminated.

Put another way if McDonald’s automates so that the same number of people can produce 10 times as many burgers, since they can’t sell 10 times as many burgers 90% of the staff will be eliminated. (Assuming they were already at the maximum of sales, a little less if somehow they attract more business because of automation, but since food consumed is a finite value, somewhere down the line the ability to produce more per person has to result in less people producing)

 

[Ring 6]

There will still be people working driving the decisions and doing the complex tasks... at least for a two or three decades. That said, I was speaking about now.

There is no value to a company to automate if it doesn’t reduce labor costs. They would be spending more money to produce their product (same labor cost plus additional automation cost).
Unless your are producing more, which just puts people out of work at your competitor.