Update: Prince Aaron demands Packers fire GM

[Bill Lee]

He's not stupid. Some of the mental acrobatics he performs in defending his positions are genuinely impressive.

That's pretty much the difference between an idiot and an idiot savant.

His super power is twisting things around so he can always make himself feel he's always right, driven by his insatiable need for self-validation as described so precisely by Tunez above.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He's not stupid. Some of the mental acrobatics he performs in defending his positions are genuinely impressive.

Andy is absolutely not stupid.

Sometimes he posts things that are informative (example: % the team is in nickel/dime defense).

Sometimes he just needs to step away from the keyboard.

 

[lancerman]

I don't see anyone named Andy posting in this thread though?

 

[Deus Irae]

At first I thought "wow Aaron Rodgers is acting like a dbag" but as I thought about it is it that different than Brady in 2018-2019?

He didn't like the state of the team around him and wanted a contract extension. Didn't get the extension and was unhappy and negotiated the ability to not be franchised. Brady acted miserable all 2019, also skipped OTAs. We know now that wasn't about "family time" as he attended OTAs in Tampa the following year.

This isn't to attack Brady. Just saying it's hard to say "Brady was right to demand out" while criticizing Rodgers for essentially doing the same thing. Just more publicly.

Only difference is Patriots granted Brady his desire and didn't have leverage in terms of a contract. Also not sure if brady's personality would've made this public.

I will say though Rodgers texting wood be free agents not to sign with the Packers is bad. If this is about you not being happy with the team not getting you help. Why turn guys away?

 

[Deus Irae]

...Replacing “Rodgers vs Mahomes” is “Jackson vs Mahomes,” a reference to the Chiefs-Ravens game set for 2021, which will pit 2019 MVP Lamar Jackson against 2018 MVP Patrick Mahomes.


It’s an unofficial acknowledgement by the NFL of the uncertainty as to the question of whether 2020 MVP Aaron Rodgers actually will be playing for the Packers in 2021...

NFL removes "Rodgers vs Mahomes" from schedule release commercial - ProFootballTalk

 

[VectorPrime]

How many more times will Mahomes have to beat Jackson for people to stop pretending there’s a rivalry

 

[Pats1971]

At first I thought "wow Aaron Rodgers is acting like a dbag" but as I thought about it is it that different than Brady in 2018-2019?

He didn't like the state of the team around him and wanted a contract extension. Didn't get the extension and was unhappy and negotiated the ability to not be franchised. Brady acted miserable all 2019, also skipped OTAs. We know now that wasn't about "family time" as he attended OTAs in Tampa the following year.

This isn't to attack Brady. Just saying it's hard to say "Brady was right to demand out" while criticizing Rodgers for essentially doing the same thing. Just more publicly.

Only difference is Patriots granted Brady his desire and didn't have leverage in terms of a contract. Also not sure if brady's personality would've made this public.

I will say though Rodgers texting wood be free agents not to sign with the Packers is bad. If this is about you not being happy with the team not getting you help. Why turn guys away?

Ok first. Brady never voiced displeasure to the media. Brady never said he would not come back while under contract. Brady never tried to get traded, Brady never asked for anyone to be fired, Brady never threw anyone under the bus. Rodgers is blaming everything but himself for his lack of success is completely different than anything Brady and in fact is probably the opposite. Brady always cared about team first. Rodgers cares about Rodgers first. When did Brady demand out exactly? When was this? Brady came to the end of his contract, and left. Rodgers never had a coach that had reports they wanted to trade him. Bill did what was best for the team, Brady agreed his whole career. Rodgers wants what is best for him. Rodgers is top 3 paid most of his career. Brady not so much, and Brady is the one that wanted that so it could help the team. Rodgers would take top dollar and then cry about the defense.

 

[Ring 6]

If that's true, then game theory is just a buzz word and has nothing to do with economic theory.

Not what I said but I find it comical that you think you are lecturing basic economics to someone with an economics degree. You are out of your depth and acting like you are an expert in something you don’t have a very good understanding of.
This place is something else. The other guy is arguing that when people are replaced by automaton no one loses their job and you can just keep making more product than people are willing to buy, and the 2 of you are arguing with the arrogance of someone who knows what they are taking about.

 

[Tony2046]

Not what I said but I find it comical that you think you are lecturing basic economics to someone with an economics degree. You are out of your depth and acting like you are an expert in something you don’t have a very good understanding of.
This place is something else. The other guy is arguing that when people are replaced by automaton no one loses their job and you can just keep making more product than people are willing to buy, and the 2 of you are arguing with the arrogance of someone who knows what they are taking about.

Wrong again. You should DeVry and your money back.

 

[Galeb]

Not what I said but I find it comical that you think you are lecturing basic economics to someone with an economics degree. You are out of your depth and acting like you are an expert in something you don’t have a very good understanding of.
This place is something else. The other guy is arguing that when people are replaced by automaton no one loses their job and you can just keep making more product than people are willing to buy, and the 2 of you are arguing with the arrogance of someone who knows what they are taking about.

I am no expert, but I don't believe you have a degree in economics. Maybe a CPA or somesuch, but, definitely not economics. Not only would you have called out your degree sooner, but you fail to grasp even the basics of modern economics. If you did, you would never have called game theory a buzzword. You also equated population growth to consumption growth as a direct correlaion. I would have called you out on that, but it was in your conversation with another who was trouncing you.

One of the basic realities of today's economics is that populations around the globe, although growing, are aging dramatically. The average age in Europe is over 40 and the US is getting close. Although older people tend to have a lot more capital, they don't consume much. It is the workers and people with kids that are the big consumers. That is why global consumption is now declining. This really is 101 stuff, Andy. If you really do, (and the odds are tiny) have a degree in economics, you should ask for your money back. I put as much stock in you saying you have a degree in economics as I did when you said you know lots of people who can afford to raise a family and buy a house on a factory worker's salary.

 

[Tony2046]

Automation saves jobs. It's only the narrow minded views that won't or can't see the larger picture.

I've been working with, installing or implementing automation over the last 25 years. The "replaces jobs" narrative is bean counter's pseudo myth apparently taught to them during widget counting 101. I chuckle when cubicle people think they understand and can explain something they've never spent five seconds experiencing.



1. In general, if a widget company does not eventually automate it will not be able to compete with one that does. Those jobs will be lost.

If you acknowledge that a manufacturer must automate to remain competitive or to stay in business then you must acknowledge that those jobs are saved by the automation and cannot argue that a company which did not automate saved jobs.


2. Automation is designed to make a person more productive.

A current project I've been involved with at work over the last six months:

A. Prototype product was hand assembled by six employees.

B. Prototype was successful. We then developed automation. Same six employees are making ten times more of the product. No jobs lost.

C. Those employees were trained to run the automation and new QC equipment. Their job titles will change from assembler to machine operator.

D. We will use those employees to train other employees to run the automation and also to help start up our next prototype project which is a few months from going live.


Stick to counting beans.

 

[Ring 6]

I am no expert, but I don't believe you have a degree in economics. Maybe a CPA or somesuch, but, definitely not economics. Not only would you have called out your degree sooner, but you fail to grasp even the basics of modern economics. If you did, you would never have called game theory a buzzword. You also equated population growth to consumption growth as a direct correlaion. I would have called you out on that, but it was in your conversation with another who was trouncing you.

One of the basic realities of today's economics is that populations around the globe, although growing, are aging dramatically. The average age in Europe is over 40 and the US is getting close. Although older people tend to have a lot more capital, they don't consume much. It is the workers and people with kids that are the big consumers. That is why global consumption is now declining. This really is 101 stuff, Andy. If you really do, (and the odds are tiny) have a degree in economics, you should ask for your money back. I put as much stock in you saying you have a degree in economics as I did when you said you know lots of people who can afford to raise a family and buy a house on a factory worker's salary.

Then sit in ignorance. I certainly have a degree, and yes you are far from an expert.
That’s why I say you throw out buzzwords, because you don’t understand them or their application, you just inappropriately throw them in under the wrong context to make it sound like you know something. Ultimately the misuse shows you don’t.

Thisvis what is so ironic. You are disagreeing with someone with a degree in economics about economics which you admit you do not fully understand, so your answer is the guy who knows more than you must be lying. You are literally taking the things you don’t understand and using them as if that makes you more knowledgeable than an expert.
Your biggest problem is you are too emotional. You have a negative feeling about the people and entities who drive the economy and succeed and wish that everyone could just be the same when everyone has a different level to contribute abs produce. Economics.

The other laughable thing is you dispute things I literally see every day of my life, that you have absolutely zero knowledge of. I will every single day with people from
every walk of life at every level of income who buy and own homes and raise families.
Here is a fact for you to chew on. Roughly 1/3 of the mortgage loans in the US are made to families who’s income are below 80% of AMI (area median income) for the MSA they lived in. In an area like Boston that equals about $80,000 a year or less. In some lower income areas it’s as low as $40,000. Factory workers are buying homes every day.
Thank you for your post because you just proved yourself 100% wrong because the assumptions that are behind all of your post are completely incorrect.

 

[Ring 6]

Automation saves jobs. It's only the narrow minded views that won't or can't see the larger picture.

I've been working with, installing or implementing automation over the last 25 years. The "replaces jobs" narrative is bean counter's pseudo myth apparently taught to them during widget counting 101. I chuckle when cubicle people think they understand and can explain something they've never spent five seconds experiencing.



1. In general, if a widget company does not eventually automate it will not be able to compete with one that does. Those jobs will be lost.

Automation is certainly a good and necessary thing. It helps companies be more profitable and saves companies. A consequence is work force reduction.

If you acknowledge that a manufacturer must automate to remain competitive or to stay in business then you must acknowledge that those jobs are saved by the automation and cannot argue that a company which did not automate saved jobs.

Fewer jobs.

2. Automation is designed to make a person more productive.

No. Automation is designed to make the production more efficient and cheaper.

A current project I've been involved with at work over the last six months:

A. Prototype product was hand assembled by six employees.

B. Prototype was successful. We then developed automation. Same six employees are making ten times more of the product. No jobs lost.

Ok stop there. If those 6 employees are making 10 times more, there has to be a market for 10 times more. Unless it’s a new product the demand is typically already being satisfied. 99% of the economy is not new products.
So if this company increases its market share 10 fold then it is taking business away from competitors who will need to cut their workforce. When the entire industry automates, let’s say demand increases 50% because it can now be sold cheaper.
That still means the work force gets cut by 85%.
100 workers production can now be done by 10. If demands increases 50% then it can be done by 15. 85 are redundant because they would be producing a volume of product that is greater than what can be sold.

C. Those employees were trained to run the automation and new QC equipment. Their job titles will change from assembler to machine operator.

If the automation can produce 10 times as much then you don’t need the same number of workers.

D. We will use those employees to train other employees to run the automation and also to help start up our next prototype project which is a few months from going live.


Stick to counting beans.

sure a small team of people who are creating new products could do that. But we aren’t talking about one off examples, we are talking about a National and global economy.
When you automate and increase productivity in the potato chip factory, they continue to produce the same amount, at a greater profit because they need to pay less for labor.
You can’t sell more product than people will consume.
Automation is a great thing in many ways. It is especially good for the consumer because an automate economy that has cut costs will reduce prices to try to take a bigger market share, but ultimately it’s a bigger share of a finite market. If it takes 100,000 employees to fulfill the entire demand and you create an automation that works ten times faster, you now only need 10,000 employees to fulfill the demand.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Galeb]

Then sit in ignorance. I certainly have a degree, and yes you are far from an expert.
That’s why I say you throw out buzzwords, because you don’t understand them or their application, you just inappropriately throw them in under the wrong context to make it sound like you know something. Ultimately the misuse shows you don’t.

Thisvis what is so ironic. You are disagreeing with someone with a degree in economics about economics which you admit you do not fully understand, so your answer is the guy who knows more than you must be lying. You are literally taking the things you don’t understand and using them as if that makes you more knowledgeable than an expert.
Your biggest problem is you are too emotional. You have a negative feeling about the people and entities who drive the economy and succeed and wish that everyone could just be the same when everyone has a different level to contribute abs produce. Economics.

The other laughable thing is you dispute things I literally see every day of my life, that you have absolutely zero knowledge of. I will every single day with people from
every walk of life at every level of income who buy and own homes and raise families.
Here is a fact for you to chew on. Roughly 1/3 of the mortgage loans in the US are made to families who’s income are below 80% of AMI (area median income) for the MSA they lived in. In an area like Boston that equals about $80,000 a year or less. In some lower income areas it’s as low as $40,000. Factory workers are buying homes every day.
Thank you for your post because you just proved yourself 100% wrong because the assumptions that are behind all of your post are completely incorrect.

There's a couple things wrong with applying the fact you just googled. Yes, it appears to be a fact (I didn't verify, cuz it doesn't really matter), but lets add context.

Most households have more than one income, so median income/household doesn't equate to median individual salary. Even with dual average factory level incomes in households, many of those households receive additional moneys, mostly from inheritance, but other means as well. The statistic you provided is fundamentally different than my statement. I say it's nearly impossible to buy a house and raise a family on just a factory worker's salary. Two factory workers salary in a house, maybe, but not one. Fifty years ago, a factory worker could raise a family and own a house without inheritance or second income.

I repeat, I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, most of what I have posted is 101 stuff, which I called out repeatedly.

If you do in fact have a "degree in economics", it likely has nothing to do with economics theory. Maybe some kind of procedural thing like a CPA, but I doubt even that. Ironically, for most of my adult life, my understanding of economics was very similar to the one you seem to have. I believed the stuff I was spoon fed through school and work about the value of "trickle down economics" and "population growth = consumption growth". Like most people, I was still stuck in the belief that globalization is going to continue to expand. It's only in the last 7 years that I've started learning some of the basics about economic theory, and those old myths have been dispelled. It's a massive and changing field that few people could truly become an expert on in a lifetime... something any real economist will tell you.

I have 2 actions items for you.

First, please provide the other fields in which you have degrees. That way, you don't get to pull this card again.

Second, if you already understand game theory (as any "expert" in economics would), please explain to me why game theory is a buzz word? Does that mean zero sum game theory isn't applied directly supply control and artificial scarcity strategies? Are you saying that the experts that routinely use the prisoner's dilemma to predict, describe and model agents' economic behavior, don't know what their doing? Game theory is fundament to economics theory. If you're not familiar with game theory, go spend an hour reading about it. That should be more than enough time for an average person to understand the basics of it. Then you will see how silly it is referring to game theory as a "buzz word" when it comes to economic theory.

 

[IllegalContact]

How many more times will Mahomes have to beat Jackson for people to stop pretending there’s a rivalry

Valid point......was Manning and Brady not a rivalry in 2004 but it was a rivalry in 2005?

 

[Tony2046]

@Ring 6

I can't reply to your post because you, yet again, screwed up the reply function.


But.....

Your whole reply is based on a ridiculous premise which is that all of the established manufacturing isn't already automated. If 99% of the products are not new products ( that's not an accurate number but nevertheless ) then those products are already automated unless it's a uniquely customizable product.

You're arguing with a 1950's mentality. Products today start out as prototypes and grow, upon acceptance or success, into automated products. No job losses rather higher skilled operators making more product.

Potato chip factories, soda factories etc etc are all fully automated.

Nobody, in this century is using 100,000 employees to make a prototype product or any product manually. Hahaha

Once that product hits saturation you stop adding automation lines.

Oddly you seem to accept that manufacturers need automation to compete and to provide jobs but argue that automation replaces jobs although those jobs would not exist without automation. Strange position even for a bean counter.

I've been in this field at various levels for twenty five years and have not seen "force reductions" at all rather the opposite. Company grows and hires more people.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

So don't go back for the bad food (don't get into debates) if you don't like it. I don't care at all for Indian food but I wouldn't try to stop others from eating it if they wanted it.

The ignore feature is one of the best things about this site. Not only does it leave the ignored poster out it lets you know who else is responding to that poster and allows you to skip that also. I couldn't survive here without it.

i've been on this board for like 20 years and have never placed any user on ignore

i dont want to be in an echo chamber, but to each their own

 

[Patjew]

Valid point......was Manning and Brady not a rivalry in 2004 but it was a rivalry in 2005?

That’s exactly what I was thinking. And it made me sad.

 

[Joker]

 

[Chevy]

It thought this was a pic from the life of Sir Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky