Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

I see a lot of places now that are doing more with fewer employees. Some might view it as being inefficient in years past others see it as stretching current staff because they can. I think its a mix of the two in most cases. Managing cost centers is good but stretch that too far and they become liability centers which isn't good.

Yeah, unfortunately some of the 'undone tasks' were things that could have brought in royalties with little effort, but nonetheless required someone who had time to sit down and take care of it. But it doesn't matter now since that company no longer exists. :)

(In Doc Brown's voice): "They streamlined themselves...out of existence!"

GoBucks89 said:
I see a lot of places now that are doing more with fewer employees. Some might view it as being inefficient in years past others see it as stretching current staff because they can. I think its a mix of the two in most cases. Managing cost centers is good but stretch that too far and they become liability centers which isn't good.

Yeah. The whole problem is, we've been low on staff since things were *decent*. Now, we're short 4 full time, and 2 /sometimes 3 consultants overall. There are usually 2 people there to support 4000+ users including outbuildings and the like. For that amount of people, there should be at least 6-9 full time staff, never mind projects.

But the nature of IT is such that we provide a better-faster-cheaper way for employees to get things done. Therefore, it stands to reason that we can also continuously do our own jobs better-faster-cheaper, which means you don't need as many IT people as you thought you did, since we can automatically make our own work go faster. And the week after that, we should be able to "make do" with even less staff, time, and resources.

Or, to put it in language so simple even a UF administrator SHOULD be able to understand..."it's NOT magic".

Yeah. That's what happens when the CIO comes from zero IT background, as well. There's a history of "trimming the fat" there, and I don't think it necessarily works where we're at. It's OK, I'm dealing with it the best I can.

djDaemon said:
Disagreeing with socialist systems is fine. Suggesting those systems are incompatible with freedom is absurdly hyperbolic.

In fact, the very ability to disagree with those systems, and to vote against their implementation, sounds pretty damn freedomy to me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, or what you mean by "socialist systems." Basically under a socialist government, the state provides all your needs, but in return, they tell you what you need. You don't have too much say in the matter.

Here are some of my experiences with traveling to and speaking with people who lived or came from socialist countries. These weren't isolated examples, but were basically the way things were for everyone.

1. Citizens had to have a visa to travel within the country. Could you imagine needing papers to cross state lines, or even to go to your state's capital city? Doesn't sound very "freedomy" to me. You also had to apply to the state for permission to move into a different apartment. After 2-3 years, they might get back to you and tell you it was OK.

2. Merchants could sell one kind of product. If you sold milk, you couldn't sell eggs. If you sold meat, you couldn't sell bread. Not only is this inefficient economically, it's a pain in the ass for the consumer who literally had to wait in half a dozen separate lines every day to buy enough food to prepare that day's meals. I saw a few "department stores." But you'd see a rack of about 5 blue dresses in the equivalent of a size 8, and another rack of about 7 red dresses in the equivalent of a size 14. A smaller woman who wanted a red dress or a larger woman who wanted a blue dress were both SOL.

3. The state was your employer. If they were inclined, your weekly pay would be 10 pounds of butter instead of currency. It would be up to you to barter with people from a city an hour away who were paid with a sack of flour. BTW, the government also employs the people who print newspapers and read the news on TV. Same with the people who made movies. What kind of alternate opinions do you think you'll hear or read?

4. The guy who showed up at the collective drunk and slept under a haystack all day demanded (and received) pay equal to the guy who worked his ass off all day. But guess what? After a while, the second guy decided he wasn't going to work so hard anymore if he'd get nothing more than the lazy guy did. Production went down, but it didn't matter because just about all the workers stole anyway. And the farm managers lied on their reports to save their own corrupt asses, so every year was another record harvest. Yes, life was good, but not so free.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Socialism is government-required private industry health insurance. Not any of that other crap you said. :)

I know it is popular to criticize "trickle down" economics, but history seems to indicate it works (more in a minute). I'm not necessarily arguing for a tax cut or tax increase. I believe that if spending is not addressed in a major way, no tax policy can change our fate. Addressing tax policy without drastically reducing spending via real cuts treating a sprained ankle while the femoral artery is gushing.

As for "trickle down" tax policy... Taxes were cut on high-income earners in the 1920s (Coolidge), 1960s (Kennedy), 1980s (Reagan) and again in the 2000s (Bush). These cuts benefited the rich and everyone else. In all these cases, jobs boomed after tax cuts. Like any boom bust cycle the good times eventually ended. Maybe this is just coincidence? I certainly cannot see a historical record for the opposite...where raising taxes on the "rich" or anybody lead to job growth.

There is zero correlation between lower taxes for the rich and increased employment. I suspect you could attribute changes in unemployment in all of those cases to a million other things. During the Bush tax cut years, it dipped then went back up. Again, referring back to the Clinton years, with historically high taxes on the big earners, unemployment went down every single year. (*) There's no correlation either way.

I'm curious as to when exactly in the 2000's jobs "boomed". If it happened, I never heard it.

Ensign Smith said:
I'm curious as to when exactly in the 2000's jobs "boomed". If it happened, I never heard it.

Business is always booming in the pyrotechnics industry. :)

Aamilj said:
I know it is popular to criticize "trickle down" economics.

Maybe it's popular because it's accurate.

We simply do not have a tax or revenue collection problem we have a spending problem. I'll look at Bush for now, can get you Clinton data later (don't want to be too long). But will note that taxes were cut during Clinton's era and I can let you guess what this meant for revenue collection...

Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78trillion, 2004 -- $1.88trillion, 2005 -- $2.15trillion, 2006 -- $2.40trillion, 2007 -- $2.56trillion

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period,income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.

It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford. Furthermore, even in2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion,which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
P.S. I cannot find the data this moment, but off the top of my head I want to say 7.7 million jobs were created after the Bush tax cut went into effect up until 2007, when the recession started. Don't hold me to that. If I am wrong or way off I will try and find it.

Aamilj said:
We simply do not have a tax or revenue collection problem we have a spending problem.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and to suggest otherwise is divisive b.s.

Of course tax revenue increased during the Clinton years. It was the first time since I've been alive that there was opportunity to actually start reducing debt. No one cared that overall tax revenue was high then because people were working and excited about a reduction in debt (which was subsequently squandered with a pointless war, among other things).

ApolloAndy said:

Aamilj said:
I know it is popular to criticize "trickle down" economics.

Maybe it's popular because it's accurate.

It was clearly a smoke-and-mirrors argument from the very beginning, and virtually every responsible economist said as much when asked.

Even David Stockman admitted as such. I must be old because I remember that interview. They (the Reagan administration) used trickle-down merely as a pretense to knock down the top tax rates.

Jeff said:
There is zero correlation between lower taxes for the rich and increased employment. I suspect you could attribute changes in unemployment in all of those cases to a million other things. During the Bush tax cut years, it dipped then went back up. Again, referring back to the Clinton years, with historically high taxes on the big earners, unemployment went down every single year. (*) There's no correlation either way.

Yeah but the economy was growing and expanding, Not stuggling along at less than inflation

Of course tax revenue increased during the Clinton years. It was the first time since I've been alive that there was opportunity to actually start reducing debt. No one cared that overall tax revenue was high then because people were working and excited about a reduction in debt (which was subsequently squandered with a pointless war, among other things).

100% agreed.

As to your assertion that tax policy and our spending addiction are not mutually exclusive, you are again technically correct. However, look at year 2007 for the absolute record amount of tax collections we have EVER received. That number is 2.56 Trillion. Our unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security ALONE is projected at $50 Trillion over the next 10 years. Obama's budget is currently projected at 12-15 Trillion deficit over 10 years (if you believe health care will cost as they've projected).

All those zeros in a Trillion are hard to understand, but these numbers are not. If we collect at the record rate of 2.7 Tril (note we are no longer collecting at this rate) for 10 years we get 27 Trillion collected. Let us take the lowest projected numbers for debt including ONLY unfunded liabilities for SS and MC... $50 Tril plus $Obama's $12 Tril is 62 Trillion dollars of debt.

If we collected at record rates while simultaneously shutting the entire government down (no expenditures, no increase in programs, no army, NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL)...we could collect enough tax revenue to pay down 43% of the debt. Of course this is silly, we can't shut it down totally, and the income to debt ratio is exponentially greater than these numbers.

What we are arguing, and I believe both political parties like us arguing is about increasing that 2.7 Trillion number from 2007 through tax changes (increase, decrease, etc). We pay lip service to the $62 Trillion by saying we need spending cuts. But very few seem to realize how drastic these spending cuts will have to be unless and until we face total economic collapse.

This is why I say arguing tax policy is like treating a sprained ankle while the femoral artery ($62 Trillion of unfunded debt) is gushing. You are dead either way...

Even David Stockman admitted as such. I must be old because I remember that interview. They (the Reagan administration) used trickle-down merely as a pretense to knock down the top tax rates.

A David Stockman reference on a coaster board! Touche'...

Yes they did do that, and since you are obviously well educated in these matters I'll let you explain what happen to government tax collections once implemented.

Besides that interview he is known for his book where he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary to coincide with the tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.