American states are now Petri dishes of polarisation | The Economist
By: The Economist
Interesting article about our worsening political polarization. And the solution sounds similar to things I have proposed here in the past regarding electoral reform. Although I would add that the "winner take all" electoral vote scenario for Federal Elections in the various states should be done away with. Politicians need to get back to work with rational and reasonable discussion/debate and compromise, rather than simply jockeying for power, bending to the loudest extremists in their party, and putting re-election and partisan politics atop their list of priorities over their representation of the people.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Only electoral reform can make them work properly
Sep 1st 2022 Share
Two states, two very different states of mind. On August 25th California banned the sale of petrol-powered cars from 2035, a move that will reshape the car industry, reduce carbon emissions and strain the state's electricity grid. On the same day in Texas a "trigger" law banned abortion from the moment of conception, without exceptions for rape or incest. Those who perform abortions face up to 99 years in prison.
These two events may seem unrelated, but they are symptoms of an important trend. Washington, dc, may be largely gridlocked, but the states are making policies at a furious pace. In theory, that is no bad thing. With 50 states, America has 50 laboratories to test which policies work and which do not. People can choose to live and companies can opt to operate in places where their preferences are reflected in local rules, as many did during the pandemic, typically moving to states with fewer restrictions. Each state can make its own trade-off between the weight of taxes and the generosity of public services. Any state can learn from neighbours with better schools or business regulations.
Alas, this constructive form of federalism is not what state politicians are pursuing today. Instead, they are fighting a national culture war: prescribing what can be discussed in classrooms, how easy it is to buy and carry a gun, which medical interventions may be offered to teenagers who identify as transgender, and what sort of benefits unlawful immigrants may claim. Such issues enrage both parties' partisans in a way that, say, fixing the roads or refining tax policy does not. Moderates might prefer less rage and more road-mending, but many state politicians can safely ignore them.
This is because 37 of the 50 states, where three-quarters of Americans live, are ruled by a single party. The number where one side controls both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion has nearly doubled in the past 30 years. These one-party states are self-perpetuating, as the winners redraw electoral maps to their own advantage. And politicians with ultra-safe seats have perverse incentives. They do not worry about losing a general election, only a primary, in which avid partisans call the shots because they are more motivated to vote. The way to woo such partisans is to eschew compromise.
Hence the proliferation of extremism. Most Texans think their new abortion laws are too draconian, for example, even though most also think the old national rules were too lenient. If Texas were not a one-party state, its legislators might have found a compromise.
Hence, too, a new politics of confrontation. Some states aim to punish those who seek an abortion or transgender surgery in another state; others offer sanctuary to the same people. Blue states encourage lawsuits against gunmakers; red states sue to stop California from setting its own emissions standards. Some partisan pugilism is largely performative. To publicise his view that blue states are too soft on illegal immigration, Texas's Governor Greg Abbott has sent busloads of migrants to New York. But the relentless focus on national controversies is at best a distraction from the local problems that state politicians are elected to solve. Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, a probable presidential contender, unveiled a "Stop woke Act" to restrict how race is discussed in classrooms; of the ten examples of excessive wokery in his press release, not one was from Florida. And all these battles are divisive; all entrench the notion that red and blue America cannot rub along despite their differences.
This makes for a nastier, shriller national conversation. It also makes it harder to do business in America. Whereas once the country was, roughly speaking, a giant single market, now California and New York push companies to become greener while Texas and West Virginia penalise them for favouring renewable energy over oil and gas. Recently Texas went so far as to blacklist ten financial firms for going too green.
The biggest worry is that partisanship could undermine American democracy itself. Many Republicans cannot win a primary unless they endorse Donald Trump's Big Lie that he beat Joe Biden in 2020. That year a coalition of Republican state attorneys-general sued other states to try to have their votes invalidated. Whatever happens in the November midterm elections, such sparring could proliferate. America is not going to have another civil war, as some feverish pundits speculate, but it has already endured political violence, and that could get worse.
American dysfunction poses a risk to the world, which depends on America to uphold the rules-based order (or what's left of it), to deter military aggressors and to offer an example of democratic governance. It is doing especially badly on the last of these. What can be done?
The federal government should stop neglecting its responsibilities. Policies on immigration and climate change, for example, are clearly better set nationally than locally. Reforms to break the gridlock in Washington, such as ditching the Senate filibuster, might help. But more than this America needs electoral reform.
States of play
It should end gerrymandering, which lets politicians choose their voters rather than vice versa. States should do redistricting through independent commissions, as Michigan does, to de-politicise the process. This would make it harder for one party to entrench itself. It would also, by creating more competitive districts, force more politicians to appeal to the centre.
Allowing for multi-member districts could also help. Instead of carving up districts and allowing them to elect only one representative, this would increase the diversity of voices in state legislatures and Congress. Ranked-choice voting, in which voters' second and third choices count if no candidate wins an outright majority of first preferences, could promote moderation. (Ranked-choice voting in Alaska this week kept Sarah Palin out of Congress.) Different states could try different policies.
Voters, too, have a responsibility. It may be hard, in the era of social media, to ignore the blizzard of confected fury and vote for leaders who want to get things done. But the alternative is ever greater disunion, and that does not lead anywhere good.
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week's cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "The disunited states"
Leaders September 3rd 2022
- American states are now Petri dishes of polarisation
- How to prevent Europe's energy crunch spiralling into an economic crisis
- Mikhail Gorbachev liberated millions, even if he didn't set out to
- The tech winners and losers of the pandemic
- What flood-hit Pakistan should learn from Bangladesh
- Britain's failure to build is throttling its economy
Tags
Who is online
430 visitors
Interesting topic - Please keep it on point and no taunting or trolling. This article discusses the problems associated with extreme partisanship and polarization, let's not pile on more of that.
I will be back later this evening.
Ain't nothing going to work. Fascists will always be fascists.
You're right. One of these days REAL moderate democrats will step in and put a stop to Antifa and BLM, both of which have ACTUALLY demonstrated fascist behavior, much unlike the way liberals only claim republican and conservatives are doing the same....of course, with no proof of such claims.
You really need to re-read the definition of fascism. You're way off the mark.
If police weren't killing unarmed black men and women, there would be no BLM.
If brown shirt Nazis and MAGA fascists didn't exist, there would be no ANTIFA.
I give you the January 6th insurgency as a perfect example of fascism.
Partisanship is a disease that corrupts the mind. It causes otherwise rational people to engage in irrational behavior. It makes people say and do stupid things.
One-party-rule is a demonstrable disaster; history provides us the great lesson that unchecked power leads to the worse of human behavior.
Both of these underpin the need for the USA to have more than two major political parties. I personally would prefer 330+ million political parties (essentially that means no political parties) but given party formation seems to be human nature, I would settle for strong diversity. I think if the USA had 5 major political parties, we would be in substantially better shape.
Ultimately this boils down to competition ... adversarial positions. A political system wherein multiple major parties are each vying for votes will necessarily respect the electorate. What we have today are two major parties who, akin to monopolies, do NOT respect the electorate and only seek to manipulate same.
What makes you think that if there were 5 partys members of those 5 partys wouldnt be partisan?
Being politically partisan is neither good or bad in itself. Without partisanship the legislature would be in chronic indecision.
In any event, this is not the time in our history to act like both parties are equally at fault for current woes. Only one of the two partys is at fault.
They would be partisan (by definition), but they would be more competitive. Thus the partisanship would have less of a polarizing effect.
The key words in my description were 'diversity', 'competition', and 'adversarial'.
Yes, and one would think that perhaps that would lead to more compromise between parties something sorely lacking in today's political environment.
I think it would. Even with three parties we would see a dynamic where none of the parties would want to encourage the other two to be seen as cooperative and they not. Either all three would find a way to never agree on anything or there would be opportunistic alignments. I think the latter is more likely.
With two parties there is no competition. If voters are displeased with the party in power they have but one alternative. It is a stupid game of ping pong where the party out of power knows they get the ball next.
Possibly.. when I was growing up the Republicans were the party of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the working class. That doesn't seem to be anymore. The 800 lb gorilla in the room is the obscene amounts of money that are thrown at both parties, I don't think that simply having more political parties to "choose" from does anything to mitigate that influence.
Except when it leads to a pallet of ideas that demands complete loyalty and 100% agreement across the board and is unwavering in its inability to seek common ground or compromise. Then it becomes the source of legislative gridlock and eventually tyranny in favor of the "party" that seizes or maintains control. When executive order replaces the deliberations of the elected legislature, or seeks to overturn or circumvent judicial decisions, then partisan politics supplants the checks and balances of a democratic constitutional republic. Same with partisan influence that seeks to funnel case law toward what amounts to "legislating from the bench" at all levels of our court system. In such cases, no "good" comes from extreme unwavering partisanship. It has no place in a representative republic that is designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of an all powerful political party, or even the tyranny of the majority. Representatives are called to represent all their constituents, not just those who voted for them, and to protect the Constitution and the republic from enemies foreign and domestic.
It is already in a state of chronic indecision because of polarized partisanship. That is why executive order and legislating from the bench have replaced the legislative process by force. Indecision occurs when both parties dig in and refuse to budge or compromise. Forcing a "decision" without compromise and agreement is not democratic, it is dictatorial. With the diversity and input of multiple parties who represent varying views, many of which are shared by moderates and reasonable people from all those parties, rational compromise and progress will prevail. With just two powerful parties, beholden primarily to their extremes, such rational progress is not made, only knee-jerk reactionary tyranny when the opportunity presents. Why do you think the fastest growing segment of registered voters across the country in the last 15-20 years is that of the independent or unaffiliated voter ? It is happening for a reason, and behold... it is good, it gives me hope that someday perhaps the two party monopoly can be broken up.
Who cares which party is primarily at fault at any given time? Are you telling me that ardent Democrats are less anxious to maintain power than Republicans? That they are more willing to compromise or listen to another point of view? Since when? The voter migration toward independent status, and away from the two parties in roughly equal measure, is evidence that both parties are not representing the views of the majority of voters. Both parties cater to their extremes more and more in recent years, and which does so the most at this point in time has no bearing on the gravity of the problem and the search for a solution.
A person being blindly partisan, where one supports a party no matter how bad their ideas are, is terrible. It speaks to everything from lack of intelligence to mental illness.
Or chronic compromise.
*eyerloo* Riiiiiiight.
Having more political parties will of course not magically solve all problems. It does, as I noted, have a very good chance of solving the ping-pong effect where the electorate has no way to disapprove of one party without rewarding (undeservedly) the other.
Allow all voters to vote in all party primaries. I contend that simple change would favor more moderate candidates in all the political parties. Democrats would reject radical Republican candidates and Republicans would reject radical Democrat candidates.
I think that is a good suggestion. It approaches lumping all candidates into a single pot to winnow down for the general election. That is, it lessens the influence of each party on the selection of candidates.
Well, it seems to me that the time to reject radical political views is during the primaries rather than during a general election. IMO candidates with radical views winning primaries has turned general elections into choosing the lesser of two evils.
Allowing all voters to vote in all political primaries doesn't seem like an insurmountable election reform that would divide the electorate, either. Since state governments have assumed the responsibility for coordinating, conducting, managing, and overseeing party primaries then applying the same criteria for general elections would seem to be appropriate.
So what happens under this idea when the candidates for the general ( presumably the top 2 or 3 vote getters in the primary) , are from the same party?
Just using the recent wyo primary, the top 2 would have pit Hageman against Cheney again , and the amount of votes the dem candidate got to be on the ballot , that woman wouldnt have even made the general ballot .
and even if it were the top 3 vote getters , i can say the dem candidate would have been in the position of coming in last in a 3 horse race . only way that wouldnt happen is if all the cross overs went back to voting dem , and then Cheney would have come in dead last .
Okay by me. If the people vote and the winnowed results turn out to be candidates of the same party, so be it.
Chronic compromise would be totally acceptable.
Uncle Tip lived for it.
Then they all went for a drink together.
and people bitched about that too, lol
Indeed. And we need to lessen the influence of each party in the general elections as well by reforming the electoral college and how it works in each state. Parties should have nothing to do with selecting electors, and the winner takes all concept is about as partisan and unfair to the voters in each district as can be.
A bit of history on the EC HERE (emphasis in red mine):
Holy shit that last paragraph kills me! So an elector's main concern is allegiance to party, not to the people for whom they are casting their "representative" vote? For fuck sake! How the hell did it get to the point where the business of appointing electors was simply handed to the two political parties and their central committees? That was not the intent of the Constitution. It simply could not have been.
What happened to leaving the selection process to the whole of the elected state legislatures as was originally intended? Or even to the what some states did initially by having electors selected by the citizens of the state, perhaps even by district? That certainly seems to be a fairer less partisan manner of selecting electors.
Furthermore, leaving the selection of electors in the hands of party apparatchik is no doubt what lead to the ridiculous winner take all approach in most states. That provision needs to be shit-canned as well. Since the number of electors equals the number of the state's representatives in congress, they should also be representative of those same districts and the vote of each elector from those districts should be counted. How difficult would that be to fix? Christ! Anything close to that would be a vast improvement over the completely bastardized system of partisan control and manipulation!
End rant... before this vein in my forehead pops...
The electors are ceremonial. Unless an elector goes faithless (rare), the electoral votes directly match the results of the popular vote in each district (and of course the popular vote for the state for the two state electors). I have suggested for years that we simply do away with the human beings and use a tally instead.
Instead of electors, we simply tally the wins per each congressional district. If a district picks candidate A (party is irrelevant) then that is an electoral tally for candidate A. Period, no other factors involved.
On top of this, I also suggest that we no longer have winner-takes-all. Again, that brings us down to basics as described above.
I am confident I will never see the elimination of winner-takes-all, but it would be trivial to eliminate the quaint and now useless practice of human electors and simply go with a tally.
That works too!
True, but my fear is that 2 of the parties with similar ideology will only gang up on the third party and squeeze them out of the running, much like the two major parties do today with third parties.
Then we will be right back at the beginning.
Michigan is a prime example why that is not a good idea. Democrats have already gamed that system of open primaries. In our area the democrats fielded one candidate for each position and the republicans fielded several for each position, the actual reason for primaries. The democrat side of the ballot went down 1/2 one side and the republican side went down the whole page and part of the backside, meaning the democrats were all shoe in's giving the chance for the democrat voters the option of filling in the republican side and voting for the easiest candidate that the democrat could win against.
Open primaries for all elections would go a long way empowering those independents to have a right sized voice. Only 3 'battle ground' states have open primaries. Independents need to rattle the chain in states to get their voices heard.
Given the manner in which they are currently selected, visions of ceremonies involving sheep's leggings, blood-letting and human sacrifice just popped into my head....
The problem with that approach is that the electoral college applies to one, and only one, election out of thousands of elections. And the electoral college does not apply for midterm elections.
Reforming the electoral college is so narrowly limited that it would have little impact on the overall election process. And reforming or eliminating the electoral college could increase partisanship.
IMO electoral college reforms would only serve the purpose of vesting more power in the Office of President. A President is the nominal leader of a political party so vesting more power in the Presidency would likely make partisanship worse. A President having too much unilateral autocratic power as leader of a political party is also part of the problem. A more powerful President makes challenges from within their own party more difficult and establishes an incentive for the President to use their office to promote and expand their party.
I don't see the electoral college as a significant problem. The problem of partisanship is directly caused by political parties and not by the checks and balances embedded in government. Giving too much power to a political leader won't lessen partisanship, in my view.
Certainly a valid point, although we were focusing on the reduction of party influence in the presidential election specifically in the thread in which I made my comment.
Not sure I follow Nerm. How so? Rather than staying with the electoral college system that has been manipulated now by party influence, for the purpose of gaining and maintaining partisan power in the top federal election and office of the presidency, reform would seek to reduce the partisan influence and manipulation associated with the general election. That coupled with say an open primary, should discourage the elected president from using say executive order to force a party agenda and circumvent congress since he/she was elected by a less partisan process more closely representing all the people and not the party apparatus.
Does that make at least some sense? It’s late and my brain is suing for overtime pay.
Israel has multiple parties, and it is headed for its 5th election since 2019. However, Canada does have 3 major parties and a few lesser ones, and coalition governments can work really well.
And that's the cons of it isn't it? You can hope that more parties means that some of them would compromise to build a consensus but there's no guarantee that's what would happen. We might wind up with government 5 times as dysfunctional as it already is...
there is one thing they can do that is not afforded in our constitution , the ability to vote for a vote of no confidence in the ruling regime , we would be stuck with whatever comes out until the next election , so unless the constitution were changed to allow such , we could also be left up the proverbial shitts creek and the only paddle is a spoon and guess who gets to lick that ?
.
We could easily wind up with a government more gridlocked than it is.... which would be a good thing.
That's no different than we have currently, is it?
Completely agree, given the state of these two Parties, the less legislation passed, the better.
that is very true , but there is a remedy IF people wish to do it the right way .
An example i can give is from here in wyoming.
back when cheney started to go against what the voters of the state wanted , there was talk of recalling and removing her from office then. So i did a little looking and found that the wyo constitution has no provision to recall a federal representative once duly elected . so a recall and removal was not and is not possible. So it turned into a waiting game until the next election , which we all know the results of that now dont we ?
believe me , i was called all kinds of a bastard for pointing that little fact out to those that wanted her gone from the git go . I simply told them the devil is in the details .
The remedy here would be a state convention to amend and change the state constitution to allow for such actions , the state legislature simple creating a law will not suffice and it is doubtful it would stand up to state supreme court scrutiny, the voters of the state voted for term limits and that law created as a result was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court .
So for a desired action , things just have to be done in the proper manner , in the proper way, and there are no legislative short cuts " as we currently see are prevelent in todays politics .
that pretty much holds true for every state in the union if their constitutions do not address the subject.
The outcome of the Israeli elections is, IMO, because of the same dynamics that affect popular elections in the US. The main reason being a polarization of rhetoric. The population has divided itself into factions and treat others as enemies.
I feel that we need more "good faith" in government in general. Instead, we get the continual and annoying drumbeat of us VS. them, with both sides defining everything done by the other as not only wrong, but contained in a framework of evil and to the detriment of the country.
Newsflash: Neither the big D's or the big R's want the country to fail.
It's not just the parties in their current state. We have decades of data that shows how gridlock is good for America.
Which makes sense, really. When one party has supported a governmental "solution" to a problem, it's almost always been a terrible idea.
States aren’t the only Petri dish growing polarization.
How about the White House? Biden regularly insults half the country.
Such a uniter he is.
Perhaps because half the country regularly insults Biden (e.g. Brandon, Sleepy Joe, etc)
Half the country isn’t POTUS ..... who ran as a uniter.
We know that was total bullshit now.
If by that you mean half the country will not follow or do as he says , then i plead guilty , i wouldnt follow him to a line of outhouses if i had the taco bell shits .
if you mean people can see the error of his thinking , again , i am guilty , half the stuff he does manage to say is insulting enough because he acts like a petulant child when people will not conform to HIS idea of what needs to happen . and those are usually things put there by someone else . personally i dont think he has had a cognitive thought of his own for 40 years .
its called knowing shit from shinola , he is the biggest maker and seller of shit , pretending it is shinola and a great thing ., im just glad there are only 2 years left , and i have the finaces to weather this particular political "storm ".
You can sign me a dissatisfied customer and feverent anti marxist .
You are kind of missing the point that we didn't get here with one administration, or even two... but years of divide. They have all brought a divide that over the years has steeped into the souls of a lot of Americans.
And there is part of the problem. It's OK not to like Biden, but he is hardly a Marxist. Our verbiage is essential.
It's like people who don't like Trump call him a fascist. I just don't know why people can't avoid extreme words.
ok hows this then ? he is a geriatric , senile old dumfuck , being advised by younger marxist inclined dumfucks , who if brains were gunpowder , they wouldnt have enough to blow their noses .....
So realize that everything you just said could be said about Trump, just opposite verbiage. It does little to forward this discussion, though.
of course it can , or did you forget our discussions and the fact im not a trump fan , let alone a voter that voted for the dufus ?
im just not one that plays tom cruise on oprahs couch jumping up and down saying orange man bad ....
No, I didn't forget our past conversations about Trump, but then if it's not OK to say orange man bad why is OK to about Biden?
That aside, my point is that this article is about bridging our discussions. Honestly, it is more important to move past this point to discuss solutions.
(does the renfield chuckle ) not worth a ticket , not this early in the month , and the way i feel tonight , i will likely top my personal best of 6 tickets just in this one night , and i am way to preponderent to speak whats exactly on my mind , about politics and the course some have chosen , so i will simply leave them to their own devices with no help from me personally .
what i realize is that both dunfucks had no real power over the populus , they could cuss and scream until the cows came home , it doesnt make a bit of difference , as for solutions , again , good luck with that in the system we currently have .
This is hilarious. Not you dear, but this ridiculous discussion going on here. There are not two sides to the story. Six years ago a group of "deplorable" people who feared America becoming permanently multicultural managed to elect the worst president in the history of this country.
Anything else as an explanation is just sugar coating it. We can be "bi-partisan" again once that shit stain of a human being ( and his "MAGA" ideology) is in our rear view mirror.
a voice from the peanut gallery has spoken , to bad there is a disagreement on where the problems lie .
I didn’t exclude past Administrations. I just pointed out the current one that has taken it to a new level.
I remember the rage from the left when Trump was in office and he was insulting. Mean tweets, etc.
I don’t think I’m missing anything.
I agree, and as for the solution, that is what is at the crux of this article, and where I personally want to go with it.
Six years ago, a number of twice Obama voters turned deplorable and didn’t vote for Hillary l.
Well, Drinker you make my point for me, and what this article is about. I didn't vote for either of them, since I found them both despicable. Instead, I wasted my vote on Gary Johnson as a protest vote.
Don't you think we should have better choices?
here is what i DO understand , each of the 50 states are soverign , each has their own constitions and their populations are made up of different types of people , it is those people that decide what is and is not acceptable to them within their own borders as long as what they decide conforms with not only their own states constituitons but the one supreme constitution that makes up the union .
with 50 different states there NEVER will be a one size fits all to many of the issues that we as the populus are faced with today .
and i am fine with that , others , i dont think so much .
as was mentioned , people will gravitate to those places in line with their own thinking . some places will win , some will lose , its life , deal with it as someone says .
well i voted for johnson just to be able to say i did vote with my johnson ....
you can call me ray , you can call me jay ......
On the day Donald Trump was elected in 2016 he was a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat. Not suspected, known.
And you are sticking to the story that Hillary Clinton was just as bad? Even after watching Trump lie 30,000 times WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE, try to extort a foreign government to benefit him personally, and then try to overthrow his own government? The belief from people like you that Hillary was no better than Trump helped make this nightmare six year period happen.
BUT... BUT....BUT.... it was her turn ..... NOT .
that had to sting when she lost , i know the morning after of the drinking game it hurt me .....im too old for that shit anymore , but the looks on the talking heads faces was worth it .
Yes, and for the first time, I voted for a third Party candidate too, Johnson.
C'mon man , he didnt even know what an allepo was , how could he get us in a war there .....
I have read Perrie's comment twice now and I do not see where she has claimed that Hillary was as bad (in terms of personal character) as Trump.
What I did read is Perrie stating that in her opinion neither Hillary nor Trump were suitable to be PotUS.
There you go!
Exactly, it all started six years ago..... not even gonna tag it
You mean the second side of the story that JR claims doesn't exist?
Same here. Except I actually was for Gary Johnson. Campaigned for him and actually thought I had at least 20 plus people in my area willing to vote for him. What did that accomplish? With two of the most toxic, vile, despicable human beings to ever run for President representing the Establishment parties Johnson couldn't even carry 10% of the popular vote so the Libertarian Party could receive federal funding for the next elections. When I asked people that had told me they would vote for Johnson why they didn't (seems most thought I wouldn't look at the area voting results). I got the same answer from all of them "They didn't want the candidate they hated more to win". They were split pretty evenly between voting for Hillary and Trump.
Of course we don't. The Establishment parties still have absolute power so we are stuck with whichever two buffoons they want to trot out for us to vote for. I thought Trump/Hillary was as bad as it could get. Trump/Biden put an end to that. Now you have Biden who has done more to wreck this country than Trump could ever dream of openly attacking his political opponents; and the Democrat media shills eagerly bobbing their heads up and down. Imagine if Trump would have done what Biden did last night. Democrats would already have him impeached again.
Next PotUS elections even look more grim. Biden is going all in on securing the Democrat nomination. Even if he has to declare war on the 75 million people that voted against him. Trump will not go away. Not only due to his oversized ego; but because the Democrats won't let him fade into oblivion. They need Trump; because he is the only chance they have of winning both midterms and beyond. They sure as hell can't run on their policies (outside of abortion- and still most Dems are too bat shit crazy by demanding abortion until time of birth), the economy, inflation, crime, the wide open southern border, Afghanistan, China, or Russia. Democrats only hope is to make Trump larger than all of the other problems.
There isn't even a good candidate waiting in the wings for either party. Hillary is eagerly waiting for the Dems to tap her for one more run. Maybe the third time will be the charm and she will finally realize she needs all DeSantis is the more Establishment PC version of Trump. The rest of the would be contenders are all weak candidates that would need something to happen to Biden/Hillary or Trump/DeSantis to even think about running. Anyone with an ounce of common sense wants nothing to do with the Presidency; and the rancor that comes with campaigning for it. Much the less after winning it.
We are getting exactly the candidates we deserve.
The proper answer to that question would have been "Who gives a fuck about Aleppo. We shouldn't be operating in Syria at all! We have more pressing problems at home, than to be involving the US in another country's civil war; and extending the never ending war on terror."
Johnson was strong on domestic issues. He was a non interventionist on foreign issues.
It is not as if we haven't be "stuck on stupid" on foreign policy- no matter who is in the White House. The career diplomats, military leaders, and bureaucracy see to that.
Always Happy to help, Perrie.
"You're tearing me apart!!!"
( Jim Stark (James Dean) in the movie Rebel Without a Cause)
My dog's better than your dog, my dog's better than yours.
im tellin both sides keep your dogs on a leash , cuz if it comes in my yard to do its business , im liable to try and take a texas heart shot ...
I feel exactly the same way.
Maybe I should move my yard closer to yours?
Unfortunately the only thing my neighbors and I agree on is that we will call the fire department if the other's house is burning down. Time for calling may vary depending on how close the burning house is. Living in a semi tightly packed residential neighborhood does have it's drawbacks. Even the worst enemies have some sense of self preservation if the house next to theirs is burning down, when it is separated by a mere 5 to 7 feet on the sides.
Other than that it is now open season.
LOL , i planned for that as well , i have irrigartion rights , and a pump and plenty of garden hose to almost make it a quarter mile if i connect them all together ..... we have times where the risk if wild fire here is extreme , so i tend to attempt to create a "green zone " of less flamable areas around my place that can be wet down fast .
Ranked-choice voting, in which voters' second and third choices count if no candidate wins an outright majority of first preferences, could promote moderation.
I'd personally do away with the primaries as well. Primaries largely result in the polarized zealots of either party exorcising the moderates from consideration in general elections. Put everyone with the requisite signatures on the ballot with ranked choice voting and increase the voice of the 40% of Americans who aren't Republicans or Democrats along with the moderate voices in both political parties. You'll also get much more cross-over voting for moderates of the other party and third party candidates.
The system we have now constantly gives us the choice of turd sandwich vs. giant douche in general elections.
I feel that the primaries should be open to anyone who can gather the signatures required to get onto the ballot. Open primaries, no parties involved.
Not a bad idea, but it then opens up a completely different can of worms in the state when it comes to state funding of candidates by party.
a result of the most recent GOP primary here in wyoming , with all the cross over voting that took place , is one party is now calling for those that crossed over to re register so that the party doesnt lose its matching funds for elections .
Shortly after the primary , the call went out because if the party doesnt get a certain percentage of the vote in the general ( i think i read it was something like 10%) the party would lose the matching campaign funds and be relegated to a status of not just the minority party , but a minority within the minority parties and ineligible for funds .
The situation you describe is part of the problem. The D and R parties have pushed out any smaller parties by writing these rules that basically keep any other party from growing. Now they both play the "The enemy will win and end life as we know it" game and keep the less than ideology inclinlined voting for them on the "what if" scenario.... Something has got to give.
“Something has got to give.”
We’re already seeing apathy creep in.
When the voiceless majority becomes disenfranchised; when the lunatic fringe from both sides determine policy and party planks; when there is no eloquent nor inspiring leadership; the apathy will only grow and thus signal our eventual self-destruction.
We had an eloquent and inspiring leader, the problem is the backlash to that.
Whom would that be?
Obama
It was very clear who you meant. Sadly, the era of competent well-spoken Presidents may have come to an end January of 2017. Since then we've been shown that lying, petulant, lunch/dinner plate hurling, tantrum throwing whiny little shit bags can be President and apparently conservatives are determined the majority not even complain about that lowering of the bar.
Yes, well spoken and inspiring. Not divisive at all...
and he constitutionally term limited out , and even then he didnt have a good portion of the country behind him .
Good for him. He was head and shoulders above his replacement. I know of no president who was liked by all.
Obama tried to hold out the fig leaf and got his dick slapped many times by the R's : the party that was bound and determined to make him a one term president(Mitch) . Finally, he made the decision that if the R's weren't going to play he was going to get stuff done anyway.
The economic recovery during his presidency was slow and steady. That was the perfect speed of recovery, imo.
And now? Now? We all want get back to new record highs. Yesterday. What is it that is preventing us from ignoring the pesky supply chain, etc
a lot of what you say is true , he definitely got dick slapped on occasion, even got shellacked, his word for it , in his first mid term loosing control of congress. i basically attribute the obama years as a classic example of democrat party over reach when they assume complete control of government , so of course both the dick slapping and shellacking were a natural response from the opposition , and in about 20 or 30 years( the usual amount of time that passes before historians accurately portray past admins since those that participated that would be partisan are usually dead and gone ) historians will likely rate his administration as somewhere in the middle as far as administrations go and i AM being rather generous with that estimation because i will also be one of those that will be dead and gone by that time .
now you peaked my curiosity when you brought up "supply chain ". just how do you propose to solve that just one issue ? couple of factors you should keep in mind , is you cant ship what you dont have , and you cant force those in the shipping industry to go places they choose not to . so what is your individual proposal to solve the logistical and suppy problem that is the "supply chain"?
You simply tell me how you would solve it , and i will give you how i would react to your solution .
I was alluding to the fact that several problems exist, including supply chain, that are affecting the economy right now which we have limited control over. (Sorry,I was tired and falling asleep. That's as far as I got.)
We have a political scheme that says the party in power is responsible for all economic factors. The reality is the party in power has very little to do with the economy. As much as it affects everyone and everything in the world, one would think that we might have figured out how to manage the beast better. But apparently, the only way that they have figured out is the overly large hammer of interest rates. Using interest rates as a thermostat on economies is akin to controlling the flow of a garden hose by shutting off the pressure at the well. It works eventually, but there are collateral effects that may be worse than the specific thing you were aiming to control.
Sticking with that analogy, there must be (I would say there are) places where a valve or nozzle of sorts can be inserted to better control the final flows on less of a macroscopic level.
But then everyone starts screaming communist and socialist and it quickly deteriorates into a pissing match between the either-or's and the what-if's. Right now, I would say that the either-or's, both D's and R's, hold sway because they have the most money and they represent the people who control the most money. They could give two fucks who they hurt, and will play around with the ultimate source when they could have just kinked the hose....
For emphasis. A party in power can do things that adversely affect an economy but it takes time for it to have a effect realize by the public. A party in power can do very little to improve an economy (e.g. lowering taxes, reducing regulations, ...) but this too takes time to go into effect. The economy ultimately is an incredibly complex system and we (human beings) still have only a few blunt tools to work with.
I would have to slightly disagree with that statement on the basis that any party in power that announces a policy shift or change has shown to sometimes have an immediate effect on things due to speculation , or speculators in the market, and that speculation and setting of prices by the market usually has an immediate effect on the economy in a ripple effect that does sometimes take a little longer to be seen but is immediate .
On an abstract level i can agree with most of what you posted , as for the party of power getting blamed for the economy , i have found that they usually get blamed for the policies that have immediate effects that affect the economy even if its just in ripple effect .
you came close when you mentioned that there needs to be some sort of figurative valve or nozzle , and thats what i actually wanted to hear about , the details of what if anything you thought , should be implimented but that also leaves a lot to speculation on others parts because of the details , you MIGHT have given a hint when you mentioned some possible solutions could be considered communist ,or socialist .
But then again as i often say , the devil is in the details , and those are sorely lacking in the response , thus any judgement on how to react can not be formulated honestly .
Yes the stock market is affected in the short term … the market is highly reactive to news in general. The economy, however, is a slow turning ship.
We are likely looking at it from 2 different perspectives .
My example of immediate influences could be summed up in the cost of fuel for the supply chain thomas and i are discussing , the cost of that alone will influence the cost in the end after delivery , but that cost alone is not the only factor , its has to account for availability both of the product and the availability to get it delivered and in all those cases government policy can be seen as a leash or hinderance .
The cost of fuel is not easily changed. People credit Trump with low fuel prices but that was the consequence of the market (and later the pandemic), not some magical act by Trump. Similarly, Biden is faulted for the high fuel prices that emerged when the pandemic freeze thawed and people starting upping their fuel demands. His actions such as halting the Keystone pipeline do not affect the price of fuel since the pipeline was not operational; the impact of his actions would emerge later. Similarly, the pressure on the energy industry does not stop them from raising their production levels back to pre-COVID days. Many factors influence market dynamics and government has limited and typically longer-term influence.
But I do agree that the market has an influence on the economy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine absolutely adversely affected the price of crude and that hit the economy in the short term. It is one of many factors but a factor of significance nonetheless.
The supply chain problems are more tied to the pandemic than anything else. The pandemic is the 800lb Gorilla here and its affects linger. We will eventually get back to a supply-chain equilibrium because that is what the market dynamics force. Like the weather, we largely have to wait for forces beyond our control to settle down.
Im going to have to disagree with that for the most part , for the first couple months of lock down , maybe with actual drivers in the system , but the government soon realized a total lockdown in that industry wouldnt work so came out with exemptions really fast to keep the trucks rolling, i worked right through the lockdowns , just didnt leave my state of residence , what the pandemic DID affect was the ability to train new drivers to replace those leaving the industry because of retirement or simple attrition , and even then that ended when the lock downs were lifted and driver training schools have been cranking out drivers ever since , the suppy of drivers simply can not meet the demand currently and it has nothing to do with the pandemic .
The real factors that are affecting the issue of drivers is the attrition rate , more are leaving than can be trained as required now by law , a month after biden took office it became mandatory for anyone applying for a CDL to have completed an accreditted school of training , didnt matter if the person had 20 years experience driving on the farm , if they never had a CDL they needed to go to school and ag driving doesnt require a CDL they are exempted most places .
another factor is certain states regulations on drivers , as well as approved equipment ., one state in particular put almost 60k drivers that worked for themselves out of business because of their regulations , cant say how many out of state drivers now refuse to enter into states that have vehicle regulations more stringent than the fed regulations , but im am sure thats not helping the issue either .
just some drivers that already are qualified but simpley because their replacements cant be recruited , are side lined , and it looks like when they are needed most . this is all something the government DID and does have control over , and they brought the issue on themselves no matter what level of government it is .
We have seen difficulty across the board in many industries trying to fill their entry positions. No reason to think truck drivers are any different. My theory is that the pandemic not only triggered layoffs, but encouraged a number of boomers to just get out of the labor market ... they retired. That opened positions for advancement, but since the boomers are such a volume force it is easy to see how this would leave many more entry jobs than can be filled. This will eventually work itself out but it will take time.
Certainly makes sense that this is a factor too.
Accepted.
Agreed. Now the question is how much of a factor are the government actions vs. the pandemic. My bet is on the major force of nature (the pandemic) more so than our government actions given driver shortage is a worldwide problem (not just ours).
well in my particular situation and case , you would lose that bet .
covid and the pandemic had little to no affect on if i worked or not , what DID was governmental actions be it fed or state that gave me the choices to make for myself .
And yes the politics of the parties in power, making policy had a lot to do with that .
i have mentioned before , yet will state it again , there are states , that because of their policies , politics and stances as well as state regulations are simply a no go , or drive through place using the shortest possible route throughwhere i will not make any pick ups or deliveries , but since im on the tail end of my driving career it simply falls to a matter of do i want the money being offered and do i really want to go to those places . the answer has been no and no lately , i will stick with driving in places that is more in line with my thinking . as for those places i wont go , its not my problem to solve .
the other thing i will vehemently disagree with is the consideration that drivers are an "Enrty position ", far from it actually it takes time to gain the experience to become a good driver and to be able to know when they should be on the road and when they shouldnt , they ARE the point of contact in the entire system of where the rubber actuially meets the road and it is them that have to make the desisions , not some fruitloop in an office a thousand miles away on if they can do the job safely .
everyone thinks its an "easy " job , if it was so easy , there would be no driver shortage , there would be no new driver attrition , and drivers would stay with one company for 20 or more years , funny thing ? thats not the way it is . so would say its not as easy as some who never sat or even just rode in one thinks it is . i say let those pultroons figure out how to get their shipments .
I was referring to the entry level drivers. All fields have entry level.
well if its any consolation , about the only time i consider driving as an entry level position is that first 6 months to a year after coming out of the actual training to drive those behemoths . most of the attririon happens in that time frame , and thats also the time frame ,it usually takes for a person to decide if this is a career they think they can hack , at least at the OTR level , other aspets such a being a local LTL or a driver in some other aspect of driving , comes later .
I do not understand why you deem this a consolation. By definition, the first jobs in any industry are entry level positions. There is nothing derogatory about an industry having entry level positions.
In my estimation, sometimes you need patience to let things settle down. Don't try accelerating too quickly or slamming on the brakes. If you accelerate too fast you are wasting fuel, if you slam on the brakes, all hell is going to break loose when the load behind you jack-knifes.
The relationship between humans and money is fundamentally flawed. These flaws express themselves in various ways. One of these flaws is when we think of transactions as zero sum propositions. Very rarely is there such a thing as a zero sum outcome in economics. ( Don't believe me? Just look at the stock market. ) But people are always treating the transactions as zero sum.
Take the border and immigration for example. The standard line of Americans, politicians of both parties and the public in general, is that we need to control immigration, control the number and the type of people entering the country because if we don't, all of the jobs will be taken over by immigrants,... What a load of poppycock. Immigrants stimulate the economy and increase the economic indicators. (Sorry. Remain on point, Thomas! Wait, what was the point? Humans fundamentally flawed relationship with money.... and before that you asked me what I would do to slow inflation... I think🤔)
Here it is,"What I would do to slow inflation." Counsel patience. Slow the fuck down. We are not over this pandemic thing. We may be out of the shutdowns and the stringent control measures, but we are still experiencing the economic impact of an extreme disruption to the economy.
Certain people are willing and able to spend more for certain materials. Don't. Just don't. Aww, too late! The supposed "Law of Supply and Demand" only works if the people who are on the demand side are willing to pay more. But it is not the actual final consumer who gets to say "No. I will not pay ten dollars for a fucking 2x4x8" it is some trader making a decision that he can sell them for the increased price so he buys the futures, then off-loads them onto the next buyer. All of that "inflationary pressure " is completely fabricated. Why do they do it? The completely useless answer of "That's the way it has always been done " and "competition "....
Weren't you saying something about truckers who won't go into certain places? Why were they not willing to go to these places? To me it sounds like a big fuck you, a copout and a personal problem on the part of those truckers. Right there is a part of the problem, sounds like.
Ramblings and rumblings....
In my case it is a big fuck you to those places i refuse loads to or to pick up from . its simply exersizing my right to choose whom to do business with and whom to associate with , if it affects their bottom line and livelihood , thats not my problem . the only personal problem is on the part of those who cant get what they demand . its up to them to figure out how to fix it , and since in my case its not the money , it has to be something else they are doing that makes them undesireable to do business with and its up to them to make the nessisary changes . not me .
If you are talking about AB5 in California, I believe it is closer to 70,000 self-employed drivers in limbo and it is most definitely part of the supply chain and delivery problems here and across the western US. Article in Bloomberg about that HERE . More HERE .
Why do you boycott these places?
depending on the articles i have read it ranges fro 60 to 80 k out f work because of AB5.
i have a habit of usually going with the conservative lower number and let others point out it can be more .
one could ask why do these places enact such policies , and regulations they know others will not follow or obey ? the answers would likely be the same or close too it . so if you can answer that for yourself , you can answer the question you had as well.
as for me , they set the conditions , i simply state unacceptable , and good luck to you . there really isnt anything they need shipped i want or need .
If not out of work, they have been forced out of the state so that they can work. But the resultant disruption to the supply chain while this law is battled out in the courts is real, and it is badly hurting businesses all over this state and beyond.
The trucking industry is not the only industry impacted. As engineers we are no longer able to hire outside contractors for temporary help to meet specific project demands without putting them on payroll and then likely laying them off again when the project is complete. The entire 1099 independent contractor business has been turned on its ear and those workers and employers who benefitted from those types of mutually beneficial business relationships have suffered.
Ostensibly, the AB5 law was passed in California for two main reasons: The first was to give the people who were, in everything but name, employees of companies the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act such as overtime, health insurance and the like. The second was to tighten up the tax structure to keep transactions visible and "keep" the money that was due the state in terms of taxes flowing to the state.
The "Owner Operators" who are affected are only the ones who are leasing or buying their trucks from freight companies while they haul for them. I get the sense that this law is not liked because the drivers will have to be responsible for insurance, billing, timing instead of just going to work and picking up aload where and when they are told and delivering it, as well as loads they haul and whoops, have no record of.. It seems eminently doable for the companies to either institute structures to take on these tasks for the drivers or, more likely, there are already some bright entrepreneurs out there working on ways to solve the problems of insurance, etc.
So basically the problem is that the companies did not make contingency plans for the law that they new was coming and pushed it off on the OOs. Now they can sit back, blame the legislature, and collect the higher fares because there is a lack of OOs who are legally and financially able to do their work. Ohhhhh.... That's called inflation. And just who caused it? The State? How about the drivers who will not drive in CA though they could?
never said they couldnt drive there , as long as they toe the states lines and conditions , what some likely dont like is they , including myself have CHOSEN to not cross certain borders / state lines even though it can be done and we could drive there , just because we can doesnt mean we have to . WE get to choose , not others , they actually win though , they get to impliment all the policies and regulations they want within their borders , they just cant make anyone agree to play by their rules and comply . their freight can rot on the dock and they can choke on their policies and politics, there is nothing that says the drivers are obligated to take any load or deliver anywhere , . still not my problem since i would only be subject to them if i cross into their jurisdiction, which i and a number of others have chosen not to do . .
even IF the federal government adopted CA vehicle regs and standards , and i HAD to update to a newer compliant model, i would STILL refuse to cross their border or touch an oz of their freight for pickup or delivery .
sounds to me like you would like to take that choice away , and make drivers obligated to accept any and all loads and pick up and deliver anywhere against their will.... there is a word for that , its called slavery .... see how far that gets ya .
Thomas, that may very well be the case, but why do you think there were 70,000 truckers who chose to operate as 1099 contractors before, for example? They even owned their own rigs! I think they made that choice because it worked best for them and their families in terms of controlling their own lives and livelihood. It was a choice that AB5 has now crushed because the State felt they knew better what was best for them.
As far as tax concerns, the self employed still pay both sides of the payroll taxes (employee and employer), they still pay income taxes, they still pay into medicare and SS. Whether 1099 or W-2 all taxes are reported and paid to the state. They are still plenty “visible”. So I’m not clear on that part of the argument. Even if there was a difference, stripping people of the choice of working as an independent contractor, being their own boss and entering mutually beneficial relationships with other companies without having to be their employee does not seem to be a rational justification for the State to take a bit more in taxes. Forcing people to work for others, when it is clear they would rather not, smells a bit like economic slavery to me.
Many of them didn't choose to be OO that is the way the trucking companies in LA/LB harbor haulers are set up. This has been an ongoing battle for decades in the harbor. There are currently 18,000 O/O in the LA/LB harbor. In the past there have been O/O strikes demanding to become company drivers, in the last one once they found out that by becoming company drivers they had to report to work at specific times, be assigned to haul where and when their dispatcher told them to do, that ended the strike to become company drivers. Now the state is mandating it and if it goes to count I believe that the state will lose. If not expect the rates to skyrocket which will be passed on to the consumer. Many of the line haul companies have a mix of O/O and company drivers. That will present a different problem.
The Teamsters have been trying to organize the harbor haulers on the W/C for years, but thus far no deal.
If you believe that this is the only problem with transportation it isn't. The RR are short of personal, engines and flat cars. They is not going to cure itself overnight.
I don't think that we should be able to force anyone to do anything if they choose not to.
Similarly, I don't think that we should shy away from reality. The trucking companies in CA have known about this law since before its signing. I followed Freewill's links and didn't really find all that much there. So I did a search on "AB5". I read several more articles and watched a couple of videos that went pretty in depth about the issue. The results of this research were my conclusion that the industry did very little if anything to prepare the OO's for the transition. It is my considered opinion that they saw this scenario on the horizon and let it happen, because they knew that they would be able to blame it on the state, and they knew that it would generate more income for them. In addition, they got to bamboozle the out of state OO's into boycott. So, in effect, you are part of the cause of inflation. I am not accusing you of complicity, I am merely following a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.
Personally I don't really give a shit. The state could exempt the industry, or give relief/dispensation temporarily until such a time as the OO's would have been able to comply. It just seems like the industry was trying to strong-arm the state into backing down. Either way, the OO's are the pawns in all of this.
considering AB 5 was suppose to cover gig workers like uber , door dash and the like , i would have had no problem with it , when some cully fornicated moron decided it applied to O/O then things went sideways for the state regulators .
stong arming the state to back down ? now thats a laff riot ,, there are 2 choices to be made , either comply with the Ca regs in the manner they want , or dont .
Some have chosen the not comply option , but to stay just on the good side of compiance , those of us who have chosen that route of staying O/O running on our own lic permits and business authority, simply dont and wont spend the money to upgrade equipment to Ca standards , wont join a Ca union or company just so we subject ourselves to Ca regulation we stay out of the jurisdiction Now if they had left it simply to those O/O that are licd in Ca, that operate solely IN Ca , then they might have gotten away with it , since it covers any and ALL O/O , It is actually the state that fucked themselves and is the cause of people deciding not to work in their jurisdiction , it is the state itself that is the cause of inflation and how the economy is working within its jurisdiction .
If i dont go there , i dont have to worry about falling under their jurisdiction or if i am in compliance or not .
solution is simple , dont do business in california . as for the courts ? to paraphrase the hound in game of thrones , fuck the court , fuck the would be king newsom .
Unfortunately not quite that simple. Over 40% of the nations imports come through the ports of LA and Long Beach, so not doing business in CA is not really a practical option.
Ousting Newsome and those who supported AB5 through the polls is actually a more rational approach. But saying fuck the courts might backfire as so far it is only the courts that have given industries a chance to delay the enforcement of AB5 or achieve rational or reasonable work-arounds for some industry segments.
But I will join in your chorus in saying fuck you to those politicians and others who would deny independent contractors and those who wish to own and operate their own businesses the opportunity to engage in mutually beneficial business with other companies. We can encourage fair and equitable business practices without stripping small businesses and sole proprietors of the opportunity to chose their own destiny and negotiate their own relationships with other businesses.
IMO AB5 is aimed at the local drayage/harbor haulers and some of the reasoning behind that is the pollution that the trucks produce in the LA/LB harbor and it is huge. There is on-dock rail and in the next 10 years the ports will be adding space and much more on-dock rail which will help eliminate some of the drayage haulers. This will be multi billion dollar investment and is badly needed and overdue. Originally I believe it was for Uber and Lyft but the wording took it in a whole other direction.
Having worked in the industry and in LA/LB harbor for over 40 years I've heard the same old refrain from some OO that they will not enter CA to pu cargo. A few may have but by and large, it's all talk. If their large customers want 20 containers picked up and delivered to SLC they are not going to tell them they are not picking up in the harbor, since they would probably see all the business with that customer head out the window.
If the trucking company is located outside of CA how is CA going to enforce the rules on non based CA companies?
I don't recall saying that I supported the law in the first place.
I have done contract work and am familiar with the pay and taxing structure that goes along with it. It is my understanding that a true owner operator (set up as a formal business, has a business name(DBA), insured and all that) can operate as an independent contractor in CA. Is this a correct understanding? If so, I don't understand how , contractually, the government could arrange it so that the legal fiction of "Joe Blow Trucking" or whatever is unable to sign a legally binding contract with whomever or whatever they wish.
it is for me , as a driver , like i said , the Ca state border wont be crossed for work and since i have no reason to cross that border other than for work , it wont be crossed .. as for things that do make it out of the state , they have an app that reads barcodes for place of origin , my produce is procuct of mexico , if it says product of USA it likely came from Ca and stays on the shelf and can rot .
it is also not hard when ordering something on line to find out which port it cleared . i tend to make sure when ordering , its not coming from the west coast at all..
how are they enforcing their emissions standards they implimented ? they simply have been using a set calander year when all vehicles made that year met their regulatory standards if its older thanthat they will probe it and see if its emitting more than the allowed limit . . , if caught in state , the offender can be fined or ticketed . that simple , the state can do as they please , others can sit back and tell them where to stuff it , as is happening .
so fuck them and their state government .
So what you are saying is,"Hello, inflation. I helped cause you."
Yet thousands of trucks are picking up cargo in CA and the year of the truck was designed to help stop the pollution that was choking the Harbor and surrounding neighborhoods.
So you can say fuck them and it's not going to make a damn bit of difference, especially since you don't live in the area.
So to combat inflation so it doesnt affect you , i should be required to go out and replace a perfectly good running 98 tractor , with a 2010 model year at my cost and expense ? its easier to simply keep running what is already paid for and off , and simply comply with the fact that my tractor is not allowed to operate inside Ca borders for business purposes . so i am complying with the states regulations and edicts , i cant help the consequenses of doing so affects you as the consumer and not me as a driver .
my choice not to do the things being demanded is not the cause of the inflation you feel , but the regulatory demands of the state that some think have a strangle hold on the shipping industry ( there ARE other ports of entry after all and they are being used ) place the blame where it actually belongs , in the regulations created by those that are not as brilliant as they think . While your at it , you can blame the ones creating the demand thats causing the shortage as well , then you could also blame the politicians elected for creating the regulations , and then on down to the dimwits that voted for said politicians , see how that works ? your problem is not my problem to fix , at my expense or cost ....
the other added benefit for me not driving my tractor in Ca ? i dont owe any Ca fuel taxes to help pay for their roads and road maint .( thats payable depending on how many miles i drive in a state, 0 miles in a state means 0 dollars owed )
Not just the ports or rail yards , unless exempted by permit such as an AG permit *at an additional cost ..., they are also not allowed to enter the state period .
so i just started complying with my out of date tractor sooner rather than later . I am sure the brains in the legislature can come up with some sort of "fix ". i wouldnt hold my breath though .....
If you don't drive your truck into Ca. you don't have a worry. Simple enough.
Do you think that companies likes of Knight-Swift, JB Hunt, Schneider, Landstar, UPS, FedEx are going to stop serving CA because of this ruling? Not a chance.
The average age of Knight-Swift trucks is 2.6 years old.
didnt say they would , but it is being shown they cant service the need either , there is still a shortage of trained and qualified drivers in the industry, i simply pointed , that its been exasperated by state regulations and laws ,you get what you vote for in that respect .
, at least 4 of those you mentioned are considered carriers that are training carriers, and of those a couple has gone to letting drivers pick the regions they wish to drive to aide in recruitment and retention they can choose not to haul to the coasts and still work for the company i have been hearing thats norm now in the industry, and then its up to the company to try and entice them out of those chosen regions usually at a cost of more money per miles if not an out right bonus .
UPS and fed ex are usually union shops so they have the tit choice of all that you mentioned
And isnt that what i have been saying all along ? by choosing not to drive there i dont have to worry about it ? i just happen to say why i made that choice .
well with the average age of their tractors of course they wont have a problem complying , but then again they also get to buy tractors in bulk which helps with over all cost , and doing things that way buying 100s of tractors in stead of one or 2 at a time , has abuilt in cost savings factor . i have maybe 5 years left in the business , just renewed the CDL and medical card , i have 2 more physicals to pass , before i have to choose to renew the CDL @65 IF i can , it is NOT feasable for me to get a new or newer tractor at this point , it is more feasable to just say ok , i just wont go there and follow the states regulations .
So the solution is everyone becomes a company driver , which opens up the possibility of every driver becoming a union driver if the company goes union because there are enough drivers that vote to do so , good luck with that .
I don’t agree with making all o/o employees. What we are discussing is the age of the engines and how that will affect trucking in CA when it is implemented. The carriers I mentioned currently haul thousands of loads in and out of CA and the engine requirements are not going to change that the big change is going to be the local harbor haulers which tend to have much older trucks. The two biggest harbor haulers are currently at 95 per cent compliance.
The smaller drayage companies are going to be the ones that will lose their drivers. The largest companies will pick up some of there business and draysge rates will increase.
your choosing not to drive there is best for you but certainly does not apply in general
we will just have to wait and see how others faced with the same choices choose , wont we ?
Actually, we won't as I stated earlier in another post IMO this is aimed at the harbor haulers there have been a number of cases where O/O in the harbor have sued their company claiming that they are mis-classified as O/O and should be classified as employees. In each case that has gone to court, the court has agreed that they are employees.
Also, the teamsters have been trying to unionize them for years. Bottom line is that today the largest operator in the harbor has said they are closing down in the harbor which is both trucking and warehousing with 800 plus employees, most are O/O.
There were numerous O/O that said that they were not employees and fought it. Bottom line is that soon harbor drayage will be employees or the company will no longer be in business in the harbor.
This is something that the Harbor Commission has been pushing for quite some time. Currently, the port of LA has a fair amount of on-dock rail which eliminates trucking to the rail heads. The Port of LA has just announced a massive increase in on-dock rail amounting to over $2 billion dollar investment. This will eliminate more harbor to rail drayage. I'm sure that the Port of Long Beach will follow suit.
I'm aware that there is going to be some end around to this, which will probably be visible in the near future.
the T/L line haul will be a different animal and I'll stick with my opinion that it will not be stopping the large carriers from delivering and picking up in CA.
well i will sit back and watch from across the state line . that in itself will be interesting .
You can do as you wish. It is a free country. I wasn't suggesting that you do anything but recognize that you were a part of inflation's cause, as is just about every person who is raising their prices or demanding immediate gratification of their wants.
People always want to blame someone else for stuff that they don't like ,when quite often they are part and parcel of the stuff that they don't like. Think politics or economics, it's always somebody else's "fault." We are all here on the planet together. It seems that by cooperation we could get a lot farther than by killing each other, but we haven't quite figured out how to do that.
Patience.
Well, you surely know how to misinterpret a post.
I was not granting permission that I have no power to give or take away. I was making an observation. Your continued insistence that somehow somebody is trying to make you feel or do anything is neither true nor does it project an aura of intellectual honesty.
Obviously, you missed the point. Back up ten paces from yourself. You might enjoy the perspective. And, of course I must say this lest I be misunderstood, that is merely a suggestion, not an imperative.
Electoral reform is a bullshit bait-and-switch argument. The problem is not gerrymandering, the electoral college, or general elections. How can any of the sublimely intellectual elite blame partisanship while completely ignoring that political parties are the root cause of partisanship?
The problem isn't the electorate; the real problem are the elitist influencers shifting blame onto the electorate.
When did party primaries become a function of government? When did the purpose of government shift to protecting and defending political parties? And why are only two political parties considered worthy of receiving the benefit of government sponsorship and protection?
If party primaries are a function of government then allow all voters to vote in all primaries. Government sponsored political primaries are intentionally disenfranchising voters based on party affiliation. Party primaries are not free, open, and fair elections because they impose pre-conditions on voter participation. If the election apparatus of state government is going to be used to coordinate, manage, and oversee party primaries then require the same criteria as for general elections. Backhanded Jim Crow pre-conditions that are only intended to protect political parties have no place in government sponsored elections.
Electoral reform is going to require reforming the relationship between government and political parties. Anything less is just a bait-and-switch argument that blames the electorate for what the elite have done. Convincing a majority of voters to support one of the two party platforms is not a solution; that only makes the problem worse. Governing by political party platform will only increase partisanship.
Parties and gov are intertwined. That is a fact whether we like it or not. Your solution I have supported for years.
That's true. The influence of political parties emerged not very long after the government was established. And political parties have created problems with democratic functioning of government for a very long time.
My point is that elections sponsored by government should not be an either/or activity. Since the government sponsors primary elections then every voter should be allowed to vote in both Democrat and Republican primaries. That removes (or at least diminishes) the value of partisanship in the electorate. What is the value of party affiliation if every voter can vote in both primaries (and the primaries of other parties, too)?
Voting in the Democrat primary should not prohibit voting in the Republican primary and vice versa. The only limitations for government sponsored elections should be citizenship and residency.
My only problem with your concept is it will allow the relatively new practice of intentionally voting for an opponent in a different party, because you think it makes the candidate you really support more electable, to become more prevalent. Not good.
That said, it’s always pissed me off not being able to vote for either party in primaries but I do understand it as noted above.
But that attempt at manipulating primaries becomes less workable if all voters are allowed to vote in all primaries. Opening all primaries to all voters would become a means of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Republicans who try to manipulate the Democrat primary by voting for the worst candidate would also be allowed to vote for the best Republican. Democrats who try to manipulate the Republican primary by voting for the worst candidate would also be allowed to vote for the best Democrat. The manipulators would cancel each other out in the end because they couldn't manipulate all primaries.
More Democrats would vote for acceptable (if not preferred) Republicans. More Republicans would vote for acceptable (if not preferred) Democrats. I contend that would shift the primaries toward favoring moderate candidates. A Republican primary candidate would need to appeal to both Democrats and Republicans to be competitive. The same for a Democrat primary candidate. Candidates with extreme, divisive positions would not be as competitive.
Not sure it would always work that way but regardless. The thought of it in concept is distasteful as hell. I can’t imagine voting for someone I didn’t want to elect. That fact that some are so willing to shows what little character they have.
If that is the true character of this country, we are well and truly screwed.
Politicians love the fracas system. They don't have to think - merely push a button for attention. The public simply takes the bait and decides zero abortions or zero guns, then vilifies the other side.