Lord Ratner

Source? Nevermind, it's 42%. So less than half. Looks like the wall is a solid part of solving the problem. https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/aug/24/kevin-mccarthy/mostly-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/

I agree with you. I just want to offer a better argument for living in base than "commuting sucks." My point isn't that commuting is always wrong (I commute), but rather that it's not just as simple as adding a flight or two to the schedule. It's just about having far more options. For example, if you want to sleep in your own bed every night, that's an option with enough seniority. You can fly turns, you can become a check pilot and do sim checks, you can do union work, or you can even work in management. Opportunities for premium flying, sitting reserve in your living room, not caring about the weather, all things that commuting impacts. I fly with guys who coach their kids' sports, and they couldn't do that reliably at AA if they couldn't bid all turns, and that's not feasible as a commuter. Some people will still choose commuting, that's fine, I just want people and their families to have the full picture of what commuting costs. It's not much different than assignment choices in UPT. There's so much you don't know when making the decision, so imagine how confusing it is for the spouses. I've helped some realize they'd rather move to a domicile, and others feel more confident in their decision to commute.

We agree there. I actually think the only way to fix it is the long game. Make things worse, compromise heavily to get what you want so it can take root and become "normal," then hope you can undo the bad during the next wave. Oh, and you have to hope the conservatives don't completely waste two years of near-total control. Again. I'm not optimistic.

I'd much rather spend 20% on sales tax than 40%+ on income taxes. And I much prefer a system where everyone contributes. Hard to care about a tax that doesn't affect you, and nearly half of Americans (voters) aren't affected by income tax.

I know two people personally who have left SWA. Both because the amount you work in a single day, and one because he wanted the possibility to fly widebody one day. That's not a slam on SWA. It's just something you have to decide. A perfect day for me in narrow body world is two 2-hour flights. That said, a 2-1-2 three-day with a 20 hour layover in Miami Beach is a hell of a way to earn a living. But to restate something very important, for most people the number one priority is your ability to not commute. I've talked with a dozen guys with wives who really really really want to live in a certain city because of whatever. I've had decent success changing their minds when I explain the myriad ways living in base makes this job better for the family. If anyone looking to make the jump is unclear on why living in base is more than just avoiding the extra flight to work, send me a message and I'll give you my number. Or any other questions.

Housing is cheaper, as are most goods. I think it would be hard to argue that the poorest in Texas are worse of than the poorest in California, but I'd love to see data that shows otherwise.

It wouldn't hurt spending if the net tax change was neutral (reduce/eliminate income taxes). There's no universe where the Democrats support this. Our tax system is arguably the most progressive in the world. A national sales tax would mean the bottom 50% of Americans go from paying 3% of federal taxes to around 25%. However if you want to see it working on a smaller scale, just head to Texas. Tolls and property taxes may be annoying, but everyone participates, not just the wealthy.

I'm dense? This from the guy who's pretending like he's listened to the work of the guy he's criticizing? Here's a great talk about the differences between Marxists and post modernists. Be careful though, he's a huckster... Come back when you have a PhD, since that's the apparent prerequisite for having an opinion according to your self-eliminating metric for credibility.

Ok, so make an actual claim. He loves the term "cultural Marxism," but he happens to be exceptionally educated about the subject. Are you arguing that there aren't Marxists in academia? What fear is he hyping up, specifically?

Breadth should come from a diverse selection of experts working together. The Air Force has instead built a system that produces a homogenous selection of generalists working together. Small wonder the solutions often look the same, and function poorly.

This should be fun. Elaborate please.

Well that man might be the hero we need but don't deserve. He's hitting his stride now, and like he was saying two years ago, this is where he'll implode if he's not as strong as the impossible situation he's been called to demands.

It's a good sign, but as Rubin says, it'll get much worse before it gets better

¿puɐʇsɹǝpun oʇ noʎ ɹoɟ ɹǝᴉsɐǝ ʇᴉ ǝʞɐɯ sᴉɥʇ sǝop

First rule of sarcasm, if your audience doesn't like you, they will always interpret it literally.

Actual lol

Saw this on Imgur in a dump of random memes

These crusades always hurt the normal women the most.

I like Mattis. Good American. But anyone who wants us to stay in Syria has to go. Full stop. Best case scenario, Assad reasserts control over the entirety of Syria and it goes back to a country that stays quiet and causes few problems. It boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy. Mattis is on the W Bush, Max Boot, Neocon view that America needs to intervene in however many countries it takes to convert the world to globalist democracy. The only problem with this philosophy is that it hasn't worked since WWII. Trump does not have the intellectual nuance to elucidate this point, but he seems to understand it somewhat instinctually. Mattis is ten times the man Trump wishes he could be, but he's wrong, and if he can't change his views on our foreign strategy, he needed to go. We need to get out of Syria before it loses the one centralized figure capable of maintaining control (Assad). That is, unless you think Iraq and Libya are models to be recreated elsewhere...

In short, yes, I think we'd have those things, or some other mixture of perks. You think the highly skilled employees at Amazon and Google are languishing away under harsh work conditions because they have no union? When your talent is free to leave to better compensating employers, you need to compensate better. Unions make it easy for many to do nothing and reap the benefits of the few that bust their ass negotiating, but it also traps us at a certain company, and delays improvements until the contract is up for negotiation. It's a logical fallacy to assume we only have the things we do because of a union. That doesn't mean there aren't benefits, but way too many things are attributed to unions in the airlines in my opinion. We're not grocery baggers. Our skill set is in high demand and limited in supply.

Exactly

Why would that be surprising? Like so many things, unions have outlived their utility. They were great in the era of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Now? Not so much. But I have no choice in the matter, all airlines are union, so I will do what I can to keep mine functional. I'm against socialism too, but I joined the military. The more you develop your beliefs, the harder it is to adhere to them in an imperfect world. Agreed though, this is a very good conversation.

What were some of his reasons?

Shack. I'm new to this industry, but I'm already amazed by how many pilots are almost pathologically against anything that improves the company efficiency and bottom line. Coupled with the common union belief that more union members = better, no matter what. Yeah, I'd like to do less work for more pay. But I'd also like to have this job for 32ish years without getting furloughed. Some of the old guys talk about the way it used to be as though it didn't have anything to do with the collapse of the entire industry. Yeah, PBS is good for the company. But it's also good for the pilots. Those two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'd rather have my time off and QoL provided by simple contractual language rather than through conflicts and loopholes. Hopefully we get that in the upcoming negotiations. And before someone calls me anti-union (I am), I'm a volunteer in mine. It's the way it is, so I will do my best to support it. But unions are also why our 30-year captains can only look at Delta's profit sharing with a longing gaze instead of jump ship and reap the benefits. Everything has a cost.