So no wage is better than a lower wage if you ignore the higher wages all together? That is not the math I learned in school.
So there would not have been any Eminent Domain abuse by definition as Eminent Domain was not used. If something was not used it could not have been abused or caused abuse. Such representations make it difficult to follow whatever logical progression you are trying to use.
Oh, you do tickle me in your ability to deflect and obfuscate the natural progression of issues that we have been discussing here for the better part of the week, and which others have been able to follow fairly well. Yes, we have covered many different topics, but they are all connected starting from CSX's interest in Johnston County, (which brought up CSX's transportation of coal ash to rural NC dump sites, and Duke Energy's publicly acknowledged problem with coal ash water contamination in NC), then we discussed Eminent Domain laws, (public benefits vs. disadvantages for private landowners), then we went on to defend or object to Eminent Domain laws for public use (roadways etc), where we argued about the Eminent Domain laws which were revised to include seizure of private lands for private use - including private companies taking private lands for their own economic gain - then eminent domain laws were defended for the taking of private lands for "job creation" purposes, in which case I brought up Honda and their drive towards automation, Amazon's almost fully automated warehouses, and fully automated intermodal rail hubs, like CSX, (which leaves a lot of untrained human workers out in the cold, whereas in prior years (pre-mechanization and automation) they would have had more longterm job security), then I opened up the discussion about "advanced automation" and "robotics" and the billions of US dollars currently being spent on automated infrastructure technology to replace human workers. (Sorry, but this really IS happening right now to unskilled labor, whether we like it or not, so any "new" labor jobs that come into our area will most definitely undergo mechanization sooner, rather than later, which is why I said that "people should "prepare". ) So, what part of this "logical progression" are you having trouble following? Seems straightforward enough to me, but then again, I've noticed that you don't synthesize your ideas very much, and are prone to refutation that may inform a strictly binary way of thinking that is foreign to me. But I do appreciate and enjoy some of your comments. Good night and God Bless.
Of course, automation and robotic infrastructure will need "specialized technicians" to maintain their optimal functionality. That goes without saying, but we are not discussing jobs for specialized technicians, because specialized technicians are not the people most in need of jobs today in the US. Specialized technicians are already IN the job market. The people most in need of jobs today are our former manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics workers whose jobs have absolutely been outsourced, mechanized and automated over the last 25 years.China is currently the top country in manufacturing and the production of automation infrastructure far beyond what we are producing in the US today, so if those figures stand, then China will primarily provide the hardware for retrofit mechanization and automation for most of the global business world in the coming years - including the US. And don't go getting angry and making the mistake of thinking that this is the "fault" of foreign countries like China. It's not. In fact, China's workforce has been the beneficiary of globalization for many years now courtesy of "foreign" investment (including the US and others). The problem that you're having it seems, is that you aren't fully understanding the realities of the global business world, and it's effect on American labor - especially unskilled labor which has suffered the most, unfortunately. You erroneously still believe that the United States will lead the world in manufacturing (including robotic and automation technologies), but we absolutely won't - China will - in fact they're already doing that now which has created a very large, Chinese middle class with enormous wealth and buying power, where it had never existed before. ( I would tell you what the newly wealthy Chinese middle class is currently snatching up in NC and in other parts of the US, but I don't want to scare the socks off you! Suffice to say that when you ("you" in the general sense) make out your rent check in the coming years to something called "American Freedom Investments", your money will most likely go to a foreign multi-national company overseas.) Anyway, try to think of China's current economic growth of their middle class as similar to what the US experienced from post WWII to the late 1970's boom years (the heyday of US manufacturing) and that will give you some idea as to how quickly China's manufacturing base has grown. Also, globalization has weakened traditional corporate boundaries, in that technological "American innovation" may still originate in "Silicon Valley", but many of these innovative ideas will likely be manufactured in Asia, where labor is cheaper, not in the United States. This is exactly what we're seeing today in all its forms, and why some segments of our American workforce will likely never recover, especially labor, and unskilled labor whose jobs will eventually be automated, where they can be automated. But I think instead of fearing what's coming in the near future, we should face it and try to prepare for it better, since globalization (and automation) won't be going away anytime soon. It's a very complicated world at the present time, and if you don't understand the effects of globalization, you probably won't understand why issues of private property (and seizures through eminent domain) will become VERY IMPORTANT issues in the coming years, especially here in rural NC.
If 60% of their items are on rollback, why does their weekly ad only show less than 25% of their items on rollback in the ad? And some of those Rollback prices are increased and then shown as being marked down. A few items are less, mostly summer items. The price of eggs that I purchase increased 20 cents a dozen, Household items have increased, such as curtain rods. Some of the 40-42 Walmart store prices are higher than the Smithfield and Fuquay Wal-Marts for a lot a of items, I've also noticed. I rarely go to the Clayton Wal-Mart.
If you looked back you would have noticed that I was not involved in the discussion that led to your "presentation" of automation as a new subject. You might also wish to read the changes to the the GS-40A in 2006 as it limited, not expanded, the purposes for which eminent domain could be used. "Effective August 15, 2006, a local act granting the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain to a private condemnor, local public condemnor, or other public condemnor for a use or purpose other than those granted to it in G.S. 40A-3(a), (b), (b1), or (c) is not effective for that use or purpose. Provided that, any eminent domain action commenced before August 15, 2006, for a use or purpose granted in a local act, may be lawfully completed pursuant to the provisions of that local act. The provisions of this subsection shall not repeal any provision of a local act limiting the purposes for which the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain may be used."
Because globalization will significantly increase the need for the "construction of railroads, power generating facilities, substations, switching stations, microwave towers, roads, alleys, access railroads, turnpikes, street railroads, plank roads, tramroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, electric power lines, electric lights, public water supplies, public sewerage systems, flumes, bridges, and pipelines or mains originating in North Carolina for the transportation of petroleum products, coal, gas, limestone or minerals."
You're still not understanding the full implications of globalization especially in relationship to infrastructure usage and private property rights in the US. But at least you've raised the level of the discussion here above the usual "spitting contest", and for that I thank you.
As it relates to eminent domain in NC as you claimed, this IS the full implication of globalization. It is these unconnected claims that make your position seem like it is unsupported by anything other than what you are trying to say at any given time and not what was said prior nor will it be connected to what follows. You tried to connect the CSX intermodal facility here with the Jessup GA expansion and the problems with with ground water contamination somehoe related to storage of lines of cars, which was false. The problems in Jessup were not related to CSX because there had been no CSX expansion . The CCR transport, which was the supposed concern, had no relation to the intermodal facility either. The next "connection" was somehow that rural areas would be abused by CSX hauling CCR to ne landfills, which ignored the fact that the landfills would have to be sited and approved independent of anything CSX does. There was the side issue of how Duke handles CCR, which again was not related to CSX or anything else in the previous discussion. The issues of eminent domain abuse was then raised, even though there was no use of eminent domain in the intermodal facility here, probably due to the delay it would have imposed on the schedule. Others pointed out that eminent domain was actually needed for many public works programs, which brought about the moot discussion on the use of eminent domain for private industry outside that specified in the GS 40-A and the counter of robotics and how things had changed in industry over time. None of which related to CSX or eminent domain in NC. Now you have tried to connect globalization to this discussion ignoring the fact that eminent domain is not connected to most of the points you are trying to make although you still seem to want to claim they are.
But you quoted two of MY posts when you stated: "You're still not understanding the full implications of globalization especially in relationship to infrastructure usage and private property rights in the US. But at least you've raised the level of the discussion here above the usual "spitting contest", and for that I thank you." which does not sound like a generalization as opposed to indicating a specific person ... the "you" being quoted TWICE.
Obfuscation and twisted deflection again. It is not obvious to you that we are no longer living under the same unspoken social contract that had once existed between the captains of industry and the American worker in the past? Which means that no American is assured gainful employment anymore unless they have a particular skill that is valued in the job market. You talk of "job" creation through the building of infrastructure, and that is "temporary" employment at best, while the infrastructure is being built - but I will guarantee you that the majority of the goods being transported even at the new CSX will not be goods that were manufactured here in the US, but rather "distributed" to a growing population. Walmart is the perfect example of that, and like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, with all the billions that Walmart has, they have still chosen to replace workers with new automation. (Full disclosure: I shop there, I'm not reactionary anti-Walmart) In this business climate then, we have generational landowners who are "expected" to just give up their family lands in order for someone like CSX to transport primarily foreign-made consumer goods to the mass American market? Don't these landowners have the right to refuse and hold onto what they legally own?
I changed the generalized "you" to "we" so that you (and I mean YOU as a person now) would no longer be confused. Any additional use of the word "you" in that post was directed specifically to "you" as a person -i.e., Mr. Stollings, or "Peaches" as I like to affectionately call you.
There is nothing "twisted" about my explanation about the reality of globalization on the United States and other countries. Look around you. ("You" being used here to describe your person, and not in the general sense, you understand.)
Unlike this post where you supposedly switched from the specific "you" to the general "you" (now changed to "we") and then back to the specific "you" within the same paragraph and it was MY error in not seeing the switch?
Yes, there is you deflect into the "unspoken" contract when it is pointed out that you gave patently false information in the "connections" you tried to make. That is by definition a "twisted" explanation.
