Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KimDotcom/st ... 2131023872

[foreverlax]

If Hunter isn't guilty of anything than why isn't he out campaigning for his dad?

Where is Hunter?

You can't help yourself....you just keep proving the point.

[foreverlax]

Red, The big difference is you see the dismantling/gutting of federal Institutions/regulations and leaving international orgs/agreements as a bad thing. Myself and many others see it as an accomplishment.

well sure, and you're going to vote for Trump.
A lot of people are.

As I've said before, no, I'm not. Going to write-in Hogan.
This is NOT a binary choice. I refuse to pull the lever for the "lesser of two evils."
I think Trump's accomplishments in dismantling the fed and many of the obama era nonsensical regs and virtue signal executive orders are great. But his personal behavior, crassness, and degradation of the office of president and constant bombast, lying and fight picking cant be rewarded with my vote. We can do better.

Which of the Obama era nonsensical regs are you most thrilled about now that they are gone?

Eliminating red tape, potential penalties, potential liability and environmental regs for businesses and industries including farmers, meat packers, nursing homes and internet providers. How they operate and provide services, environmentally, in the courts, and in general practice. Eliminating some unnecessary fed reporting guidelines on salaries, practices etc. All government overreach that straps most businesses and wastes corporate time and provides no overt benefit to the fed, other than collecting the info. I'd love to see a specific example of a reg that has directly benefited you.

A lot of the ACA crap- eliminating some of the unconstitutional penalties for not being insured. I don't know what that means....I believe that healthcare is a right, not a privlidge and that everyone should have a basic level of coverage...priced based on income or net worth. Choosing to not have coverage, imo, means you pay list price, in cash.

A lot of the environmental overreach. Telling states what they can and can't do- Fracking, drilling, building roads on fed lands etc. Dictating what type of power we can and can't use, while the rest of the world manipulates fuel pricing and follow slim to no environmental regs. how about another example of overreached that he has signed away....

This is another strawman measurement of his success....too much generalization, with no specific examples. I've heard that his de-reg EO for nursing homes turned out to be a freakin disaster ala CV19.

Suspect that most of his order are in the courts.

Same as the b.s. best economy ever. He got some serious tailwind in the employment sails...but that is gone as of now. GDP has been no better than BHO....no annual 3% GDP.

[kramerica.inc]

Some of us don't think regulations for regulation's sake are worth it. If you can get over the 'sad' WaPo spin, there are plenty of good reversals here:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=us

[Cooter]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

[MDlaxfan76]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

Pretty sure that's the case in the long run under most any scenario anyway. The question is just how fast the transition will be to cleaner forms of energy. And what incentives are applied, or not, to accelerate that transition.

We're already beginning to see lower costs with cleaner energy, so carbon, including from fracking, is going to eventually go the way of the buggy whip. The good news is that the replacement technologies will drive a lot of good paying jobs, far more than the current carbon jobs, especially during the infrastructure buildout phase.

If that's the case, and it is, the question for workers in carbon production is how they will acquire the skill sets and access to those jobs. The good news is that these jobs are similarly describable as 'fat-finger' jobs, jobs that can be done by skilled labor without higher educational requirements.

Over the long haul, politicians and policy makers who address the training and access questions will get rewarded, not those who tell carbon workers their current jobs are safe, nor those who think they can stick their noses up in the air and just let the market take care of it.

IMO, the best jobs program and economic stimulus program the Biden Administration could deliver would be focused on the infrastructure underlying clean energy production and distribution. Go big and go hard, the economy will need it as we come out of Covid eventually.

And it'll pay massive long term dividends, ala Eisenhower's transportation infrastructure investments.

[CU77]

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking"

Really?

Please link to one of these clips, with enough unedited video both before and after to be sure that the clip has not been taken out of context.

Thanks.

[RedFromMI]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

[cradleandshoot]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

Pretty sure that's the case in the long run under most any scenario anyway. The question is just how fast the transition will be to cleaner forms of energy. And what incentives are applied, or not, to accelerate that transition.

We're already beginning to see lower costs with cleaner energy, so carbon, including from fracking, is going to eventually go the way of the buggy whip. The good news is that the replacement technologies will drive a lot of good paying jobs, far more than the current carbon jobs, especially during the infrastructure buildout phase.

If that's the case, and it is, the question for workers in carbon production is how they will acquire the skill sets and access to those jobs. The good news is that these jobs are similarly describable as 'fat-finger' jobs, jobs that can be done by skilled labor without higher educational requirements.

Over the long haul, politicians and policy makers who address the training and access questions will get rewarded, not those who tell carbon workers their current jobs are safe, nor those who think they can stick their noses up in the air and just let the market take care of it.

IMO, the best jobs program and economic stimulus program the Biden Administration could deliver would be focused on the infrastructure underlying clean energy production and distribution. Go big and go hard, the economy will need it as we come out of Covid eventually.

And it'll pay massive long term dividends, ala Eisenhower's transportation infrastructure investments.

So how far do I have to go MD with your vision for saving the planet? Do I have to become vegan? Do I have to start driving an electric car because you don't like the internal combustion engine anymore? Do I have to install a geothermal heating system because my natural gas furnace upsets you? I want your vision because your misguided myopia deems it necessary for you to save the planet? Kindly leave my life and the planet alone, neither of us need your help. No matter how much you believe otherwise, we get along just fine without you.

[cradleandshoot]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

[RedFromMI]

Nepotism and the 2020 election, explained

Joe Biden isn’t the only candidate with family in question in this campaign.

https://www.vox.com/21527215/hunter-bid ... don-junior

Does a good job explaining what is known about both Hunter Biden and Ivanka/Jared/Don Jr./Eric have going for them in the sleaze/illegality front.

Takeaway: it is FAR worse with the Trump family...

The stakes in 2020

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all had kids who were too young to be involved in business while they were in the White House. Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, had two grown children who obviously did seek to capitalize on their dad’s political connections, but did so primarily in order to advance their own political ambitions rather than for money.

That kind of situation is probably better for everyone than the one that exists with top officials’ adult children kicking around with independent business careers.

Since both the Trump and Biden families are similarly situated, in this case, you can get a good comparative look at the situation. Hunter seems to have a more troubled personal life than many of the Trumps or various Trump-in-laws.

But the relevant figures of the extended Trump clan are simply more numerous, creating a wider range of actual and potential conflicts of interest. More importantly, Donald Trump has made his family members key advisers on critical political and policy decisions in a way that Biden simply hasn’t. The Trump kids show a lot more hustle and ingenuity at using their positions of privilege to attract more privilege. Jia Tolentino recounts the story Ivanka Trump tells in her biography of how she milked her family’s domestic servants for kickbacks via a lemonade stand:

When Ivanka was a kid, she got frustrated because she couldn’t set up a lemonade stand in Trump Tower. “We had no such advantages,” she writes, meaning, in this case, an ordinary home on an ordinary street. She and her brothers finally tried to sell lemonade at their summer place in Connecticut, but their neighborhood was so ritzy that there was no foot traffic. “As good fortune would have it, we had a bodyguard that summer,” she writes. They persuaded their bodyguard to buy lemonade, and then their driver, and then the maids, who “dug deep for their spare change.” The lesson, she says, is that the kids “made the best of a bad situation.”

This is fundamentally similar to the Kushner situation at Harvard — there for reasons other than his own merit, instead of coasting, he further peddled his dad’s money into a little business hustle. With Trump in office, Jared and Ivanka make policy. Eric and Don Jr. tour the world actively seeking new business opportunities.

It’s much more entrepreneurial than the Hunter Biden story, and much more in keeping with a certain vision of the American work ethic. But it’s infinitely more corrosive than a guy who has had drug problems scoring the occasional no-show job thanks to his dad’s influence.

[MDlaxfan76]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

Pretty sure that's the case in the long run under most any scenario anyway. The question is just how fast the transition will be to cleaner forms of energy. And what incentives are applied, or not, to accelerate that transition.

We're already beginning to see lower costs with cleaner energy, so carbon, including from fracking, is going to eventually go the way of the buggy whip. The good news is that the replacement technologies will drive a lot of good paying jobs, far more than the current carbon jobs, especially during the infrastructure buildout phase.

If that's the case, and it is, the question for workers in carbon production is how they will acquire the skill sets and access to those jobs. The good news is that these jobs are similarly describable as 'fat-finger' jobs, jobs that can be done by skilled labor without higher educational requirements.

Over the long haul, politicians and policy makers who address the training and access questions will get rewarded, not those who tell carbon workers their current jobs are safe, nor those who think they can stick their noses up in the air and just let the market take care of it.

IMO, the best jobs program and economic stimulus program the Biden Administration could deliver would be focused on the infrastructure underlying clean energy production and distribution. Go big and go hard, the economy will need it as we come out of Covid eventually.

And it'll pay massive long term dividends, ala Eisenhower's transportation infrastructure investments.

So how far do I have to go MD with your vision for saving the planet? Do I have to become vegan? Do I have to start driving an electric car because you don't like the internal combustion engine anymore? Do I have to install a geothermal heating system because my natural gas furnace upsets you? I want your vision because your misguided myopia deems it necessary for you to save the planet? Kindly leave my life and the planet alone, neither of us need your help. No matter how much you believe otherwise, we get along just fine without you.

you do need a chill pill today.

Cleaner energy is going to replace carbon over time, not tomorrow.
That's just an economic reality, the only question is how fast and how much do we incentivize and support the pace of that transition.

You can still get a buggy, and whip, and horse to pull it, but there are faster modes of transportation that have largely replaced them.
And paved roads and gas stations and...a lot of jobs came out of building all that infrastructure...
You have a problem with Eisenhower ?

[MDlaxfan76]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

[cradleandshoot]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

Pretty sure that's the case in the long run under most any scenario anyway. The question is just how fast the transition will be to cleaner forms of energy. And what incentives are applied, or not, to accelerate that transition.

We're already beginning to see lower costs with cleaner energy, so carbon, including from fracking, is going to eventually go the way of the buggy whip. The good news is that the replacement technologies will drive a lot of good paying jobs, far more than the current carbon jobs, especially during the infrastructure buildout phase.

If that's the case, and it is, the question for workers in carbon production is how they will acquire the skill sets and access to those jobs. The good news is that these jobs are similarly describable as 'fat-finger' jobs, jobs that can be done by skilled labor without higher educational requirements.

Over the long haul, politicians and policy makers who address the training and access questions will get rewarded, not those who tell carbon workers their current jobs are safe, nor those who think they can stick their noses up in the air and just let the market take care of it.

IMO, the best jobs program and economic stimulus program the Biden Administration could deliver would be focused on the infrastructure underlying clean energy production and distribution. Go big and go hard, the economy will need it as we come out of Covid eventually.

And it'll pay massive long term dividends, ala Eisenhower's transportation infrastructure investments.

So how far do I have to go MD with your vision for saving the planet? Do I have to become vegan? Do I have to start driving an electric car because you don't like the internal combustion engine anymore? Do I have to install a geothermal heating system because my natural gas furnace upsets you? I want your vision because your misguided myopia deems it necessary for you to save the planet? Kindly leave my life and the planet alone, neither of us need your help. No matter how much you believe otherwise, we get along just fine without you.

you do need a chill pill today.

Cleaner energy is going to replace carbon over time, not tomorrow.
That's just an economic reality, the only question is how fast and how much do we incentivize and support the pace of that transition.

You can still get a buggy, and whip, and horse to pull it, but there are faster modes of transportation that have largely replaced them.
And paved roads and gas stations and...a lot of jobs came out of building all that infrastructure...
You have a problem with Eisenhower ?

No doubt I am in a foul mood now, your on the list as well. You people want to f**k with me about my wife and what she has been through your playing with the wrong guy. i have no problem with new sources of energy( how come nuclear is not in the mix, can't get any more carbon neutral than that) i am against you folks DEMANDING what I should eat and what I should drive and how I should live my life. For the record... i would consider it an honor to have my dog chit on your lawn. It is 100% biodegradable after all. If you get it while it is still warm there is some heat for you.

[cradleandshoot]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

Because if these are private companies they won't be all crazy about union people coming in. If they are public companies, how do you make it financially viable if your paying top dollar to fat fingers who never went to college. You pay a guy or gal 30 bucks an hour that need detailed instruction on how to pick their nose. That sure makes like an efficient industry to me.

[MDlaxfan76]

It could also be an indicator of senility as he didn't even seem to be able to remember that earlier in his campaign, he had come out as no fracking.

Already pointed out by MD that this is not correct. Biden has been completely consistent throughout the campaign.

Biden's actual position, which he frequently states, is that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands only.

https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 9e36f4f82b

That being said there are numerous video clips of Joe Biden just saying "No fracking", which certainly made it unciear what he is for. Trump was able to refute his claim that he had never said "no fracking".

In the end, he is indicating that he feels fracking is bad. It is perhaps only more egregious on government land and disallowing it on government land is something that can easily be done. So I would believe that ending fracking on government lands is essentially just a first step towards eliminating fracking altogether.

Pretty sure that's the case in the long run under most any scenario anyway. The question is just how fast the transition will be to cleaner forms of energy. And what incentives are applied, or not, to accelerate that transition.

We're already beginning to see lower costs with cleaner energy, so carbon, including from fracking, is going to eventually go the way of the buggy whip. The good news is that the replacement technologies will drive a lot of good paying jobs, far more than the current carbon jobs, especially during the infrastructure buildout phase.

If that's the case, and it is, the question for workers in carbon production is how they will acquire the skill sets and access to those jobs. The good news is that these jobs are similarly describable as 'fat-finger' jobs, jobs that can be done by skilled labor without higher educational requirements.

Over the long haul, politicians and policy makers who address the training and access questions will get rewarded, not those who tell carbon workers their current jobs are safe, nor those who think they can stick their noses up in the air and just let the market take care of it.

IMO, the best jobs program and economic stimulus program the Biden Administration could deliver would be focused on the infrastructure underlying clean energy production and distribution. Go big and go hard, the economy will need it as we come out of Covid eventually.

And it'll pay massive long term dividends, ala Eisenhower's transportation infrastructure investments.

So how far do I have to go MD with your vision for saving the planet? Do I have to become vegan? Do I have to start driving an electric car because you don't like the internal combustion engine anymore? Do I have to install a geothermal heating system because my natural gas furnace upsets you? I want your vision because your misguided myopia deems it necessary for you to save the planet? Kindly leave my life and the planet alone, neither of us need your help. No matter how much you believe otherwise, we get along just fine without you.

you do need a chill pill today.

Cleaner energy is going to replace carbon over time, not tomorrow.
That's just an economic reality, the only question is how fast and how much do we incentivize and support the pace of that transition.

You can still get a buggy, and whip, and horse to pull it, but there are faster modes of transportation that have largely replaced them.
And paved roads and gas stations and...a lot of jobs came out of building all that infrastructure...
You have a problem with Eisenhower ?

No doubt I am in a foul mood now, your on the list as well. You people want to f**k with me about my wife and what she has been through your playing with the wrong guy. i have no problem with new sources of energy( how come nuclear is not in the mix, can't get any more carbon neutral than that) i am against you folks DEMANDING what I should eat and what I should drive and how I should live my life. For the record... i would consider it an honor to have my dog chit on your lawn. It is 100% biodegradable after all. If you get it while it is still warm there is some heat for you.

yeah, you need to take your dog for a walk.
No worries about a little poop on our lawn, plenty from our dogs for sure.
Plenty of running room, squirrels to chase too.

I've never said anything unkind about your wife, quite the opposite as I recall, though long ago when we were talking about hip surgeries, etc.
Nothing today until this moment. And I certainly have no intention to be unkind today either.

And I'm not demanding a darn thing, you jumped into a discussion with two feet and are throwing mud around unnecessary to that discussion.

Argue with someone else. Howl at the moon if you want.

[MDlaxfan76]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

Because if these are private companies they won't be all crazy about union people coming in. If they are public companies, how do you make it financially viable if your paying top dollar to fat fingers who never went to college. You pay a guy or gal 30 bucks an hour that need detailed instruction on how to pick their nose. That sure makes like an efficient industry to me.

I don't see any reason why the distribution of union and non-union jobs will be any different in say solar installations than pipe fitters on a drilling rig. There will be those who are unionized and there will be those who are not.

But the jobs require some training and skill, they will benefit from experience on the job...much like the one you last had if I understand correctly. It didn't require a college education, but it did have standards and experience mattered.

There will be issues between management and labor, especially in large companies involved, and yeah some of these companies are going to grow big and have a large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers. There will be health and safety issues, there will be job security issues.

Some companies will stay non-union, some won't. Some will pay up for expertise and experience, some will go for the lowest cost employee.

I have a good friend who runs a very large, enormously successful, non-union trucking company. He pays top dollar for very, very good drivers, with excellent driving skills and very low accident issues, and he equips them with the best technology. He competes on the basis of reliability of service, not price, and has done enormously well. But finding those drivers is very, very hard. In the long run, a lot of the driving is going to be done robotically, only a small portion by the human drivers.

Back to clean energy, there are going to be a heck of a lot of jobs either way, union or non-union, and that's certainly a good thing, especially for folks who for one reason or another didn't go the 4-year college route.

Heck, there are apparently more clean energy jobs now in Texas than there are carbon energy jobs...and this thing has not yet really gotten going full steam.

[youthathletics]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

Because if these are private companies they won't be all crazy about union people coming in. If they are public companies, how do you make it financially viable if your paying top dollar to fat fingers who never went to college. You pay a guy or gal 30 bucks an hour that need detailed instruction on how to pick their nose. That sure makes like an efficient industry to me.

I don't see any reason why the distribution of union and non-union jobs will be any different in say solar installations than pipe fitters on a drilling rig. There will be those who are unionized and there will be those who are not.

But the jobs require some training and skill, they will benefit from experience on the job...much like the one you last had if I understand correctly. It didn't require a college education, but it did have standards and experience mattered.

There will be issues between management and labor, especially in large companies involved, and yeah some of these companies are going to grow big and have a large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers. There will be health and safety issues, there will be job security issues.

Some companies will stay non-union, some won't. Some will pay up for expertise and experience, some will go for the lowest cost employee.

I have a good friend who runs a very large, enormously successful, non-union trucking company. He pays top dollar for very, very good drivers, with excellent driving skills and very low accident issues, and he equips them with the best technology. He competes on the basis of reliability of service, not price, and has done enormously well. But finding those drivers is very, very hard. In the long run, a lot of the driving is going to be done robotically, only a small portion by the human drivers.

Back to clean energy, there are going to be a heck of a lot of jobs either way, union or non-union, and that's certainly a good thing, especially for folks who for one reason or another didn't go the 4-year college route.

Heck, there are apparently more clean energy jobs now in Texas than there are carbon energy jobs...and this thing has not yet really gotten going full steam.

I'd be more concerned about the tax hikes for those making more than 400k, those are the people that are opening, supporting, and expanding businesses. Couple that with higher min. wage, you have the recipe for people to sit back and hoard their cash until the time is right.

[MDlaxfan76]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

Because if these are private companies they won't be all crazy about union people coming in. If they are public companies, how do you make it financially viable if your paying top dollar to fat fingers who never went to college. You pay a guy or gal 30 bucks an hour that need detailed instruction on how to pick their nose. That sure makes like an efficient industry to me.

I don't see any reason why the distribution of union and non-union jobs will be any different in say solar installations than pipe fitters on a drilling rig. There will be those who are unionized and there will be those who are not.

But the jobs require some training and skill, they will benefit from experience on the job...much like the one you last had if I understand correctly. It didn't require a college education, but it did have standards and experience mattered.

There will be issues between management and labor, especially in large companies involved, and yeah some of these companies are going to grow big and have a large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers. There will be health and safety issues, there will be job security issues.

Some companies will stay non-union, some won't. Some will pay up for expertise and experience, some will go for the lowest cost employee.

I have a good friend who runs a very large, enormously successful, non-union trucking company. He pays top dollar for very, very good drivers, with excellent driving skills and very low accident issues, and he equips them with the best technology. He competes on the basis of reliability of service, not price, and has done enormously well. But finding those drivers is very, very hard. In the long run, a lot of the driving is going to be done robotically, only a small portion by the human drivers.

Back to clean energy, there are going to be a heck of a lot of jobs either way, union or non-union, and that's certainly a good thing, especially for folks who for one reason or another didn't go the 4-year college route.

Heck, there are apparently more clean energy jobs now in Texas than there are carbon energy jobs...and this thing has not yet really gotten going full steam.

I'd be more concerned about the tax hikes for those making more than 400k, those are the people that are opening, supporting, and expanding businesses. Couple that with higher min. wage, you have the recipe for people to sit back and hoard their cash until the time is right.

How is that related to whether jobs are union or non-union?
Doesn't make any difference to me, I like this path to post COVID recovery.
Drive the infrastructure spend, lots of jobs.

Or are you changing the topic to other concerns you have about a Democratic sweep and set of policies?
Maybe the revenue needed to pay for the investment in infrastructure?

I'm a little nervous about the increased tax rates on those making less than $1 million and more than $400k, but not at all concerned about above that nor the 'wealth tax' proposals I've seen for the over $50 million set.

But history does seem to tell us that we can sustain some increase in taxes on higher earners without changing incentives to invest and earn more. Investment decisions typically are made based on perceptions of opportunity, not tax rates, except in extreme cases. And nothing proposed is extreme by any historical standard.

By example, marginal tax rates during Eisenhower's push for interstate infrastructure...

[Typical Lax Dad]

News report this weekend that it now is cheaper per watt to build renewable than fossil plants.

Wait until the unions hear about that...

What will make clean energy jobs less likely to be union?

You do realize that the union movement is thrilled about the prospect of clean energy jobs, lots and lots of 'fat finger' jobs not requiring a college education?

Because if these are private companies they won't be all crazy about union people coming in. If they are public companies, how do you make it financially viable if your paying top dollar to fat fingers who never went to college. You pay a guy or gal 30 bucks an hour that need detailed instruction on how to pick their nose. That sure makes like an efficient industry to me.

I don't see any reason why the distribution of union and non-union jobs will be any different in say solar installations than pipe fitters on a drilling rig. There will be those who are unionized and there will be those who are not.

But the jobs require some training and skill, they will benefit from experience on the job...much like the one you last had if I understand correctly. It didn't require a college education, but it did have standards and experience mattered.

There will be issues between management and labor, especially in large companies involved, and yeah some of these companies are going to grow big and have a large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers. There will be health and safety issues, there will be job security issues.

Some companies will stay non-union, some won't. Some will pay up for expertise and experience, some will go for the lowest cost employee.

I have a good friend who runs a very large, enormously successful, non-union trucking company. He pays top dollar for very, very good drivers, with excellent driving skills and very low accident issues, and he equips them with the best technology. He competes on the basis of reliability of service, not price, and has done enormously well. But finding those drivers is very, very hard. In the long run, a lot of the driving is going to be done robotically, only a small portion by the human drivers.

Back to clean energy, there are going to be a heck of a lot of jobs either way, union or non-union, and that's certainly a good thing, especially for folks who for one reason or another didn't go the 4-year college route.

Heck, there are apparently more clean energy jobs now in Texas than there are carbon energy jobs...and this thing has not yet really gotten going full steam.

I'd be more concerned about the tax hikes for those making more than 400k, those are the people that are opening, supporting, and expanding businesses. Couple that with higher min. wage, you have the recipe for people to sit back and hoard their cash until the time is right.

what is wrong with this picture?