Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll agree with everything you said in your post, but I just want to point out that our entire worker-protection system is sort of built around the concept that we don't let higher pay or nicer conditions or shorter hours or . . . whatever . . . substitute for worker safety. Thus, you can't pay your steelworkers extra if they're willing to forgo the costly tying-off process for high work, and you can't let them have shorter shifts if you can take those pesky and speed-killing guards off of their presses, and the like.

So, the "higher-compensation-from-smokers" argument is never gonna fly. It will probably come down to the eventual answer to the "what does second-hand smoke do to your health" question.

But I think the two are related. One has to assume that second-hand smoke harms the waitstaff (beyond normal wear and tear associated with just fucking living and being around all of the other shit every day) to argue that they are being paid more to risk their health. If we just assume that being around smoke sucks if you don't like smoke, willing to be paid more to do it is okay. There are studies showing that working the overnight shift fucks with a person's internal clock and may even cause health problems -- does that mean that paying people a premium for working the midnight shift should not be allowed? Or maybe that businesses cannot run a midnight shift? What about the health problems caused by interns working those "48 hour" shifts with little or no sleep or working the ER overnight; should we prevent it?

Not providing safety equipment is one thing while using worker safety to ban behavior that has not been absolutely proven to cause unacceptable harm is another.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
I think that if you offered it as an option you would see some bars voluntarily go smokeless and be okay while others will stay the same and likewise survive.

Now, I fully understand being against the smoking ban, even though I'm a fan of it in California (I don't mind smoking outside if I want to smoke, and I like not having clouds of smoke in every bar, lounge, and dance club).

But your statement is a little odd, unless of course New York used to require bars and restaurants to allow smoking. I suspect not, and apparently whatever natural development of smoke-free bars and clubs was not enough for the Powers that Be.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Now, I fully understand being against the smoking ban, even though I'm a fan of it in California (I don't mind smoking outside if I want to smoke, and I like not having clouds of smoke in every bar, lounge, and dance club).

But your statement is a little odd, unless of course New York used to require bars and restaurants to allow smoking. I suspect not, and apparently whatever natural development of smoke-free bars and clubs was not enough for the Powers that Be.

I guess I was just thinking of the success that has happened in other places, including some communities in metro-Atlanta, when going smoke-free has been encouraged but not mandated. Some bars that apparently were "afraid" to do it before decided that the encouragement was enough.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall


Thurgreed(if you can't appreciate that chicken giving the thumbs up on the last one, you're a lost cause)Marshall

Those comic strips are quite a riot!
If you published a book I surely would buy it!!

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Those comic strips are quite a riot!
If you published a book I surely would buy it!!

I am sure they are available, he swiped them from somewhere
You freaky little devil with fire in your hair.



Hey, this is fun.

edited to note that I couldn't think of anything to rhyme with Heat Miser so ... oh well..

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
our entire worker-protection system is sort of built around the concept that we don't let higher pay or nicer conditions or shorter hours or . . . whatever . . . substitute for worker safety. Thus, you can't pay your steelworkers extra if they're willing to forgo the costly tying-off process for high work, and you can't let them have shorter shifts if you can take those pesky and speed-killing guards off of their presses, and the like.

But riskier jobs pay more, so your point is true only with regard to some minimum standards. A guy named Kip Viscusi has done interesting economic work aimed at determining the value of life, etc., reflected in the judgments people make in taking such jobs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

But your statement is a little odd, unless of course New York used to require bars and restaurants to allow smoking. I suspect not, and apparently whatever natural development of smoke-free bars and clubs was not enough for the Powers that Be.

It's quite clear that in a "free" market, non-smoking bars won't exist.

I would be interested in hearing a theory of market failure on this point. That is, if a sufficient number of consumers prefer smoke-free bars, why do they not exist? (I think the number of smoke-free bars, other than in banned areas, is negligible). Is it because of the greater tolerance of smokers? That is, if you ban smoking, you cut off a larger share of the market than if you allow it (and thus drive away the ardent non-smokers)? And because bars are social, there's a "tipping point" at which you would drive away too much of the market? Alternatively put, are smokers simply more passionate about being able to smoke than non-smokers are about not having smoke around?

I suppose another theory is, if DS's info is right, that smokers are more lucrative customers than non-smokers, and therefore bars want to cater to them. (I tend to think that this is not the case, but that any decline in business is attributable to smokers having to reduce their time in the bar in order to spend time outside of it smoking.)

Thoughts? More cartoons from thurgreed?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan

edited to note that I couldn't think of anything to rhyme with Heat Miser so ... oh well..

You would have if you were wiser.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But riskier jobs pay more, so your point is true only with regard to some minimum standards. A guy named Kip Viscusi has done interesting economic work aimed at determining the value of life, etc., reflected in the judgments people make in taking such jobs.

It's just a question of where you draw the line: what risks are so great that you don't allow people to take them.

Has anyone done an economic analysis as to whether the safety equipment that is used/required is generally cost/benefit positive? That is, maybe, given liability/workers' comp. laws, most factories (etc.) would, in fact, install the blade guards and safety tethers anyway, recognizing that it's cheaper to do so than to pay every day for another lost arm.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan

edited to note that I couldn't think of anything to rhyme with Heat Miser so ... oh well..

the king of beers in your signature line is calling you
with a rhyming word that you could have used too!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Those comic strips are quite a riot!
If you published a book I surely would buy it!!

Way to point that exclamation!
I forgive the previous aberration!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's just a question of where you draw the line: what risks are so great that you don't allow people to take them.

Has anyone done an economic analysis as to whether the safety equipment that is used/required is generally cost/benefit positive? That is, maybe, given liability/workers' comp. laws, most factories (etc.) would, in fact, install the blade guards and safety tethers anyway, recognizing that it's cheaper to do so than to pay every day for another lost arm.

A guy named Breyer -- maybe you've heard of him, works in D.C., has a brother who's a federal district court judge in San Francisco -- wrote a book called "Breaking The Vicious Cycle" which attempted to evaluate, by cost per life saved among other things, the effectiveness of various federal regulations. As I recall, NHTSA regulations came out really well, and OSHA regulations not so well, but it's been a long time since I've seen a copy of the book.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A guy named Breyer -- maybe you've heard of him, works in D.C., has a brother who's a federal district court judge in San Francisco -- wrote a book called "Breaking The Vicious Cycle" which attempted to evaluate, by cost per life saved among other things, the effectiveness of various federal regulations. As I recall, NHTSA regulations came out really well, and OSHA regulations not so well, but it's been a long time since I've seen a copy of the book.

If you guys want to get all substantive and stuff, could you please take it to the PB?

[NotFromHere]

MINERSVILLE, Pa, July 23 — Sam Waksal Wednesday moved into a new home for the next seven years. The former Imclone CEO reported to the minimum security Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania. Waksal was found guilty of insider trading earlier this year, sentenced to 7 years and 3 months, and ordered to pay $4.3 million dollars in fines for insider trading.


article

Two questions...
1 - is this a country club prison?
2 - what do they do with the money from the fine?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Has anyone done an economic analysis as to whether the safety equipment that is used/required is generally cost/benefit positive?

Yeah, I'll bet the insurance companies have this down to a science.

There's a former insurance actuary who wrote a book on risk. I can't remember his name; I heard him in a radio interview. I think it might be this guy. Anyway, his point was that Americans spend trillions on the wrong kinds of risk, especially w/r/t children. For example, there's constant agitation for retrofitting seatbelts on school buses, when the statistics show that you would spend something like a billion dollars per life saved, while much smaller investments in safety would save many more lives.

The question is how we can properly measure "cost/benefit positive." I don't think we should look merely at the wrongful death verdicts or worker's comp awards.