3 ms·

>or even implied that Thats an unusual take when the direct quote is him not only specifying a number of jobs, but the quality and pay for them. People dont us

by lovich 8y ago

>or even implied that Thats an unusual take when the direct quote is him not only specifying a number of jobs, but the quality and pay for them. People dont usually assume that when I say "This would add 7000 jobs" that me removing 23000 jobs net is the end result as long as the jobs were added somewhere

rayiner 8y ago
That's why you can't ignore the "we will invest $1 billion" part, as you are doing. "We will invest $1 billion, which will translate into jobs for 7,000 workers." He's talking about jobs in connection with specified investments--not about total headcount. Look at it this way. Suppose he had said: "We will build a new HQ building, which will create jobs for 7,000 workers." Would you still assume that precludes the possibility of a merger that results in job losses elsewhere (or, as mentioned above, not replacing union employees that retire)?
- lovich 8y ago
  That's the weasel words. If it didn't matter and they weren't trying to make the implication, why bring it up? >Suppose he had said: "We will build a new HQ building, which will create jobs for 7,000 workers." Would you still assume that precludes the possibility of a merger that results in job losses elsewhere (or, as mentioned above, not replacing union employees that retire)? If the person saying it is asking for a tax break that they say will fund this increase in jobs, then yes I would assume it precludes cutting jobs elsewhere. The whole point was it would be additive to society rather them shifting resources around but still pocketing the money. You seem to believe that there is no implications to their words or actions beyond the explicit meanings of the words. If that's how they want to act, while also making sure to say things in a way that the average person will assume an implication, they should never get a deal again. They were not making statements in good faith if we go by your interpretation of their statements
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > If the person saying it is asking for a tax break that they say will fund this increase in jobs, then yes I would assume it precludes cutting jobs elsewhere. The whole point was it would be additive to society rather them shifting resources around but still pocketing the money. I don’t think that assumption is at all sound. AT&T has 2.7x as many employees as Alphabet, but just 21% more revenue. It has a huge, unionized workforce that is in a long term process of being trimmed down over time due to market changes and automation. (It had 310,000 employees in 2007, and is down to 260,000.) A commitment to invest money that will create some jobs cannot be interpreted as a commitment to reverse that long term process altogether.
    - lovich 8y ago
      It may not be sound, I don't disagree. They shouldn't have been talking about tax cuts leads to them investing 1 billion leads to 7k more jobs. They made the claim, they get the ire for either being wrong or intentionally misleading

by lovich 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

That's why you can't ignore the "we will invest $1 billion" part, as you are doing. "We will invest $1 billion, which will translate into jobs for 7,000 workers." He's talking about jobs in connection with specified investments--not about total headcount. Look at it this way. Suppose he had said: "We will build a new HQ building, which will create jobs for 7,000 workers." Would you still assume that precludes the possibility of a merger that results in job losses elsewhere (or, as mentioned above, not replacing union employees that retire)?

lovich 8y ago
That's the weasel words. If it didn't matter and they weren't trying to make the implication, why bring it up? >Suppose he had said: "We will build a new HQ building, which will create jobs for 7,000 workers." Would you still assume that precludes the possibility of a merger that results in job losses elsewhere (or, as mentioned above, not replacing union employees that retire)? If the person saying it is asking for a tax break that they say will fund this increase in jobs, then yes I would assume it precludes cutting jobs elsewhere. The whole point was it would be additive to society rather them shifting resources around but still pocketing the money. You seem to believe that there is no implications to their words or actions beyond the explicit meanings of the words. If that's how they want to act, while also making sure to say things in a way that the average person will assume an implication, they should never get a deal again. They were not making statements in good faith if we go by your interpretation of their statements
- rayiner 8y ago
  > If the person saying it is asking for a tax break that they say will fund this increase in jobs, then yes I would assume it precludes cutting jobs elsewhere. The whole point was it would be additive to society rather them shifting resources around but still pocketing the money. I don’t think that assumption is at all sound. AT&T has 2.7x as many employees as Alphabet, but just 21% more revenue. It has a huge, unionized workforce that is in a long term process of being trimmed down over time due to market changes and automation. (It had 310,000 employees in 2007, and is down to 260,000.) A commitment to invest money that will create some jobs cannot be interpreted as a commitment to reverse that long term process altogether.
  - lovich 8y ago
    It may not be sound, I don't disagree. They shouldn't have been talking about tax cuts leads to them investing 1 billion leads to 7k more jobs. They made the claim, they get the ire for either being wrong or intentionally misleading