Hey Torch, man, thanks for a bunch of good times here. I’m sorry the site is exploding due to weaponized incompetence, but if it’s any consolation the work you and your colleagues do is great, and I am confident it will soon be recognized by someone who knows how to, say, own and operate a media website.

I get that auto workers want job “security” since many of them have worked there for decades. You don’t want to be thrown out at the end on your duff when you’re in your 50's. But honestly, there is a lot of myopic thinking and entitlement views coming from so many of these Rust Belt workers. Sure GM and other…

I’ll tell you want they want, what they really really want. They...

20 years ago I would argue that riding a motorcycle from coast to coast and back, on the little roads and highways, at least once, should be a prerequisite for running for President. You gain understanding if you have been hit in the face by bits of each state. Oh, and the aroma.

Tier 1 workers make more than I do, as an IT professional with a bachelor of science degree and 20 years of experience., and they probably get as good or better health benefits, too..

The shitty thing about this situation is absolutely Temp and Tier 2 workers. That is a legitimate grievance.

I belonged to a union once (AFL-CIO), went on strike for 9 weeks and ended up with a 15 Cent an hour pay raise. Used the 9 weeks to good advantage,found another job with more pay and NO union and I stayed there for 13 years!

I don’t really have an issue with Jalopnik editorializing a bit—I’ll read it, disagree, and move on—but this reads like the UAW newsletter.

“Everyone wants a secure future where they know they’ll have a job to go to,” she said. “That’s what we are really about. Everyone thinks we’re being greedy and selfish. This is about the ones who are coming after us. We want them to have a future.”

welp... dude looks to be doing allright so far

Right, that was actually pointed out in the first article and call for response. It was written in a biased way that would tend to slew results higher (the outright goal was to prove Uber/Lyft took more, not a neutral goal like asking to figure the percentage). The demographic is also skewed (Uber’s SEC figures likely…

“He asked to sit in the front so i gave him 1 star without saying anything because I am petty and a dickhead who is incapable of adult direct communication” Thanks t3r, Very Cool!

I just dug out an Oct (?) 1970 Road & Track to find an article by Karl Ludvigsen: “Racing by the BTU.” Mr. Ludvigsen and you are of like minds.

You need to change your click-baity title to “Dallas Taxpayers.” Texas doesn’t have state income tax.

My take: The “Golden Age” of F1 was when I was in my late teens (Yeah, I know, everybody’s Golden Age was when they were in their teens. Shut up.)

Sure. But you have the 1 series and 2 series, and when they eventually bloat BMW will introduce the 0 series and -1 series to make up for it.

Depends entirely on the series, their customer GT3 cars are routinely competitive. IMO they’re just not focused on their ICE racing programs right now.

… and poorly interpreted and rebroadcast by the author to create more fear and division

While probably true I dont think that is the intent of the OG analyst claim. From reading the horribly structured Bloomberg quote I read it simply as the analyst saying that to cover a 5% sales drop you would need to layoff of an additional 23000 people if you make no other changes.

Hes not saying they should. Hes saying that the math to make up for a 5% decrease in sales equates to a layoff more along the lines of an additional 23000 if no other changes are made.