2 hours ago, Bobster said:

The unions are doing exactly what they should be doing

Yup. That's a game you can always play with yourself: Ask if the guy is perhaps just doing his job. Unions per definition don't care about youth employment, at least in the short term. They care about their present members (and also to some extent where the membership money comes from). We should not expect the unions to act differently. Your only chance is to ask them where they see themselves in, say, ten years?

😛

 

The unions bottom line are a business, and as such they won't do anything to jeopardise their income.

at the end they actually don't care 1 cent for their members, only the membership fee they pay and to be able to pay that they have to be employed, the more they earn the more membership fee they can collect.

G

Jinne ... Eskom managers want more money – or load shedding may return

Ja, I know it is Blom but have not seen anything about this anywhere else.

Blom reminds me of of the boy who cried wolf ... the boy was right, he died to prove it. 🙂

7 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Jinne ... Eskom managers want more money – or load shedding may return

Ja, I know it is Blom but have not seen anything about this anywhere else.

Blom reminds me of of the boy who cried wolf ... the boy was right, he died to prove it. 🙂

we'll with this type of threat, against a critical resource, holding the government hostage... don't retrench them, fire them... that will fit into CR's not allowed to retrench, and help towards cutting that middle management bloated salary bill.

 

G

8 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Ja, I know it is Blom but have not seen anything about this anywhere else.

The 80% claim seems to be from Blom (and over a few years, not all at once). And as I said before, that guy has lost credibility for me. I'm sure he's at least half right about most things, but if you're half right about most things, you're also half-wrong about most other things 🙂 He's like some kind of Messiah figure people appeal to, and the goto guy the media calls if they need some dirt on Eskom.

The official number that can be verified is 22% (14% this year, plus the approved raises going up to 2021). But 22% isn't going to save Eskom... so this really is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Saving our economy requires either a 6% growth figure (we're at 1%.. maybe... probably less), or cutting state expenditure by 5% of GDP, some 250 billion, or finding some place to get 250 billion. To raise taxes of 250b, you need to add 11% to the VAT (which would make our VAT 26%, that's higher than Germany), or adding 10% to personal taxes (which will lead to either a tax revolt, massive tax evasion, or likely both), so that is out of the question. Even if you raise taxes... you won't get the money. The money would just flee.

Cutting state expenditure by that much would likely mean two things, the one would be capital investment (build less stuff, hospitals, roads, schools), and the other one absolutely has to be the wage bill. The state will have to reduce its work force, starting with Eskom, which we know is very top heavy.

The answer is likely some kind of combination of the above. There is a little room for messing with taxes, but not much. Here's the thing though: Whatever is done must be done soon. We don't have another 5 years. The economy has to be stabilised within a time frame of months and not years. Do we see any political resolve at all to get this going? I don't know about you guys, but I see nothing. I see a whole lot of talk and not a lot of doing. Nobody has been fired yet, few people have even been suspended. Nobody is in jail yet (okay, innocent until proven guilty, probably have to wait a bit for this one).

This is probably me white privilege talking... or maybe my western-centric thinking... but it is not looking good.

2 hours ago, plonkster said:

The 80% claim seems to be from Blom ...

With possible loadshedding in Aug : https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2019-08-05-possible-eskom-strike-could-result-in-more-load-shedding-here-is-what-you-need-to-know/

 

2 hours ago, plonkster said:

Do we see any political resolve at all to get this going? I don't know about you guys, but I see nothing. I see a whole lot of talk and not a lot of doing. Nobody has been fired yet, few people have even been suspended.

Nope, nothing, nada, zilch - talk and promises and cities in the sky ... and nobody is going to be fired, even less chance of jail.

 

2 hours ago, plonkster said:

This is probably me white privilege talking... or maybe my western-centric thinking... but it is not looking good.

Is it really so easy to just say "white privilege" or "Western-centric thinking"? Where does this behavior work for any non-wite privildiged and non-western-centic thinking anywhere in the world? This is not a PC thing.

The raping of SA continues and it is the nefarious characters / groups of all shapes and sizes / people of all colour are feeding like mad at this trough.

As the continued desperation grows because 20+ years later nothing has really changed for the person on the street, employed or not, with more and more pressure from all sides on everyone so it "feels" to me like "lets grab as much as we can while it lasts" knowing SA may not recover as the ANC is fighting between themselves like madmen.

 

4 hours ago, georgelza said:

we'll with this type of threat, against a critical resource, holding the government hostage... don't retrench them, fire them... that will fit into CR's not allowed to retrench, and help towards cutting that middle management bloated salary bill.

CR won't fire them ... he cannot as he will be out on the street soon afterwards.

CR has no power. 

5 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

CR won't fire them ... he cannot as he will be out on the street soon afterwards.

CR has no power. 

I know...

 

G

20 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

With possible loadshedding in Aug : https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2019-08-05-possible-eskom-strike-could-result-in-more-load-shedding-here-is-what-you-need-to-know/

I'm not sure why the loadshedding possibility (an insanity all on its own, seeing as apparently it's managers earning upwards of 1.5 million who wants more) means Blom's 80% is correct. That number seems inflated. We'll get there for sure, even at normal inflation rates (around 5% reportedly) you'll get there in 12 years. I would still like to know where this number comes from.

20 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Is it really so easy to just say "white privilege" or "Western-centric thinking"? Where does this behavior work for any non-wite privildiged and non-western-centic thinking anywhere in the world? This is not a PC thing.

It's the genetic fallacy. The argument is judged based on where it comes from rather than on its actual content. Nice example I heard this morning: Suppose you learned that the earth is spherical from a comic book. You're right... even if the source is terrible. To dismiss your argument based on the source would be fallacious.

But... the point is that there are many people who think this is a good argument, simply discredit the man and what he is saying goes away. But further than that, it's a bit of a disclaimer from myself, just indicating that my ideas of justice (that people ought to be fired and even go to jail) is after all a very western way of looking at the world, which is informed by centuries of... let's just say philosophy. As I say, without a recognised yardstick, there is no way to measure, and there is no reason to denounce the South African way (of letting them get away with it). And unfortunately I promised myself I will not get into that any more, because I too have to stick to the rules (which says no politics and no religion), or else I must be consistent, follow my brother's example, and withdraw completely.

In fact this entire thread is actually illegal by the forum rules, come to think of it.

Edited August 6, 20196 yr by plonkster

@plonkster you are sharp brother, you are sharp AND you made my day by making me 🤣 (ROFL).

1 hour ago, plonkster said:

But... the point is that there are many people who think this is a good argument, simply discredit the man and what he is saying goes away. But further than that, it's a bit of a disclaimer from myself, just indicating that my ideas of justice (that people ought to be fired and even go to jail) is after all a very western way of looking at the world, which is informed by centuries of... let's just say philosophy. As I say, without a recognised yardstick, there is no way to measure, and there is no reason to denounce the South African way (of letting them get away with it). And unfortunately I promised myself I will not get into that any more, because I too have to stick to the rules (which says no politics and no religion), or else I must be consistent, follow my brother's example, and withdraw completely.

In fact this entire thread is actually illegal by the forum rules, come to think of it.

I don't know about the whole thread, but it's certainly getting into areas where I don't feel I can comment any more ON THIS FORUM. per the rules.
 

It's a very difficult subject. I have always preferred to keep things as pluralistic as possible, because I have always felt that a strict secular approach is not really neutral, but conversely I have also cringed inwardly when things got a bit on the nose (we all have our limits). Nevertheless, after the incident, I was actually a little p*ssed off for a few days (that was the real reason I went awol for a week), but in the end I agreed with the rules of the forum, and as such I can complain as much as I want, but I have no leg to stand on. All that remains is that I must remain consistent, and hence... I really think we ought to keep these discussions to the OT part of the site (which is there precisely for blabbermouths like myself).

4 hours ago, plonkster said:

... rules of the forum ...I must remain consistent ...
... , after the incident, I was actually a little p*ssed off for a few days ...

And there I thought rules where like bones, meant to be broken! I'm consistent see!.🤣
Same here ... also got to me.

On a serious note though.
Rules are there and they can be changed and adjusted according to a majority feeling the same. Focus being on the word majority. 
Unless the rules are autocratic, take it or leave it. That is a different story.
But then, if the forum is here for us to share and we the majority make it work, do we have any say in some of the the rules being bent a wee bit? If not, then so be it.

Because if we do have a say, when a member adds value, makes people smile and laugh at times and that member lives, breathes, writes and speaks exactly the same on-forum as off-forum i.e. that is his or her core, then I say the rules could be bent a bit to accommodate that person/s because the majority accepts him/her as is ... I mean, just don't read some post if they somehow "offends", the person behind them is still a cool person, right?

So when that member is then asked to refrain for being who they are, by a minority, the majority not feeling the same, and s[he] decides to rather leave the forum than to change who they are, that not only show some serious commitment and character (we want character on this forum), that also gets my hackles up.

My opinion. Enough said from my side.

 

O, and if I am banned for transgressing with the above post, which I felt I really REALLY had to say,  then so be it.
NOTE: If the person was from any other religion AND they lived their religion here as in real life, I would have been fair and feel the same. Just so we are clear on that.

Let the chips fall where they fall. 🙂 

 

Edited August 6, 20196 yr by Guest

22 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Rules are there and they can be changed and adjusted according to a majority feeling the same. Focus being on the word majority. 
Unless the rules are autocratic, take it or leave it. That is a different story.
But then, if the forum is here for us to share and we the majority make it work, do we have any say in some of the the rules being bent a wee bit? If not, then so be it.

The rules can be changed, though nobody said this forum is a democracy. Usenet may be (except for the moderated groups) but this sort of forum nearly always belongs to somebody who may not want certain things and will almost certainly take whatever heat arises - so we sit round their table and we act according to their rules.

In general, think of a restaurant. It's owned by a person or persons who have an idea and are willing to take the risk on that idea working. That I eat there at least once a week for many years doesn't mean that I get a say in how the place is run. I may make suggestions, the owners may even chose to ask my opinion. But it's their establishment and their risk and they will have to deal with complaints, so the final and binding word is theirs.
 

1 hour ago, Bobster said:

... forum nearly always belongs to somebody who may not want certain things and will almost certainly take whatever heat arises - so we sit round their table and we act according to their rules.

You are absolutely right, as I said, "Then so be it."
But so am I. There are post on this forum that clearly states: This is YOUR forum.

But just for interest sake.
In all the time the member in question was here, all the posts made, living and breathing what he wrote, never was there one mention of the rules, not one warning, until one person complained out of the blue.

So now we, the regular posters, we are fresh out of a actively conversing PF "friend"?
One can only answer the same ole question so many times before you need some distraction!

So to use your analogy re. the "restaurant owner/s /managers", "our restaurant", I agree, it is their choice and only their call to make but maybe they did not know they had more choices:
1) One person complains about a dish and it is off the menu.
2) Or one person complains about a dish and is told: Just don't order it.
Because I bet you, if we, the regular "customers", if we where asked in a anonymous survey: Guys, you ok with this dish or not?
The majority would have said: We may not order that dish every day, but once in a while it is quite enjoyable.

Lets leave it at that, ok?

 

Edited August 7, 20196 yr by Guest

I think what I learned is that this forum is not my "kuier-plek", to use an Afrikaans word. And since I too am a person that can't just put the world into neatly labelled compartments, every political discussion tends to make me think of how inherently all of this nonsense depends on what one might call the  human condition. And I can't really talk about that without offending people, so then I must also get out of the political talk. And then you guys sucked me in again this week... 😛

Fwiw, the anger on my side was more about that internal convicting voice that whispers: You did the same things... why should you get away with them. If I had any moral integrity, I have to walk the same road, which is either withdraw completely, or just stick with the technical stuff. Which I was fairly successful with until this week... 🙂

 

What happened? Did I miss something?

5 hours ago, plonkster said:

I think what I learned is that this forum is not my "kuier-plek", 
... withdraw completely, ...

And there we have the potential resultant fallout.

As I said. You can only answer the same questions with the same answers so many times before you need a distraction to stay around for the next round..

So maybe that must change. Make it a "kuier plek" for solar people like us, who want to help the next solar entree, and in-between the good advises, we jostle around.

5 hours ago, plonkster said:

... stick with the technical stuff.

That will leave very little behind ito interesting debates / arguments / general chats. I mean, what will be left to talk about!? 🤔😂

Ok, back to Eskom woes ... 

So you are off-grid, working hard to make a plan to not let you hard earned cash be squandered by Eskom? 

Think again: 🙂 

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. has told bondholders that it wants the majority of its 440 billion rand ($29 billion) of debt transferred to the South African government.

Must say, I cannot see the Eskom debt getting resolved any other way. But then we have no word on SAA ... another hole needing to be filled?

Ja. I get woes when I think of the mess that is Eskom and how, one way or another, the tax payer is eventually going to pay. But what are the alternatives? Eskom going belly up is the worst scenario of all.

8 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

And there we have the potential resultant fallout.

As I said. You can only answer the same questions with the same answers so many times before you need a distraction to stay around for the next round..

So maybe that must change. Make it a "kuier plek" for solar people like us, who want to help the next solar entree, and in-between the good advises, we jostle around.

There's an off topic board for hanging out and shooting the breeze, so to speak.

I think it is best that we keep the political and religious talk to the OT part of the site. That way we can protect our secular brothers 🙂

Perhaps the last thing I like to say about that, and something I wish was the case and could be coded somehow, a case in Europe called Lautsi vs Italy. That had such a beautifully level outcome. I wish our own courts did the same with the whole Peterson debacle. But yeah, if anyone wants to take me on, then we need to take this OT.

1 hour ago, Bobster said:

There's an off topic board for hanging out and shooting the breeze, so to speak.

Yea, we can try and see if it works. Last time it did not get traction, one reason being a thread gets "derailed" very quickly ... uhm, JUST like we did here.

No-one thought of taking this "Off Topic". 

IF the "discipline" can be kept and all derailments goes to the Off Topic board, the threads will be cleaner. 

In the past I offered to mark post for deletion to clean some of the threads I started, that got derailed. 
Could be an idea that each thread starter marks post for deletion that does not pertain to their topic, admins then remove selected posts.

So I will try and move a chat to Off Topic if my next post could derail the core thread, and see if it works.

And @plonkster , we both should try that ... I THINK we are the worst culprits. 🤣

Ps. For the record, dissing Eskom is not against the rules. If it is, change the rules to allow Eskom dissing.

10 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Ok, back to Eskom woes ... 

So you are off-grid, working hard to make a plan to not let you hard earned cash be squandered by Eskom? 

Think again: 🙂 

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. has told bondholders that it wants the majority of its 440 billion rand ($29 billion) of debt transferred to the South African government.

Must say, I cannot see the Eskom debt getting resolved any other way. But then we have no word on SAA ... another hole needing to be filled?

It's been put to me that this is not really a dramatic change, because Eskom is an SOE and the state guarantees the debt of SOEs. So it may have a technical impact on Eskom's books, but in terms of impact on you and me and our back pockets, we are as badly off in either scenario.

2 hours ago, Bobster said:

the tax payer is eventually going to pay

maybe there is another less costly way to the taxpayer. I would assess the value of the company. If the value is less than the dept only this portion would have to be absorbed by the government before selling it.

28 minutes ago, Fuenkli said:

maybe there is another less costly way to the taxpayer. I would assess the value of the company. If the value is less than the dept only this portion would have to be absorbed by the government before selling it.

Indeed. Which is why in the news you will hear critics being concerned with the inflated value of the assets. Eskom says they have between 645Bn and 1 Trillion of assets, but that is because they value Medupi at 300Bn. That's not the real value of Medupi, in the sense that nobody will pay that for a large coal station (even if that is what it cost to build). The Outa guys thinks its real asset base is somewhere between 300Bn and 400Bn. So that's just the fixed assets, your paying customer base is also considered an asset, so we're not quite at the point where debts are more than assets... but I suspect we are close.

The second issue is that nobody is going to buy old coal stations. You may be able to find buyers for the new ones (at the original build estimates of under 100Bn), so the government would have to pay 200Bn into Eskom, and then they'd have to practically give it (the generation side) away.

But third, there is talk that an IMF loan might be unavoidable, and there are people saying that might be the best thing that can happen (well, not the best... but better than nothing, which is what we're getting from the people in charge now). Such a loan would likely lead to the forced privatisation of the SOEs. That's going to be interesting.