IATSE - 10 Days To Go

And so what have the two of you learned from this discussion?
I've learned that modes of interpretation and specific observations that I thought were universally accepted are not. But that doesn't change how I look at media, just how I look at the audience.

I was thinking about this discussion while watching The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. On the surface, it's an action film about avenging the vulnerable. It's funny because it's not a movie rife with symbolism or any other subtext. It's a very flimsy script. Except for the central metaphor about society as a hive and the vigilante as a beekeeper who protects it. They've hammered this metaphor home about a dozen different ways in the hour I've watched so far. I used to think that they had to make artlessly explicit explanations of metaphors so that children would understand them but now I realize they're also trying to reach symbolism-resistant adults.

Why is Statham an actual beekeeper as well as a retired agent who held the role called "beekeeper?" No idea. Except to drive the metaphor home further.

And perhaps so we get to see him work as a tradesman. The deeper levels in the film play out in associations of class and culture politics. Statham wears a trucker cap and drives a beat up pickup truck. The bad guys are young white office workers and a wealthy heir.

The woman he's avenging is African-American. Her daughter has a sizable and complex role as an FBI agent.

His secret agent successor who he defeats after they're sent to stop him is gender-fluid, blue-haired, and wears a pink trench coat and high heels.

So you get the benefit of diverse representation and yet the white guy always comes out on top. Everybody wins.

Statham himself, with his baldness and reluctant heroism, has always represented a kind of beleaguered responsibility to me. The tough guy with a heart of gold. I rewatch his filmography every few years.

Different stories communicate in different ways at different times. The construction of meaning is fluid and variable and you have to listen to how the story is trying to speak.
 
I mean, I'm glad they caved. But that doesn't seem like a great signal for the health of the industry. Not that anyone thought they were in great shape.
Variety reported that the big issue on the negotiating table for IATSE was a $670 million shortfall for pensions and benefits. This is a problem we discussed previously about pensions, which I characterize as a Ponzi scheme. They depend on current contributors to fund future needs (just like Social Security does; the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all). So when the contributors decline, such has they have with the 50% drop in production in Los Angeles, the coffers are depleted faster than they fill up
 
I've learned that modes of interpretation and specific observations that I thought were universally accepted are not.

Good. Then the discussion was worthwhile..... At least for you. Doug on the other hand, learned nothing, but continued on, in his hopes of teaching you something, which he did, but alas, not what he wanted to teach you.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Daaahhhhh! Stop right there Abe. That was a nice, succinct thought......,

Oh, go ahead. Get it off your chest.

But that doesn't change how I look at media, just how I look at the audience.

I was thinking about this discussion while watching The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. On the surface, it's an action film about avenging the vulnerable. It's funny because it's not a movie rife with symbolism or any other subtext. It's a very flimsy script. Except for the central metaphor about society as a hive and the vigilante as a beekeeper who protects it. They've hammered this metaphor home about a dozen different ways in the hour I've watched so far. I used to think that they had to make artlessly explicit explanations of metaphors so that children would understand them but now I realize they're also trying to reach symbolism-resistant adults.

Why is Statham an actual beekeeper as well as a retired agent who held the role called "beekeeper?" No idea. Except to drive the metaphor home further.

And perhaps so we get to see him work as a tradesman. The deeper levels in the film play out in associations of class and culture politics. Statham wears a trucker cap and drives a beat up pickup truck. The bad guys are young white office workers and a wealthy heir.

The woman he's avenging is African-American. Her daughter has a sizable and complex role as an FBI agent.

His secret agent successor who he defeats after they're sent to stop him is gender-fluid, blue-haired, and wears a pink trench coat and high heels.

So you get the benefit of diverse representation and yet the white guy always comes out on top. Everybody wins.

Statham himself, with his baldness and reluctant heroism, has always represented a kind of beleaguered responsibility to me. The tough guy with a heart of gold. I rewatch his filmography every few years.

Different stories communicate in different ways at different times. The construction of meaning is fluid and variable and you have to listen to how the story is trying to speak.
 
Variety reported that the big issue on the negotiating table for IATSE was a $670 million shortfall for pensions and benefits. This is a problem we discussed previously about pensions, which I characterize as a Ponzi scheme. They depend on current contributors to fund future needs (just like Social Security does; the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all). So when the contributors decline, such has they have with the 50% drop in production in Los Angeles, the coffers are depleted faster than they fill up
A good example of why you have to plan for your own retirement funds. Take the money someone was supposed to invest for you and do it yourself.

For 40 years I've wished I could have opted out of the self-employment tax. I can take care of myself and my family, thank you.
When I think of how much more money I'd have in the bank now if I'd been able to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars I paid to the government (not talking about income tax) for a service I never wanted, it makes me weep into my pillow. Now, as I get closer to being able to collect a very tiny fraction of that money back, I'm going to take every penny I can get even though I won't really need it to live comfortably.

I highly recommend that people ignore whatever SS or pension they think they will get -- and plan for retirement yourself. IF that money is there later, then it will be icing on the cake. But make the cake yourself. (I learned about metaphors this week.)
 
Last edited:
When I think of how much more money I'd have in the bank now if I'd been able to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars I paid to the government (not talking about income tax) for a service I never wanted, it makes me weep into my pillow.

Now, now Doug, think of all the people who got gubment jobs to run Social Security from that money you didn't get. Doesn't that make you feel better that you personally kept people employed in a nice cushy federal job? Think of how many people would be on the streets if we didn't have all those gubment jobs.
 
Now, now Doug, think of all the people who got gubment jobs to run Social Security from that money you didn't get. Doesn't that make you feel better that you personally kept people employed in a nice cushy federal job? Think of how many people would be on the streets if we didn't have all those gubment jobs.
First of all, I would have thought that Doug had incorporated and dodged most of that SE tax.

But if the value of his stocks and his Florida real estate crater, he'll still have defined-benefit SS.

It's a poverty-prevention program. It's more beneficial to lower-income people who were never able to achieve a high savings rate and who will see a greater proportional return on their taxes. That's why he doesn't like it but they do.
 
First of all, I would have thought that Doug had incorporated and dodged most of that SE tax.

But if the value of his stocks and his Florida real estate crater, he'll still have defined-benefit SS.

It's a poverty-prevention program. It's more beneficial to lower-income people who were never able to achieve a high savings rate and who will see a greater proportional return on their taxes. That's why he doesn't like it but they do.
I did have an LLC when I lived in Utah, mostly because I had employees and other complications. However I found the paperwork and reporting requirements were a huge hassle, and the actual benefits and tax avoidance aspects were not at as good as people think. When I sold that production company and moved to New England I chose to operate as a sole proprietor.

SS is fine if someone wants to voluntarily sign on to the program and make contributions. I just wanted to be given the choice to opt out if I didn't want to participate. I was not given that choice.
 
I did some calculations about having the SS money invested yourself vs what the gubment pays out in benefits. I put the post in the Cafe section.
 
Back
Top