The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Last night, I took my wife out for dinner and drinks because I had a hard day and wanted to zone out.  We went to the Red Lobster on 117th and Kendall.  I noticed roughly half the tables were empty, but there were people in the lobby and we were told there was a 90 minute wait. 

Undeterred, we went across the street to the Kendall Ale House.  There, it was the same situation.  We did manage to get two stools at the bar that had just been vacated.  Once we sat down, the bartender took our drink orders, then told us there would be at least an hour wait for food and that certain menu items were not available due to half the kitchen being shut down. 

Thankfully, what we ordered came out quickly.   A manager stopped by to ask how we were doing.  When I told him what I had observed, he confided to me that they were having trouble with staffing due to the enhanced unemployment still being given out and they were on the verge of closing down.  This was despite the fact that people were waiting for tables.  He also told me that most restaurants in the area are suffering from the same problem.   

Have any of you folks seen anything like this and if so, how bad has it been for you?   

I know a restaurant owner who makes the same claim.

I also know a few of his current and ex employees and they all stay in touch with the former workers, so I also know the truth. He laid off 46 employees.  Of that 15 of them had found other employment between being laid off and asked back.  Of those 15, 1 came back part time for a couple of weeks, but once her new job offered her more hours she quit.  Of the 31 that hadn’t found work 29 returned.  One didn’t return because she gave birth and had planned to quit.  (Her husband makes enough). One was 70 and retired.

Of the 29 that did return 17 of them have since quit, for new jobs.  In most cases joining former coworkers at new better paying jobs.  The other 12 are also looking. 

Prices on the menu are ~30% higher but the employees have not seen any pay raise.   The owner has hired plenty of folks but most quit after a few days because the low pay in relation to the work environment. 

The problem isn’t the unemployment benefits, it is that folks who thought they were stuck doing a crappy job that paid poorly now realize they have better employment opportunities.

Nope...no issues at all. I've gone out to eat a couple of times in the past week or so, and while I've seen restaurant layouts apply more spacing, I haven't seen any major delays for my order, or any manager whine to me about staffing issues.

I'm in a suburb of Dallas and we haven't noticed it too much.  Last weekend we went out to dinner and noticed that about 1/4 of the tables were not being utilized and there was about a 30 minute wait.  We assumed it was because they were understaffed.  And last month we had drinks at a place that actually had a sign on the door asking patrons to be patient as they were understaffed.  But other than those two incidents, I haven't really noticed it. 

I wonder what the new line is going to be once the enhanced unemployment ends and people still won't work for crap restaurants offering crap pay.

Also it's funny that that happened in Miami when florida stopped paying enhanced unemployment 2 weeks ago

I eat out more evenings than I eat from home in a week and it's very common. Just last night we went to Chile's and decided to leave the half filled restaurant because of the 30-45 minute wait. We went to a mom and pops Italian place across the plaza and had a 20 minute wait under the same circumstances. Several places are offering hiring bonuses to people to come work at restaurants and still are understaffed. Everyone is hiring. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I'll also add we run into poor service many of the times these days but we have learned to be patient as at least they are trying to work.

Don't worry Fau ... they will come a running when they run out of money and need that new vape pen and Starbucks coffee. Momma's basement isn't going to pay for it.

Eventually the regular unemployment will end as well.  Then when they realize the bills need to get paid, they'll get off their asses and find work.

On a personal note, I take care of my guys real well so none of them quit.

I'm not worried. When it comes to this, the better run places will pay a better wage and get better staff. others won't and they'll lose business as a result. Free market and all that right?

I just think people that knee jerk the "no-one wants to work" are going to get a rude awakening. I think people took the 'opportunity' getting laid off or furloughed gave them and found better jobs in different industries. It's not like a waiter gave up his multi-decade career in serving food after some agonizing soul searching. They got a job working somewhere else, making more money and have no interest in working at that restaurant again.  We are also missing over half a million people from the potential labor force, there may just be less workers now than there were in jan 2020

You may be right that restaurant workers took jobs in other fields during the pandemic, and I think that's a good thing. BUT, they may have taken the jobs of other people that have been happy to sit on their arses and collect unemployment, and those people are going to be looking for jobs that aren't there when they have to return to work.  You make it sound like there were oodles of jobs before the pandemic hit, and while Trump did a great job lowering unemployment during his Presidency, there will be people lining up to fill these jobs come September.

Why are we still hearing about this "no one wants to work" stuff in Florida?  Your governor ended the extra unemployment money 2 weeks ago, and FL already has one of the most difficult-to-navigate unemployment systems in the nation; one that, according to DeSantis, was designed with "pointless roadblocks" to "lead to the least number of claims being paid out." (https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/08/04/exclusive-governor-ron-desantis-acknowledges-florida-unemployment-system-designed-frustrate/)

So how long are we going to be blaming workers for a labor shortage... the rest of the summer?  The rest of the year?
At what point is it on management to offer more money?

I'm actually curious about this.  Do you really think 2 whole weeks is the difference maker? By labor day you will see a huge reduction in short staffed places.

I'm not sure why you guys think they have gotten jobs in other industries when we still have unemployment ... although much lower than blue states. The states that have rejected Biden's free money currently now typically have the lowest unemployment.

Well, I am generally of the opinion that people tend to need food and shelter every week, so I think the moment Floridians heard the extra unemployment is being cancelled at the end of June they would have been planning to have income at that time.

Of course, this would not apply if the people in question can still manage anyway without the extra supplemental unemployment from the feds... but if that's the case, why would things be any different by Labor Day?  I mean, if you can survive the entire summer without this extra income, I fail to see what would change by then.

Florida's unemployment rate for May was 4.9% (https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm).  Any business in that state that "can't find anyone to hire" doesn't want to offer enough money.  And if they think their problem is going to get better, they're wrong; it's going to get worse.  The companies that want to pay good wages and benefits are booming, and as long as huge companies like Amazon and Target are willing to pay $15/hour, businesses that don't are going to get squeezed more and more.

i saw mcdonalds offering 9.50 / hr to 11/hr near me .. next door wawa was offering 13-14 / hr to start .. who do you think people are going to pick?

There is another solution that many businesses could use to elevate their labor shortage without raising wages……let their employees work more hours.

I know multiple people who have 2 part time jobs, both of which cap their hours at 25 or 30 hours to avoid having to give them full time benefits.

 I even know one cashier who was fired for revealing this fact to a customer.  Along with multiple help wanted signs, the store has a sign, “Please bare [sic] with us do [sic] to the Covid unemployment benefits nobody wants to work”  One customer commented to her, “I guess you are getting a lot of overtime” And she responded, “I wish, they cap my hours at 30 per week to avoid paying for healthcare, I would love to work more hours, I fell behind on my bills when my hours were cut at the height of the pandemic “  The customer then went to the manager and screamed at him that rather than having such an obnoxious and false sign he should let his employees who do want to work, work more hours”. She was fired “For inappropriate comments to a customer, specifically complaining about work conditions while on the clock”  So now this shorthanded store is even more shorthanded.  The next day she got a job that pays $2 dollars an hour more, but also caps her hours at 30 because they don’t want to provide benefits.  She has a second job that caps her hours at 25.

Obviously Wawa, but when they are fully staffed, people will go to Mickey Ds. 

Then you're playing a game of chicken, hoping that your competitors will not raise their own rates before you do.  If McD's wants to be the absolute last business to fill their open positions, they will get what they deserve: the least desirable employees who were already rejected by everyone else.

This is an extremely simple and straightforward supply & demand experiment.  You would think that self-avowed captialists would understand how this works!

They do understand, that's why you'll see automation taking over for many of these jobs in the future. I'd rather order from a kiosk anyhow, won't have to deal with these under 40 year old mentally fucked up people with shitty entitled attitudes.

Target, Buc-ee's and others are offering $15 and yet they still have help wanted signs posted. It isn't about the money as much as how people want to get it. There is a portion of society that is perfectly happy to do as little as possible to survive. I get that as I'm even related to some. What I don't get is other people feeling like they need to take my money to support those same people.

I have a lot of friends complaining about self service lines in stores but I swear things seem to run so much smoother for me when I use them.

i'm not a huge fan of the self-serve lines unless i have only 2 or 3 items in which case .. no big deal

self serve is the way to go, in and out quick.

We're not really all that interested in going out to eat.  We pick-up sometimes.  I think it's just that it's hard with kids to make that an enjoyable experience.  And if someone is watching my kids, I probably wanna do something more substantial with the time.

But I always do self-checkout whenever I can.

Most of the places I shop, encourage smaller quantities to use self-serve and large orders to use a cashier.  Sometimes they do this explicitly, sometimes by having limited room in selfcheck

I live in Upstate NY where the extra $300 is still being paid until September, and where minimum wage is $12.50/hr ($13.50 if you work at a chain fast food restaurant), so I'm speaking from that perspective.  The Dunkin Donuts next to my office is offering $16.00/hr. to start and can't fill positions.  They used to be open until 10 p.m., but now close at 3 p.m. because they can't find workers.  And they aren't closing early because of lack of customers; when I would leave work at 4 or 5 pm there would be 10 cars in the drive thru in the afternoon to get their iced coffees.

Who in the world drinks iced coffee at 5 pm??   At 5 pm, I want a bourbon on the rocks or straight up depending on my mood and to just kick back and reflect on the day.

I do...pretty much every single day.

You really start hitting the hard stuff around 5:00?

My store is having trouble finding people which has upped my weekend hours.  This is confusing though because grocery store workers do not get unemployment

It's 5 o'clock somewhere ain't it?   My point is, coffee is a day starting drink for me, not a day ending drink.

I have noticed on Facebook a series of anti-self-checkout "memes" asking to boycott companies that use them or refuse to use them to keep other people employed.  It's mostly old people posting it.

I just think this is a losing strategy.  Creating jobs for the sake of jobs is a loser of an idea.  Technology will rule and whatever is cheaper and more efficient will take over.  Cars put buggy whip makers out of a job -- but new things spring from that.

I think it's inevitable that as we move to more automation + more money being in the hands of fewer companies that (may be generations down the line), some form of Universal Basic Income is going to be at play and people who work at Dunkin are going to do so to supplement their life or for the social aspects of it.  We're moving towards Star Trek.

I see self checkout as a way companies consolidate their labor.  Kind of like a fast food joint handing you a cup and you go and get your drink.  When I was a little kid, I remember the soda fountains being behind the counter in the lobby and the Burger King or McDonalds employees actually filiing up your cup for you.

maybe your store needs to offer more money

Oh? Confusing indeed.

they won't offer HIM more money tho .. new employees get the big money .. old employees get paid less .. that's the case in every single industry (that isn't unionized)

Yeah, I don't get it either.  There's a hospital on the other side of my office and a school down the street, and when these workers start getting out at 3:30 there is a long line at that DD that keeps going to 6 or 7 at night.

.

Not in this case.  Minimum wage in Massachusetts is 13.50.  Our store has paid time and a half for Sundays throughout the wage increases in our state. I make over twenty dollars per hour on Sundays there. 

We have instituted self check outs so maybe that was in response

I can't believe no one has asked so here it goes,  what reasoning is there that grocery store workers don't qualify for unemployment?

They are not full time.  At least baggers and cashiers are not

“Watching people who largely make less than $40,000 a year talk about how raising the minimum wage would destroy the economy is one f the most impressive examples of Stockholm Syndrome I’ve ever seen.”

This little gem came from a liberal friend of mine.  In Massachusetts we are raising the minimum wage until it hits fifteen and I am predicting by then all our stores will be automated and no more baggers and checkers   I have a healthcare job but I wonder how many of my coworkers will be affected

How low do you think the minimum wage would need to be in order to permanently prevent those jobs from being replaced by automated kiosks?

It is 13.50 now, so maybe 12.50.  Even that is generous.  It all comes back to the entitlement mentality

Ok, so it technically isn't industry specific but is hours based. I get that.

Automated kiosks still exist in stores that pay less than 12.50/hr.

The real answer is that kiosks are coming for those jobs regardless.  Even the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr is too much to stop businesses from automating every single job they can get away with.

Everyone else considered the source making the statement and didn't want to bite. lol

You need to ask a cost accountant that question.  Obviously many large corporations have factored in Employee Wages, Employer Fica Taxes, Workers' Compensation Insurance, Disability Insurance, employee health insurance, employee vacation & sick time etc. as compared to cost of equipment, maintenance of equipment, possible theft due to self check-out, etc. AND found that it would be more profitable to put in self-checkout kiosks.

Really not much different that installing robots in auto plants to replace manufacturing jobs once done by humans.

I was in grad school way back in the early 90's.  Even back then in many of my MBA classes there was talk about automation taking over the jobs of people in specific occupations.  So this is not a new concept.  Even though it ruffles some people's feathers, the fact of the matter is that the goal of business is to maximize profit.  Especially publicly held businesses.  The CEO and Board of any large company that is not making every effort to maximize profit is going to be run out of town pretty quickly by the stockholders and there are literally hundreds of case studies of businesses where that is exactly what has happened.  The reason that automation (self serve kiosks) has not already become more commonplace in low paying jobs like fast food, grocery stores, etc is for decades, the minimum wage has remained pretty low.  The extent of the utilization of automation to replace jobs is a simple mathematical equation.  When the costs of human personnel (not just pay but any benefits, etc) exceeds the cost of replacing humans with automation (including maintenance, etc of automation) by a certain percentage, then the human personnel in those types of businesses will go away.   So the rapid escalation of the minimum wage is actually just a race to the elimination of those jobs.  See the auto industry in Detroit as a shining example of this although those weren't minimum wage jobs.  Why do you think all those high paying union jobs on the assembly line went away and production facilities were moved offshore?  Because the workers were paid less and automation was maximized to eliminate the need for a large number of humans on the assembly line. 

But getting back to the topic of minimum wage jobs, those types of jobs were never meant for adults in the first place.  Minimum wage jobs were for high school kids, older people who either couldn't retire financially just on social security or those who just wanted something to do with all their spare time in retirement and enjoyed engagement with other people on a daily basis, OR adults who were looking for a second income in addition to their regular job as a way to make ends meet.  If you are an adult and trying to provide for a family (or even just yourself) and you are working in a minimum wage type of job to do so, you have officially failed at life and I don't feel very sorry for your situation because you have clearly made terrible life decisions.   

I don’t know if I would go that extreme, but yes minimum wage jobs were not meant to support families or even oneself.  The entitlement mentality in this country is that everybody feels they should be able to have as many kids as they want and make other people pay for it

Today I was scheduled 12 to 6.  They asked me to stay until eight because they are short.  This is the second Saturday in a row they asked me to stay late

More money for you

You're such a sucker, dude.

You're getting fucked in a shit job and making excuses for your boss.  Wake up.

I don't understand why so many people are super invested in ensuring that more profit goes to McDonald's owners instead of their employees... especially when the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage is made up by you, the taxpayer.

When you say, "People shouldn't be able to provide for their family with a minimum wage job," you are necessarily saying one of two things:

a) Their family should be homeless and starving
b) We should subsidize the profits of the business owner by providing assistance to their family (so they are not homeless and starving)

Every dollar in profit that is not being pad in wages, but is being paid in safety net assistance, is money that is coming out of YOUR pocket to prop up the profit of business owners.  Welfare for the poor is paid for by the middle class so the rich can have a greater profit margin.

This is why we have a wealth inequality problem in this country.

Wrong.  We are saying don’t have children if you cannot afford them.  They say you should save up three months of rent before you move out of your parents’ house.  Well you should save up a year’s worth of expenses before you have a child.  If you have a minimum wage job and are barely scraping by you should not be having children

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying either of those things.  I'm saying if you are in a minimum wage job there is no way in fucking hell that you should be having a family. 

I'll do you one better and say that nobody should be taking a job that provides poverty-level income in the first place.  It's a very inefficient use of time!

However, in the real world, there are people who do have families to support, and they can't exactly go back in time and undo those choices.  We can sit and throw stones about how bad their decision making was, but at the end of the day, mouths still need to be fed.  So what should they do about it going forward?  I don't think poor people should just make more money is very useful advice, but it seems like your advice so far has been "Go find a better paying job."

So unless you're willing to follow through on your criticism of their decision-making and insist that they (and importantly: their children) don't deserve any help, it means that either their employer pays them a living wage, or their employer pays them less than that, puts the remainder in their own pocket, and the taxpayer makes up the difference.

Rugged personal responsibility and pro-business capitalism are not compatible with an unwillingness to watch homeless children starve.

Why should we help people because they are stupid and make bad decisions?  The current system enables them to continue making bad decisions.  OK, the government is taking care of all our needs.  Let's have another kid so we can get more money!!

  This is why I switched parties.  Couldn't be more true. 

If parents are unable to provide for their children, should these children starve? Is that an outcome you're comfortable with in the united states?

Remember the put me in charge thread?  That's what we need. 

  What about those who don't work? 

Those who don't work are not particularly relevant to a discussion about the minimum wage, which necessarily only applies to those who have jobs.
Remember, the point that you are making is that these folks who are working nevertheless don't deserve to have a living wage.

Seems to me that if you raise the minimum wage, you would have more people who could afford to work.  For example, if you're a married parent with young children, you literally cannot afford to take any job that pays less than the cost of child care you would now need (because you're no longer at home watching your kids).

So, Spider, do you believe everybody should be able to have as many children as they want and everybody else has to pay for it?    In terms of people not working, I meant those who get disability since childhood and never work, and then have children on the taxpayer's dime.  Do you think that is fine?

I don't share your obsession with intense interest in punishing promiscuous women.  My primary concern is giving children the best chance to grow up and become functional & contributing members of society, and I don't see a way to do that without the parents being able to ride along for ~18 years.

I do notice that you have repeatedly mentioned "disability," which has nothing to do with children.  If a person is on disability, that means a government authority has judged that they are currently unable (or less able) to work.  And although I know you have stated that you don't think they're really disabled, I don't believe that you're professionally qualified to make that determination.

Then they need to be declared unfit parents and the children need to be put into an environment where they won't starve (foster care).  Children shouldn't suffer for their parents bad decisions but the rest of society shouldn't either.

You are being overly dramatic to make an incorrect point.  There are plenty of people with kids who are working minimum wage jobs.  None of those kids are "starving".   Yes, they are leading a pretty shitty life (not "living the good life" like D4L says), but they aren't starving because close to 100% of the children of minimum wage earners are getting some form of government assistance which keeps them from being at the point of starving.  There are also no homeless children starving.  For the same reason.  Food banks, homeless shelters, etc are never going to turn down feeding a child.  Again, don't equate living a shitty life because the parents are imbeciles with starving.  There is a HUGE difference.

Not sure how this response concerns the post of mine which you quoted.  Care to elaborate? 

Right now it’s a better of life for a single parent to not work than to work

I don’t understand how it’s possible to be too mentally disabled to work but not too mentally disabled to raise a child.

D4L, believe me, we are all extremely aware by now of your viewpoint on that topic since hardly a day goes by where you don't say it.

So, to clarify:

Instead of the government giving poor people money so they can raise their own children (i.e. how things work now), some government bureaucrat will come and take children away solely because their parents are too poor.  These government bureaucrats will then take these children to foster homes, which the government will pay even more than we are paying poor parents now.

I would not consider such a scenario an improvement over the status quo.

That is exactly my point: arguments about how these "bad decision makers" don't deserve to make more than (current) minimum wage are pointless, because - as a result of our society deciding that people should not starve - the taxpayer is going to make up the difference anyway.

So when you insist that business owners should not be required to pay a livable wage (even for people who have made bad life decisions), what you are really saying is that the taxpayer is going to subsidize that job so the business owner can keep more of their profit.  This has been Wal-Mart's business model for decades.

Spider, your point seems to be that the government should continue to grab money from some people and give it to others.  This is why I worry about my financial future.  As we continue to promote the idea that some people can do whatever they want and other people pay for it, more and more people will try to be part of the some people who get to do whatever they want.   My other point was what about the irresponsible people who don't work, but continue to breed and force other people to pay for it?  Should we even try to do something about that?  We can't pay them a living wage because they don't work.   

This will necessarily be the case as long as we have a safety net.

So as long as we are unwilling to let people starve on the street, someone has to pay for their food and shelter.  If the person in question is working a full-time job and still can't afford to make ends meet, either we can force employers to pay higher wages, or government assistance will make up the difference.  Personally, I prefer the former.

Consider that the vacation home that your employer buys is funded by your labor.
Specifically: the difference between the value your labor creates and the amount of money you get paid.

There are always going to be people who get to do whatever they want.  I'm just saying that maybe we should try to ensure that employees at the very bottom of the food chain get a little bit more of the profit from the work they perform.

I don't think we can.

Do you think it's a good idea to spend even more money on funding and administrating a greatly expanded foster care system, instead?

There definitely isn't an easy answer to the problem.  And I get what you are saying, but I think that you and I have a basic fundamental difference regarding economic theory.  I apologize if I'm not remembering correctly, but I think you have stated before that you favor a socialist system of government.  Whereas I am pretty solidly on the capitalist side. So we are always going to approach these types of issues from very different angles.   When I was a lot younger (and poorer, LOL) I actually leaned much more towards your own stance.  So I really do understand where you are coming from.  I know you will vehemently disagree with me on this just because we are so fundamentally different, but I think that even though the NUMBER of people making minimum wage is pretty high, the PERCENTAGE of Americans making minimum wage (excluding high school kids, etc.) is very small.  Corporations making a healthy profit benefits a much greater percentage of society because much of that profit is reintroduced back into the economy in a myriad of ways from creating more jobs to conspicuous consumption by the people with the money which keeps the economy strong and all the way to stockholders making money because the company is making money.  And when I say stockholders, I don't just mean rich investors.  Anyone with a 401K makes money when publicly held companies are profitable.  Falling back on some of the research I had to do when working on my MBA, there is pretty solid research that also delves into the unintended negative societal consequences of "forcing" companies to overpay for jobs with a very limited skill requirement.  If the cost of doing business (payroll, etc.) reaches a certain point, it becomes a barrier to entry for a huge percentage of small businesses and a thing that most people don't talk about is that if you make a large increase to the minimum wage, that is going to create a domino effect of the other levels of wages will also increase (you obviously can't have a McDonalds manager making the same as the french fry machine guy).  This domino effect absolutely without question leads to companies increasing their prices to cover a large part of those additional costs to them (if not all of the additional cost).  So ultimately you have increased pay, yet increased prices on every day goods goes up a similar percentage and the minimum wage earners are essentially still in the same position as before when it comes to buying power for things they need for survival.  And as I have pointed out before (but you conveniently didn't address), keep increasing the cost of doing business and small companies will be forced out of business and large companies will move their production facilities offshore.  Thus completely eliminating the jobs of the working class whom we are trying to help.  See the Detroit auto industry as an indisputable bit of evidence of this concept. 

Also, corporate profit is where innovation and advancement comes from.  Cutting edge products and technology advancement comes directly from the Research and Development sectors of corporations and without a good profit, R&D will be poorly funded and innovation (including new medicines, etc that benefit every segment of society) will slow to a crawl or stop altogether.  Yes, the rich get richer under capitalism, but all of society gains from that system to one extent or another.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  Not just the yachts. 

I don't think you're right. But what generally happens is that government subsidized academics conduct research without a profit motive and when they discover or invent something, the government takes these advancements in the case of pharma and hands them over to a company to monetize while most of the core research was already taken care of.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/12/10/large-pharma-companies-provide-little-new-drug-development-innovation/ (https://www.statnews.com/2019/12/10/large-pharma-companies-provide-little-new-drug-development-innovation/)

The most economically impactful invention of our lifetimes (the internet) was a government project. There was no innovation for how commerce is done online from private companies until the porn industry started wanting to collect money for porn.

Cutting edge products and innovation are the last 20% you're seeing of R&D conducted by public institutions.

I actually thought about putting something in my post about government subsidized research and now I wish I had.   You are right about the government subsidized academic research.  But I'm referring to government contracts to For Profit companies.  This I do know about firsthand because one of the tasks in my job is to sign off on my agency's contracts with contractors that are over a certain dollar threshold.  Each year, the Federal Government spends about $500B (that is B as in BILLION) on contracts, the vast majority of which are awarded to For Profit companies as opposed to academic entities or Not For Profits. A lot of money is dedicated to academic entities, etc. but it is a veritable splash in the bucket in comparison to that annual $500B.   Now of course not all of those contracts are for research and development types of services.  The government contracts things out to corporations for everything from janitorial services at federal facilities to contracts for things that absolutely do go to corporations to do R&D for things which result in technological advances which benefit every strata of the American income spectrum.

We haven't even gotten to how for profit prisons are horrid. speaking of government contracts

Want to  talk about eating out and COVID anyone? :)

Now on that I will agree with you.

Umm, sorry.  I get distracted easily.   

lol  Can't wait for the football season to start; where every single topic will devolve into Tua sucks and should be traded, or Tua just needs some help and time to grow.  That is unless the Dolphins win every game by 56 points and go 17-0, where there will be at least one guy saying they should have won every game by 59.