Defense Industry Threatens Layoffs right before Election Day

[XT]

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
Defense contractors are the extortionists. They are threatening to send layoff notices in a manner such that current members of Congress are threatened with losing their office. It’s not hard to interpret this a threat to remove the defense cuts “or else”–“nice economy you have there in your district…would be a shame if something happened to it right before your election…”
[/QUOTE]

So, what you are saying is that the contractors shouldn’t follow the law and send out notifications when they are required to do so? Or, are you saying that they should, but just not make a big deal about it so as to not piss anyone off before the election and thus not be ‘threatening’? Or, are you saying that the contractors are the ones who pushed through the automatic cuts that would cause the layoffs, and thus it’s them who is extorting the situation? Or, are you saying that the contractors should just suck it up, take a loss and not lay off anyone, despite automatic cuts? Or…something else?

Here’s an equivalent scenario to consider. The sequestration also requires deep cuts to Medicare. Suppose the lobbyists of the American Hospital Association told various Congress critters that their hospitals will be forced to start laying off doctors or denying care for certain Medicare patients starting Jan 2nd, and that they’ll send they layoff notices and/or the new care guidelines out four days before the local election.

Assuming the above is correct, what should the medical establishment do?

IMO the sequestration is–and always has been–a joke; Congress will just ignore it or set up some escape hatch. I also think this is a fairly conventional position, one of those “everyone knows” policies that will be part of the lame duck negotiations–just like the Bush tax cut “expiration” in 2010. But this isn’t enough for the defense industry, so they’re threatening re-election efforts with an aim toward getting their congressional caucus to at least get the cuts off the table in advance of the expected negotiations–and perhaps angling for little bit more in the process.

Well, that’s your opinion. Personally, I have no idea what the bozos on both sides of the political isle will actually do. WILL they compromise to forestall the automatic cuts? No idea, but I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you seem to think it is, not in the political environment we have today. And reminding Congress that, you know, if they don’t get together and do something then those automatic cuts will go into effect is, IMHO, a good thing…since I’m skeptical they have been keeping up with events and really understand all the ramifications of their (in)actions.

Seriously though…if you think that Congress is just playing a game, and has intended all along to do something about this (what’s your evidence for basing this on, I’d love to know), then how is this ‘extortion’ by the defense industry? That’s a leap of logic I’m not getting. I mean, if it’s all going to happen anyway, and Congress (and presumably the Democrats I guess) are just going to cave, then I’m not seeing any extortion here. I’m not really seeing any extortion if they aren’t planning, right now, to cave either on the part of the defense industry…more like a stinging reminder that this is hanging over everybody’s head…but I certainly am not seeing it if your baseline assumption is that it’s all bullshit and Congress is just going to make an internal deal and push on this (looming crisis).

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
What a filthy level of disingenuousness–defense industry and posters.
[/QUOTE]

The irony factor here is nearly off the scale.

-XT

[Bricker]

@CJJ

Defense contractors are the extortionists. They are threatening to send layoff notices in a manner such that current members of Congress are threatened with losing their office. It’s not hard to interpret this a threat to remove the defense cuts “or else”–“nice economy you have there in your district…would be a shame if something happened to it right before your election…”

But you do understand that the law requires those layoff notices, right?

Here’s an equivalent scenario to consider. The sequestration also requires deep cuts to Medicare. Suppose the lobbyists of the American Hospital Association told various Congress critters that their hospitals will be forced to start laying off doctors or denying care for certain Medicare patients starting Jan 2nd, and that they’ll send they layoff notices and/or the new care guidelines out four days before the local election.

So far as I know, there’s no equivalent law requiring layoff notices for hospital workers. But if there were such a law… and if budget cuts were on the table for January… then they should absolutely send the notices in November. Because, you see, Janury minus 60 days is November.

IMO the sequestration is–and always has been–a joke; Congress will just ignore it or set up some escape hatch. I also think this is a fairly conventional position, one of those “everyone knows” policies that will be part of the lame duck negotiations–just like the Bush tax cut “expiration” in 2010. But this isn’t enough for the defense industry, so they’re threatening re-election efforts with an aim toward getting their congressional caucus to at least get the cuts off the table in advance of the expected negotiations–and perhaps angling for little bit more in the process.

That’s fine. But your opinion is not money. If your prediction comes to pass, the only thing you have to do is shrug your shoulders and say, “Wow, I was wrong. Never thought this would happen!”

For the companies, it’s a matter of being on the hook to continue to pay workers when they have no funding to do so. That’s a huge cost. They shouldn’t have to absorb it because your opinion turned out to be wrong.

[Bricker]

(omitted)

[Bricker]

@Fear_Itself

My wife is dead. Feel better?

I want you to know that I still contribute to the scleroderma research charity I first encountered after losing a bet. And I still remember your post describing the kale soup. I am sorry for your loss.

But I feel I should say, in defense of Oakminster, that I am sure he meant no specific reference to any particular wife. He was just using the well-known question intended to high the dangers of assuming facts not in evidence.

In your case, of course, it’s not a great choice of examples.

[Oakminster]

@Fear_Itself

My wife is dead. Feel better?

I did not know that. I would not have chosen that particular response to you had I known.

I’m sorry.

[CJJ]

@Bricker

But you do understand that the law requires those layoff notices, right?

The law requires that the notices be sent at least 60 days in advance. They could send them now if they wanted to, or they could delay layoffs.

The “60 day” law is a fig-leaf to justify sending scary notices to workers in the defense industry and guarantee media coverage right before an election. Does the law also require them to announce that they are going to send out layoff notices seven months before the anticipated layoffs? Or was that a political choice?

@XT

So, what you are saying is that the contractors shouldn’t follow the law and send out notifications when they are required to do so? Or, are you saying that they should, but just not make a big deal about it so as to not piss anyone off before the election and thus not be ‘threatening’? Or, are you saying that the contractors are the ones who pushed through the automatic cuts that would cause the layoffs, and thus it’s them who is extorting the situation? Or, are you saying that the contractors should just suck it up, take a loss and not lay off anyone, despite automatic cuts? Or…something else?

The contractors are free to do what they like, but claiming their hands are tied by the law is weak. Anyone with a political brain should see they had other options, but chose this one because of its political leverage. I question their motivation, not their rights or legal obligations.

@Bricker

For the companies, it’s a matter of being on the hook to continue to pay workers when they have no funding to do so. That’s a huge cost. They shouldn’t have to absorb it because your opinion turned out to be wrong.

@XT

For the companies, it’s a matter of being on the hook to continue to pay workers when they have no funding to do so. That’s a huge cost. They shouldn’t have to absorb it because your opinion turned out to be wrong.

I find this unconvincing. It is widely expected some sort of deal will be worked out in the lame duck which–at the very least–will substantially change the scope of the defense cuts, perhaps even eliminating them. The industry may therefore end up rescinding some of those notices–which itself incurs a cost (e.g. noticed workers go ahead and take the layoff package, and now contractors needs to spend money on hiring).

Also, cuts are not enacted immediately on January 2nd; contracts are awarded or paid in lump sums over the course of the year. Though it seems like it at times, it’s not like there’s a continuous spigot of cash flowing daily to Lockheed-Martin; it seems incredible that they would start feeling the cash shortage immediately at the start of the year.

Finally, there is a business incentive to delay potential layoffs because of real uncertainty about the cuts. Their costs could be mitigated by, say, deferring end-of-year bonuses, restructuring severance, or ginning up financing to weather a bad few weeks (if cuts really do go into effect immediately) at the start of 2013. Yes, these options require them to expand a bit of capital now as a hedge against future uncertainty, but that’s the nature of business and IMO is a pain far more preferable to needlessly scaring people out of their jobs.

I just can’t believe cost is even a medium driver for the specific layoff timing: Day 1 of the new budget year. The reason for the timing is almost wholly political.

@XT

Seriously though…if you think that Congress is just playing a game, and has intended all along to do something about this (what’s your evidence for basing this on, I’d love to know), then how is this ‘extortion’ by the defense industry? That’s a leap of logic I’m not getting. I mean, if it’s all going to happen anyway, and Congress (and presumably the Democrats I guess) are just going to cave, then I’m not seeing any extortion here. I’m not really seeing any extortion if they aren’t planning, right now, to cave either on the part of the defense industry…more like a stinging reminder that this is hanging over everybody’s head…but I certainly am not seeing it if your baseline assumption is that it’s all bullshit and Congress is just going to make an internal deal and push on this (looming crisis).

Besides the past history of deals getting done, the Speaker of the House in February reneged on the defense side of the deal, plus there’s the recent vote in the House to override.

Even though a deal on the sequester is all-but-guaranteed in the lame duck session, the defense industry still has an incentive to turn up the heat. By forcing Congress to deal with the defense cuts now, they stand to get a better deal and don’t have to take their chances with the inevitable last-minute horse-trading of the lame duck session (where with time running out they could get only most of what they want, rather than all of it). It also provides them with some measure of certainty in fiscal planning for next year.

The defense industry has incentives for wanting to get their half of the sequester out of the way early, so this move makes a kind of psychopathic sense. But don’t try to sell me on the idea the circumstances were beyond their control; this is political bullying, plain and simple.

[Fear_Itself]

@Oakminster

I did not know that. I would not have chosen that particular response to you had I known.

I’m sorry.

Sorry. It was a cheap shot on my part.

[John_Mace]

@CJJ

…this is political bullying, plain and simple.

Just to be clear, are you moving the goalposts from “extortion” to “political bullying”?

[Bricker]

@CJJ

The law requires that the notices be sent at least 60 days in advance. They could send them now if they wanted to, or they could delay layoffs.

The “60 day” law is a fig-leaf to justify sending scary notices to workers in the defense industry and guarantee media coverage right before an election. Does the law also require them to announce that they are going to send out layoff notices seven months before the anticipated layoffs? Or was that a political choice?

The contractors are free to do what they like, but claiming their hands are tied by the law is weak. Anyone with a political brain should see they had other options, but chose this one because of its political leverage. I question their motivation, not their rights or legal obligations.

Let us examine the options you present.

You’re right – they could just have sent the notices, with no warning, right before election day. But I gotta tell you – I don’t imagine you reacting better if they had done that. A bombshell out of nowhere, days before the election? Seriously? Come on – tell me you wouldn’t have been howling for their blood.

They could delay the layoffs. Yes, but that would be a huge cost: they have to keep paying workers who are not generating billable hours. Why should they have to do that?

They could send them now, you say. I disagree. 29 USC § 2102(a) provides:

Notice to employees, State dislocated worker units, and local governments
An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order…

It does not say, “…until any time after the end of a sixty day period.” I do not agree that a notice sent now would be effective in meeting the requirements of the law for a layoff in January 2013. Think about it: could an employer provide notices now, to every employee, to cover himself in he needed to make future layoffs?

I find this unconvincing. It is widely expected some sort of deal will be worked out in the lame duck which–at the very least–will substantially change the scope of the defense cuts, perhaps even eliminating them. The industry may therefore end up rescinding some of those notices–which itself incurs a cost (e.g. noticed workers go ahead and take the layoff package, and now contractors needs to spend money on hiring).

Again: that’s great, but what is your exposure if you’re wrong?

Let’s ask another way: if you knew you would lose your house, car, and 401(K) with a wrong guess, and you could cover yourself against that loss by sending this notice, wouldn’t you?

Let’s find out.

Imagine that I offer you this deal: bet me, at a hundred to one odds, that a deal gets worked out. I’ll put up $200, you agree if you’re wrong, you owe me $20,000.

Now how sure would you be?

You demand that industry roll the dice, but that’s an easy demand for you; you have no skin in the game. The most consequence you risk is an embarrassed admission you were wrong, and you have the SDMB culture to protect you: if someone starts a thread castigating you or being wrong, that person will be told to get a life, asked why they obsess about the past, and asked if they don’t have anything better to do.

In other words, smooth sailing for you, even if you’re wrong.

[CJJ]

@John_Mace

Just to be clear, are you moving the goalposts from “extortion” to “political bullying”?

I’ll stick by both, that’s why I wrote them. And to be absolutely clear on the semantics (which, in my experience, is only a fascination for those who recognize the weakness of their arguments), I am not claiming that any particular person or corporation should be charged with the crime of extortion in a federal court, nor that there is an actual bully hired by the defense industry to beat up congresspersons and steal their lunch money.

@Bricker

You’re right – they could just have sent the notices, with no warning, right before election day. But I gotta tell you – I don’t imagine you reacting better if they had done that. A bombshell out of nowhere, days before the election? Seriously? Come on – tell me you wouldn’t have been howling for their blood.

I agree I would have taken this worse. Do you also agree that one good reason they wouldn’t do this is because it is a better threat to leak this several months in advance of scheduled notices, which is exactly what they did?

They could delay the layoffs. Yes, but that would be a huge cost: they have to keep paying workers who are not generating billable hours. Why should they have to do that?

You provide no evidence to back up the “huge cost” assertion, while I gave several reasons why there wouldn’t be much in the way of cost, and in fact why it may be counterproductive should a deal be struck. Just wanted to make this point clear for those scoring at home.

They could send them now, you say. I disagree. 29 USC § 2102(a) provides…

I’ll agree seven months would likely be unreasonable, and you clearly know the law better than I on this point. But there is likely some room for leeway in the notice; I doubt an employer would face severe penalties for not meeting the 60-day limit exactly.

Let’s ask another way: if you knew you would lose your house, car, and 401(K) with a wrong guess, and you could cover yourself against that loss by sending this notice, wouldn’t you?

Losing that bet would wipe me out financially; are you suggesting the defense industry is in danger of being wiped out if they have to keep a few additional workers around for a month or two? If so, I never realized how razor thin the margins must be for defense contractors, despite the fact they they have apparently weathered the recent economic downturn far better than most of the economy.

For the semantic police who seem to patrol this board, that last sentence was sarcasm. I have yet to be shown any convincing evidence there would be “huge losses”, despite repeated claims of the Business apologists on this thread.

You demand that industry roll the dice, but that’s an easy demand for you; you have no skin in the game. The most consequence you risk is an embarrassed admission you were wrong, and you have the SDMB culture to protect you: if someone starts a thread castigating you or being wrong, that person will be told to get a life, asked why they obsess about the past, and asked if they don’t have anything better to do.

In other words, smooth sailing for you, even if you’re wrong.

That’s your argument? Really? If so, you’d better get busy posting the same to ~99% of the threads under GD and Elections. It must be torture knowing so many people argue about things where they have no skin in the game. Other than wanting bullies to be held accountable, that is.

[John_Mace]

@CJJ

I’ll stick by both, that’s why I wrote them. And to be absolutely clear on the semantics (which, in my experience, is only a fascination for those who recognize the weakness of their arguments), I am not claiming that any particular person or corporation should be charged with the crime of extortion in a federal court, nor that there is an actual bully hired by the defense industry to beat up congresspersons and steal their lunch money.

Emphasis added. Quite the opposite. It is generally those people who know their arguments are weak who feel the need to exaggerate. But if the intent of this thread is to say that the defense industry is perhaps using a bit of bluster to its advantage, then I think that’s a perfectly plausible analysis of the situation. And if they are, I wouldn’t blame them one bit. If Congress is going to hamstring them with those types of regulations, then let Congress live with the consequences.

However, another perfectly plausible explanations is that the DI is saying, in effect: Don’t make us wait until 2 days before the goddam election to know what’s happening here!

[Ravenman]

@CJJ

You provide no evidence to back up the “huge cost” assertion, while I gave several reasons why there wouldn’t be much in the way of cost…

Losing that bet would wipe me out financially; are you suggesting the defense industry is in danger of being wiped out if they have to keep a few additional workers around for a month or two? If so, I never realized how razor thin the margins must be for defense contractors, despite the fact they they have apparently weathered the recent economic downturn far better than most of the economy.

Lockheed Martin had about $2.6 billion in profits with $47 billion in revenue. Boeing (commercial and military sides together) also had about a 5% profit margin. Northrop is apparently doing a little better, $2.1 billion profits on $28 billion revenue, or 7%.

So, Bricker’s terms are pretty much in the ballpark: the annual profits by major defense contractors could probably run their business for about a month. How about we change the terms of the bet a little bit, and make a wager that consists of you being potentially on the hook for a full month of your gross salary, and I’ll wager 5% of your monthly gross salary?

But here’s the deal: everyone knows that the government needs to figure out a way to deal with the budget deficit. If the government fails, then sequestration kicks in and bad things will happen. Virtually every government function other than Social Security and Medicare will be cut by ten to fifteen percent on January 3rd. This is a big, big deal and a lot of people inside government stand to lose their jobs, too, unless something is done.

The defense companies are just looking out for their own. AFAIK, they are not trying to dictate how the budget deal is supposed to be structured – it isn’t like they are saying, “Congress better cut domestic programs to balance the budget, and not raise any taxes, and unless the government does what we say, we’re going to fire a lot of people!”

That would be extortion. They aren’t saying that. They are telling the government what the impact is of the MAD-like budget scenario agreed upon last summer. The sequestration was specifically designed by Congress and the White House to be painful. If you want to put the finger on the people who are holding the well-being of the country hostage, it isn’t the defense contractors who designed this budget gimmick: it’s Obama, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell.

The defense contractors are at the mercy of those same people to cut a deal. Your ire should be aimed at the politicians for designing this game of budgetary chicken, not for businesses who would have to deal with the fallout.

[Richard_Parker]

I don’t agree that it’s a foregone conclusion that the WARN Act requires notice in this particular circumstance.

Notice does not apply to “unforeseeable business circumstances,” which has been defined pretty broadly to include circumstances in which a reasonable employer thought it more likely than not that the situation requiring lay-offs would be resolved, even though the possibility of layoffs remained.

Here, not only is it a reasonable business judgment that sequestration will not go into effect as currently written, it isn’t even clear what the effect for each employer will be.

Typically, employers try to interpret the WARN Act as narrowly as possible. So this instance of broad interpretation is reasonable grounds for skepticism about the contractors’ motivation, in my view.

Am I missing something that makes the Act so obviously apply?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Oakminster

@Fear_Itself

@Oakminster

If military cuts are made, they will be felt in the civilian sector.

Gee, that’s not what I’ve been told. Conservatives have been telling me the federal government can’t create jobs through federal spending (the Stimulus). Are you telling me they can destroy jobs by withholding spending, but not create them by increasing spending?

I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

This isn’t a trick question. Can government spending create jobs or not? Which is correct?

[Ravenman]

@Richard_Parker

Here, not only is it a reasonable business judgment that sequestration will not go into effect as currently written,** it isn’t even clear what the effect for each employer will be.**

That’s not exactly true. DOD would have a slight, slight bit of flexibility on how to deal with service contracts (e.g., contracts that keep the IT running). However, there is no flexibility when it comes to weapons contracts. Every single R&D and procurement program in the Department of Defense will be cut by about 15%.

So, if there’s a contract to buy a Virginia-class submarine, all of a sudden there is only money to buy 85% of a submarine. If there’s a contract to buy 100 Black Hawk helicopters, suddenly there’s only money to buy 85. And so on down the line: the law is specifically written to allow no flexibility to determine how the cuts are allocated.

[Chimera]

@Ravenman

They are telling the government what the impact is of the MAD-like budget scenario agreed upon last summer. The sequestration was specifically designed by Congress and the White House to be painful. If you want to put the finger on the people who are holding the well-being of the country hostage, it isn’t the defense contractors who designed this budget gimmick: it’s Obama, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell.

The defense contractors are at the mercy of those same people to cut a deal. Your ire should be aimed at the politicians for designing this game of budgetary chicken, not for businesses who would have to deal with the fallout.

This.

Republicans wanted it because they figured it would force the Democrats to go along with them. Democrats wanted it because they knew the Republicans would be shitting themselves if it ever happened. The Tea Party wanted it because they’re completely irrational and ignorant of Economics and actually want everything to be cut even more than this would. So they all agreed to a giant game of Chicken where they essentially lock themselves in a room and set fire to it, hoping the other side blinks first before it kills them all.

[Richard_Parker]

@Ravenman

That’s not exactly true. DOD would have a slight, slight bit of flexibility on how to deal with service contracts (e.g., contracts that keep the IT running). However, there is no flexibility when it comes to weapons contracts. Every single R&D and procurement program in the Department of Defense will be cut by about 15%.

So, if there’s a contract to buy a Virginia-class submarine, all of a sudden there is only money to buy 85% of a submarine. If there’s a contract to buy 100 Black Hawk helicopters, suddenly there’s only money to buy 85. And so on down the line: the law is specifically written to allow no flexibility to determine how the cuts are allocated.

Agreed. My point was slightly different. I’m suggesting that this kind of top-level across-the-board cut has a less direct relationship to the firing of a given employee than the typical WARN Act case.

Unlike the paradigm WARN scenario in which a particular business is specifically contemplating closing a particular plant, or has decided to lay off workers to save a set amount of costs, the connection between a marginal reduction in contract outlays under a Defense Department program and the firing of a particular employee at a particular defense-related company is substantially more attenuated.

It depends on projections about what business will look like when the cuts go into effect – including variables about wage stickiness, non-U.S. fed’l govt. projects, numbers of temporary workers, worker productivity, and all the rest. Maybe most companies can project all of that well enough to know how many employees must be fired if the funding for some part for a rocket for a spy satellite project is cut by 15%. But my point is that it is still prediction upon prediction, taking us further from the kind of situation the WARN Act typically covers.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

I don’t agree that it’s a foregone conclusion that the WARN Act requires notice in this particular circumstance.

Notice does not apply to “unforeseeable business circumstances,” which has been defined pretty broadly to include circumstances in which a reasonable employer thought it more likely than not that the situation requiring lay-offs would be resolved, even though the possibility of layoffs remained.

Here, not only is it a reasonable business judgment that sequestration will not go into effect as currently written, it isn’t even clear what the effect for each employer will be.

Typically, employers try to interpret the WARN Act as narrowly as possible. So this instance of broad interpretation is reasonable grounds for skepticism about the contractors’ motivation, in my view.

Am I missing something that makes the Act so obviously apply?

If the law in place at the moment mandates cuts, in my opinion it would be very difficult to argue I was reasonable in ignoring it out of a conviction that things would get settled. Sure, you could, but if the company was your client, what would you advise them, as a prudent legal adviser, to do? Risk having to defend their reasonable decision to wait, or send the notices?

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

Agreed. My point was slightly different. I’m suggesting that this kind of top-level across-the-board cut has a less direct relationship to the firing of a given employee than the typical WARN Act case.

Unlike the paradigm WARN scenario in which a particular business is specifically contemplating closing a particular plant, or has decided to lay off workers to save a set amount of costs, the connection between a marginal reduction in contract outlays under a Defense Department program and the firing of a particular employee at a particular defense-related company is substantially more attenuated.

It depends on projections about what business will look like when the cuts go into effect – including variables about wage stickiness, non-U.S. fed’l govt. projects, numbers of temporary workers, worker productivity, and all the rest. Maybe most companies can project all of that well enough to know how many employees must be fired if the funding for some part for a rocket for a spy satellite project is cut by 15%. But my point is that it is still prediction upon prediction, taking us further from the kind of situation the WARN Act typically covers.

I am currently a contracts and program manager for a federal contractor.

I assure you that we look at how our work is funded very carefully, and just went through a very serious example when it looked like the government would shut dwn last year. Every single employee’s relation to funded work and access to other billable hours was examined.

And if you’ve done the calculation, then it’s very possible for a WARN plaintiff down the line to ask for it.

[Ravenman]

@Richard_Parker

Unlike the paradigm WARN scenario in which a particular business is specifically contemplating closing a particular plant, or has decided to lay off workers to save a set amount of costs, the connection between a marginal reduction in contract outlays under a Defense Department program and the firing of a particular employee at a particular defense-related company is substantially more attenuated.

I understand what you are arguing, but it’s just not the case. There isn’t a “marginal reduction in contract outlays,” the amount of budget authority has been substantially reduced. And because of those substantial reductions, there’s going to be effects. It’s just business.

And let’s be clear: WARN notices are routine in the defense world. They happen all the time. Look at WARN notices for California in 2011: there are many dozen defense firms on that list that I recognize that issued WARN notices, even though there really haven’t been any large plant closures in California during that period.

C-17 production is coming to a close at Boeing in Long Beach: WARN notice is issued to ramp down the workforce. Lockheed at Sunnyvale doesn’t need as many engineers anymore. And so on, and so on: when the government doesn’t need as many airplanes or satellites anymore, there are fewer jobs to build that stuff. Again, this happens all the time. The only difference with sequestration is that a lot more people would lose their jobs. TANSTAAFL.