Jerry Udinksy 
Member since Apr 10, 2015


Stats

Have worked in Oakland for many years in various tech companies.

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “What Color Is Fire?

Content of your character, not the color of your skin. Let me see, who said that? How often so many people have forgotten what Dr. King admonished. This article should investigate whether or not the hiring criteria are biased. Do we not want the most highly qualified people to become firefighters, without regard to the color or the skin, ethnic origin, etc.? This article has a particular point of view prior to writing. What are the characteristics of the hiring process that are biased? Are these appropriate characteristics to become a firefighter? Could this person save his comrade in a dangerous situation where lives are on the line? Does this person know enough about fire science to determine what is possibly safe when entering a burning building? Does the person have prior experience fighting fires, such as forest fires? These are the criteria which should matter. Then the admonition of Dr. Martin Luther King would be recognized.

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 11/07/2019 at 8:42 AM

Re: “Reform of the Gig Economy A Wonderful Thing

It is great to see responses from Wader and Patton. These fellows have read a few Marxist writers and assume they know how to organize a productive economy. Meanwhile, they have never started and run a competitive business. They are socialist bureaucrat types who frankly are "know it alls." In reality, they have never produced anything productive, never met a payroll, never paid the overhead. Most of the "greedy" people are the Uber drivers who want to make a few bucks in competition with the cab industry. It is their greed that drives the process. Meanwhile the organizers also have "greed." Here greed is equated to wanting to put food on your table and make a buck. With Wader and Patton in control we go back to the old cab industry. Opportunities for Uber drivers will be reduced. In addition, these Marxist types tend to treat all workers as the same. They see the world in black and white colors, oppressed workers and greedy capitalists. In fact, the workers are not all the same. Many workers want the flexibility afforded by the independent contractor system. You will see in Communist Countries that there is a sameness in culture, production, and workers. Wader and Patton are on the road towards the failures of Chinese Communism, Russian Socialism, and Socialism in Venezuela. When will these Marxists ever learn? When will they open their eyes to the end result of their theories that have never worked in practice.

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 09/19/2019 at 9:09 PM

Re: “Reform of the Gig Economy A Wonderful Thing

Mr. Youngdahl has written a misguided piece. He forgets that driving for Uber represents an opportunity to work that many people have not had. Many drivers were able to drive part time and earn a few dollars. As independent contractors they could come and go at will. By making Uber drivers employees, and giving them additional benefits, you reduce the available opportunities for work. Also, Mr. Youngdahl is unaware of how the market mechanism works. As the company pays out more in various types of benefits, it pays the driver less in direct compensation. Generally, the Uber drivers are seeking direct compensation for specific needs. As Mr. Youngdahl makes driving for Uber more complicated and costly, the opportunities will decline. Uber will be more like a Cab Company, and less competitive. The end result will be fewer opportunities to earn a few bucks when needed. "Do-Gooders" like Mr. Youngdahl interfere in the market mechanism only to reduce opportunities. In this case, it will reduce the impact of competition which Uber has brought to the Cab industry.

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 09/19/2019 at 8:35 AM

Re: “Alameda Adds Just-Cause Protections for Section 8 Renters

In Alameda the "do-gooders" have done it again. While claiming to help the little guy, they end up hurting all little guys. Why? Because their overly vexatious eviction rules will discourage future construction of new housing, or the improvement of old housing. A normal landlord or investor would run away from purchasing or building in an area with vexatious rental laws. The "do-gooders" will develop a fixed class of renters with a low rent apartment, and who plan to stay there forever. As a result, those units are effectively taken off of the housing market forever. Fewer units available leads to an increase in the rent of the few units available to new tenants. This is basic Economics 1, but the "do-gooders" claim to be intelligent and educated, when they are not in reality. Then, when the "do-gooders" cause the number of available units to decrease, they call for the construction of public housing. When the public housing becomes crime ridden and infested, they call for some other form of government interference. Their desire for more government leads to expensive, difficult bureaucracy that raises everyone's cost in the long run. When will they ever learn?

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 09/12/2019 at 9:27 AM

Re: “Berkeley Bans New Natural Gas Hookups

The Climate Change Hoax has gone too far. People actually believe the hoax. The so called science is based on unreliable statistics. The earth has been warming ever since the glaciers in Yosemite have been melting. The concept of man made climate change has not been proven. The equations used have very large margins of error. And projecting out for 10, 20, 30 years and more is totally erroneous. Do not be fooled by those who use Climate Change as a means of increasing the scope and size of government. After one course in statistics, a person realizes the concept of standard of error, and error margins. Then you can read the underlying scientific papers and realize the very large error factors. When other people extrapolate these measurements many years into the future, the error bars are magnified in proportion. Now politicians in Berkeley actually make laws impacting people based on this unreliable and unproven so-called science. At some point reasonable people need to stop the reckless use of unreliable science.

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 07/25/2019 at 10:20 AM

Re: “Alameda's Radical Plan to Resist Climate Change

Climate Change used to be Global Warming. But, since the earth has not warmed for the last 25 years, the True Believers have morphed into Climate Change. How convenient. Any weather problem, any tornado, any hurricane, can now be blamed on Man Made Climate Change. Well, let's be real. The underlying scientific articles which actually measure climate change are actually few in number. When reading these articles, one is struck by the very large error factors in the calculations. And, then, some people take these error filled calculations and extrapolate the equations out beyond 20 or 40 years. What a joke? These are error filled calculations extrapolated way beyond any reasonable analysis.

But one cannot laugh because many people actually take Al Gore seriously. Did you believe Al Gore when he claimed that he invented the internet? The bottom line is that Man Made climate change is a Hoax. Beyond the hoax, the U.S. is only 5% of the world population, and somehow we are going to stop the overload of CO2. That again is a joke. By the way, CO2 is emitted when you breathe. CO2 is necessary for life on this planet. CO2 is only a small fraction of the earth's atmosphere, and yet, it is being blamed for all of the alleged warming. Another joke. Another error filled equation extrapolated way beyond its reasonable limit.

The real question is when will people come to their senses and read the underlying scientific articles, rather than rely on the Al Gore scare tactics? When will students learn enough about statistics to understand the significant error factors in the calculations of the so-called Climate Scientists (politicians masquerading as scientists)? When will our students of statistics call out these climate calculations that are so filled with error that they are meaningless? The answer, my friend, is Blowin' in the Wind.

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 05/30/2019 at 9:06 AM

Re: “Is the Only Way to Make Housing Affordable By De-Commodifying It?

The author neglects the basic law of supply and demand. You must encourage investment in new housing in order to make housing cheaper. All of this government interference merely discourages new investment, thereby raising the cost of new housing. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

Posted by Jerry Udinksy on 09/20/2018 at 9:11 AM

All Comments »

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2019 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation