So You Don't Like Labor Unions?

[NJ Stinks]

From the Washington Post website today:
_______________________

Best state in America: New York, for its labor unions
By Reid Wilson August 29

For more than a century, labor unions have been a critical constituency for the Democratic Party, while Republicans have tried to curb unions’ influence. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, if you have Monday off, you can thank those unions.

Labor Day began in New York City — a “workingmen’s holiday,” first celebrated by the Central Labor Union in 1882; in 1894, it became a national holiday.

Since then, unions’ influence has ebbed. But in New York, labor unions maintain more power, and more membership, than they do in any other state. More than a quarter of all workers in New York are represented by unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest rate in America. Alaska and Hawaii are the only other states where more than 20 percent of the workforce is represented by unions.

States with higher union membership also have higher average weekly wages: The BLS says the average weekly wage in New York in the fourth quarter of 2013 was $1,266 — 26 percent higher than the U.S. average.

More at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-state-in-america-new-york-for-its-labor-unions/2014/08/29/dab37cd4-2e1b-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html?hpid=z3

[AndyC]

From the Washington Post website today:
_______________________

Best state in America: New York, for its labor unions
By Reid Wilson August 29

For more than a century, labor unions have been a critical constituency for the Democratic Party, while Republicans have tried to curb unions’ influence. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, if you have Monday off, you can thank those unions.

Labor Day began in New York City — a “workingmen’s holiday,” first celebrated by the Central Labor Union in 1882; in 1894, it became a national holiday.

Since then, unions’ influence has ebbed. But in New York, labor unions maintain more power, and more membership, than they do in any other state. More than a quarter of all workers in New York are represented by unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest rate in America. Alaska and Hawaii are the only other states where more than 20 percent of the workforce is represented by unions.

States with higher union membership also have higher average weekly wages: The BLS says the average weekly wage in New York in the fourth quarter of 2013 was $1,266 — 26 percent higher than the U.S. average.

More at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-state-in-america-new-york-for-its-labor-unions/2014/08/29/dab37cd4-2e1b-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html?hpid=z3


It's funny how they didn't mention that 3 of the 4 highest cost of living states were Hawaii, Alaska and New York.

[boxcar]

It's funny how they didn't mention that 3 of the 4 highest cost of living states were Hawaii, Alaska and New York.

Just an inconvenient coincidence.

Boxcar

[Clocker]

I've been in labor unions, and I didn't like them. They had no more interest in me and my well being than did management.

Unions did a lot of good back in the day when they actually tried to improve the conditions of the working man. Now they are all about power, and power corrupts. And the worst corruption is in public employee unions.

[Tom]

NY is worse than a Men's Room in Kabal.
High taxes, high cost of living. NY sucks.

It only looks good to someone from New Jersey.

[fast4522]

Was a smooth diversion from the bashing of the bright one.

[HUSKER55]

there you go again.....

I wonder why companies are moving out of the USA?

[JustRalph]

What does the article and this map have in common, I wonder.

More here......on cost of living

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/04/24/maybe-members-of-congress-do-need-a-raise-regional-price-data-suggest/

http://www.missourieconomy.org/images/indicators/cost_of_living/col1q14_map1.jpg

From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

[Clocker]

Was a smooth diversion from the bashing of the bright one.

I don't know about the bright one, but the unions are starting to bash the dim bulb in the White House. Unions are not happy about ObamaCare, immigration, pipelines, etc.

The split between labor unions (http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-disapproval-may-have-unions-sitting-out-2014/) and the Obama administration may dampen the Labor Day celebrations of congressional Democrats, who are struggling to maintain their Senate majority.


Union members make up an important piece of the liberal coalition, flooding Democrats with hundreds of millions of dollars in support, organization, and voter turn out efforts during election season. But unhappy union members and leaders may be sitting out this election cycle. The Washington Post reported in January that “a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. In March, the Hill reported that “Other union leaders plan to withhold resources from Democrats caught in competitive Senate races, saying they want hold their allies accountable for past actions.”

[AndyC]

What does the article and this map have in common, I wonder.

More here......on cost of living

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/04/24/maybe-members-of-congress-do-need-a-raise-regional-price-data-suggest/

http://www.missourieconomy.org/images/indicators/cost_of_living/col1q14_map1.jpg

From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

The article uses 2012 data while the map above is 2014 first quarter.

[NJ Stinks]

What does the article and this map have in common, I wonder.

More here......on cost of living



From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

It also costs more to live in Paris than Danville.

[JustRalph]

The article uses 2012 data while the map above is 2014 first quarter.


Two different sources, doesn't look like things have changed much........

[horses4courses]

Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

Hmmmm....what a quandary.
Hawaii, Danville, Hawaii, Danville........... :rolleyes:

[Capper Al]

The little guys need someone advocating their interest. Without unions, the workers have to advocate their interest in the ballot box which hasn't proven too effect for them with the decline of the middle-class. Unfortunetly, the working class might have to take to the streets to get their needs might, or worse resign to a life of the poor like in India. Their issue isn't union or no union. It is how can the working class negotiate their piece of the pie.

[fast4522]

Between the technology of the robots and lower cost regions the point of unions has become a moot point. Now unions in the municipal arena is more of a burden to community's that cannot the cost.

[Capper Al]

Between the technology of the robots and lower cost regions the point of unions has become a moot point. Now unions in the municipal arena is more of a burden to community's that cannot the cost.

This ignores the point that these people need representation. Not being sensitive to their plight, the modern day version of let them eat cake, has a potential to blow up in the streets.

[cj's dad]

What does the article and this map have in common, I wonder.

More here......on cost of living

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/04/24/maybe-members-of-congress-do-need-a-raise-regional-price-data-suggest/

http://www.missourieconomy.org/images/indicators/cost_of_living/col1q14_map1.jpg

From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

I knew I was getting screwed!!!

[mostpost]

What does the article and this map have in common, I wonder.

More here......on cost of living

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/04/24/maybe-members-of-congress-do-need-a-raise-regional-price-data-suggest/

http://www.missourieconomy.org/images/indicators/cost_of_living/col1q14_map1.jpg

From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."
Exactly! The BOTTOM five states are Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. The states with the highest cost of living are the states which have more things worth living for.

Would you rather live near Yosemite or Wall Drug? Rather spend your evening watching Wicked or gator hunting?

Neither Hawaii nor Alaska should be in this discussion due to their location.

[Rookies]

"So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

Now, there's a life choice!

Hawaii or Mississippi? That's clearly an advanced Quantum Physics exam question! :lol:

[JustRalph]

All good points

[mostpost]

From the Washington Post website today:
_______________________

Best state in America: New York, for its labor unions
By Reid Wilson August 29

For more than a century, labor unions have been a critical constituency for the Democratic Party, while Republicans have tried to curb unions’ influence. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, if you have Monday off, you can thank those unions.

Labor Day began in New York City — a “workingmen’s holiday,” first celebrated by the Central Labor Union in 1882; in 1894, it became a national holiday.

Since then, unions’ influence has ebbed. But in New York, labor unions maintain more power, and more membership, than they do in any other state. More than a quarter of all workers in New York are represented by unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest rate in America. Alaska and Hawaii are the only other states where more than 20 percent of the workforce is represented by unions.

States with higher union membership also have higher average weekly wages: The BLS says the average weekly wage in New York in the fourth quarter of 2013 was $1,266 — 26 percent higher than the U.S. average.

More at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-state-in-america-new-york-for-its-labor-unions/2014/08/29/dab37cd4-2e1b-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html?hpid=z3

Using the table from your Washington Post article
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewqtr.t03.htm
and the map from Just Ralph, I did a little ciphering. This is what I came up with. The weekly average wage in New York State is $1,266 a week. That is our 100%. The composite cost of living index is 132.2. Again our 100%.
Let's look at how this compares to the bottom five states. You are going to have to trust me that I did the math right-I do have a calculator.

The average weekly wage in Mississippi is 57% of what it is in New York. The Cost of Living is 66%.

In Arkansas the wage is 60.9% while the COL is 70%.
Alabama average wage: 67.2%. COL 69.8%.
South Dakota 59.9% to 72.8%.
Missouri 68% to 70.8%.

In all five states the cost of living of that state was a significantly higher percentage of the New York COL than the weekly average wage was a percentage of the New York weekly wage.

I think you see what I am saying. Some here won't get it.

[mostpost]

I've been in labor unions, and I didn't like them. They had no more interest in me and my well being than did management.

Unions did a lot of good back in the day when they actually tried to improve the conditions of the working man. Now they are all about power, and power corrupts. And the worst corruption is in public employee unions.
If you were in my union, I wouldn't help you either.

[mostpost]

Hmmmm....what a quandary.
Hawaii, Danville, Hawaii, Danville........... :rolleyes:

Great subject for a poll. :lol:

[Tom]

Neither Hawaii nor Alaska should be in this discussion due to their location.

Why's that?
To far to go to picket?
Come on, mostie, people in those states have money in their pockets that THEY earned. Surely you will travel to get your share of it - the share YOU didn't earn.

[mostpost]

Why's that?
To far to go to picket?
Come on, mostie, people in those states have money in their pockets that THEY earned. Surely you will travel to get your share of it - the share YOU didn't earn.
The discussion in that particular post was not about unions, it was about states with a high cost of living. You can figure out why those two states-Alaska and Hawaii-would have a high cost of living, right?

[Clocker]

If you were in my union, I wouldn't help you either.
Of course not. The usual union response: shut up and pay your dues. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

This ignores the point that these people need representation.

Those that need or want representation can pay for it. Those that don't need representation should not be required to pay for those that do.

[PaceAdvantage]

The little guys need someone advocating their interest. Without unions, the workers have to advocate their interest in the ballot box which hasn't proven too effect for them with the decline of the middle-class. Unfortunetly, the working class might have to take to the streets to get their needs might, or worse resign to a life of the poor like in India. Their issue isn't union or no union. It is how can the working class negotiate their piece of the pie.How have the working class done in places where Democrats have ruled for decades? Places like Detroit. Or the economically depressed areas of Chicago?

Not so well...

With a Democrat in the White House, and for a few years there, Democrats leading the House and Senate, and Democrats in charge in Detroit and Chicago, how are those two areas NOT booming by now? Instead, Detroit looks like a bomb hit it in many places, and in certain parts of Chicago, corpses riddled with bullet holes pile up faster than they can bury them.

Way to go...

[thaskalos]

How have the working class done in places where Democrats have ruled for decades? Places like Detroit. Or the economically depressed areas of Chicago?

Not so well...

With a Democrat in the White House, and for a few years there, Democrats leading the House and Senate, and Democrats in charge in Detroit and Chicago, how are those two areas NOT booming by now? Instead, Detroit looks like a bomb hit it in many places, and in certain parts of Chicago, corpses riddled with bullet holes pile up faster than they can bury them.

Way to go...

Come on...it ain't THAT bad...

[HUSKER55]

The discussion in that particular post was not about unions, it was about states with a high cost of living. You can figure out why those two states-Alaska and Hawaii-would have a high cost of living, right?


so does New York

[Capper Al]

Those that need or want representation can pay for it. Those that don't need representation should not be required to pay for those that do.

Professor,

Apparently, you have learned nothing from history. First the have nots don't have the means to pay for their representation. And second, when it gets too bad they take to the streets. It is in the interest of the haves at some point to take care of the have nots to preserve what the haves have.

[Capper Al]

How have the working class done in places where Democrats have ruled for decades? Places like Detroit. Or the economically depressed areas of Chicago?

Not so well...

With a Democrat in the White House, and for a few years there, Democrats leading the House and Senate, and Democrats in charge in Detroit and Chicago, how are those two areas NOT booming by now? Instead, Detroit looks like a bomb hit it in many places, and in certain parts of Chicago, corpses riddled with bullet holes pile up faster than they can bury them.

Way to go...

These places were not brought down by democratic policies. They were brought down by greed. The goal of the right wing misinformation is to gloss over the facts and simply make a false association between democrats and fallen cities. A belief system asserting that Republican run cities are all Pleasantville is just folly.

[Capper Al]

Come on...it ain't THAT bad...

I'm in Chicago now and it's wonderful. Detroit should be judged as the tri-county area and overall the tri-county area does well when the auto companies do well. Detroit itself has been abandoned left holding the bag when those who had fled to the burbs. But these critics don't want fact. They just want to blame.

[Clocker]

These places were not brought down by democratic policies. They were brought down by greed. Right. All those public employees had to form unions to protect themselves from the greedy elected officials that were exploiting them to cut costs and maximize government profits.

[Robert Goren]

Right. All those public employees had to form unions to protect themselves from the greedy elected officials that were exploiting them to cut costs and maximize government profits.Just think that if public employees got raises as often as those elected officials got them or they got all the benefits they get! Then you would really have case.

[Tom]

Come on...it ain't THAT bad...

That is true.
They pile up only until they vote.

[Tom]

Just think that if public employees got raises as often as those elected officials got them or they got all the benefits they get! Then you would really have case.

You think we support raises for elected officials?
They should NEVER get raises and never have any benefits.
they way to go is each senator and each congressman gets the exact same amount of money - $X - and that is their salary, their budget, their travel allowance, - not another cent for the entire term.

[Tom]

Detroit itself has been abandoned left holding the bag when those who had fled to the burbs. But these critics don't want fact. They just want to blame.

Republicans turned Detroit into a toilet bowl?
No, that was Democrats and the auto industry.
I have been there - you can follow the trail of slime the car companies left behind as they used up the city and crawled north.

[Capper Al]

Right. All those public employees had to form unions to protect themselves from the greedy elected officials that were exploiting them to cut costs and maximize government profits.

Reciting right wing gospel are you. Greed is everywhere. Sure some unions might have gotten their way too much. Did you forget about the managers of Merril Lynch, Citi Bank, GM, Chrysler, etc. Just to name a few.

[Capper Al]

The point is that the working class needs a voice. If it isn't going to be unions then who else is going to do it? If the working class is ignored then they take to the streets evidently. You are beginning to see this happen.

[Tom]

The point is that the working class needs a voice. If it isn't going to be unions then who else is going to do it? If the working class is ignored then they take to the streets evidently. You are beginning to see this happen.

Stop voting for do-nothing, idiot, loser democrats.
THAT was the downfall of Detroit - they kept voting for obvious losers and paid the price.

[davew]

Stop voting for do-nothing, idiot, loser democrats.
THAT was the downfall of Detroit - they kept voting for obvious losers and paid the price.

not just losers, but CROOKS


if only the unions got strong enough to save the city....
there would not be half of the homes with delinquent water bills or shut-off water service.

[Capper Al]

not just losers, but CROOKS


if only the unions got strong enough to save the city....
there would not be half of the homes with delinquent water bills or shut-off water service.

I think both parties had senators that entered the senate not millionaires and left millionaires.

[Capper Al]

The point still is who is going to be the voice for the workers if the unions are gone? And for worker's, sake and eventually everyone's sake, their needs need to be dealt with.

[Clocker]

The point still is who is going to be the voice for the workers if the unions are gone? And for worker's, sake and eventually everyone's sake, their needs need to be dealt with.

According to the BLS, about 11% of American workers belong to unions. Apparently about 89% of the people manage to get their needs dealt with in the free market.

If people can't cope with the free market and want to join a union, fine. Just don't make it mandatory for those that don't want to. If unions are doing such a great job dealing with the needs of workers, why do they insist that they need laws to force people to join?

[Tom]

The point still is who is going to be the voice for the workers if the unions are gone?

REAL men speak for themselves.

[TJDave]

If people can't cope with the free market and want to join a union, fine. Just don't make it mandatory for those that don't want to.

The government should subsidize unions, as they subsidize corporations.

Re-level the playing field.

[mostpost]

Professor,

Apparently, you have learned nothing from history. First the have nots don't have the means to pay for their representation. And second, when it gets too bad they take to the streets. It is in the interest of the haves at some point to take care of the have nots to preserve what the haves have.
It is another lesson of history that the haves never learn this lesson.

[Capper Al]

It is another lesson of history that the haves never learn this lesson.

So right.

[Tom]

Unions don't provide jobs.
Corporations contribute to society.
Mabye the have nots are more like deserve nots.

Did this guy contribute to society?

[Clocker]

It is another lesson of history that the haves never learn this lesson.

Thankfully the elite liberals have learned that lesson and are making sure that the needs of the working man are taken care of. From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/income-gap-grows-wider-and-faster.html?ref=business):

INCOME inequality in the United States has been growing for decades, but the trend appears to have accelerated during the Obama administration. One measure of this is the relationship between median and average wages.

The median wage is straightforward: it’s the midpoint of everyone’s wages. Interpreting the average, though, can be tricky. If the income of a handful of people soars while everyone else’s remains the same, the entire group’s average may still rise substantially. So when average wages grow faster than the median, as happened from 2009 through 2011, it means that lower earners are falling further behind those at the top.

One way to see the acceleration in inequality is to look at the ratio of average to median annual wages. From 2001 through 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, that ratio grew at 0.28 percentage point per year. From 2009 through 2011, the latest year for which the data is available, the ratio increased 1.14 percentage points annually, or roughly four times faster.

[mostpost]

According to the BLS, about 11% of American workers belong to unions. Apparently about 89% of the people manage to get their needs dealt with in the free market.

If people can't cope with the free market and want to join a union, fine. Just don't make it mandatory for those that don't want to. If unions are doing such a great job dealing with the needs of workers, why do they insist that they need laws to force people to join?
Yeah, that 89% is doing really well. :rolleyes: In 2013 the Median Weekly Earniings for a union workers was $950. For a non union worker, that figure was $750. That is a difference of $10,400 a year. Those numbers are also from the BLS.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm#union_a02.f.2
Note the difference, I provide a link. ;)

ETA: In case you are confused, non union members earn $10,400 a year less than non union workers.

[mostpost]

REAL men speak for themselves.
Then we can assume that if you are ever involved in a courtroom proceeding, you will not hire a lawyer. You will be a REAL man and speak for yourself. Good luck with that.

[Clocker]

non union members earn $10,400 a year less than non union workers.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

[AndyC]

Yeah, that 89% is doing really well. :rolleyes: In 2013 the Median Weekly Earniings for a union workers was $950. For a non union worker, that figure was $750. That is a difference of $10,400 a year. Those numbers are also from the BLS.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm#union_a02.f.2
Note the difference, I provide a link. ;)

ETA: In case you are confused, non union members earn $10,400 a year less than non union workers.


It would be nice if the chart showed pay for similar jobs otherwise it is meaningless. And don't forget to deduct those dues out of the wages.

[Clocker]

It would be nice if the chart showed pay for similar jobs otherwise it is meaningless.

Are you saying that union membership is NOT the reason electricians make more than fast food workers? :eek:

[incoming]

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)


For some that's just common sense. :)

[Capper Al]

Are you saying that union membership is NOT the reason electricians make more than fast food workers? :eek:

Who's going to speak for fast food workers? The greater issue here isn't union or no union.

[incoming]

Who's going to speak for fast food workers? The greater issue here isn't union or no union.

Hopefully, they finish their HS education, take notes and then they can speak for themselves.

[mostpost]

It would be nice if the chart showed pay for similar jobs otherwise it is meaningless. And don't forget to deduct those dues out of the wages.
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm
I will summarize it for you.
Thirty occupations are listed. In twenty three of those occupations, union members earn more than non union workers. In some cases it is only a few dollars more, but in may cases it is a large amount-up to almost double.

Thirty six industries are listed. In twenty seven of those industries union members earn more, often significantly more.

I will happily deduct union dues out of those wages. Union dues are generally in the one to two percent range. On average, union workers earn 26% more. That is an ROI any one can approve of.

[davew]

Is it true unions extort more and more money out of companies /business /government until the company /business/ government goes broke?

[JustRalph]

The point is that the working class needs a voice. If it isn't going to be unions then who else is going to do it? If the working class is ignored then they take to the streets evidently. You are beginning to see this happen.


Laughable. Taking to the streets? I guess you're talking about Missouri?

Those aren't "working class" those are ginned up fools responding to the communists rallying them.

Nobody takes to the streets in the U.S. For any change. Not with cable Tv and free phones available for the asking

[Clocker]

Nobody takes to the streets in the U.S.

Well there was Occupy Wall Street. But that was a bunch of unemployed (and unemployable) kids looking for an excuse to party.

Now, the only people taking to the streets are unemployed people hired by unions like SEIU for $8 an hour to picket in front of McDonalds or WalMart for higher minimum wage laws.

[Tom]

What is lower than a McWorker at McDonalds?

Some union sap PRETENDING to be a McWorker.

[AndyC]

Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm
I will summarize it for you.
Thirty occupations are listed. In twenty three of those occupations, union members earn more than non union workers. In some cases it is only a few dollars more, but in may cases it is a large amount-up to almost double.

Thirty six industries are listed. In twenty seven of those industries union members earn more, often significantly more.

I will happily deduct union dues out of those wages. Union dues are generally in the one to two percent range. On average, union workers earn 26% more. That is an ROI any one can approve of.


Thanks. Better info. Unions work for some not for others and sometimes in the case of teacher's unions work against the improvement of public education.

[PaceAdvantage]

These places were not brought down by democratic policies. They were brought down by greed. The goal of the right wing misinformation is to gloss over the facts and simply make a false association between democrats and fallen cities. A belief system asserting that Republican run cities are all Pleasantville is just folly.No need to compare to Republican run cities. The shining examples of Democrat EPIC FAILURE speak for themselves.

Own it.

[Clocker]

Pleasantville is in the eye of the beholder. All I ask of my government is to live in Solventville.

[Capper Al]

Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm
I will summarize it for you.
Thirty occupations are listed. In twenty three of those occupations, union members earn more than non union workers. In some cases it is only a few dollars more, but in may cases it is a large amount-up to almost double.

Thirty six industries are listed. In twenty seven of those industries union members earn more, often significantly more.

I will happily deduct union dues out of those wages. Union dues are generally in the one to two percent range. On average, union workers earn 26% more. That is an ROI any one can approve of.

Don't confuse with the facts.

[Capper Al]

Hopefully, they finish their HS education, take notes and then they can speak for themselves.

They are not in a position to negotiate for themselves even if they did finish HS.

[Capper Al]

Is it true unions extort more and more money out of companies /business /government until the company /business/ government goes broke?

And companies and bankers don't extort?

[Capper Al]

Laughable. Taking to the streets? I guess you're talking about Missouri?

Those aren't "working class" those are ginned up fools responding to the communists rallying them.

Nobody takes to the streets in the U.S. For any change. Not with cable Tv and free phones available for the asking

Sad. In other words, let them eat cake.

[Capper Al]

Thanks. Better info. Unions work for some not for others and sometimes in the case of teacher's unions work against the improvement of public education.

Give him facts and he still doesn't believe you. Teacher unions? You have the right wing mantra memorized well.

[Capper Al]

No need to compare to Republican run cities. The shining examples of Democrat EPIC FAILURE speak for themselves.

Own it.

What world do you live in?

[Capper Al]

Pleasantville is in the eye of the beholder. All I ask of my government is to live in Solventville.

When it comes to Detroit the IOU should go to all those who lived in the city, run up the bills, and moved to the suburbs. This is not to excuse those who stayed in the city. There's a lot of blame to go around.

[rastajenk]

Why did they move? They voted with their feet.

[Actor]

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.
[snip]
So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."And a Mercedes costs more than a Nissan. You get what you pay for. A lot of people want to live in Hawaii (where everything except beef and pineapples has to be shipped across 2,000+ miles of ocean). Who wants to live in Mississippi? Not me!

I'll go out on a limb here and make a guess that the higher cost of living states also have a higher standard of living.

Apologizes to any Mississippians.

[Capper Al]

Why did they move? They voted with their feet.

Prosperity and racism were two major factors. A new home in the burbs.

[Actor]

Nobody takes to the streets in the U.S. For any change.What was I doing back in the sixties when I and thousands of others marched on Montgomery and Washington.

Not with cable Tv and free phones available for the askingFree cable TV? Tell me more!

[incoming]

They are not in a position to negotiate for themselves even if they did finish HS.

Did you just call a hard working human being a dummy?

[PaceAdvantage]

What world do you live in?The world where Democrats have been elected and reelected to every position of consequence in almost every single inner-city and poor/urban area, and except for possibly one or two instances, have absolutely FAILED to improve the area in any meaningful way, despite being in power for DECADES and DECADES.

That's the world I live in. The world where liberal policies haven't done anything except enable failure.

[PaceAdvantage]

Prosperity and racism were two major factors. A new home in the burbs.You're not owning the failure in those areas that is your Democratic party...why is that?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
Prosperity and racism were two major factors. A new home in the burbs.


So only racists move to a better area?
What a crock.

[TrifectaMike]

The world where Democrats have been elected and reelected to every position of consequence in almost every single inner-city and poor/urban area, and except for possibly one or two instances, have absolutely FAILED to improve the area in any meaningful way, despite being in power for DECADES and DECADES.

That's the world I live in. The world where liberal policies haven't done anything except enable failure.

In many (if not all) studies relating to inner-cities are pc based. There are confounding variables, which are pursposely omitted to mask the true results.

Now, don't label me a racist, this is fact.

Mike

[jballscalls]

The world where Democrats have been elected and reelected to every position of consequence in almost every single inner-city and poor/urban area, and except for possibly one or two instances, have absolutely FAILED to improve the area in any meaningful way, despite being in power for DECADES and DECADES.

That's the world I live in. The world where liberal policies haven't done anything except enable failure.

one interesting thing, is when the neighborhoods are improved, then the complains of gentrification come in. We've seen that in Portland. No. Portland was kind of a hole, and now they've developed it and put new businesses and stuff in, and the complaints of gentrification come in from the voters who elected the dems. It's a strange world.

[highnote]

From the link above

"Put another way,it costs 54% more to live in Honolulu than in Danville.

The top five states (outside of D.C.) were Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, California and Maryland, and the bottom five states were Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri and South Dakota. So, it costs 36% more to live in Hawaii than in Mississippi."

Location, location, location.

You'll probably make at least 54% more in NYC than in Danville. I probably make at least 300% more in NYC than I would have where I grew up in Ohio.

Rural Ohio is beautiful and I still love visiting there and I'll probably retire there because the cost of living is so much lower, but it ain't NYC.

[AndyC]

Give him facts and he still doesn't believe you. Teacher unions? You have the right wing mantra memorized well.

Believe what? Sometimes unions help their members out by bargaining for higher wages and benefits. Good for them. Sometimes unions create problems for the people who are being served by their members. Case in point the teacher's unions (CA). Incompetents cannot be fired, seniority takes precedence over ability and results, and child molesters (Los Angeles) are protected. It's all about the children, yeah right.

[HUSKER55]

my guess is that the workers in Canada, China, Venezuela, Argentina, Taiwan and etc are very pro union!

[classhandicapper]

I briefly did some per diem work that required me to join a union.

Here was my experience.

1. I was forced to pay union dues, but since I wasn't officially a part time or full time employee I had none of the benefits of membership. The "theoretical" benefit was that my pay scale was inflated relative to the market rate (which was true), though still below the pay scale of union members.

2. Union members that repeatedly came in late, were rude to customers, goofed off, made mistakes, worked slowly, took long breaks, left early, STOLE MONEY from other employees, customers, and the company itself were defended vigorously by the union. None that I know of were fired unless the money was huge.

3. A union member that threatened to blow up the office in a moment of anger because he wasn't included in a management training program was given the reward of moving him to his preferred location to pacify him once being given the green light by staff psychologists that he didn't really mean it. The rest of us immediately started contemplating threatening to kill our bosses to get a transfer. :lol:

4. The brightest, most competent, most accurate, and most productive workers were not given any extra consideration for their efforts when it came time for promotion to part time or full time status. Seniority was still the dominant factor.

5. The vacation, holiday, health care, retirement, overtime and other benefits were wildly more generous than anything I had ever seen in the private sector and the pay and overtime pay scale was wildly inflated relative to similar work in the private sector.

6. The company eventually went bankrupt primary due to the costs of OT, healthcare, and other retiree benefits to union members.

Did I personally benefit from the union? It's possible. I never calculated the difference between my union dues and the possibility that my salary was inflated. Union members often benefit at the expense of customers and whoever actually pays for their salaries and benefits.

Bottom line is that it was a horrendous way to run a business and it self destructed. We've seen the same story 100s of times.

[GaryG]

A couple of years ago I encoundered a group of demonstrators near the entrance to Dollywood. They had a big sign that said "Shame On You Dolly Parton". I stopped and went to ask them what it was about. The reply was that all of the Dollywood enterprises are non-union. I asked them if they knew what workers were paid...no. I asked them if they realized that without Dolly there would not be all of the hotels and restaurants in the area as well as bumper to bumper traffic...no. They said SEIU sent them and they were supposed to yell at those heading to the park. My parting words were that I hoped they would bleeping starve to death. I look for them whenever I am down that way but they must have given up....or starved to death.

[Clocker]

They said SEIU sent them and they were supposed to yell at those heading to the park.

SEIU finds people on the street or by word of mouth and pays them to picket when needed. And SEIU doesn't pay union scale for pickets. :eek:

[Capper Al]

Did you just call a hard working human being a dummy?

What?

[Capper Al]

The world where Democrats have been elected and reelected to every position of consequence in almost every single inner-city and poor/urban area, and except for possibly one or two instances, have absolutely FAILED to improve the area in any meaningful way, despite being in power for DECADES and DECADES.

That's the world I live in. The world where liberal policies haven't done anything except enable failure.

Wake up. You are dreaming.

[Capper Al]

You're not owning the failure in those areas that is your Democratic party...why is that?

You have simple view of the world and you're not willing to challenge it.

[Capper Al]

my guess is that the workers in Canada, China, Venezuela, Argentina, Taiwan and etc are very pro union!

Some plants in China have an unofficial union that have been successful in getting their members raises.

[classhandicapper]

Some plants in China have an unofficial union that have been successful in getting their members raises.

Which in turn get passed onto the customers, which in turn means you, I and everyone else pays more for these goods than we would have, which in turn means you and I are the ones paying for union salaries in China that are above the free market level. Of course, the other possibility is that China will lose market share to even cheaper labor and those workers will eventually be out of jobs just like US workers.

[incoming]

What?

You implied in a earlier post that a fast food workers wasn't capable of asking for a raise without help. The only logical answer that followed for me was they had to be mentally incapable. Racist is a word that you toss out frequently. I was curious if your sensitivity also extended to someone that in your mind couldn't speak for themselves. I was looking for a yes or no.

[JustRalph]

What was I doing back in the sixties when I and thousands of others marched on Montgomery and Washington!

40 years ago and today are two different worlds. But you knew that.

There are section 8 housing units with basic cable and sometimes more included. Ten years ago I saw them in California. I knew someone who was paying $24 bucks a month for her 3 bedroom apartment with cable included.

[mostpost]

I briefly did some per diem work that required me to join a union.

Here was my experience.

1. I was forced to pay union dues, but since I wasn't officially a part time or full time employee I had none of the benefits of membership. The "theoretical" benefit was that my pay scale was inflated relative to the market rate (which was true), though still below the pay scale of union members.

2. Union members that repeatedly came in late, were rude to customers, goofed off, made mistakes, worked slowly, took long breaks, left early, STOLE MONEY from other employees, customers, and the company itself were defended vigorously by the union. None that I know of were fired unless the money was huge.
You worked at this company on a per diem basis, yet you know all about who was fired or disciplined. :rolleyes:

3. A union member that threatened to blow up the office in a moment of anger because he wasn't included in a management training program was given the reward of moving him to his preferred location to pacify him once being given the green light by staff psychologists that he didn't really mean it. The rest of us immediately started contemplating threatening to kill our bosses to get a transfer. :lol:

4. The brightest, most competent, most accurate, and most productive workers were not given any extra consideration for their efforts when it came time for promotion to part time or full time status. Seniority was still the dominant factor.

5. The vacation, holiday, health care, retirement, overtime and other benefits were wildly more generous than anything I had ever seen in the private sector and the pay and overtime pay scale was wildly inflated relative to similar work in the private sector.

6. The company eventually went bankrupt primary due to the costs of OT, healthcare, and other retiree benefits to union members.

Did I personally benefit from the union? It's possible. I never calculated the difference between my union dues and the possibility that my salary was inflated. Union members often benefit at the expense of customers and whoever actually pays for their salaries and benefits.

Bottom line is that it was a horrendous way to run a business and it self destructed. We've seen the same story 100s of times.
1. But you did get some of the benefits of membership. You said so yourself in your second sentence. Your pay was higher because of the union. And it was not inflated. It was the market rate.

2.Employees are supposed to be defended vigorously by the union. That is what the union is there for. It is the same as the accused murderer having a right to an attorney.

You wrote;
"None that know of were fired..." Well I also worked for an organization with a union, and I can tell you that I saw a number of people fired (and indicted) for theft. I saw workers summarily fired for fighting in the office. Physically fighting. The Post Office has a zero tolerance policy on fighting and the union is on board with that policy. Many times workers were handed Letters of Warning or suspensions for excessive tardiness or excessive absence. And people were let go for being unable or unwilling to do the job properly.

3. Sometimes your points are not that clear. You say they moved him to his preferred location. Do you mean a different city or a different part of the plant. Were the "Staff psychologists" in the employ of the company? If so then why would anyone have a problem with the companies actions.

Of course I wasn't there and I doubt that your account is devoid of bias.

4. Do you think that putting in years of work at a job should not be a factor in promotions? That guy who has been on the per diem roster for six months or a year knows more about the job than the guy who has been there a month.

5. Did you mean "wildly inflated" compared to a non union company? Again I say those wages, vacations etc. are the true market rate; determined between the worker (the seller) and the employer (the buyer)

6. The company went bankrupt because it failed to fulfill all of its obligations to its customers, its employees and itself.

There is a lot of information missing from your post.

Exactly how are you defining per diem work? How often did you work? Were you on site or at the plant? Were you in the office where you could observe the interactions between the union and management. Were you privy to the companies books so you could discern if and how the union contracts affected the bottom line? Are you certain it wasn't bad management decisions which caused the company to go under?

And which company was this.

[Clocker]

How often did you work? Were you on site or at the plant? Were you in the office where you could observe the interactions between the union and management.

And which company was this.


And provide an employment history so we can check your references.

And please post pictures of yourself and your family for gratuitous comments from others.

[JustRalph]

The world where Democrats have been elected and reelected to every position of consequence in almost every single inner-city and poor/urban area, and except for possibly one or two instances, have absolutely FAILED to improve the area in any meaningful way, despite being in power for DECADES and DECADES.

That's the world I live in. The world where liberal policies haven't done anything except enable failure.

You cannot deny these facts, yet they and specifically Al deny these facts because it's easier than admitting they worship an ideology that is corrupt and enslaves an entire class of people who can't for some reason see through the charade that is Democratic policies.

For forty years they have been selling this line of bullshit and it's getting tougher, yet we breed a special kind of idiot in this country. They are actually growing in size due to Santa Claus syndrome. It's an interesting dichotomy. A special kind of stupid.

We have come to the point where the city of Detroit is being literally bulldozed due to failings of the leadership, and yet they still deny and blame those who got the hell out because they were sick of paying the way for those leaders. Continuous corruption and the literal jailing of Detroit leaders is ignored. It's amazing.

You can point to the staggering debt in Detroit, Chicago, San Bernardino and other Democrat strongholds and it's still ignored. Minorities just keep getting in line and they get thrown a bone or a pipe dream every few years and they continue on the same path. Their mostly White Liberal masters and their minority co-conspirators go home every night and live like kings, while people in Detroit live without water, electricity etc.

The greatest carnival clown of all time is two thirds of the way through a lost decade of failure and the entire country loses out due to the idiocy of the now 51%.

I used to feel sorry for the blind followers. Rarely do I feel sorry for them anymore.

[Tom]

5. Did you mean "wildly inflated" compared to a non union company? Again I say those wages, vacations etc. are the true market rate; determined between the worker (the seller) and the employer (the buyer)

That is NOT the market rate.
In fact, it has nothing to do with the market at all.

[mostpost]

And provide an employment history so we can check your references.

And please post pictures of yourself and your family for gratuitous comments from others.Here is a gratuitous comment for you. You are truly an idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The answers to those questions was important to understanding what was occurring. If CH wants to answer them he can. if not...... I am not requiring a sworn affidavit.
If we know which company it was that went bankrupt we may learn why.

[mostpost]

They are not in a position to negotiate for themselves even if they did finish HS.
They do not get what you are saying. They really believe that the assembly line worker going in to negotiate a raise from General Motors is the same position as the lawyer negotiating a raise from Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

I don't have to explain to you why this is not the case. Nor do I have to explain why a worker negotiates from a position of weakness when he negotiates for himself and from a position of strength when he belongs to a union.

[Clocker]

The answers to those questions was important to understanding what was occurring.

No they aren't. The man told you what happened. You don't believe him, and want to show that you know better than he does what happened at his job. Because in your world, nothing bad could possibly be the fault of a union.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
They are not in a position to negotiate for themselves even if they did finish HS.


What is there to negotiate - they bring nothing to the table.They are unskilled labor and there are millions out there who could their jobs with an hour training.

What would I give Joe a raise when Moe would do his job for the same money?
The word you mistaken use here is negotiate.

You should be talking "improve" as in make yourself worth something.

[mostpost]

That is NOT the market rate.
In fact, it has nothing to do with the market at all.
There is more than one market rate, but they are all based on what you can get for what you are selling. You try to maximize your return, but at the same time you must account for other factors.

The worker has a commodity to sell which is his labor. The employer needs that labor. Each side tries to gain the maximum for himself. When the worker goes in to seek a job or a raise, the employer does not say to himself, "What is the most I can pay this worker and still make a profit?" He says, "What is the least I can pay this worker so that he will work for me and I can still make a bigger profit?"

When the worker comes in alone and says I would like a raise or I will quit, the employer can so "Go ahead, there are a thousand more out there just like you. But when a thousand workers (the union) come in united and say the same thing, the employer has to listen. In the end, the workers get less than the wanted, but more than they had. The employer gives up more than he planned but still has a profitable business.

[JustRalph]

Over 50% of union members are working for a government of some sort

Feds, State or local.

They will be 10% of the population soon. Stopping out of control government at all levels, stops unions. Get on board. Stop the enablers

[Capper Al]

Which in turn get passed onto the customers, which in turn means you, I and everyone else pays more for these goods than we would have, which in turn means you and I are the ones paying for union salaries in China that are above the free market level. Of course, the other possibility is that China will lose market share to even cheaper labor and those workers will eventually be out of jobs just like US workers.

Damn workers have to eat and feed their families. But we won't mention all the other people making money in the process just the workers. :>}

[Capper Al]

You implied in a earlier post that a fast food workers wasn't capable of asking for a raise without help. The only logical answer that followed for me was they had to be mentally incapable. Racist is a word that you toss out frequently. I was curious if your sensitivity also extended to someone that in your mind couldn't speak for themselves. I was looking for a yes or no.

You are insensitive to the position a person in the bottom of the scale is. Some of their lost capability to negotiate just might be because they need to eat. Plus they might not have the wherewith all to ask for a raise. Generally, the employer won't pay over market value for labor. It then becomes a matter of how much can the employer extract out of the worker.

[PaceAdvantage]

You are insensitive to the position a person in the bottom of the scale is. Some of their lost capability to negotiate just might be because they need to eat. Plus they might not have the wherewith all to ask for a raise. Generally, the employer won't pay over market value for labor. It then becomes a matter of how much can the employer extract out of the worker.If the worker thinks he is more valuable than his wages suggest, shouldn't he be able to go and obtain a better paying job?

And if he can't find a better paying job, then obviously he overestimated his value.

It's pretty simple as far as employer/employee dynamics go.

You kind of sound like a communist...I say that with peace and love.

[Capper Al]

You cannot deny these facts, yet they and specifically Al deny these facts because it's easier than admitting they worship an ideology that is corrupt and enslaves an entire class of people who can't for some reason see through the charade that is Democratic policies.

For forty years they have been selling this line of bullshit and it's getting tougher, yet we breed a special kind of idiot in this country. They are actually growing in size due to Santa Claus syndrome. It's an interesting dichotomy. A special kind of stupid.

We have come to the point where the city of Detroit is being literally bulldozed due to failings of the leadership, and yet they still deny and blame those who got the hell out because they were sick of paying the way for those leaders. Continuous corruption and the literal jailing of Detroit leaders is ignored. It's amazing.

You can point to the staggering debt in Detroit, Chicago, San Bernardino and other Democrat strongholds and it's still ignored. Minorities just keep getting in line and they get thrown a bone or a pipe dream every few years and they continue on the same path. Their mostly White Liberal masters and their minority co-conspirators go home every night and live like kings, while people in Detroit live without water, electricity etc.

The greatest carnival clown of all time is two thirds of the way through a lost decade of failure and the entire country loses out due to the idiocy of the now 51%.

I used to feel sorry for the blind followers. Rarely do I feel sorry for them anymore.

Don't fall back on your chair. Those thoughts might just too big and heavy for your head. The fact is that those who walk with the sick are more likely to get ill themselves than those that don't. The Dems walk with the poor a little more than the Rebs.

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't fall back on your chair. Those thoughts might just too big and heavy for your head.When you have nothing left to say, insults become the last vestige of the lost debate.

[Clocker]

Generally, the employer won't pay over market value for labor.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

[Capper Al]

If the worker thinks he is more valuable than his wages suggest, shouldn't he be able to go and obtain a better paying job?

And if he can't find a better paying job, then obviously he overestimated his value.

It's pretty simple as far as employer/employee dynamics go.

You kind of sound like a communist...I say that with peace and love.

May it be because you have a successful horse racing site that you see yourself as a captain of industry like those who built the railroads? Give it up you're not. You have no understanding of those inarticulate people trapped on the bottom.

[classhandicapper]

>1. But you did get some of the benefits of membership. You said so yourself in your second sentence. Your pay was higher because of the union. And it was not inflated. It was the market rate. <

Yes I did get an inflated hourly rate. By definition it was higher than the free market rate because it was given to workers under threat of strike and was more than non union workers were making for similar work.

>>2.Employees are supposed to be defended vigorously by the union. That is what the union is there for. It is the same as the accused murderer having a right to an attorney. <<

Are you freaking nuts?

These union workers were stealing from the customers, the company, and other union members. They should have been fired. The union put their employment and "dues" above criminal behavior (most likely they were friends or relatives of important people within the union). The honest workers used to have to protect their belongings around them and warn customers.


>3. Sometimes your points are not that clear. You say they moved him to his preferred location. Do you mean a different city or a different part of the plant. Were the "Staff psychologists" in the employ of the company? If so then why would anyone have a problem with the companies actions. <

He was moved to a much preferred location near his home that most workers desperately wanted to be transferred to.

The problem is that HE WAS ESSENTIALLY REWARDED for threatening the company!!!! It was practically an inducement for other people to threaten the company. The event was on ongoing joke of every union member. Even the guy himself was laughing his ass off. He thought he might get fired and was hoping at best they would understand it was a moment of anger and give him another chance. Then they rewarded him. He used to joke that he should threaten to kill someone so he could finally get into the management program.


>>4. Do you think that putting in years of work at a job should not be a factor in promotions? That guy who has been on the per diem roster for six months or a year knows more about the job than the guy who has been there a month. <<

In many cases there were per diems that were massively better than 20 year full time union members, but productivity and quality were ranked way below longevity. It's a major problem when you are rewarding less productive people. You are taking away the incentive to work hard and do higher quality work.

>>5. Did you mean "wildly inflated" compared to a non union company? Again I say those wages, vacations etc. are the true market rate; determined between the worker (the seller) and the employer (the buyer)<<

No they are inflated because they are negotiated under threat of strike and non union workers doing similar jobs without threat of strike get paid less.

>>Exactly how are you defining per diem work? How often did you work? Were you on site or at the plant? Were you in the office where you could observe the interactions between the union and management. Were you privy to the companies books so you could discern if and how the union contracts affected the bottom line? Are you certain it wasn't bad management decisions which caused the company to go under? <<

I worked when they needed me due to full union members calling in sick, being on vacation etc... I was in semi retirement at the time. I worked at multiple locations and became friends with the union treasurer. So I knew of lot of what was going on. The company's failing has been discussed publicly. Yes, bad top management was an issue. The top management was politically appointed and as a result was often incompetent, but it was union pensions, healthcare, and salaries that destroyed the company.

[Capper Al]

When you have nothing left to say, insults become the last vestige of the lost debate.

Interesting how you cut the something said out to make your point.

[PaceAdvantage]

May it be because you have a successful horse racing site that you see yourself as a captain of industry like those who built the railroads? Give it up you're not. You have no understanding of those inarticulate people trapped on the bottom.This site barely pays for itself...a captain I am not.

[ArlJim78]

My local non union auto dealership has had the guys with their big rat outside their lot for many months now. I went in for service (with people shouting at me of course) and asked them what is going on, because how does a non union shop go on strike.
They explained that some union has paid their mechanics to strike, with the promise that down the road they'll get higher wages. The dealership has since hired all new people, so those guys will not ever get their jobs back. I don't know how long they'll be paid to stand out there, make asses of themselves and harass customers. Perhaps they'll move on to another location once they give up on this one. I wonder why people accept that their dues go to pay other people not to work.

What I like about this dealership is that they dug in their heals and hired all new people. Also they brought in several large inflatable animals and have arrayed them around the union Rat, they are so large it kind of dwarves the union rat. They have a giant giraffe, a big smiling rabbit, etc, so the union rat gets lost in the shuffle. If you glance over it just looks like a big friendly bunch of animals. lol

I hate unions, always have. They're like a cancer on a healthy company.
It gives me great pleasure to see their memberships decline.
They're nothing but special interest groups that lobby government to benefit very few people. Government unions of course are a giant scam and should not be legal.

[Clocker]

Government unions of course are a giant scam and should not be legal.

What, you see a conflict with a union negotiating with a government that it helped elect with PAC contributions and union votes?

Some people are so paranoid. :eek:

[mostpost]

>1. But you did get some of the benefits of membership. You said so yourself in your second sentence. Your pay was higher because of the union. And it was not inflated. It was the market rate. <

Yes I did get an inflated hourly rate. By definition it was higher than the free market rate because it was given to workers under threat of strike and was more than non union workers were making for similar work.

>>2.Employees are supposed to be defended vigorously by the union. That is what the union is there for. It is the same as the accused murderer having a right to an attorney. <<

Are you freaking nuts?

These union workers were stealing from the customers, the company, and other union members. They should have been fired. The union put their employment and "dues" above criminal behavior (most likely they were friends or relatives of important people within the union). The honest workers used to have to protect their belongings around them and warn customers.
They should have been fired. They also had the right to representation throughout the process. If they were indeed guilty of what you claim, and the company did not fire them, the company is as much at fault as the union.
They would certainly have not kept their jobs if they were employed by USPS.

>3. Sometimes your points are not that clear. You say they moved him to his preferred location. Do you mean a different city or a different part of the plant. Were the "Staff psychologists" in the employ of the company? If so then why would anyone have a problem with the companies actions. <

He was moved to a much preferred location near his home that most workers desperately wanted to be transferred to.
OK. At first I thought you meant he was transferred to a different department at the same plant. Thanks for clearing that up.

The problem is that HE WAS ESSENTIALLY REWARDED for threatening the company!!!! It was practically an inducement for other people to threaten the company. The event was on ongoing joke of every union member. Even the guy himself was laughing his ass off. He thought he might get fired and was hoping at best they would understand it was a moment of anger and give him another chance. Then they rewarded him. He used to joke that he should threaten to kill someone so he could finally get into the management program.
The way I read the above paragraph, the guy did not ask for the transfer-at least not at that time-the union did not demand it; management just decided to give it to him. So why not just blame management. Although I can kind of see management's point in that they may not have felt comfortable with this man working under management trainees he had been so angry with.

>>4. Do you think that putting in years of work at a job should not be a factor in promotions? That guy who has been on the per diem roster for six months or a year knows more about the job than the guy who has been there a month. <<

In many cases there were per diems that were massively better than 20 year full time union members, but productivity and quality were ranked way below longevity. It's a major problem when you are rewarding less productive people. You are taking away the incentive to work hard and do higher quality work.

>>5. Did you mean "wildly inflated" compared to a non union company? Again I say those wages, vacations etc. are the true market rate; determined between the worker (the seller) and the employer (the buyer)<<

No they are inflated because they are negotiated under threat of strike and non union workers doing similar jobs without threat of strike get paid less.
Wages are higher for union workers than they are for non union. That does not mean they are inflated. It means the other workers are not being paid enough. Unions do not strike unless all other options have failed. Strikes are far too costly for the unions and their members. If it wasn't for unions everyone's wages would be lower.

>>Exactly how are you defining per diem work? How often did you work? Were you on site or at the plant? Were you in the office where you could observe the interactions between the union and management. Were you privy to the companies books so you could discern if and how the union contracts affected the bottom line? Are you certain it wasn't bad management decisions which caused the company to go under? <<

I worked when they needed me due to full union members calling in sick, being on vacation etc... I was in semi retirement at the time. I worked at multiple locations and became friends with the union treasurer. So I knew of lot of what was going on. The company's failing has been discussed publicly. Yes, bad top management was an issue. The top management was politically appointed and as a result was often incompetent, but it was union pensions, healthcare, and salaries that destroyed the company.
Just one more question which you do not have to answer if my assumption is correct. By politically appointed you mean appointed due to politics within the
company, not appointed by a government official.

[BlueShoe]

It also costs more to live in Paris than Danville.
But of course, thanks to the unions. The French work 30 hour work weeks, get six weeks vacation, including the entire month of August off each year, get twice as many holidays off as do US workers, and are nearly impossible to fire, all thanks to the French unions, all of which are run by far leftists, many of whom are members of the French Communist Party. French workers are also woefully inefficient, even by other Euro-Socialist nation's standards. Heaven help us if we become anything like the Froggies.

[mostpost]

If the worker thinks he is more valuable than his wages suggest, shouldn't he be able to go and obtain a better paying job?

And if he can't find a better paying job, then obviously he overestimated his value.

It's pretty simple as far as employer/employee dynamics go.
Then why don't you understand it? Despite months of improvement, unemployment is still high. There are a lot of workers looking for jobs-plus a lot more who will be looking if the economy continues to improve. There are few jobs looking for workers. That means that workers do not have the choices they should have. It also means that they have to pay more for the jobs they get. They pay more by being willing to work for less.

You will notice that I deleted your gratuitous insult of Capper Al from your quote.

[mostpost]

My local non union auto dealership has had the guys with their big rat outside their lot for many months now. I went in for service (with people shouting at me of course) and asked them what is going on, because how does a non union shop go on strike.
They explained that some union has paid their mechanics to strike, with the promise that down the road they'll get higher wages. The dealership has since hired all new people, so those guys will not ever get their jobs back. I don't know how long they'll be paid to stand out there, make asses of themselves and harass customers. Perhaps they'll move on to another location once they give up on this one. I wonder why people accept that their dues go to pay other people not to work.

What I like about this dealership is that they dug in their heals and hired all new people. Also they brought in several large inflatable animals and have arrayed them around the union Rat, they are so large it kind of dwarves the union rat. They have a giant giraffe, a big smiling rabbit, etc, so the union rat gets lost in the shuffle. If you glance over it just looks like a big friendly bunch of animals. lol

I hate unions, always have. They're like a cancer on a healthy company.
It gives me great pleasure to see their memberships decline.
They're nothing but special interest groups that lobby government to benefit very few people. Government unions of course are a giant scam and should not be legal.
Did you ask the guys who were picketing why they were there? Of course you didn't. There answers might have been much more informative and accurate than the ones you received from management in the office.

[HUSKER55]

Try and wrap this around your head. Unemployment is high because companies are moving out of the USA because other countries are more friendly to business.

Throw in tax advantageous and it is a no brainer. It is going to get worse and government and unions can not fix this

[Capper Al]

What, you see a conflict with a union negotiating with a government that it helped elect with PAC contributions and union votes?

Some people are so paranoid. :eek:

Koch brothers are so much bettter for funding?

[ArlJim78]

Did you ask the guys who were picketing why they were there? Of course you didn't. There answers might have been much more informative and accurate than the ones you received from management in the office.
I was there to get my car serviced, not to interview the morons who cursed at me as I drove in.

Also I really don't care what their issues are. When you don't like your job there are other avenues to take rather than getting a coffee, grabbing a lawn chair, holding a sign, inflating a rat, shouting at customers, for months on end.

The rat is a good choice for union mascot though. Even better would be a giant inflatable extended middle finger with the words "F*ck you. Give us our money" written on it. I feel it would more concisely capture the whole spirit of the movement.

[Capper Al]

Try and wrap this around your head. Unemployment is high because companies are moving out of the USA because other countries are more friendly to business.

Throw in tax advantageous and it is a no brainer. It is going to get worse and government and unions can not fix this

That's why we need value added taxes and zero corporate taxes except for services provided taxes.

[HUSKER55]

do you see that on the horizon?

[JustRalph]

That's why we need value added taxes and zero corporate taxes except for services provided taxes.

VAT tax.....euphemism for theft by the government

[DJofSD]

Do those two headed journalist belong to a union?

Is their union going to do anything, hmmm?

[Capper Al]

VAT tax.....euphemism for theft by the government

Don't like to see the rich pay taxes?

[Tom]

There is more than one market rate

The is only one FREE market rate.
When a union is involved, it is not a free market.

[badcompany]

But of course, thanks to the unions. The French work 30 hour work weeks, get six weeks vacation, including the entire month of August off each year, get twice as many holidays off as do US workers, and are nearly impossible to fire, all thanks to the French unions, all of which are run by far leftists, many of whom are members of the French Communist Party. French workers are also woefully inefficient, even by other Euro-Socialist nation's standards. Heaven help us if we become anything like the Froggies.

Whenever some tool tells you the U.S should be more like Europe, show'm this list and ask why there are no European companies on it.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/91c56fc2f4b8ad37d28f6d52c444753e_zpsa473c58b.jpg

[classhandicapper]

Just one more question which you do not have to answer if my assumption is correct. By politically appointed you mean appointed due to politics within the
company, not appointed by a government official.

The bottom jobs were mostly filled by "who do you know inside the company". People were shocked I could get in without knowing anyone.

There were many lower and middle management jobs that were earned through competency from within the ranks.

The top jobs were political appointees.

The union essentially had the government in its back pocket for a long time. So all kinds of ridiculous salaries, OT, and benefits were negotiated and the top guys (or gals) were often atrocious.

[Rookies]

Try and wrap this around your head. Unemployment is high because companies are moving out of the USA because other countries are more friendly to business.

Throw in tax advantageous and it is a no brainer. It is going to get worse and government and unions can not fix this


And exactly what is the bottom line for these corporations and their right wing shills?

Robots...

on Mars?

:rolleyes:

[Tom]

And exactly what is the bottom line for these corporations and their right wing shills?

Robots...

on Mars?

:rolleyes:

Profits.
Like any good business.
Why do you think BK is heading your way.....you got good water up there?

[Rookies]

Profits.
Like any good business.
Why do you think BK is heading your way.....you got good water up there?

Funny, you should ask that. Been thinking about it for awhile. We sure as hell do! And we've got as much/ more of it, as likely any country in the world!

That will be the world's next, huge war.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then why don't you understand it? Despite months of improvement, unemployment is still high. There are a lot of workers looking for jobs-plus a lot more who will be looking if the economy continues to improve. There are few jobs looking for workers. That means that workers do not have the choices they should have. It also means that they have to pay more for the jobs they get. They pay more by being willing to work for less.

You will notice that I deleted your gratuitous insult of Capper Al from your quote.This coming from the guy who regularly insults people on here more than almost any other poster in off-topic? How many people have you called stupid today?

Spare me.

[Capper Al]

You kind of sound like a communist...I say that with peace and love.

You believe in a world that doesn't exist, a world where the employer is willing to pay a fair wage at the expense of his own profit. I say this with peace and love.

[Capper Al]

But of course, thanks to the unions. The French work 30 hour work weeks, get six weeks vacation, including the entire month of August off each year, get twice as many holidays off as do US workers, and are nearly impossible to fire, all thanks to the French unions, all of which are run by far leftists, many of whom are members of the French Communist Party. French workers are also woefully inefficient, even by other Euro-Socialist nation's standards. Heaven help us if we become anything like the Froggies.

Wrong on many accounts. First thank God that the French got us down to the 40 hour week. Second, the French were down to a 36 hour week when the PC came out to share the increased productivity with the public. They had to go back to 40 hours because the rest of the world didn't join in. So who do you think profited by the PC, not the workers. And third, you like the yoke around your neck so much that you don't want to lessen your burden and enjoy life a little more like the French? Heaven help you.

[Tom]

You believe in a world that doesn't exist, a world where the employer is willing to pay a fair wage at the expense of his own profit.

No, no Al.....that is the Union world.

[AndyC]

You believe in a world that doesn't exist, a world where the employer is willing to pay a fair wage at the expense of his own profit. I say this with peace and love.

You beg the question as to what is a "fair wage". Surely someone wouldn't work for less than a fair wage or certainly wouldn't work very long for such wages.

[Capper Al]

You beg the question as to what is a "fair wage". Surely someone wouldn't work for less than a fair wage or certainly wouldn't work very long for such wages.

At minimum, it would be a livable wage. Some people are trapped into working for less. Just think of all those illegals. We have an under cast just like in India.

[Clocker]

At minimum, it would be a livable wage.

And who gets to define what a living wage is? Does a living wage vary, say for a 20 year old living in his mom's basement and a 30 year old who is married with 2 kids?

[Clocker]

Just think of all those illegals.

How much is a living wage for an illegal? They have more expenses, you know. They have to send money back home to support their families, and they have to save money to pay the human smugglers to bring the rest of the family to this country. Should they get more than legal citizens?

[Tom]

At minimum, it would be a livable wage. Some people are trapped into working for less.

You do understand that many jobs are not worth a living wage, right?
The wage is what the work is worth to the employer, not the employee.

[AndyC]

At minimum, it would be a livable wage. Some people are trapped into working for less. Just think of all those illegals. We have an under cast just like in India.

If a business could hire a person for $9/hr for a job that a machine could do for $10/hr what should a business do when the minimum wage goes to $11/hr?

If society deems it necessary that an individual gets paid at least $15/hr but an employee only provides value of $10/hr why must an employer be forced to pay for more than they are receiving?

Isn't the earned income credit supposed to boost a person's income to a more livable standard?

[Robert Goren]

You do understand that many jobs are not worth a living wage, right?
The wage is what the work is worth to the employer, not the employee.Then the job wouldn't get done in a society were the government did not depress wages by allowing immigrants(both legal and illegal) increase the supply of the workforce. There is no free market in labor in the United States and I doubt if there ever was one for very long. They have always had ready supply of slaves, Irish and Italians. Now it is Latin Americans and Asians.

[Capper Al]

Then the job wouldn't get done in a society were the government did not depress wages by allowing immigrants(both legal and illegal) increase the supply of the workforce. There is no free market in labor in the United States and I doubt if there ever was one for very long. They have always had ready supply of slaves, Irish and Italians. Now it is Latin Americans and Asians.

Good point!

[Capper Al]

If a business could hire a person for $9/hr for a job that a machine could do for $10/hr what should a business do when the minimum wage goes to $11/hr?

If society deems it necessary that an individual gets paid at least $15/hr but an employee only provides value of $10/hr why must an employer be forced to pay for more than they are receiving?

Isn't the earned income credit supposed to boost a person's income to a more livable standard?

Does your niche example prove the point for those who can't be replaced by a machine? NOT!

[Capper Al]

How much is a living wage for an illegal? They have more expenses, you know. They have to send money back home to support their families, and they have to save money to pay the human smugglers to bring the rest of the family to this country. Should they get more than legal citizens?

In the long run, we pay more for the illegals so one of these illegal employers can make a short term profit. Might we not be better off as a country to pay an extra 20 cents a pound for our grapes then to take on a long run obligation and debt. Funny how some debt Rebs don't want to talk about. :bang:

[Clocker]

Does your niche example prove the point for those who can't be replaced by a machine? NOT!

The higher the cost of labor, the more likely a machine will be designed to replace the worker. Most people here think of fast food workers as not replaceable. The fast food labor market in Europe has been decimated by automation. The back room has been high automated by machines that flip burgers, fill drinks, etc. And the front counter has been largely taken over by electronic kiosks, where the customer keys in an order and pays for it there.

[AndyC]

Then the job wouldn't get done in a society were the government did not depress wages by allowing immigrants(both legal and illegal) increase the supply of the workforce. There is no free market in labor in the United States and I doubt if there ever was one for very long. They have always had ready supply of slaves, Irish and Italians. Now it is Latin Americans and Asians.


So having a supply of labor means there is no free market? The problem is that there is an oversupply of unskilled workers so the do-gooders think that businesses should be forced to pay more than market value to hire them.

[Robert Goren]

So having a supply of labor means there is no free market? The problem is that there is an oversupply of unskilled workers so the do-gooders think that businesses should be forced to pay more than market value to hire them.The supply is artificially enhanced. It not only the unskilled labor market. We are bring in computer programmers from India while a friend of mine who went back to school at age 50 can't pay his student loans because his wages are depressed. He is not alone. They import people in every field at every level except upper management. We will soon have a new wave of Arabs refuges escaping ISIS. Get ready they are coming and taxpayers will be on the hook for plenty when they do.

[Capper Al]

The higher the cost of labor, the more likely a machine will be designed to replace the worker. Most people here think of fast food workers as not replaceable. The fast food labor market in Europe has been decimated by automation. The back room has been high automated by machines that flip burgers, fill drinks, etc. And the front counter has been largely taken over by electronic kiosks, where the customer keys in an order and pays for it there.

Automation will always march forward. We need to figure in how all can share in the prosperity.

[mostpost]

This coming from the guy who regularly insults people on here more than almost any other poster in off-topic? How many people have you called stupid today?

Spare me.
I believe there was just one yesterday. You forget the key factor. Do they deserve it. AndyC thinks no one will work for an unfair wage, even though millions are doing so right now. Tom thinks the employer should be the sole judge of what is or is not a fair wage. Blue Shoe thinks everything is a Communist conspiracy, and he thinks Communists are still called Bolsheviks.

All of you think that we can achieve prosperity by underpaying workers. All of you think we can raise tax revenues by lowering tax rates. All of you ignore the benefits of Obamacare while fixating on a few fixable flaws. All of you ignore the role of unions in building the greatest middle class the world has ever known. You don't ignore it, you deny it completely and lie to disprove it.

CLOCKER
Clocker is a special case. Clocker distorts and deceives. He ignores facts he can't distort and distorts facts he can't refute. Clocker is the guy at work who steals your ideas and presents them to the boss as his own. Clocker is the guy who spends two hours in the plant "checking" on an order, then complains that someone else isn't working.

He's the guy who won't share that one homework problem that he got and no one else did.

That's how I see him.

[Clocker]

That's how I see him.

Wow! If I cared, I'd have to start a spread sheet to keep track of all the different personalities you have attributed to me with your ESP based psychobabble analysis.

Last time, I was a filthy rich greedy capitalist that earn a fortune exploiting my workers and never letting loose of a single dime.

Time before that, as I remember, I was a young, irresponsible slacker that didn't want to do my fair share, and just wanted to be a parasite on society.

I think your psychobabble analysis is heavily influence by whatever is the latest cover story on the grocery store tabloids you read. Whatever floats your boat. :p

[AndyC]

I believe there was just one yesterday. You forget the key factor. Do they deserve it. AndyC thinks no one will work for an unfair wage, even though millions are doing so right now. Tom thinks the employer should be the sole judge of what is or is not a fair wage. Blue Shoe thinks everything is a Communist conspiracy, and he thinks Communists are still called Bolsheviks.

All of you think that we can achieve prosperity by underpaying workers. All of you think we can raise tax revenues by lowering tax rates. All of you ignore the benefits of Obamacare while fixating on a few fixable flaws. All of you ignore the role of unions in building the greatest middle class the world has ever known. You don't ignore it, you deny it completely and lie to disprove it.

CLOCKER
Clocker is a special case. Clocker distorts and deceives. He ignores facts he can't distort and distorts facts he can't refute. Clocker is the guy at work who steals your ideas and presents them to the boss as his own. Clocker is the guy who spends two hours in the plant "checking" on an order, then complains that someone else isn't working.

He's the guy who won't share that one homework problem that he got and no one else did.

That's how I see him.

People don't work for unfair wages, they work for low wages because of a lack of marketable skills. It is completely illogical to ask an employer to pay more for something than it is worth. No individual runs their life that way so you should hardly expect or demand that a business do so. The US subsidizes low wage workers with an earned income tax credit.

You seem to think that people are not capable of making their own decisions and that they are all victims. As such only the government and labor unions know what's best for us.

[LottaKash]

.

I think your psychobabble analysis (mostpost) is heavily influenced by whatever is the latest cover story on the grocery store tabloids you read. Whatever floats your boat. :p

A rewarded "shill" for someone or something, if you asked me... If not, an unwavering and dutiful "party member", and not necessarily the dem-one either...

[mostpost]

People don't work for unfair wages, they work for low wages because of a lack of marketable skills. It is completely illogical to ask an employer to pay more for something than it is worth. No individual runs their life that way so you should hardly expect or demand that a business do so. The US subsidizes low wage workers with an earned income tax credit.

You seem to think that people are not capable of making their own decisions and that they are all victims. As such only the government and labor unions know what's best for us.
That may be true, but it is also completely illogical to expect an employer to pay what a job is actually worth if he can get away with paying less. It is also illogical to expect some magical, mystical marketplace to pay fair wages. The marketplace will set wages at the point that is optimum for the employer. If the market says the employer can get a worker for $10 an hour and make a large profit, that is what he will pay. That does not mean the worker is worth only $10 an hour. He may be worth $15 an hour, which means the employer is getting work worth $5 an hour which he is not paying for.

There is only one way to determine a fair wage and I have said this many times before. That is by honest negotiation between equals. A single worker is rarely an equal to an employer in a negotiation. A collection of workers is.

[mostpost]

A rewarded "shill" for someone or something, if you asked me... If not, an unwavering and dutiful "party member", and not necessarily the dem-one either...
Great! Another "He's a Communist" post. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Capper Al]

People don't work for unfair wages, they work for low wages because of a lack of marketable skills. It is completely illogical to ask an employer to pay more for something than it is worth. No individual runs their life that way so you should hardly expect or demand that a business do so. The US subsidizes low wage workers with an earned income tax credit.

You seem to think that people are not capable of making their own decisions and that they are all victims. As such only the government and labor unions know what's best for us.

AndyC, we agree that no employer is going to pay more than employees skill is worth. But somehow you ignore that they will try to pay less, and collectively employers will try to keep wages down.

[AndyC]

That may be true, but it is also completely illogical to expect an employer to pay what a job is actually worth if he can get away with paying less. It is also illogical to expect some magical, mystical marketplace to pay fair wages. The marketplace will set wages at the point that is optimum for the employer. If the market says the employer can get a worker for $10 an hour and make a large profit, that is what he will pay. That does not mean the worker is worth only $10 an hour. He may be worth $15 an hour, which means the employer is getting work worth $5 an hour which he is not paying for.

There is only one way to determine a fair wage and I have said this many times before. That is by honest negotiation between equals. A single worker is rarely an equal to an employer in a negotiation. A collection of workers is.


The marketplace will not set wages at a point optimum to the employer. It will set them based on supply and demand.

I guess you would disagree with this article: Companies raise wages (http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140421/BLOGS03/140429972/tight-labor-market-competition-for-skilled-workers-prompts-companies)

[AndyC]

AndyC, we agree that no employer is going to pay more than employees skill is worth. But somehow you ignore that they will try to pay less, and collectively employers will try to keep wages down.

Well, we actually don't agree. There have been many times when unions have negotiated for pay that was significantly more than what the employees skill was worth. But I would agree that an employer's goal is certainly not to pay more than FMV.

I guess we don't have the same definition of worth. Mine would be what a willing worker and a willing employer, without any coercion, would agree on for wages.

[Tom]

The marketplace will not set wages at a point optimum to the employer. It will set them based on supply and demand.

Excellent post.
Right to the point.
The whole problem with the left, not just in economics, is that they have no concept of reality. They want things to work the way they think they should work, in ways that make them feel good.

Reality escaped them.
This is why Obama is a failure.

[Clocker]

I guess we don't have the same definition of worth.

That's because you don't believe in the theory that capitalism is based on the maximum exploitation of labor.

I have seen many cases where an employer will pay more than the average market wage for a job because he believes that he will get much more than the average value from that employee. The exploitation theorists deny the possibility of that happening.

[MutuelClerk]

I've worked in a union most of my life. MY problem with my union ( teamsters) is they've become so big themselves they're just another corporation. I feel like they are the middle man between me and a paycheck. I think unions are needed these days because of the shrinking of the middle class. I just wish it was someone hungrier going to bargain for me than the corporation that's supposed to represent me.

The shrinking of the middle class and the busting of unions goes hand in hand. When the middle class eventually is broken both the rich and the poor will be wondering who's going to pay for their entitlements. Greed is going to ruin this country.

[badcompany]

I've worked in a union most of my life. MY problem with my union ( teamsters) is they've become so big themselves they're just another corporation. I feel like they are the middle man between me and a paycheck. I think unions are needed these days because of the shrinking of the middle class. I just wish it was someone hungrier going to bargain for me than the corporation that's supposed to represent me.

The shrinking of the middle class and the busting of unions goes hand in hand. When the middle class eventually is broken both the rich and the poor will be wondering who's going to pay for their entitlements. Greed is going to ruin this country.

Unions tend to be good for those lucky enough to be in them, not so much so if you're on the outside looking in, as the overpriced workers in unionized sectors creates an over supply and a downward pressure on wages in non-unionized sectors.

[Capper Al]

I've worked in a union most of my life. MY problem with my union ( teamsters) is they've become so big themselves they're just another corporation. I feel like they are the middle man between me and a paycheck. I think unions are needed these days because of the shrinking of the middle class. I just wish it was someone hungrier going to bargain for me than the corporation that's supposed to represent me.

The shrinking of the middle class and the busting of unions goes hand in hand. When the middle class eventually is broken both the rich and the poor will be wondering who's going to pay for their entitlements. Greed is going to ruin this country.

You're right. One company or sectors gain in keeping their employees wages down lessens the spending demand for the society overall. All the same anti-union arguments were voiced in the era prior to the great union expansion as it is today. The companies had no idea of the prosperity that would follow with a public demand from higher wages.

[BlueShoe]

Great! Another "He's a Communist" post. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But Comrade, if the shoe fits it should be worn, no? ;) :)

On a historical note, if there is any one segment of society that has been infiltrated and controlled by the American Communist Party (CPUSA) more than has organized labor, I would like to known what it is. For a hundred years, union official or union organizer has been estimated to be the leading occupation of CP members. Lawyers are second. :D So take your choice, your union is run either by the Reds or else the Mob.

[Capper Al]

But Comrade, if the shoe fits it should be worn, no? ;) :)

On a historical note, if there is any one segment of society that has been infiltrated and controlled by the American Communist Party (CPUSA) more than has organized labor, I would like to known what it is. For a hundred years, union official or union organizer has been estimated to be the leading occupation of CP members. Lawyers are second. :D So take your choice, your union is run either by the Reds or else the Mob.

Why do labor unions get this kind of mindless slaughter when Meriil Lynch, Bank America, General Motors, Chrysler, Leemen Brothers, Catholic church, etc. go unscathed without similar analogies to capitalist pigs? These responses from the right show an lack of critical thinking and, most likely, reflect brain washing.

[Capper Al]

You're right. One company or sectors gain in keeping their employees wages down lessens the spending demand for the society overall. All the same anti-union arguments were voiced in the era prior to the great union expansion as it is today. The companies had no idea of the prosperity that would follow with a public demand from higher wages.

What no response? I mean a meaningful response with thought behind it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why do labor unions get this kind of mindless slaughter when Meriil Lynch, Bank America, General Motors, Chrysler, Leemen Brothers, Catholic church, etc. go unscathed without similar analogies to capitalist pigs? These responses from the right show an lack of critical thinking and, most likely, reflect brain washing.What do you mean? The left is always painting big business as capitalist pigs. What world are you living in?

[Capper Al]

What do you mean? The left is always painting big business as capitalist pigs. What world are you living in?

My world is just left of center.

[classhandicapper]

What no response? I mean a meaningful response with thought behind it.


If a company retains profits they will generally either invest it in expansion (which expands economic activity) or save it (the bank then lends it out to someone else for investment or consumption which expands economic activity). So the money flows whether it is salary or profits.

It is argued that investment actually does more for economic activity than consumption because investment means we produce more as a society and it makes people more productive.

It's more a question of wealth distribution. But even there you run into problems.

If you pay workers more than their free market wage, companies will try to pass those costs on to keep their profit margin high enough to justify being in business. If they do, everyone without an inflated salary (non union workers) will actually be subsidizing the union workers. You pay more for a car than you otherwise would have but your income doesn't rise, only theirs does.

If they can't pass the costs on due to competition (like from non union shops or overseas) they lay people off or close their businesses.

The best way to raise wages in a sustainable way is to have a more educated and productive workforce. Then a business can afford to pay more and still maintain satisfactory profit margins because each worker is better.

This is partly why allowing all these illegals in the US is an economic debacle short and medium term.

They are mostly unskilled and under educated. Not only will they probably not be able to make enough money to carry themselves, they are competition for all the under educated and unskilled workers we already have here. So they put further downward pressure on salaries. It's basic supply and demand. The supply of unskilled under educated workers is going up so incomes will go down relative to where they would have been.

[Clocker]

If you pay workers more than their free market wage, companies will try to pass those costs on to keep their profit margin high enough to justify being in business.

The issue is not the market wage, it is the value that the employee contributes to the company. This is the point that the union fan boys ignoring in their rant that the individual has no bargaining power.

A $15/hr worker that produces twice as much as a $10/hr worker is the less expensive labor. Employers are usually smart enough to recognize this, although they don't analyze it in terms of value added. They just see that someone is more productive, and they are happy to pay more to keep that person. The True Believers in the Church of the Exploitation insist that this never happens, and the employer will always scheme to pay that worker as little as possible.

[classhandicapper]

The issue is not the market wage, it is the value that the employee contributes to the company. This is the point that the union fan boys ignoring in their rant that the individual has no bargaining power.

A $15/hr worker that produces twice as much as a $10/hr worker is the less expensive labor. Employers are usually smart enough to recognize this, although they don't analyze it in terms of value added. They just see that someone is more productive, and they are happy to pay more to keep that person. The True Believers in the Church of the Exploitation insist that this never happens, and the employer will always scheme to pay that worker as little as possible.

I agree. That's what I was getting at with the term "free market wage" (perhaps poor use). I was implying that the market will tend over time to pay people a wage that is commensurate with their value.

I was assuming that union wages are not normalized free market wages because they are negotiated under threat.

[cj's dad]

Why do labor unions get this kind of mindless slaughter when Meriil Lynch, Bank America, General Motors, Chrysler, Leemen Brothers, Catholic church, etc. go unscathed without similar analogies to capitalist pigs? These responses from the right show an lack of critical thinking and, most likely, reflect brain washing.

Nice touch !!

[Tom]

Here's why, Al.
Business provide jobs and provide paychecks.
Unions do not.

[DJofSD]

It does for the union management, i.e the fat cats, the pigs at the trough (oink oink).

[Tom]

IHei4OrwT2o

[iceknight]

There are many problems, but the belief that the two party system will fix this country is probably the biggest one that is derailing many things. Sections from both parties are playing to their choir and having fun, while the rest of America is losing competitiveness substantially compared to BRICs and losing taxable revenue to Ireland, Cayman Isle and other places.

[HUSKER55]

here is a thought, what would happen if McDonalds gave everyone a KIOSK and the employees had to buy the goods from McDonalds, (to use their name), and sell their own product?

Instead of selling for McDonalds, the person now sells McDonalds for themselves.

Of course, when they start setting up two or 3 kiosks they will have to belong to a union..... :D

[Capper Al]

Business provides job as a mean toward profit, not for the sake of providing jobs. That's it, Tom.

[mostpost]

IHei4OrwT2o
You live in a world all your own, don't you Tom? The Beatles did not write that song about unions. They wrote it about corporate greed. The piggies in the song are just like the pigs in Animal Farm. The only difference is that in Animal Farm the animals formed a collective in which they were to share the fruits of their labor equally-in theory. In practice someone always gains an advantage and abuses the balance of power.

[JustRalph]

Business provides job as a mean toward profit, not for the sake of providing jobs. That's it, Tom.

Often times at the end of the day, as an employer the only satisfaction you sometimes get is that you have provided jobs. When you are barely surviving you take solace in knowing you have provided those jobs. Because your bank account doesn't reflect anything else.

I have always fallen back on those feelings especially when an employees young kids come by the office or workplace, it not always about profit. Lots of small business owners out there who aren't getting rich.

[dartman51]

You live in a world all your own, don't you Tom? The Beatles did not write that song about unions. They wrote it about corporate greed. WRONG The piggies in the song are just like the pigs in Animal Farm. The only difference is that in Animal Farm the animals formed a collective in which they were to share the fruits of their labor equally-in theory. In practice someone always gains an advantage and abuses the balance of power.

George Harrison wrote the song as a take down of the upper crust. Rich PEOPLE, NOT corporations. :faint:

[Clocker]

Often times at the end of the day, as an employer the only satisfaction you sometimes get is that you have provided jobs. When you are barely surviving you take solace in knowing you have provided those jobs.

What ever the opposite of preaching to the choir is, you are doing it. No one that has never run a small business and had employees can even begin to comprehend this on an emotional or intellectual level.

As a manager in a large company, I cared about my employees, but too many things were beyond my control, and I rarely got emotionally affected. As the owner of a small business, I can't believe some of the stupid things I did to keep them employed.

[Tom]

Business provides job as a mean toward profit, not for the sake of providing jobs. That's it, Tom.

duh.
Why else they RISK their capital, AL?
Jobs are part of the package that is capitalism

[Tom]

George Harrison wrote the song as a take down of the upper crust. Rich PEOPLE, NOT corporations. :faint:

It seemed so appropriate.
mostie just doesn't get it.

[badcompany]

duh.
Why else they RISK their capital, AL?
Jobs are part of the package that is capitalism

Leftists always think about Capitalism in terms of labor and management, when it's really about the consumer.

Of course, if they did think about Capitalism this way, they'd see that profits are a result of satisfied customers and that, as a result of capitalism, the little guy has access to goods and services that just a short while ago weren't available even to those evil rich people.

[Capper Al]

Often times at the end of the day, as an employer the only satisfaction you sometimes get is that you have provided jobs. When you are barely surviving you take solace in knowing you have provided those jobs. Because your bank account doesn't reflect anything else.

I have always fallen back on those feelings especially when an employees young kids come by the office or workplace, it not always about profit. Lots of small business owners out there who aren't getting rich.

I'm not saying people or business owners are bad people. It's just not their priority to make jobs. It's to make profit. And sometimes kicking back and looking at your employees can be a satisfying moral victor, but it's not the cause.

[AndyC]

I'm not saying people or business owners are bad people. It's just not their priority to make jobs. It's to make profit. And sometimes kicking back and looking at your employees can be a satisfying moral victor, but it's not the cause.

Why else would a person risk their money if not to try and make a profit?

So as a consumer do you pay extra for a product where the owner pays his/her employees more? Consumers are no different than employers, they both want to spend their money in the most efficient manner.

[Clocker]

I'm not saying people or business owners are bad people. It's just not their priority to make jobs. It's to make profit.

So what? It works. It is the system that us out of fuedalism, where everybody and everything was essentially the property of the crown. And it keeps us out of communism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the state.

[mostpost]

So what? It works. It is the system that us out of fuedalism, where everybody and everything was essentially the property of the crown. And it keeps us out of communism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the state.
Capitalism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the corporation. They are just three sides of the same coin. On the one side you have the people in power; the royalty and the nobles, the commissioners and the commissars, the business owners and management-three different groups yet the same. On the other side, the workers. One side with so much power. The other with so little.

[Capper Al]

Why else would a person risk their money if not to try and make a profit?

So as a consumer do you pay extra for a product where the owner pays his/her employees more? Consumers are no different than employers, they both want to spend their money in the most efficient manner.

The same arguments were made prior to the great union movement in the past. Your view is a microeconomic point of view. A macroeconomic is needed now that will create greater demand by increased wages. The pendulum needs to move from supply side to demand side.

[Capper Al]

So what? It works. It is the system that us out of fuedalism, where everybody and everything was essentially the property of the crown. And it keeps us out of communism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the state.

We are moving toward an industrial fuedalism with companies like Hobby Lobby being able to impose their religious on their employees.

[Clocker]

A macroeconomic is needed now that will create greater demand by increased wages.

Who is going to pay for those increased wages?

[JustRalph]

Capitalism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the corporation. They are just three sides of the same coin. On the one side you have the people in power; the royalty and the nobles, the commissioners and the commissars, the business owners and management-three different groups yet the same. On the other side, the workers. One side with so much power. The other with so little.

In a capitalist system you can move back and forth from one side of the coin to the other. You cannot do that in your socialist utopia. That is a grand difference.

It's done more often by immigrants in the U.S. today. They get it more than spoiled whiners cultivated by the American system.

But anybody who has the talent, desire and fortitude can start a business. They might not all make it, that's where talent comes in, but you can still flip to the other side of the coin if you really want. Or you can join the union, whine all the time, spend more money than you make, buy into the us versus them mentality and stay on your side of the coin.

I admit in the ruined economy that we flounder in today, it's much tougher than yesterday, and that's due to crappy leadership in our governments. But it can be done.

[badcompany]

Increasing demand without a corresponding increase in production will result in inflation, leaving people no better off.

To demand, and have it mean anything, you must first produce.

Think back to a barter society to understand this concept.

You go to a shoemaker and "demand" a pair of shoes.

His response will be, "What are you going to give me in return?"

[AndyC]

We are moving toward an industrial fuedalism with companies like Hobby Lobby being able to impose their religious on their employees.


When did Hobby Lobby impose their religion on their employees? Their employees are free to use any form of birth control that they desire. On the other hand it was shown that the government tried to impose restrictions on the religion of the hobby lobby owners.

[Clocker]

Their employees are free to use any form of birth control that they desire.

Freedom of religion in the Church of the Holy Progressive means using any form of birth control and having someone else pay for it. It is a human right.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
We are moving toward an industrial fuedalism with companies like Hobby Lobby being able to impose their religious on their employees.

Sorry, Al. That is an outright lie, and you know it.
Have you no integrity? (rhetorical)

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Capitalism, where everybody and everything is essentially the property of the corporation. They are just three sides of the same coin. On the one side you have the people in power; the royalty and the nobles, the commissioners and the commissars, the business owners and management-three different groups yet the same. On the other side, the workers. One side with so much power. The other with so little.

My God, what planet do you live on? :lol:
Of course, you don't like capitalism because it requires work, initiative. Not hand outs from others. there are two side to capitalism - takes and makers.

Corporations are people.

[Clocker]

My God, what planet do you live on?


The planet where lower income employees of capitalist corporations have cars, cable TV, smart phones, air conditioning, and more food than they need.

[BlueShoe]

Freedom of religion in the Church of the Holy Progressive means using any form of birth control and having someone else pay for it. It is a human right.
Think Sandra Fluke and you will get where they are coming from.

[Clocker]

Think Sandra Fluke and you will get where they are coming from.

That would be Saint Sandra of the Church of the Holy Progressive.

[badcompany]

The planet where lower income employees of capitalist corporations have cars, cable TV, smart phones, air conditioning, and more food than they need.

Yeah, but when you have to minimize the successes of capitalism and rationalize the failures of Socialism these things must be taken for granted.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/FA50B1DE-25FD-4DD4-A1FC-25DB70460ECC_zpsixqsiazl.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/FA50B1DE-25FD-4DD4-A1FC-25DB70460ECC_zpsixqsiazl.jpg.html)

[Capper Al]

Who is going to pay for those increased wages?

Professor,

Don't you understand economics? Who paid for the rebuilding of Europe and Asia after WWII? By today's right wing propaganda of who will pay for it, we shouldn't have been able to afford to rebuild. The art of macroeconomics is in creating growth via manipulating the aggregate demand and supply curves. You suggest that economic understanding is simple (Tea Party logic) which it is not. Comparing your "who's going to pay for it" is like looking out your kitchen window and concluding that from your observation that the world is flat.

[Clocker]

Who paid for the rebuilding of Europe and Asia after WWII?

The Marshall Plan is going to pay for increases in the minimum wage?

The art of macroeconomics is in creating growth via manipulating the aggregate demand and supply curves.

Back in the Seventies, politicians were positively giddy with their discovery of the theory that they could fine tune the economy via government intervention and keep it humming along in a blissful state of perpetual motion. Many recessions and many bubbles later, the slow learners keep trying. Recent examples include Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra and other green miracles, the Chevy Volt, the housing bubble, and the current stock market bubble.

The art of macroeconomics is for the government to keep its fingers out of the pie, provide a stable and consistent and predictable economic environment, and let the private sector do what it does best: create jobs, determine winners and losers in the marketplace, and generate economic growth.

Every time the government has attempted "manipulating the aggregate demand and supply curves", the results have been disastrous.

[Capper Al]

The Marshall Plan is going to pay for increases in the minimum wage?
.

Come on Professor, do I need to point out that question is where did the money come from to pay for the Marshall plan? You don't care about the truth. You just want to uphold your Tea Party view of the world.

The world was devastated after the war, a lot worse then it is now. We just over spent because we had to for the war. We invested in people, businesses, and other countries to come out of hell into another better world.

[Clocker]

Come on Professor, do I need to point out that question is where did the money come from to pay for the Marshall plan? You don't care about the truth. You just want to uphold your Tea Party view of the world.

The world was devastated after the war, a lot worse then it is now. We just over spent because we had to for the war. We invested in people, businesses, and other countries to come out of hell into another better world.

You are grabbing onto a throw-away line and dodging the issues. Just to take a hot topic, assume that the minimum wage was increased. Who would pay for that?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is that consumers would pay for it through higher prices. Higher wages mean increased cost of production. In the short run, a business may be able to absorb higher costs. In the long run, you pass them on to your customers or you go out of business. So if everybody got a raise, and all the prices went up to pay for the raises, who is better off?

[badcompany]

You are grabbing onto a throw-away line and dodging the issues. Just to take a hot topic, assume that the minimum wage was increased. Who would pay for that?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is that consumers would pay for it through higher prices. Higher wages mean increased cost of production. In the short run, a business may be able to absorb higher costs. In the long run, you pass them on to your customers or you go out of business. So if everybody got a raise, and all the prices went up to pay for the raises, who is better off?

I would add that the increase in prices would DECREASE demand. That, of course, is the opposite of what our market manipulators had in mind.

[Capper Al]

You are grabbing onto a throw-away line and dodging the issues. Just to take a hot topic, assume that the minimum wage was increased. Who would pay for that?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is that consumers would pay for it through higher prices. Higher wages mean increased cost of production. In the short run, a business may be able to absorb higher costs. In the long run, you pass them on to your customers or you go out of business. So if everybody got a raise, and all the prices went up to pay for the raises, who is better off?

You provide no more information than was presented against the auto and steal workers before they unionized and created America's golden age for the middle-class. Money consolidating with the top two percent is what caused the Great depression. There's a balancing act when it comes to spreading the wealth. Trickle down won't work right now.

[JustRalph]

Once again, the government is the answer :bang:

[Clocker]

Money consolidating with the top two percent is what caused the Great depression. There's a balancing act when it comes to spreading the wealth. Trickle down won't work right now.

Historians have many theories about what caused the Great Depression. That is not one of them.

Income inequality has increased more under Obama than under any recent president.

Trickle down is a left-wing disparagement of anyone or anything that conflicts with their tax and spend policies. There is no theory of trickle down except in the minds of the left.

Please provide us with one example of the government successfully "manipulating the aggregate demand and supply curves."

[mostpost]

The Marshall Plan is going to pay for increases in the minimum wage?



Back in the Seventies, politicians were positively giddy with their discovery of the theory that they could fine tune the economy via government intervention and keep it humming along in a blissful state of perpetual motion. Many recessions and many bubbles later, the slow learners keep trying. Recent examples include Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra and other green miracles, the Chevy Volt, the housing bubble, and the current stock market bubble.

The art of macroeconomics is for the government to keep its fingers out of the pie, provide a stable and consistent and predictable economic environment, and let the private sector do what it does best: create jobs, determine winners and losers in the marketplace, and generate economic growth.

Every time the government has attempted "manipulating the aggregate demand and supply curves", the results have been disastrous.
Stimulus was not invented in the seventies. FDR used it in the thirties and it worked.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116637

Obama used it in 2009 and it worked again. Of course, since we didn't go from the worst recession in 80 years to unprecedented prosperity, the Repubs consider it a failure.

Admittedly, the Obama administration was its own worst enemy when it said without the stimulus the unemployment rate would go over 8%. When the rate went over 10%, the Republicans pounced. Naturally, the ignored the fact-which they knew-that without the stimulus the recession would have lasted another year or more and the unemployment rate would have gone up over 16 or 17%.

[mostpost]

Come on Professor, do I need to point out that question is where did the money come from to pay for the Marshall plan? You don't care about the truth. You just want to uphold your Tea Party view of the world.

The world was devastated after the war, a lot worse then it is now. We just over spent because we had to for the war. We invested in people, businesses, and other countries to come out of hell into another better world.
You should stop calling Clocker, "Professor." Even though he claims to be one. Its an insult to any true professors, who seek to impart knowledge and learn instead of spewing propaganda.

[mostpost]

Come on Professor, do I need to point out that question is where did the money come from to pay for the Marshall plan? You don't care about the truth. You just want to uphold your Tea Party view of the world.

The world was devastated after the war, a lot worse then it is now. We just over spent because we had to for the war. We invested in people, businesses, and other countries to come out of hell into another better world.
You need to ignore history. That way you can see how wrong your theories are.

[Capper Al]

Once again, the government is the answer :bang:

You pontificate without argument as is your premise is absolute and for certain. Argue your point or don't post.

[Capper Al]

You should stop calling Clocker, "Professor." Even though he claims to be one. Its an insult to any true professors, who seek to impart knowledge and learn instead of spewing propaganda.

I won't anymore. I didn't really believe he was a professor.

[Capper Al]

You need to ignore history. That way you can see how wrong your theories are.


Please clarify.

[mostpost]

Please clarify.
It was sarcasm.
BTW: what is the origin of your signature?

[badcompany]

You two are quite the formidable tag team... Kinda like the McGuire Twins.


http://www.peoples.ru/champions/twins_mcguire/mcguire_4.jpg

[Clocker]

Stimulus was not invented in the seventies. FDR used it in the thirties and it worked.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116637

I never said it was.

And the FDR stimulus did not work. That recession was caused by bad monetary policy which was corrected early in 1938, and the economy started to turn around by spring. The FDR stimulus was proposed in April. No way that could have been written, passed, implemented, and effective by June. No shovel ready jobs back then either.

[Capper Al]

It was sarcasm.
BTW: what is the origin of your signature?

The signature is something that I just felt applied especially in this forum.

[Capper Al]

You two are quite the formidable tag team... ]

Count the righties here, they out number us libs and are protected by management. We need more team members like Mosty. He does the homework and digs up the facts, but the righties are confused by the facts. So we can't win if we prove something.

On the other hand, I can't wait until I start testing my class figs. I belong in the handicapping threads.

[PaceAdvantage]

Count the righties here, they out number us libs and are protected by management. We need more team members like Mosty. He does the homework and digs up the facts, but the righties are confused by the facts. So we can't win if we prove something.

On the other hand, I can't wait until I start testing my class figs. I belong in the handicapping threads.Protected? How? Do I censor guys like Mosty? Do I kick him off the forum?

You know not of what you speak in this instance. Almost every time you try and describe me or this site, you err miserably.

You should go back to that other forum if you don't like the way this place is run. Nobody forces you to post here.

[Clocker]

Count the righties here, they out number us libs and are protected by management.

Gee, sounds like you guys need to form a union to find redress for your grievances. :rolleyes:

[badcompany]

Count the righties here, they out number us libs and are protected by management. We need more team members like Mosty.

Yes, because of PA's brutal censorship, the two of you have only managed to get 12k posts through.

The problem with you two is childishness, to be fair this is a common affliction among horseplayers.

You have a guy here like Clocker who is obviously highly educated, knowledgable and articulate, but neither of you have the maturity to ever concede a point to him.

[davew]

Freedom of religion in the Church of the Holy Progressive means using any form of birth control and having someone else pay for it. It is a human right.

too many extra words for lefties ->

Having someone else pay for it, it is a human right.

[JustRalph]

You pontificate without argument as is your premise is absolute and for certain. Argue your point or don't post.

Yeah, I never argue my point. That's it.

Maybe I'll take your advice

[Capper Al]

Protected? How? Do I censor guys like Mosty? Do I kick him off the forum?

You know not of what you speak in this instance. Almost every time you try and describe me or this site, you err miserably.

You should go back to that other forum if you don't like the way this place is run. Nobody forces you to post here.

Okay, you found something to attack with and you did. And note the chorus jumped in, not on unions which is the topic. But I agree, I took the bait with the post pic of the two guys on the bike. But wait, you said nothing about the pic which has nothing to do with unions or increasing wages. Did I describe your actions better this time?

[reckless]

Stimulus was not invented in the seventies. FDR used it in the thirties and it worked.

It wasn't working in the 30s despite the continuous efforts by the left to rewrite history....

Unless you consider FDR's deliberate ignoring of Japanese threats to our naval bases in the Pacific, which finally resulted in the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 and our subsequent entry into WW II. That worked.

It was the War effort that boosted production, ended the US unemployment problems by putting millions back to work, created a manufacturing juggernaut and later, the post-WW II pent-up consumption demands of goods and services that would finally put the kabosh on FDR's Depression.

FDR's alphabet soup of agencies and federal spending such as the WPA, the CCCs, those inane poets and Writers' Programs, etc., etc., etc., simply did not get us out of the Depression despite 9-10 years of such economic 'stimulus' policies.

Once again, FDR did not end the Depression, he prolonged it. It was WW II that ended the FDR Depression.

This current and stupid president, Obama, doesn't even belong in any serious economic or historical conversation, being the fool that he is.

[dartman51]

Count the righties here, they out number us libs and are protected by management. We need more team members like Mosty. He does the homework and digs up the facts, but the righties are confused by the facts. So we can't win if we prove something.

On the other hand, I can't wait until I start testing my class figs. I belong in the handicapping threads.


:lol: There's a thread here in OT, called HUMOR. That's where this post belongs. But I did notice you said "if we prove something." :ThmbUp: :D

[Clocker]

You pontificate without argument as is your premise is absolute and for certain. Argue your point or don't post.

And your waving your hands in the air equating higher wages with rebuilding Europe isn't pontificating?

I'll narrow the question down for you. Let's say I own a small business with 10 employees and, being the greedy and heartless bastage that I am, I pay them $8/hr. In accordance with your desire for higher wages, the government says the minimum wage is now $10/hr. My costs just went up by $2 per hour per worker, or $800 a week. My original question stands. Who is going to pay for that?

[Clocker]

There's a thread here in OT, called HUMOR. That's where this post belongs.

Actually, posts about progressive economics belong in the RELIGIOUS thread.

[BlueShoe]

Once again, FDR did not end the Depression, he prolonged it. It was WW II that ended the FDR Depression.
Put another way, and a bit more forcefully, it was Adolph Hitler and Hideki Tojo that ended our depression, not Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[Clocker]

Put another way, and a bit more forcefully, it was Adolph Hitler and Hideki Tojo that ended our depression, not Franklin D. Roosevelt.

To give him his due, FDR wasn't much on economic and domestic policy, but he rose to the occasion as a wartime president.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

To give him his due, FDR wasn't much on economic and domestic policy, but he rose to the occasion as a wartime president.

Ever hear of Yalta? Tell the Poles, the Czechs, and many in Eastern Europe that FDR "rose to the occasion". FDR was a commie, and the negative impact he had on this country far outweighs his accomplishments.

[mostpost]

And your waving your hands in the air equating higher wages with rebuilding Europe isn't pontificating?

I'll narrow the question down for you. Let's say I own a small business with 10 employees and, being the greedy and heartless bastage that I am, I pay them $8/hr. In accordance with your desire for higher wages, the government says the minimum wage is now $10/hr. My costs just went up by $2 per hour per worker, or $800 a week. My original question stands. Who is going to pay for that?
Each of your employees is now making $80 a week more than before. (yeah-I know-taxes) And everyone else was making $8/hr-or less is now making $80 a week more-or more. Out of all that extra money in your neighborhood somebody is going to buy your product who was not buying it before. Those extra sales are going to go a long way towards paying for those raises.

[JustRalph]

Ever hear of Yalta? Tell the Poles, the Czechs, and many in Eastern Europe that FDR "rose to the occasion". FDR was a commie, and the negative impact he had on this country far outweighs his accomplishments.

Ding!!

[mostpost]

And your waving your hands in the air equating higher wages with rebuilding Europe isn't pontificating?

I'll narrow the question down for you. Let's say I own a small business with 10 employees and, being the greedy and heartless bastage that I am, I pay them $8/hr. In accordance with your desire for higher wages, the government says the minimum wage is now $10/hr. My costs just went up by $2 per hour per worker, or $800 a week. My original question stands. Who is going to pay for that?
But let's say that the extra money in people's pockets does not turn into extra sales for you. (An unlikely scenario) Let's say you are running a men's clothing store and you have to raise prices. How does that effect me?

You're going to try to tell me that because your labor costs went up 25% you have to raise your prices 25%, but that is not true. Your extra labor costs are finite; $800 a week. The amount you would need to raise prices would depend on what your sales are.

Let's say you sold 500 pieces of men's clothing in a week. (Shirts, pants, ties, sports coats, etc.) Not an unreasonable assumption. Let us also say the average cost is $40-probably low. That means you take in $20,000 in a week. In order to make up that extra $800 you need to raise your prices by 4%.

Now I am coming into your store to buy that average item which would have
cost me $40 last week and I see that it now will cost me $44-$4 more. What do I say? I say nothing, because I now have $80 more than I had the week before. And the following week I will have another $80 more and I will continue to have an extra $80 every week into the future.

And maybe one of those weeks I'll buy a toaster or a new pair of shoes or maybe I'll save up for a TV or tickets to a concert, because even though the price of everything may go up, I don't have to buy everything. And neither does anybody else.

[Clocker]

Out of all that extra money in your neighborhood somebody is going to buy your product who was not buying it before.

No, there is no extra money in the neighborhood, because I have $800 a week less than I had, so the money in the neighborhood (or the state or the nation) stays the same. And if that $800 a week was a substantial part of my income as a sole proprietor, then I have to replace it by raising prices, or I have to shut down. Then there is a lot less money in the neighborhood.

You still have not answered the question. If the wages are mandated to go up, who is going to pay for it? As a small business man, I can't and won't pay for it. So I either pass it on as higher prices or I go out of business, and my newly fat and happy employees are unemployed. And if everyone passes it on as higher prices, everyone is right back where they started. They are making more, but they are paying more for everything.

[Clocker]

I'm sorry I even got started in this little story telling exercise, because it is too simplistic to describe reality.

Reality is that millions of companies in thousands of different industries would all be affected differently by an across the board wage hike. It all depends on the nature of their business, their product, their production process, their employees, and their customers. It would depend on market power, elasticity of demand for products, labor intensity of the production process, labor skills needed for production, fungibility of labor and capital, etc. Some would be big winners, some would be big losers, and some would get by. Logic would dictate that overall prices would go up and/or demand for labor would go down. The impact would vary greatly, but, as seen in the Euro block, the main trend would be elimination of low skill jobs.

[newtothegame]

But let's say that the extra money in people's pockets does not turn into extra sales for you. (An unlikely scenario) Let's say you are running a men's clothing store and you have to raise prices. How does that effect me?

You're going to try to tell me that because your labor costs went up 25% you have to raise your prices 25%, but that is not true. Your extra labor costs are finite; $800 a week. The amount you would need to raise prices would depend on what your sales are.

Let's say you sold 500 pieces of men's clothing in a week. (Shirts, pants, ties, sports coats, etc.) Not an unreasonable assumption. Let us also say the average cost is $40-probably low. That means you take in $20,000 in a week. In order to make up that extra $800 you need to raise your prices by 4%.

Now I am coming into your store to buy that average item which would have
cost me $40 last week and I see that it now will cost me $44-$4 more. What do I say? I say nothing, because I now have $80 more than I had the week before. And the following week I will have another $80 more and I will continue to have an extra $80 every week into the future.

And maybe one of those weeks I'll buy a toaster or a new pair of shoes or maybe I'll save up for a TV or tickets to a concert, because even though the price of everything may go up, I don't have to buy everything. And neither does anybody else.
Not to mention the other thing you forgot, is his men's clothing store is frequented by more then just his own employees. You know the others who didn't obtain that raise HE gave his employees. So that 4% increase would cause demand to go down as other people wouldn't see the value.
Demand goes down, sales decrease, and now that increase in wages is incrementally larger. So, due to decrease in demand, sales go down, he must compensate by raising prices even further...till, as clocker correctly pointed out, OUT OF BUSINESS and out of the market. And here's the even funnier part....
Another clothing guy sees a niche that he can fill....he comes in, opens a store and pays WHAT THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT, which was the 8 dollars originally! lmao
I know, math is never a union guys strong point.

[BlueShoe]

Ever hear of Yalta? Tell the Poles, the Czechs, and many in Eastern Europe that FDR "rose to the occasion".
Also my thought. He gave Uncle Joe just about everything he wanted, and to me, that negated what might have been his other accomplishments during the war years.

[mostpost]

Ever hear of Yalta? Tell the Poles, the Czechs, and many in Eastern Europe that FDR "rose to the occasion". FDR was a commie, and the negative impact he had on this country far outweighs his accomplishments.
Hey Brainless Wonder, More than 400,000 Americans died in World War II. More than 670,000 were wounded. But you think we should have started a whole new war against the Soviet Union. We would not have won that war. There was no national will to fight such a war. We were still fighting a war against Japan. We needed Soviet help in that war. At the time of Yalta the Atomic Bomb was not an option. The first test of the bomb did not take place until July of 1945.

At the time of the Yalta Conference the Soviets already controlled all of Poland and parts of the other Eastern European countries. They were much better situated to control all of those countries than we were.

What Roosevelt did was get us another ally against Japan while giving up little the Soviets did not already have or were very near to getting anyway.

[TBD]

Clocker, your not playing fair. In less than ten posts you went from a Business 101 class question, to a MBA answer. :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

Not to mention the other thing you forgot, is his men's clothing store is frequented by more then just his own employees. You know the others who didn't obtain that raise HE gave his employees. So that 4% increase would cause demand to go down as other people wouldn't see the value.
Demand goes down, sales decrease, and now that increase in wages is incrementally larger. So, due to decrease in demand, sales go down, he must compensate by raising prices even further...till, as clocker correctly pointed out, OUT OF BUSINESS and out of the market. And here's the even funnier part....
Another clothing guy sees a niche that he can fill....he comes in, opens a store and pays WHAT THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT, which was the 8 dollars originally! lmao
I know, math is never a union guys strong point.
Pay attention! That extra two dollars was because of a raise in the Federal Minimum Wage. That means everyone who is in that neighborhood and every neighborhood throughout the land, working for minimum wage. gets the raise. And that new guy that comes in? He pays $10 an hour too because that is the law.

By the way, when the minimum wage is raised, new businesses are opened and old ones closed for good at about the same rate as in years when the minimum wage stays the same. Same for the unemployment rate.

I know, the facts are never a conservatives strong point.