The General Politics Thread

rio · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Just to inject some reality...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Quote:

In 2009, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had
median usual weekly earnings of $908, while those who were not repre-
sented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710. (See table 2.)
In addition to coverage by a collective bargaining agreement, the
difference reflects a variety of influences including variations in
the distributions of union members and nonunion employees by occupa-
tion, industry, firm size, or geographic region.

At an average rate of $40 per hour, I estimate that your average US union worker probably works about 22 hours a week. You're right, they do get a sweet deal!

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 6:53 pm

I love it when rio debates.

Unless he's debating me. :lame:

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 6:59 pm

rio wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

rio wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Fair worker representation has been surpassed into what is basically politically backed extortion long ago, though. Can paying someone with nothing more (sometimes less) than a High School degree $40+ / hour to push a button on cue really be justified?
Along with all the usual perks, of course. Add incompetent CEOs making literally $$$MILLIONS in bonuses alone, and companies shipping jobs overseas, across the border (thanks in part to your local union's demanding more than a fair wage; of course corporate greed plays it's role, as well) and voila! you have disaster. Is it really any wonder the once middle-class majority is receding into an ever lower standard of living? Unemployment is the worst it's been in nearly 30 years.
Unions (along with corporate greed and self-rewarding incompetence) are part of the problem; they have been corrupted, ironically, by greed.

Two parasites feeding off of each other.

I would guess that you have very little actual evidence for any of this besides the odd out-of-proportion story here and there. That's aside from the highly dubious point about a "fair wage". What is that? And which particular groups of union members are earning above it?

Blaming unions for US companies moving manufacturing abroad is pretty cheeky when it's the unions who are pretty much the only people who have been fighting tooth and nail against outsourcing since time immemorial. Unless your reasoning is that they forced those poor, poor multinational corporations to go looking for a workforce that was less likely to stand up to them?

Labour is cheaper abroad than in the US (unless it is undocumented migrant labour), so unless you would prefer US workers to be doing the same hours for the same wages as, say, a Chinese or Bangladeshi worker, don't blame the unions for outsourcing. Why not join them on their next protest against it? Or buy union-label stuff?

Quote:

As for the idea that a minimum wage is the solution: there already is one.

See my last two posts (including the very one you just quoted).

Quote:

We have a vast supply of slave labor at our disposal already. They're called prisoners. Put them to work in the fields and on the roads; make them earn their three hots and a cot. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, the next time some punk thinks it's a good idea to rob the local Kwik-E-Mart, maybe he'll think twice about slaving away for ten-twelves hours a day in the field, be it rain, or 120 degree sunshine. So make that three birds with one stone.

Wow, you're really serious when you say you want an American Putin, aren't you?

One of the things I've tended to grudgingly admire about the US right is its argument that by opposing any and all "collectivism" the US has managed to avoid the kinds of dicatorial and authoritarian governments and movements Europeans have had to deal with over the last few centuries. i.e., they may have it wrong but at least they take the liberal and egalitarian values of the US constitution seriously. Quotes like these really reassure me that they don't actually have a point, after all.

"rio: more pro-American and anti-Russian than Cry of the Banshee." I like the way that sounds!

Actually, if you had understood my post, you'd see that I mentioned corporate greed as half of the factor. Are you suggesting that the labor unions of America are not corrupt and that the unreasonable demands they place on business are not a factor in outsourcing?

You mentioned that benefits should be based on merit; how in the world does that equate with egalitarianism?
Look at your own crumbling country and don't worry so much about mine, you can express all the usual gold-plated marxist platitudes in the world, but it doesn't change a thing; you don't know jack shit about what life in America is like, so take my advice: stick to your UK politics thread. I've lived here and worked here for twice as long as you've been alive, so spare me your naive and juvenile ideological lectures. You think because you watch Jon Stewart and read a few books you know your ass from you elbow?
:lol:

I've also learned that arguing with a communist / marxist / leftist is about the biggest waste of time there is, especially one that hasn't got a clue about the subject (American politics) at hand outside of a few selected liberal textbooks and / or news stories.

I thought you had gone to work? :lol:

Leave the ad hominems, please. It's pathetic, in all honesty. And given that I'm asking you some quite specific things about arguments you've made, completely irrelevant.

What I'm asking you to do is back up the blanket statements you are making. Where's your evidence that the labour unions of America are corrupt to any extent other than individual examples? Where's your evidence that unions are responsible for outsourcing? On what do you base the argument that union members get above a "fair wage"? The idea of a "fair wage" is not something I'm aware of in economics- what actually is it?

You've lived there for twice as long as I've been alive, so these should be easy questions for you.

Or should I assume you don't actually know all that much about it after all?

I am at work, so I don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time on bullshit, as you apparently do but:

Quote:

One reason why, they say, is the ultra-high labor costs for union workers employed by the Big Three. It costs over $73 per hour on average to employ a union auto worker, according to University of Michigan at Flint economist Mark J. Perry

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/A ... rcid=39499

Looks like I do know a thing or two... you want more? I can google more, but so can anyone else that is really curious.
Your feigned ignorance on the subject is what is pathetic.

rio · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 7:21 pm

Sounds like manipulation of statistics to me. Even if this were legitimate, it's one example and to produce those BLS averages cited above there'd have to be some union workers pretty badly beaten down in other sectors.

But as far as I can tell, those figures aren't legit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... cle728416/

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/ma ... -hour-meme

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthis ... -73hr.html

According to these sources those figures are not remotely accurate. They include, for some reason, the commitments in terms of healthcare and pensions that companies pay to retired workers and claim that's the hourly price of a union worker.

Going further, those articles suggest that the cost of union workers in Detroit is actually going to be lower than non-union workers in places like Kentucky. That third link suggests that even including all the benefits union members get in exchange for membership fees, it only equates to $10 more per hour in non-unionised Japanese plants also in the US.

What is more in terms of actual productivity, the effect of unions is at best very murky. This link argues that union decline in the US hasn't significantly improved productivity, and the productivity of far more union-strong environments like Europe, equals the US.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20070620/

rio · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 7:29 pm

But that is all a secondary point, anyway. The purpose of unions is to get bigger commitments out of employers. Let us hypothetically accept that union action IS the cause of outsourcing. Economically, the logic that says:

Union wage rises=corporations leaving

Misses a step out. It should be:

Union wage rises=Higher share in the surplus accrued to the business=lower profits for business=corporations leaving.

Union wage rises, moreover, DON'T have to be the start of this chain. How about:

Rising oil prices=rising commodity prices=rising cost of living=union wage rises

Basically, what I'm saying is that higher union wages are one element of an extremely complex chain, THE dominating underlying moving factor in which, that overshadows everything else, is the company's need to make a profit. Regardless of quantitative variations in one element of this chain- wages- the fundamental agency of outsourcing is corporations looking for more profit.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 7:38 pm

rio wrote:

Sounds like manipulation of statistics to me. Even if this were legitimate, it's one example and to produce those BLS averages cited above there'd have to be some union workers pretty badly beaten down in other sectors.

But as far as I can tell, those figures aren't legit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... cle728416/

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/ma ... -hour-meme

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthis ... -73hr.html

According to these sources those figures are not remotely accurate. They include, for some reason, the commitments in terms of healthcare and pensions that companies pay to retired workers and claim that's the hourly price of a union worker.

Going further, those articles suggest that the cost of union workers in Detroit is actually going to be lower than non-union workers in places like Kentucky. That third link suggests that even including all the benefits union members get in exchange for membership fees, it only equates to $10 more per hour in non-unionised Japanese plants also in the US.

What is more in terms of actual productivity, the effect of unions is at best very murky. This link argues that union decline in the US hasn't significantly improved productivity, and the productivity of far more union-strong environments like Europe, equals the US.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20070620/

Well, duh. That's part of the package that the unions demand; but you knew that, right?
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or just hoping that those reading this thread are?
And if you are saying you are unaware of the connection between votes and labor unions, aka, corruption, than you are even less informed than I initially thought. It's pretty much conventional knowledege.

"Sounds" like manipulation of statistics? The same old argument with you guys, whether it's about crime, race, or now labor... the stats are being manipulated.... got evidence?
I could just as easily claim any links you supply have been "manipulated".

I love how you focus on only half of my assertion, and ignore the other half, that being that corporate greed is also part of the problem., since that half is what fits into your agenda.

rio · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 7:56 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

Well, duh. That's part of the package that the unions demand; but you knew that, right?

a) They are packages that more than just union members get.
b) The reason GM's bills are high is because of its past success and size and therefore it has a very large number of retirees to support- it's a completely different issue. To say that current UAW members cost $73 an hour is inaccurate.

Quote:

And if you are saying you are unaware of the connection between votes and labor unions, aka, corruption, than you are even less informed than I initially thought. It's pretty much conventional knowledege.

Oh, it's conventional knowledge is it? It must be true. I agree entirely that there have been high profile examples of corrupt unions throughout history. But to say that trade unions in the US are systematically corrupt, yes, is something that requires evidence. Because as far as I can see, it isn't true.

Quote:

"Sounds" like manipulation of statistics? The same old argument with you guys, whether it's about crime, race, or now labor... the stats are being manipulated.... got evidence? I could just as easily claim any links you supply have been "manipulated".

Er... how about the remainder of the post you just quoted? If those refutations I've cited are inaccurate, then say so.

Quote:

I love how you focus on only half of my assertion, and ignore the other half, that being that corporate greed is also part of the problem., since that half is what fits into your agenda

If you mean, am I deliberately not arguing with you on the part of your argument that I agree with, then yes, you are correct.

Tbh, I'm sorry to disappoint Fridge, but I'm getting sick of this. Sick of every post I make on politics that disagrees with you inducing this stream of patronising bullshit about how I don't know anything, how I don't think anything that doesn't come from Jon Stewart, how everything I know comes from "a few liberal textbooks"... I've never claimed to be an expert on anything, actually, but if you must know these are things I have dealt with and know about from both practical experience, and- shock horror- academic work.

But, whatever, I can do without the aggro, to be honest. I think people reading this discussion can probably make their own minds up.

Let us finish with an amusing picture to lighten the mood

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 8:09 pm

rio wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Well, duh. That's part of the package that the unions demand; but you knew that, right?

a) They are packages that more than just union members get.
b) The reason GM's bills are high is because of its past success and size and therefore it has a very large number of retirees to support- it's a completely different issue. To say that current UAW members cost $73 an hour is inaccurate.

Quote:

And if you are saying you are unaware of the connection between votes and labor unions, aka, corruption, than you are even less informed than I initially thought. It's pretty much conventional knowledege.

Oh, it's conventional knowledge is it? It must be true. I agree entirely that there have been high profile examples of corrupt unions throughout history. But to say that trade unions in the US are systematically corrupt, yes, is something that requires evidence. Because as far as I can see, it isn't true.

Quote:

"Sounds" like manipulation of statistics? The same old argument with you guys, whether it's about crime, race, or now labor... the stats are being manipulated.... got evidence? I could just as easily claim any links you supply have been "manipulated".

Er... how about the remainder of the post you just quoted? If those refutations I've cited are inaccurate, then say so.

Quote:

I love how you focus on only half of my assertion, and ignore the other half, that being that corporate greed is also part of the problem., since that half is what fits into your agenda

If you mean, am I deliberately not arguing with you on the part of your argument that I agree with, then yes, you are correct.

Tbh, I'm sorry to disappoint Fridge, but I'm getting sick of this. Sick of every post I make on politics that disagrees with you inducing this stream of patronising bullshit about how I don't know anything, how I don't think anything that doesn't come from Jon Stewart, how everything I know comes from "a few liberal textbooks"... I've never claimed to be an expert on anything, actually, but if you must know these are things I have dealt with and know about from both practical experience, and- shock horror- academic work.

But, whatever, I can do without the aggro, to be honest. I think people reading this discussion can probably make their own minds up.

Let us finish with an amusing picture to lighten the mood

You probably know quite a bit about your own country, but, no, you don't know shit about the US outside of academia (which is a very mallable source of information); was I incorrect in positing that?

You interjected yourself into the discussion, so if you are "sick of it", don't butt into things that you have no firsthand knowledge of.
I stay out of the UK political thread, because I don't know shit about it. I personally am sick of every time I make a comment in the politics thread, being that it is invariably not "liberal enough" for your liking, you and others feel they must refute it incessantly.
And, sorry, but you do come off as some kind of authority on all things political, especially when it regards the US.
I never asked for your input, but whenever there is any assertion made that is anywhere to the right of the political spectrum, you feel the need to put your shovel in. Don't blame me for that.
The discussion was about illegal immigration, but you turned it into a "labor union" debate, not I.
Stick to your own country's politics, because a foreigner sticking his nose into another country's business is the epitome of patronizing bullshit, especially when their own country is but a shadow of it's former self.

Goat · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 8:24 pm

Politics would be pretty boring if people didn't debate them. It's asking a bit much for you to make various claims about bringing back chain gangs and protecting white culture (whatever that is) and then moan when people verbally raise an eyebrow.

rio · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 8:36 pm

Hitting me where it hurts- the decline of the British Empire!

Quote:

You probably know quite a bit about your own country, but, no, you don't know shit about the US outside of academia (which is a very mallable source of information); was I incorrect in positing that?

a) I don't think you know anything about academia and the extent to which it is rooted in people's real experiences. You rely on this stereotype of it as completely disconnected from reality, because people you disagree with are academics.
b) Yeah, I think you were incorrect. Knowing about something is not entirely dependent on whether you've lived there or not. When that subject is something as esoteric as labour relations, this goes double.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 9:52 pm

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 10:53 pm

traptunderice wrote:

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

Yes. Even more so.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:04 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

Yes. Even more so.

Minimum wage should equal what it costs to live. How is it logical to pay people less than what they need to survive, i.e., have shelter, food and water for themselves and their children?

How are unions in America corrupt? Do you know that most unions we have nowadays were the ones that bought into whatever the company sold them? Most actual Left unions were destroyed since they chose to accept women, communist and minorities into their ranks. Racist, nationalists and McCarthy fans constantly ranted against these unions and what we are left with were conservative, reactionary, weak unions so I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct but still where's the proof and how is that the Left's fault?

Who are you to say what was reasonable for the UAW to demand for pushing a button in the factory? If anything they deserve that much since they put up with pushing that button all those years. My grandfather worked for GM for 28 years till he retired early to be a taxi driver. The man is the friendliest, mechanical-savvy person I've ever known. He could've had a shop repairing anything from cars to toasters. He gave the best years of his life to GM, couldn't spend time with his kids working 100 hours a week but he retired as soon as he could because it was alienating. He earned every dollar they gave him so who are you to say his demands, the union's demands were ridiculous or absurd in the face of competition? You recognize corporate greed as a problem but are these workers really that greedy when they want to be compensated for what they gave up as much as for the work they put in?

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:07 pm

And don't say some people deserve less because their job requires less like flipping hamburgers because then corporate CEOs who simply make money being only nominally apart of a business should make nothing not seven plus digit salaries.

North From Here · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:17 pm

rio wrote:

I would be interested to hear any historical examples at all of problems to which a "grassroots right wing movement" was or should have been the best answer.

Yeah, I'll have to think about that and get back to you when you report on that Negura Bunget concert...it was a poorly worded phrase. Funny that my current studies on the right-wing grassroots nationalism and cry for Russification of the Russian Empire in the late 19th produced the absolute opposite desired effect in helping to create Ukrainian national consciousness.

What I meant is the big business sleight of hand works wonders for them. Not only can they derive great profit from exploitable workers but by fundamentally altering the ethnic, linguistic and cultural makeup of the country they too can provide a distracting scapegoat for the 'traditionalist' Americans to rage at while standards of living for those traditional Americans decline gradually.
I am all for an enforceable minimum wage, though I am unsure of the practicality of it.

However, I can't take the fundamentally class-based view of society-- I am convinced ethnicity, identity and language are fundamentally important to present USA politics though perhaps I need to give Samuel Huntington mode a rest for while.

The USA missed the boat in the 70s when English was not made the national language and that has dire consequences today, even if it as a trojan horse for those mass 'rightwing movements'. :lol:

BTW--just wondering for those intimately familiar with Marxism.

What is the current mainstream Marxist position (is there one?) for explaining Islamic fundamentalism? Remnants of colonialism/informal colonialism? I'd be very interested to know.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:24 pm

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

Yes. Even more so.

Minimum wage should equal what it costs to live. How is it logical to pay people less than what they need to survive, i.e., have shelter, food and water for themselves and their children?

How are unions in America corrupt? Do you know that most unions we have nowadays were the ones that bought into whatever the company sold them? Most actual Left unions were destroyed since they chose to accept women, communist and minorities into their ranks. Racist, nationalists and McCarthy fans constantly ranted against these unions and what we are left with were conservative, reactionary, weak unions so I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct but still where's the proof and how is that the Left's fault?

Who are you to say what was reasonable for the UAW to demand for pushing a button in the factory? If anything they deserve that much since they put up with pushing that button all those years. My grandfather worked for GM for 28 years till he retired early to be a taxi driver. The man is the friendliest, mechanical-savvy person I've ever known. He could've had a shop repairing anything from cars to toasters. He gave the best years of his life to GM, couldn't spend time with his kids working 100 hours a week but he retired as soon as he could because it was alienating. He earned every dollar they gave him so who are you to say his demands, the union's demands were ridiculous or absurd in the face of competition? You recognize corporate greed as a problem but are these workers really that greedy when they want to be compensated for what they gave up as much as for the work they put in?

Ahhh.. so now we get to the root of it all. A personal stake in the matter... so now I see why so defensive.
Newsflash: such is the woe of practically every single working person. I missed my son's field trip today, because *gasp* I had to work. Sucks, true. But that is part of being a grown man.

The problem with you and rio is, you're ideologues. You are so blinded by your ideology, that you can't see that there is fault on both sides. Paying a worker $40 / hour to push a button when it lights up is fucking outrageous, so is paying someone more than minimum wage to flip a hamburger. Do you think that a non-skilled laborer should make the same as a skilled \ educated laborer?
Egalitarianism = promoting the lowest common denominator.
How much would you deem flipping hamburgers worth? And what about the inevitable driving up of costs of hamburgers (or whatever commodity) that would result, in order for a business to be profitable? And then we are right back where we started, higher cost of living, ironically due to increased wages...
Granted, CEO's making millions for showing up at a board meeting every once in awhile and making bad decisions is equally outrageous, but the big picture is more complex than merely the youthfully naive "it's ALL corporate greed" position.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:50 pm

emperorblackdoom wrote:

What is the current mainstream Marxist position (is there one?) for explaining Islamic fundamentalism? Remnants of colonialism/informal colonialism? I'd be very interested to know.

Definitely influenced by colonialism but more importantly influenced by globalization. Zizek turns to psychoanalysis to explain this one so I don't know who else would write about it. The idea of casting an attack against the WTC as anything but terrorism towards capitalism was always an interesting move by the American media.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed May 05, 2010 11:54 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

Yes. Even more so.

Minimum wage should equal what it costs to live. How is it logical to pay people less than what they need to survive, i.e., have shelter, food and water for themselves and their children?

How are unions in America corrupt? Do you know that most unions we have nowadays were the ones that bought into whatever the company sold them? Most actual Left unions were destroyed since they chose to accept women, communist and minorities into their ranks. Racist, nationalists and McCarthy fans constantly ranted against these unions and what we are left with were conservative, reactionary, weak unions so I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct but still where's the proof and how is that the Left's fault?

Who are you to say what was reasonable for the UAW to demand for pushing a button in the factory? If anything they deserve that much since they put up with pushing that button all those years. My grandfather worked for GM for 28 years till he retired early to be a taxi driver. The man is the friendliest, mechanical-savvy person I've ever known. He could've had a shop repairing anything from cars to toasters. He gave the best years of his life to GM, couldn't spend time with his kids working 100 hours a week but he retired as soon as he could because it was alienating. He earned every dollar they gave him so who are you to say his demands, the union's demands were ridiculous or absurd in the face of competition? You recognize corporate greed as a problem but are these workers really that greedy when they want to be compensated for what they gave up as much as for the work they put in?

Ahhh.. so now we get to the root of it all. A personal stake in the matter... so now I see why so defensive.
Newsflash: such is the woe of practically every single working person. I missed my son's field trip today, because *gasp* I had to work. Sucks, true. But that is part of being a grown man.

I put in a story about American workers to show I do know what I'm talking about and to illustrate my point yet all the factual content gets ignored. If I reposted it without the personal story would you answer the fucking questions?

Quote:

The problem with you and rio is, you're ideologues. You are so blinded by your ideology, that you can't see that there is fault on both sides. Paying a worker $40 / hour to push a button when it lights up is fucking outrageous, so is paying someone more than minimum wage to flip a hamburger. Do you think that a non-skilled laborer should make the same as a skilled \ educated laborer?
Egalitarianism = promoting the lowest common denominator.
How much would you deem flipping hamburgers worth? And what about the inevitable driving up of costs of hamburgers (or whatever commodity) that would result, in order for a business to be profitable? And then we are right back where we started, higher cost of living, ironically due to increased wages...
Granted, CEO's making millions for showing up at a board meeting every once in awhile and making bad decisions is equally outrageous, but the big picture is more complex than merely the youthfully naive "it's ALL corporate greed" position.

We don't need people living in mansions for flipping hamburgers yet we do need people able to pay their bills consistently without having to stress and fret every month how they're going to buy diapers or where money for food is going to come from. I can recognize the need for a hierarchy of wages but I become an ideologue I guess when I don't think people should have to suffer for the benefit of others. Pay is distributed with many being under a suitable level; why can't that simply shift so more are above the suitable level where they can create a life for themselves?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu May 06, 2010 12:17 am

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

It's cute 'cause I live in America and said exactly what Rio said minus Rio's extensive factual support so am I automatically wrong too?

Yes. Even more so.

Minimum wage should equal what it costs to live. How is it logical to pay people less than what they need to survive, i.e., have shelter, food and water for themselves and their children?

How are unions in America corrupt? Do you know that most unions we have nowadays were the ones that bought into whatever the company sold them? Most actual Left unions were destroyed since they chose to accept women, communist and minorities into their ranks. Racist, nationalists and McCarthy fans constantly ranted against these unions and what we are left with were conservative, reactionary, weak unions so I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct but still where's the proof and how is that the Left's fault?

Who are you to say what was reasonable for the UAW to demand for pushing a button in the factory? If anything they deserve that much since they put up with pushing that button all those years. My grandfather worked for GM for 28 years till he retired early to be a taxi driver. The man is the friendliest, mechanical-savvy person I've ever known. He could've had a shop repairing anything from cars to toasters. He gave the best years of his life to GM, couldn't spend time with his kids working 100 hours a week but he retired as soon as he could because it was alienating. He earned every dollar they gave him so who are you to say his demands, the union's demands were ridiculous or absurd in the face of competition? You recognize corporate greed as a problem but are these workers really that greedy when they want to be compensated for what they gave up as much as for the work they put in?

Ahhh.. so now we get to the root of it all. A personal stake in the matter... so now I see why so defensive.
Newsflash: such is the woe of practically every single working person. I missed my son's field trip today, because *gasp* I had to work. Sucks, true. But that is part of being a grown man.

I put in a story about American workers to show I do know what I'm talking about and to illustrate my point yet all the factual content gets ignored. If I reposted it without the personal story would you answer the fucking questions?

Quote:

The problem with you and rio is, you're ideologues. You are so blinded by your ideology, that you can't see that there is fault on both sides. Paying a worker $40 / hour to push a button when it lights up is fucking outrageous, so is paying someone more than minimum wage to flip a hamburger. Do you think that a non-skilled laborer should make the same as a skilled \ educated laborer?
Egalitarianism = promoting the lowest common denominator.
How much would you deem flipping hamburgers worth? And what about the inevitable driving up of costs of hamburgers (or whatever commodity) that would result, in order for a business to be profitable? And then we are right back where we started, higher cost of living, ironically due to increased wages...
Granted, CEO's making millions for showing up at a board meeting every once in awhile and making bad decisions is equally outrageous, but the big picture is more complex than merely the youthfully naive "it's ALL corporate greed" position.

We don't need people living in mansions for flipping hamburgers yet we do need people able to pay their bills consistently without having to stress and fret every month how they're going to buy diapers or where money for food is going to come from. I can recognize the need for a hierarchy of wages but I become an ideologue I guess when I don't think people should have to suffer for the benefit of others. Pay is distributed with many being under a suitable level; why can't that simply shift so more are above the suitable level where they can create a life for themselves?

Well, I never said it was the left's fault the union's are associated with corruption and political graft, now did I? Didn't say it wasn't, either.
But, the left is what is associated with labor and unions.
As for a fair living wage, what do you propose? Keeping in mind that if it becomes an issue of profit, we will likely see less jobs, period.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu May 06, 2010 5:40 am

rio wrote:

Sounds like manipulation of statistics to me. Even if this were legitimate, it's one example and to produce those BLS averages cited above there'd have to be some union workers pretty badly beaten down in other sectors.

But as far as I can tell, those figures aren't legit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... cle728416/

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/ma ... -hour-meme

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthis ... -73hr.html

According to these sources those figures are not remotely accurate. They include, for some reason, the commitments in terms of healthcare and pensions that companies pay to retired workers and claim that's the hourly price of a union worker.

Going further, those articles suggest that the cost of union workers in Detroit is actually going to be lower than non-union workers in places like Kentucky. That third link suggests that even including all the benefits union members get in exchange for membership fees, it only equates to $10 more per hour in non-unionised Japanese plants also in the US.

What is more in terms of actual productivity, the effect of unions is at best very murky. This link argues that union decline in the US hasn't significantly improved productivity, and the productivity of far more union-strong environments like Europe, equals the US.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20070620/

Didn't really have the resources or the time at work to respond properly, you know but, anyway...
From your own source:

the liberal as hell NYTimes, no less...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/busin ... ei=5087%0A

Quote:

The first category is simply cash payments, which is what many people imagine when they hear the word “compensation.” It includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour

Like I said... I wish I made that much money to work at a low skilled assembly line job. Whatta sucker I was, I actually went to school while working nights and consequently put myself into debt to get a job in the high tech sector. You know, that little thing called self improvement, aka the exact opposite of some mythical notion of egalitarianism. Oh well, at least I still have my self respect.

Again, that $70 (or if you want to be a stickler, let's say $55... still pretty fucking good for unskilled labor) is the whole package... quite a sweet deal, indeed.
As for that so-called "debunking"... haha... more like re-arranging to fit the authors obvious agenda.

I have to pay for my and my families health insurance out of my own pocket, and I have to invest in a 401k if I want any kind of retirement, and my being kept on is based on performance, not some fucking clause in a contract, so cry me a fucking river.

So some lazy fuck that merely shows up, does the bare minimum should be treated to the same compensation as someone that goes the extra mile? Just because "he needs to be able to survive"?
Yeah, right.
Betcha thought that you really put me away, didn't you?
:lol:

Metal Reviews

The General Politics Thread

Who is online