patrick.net

It is 27% IF you count the retired workers, which the labor unions do and i stated that in my previous post.

Please provide references. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I cannot consider you right until you back up your statements with evidence.

42 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 21, 7:17am

http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Germany/Trade-Unions

So what happened? A perfect storm of events, starting in the 70's and going all the way up until the present time.

Starting with the 70's there became a growing global economy. No longer was it American worker vs American worker. It was American worker vs damn near everyone other worker in the world.

American workers were just too expensive, some of those expenses were due to unions while many were due to government regulations like SS tax, Payroll Taxes, and etc.

All we have seen today is Unions become bigger thanks to their growth starting int he 50s and getting involved with politicians which allows them to continuously thrive today. But the truth is most Unionized jobs of today in any country in the world are from government jobs, very little from private sectors. And yet look at all those underfunded pensions that the different levels of government provided. Many of these governments had to cut back on services just to pay benefits that were made by unions and their political hacks.

Why do you think Detroit has finally filed bankruptcy? Simple. Because they realized that in order to get things straight in Detroit they need to scale back on the pension payments they promised to current retirees and future retirees. And it's the same story for every other city that's filed bankruptcy and why they never fully recover because they cannot get rid of these pension thanks to some constitutional amendment that was placed by unions and their political buddies.

43 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 21, 7:18am

Dan8267 says

spydah_hh says

It is 27% IF you count the retired workers, which the labor unions do and i stated that in my previous post.

Please provide references. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I cannot consider you right until you back up your statements with evidence.

I provided two links in my original statement.

Here I'll add another copy of it again.

44 edvard2 2013 Nov 21, 7:44am

Starting with the 70's there became a growing global economy. No longer was it American worker vs American worker. It was American worker vs damn near everyone other worker in the world.

American workers were just too expensive, some of those expenses were due to unions while many were due to government regulations like SS tax, Payroll Taxes, and etc.

Not sure how many more times I will need to repeat this. But the primary reason for the fast decline in US manufacturing was PRIMARILY due to cheap overseas manufacturing, and mainly because of countries like Japan artificially cheapening their currency AND from basically dumping their products, basically driving US firms out of business. It would not have mattered if US wages had been slashed 75% overnight: There was NO way that any company at that time could have competed against such incredible deltas in cost. spydah_hh says

Why do you think Detroit has finally filed bankruptcy? Simple. Because they realized that in order to get things straight in Detroit they need to scale back on the pension payments they promised to current retirees and future retirees.

Again- an all too easy assertion. One of the main reasons that Detroit and the auto companies within went bankrupt or otherwise faced years of financial woes was more to do with the product, not the workers that made them. The Big three made CRAP and did so forever. They basically became complacent and all to happy to let the bean counters define the products versus actually listen to the consumer. Meanwhile companies like Toyota, Honda, and Datsun( Nissan) came in and offered far more reliable, better-built cars and trucks. Gradually the market share of the Big three went from being almost dominant to more like 50% overall. And so with less and less market share naturally that meant those companies could not meet their financial obligations when they were at a better market position and again- they probably would not encountered those problems if they had made better products and kept their market share.

Its really only been in the last 10 years or so that the Big Three finally got their act together. By the time some went through bankruptcy, their product portfolios were the best they had been in 40 years. As of now the Big three finally have highly competitive, desirable products. Whether this will equal a return to full, robust American manufacturing will be resolved in time. They have already hired quite a few employees back.

So the takeaway is its really easy to say : " Oh, its cuz' of unions" and call it a day, the reasons for the issues US manufacturing encountered from the 70's-on are far more numerous and complex.

45 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 21, 10:26am

Not sure how many more times I will need to repeat this. But the primary reason for the fast decline in US manufacturing was PRIMARILY due to cheap overseas manufacturing, and mainly because of countries like Japan artificially cheapening their currency AND from basically dumping their products, basically driving US firms out of business. It would not have mattered if US wages had been slashed 75% overnight: There was NO way that any company at that time could have competed against such incredible deltas in cost.

Right like I said a Global economy......

Its really only been in the last 10 years or so that the Big Three finally got their act together. By the time some went through bankruptcy, their product portfolios were the best they had been in 40 years. As of now the Big three finally have highly competitive, desirable products. Whether this will equal a return to full, robust American manufacturing will be resolved in time. They have already hired quite a few employees back.

Dude... Detroit owe over $18 billion in debt, it's unfunded retiree health care liability and unfunded pension liabilities (thanks to the unions) account for more than $9 billion of that $18 billion dollar debt.

No way is the auto industry in that area going to pull them out of the water. Only way to fix Detroit's problem is to make drastic cuts in those union promises. The same can be said for the State of California and just about every other bankrupt city.

Like I said before... Private sectors got rid of Unions for the most part but the governments still have them and yet look at all the governments that went heavy with unionized membership, they're all essentially broke and a HUGE PORTION in fact MOST of that money is locked in to pension and health benefit obligations.

I work for the state of CA and I barely pay anything for my retirement or healthcare. Yet the state pays a lot for it. My mother worked for CA for almost 30 years and she gets 100% medical paid for and it even pays for my father (her spouse) who is also retired (but from a private sector job).

46

marcus 2013 Nov 21, 11:22am

Why do you think Detroit has finally filed bankruptcy? Simple. Because they realized that in order to get things straight in Detroit they need to scale back on the pension payments they promised to current retirees and future retirees.

I think you're confusing the forest for the trees.

Here's the typical sequence of events (roughly).

1) Finances are tight for a city and politicians are battling to get money for their pet projects or for Whomever.

2) Finances get more tight.

3) City starts to defer payment into pensions as a way of trying to please too many politicians, thinking they will deal with that later (in other words it's seen as freeing up some money for something else now).

4) repeat 3)

5) repeat 3

later on after this has been done a couple times too many, and when revenues are dropped for other reasons, such as a few years of reduced property taxes due to housing crash, and now all of a sudden stiffing the workers is see as a way out.

Not sure whether you can get it, but just because the pension underfunding was out of hand at the end before bankruptcy, doesn't mean that too high pension costs were the real problem. Choosing to essentially loot pension plans is often a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.

Private sectors got rid of Unions for the most part

I guess you didn't read the comments about Germany above.

47 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 21, 11:37am

marcus says

I guess you didn't read the comments about Germany above.

Germany's Labor union workforce only represents 16% of the entire workforce (The U.S. is about the same with most being in public sector). That's relatively small compared to the overall workforce even if most of it was in private sector (I am not sure if they are and didn't read the comments above but as I said in my first post, since the labor union workforce in Germany is small to begin with it really doesn't matter).

Please don't ask me for links about Germany's Labor Union workforce because I've already provided it twice within this thread.

48

Dan8267 2013 Nov 21, 11:53am

http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Germany/Trade-Unions

Confirmed. This article agrees with the graph I posted.

Only around a fifth of employees in Germany are union members, and union density has fallen sharply since the early 1990s, in part because of a sharp fall in manufacturing employment in Eastern Germany after unification.

However, this does not seem to support the statement that unions kill jobs. Rather it shows that the loss of jobs kill unions, which makes sense because why would people pay union fees when the jobs have been shipped overseas?

49 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 21, 2:09pm

Dan8267 says

spydah_hh says

http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Germany/Trade-Unions

Confirmed. This article agrees with the graph I posted.

Only around a fifth of employees in Germany are union members, and union density has fallen sharply since the early 1990s, in part because of a sharp fall in manufacturing employment in Eastern Germany after unification.

However, this does not seem to support the statement that unions kill jobs. Rather it shows that the loss of jobs kill unions, which makes sense because why would people pay union fees when the jobs have been shipped overseas?

You're right the statement doesn't say that unions kill jobs it just says that unions are a small part of the workforce. I was making that statement with someone else who claimed that Germany had a large unionized workforce, which is very untrue.

However, if you look further and do more research you will see that unions do kill jobs. It's why the private sector (around the world) got rid of them in the first place. And as I said before most of the union labor is in the public sector and the public sector is doing poor in many states and cities and the number one reason why is because of the huge unfunded pension/health liabilities that they have to pay that was supported by unions and their political friends.

Unions simply cause things to cost more and they're inefficient. It's hard to layoff or fire an employee is who under performing because they're backed by union support and a contract.

Trust me I know, I am a part of one and I see it everyday. You wouldn't believe the stuff I see constantly. I see stuff everyday that would cause someone to get fired, suspended, or cut in pay if they were in the private sector. In some cases I've seen both events happen while working in the public sector and before when i used to work in the private sector. The difference? Where I work now the employee came back to work and received a write up which is nothing, but in one of my old jobs that employee was gone.

Hell, I've even seen someone purposely break state equipment out of frustration and yelled out threats to a few supervisors in the area, and filed for stress leave and was gone for about 2-3 months then came back and resumed work. All from the courtesy of our union. And I won't even get started on sick leave, lol.

50

Homeboy 2013 Nov 21, 2:36pm

What does that have to do with you lying about Boeing wanting to take away their pension?

Put down the crack pipe. YOU left out the part about Boeing wanting to gut the pension in your thread. Then I told you about it, and you lied AGAIN by still claiming it wasn't true. Then I SHOWED you an article and quoted the exact part of the article that says it, and you STILL lied and claimed it's not true. So you have lied THREE times, and you have the nerve to accuse someone ELSE of lying? Unbelievable.

51

Homeboy 2013 Nov 21, 2:39pm

FortWayne says

Most America already abandoned that system.

A lot of companies DID abandon pensions, because they are fucking their employees over. That doesn't make it right.

52

Homeboy 2013 Nov 21, 2:45pm

SoftShell says

Well the workers are high on the assembly line constructing the planes that are falling apart, so they deserve what they don't get.

A CEO who only takes responsibility for successes and not for failures is a pussy and doesn't deserve ONE THIN DIME.

53 thomaswong.1986 2013 Nov 21, 3:00pm

Not sure how many more times I will need to repeat this. But the primary reason for the fast decline in US manufacturing was PRIMARILY due to cheap overseas manufacturing, and mainly because of countries like Japan artificially cheapening their currency AND from basically dumping their products, basically driving US firms out of business

It wasnt just US Manufacturing, but pretty much everyone else as well, be it European, South American and many other nations that got wacked.

54

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 21, 10:41pm

Put down the crack pipe. YOU left out the part about Boeing wanting to gut the pension in your thread. Then I told you about it, and you lied AGAIN by still claiming it wasn't true. Then I SHOWED you an article and quoted the exact part of the article that says it, and you STILL lied and claimed it's not true. So you have lied THREE times, and you have the nerve to accuse someone ELSE of lying? Unbelievable.

You are the one who lied about the pension being taken away. The pension is being changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. Changing and removing are two different things.

55

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 21, 10:42pm

A CEO who only takes responsibility for successes and not for failures is a pussy and doesn't deserve ONE THIN DIME.

Which is exactly what Obama does....

56

marcus 2013 Nov 21, 11:14pm

You're right the statement doesn't say that unions kill jobs it just says that unions are a small part of the workforce.

THe article one fifth of the jobs in Germany are unionized.

I wonder what percentage of Germany's jobs are in manufacturing, manual labor, or public services ?

Probably more than one fifth. Maybe one third. More ?

I don't think anyone was claiming that service sector jobs (the biggest part of any first world economy) were unionized.

57

tatupu70 2013 Nov 21, 11:32pm

However, if you look further and do more research you will see that unions do
kill jobs. It's why the private sector (around the world) got rid of them in the
first place.

lol--private industry got rid of them because it allows them to pay less to the worker and keep more for the owners.

Unions simply cause things to cost more and they're inefficient.

100% incorrect. spydah_hh says

It's hard to layoff or fire an employee is who under performing because they're
backed by union support and a contract.

Not really--as management, you just actually have to do your job--document issues, go through the proper warnings.

Trust me I know, I am a part of one and I see it everyday. You wouldn't believe
the stuff I see constantly. I see stuff everyday that would cause someone to get
fired, suspended, or cut in pay if they were in the private sector.

Well, I work in a union plant as well and I see nothing different than in a non-union plant. What are the managers doing in your plant?? Are they giving 1st step, 2nd step, 3rd steps? Are they documenting the issues? It sounds like a mangement problem--not a union problem.

58 edvard2 2013 Nov 22, 12:00am

Which is exactly what Obama does....

Obama isn't a CEO, hence your cute statement is null and void.spydah_hh says

Right like I said a Global economy......

No. Not at all like a global economy. In a global economy trading partners are supposed to adhere to set trade standards. Japan did not follow those standards and more or less gamed the system at the expense of American factory workers. An argument could have been presented where we could have reacted differently and thrown up trade barriers. But that's not how our free trade economy works. Interesting to note that MANY of the countries we trade with have enormous tarifs, taxes, and import duties on our manufactured goods while we in turn almost unquestionably welcome anything made just about anywhere to our shores.

So again- what did Unions have to do with these economic standards and trade practices?

59

Dan8267 2013 Nov 22, 12:58am

I was making that statement with someone else who claimed that Germany had a large unionized workforce, which is very untrue.

I concur that today union membership in Germany is low. edvard2 was incorrect when he said

That still works perfectly well in germany which has strong unions yet a high level of employment as well as a very strong manufacturing industry with workers that are paid far higher than their American counterparts.

But his mistake was in thinking Germany still had the manufacturing base and unions it did from 1960 to 1990. However, his point that historically unions and highly productive factories co-existed is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany

However, if you look further and do more research you will see that unions do kill jobs. It's why the private sector (around the world) got rid of them in the first place.
...
Unions simply cause things to cost more and they're inefficient. It's hard to layoff or fire an employee is who under performing because they're backed by union support and a contract.

So the question is, in the cases where the presence of unions causes (directly or indirectly) the moving of jobs, why is that? Clearly unionization does not have to have this effect because historically it did not always have this effect. So what is the difference between the situations where unions drive away jobs and the situations where they don't?

I strongly suspect the answer is the lack of unions elsewhere. Capitalists do not care about economic efficiency, maximizing GDPs, the long-term prosperity of society, or even economic freedom. Capitalists care about one and only one thing: acquiring as much wealth as possible with as little work as possible. And by that I mean as much wealth as possible for them with as little work as possible for them. How much wealth their employees get and how much work their employees do is of no concern to them except how it affects their self-interests.

To illustrate, consider this scenario. Two areas, A and B, are both capable of producing X. In area A, the workers are unionized. In area B, the workers are not. As a result, workers in area B can be coerced into working longer hours under worse conditions for less pay. However, workers in A are far more productive. Let's chart this.
â€ƒ
Area A
Production per worker: $1000/day
Cost of worker: $800/day
Percent of wealth worker retains: 80%

Area B
Production per worker: $500/day
Cost of worker: $100/day
Percent of wealth worker retains: 20%

Any rational person interested in overall economic productivity -- as capitalists claim to be, but are not -- would look at these two choices as say that clearly society should choose Area A because
1. Overall production (wealth generation) is twice as high
2. The income the workers get will be spent by them on other products and services creating a virtuous cycle of prosperity. You know, the type of thing that wasteful "government stimulus" tries to accomplish by bypassing the free market.
3. In the long run, even the owners of the factories are better off in Area A because the additional wealth of society will advance technology, improve infrastructure, and create a higher standard of living for all people including the rich. It's better to be a middle class person in the 21st century than a rich person in the 11th.

However, the capitalist looks at this and chooses Area B, because he personally gets to pocket $400/day/worker rather than $200/day/worker. To his short-term, selfish interests Area B is twice as profitable, so it calls Area A inefficient when in fact Area A is twice as efficient counting just the short-term wealth production, and exponentially more efficient when including long-term effects from the positive feedback of the workers retaining most of their wealth production.

The irony is that even the selfish owner is better off if everyone chooses Area A. Yes, even he will be wealthier in the long run because of the virtuous society. The problem, often called a race to the bottom, is the classic dilemma called The Tragedy of the Commons, which is a generalization of Prisoner's Dilemma.

In the Middle Ages, in an attempt to give the peons some hope of prosperity, the lords granted the peasants a few acres of "common land" that any man may farm for his own profit. When farming land, it is important to leave the ground fallow (unplanted) every few years so that nutrients aren't depleted. However, the common man could not do this in the commons. If he did not plant crops in a particular field, some other person would. As a result, the commons was depleted and unproductive. Everyone suffered.

The people would have been better off if they could cooperate and not deplete the commons, but the system was set up in such a way that cooperation was not an option. Hence, the tragedy of the commons.

With regards to Area A and Area B, the workers are the fields in the commons. The workforce is the commons. The factory owners, the capitalists, are the Medieval peasants. Each factory owner would be much better off if no factory owner could hire non-unionized workers (either they can only hire in Area A or Area B (a.k.a. China) unionizes and their workers get the same wages and conditions found in Area A (America)).

If that surprises you, think more than one move ahead. Bob owns a factory that produces sprockets. He wants to pay his workers as little as possible regardless of how much they produce because he acquires his wealth by siphoning off the wealth production of his workers; he produces no wealth himself.

Now that's not to judge Bob. He's probably necessary overhead, but he's not the wealth producer. And sure, it's ok, even necessary, that Bob siphons some wealth from his workers. However, the amount is in question. 20% siphoning would not only pay for all of Bob's business costs (overhead), but would also leave him with an income greater than any of his workers. However, Bob doesn't care. If he can squeeze even more wealth out of his employees by lowering their wages, i.e. lowering the percentage of their wealth production they keep, then Bob will do so because greed knows no bounds.

Ignoring the plight of the workers (after all, they are just the lazy asses doing all the work and creating all the wealth), let's focus on Bob. The problem that Bob is faced with is that Joe also owns a factory, and Joe's factory makes widgets. Now Bob and Joe are not competitors in any way, so Bob tends to think that what Joe does has no effect on him. However, it's in Bob's best financial interest that Joe pays his workers well, i.e. Joe lets his workers keep 80% of their wealth production instead of a mere 20%.

Why? Because Joe's employees buy Bob's sprockets. And the situation is the same for Joe. It is in Joe's best interest that Bob pays his employee's 80% of their production instead of 20% because Bob's employees buy Joe's widgets. But wait, there's more. The same is true for factory owners Frank, Greg, Henry, Isaac, etc. It is in every employer's interest that all other employer's pay their workers the lion's share of their productivity. If that happens, the income of every worker goes higher.

Unfortunately, each employer has a financial incentive to defect and pay his workers less. Taking advantage of his workers allows Bob to increase his own income even more. Unfortunately, all the other employers are just like Bob and do the same thing. The result is that all employees have less to spend and then the income of all owners goes down. It's the exact same problem as The Tragedy of the Commons.

Ironically, the employers are better off in a world in which every worker is a member of a union or some mechanism that prevents any employer from taking advantage of any worker. In such a situation, although the owner's share of the pie is smaller percentage-wise, the pie is so much bigger that the owner eats more.

60 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 22, 8:38am

marcus says

spydah_hh says

You're right the statement doesn't say that unions kill jobs it just says that unions are a small part of the workforce.

THe article one fifth of the jobs in Germany are unionized.

I wonder what percentage of Germany's jobs are in manufacturing, manual labor, or public services ?

Probably more than one fifth. Maybe one third. More ?

I don't think anyone was claiming that service sector jobs (the biggest part of any first world economy) were unionized.

1/5th is only about 20% of the workforce. As I stated and was also confirmed by Dan, the Unionized Labor workforce in Germany is about about 7-8 million workers which accounts for 16% of the total workforce. That means 84% of the workforce is non-union. The number is too small to begin with to even try to categorized how many private unions and public unions there are.

As for how many are in Manufacturing and etc?

Here...

Agriculture = 2.4% , Industry (manufacturing) = 28.6%, Services = 67.8%. So manufacturing represents between 1/4 and 1/3 of the economy or GDP and services represents more than 2/3 in 2012.. The numbers for each sector has actually dropped by 1% or more since 2011.

61 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 22, 8:53am

ol--private industry got rid of them because it allows them to pay less to the worker and keep more for the owners.

Well the bottom line for private sector and businesses is to make profit. Seriously the owners are the ones taking the risk, not the workers. So you think that the owners should pay their workers a high amount of money even if they're losing money? That sounds like a great idea.

Now I am sure you're going to say that companies are making record profits and yeah sure some industries and companies are but usually those are the companies that been so regulated (or subsidized) by the government that the government is preventing new companies within those industries to rise to the top and create competition which could lower prices. Think of industries like the banking, oil, energy and etc. Its why those big companies don't fall from the top because government thinks they're too big to fail.

100% incorrect.

Actually I am correct want proof? Look at the states and the cities.

Not really--as management, you just actually have to do your job--document issues, go through the proper warnings.

I won't disagree with you most of the issue do lie with management. But there are somethings that even if you do document you won't get fired unless it's something serious. As in damn near criminal.. We had a guy who lost a sexual harassment case and the state had to issue $1 million to the victim. Now he didn't get fired or anything in fact 2-3 months later he was promoted... Yeah I am not kidding either. the only thing that was changed was the state slammed everyone with sexual harassment training lol.

Well, I work in a union plant as well and I see nothing different than in a non-union plant. What are the managers doing in your plant?? Are they giving 1st step, 2nd step, 3rd steps? Are they documenting the issues? It sounds like a mangement problem--not a union problem.

Sounds like your company is privatized but also unionized. I don't work for a plant i work for the state. I am sure you guys do things much differently there then we do even though we're both unionized. But a private union is very very different than a public one. My dad's company was private union and my mom worked for the state and of course was public union. The way things were handles between the two was very different. There was more union control in the public sector than in the private. Which allowed employees to get away with a whole lot.

62 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 22, 9:26am

Dan8267 says

I strongly suspect the answer is the lack of unions elsewhere. Capitalists do not care about economic efficiency, maximizing GDPs, the long-term prosperity of society, or even economic freedom. Capitalists care about one and only one thing: acquiring as much wealth as possible with as little work as possible. And by that I mean as much wealth as possible for them with as little work as possible for them. How much wealth their employees get and how much work their employees do is of no concern to them except how it affects their self-interests.

We're not in a capitalist economy we lost that since 1913 or 1918 and got worst since 1970s. What we have is crony capitalism where those who are at the top stay at the top due to the help of our government (from regulations, subsidies, and TBTF bail outs). We haven't had capitalism since 1860-1920 until 1920 the american people's purchasing power increased year after year which meant that the cost of living decrease every year. Sadly most people think that inflation is a natural cause which is not true inflation is caused by monetary expansion, and I quote it's definition from a 1974 dictionary:

"Inflation: 1: an act of inflating: a state of being inflated 2: an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to the available goods resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level."

Therefore, if inflation was natural then as the US experienced tremendous economic growth during the 1860-1920, the purchasing power of the dollar would have decreased each year (like today) rather than increase each year. But yet during those times when we had true capitalism and tremendous growth we had no inflation what so ever and yet had the greatest economic growth known to man.

You see the reason why politicians choose inflation rather than deflation is because of credit and debt. You can only have credit and debt if inflation is rising because it makes it easier for governments to borrow more as they just simply print more money and pay back creditors in worth-less dollars each year.

63 mell 2013 Nov 22, 9:48am

We're not in a capitalist economy we lost that since 1913 or 1918 and got worst since 1970s. What we have is crony capitalism where those who are at the top stay at the top due to the help of our government (from regulations, subsidies, and TBTF bail outs). We haven't had capitalism since 1860-1920 until 1920 the american people's purchasing power increased year after year which meant that the cost of living decrease every year.

Therefore, if inflation was natural then as the US experienced tremendous economic growth during the 1860-1920, the purchasing power of the dollar would have decreased each year (like today) rather than increase each year. But yet during those times when we had true capitalism and tremendous growth we had no inflation what so ever and yet had the greatest economic growth known to man.

You see the reason why politicians choose inflation rather than deflation is because of credit and debt. You can only have credit and debt if inflation is rising because it makes it easier for governments to borrow more as they just simply print more money and pay back creditors in worth-less dollars each year.

Well said.

64

Vicente 2013 Nov 22, 9:55am

We're not in a capitalist economy we lost that since 1913

I'm sure a modern globalist would choke on all the tariffs they had back then protecting domestic industries. McKinley campaigned on high tariffs, and Teddy did nothing about them.

The capitalist paradise prior to 1913 is revisionist fantasy. People have all sorts of romantic and wrong notions about history.

65 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 22, 10:57am

Vicente says

spydah_hh says

We're not in a capitalist economy we lost that since 1913

I'm sure a modern globalist would choke on all the tariffs they had back then protecting domestic industries. McKinley campaigned on high tariffs, and Teddy did nothing about them.

The capitalist paradise prior to 1913 is revisionist fantasy. People have all sorts of romantic and wrong notions about history.

Yes, a lot of income the U.S. government made was from tariffs. However, the government didn't need to generate a lot of income because it was small. You have to remember it didn't have a huge globalized military to pay for, didn't have medical or pension benefits to pay for, it didn't have welfare to pay, it didn't have social security to pay for, it didn't have lavish outrages political salaries to pay for, and I can go on. It's bills were small and there wasn't a high need to imposed a high tariff on imported goods to keep the government running. Today we can't even fund all that with all the taxes we pay, we have to pay more taxes (government keeps creating more) and borrow money just to keep our government running.

66

Vicente 2013 Nov 22, 11:22am

You have to remember it didn't have a huge globalized military to pay for

Great, easy solutiong is eliminate the MIC. Good luck with that. The first ones to squeal like stuck pigs about military cutbacks, are the same people who like to wear teabags on their hats and flags on their lapels.

67

Homeboy 2013 Nov 22, 2:22pm

You are the one who lied about the pension being taken away. The pension is being changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. Changing and removing are two different things.

I think you're just flailing because I caught you in a lie and PROVED it by citing a reliable news article.

68

Homeboy 2013 Nov 22, 2:23pm

Homeboy says

A CEO who only takes responsibility for successes and not for failures is a pussy and doesn't deserve ONE THIN DIME.

Which is exactly what Obama does....

Obama only makes $400K a year, and he doesn't get a "performance" bonus for screwing up.

69

tatupu70 2013 Nov 22, 9:48pm

Seriously the owners are the ones taking the risk, not the workers. So you think
that the owners should pay their workers a high amount of money even if they're
losing money?

The workers are the ones who actually make the product. You don't think they should enjoy the fruits of their labor?? Why is taking risk with money worth more than labor?

If you want to make everyone's pay a percentage of sales--that's an interesting idea. But, why should the workers lose just because the owners completely mismanaged the business?

Actually I am correct want proof? Look at the states and the cities.

I'm tired of this argument. Unions fight for as much $$ and benefits as they can get. Just like I do when I negotiate my compensation. If the management gives them (or me) too much, is that the unions (or my) fault??? Unions don't set their own pay--it's a two way street.

Sounds like your company is privatized but also unionized.

Yes--it's in the private sector. You're right, I'm not as familiar with public unions--but IMO the problem lies with the boards that are elected to oversee and negotiate their budgets. It's very easy for teachers, firemen, police, etc. to campaign and make sure that they get folks elected that are "friendly" to them...

70

everything 2013 Nov 22, 11:42pm

Lol, people here think the politicians are controlled by unions, really they are controlled by corporations who in turn will pay you dirt. These days you have to negotiate for yourself, since, it's everyone for themselves.

Their is no longer any shared benefit to a living wage. Wherever wages are high America will suffer, take a close look to health care if you want to see some real monopolistic control over the people.

And, lol, wait until they start cutting costs, it's already so evident as many conditions are not treated, as they are not profitable until the condition worsens.

71 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 23, 12:28am

The workers are the ones who actually make the product. You don't think they should enjoy the fruits of their labor?? Why is taking risk with money worth more than labor?

Sorry but a worker is just a worker taking orders just like a soldier. The Leadership, the owners, are the one staking risk because they're putting up their own money, sometimes everything they have. A business isn't about moral it's about making sense. When you conflict moral issues with business sense you'll likely to go out of business or get screwed at some point.

'm tired of this argument. Unions fight for as much $$ and benefits as they can get. Just like I do when I negotiate my compensation. If the management gives them (or me) too much, is that the unions (or my) fault??? Unions don't set their own pay--it's a two way street.

Yes, it is unions fault because they place tax payers and sometimes the government at risk or hold them hostage. Now for your private union, I am sure it's different I am sure your boss or the owner may increase your wage because they find your worthy not because your union says so. But for the public system which is where the majority of the unions are held in this country, it's a different animal and why the states, cities, and counties are at war with their employees and their unions. Some of them are trying to get pensions for current retirees and future retirees reformed. As it's the only way to save their government and keeping their tax payers from being held hostage.

but IMO the problem lies with the boards that are elected to oversee and negotiate their budgets.

I can understand and agree with everything you say except for this part. Yeah it's true some of the board members are overseas. But you have to understand these board members are only out to do what make business sense. If it means moving a plant over seas to create more profits they will. And you can't blame them because once again they're using their own money to invest or take risk into the business. A worker isn't.

But a huge part of why they make those decisions are based on government regulation and laws. Unions are part of the problem but not nearly as much as those and other stuff that I wouldn't exactly get into as it's a bit complicated.

72 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 23, 12:35am

everything says

Lol, people here think the politicians are controlled by unions, really they are controlled by corporations who in turn will pay you dirt. These days you have to negotiate for yourself, since, it's everyone for themselves.

It works both ways actually. SEIU one of the largest unions in CA donates a lot of money to politicians mostly democratseverything says

And, lol, wait until they start cutting costs, it's already so evident as many conditions are not treated, as they are not profitable until the condition worsens.

It's funny the state has cut costs in a lot of departments. At one point we scaled back so much that we didn't have a janitor to clean the building and bathrooms, some of us employees had to clean our own bathrooms with a few of us buying the cleaning supplies with our own money since we weren't even provided with that. Not to mention for over a eyar we had a leaky roof that caused the ceiling to cave in once in awhile which also built up some mold. It actually go so bad once that a co-worker called OSHEA and they actually investigated our area and our department was fined but I think it was fine about $40,000 its not a lot but needless to say the complaint did work as the department quickly fixed the issues.

I guess it was more of a warning by OSHEA to get them fixed otherwise they would hit harder with a much bigger fine.

73

tatupu70 2013 Nov 23, 1:03am

Sorry but a worker is just a worker taking orders just like a soldier

Not anywhere that I've ever worked. Usually the guys who do the work know MUCH more than the bosses.

The Leadership, the owners, are the one staking risk because they're putting up
their own money, sometimes everything they have.

So what? They get to sit back doing nothing and get paid. Why is taking a risk with your money worth more than physical labor? Give me one reason. It has nothing to do with morals--give me one business reason why one should earn more because they risk money as opposed to physical labor?

Now for your private union, I am sure it's different I am sure your boss or the
owner may increase your wage because they find your worthy not because your
union says so.

Now you're being naÃ¯ve. People don't get raises because they're worthy. They get raises because the boss is afraid they'll leave and go somewhere else. It's all about leverage. And THAT'S why unions are good--it evens out the negotiating power between owners and workers.

I can understand and agree with everything you say except for this part

I'm talking about school boards, fire district boards, etc.

74 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 23, 1:21am

So what? They get to sit back doing nothing and get paid. Why is taking a risk with your money worth more than physical labor? Give me one reason. It has nothing to do with morals--give me one business reason why one should earn more because they risk money as opposed to physical labor?

Sit back? Sure if you're a CEO or a stock/bond holder that maybe true but still they're putting up the risk with their own money not the worker. Also if the worker feels he knows more than his boss or the owner than why doesn't he just start his own business and hire people? In fact why don't you start one? If you started a company you going put workers before profits? I think not. You going to ask your workers to chip in on the risk? They're not. Why? because they don't want to front the risk of losing money. Which is why they or even you won't start a business because in reality most start up businesses fail.

A prime example... A little after my dad retired from his private company, the company was beginning to struggle and they needed to cut costs. So they asked their workers to take one day furlough each week otherwise if they didn't they would have to lay off 10 people. What did the majority of the workers do? They went to work and the company (being unionized too) laid off the workers with the lowest seniority. Which made sense for the workers who had high seniority to continue to work because they knew that layoffs were going to be by seniority anyway. Needless to say the majority of the workers didn't want to risk losing their money since they were paid by the hour. So the owners had to make a tough decision and layoff workers.

Hell in battle or in war, most of the time commanders, generals or even the kings or president don't fight their own battles. Yet their' rewarded for winning battles even though their soldiers did all the work.

Now you're being naÃ¯ve. People don't get raises because they're worthy. They get raises because the boss is afraid they'll leave and go somewhere else. It's all about leverage. And THAT'S why unions are good--it evens out the negotiating power between owners and workers.

Umm, if a boss is afraid of a good a worker leaving then that means the boss thinks the worker is worthy of the rise, don't you think? You ask me for a rise but I know you've done a poor job overall since you've been working here. I am not going to give you a raise because you suck and I wouldn't cared if you left because I know your work habits. Now if you were good and made an impact to my business big or small i am going to keep you according to what I think you're worth. The union is just a middle man, don't really need them to negotiate because if you thought the offer I was giving you was too low and thought you could get a better offer somewhere else, you'd quit and look for a better paying job. It's really that simple. I mean really a prime and easy example of this is the sports industry.

75

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 24, 10:24pm

marcus says

Not sure whether you can get it, but just because the pension underfunding was out of hand at the end before bankruptcy, doesn't mean that too high pension costs were the real problem.

When city employees people can retire in their 50's, or earlier, then by definition the pension costs were too high to begin with. No private company does this.

76

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 24, 10:26pm

I think you're just flailing because I caught you in a lie and PROVED it by citing a reliable news article.

You are the one flailing because the quote you provided stated that the pension was being switched to defined contribution when you said that that the pension was being taken away.

Or put another way, Boeing decided it was cheaper to export jobs after they tried to take away the workers' pension and failed.

including significant changes in retirement benefits and the end of the defined-benefit pension. Accruals for the pension would cease at that time and would shift to a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan.

Changing something and removing it are two different things.

That and that is how these things are normally done in that new employees will only have 401K's and existing employees get to keep their defined benefit plan AND will have a 401K. It's just that their existing defined benefit plans will stop accruing benefits. So nothing is actually being taken away from anyone. You simply don't understand how pensions work in the private sector. I got the exact same deal from Wells Fargo when they "did away with" their defined benefit pension plan.

77

tatupu70 2013 Nov 24, 11:30pm

Sit back? Sure if you're a CEO or a stock/bond holder that maybe true but still
they're putting up the risk with their own money not the worker

Well, that's what we're talking about here, right? Owners? The ones "taking the risk?"

A prime example... A little after my dad retired from his private company, the
company was beginning to struggle and they needed to cut costs. So they asked
their workers to take one day furlough each week otherwise if they didn't they
would have to lay off 10 people. What did the majority of the workers do? They
went to work and the company (being unionized too) laid off the workers with the
lowest seniority.

So tell me again how the owners are taking more risk?? They are getting their profits and the workers are getting laid off. The worker who can be laid off at any time for any reason is not taking a risk? The owner doesn't lose until all after all his workers have lost.

Umm, if a boss is afraid of a good a worker leaving then that means the boss
thinks the worker is worthy of the rise, don't you think?

Yes, but the worker isn't getting the raise because he's good. He's getting it because he has the leverage. If the worker is good but the owner knows he won't leave (family issues, whatever), then he's much less likely to get the same raise. You aren't paid what you are worth. You are paid the MINIMUM that the company thinks will retain you. It's all about leverage. That's why unions are necessary. Right now, with fewer jobs than people, owners have the leverage.

78 spydah_hh 2013 Nov 25, 4:13am

Well, that's what we're talking about here, right? Owners? The ones "taking the risk?"

Yes owners or stock holders.

So tell me again how the owners are taking more risk?? They are getting their profits and the workers are getting laid off. The worker who can be laid off at any time for any reason is not taking a risk? The owner doesn't lose until all after all his workers have lost.

How owners take more risk? Well first off they have to start up the business which means they need acquire capital which comes from their own money or assets. Then they have to pay for licenses, fees, registrations and etc. Then they can hire workers but usually if they're starting small the owner(s) are the workers. They don't hire workers unless they need to expand to meet demand.

So you see all this has to being first, because all businesses start small even the big mega corps started small. And the truth is most starting businesses fail within 3 years of opening. And if they fail the owners have a lot more to lose than workers.