Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, not quite! Obama's the best friend the unions have had in years. In 2008, the UAW threatened yet another a strike against GM, which had lost $40 billion and was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Candidate Obama sent the union a letter stating "I stand with the union." The union donated over $4 million to the Democrats, including Obama's campaign, and endorsed him for president.
Once in office, Obama reciprocated by pushing through a generous bail-out package for GM and Chrysler which handed the UAW 25% ownership of GM, an incredible act of generosity toward a group which has screwed its employer with crippling strikes that helped put them into bankruptcy in the first place. Romney's proposal, denigrated and mocked by the lawyer/socialist/unionist dominated Democratic Party, was to allow GM to go through bankruptcy as per standard practice and emerge a leaner, solvent organization unburdened by old union contracts. That's what they should have done. Instead, we the taxpayers lost about $23 billion on a bogus, overly generous bail-out that created Government Motors.
Also, Obama has packed the NLRB with labor activists who are totally partisan and biased, rather than neutral judges or economists who might arbitrate fairly in labor disputes. One of the NLRB's more charming acts was to threaten Boeing with fines for opening a non-union 787 plant in South Carolina, a blatant interference in a private company's right to build a factory where it feels like.
I've followed the Obama-Democrat-union relationship with interest, since it's quite telling. The bottom line is that the unions are 100% Democratic, totally partisan and anti-business. The leadership is the worst, but the rank and file do tend to go along with the leadership.
As to the other point that the government should "solve" the labor market with stringent laws, that's anathema to a free society and merely drags us down to 3rd world status, as has occurred in Spain and Greece. Overly generous government mandates have to be paid by someone.
In a true free market, with a well educated populace and plenty of competition among employers, the benefits and pay will be there and shouldn't have to be backed up by the government.
In a controlled, regulated market, where 90% of the school teachers are unionists who vote Democratic, you have a prevailing attitude that Big Brother needs to be our nanny who keeps our diapers changed and our baby bottle full of warm, sweet mommy milk. Be careful what you ask for; we're only a step or two away from a Soviet Union-style economy with crappy make-work jobs and poverty for all.
This is pretty typical conspiracy theory-style retchedness. Innocuous facts nestled within sinister conspiracy jargon in order to present the appearence of an evil force. Even if all the facts in this post are taken at face value, they're only "scary" because of the narrative woven around them.
To clarify, I was talking about Washington D.C.'s attempts to raise the minimum wage. Seattle, quite frankly, can go pound sand. I've been there numerous times, and I still don't understand why people voluntarily move there. However, the same thing is going to happen in Seattle - on a smaller scale - as what has happened on a national level every time the minimum wage has been raised. They are devaluing the dollar on a local level, rather than a national level, but they are still effectively devaluing it.
People willingly move here because Seattle has one of the best job markets and is one of, if not the most beautiful setting for a city in the entire country.
This is pretty typical conspiracy theory-style retchedness. Innocuous facts nestled within sinister conspiracy jargon in order to present the appearence of an evil force. Even if all the facts in this post are taken at face value, they're only "scary" because of the narrative woven around them.
And this is a pretty typical non-answer. Let's hear some facts instead of a one-line blanket dismissal. There's no conspiracy jargon here, just facts, opinions, and conclusions.
I always say to people, you can change my mind if you're persuasive enough. Would that everyone felt the same.
People willingly move here because Seattle has one of the best job markets and is one of, if not the most beautiful setting for a city in the entire country.
Except that it rains almost half the year (ave. 155 days) and is cloudy most of the year (226 days ave.). I would find that rather tedious. Also, it's got a high cost of living, about to be higher thanks to a ridiculously huge boost to the minimum wage. Approximately top 10 for consumer prices and rents.
Except that it rains almost half the year (ave. 155 days) and is cloudy most of the year (226 days ave.). I would find that rather tedious. Also, it's got a high cost of living, about to be higher thanks to a ridiculously huge boost to the minimum wage. Approximately top 10 for consumer prices and rents.
Nice place to visit, though.
Seattle gets less rain than the east coast (BoshWash). The West Coast has many microclimates. Weather is completely different every 10 miles.
And this is a pretty typical non-answer. Let's hear some facts instead of a one-line blanket dismissal. There's no conspiracy jargon here, just facts, opinions, and conclusions.
I always say to people, you can change my mind if you're persuasive enough. Would that everyone felt the same.
Your argument is based on a fantastical exaggeration at best, how would facts persuade you? Anyway, plenty of facts and simple math have already been posted throughout the thread.
Stop with the "switch to cheap but useless cellular service" posts. You need good phone service in the modern world.
No, you don't. You may want phone service, but you do not need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
No that's not a lot for rent. In any city or suburb (where jobs are), you'll pay at least $800/month for a 1 bedroom or studio. If you get a 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom with roommates you'll spend about the same.
4 people can share a 1 bedroom, as I did when I was young. You might want to live alone, but you don't need to. If you want to live alone, don't work for a minimum wage. Instead, work as, say, a CPA or a Tax Attorney.
Lifeline provides discounts on monthly telephone service (wireline or wireless) for eligible subscribers. These discounts are currently set at $9.25 per month.
There's a fundamental logical fallacy of composition here that I see come up a lot in economics discussions. It's in the best interests of individual actors to pay their workers less. ...
Not true. If an employer pays his employees less than the value of their marginal product, those employees will quit & go work for someone else who pays the value of their marginal product.
Underpay and you lose employees to competitor employers. Then, you incur one-time costs of hiring & training. Those startup costs can be avoided by paying a sufficient wage - the value of the marginal product - to retain most employees. Any company that constantly incurs unneeded & avoiceable one-time costs will go out of business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
