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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Objective Detective
Lot of CD geniuses here that just criticize my points based on reality but provide no useful or insightful points whatsoever. It seems this forum is full of low IQ stoners who have absolutely no real life experience. Probably many spoiled millennials too who have never worked a day in their lives.
It certainly is amusing toying with you losers though. You are the cream of the crop of loserdom
I've refuted you with facts as well as partially subjective observations from the time I spent in union companies, as well as friends who were union members
We left N.Y. when my husband retired from a 30 year union career. (Private) We left to get away from harsh winters. Moving to a right to work state has been an eye opener. Most people in my area are relocated northerners.
I have met many right to work supporters who are not from typically union areas and the contrast is shocking. One in particular is a manager at a big supermarket , and makes enough to get by with a family of 5. He works for salary, so no overtime. They work him to death. He has no dental insurance offered, so none of them go to the dentist. They have very basic medical coverage, so large out of pocket costs.
As far as I see, they are just spinning their wheels and he will probably have to work until the day he dies. They can't buy a home in this area, buy junker cars every 2 years or so. It is sad to see someone work so hard for so little in return. Yet they are right to workers. They are so brainwashed that when we discuss it his wife proudly says that her husband has no union restrictions.
I guess it is a choice based on how you choose to live. I am thankful my husband also worked very hard, but we have a home , a nest egg for our retirement ,and the security to enjoy a good life without struggling for the basics. (Dental and health care)
When my youngest graduates high school, we will be N.Y. ers again for 3 seasons and still avoid the winters up north.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauradrops
We left N.Y. when my husband retired from a 30 year union career. (Private) We left to get away from harsh winters. Moving to a right to work state has been an eye opener. Most people in my area are relocated northerners.
I have met many right to work supporters who are not from typically union areas and the contrast is shocking. One in particular is a manager at a big supermarket , and makes enough to get by with a family of 5. He works for salary, so no overtime. They work him to death. He has no dental insurance offered, so none of them go to the dentist. They have very basic medical coverage, so large out of pocket costs.
As far as I see, they are just spinning their wheels and he will probably have to work until the day he dies. They can't buy a home in this area, buy junker cars every 2 years or so. It is sad to see someone work so hard for so little in return. Yet they are right to workers. They are so brainwashed that when we discuss it his wife proudly says that her husband has no union restrictions.
I guess it is a choice based on how you choose to live. I am thankful my husband also worked very hard, but we have a home , a nest egg for our retirement ,and the security to enjoy a good life without struggling for the basics. (Dental and health care)
When my youngest graduates high school, we will be N.Y. ers again for 3 seasons and still avoid the winters up north.
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general. I would argue the opposite and say that over the long term they have hindered what should be a very dynamic economy across the board.
With the exception of Washington State, which has many large corporations such as Boeing and Amazon and many military bases to keep the economy going as well as a large agricultural sector in some parts, the states with the most union representation currently are losing population. If the union was good for an economy, should't the ones with the most union representation be gaining population due to a growing and healthy economy? What do you thinkis causing the losses of population?
Alaska is another exception because it is losing residents to out-migration but the offset in in state births is more than the loss. It has a small population of Alaska is only about 741,000.
The top ten states by union representation by percentage of employed are:
New York-25.2%
Hawaii-19.9%
Alaska-18.5%
Connecticut-18.5
Washington-17.4%
New Jersey-16.1%
California-15.9%
Illinois-14.5%
Michigan-14.4%
Illinois lost the most residents for the third year in a row in 2016, losing about 38,000 residents.
If unions are and were in fact really good for the economy why are the majority of states with the highest union representation losing population the most and why are many of the historically heavily union represented cities in such poor condition economically with crumbling infrastructures?
I don't know if the declines has anything to do with unions or NOT.
I DO know, where I live, the fastest growing county in the state and very high in the country, MANY people from the likes of NY, NJ, Conn, Ohio, MD etc moved OUT of their states when they retired BECAUSE they CANNOT AFFORD THE TAXES on their retirement incomes.
Property taxes, from $10 to $15,THOUSAND a year to around $500 to $600 a YEAR.
Back in the 70's I saw union construction jobs DECLINE becaue they priced then elves out of a job.
80% of all the jobs were union. A few years later 0nly 20% of the jobs wre union.
High wages and "work allowed to do" forced the general contractors to bid high then nonunion jobs.
The nonunion wagss wereen't hat far off from the union wages but, the work alloeda dnt rh threat of union strikes COST a LOT oF MONEY.
Iv'e seen plunbers having 1 set on plans for a sink and the cabinet guy another set.
Instead o waiting to get thiongs sorted out EACH went by their pland KNOWING it coukd not work.
The job had to be re-domn which COST m ore money.
I saw where it took 4 people to hook up a standard water pump when a basement flooded.
I electrician beciae a generstor was use, I plunber because a hose was useed and 1 supervisor to monitor eve ybody.
They ALL stood around and watched for 3 hours as the pump did its job.
I recall when painters were NOT allowed to use paint roller.
When they finally allowed to use one it could only a 7" one.
Things like these is 1 reason why the unions priced themselves put of a job.
And oh, I WAS a union Steward.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 11-16-2017 at 06:56 AM..
This isn't as political of an issue as it used to be - - Republicans and Americans as a whole are more favorable towards unions than in most times over the last decade.
NY union representation is largely made up of state workers...mostly teachers and cops. These are not steel workers. They are large trade unions with strong political pull whose paycheck comes from taxpayers, not from a private or public company. They are the reason behind crazy property and income taxes. If you are a cop or teacher or married to one, it's great. If it's not and you don't work a high paying job, you are desperately fleeing and being replaced by immigrants. It will get worse before it gets better and the system implodes on itself. There are only so many $100K+ per year pension payments you can be paying out, and with baby boomers retiring, where will the tax revenue come from?
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general. I would argue the opposite and say that over the long term they have hindered what should be a very dynamic economy across the board.
With the exception of Washington State, which has many large corporations such as Boeing and Amazon and many military bases to keep the economy going as well as a large agricultural sector in some parts, the states with the most union representation currently are losing population. If the union was good for an economy, should't the ones with the most union representation be gaining population due to a growing and healthy economy? What do you thinkis causing the losses of population?
Alaska is another exception because it is losing residents to out-migration but the offset in in state births is more than the loss. It has a small population of Alaska is only about 741,000.
The top ten states by union representation by percentage of employed are:
New York-25.2%
Hawaii-19.9%
Alaska-18.5%
Connecticut-18.5
Washington-17.4%
New Jersey-16.1%
California-15.9%
Illinois-14.5%
Michigan-14.4%
Illinois lost the most residents for the third year in a row in 2016, losing about 38,000 residents.
If unions are and were in fact really good for the economy why are the majority of states with the highest union representation losing population the most and why are many of the historically heavily union represented cities in such poor condition economically with crumbling infrastructures?
I suppose your observation could be true, particularly if you ignore that people are moving to California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and Delaware.
The problem with your analysis is that unionized states tend to be cold states, and people are moving from colder to warmer locations.
Also people are moving in large numbers to certain states with big economic ties to natural resource extraction, like North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Colorado.
NY union representation is largely made up of state workers...mostly teachers and cops. These are not steel workers. They are large trade unions with strong political pull whose paycheck comes from taxpayers, not from a private or public company. They are the reason behind crazy property and income taxes. If you are a cop or teacher or married to one, it's great. If it's not and you don't work a high paying job, you are desperately fleeing and being replaced by immigrants. It will get worse before it gets better and the system implodes on itself. There are only so many $100K+ per year pension payments you can be paying out, and with baby boomers retiring, where will the tax revenue come from?
Yes, public sector unions are a real problem, and a huge conflict of interest. They have been gaining ground, while private sector unions are going the way of the Dodo. The public unions get sweetheart deals from the Democrat politicians in return for their monetary, and election support. The huge salaries, benefits, and pensions can not be sustained by cities, and states.
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.
