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: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,078,355 times
Reputation: 3937
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse
Sorry but unions have gotten out of control. You should be angry at today's unions that are making all the work of the unions you speak of go for naught. Obviously not all unions are detrimental. However today many have become to empowered and it results in the same greedy, self serving attitude you believe private enterprise has.
Believe it or not I AM mad at the union leadership (or lack of) of today.....they are absolutely worthless and George Meany is spinning in his grave from embarassment of todays unions.
You are right....as I have posted before...I voted for Obama because imho he was a million times better than the alternative,BUT.....he's PROMISED a lot of crap,let's see if he gets any of it done or if he's just the average lying politician.
Ah yes...we had a thread about a union run grocery chain in California a while back. Me personally, not a big fan of paying some guy $20 and hour to bag groceries or stock shelves. Plus it's a regressive "tax" or subsidy for not having any real skills as it impacts food prices which are something we must buy. I'd be inclined to shop at the non-union stores in the area.
That's the only places I shop now after seeing the venom being spit by Union employees. A lot of people had one store within walking distance and for employees to get ugly with these people was oh so wrong.
The value of Unions is running out. We have fair work place laws in place now and allowing workers to extort by striking just doesn't seem of value anymore.
Jobs like washing lettuce, bagging stuff and stacking cans were jobs we did as kids for extra spending cash, now it is a career.
How, if anything better is blocked on purpose? Do you think that people would apply for work at the super if there were better alternatives? And don't say "update your skills", because today we have a million skilled unemployed...
The US economy slashed the jobs bracket that once paid $30-50K plus benefits. Today, the majority of available jobs are in the retail sector and healthcare. A fact most conservatives ignore is that people need to live even when the economy is down. You can't stop breathing until the market comes back...
That wasn't my point and a poor economy isn't justification for paying good wages for unskilled work. (Again regressive burden on consumers, do you follow that point?)
Also, consider the wonderful disincentives to education if you could make 30-40k a year bagging groceries instead of becoming a teacher, mechanic etc?
Think this through, let's say you made minimum wage $15 an hour. What would you have to pay people to incent them to do harder, more skilled jobs? Yeah, that's right...you would have to pay them more. This increases costs, think inflation, and devalues the $15 an hour.
As one Miss America candidate once said, I would give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor. Apparently she didn't manage to fit Economics 101 into her schedule.
I don't understand your "conservatives" comment, not sure where politics comes in on this unless you are making the point that the 3 Dem controlled branches are going to change this? (Hint: They won't, but it's hillarious to see all the straight ticket types imagining all the reforms that are just around the corner like Santa and the Easter Bunny. ) The last Dem president passed NAFTA...where do you think those 30-50k jobs went mi amigo? Darn that conservative Bill Clinton (R).
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,078,355 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
That wasn't my point and a poor economy isn't justification for paying good wages for unskilled work. (Again regressive burden on consumers, do you follow that point?)
Also, consider the wonderful disincentives to education if you could make 30-40k a year bagging groceries instead of becoming a teacher, mechanic etc?
Think this through, let's say you made minimum wage $15 an hour. What would you have to pay people to incent them to do harder, more skilled jobs? Yeah, that's right...you would have to pay them more. This increases costs, think inflation, and devalues the $15 an hour.
As one Miss America candidate once said, I would give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor. Apparently she didn't manage to fit Economics 101 into her schedule.
I don't understand your "conservatives" comment, not sure where politics comes in on this unless you are making the point that the 3 Dem controlled branches are going to change this? (Hint: They won't, but it's hillarious to see all the straight ticket types imagining all the reforms that are just around the corner like Santa and the Easter Bunny. ) The last Dem president passed NAFTA...where do you think those 30-50k jobs when mi amigo? Darn that conservative Bill Clinton (R).
Yes he did it's one thing I'll never forgive him for.NAFTA was Daddy Bush's baby tho' just to clarify the matter.
That wasn't my point and a poor economy isn't justification for paying good wages for unskilled work. (Again regressive burden on consumers, do you follow that point?)
"You can't stop breathing until the market comes back" I wrote. For some folks its about incentives yet others its about survival. A person that has $10 at the bank may lose $2-3m in a bear market or when his taxes increase, but for the one that's paid by the hour, its about survival... That's the difference that for some reason you and others don't seem to get.
Quote:
...Also, consider the wonderful disincentives to education if you could make 30-40k a year bagging groceries instead of becoming a teacher, mechanic etc?
Another problem you seem to not understand is that teachers, mechanics, etc are being laid off now. So the fact that they invested in their skills and education doesn't shield them from the current economy. There are many, many educated people who cannot make ends meet.
Quote:
I don't understand your "conservatives" comment, not sure where politics comes in on this unless you are making the point that the 3 Dem controlled branches are going to change this? (Hint: They won't, but it's hillarious to see all the straight ticket types imagining all the reforms that are just around the corner like Santa and the Easter Bunny. ) The last Dem president passed NAFTA...where do you think those 30-50k jobs went mi amigo? Darn that conservative Bill Clinton (R).
My "conservative" remark wasn't political in a partisan way. I don't care much about that. What I meant (and you portray that well) is that for some folks economics is a kind of game. A game in mathematics. We are all on a virtual board. There are winners (who take all) and losers who lost because their moves on the board were not clever, or didn't move at all (lazy and stupid). Next time however, the losers learned their lesson and might come back to score a win in the last sec (NFL style). We love those in America.
But that's not a game. Its real life and its about survival, not profits.
P.S. Clinton signed indeed some bad agreements with NAFTA and China. The fact that he is democrat doesn't change that. As I said, I am one of a few on these forums who doesn't care much about partisan politics.
Yes he did it's one thing I'll never forgive him for.NAFTA was Daddy Bush's baby tho' just to clarify the matter.
Clinton signed NAFTA. It's that simple. He did it against the vocal opposition of unions. The entire point of the example was that you have to be blindly partisan to think that one party helps unions and the other hurts them.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,078,355 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Clinton signed NAFTA. It's that simple. He did it against the vocal opposition of unions. The entire point of the example was that you have to be blindly partisan to think that one party helps unions and the other hurts them.
I agree with you.What do you want me to say?
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.
Apparently she didn't manage to fit Economics 101 into her schedule.
That and their woman have perfected the art of NOT using razors..ICK!!!!
