America doesn't have a jobs issue, WE HAVE A WAGE ISSUE.

[OnePercenter]

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

 

[Asclepias]

No, YOU claimed they were for it. When I ask you to back your shit up, you can't do it. You lose.

I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right, which you can't do.

I never made that claim. If I had you would have quoted it. Dont ask me to back up anything until you address what I asked you to back up since you are supporting the guy that claimed the founders were against it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...have-a-wage-issue.495575/page-2#post-14209340

"It does not say "PROVIDE general welfare" to individuals, and the Founders never considered such a thing outside of charity."

 

[boedicca]

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

 

[OnePercenter]

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.


Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.


Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

All done with the cooperation of Bloated Unions.

 

[Slyhunter]

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.


Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

Paying $25 an hour to do a minimum wage job caused their bankruptcy.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.


Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

All done with the cooperation of Bloated Unions.

All done with the cooperation of Bloated Unions.

I was unaware that the Unions made policy decisions for manufacturers.

You really need to do better than this or the Koch Brothers are going to fire your ass.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

The problem with GM isn't wages, it's bad decisions made by the ivory tower.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.

Like agreeing to bankruptcy causing union contracts.


Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

Paying $25 an hour to do a minimum wage job caused their bankruptcy.

Paying $25 an hour to do a minimum wage job caused their bankruptcy.

Only a complete fool would believe that.

 

[Rustic]

A Call to Action



In New York City, over 150,000 children under five are poor. Last year, nearly 20,000 of these children slept in homeless shelters - enough to fill Madison Square Garden. From the moment they're born, children in poverty face an uphill struggle to survive, thrive and learn with so many odds stacked against them.

When will those in Washington agree? Its time raise the min. wage and its time to give hard working, decent folk wages they can live on. Wall street has had nothing but huge wind falls for the last 2 decades, including tax payer bailouts...when does the trickle down occur, Mr. GOP fuck head!!

...and socialism is to blame

 

[Dragonlady]

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Books have been written about the GM bankruptcy, which had multiple causes. Of course conservatives like to lay everything at the feet of the unions and the workers but it's hardly that simple.

1. The number one reason GM and Chrysler failed, was crap cars. Coddled by US legislators for years on safety and emissions standards, telling them that reducing carbon emissions and improving crash outcomes would raise the price of the cars too much, many US automobiles simply weren't marketable outside the US because other countries had higher standards. At home US buyers liked the better built, more fuel efficient foreign cars better.

2. Top heavy management. With total sales greater than the economies of some foreign countries, the corporations are slow to adapt to innovations and new technologies. The decision making process isn't nimble and the company was slow to react to bad news. It's hard for a giant corporation to respond quickly to shifts in the market.

3. Too many lines and models. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick and Cadillac, each with lines of compact, midsize, and full sized vehicles. Many of them used the same chassis and engines as their stablemates, with different body styles. One of the first decisions made in the bankruptcy was to eliminate some model lines altogether, to reduce expenses.

4. The legacy requirements of the union contracts: The Japanese and European car makers who have located manufacturing plants in the US and Canada, have been very careful to hire young workers, many years away from retirement. Being the oldest car makers in North America, GM, and Chrysler have many thousands of retired workers, drawing pensions and benefits. The oldest of the workers at foreign owned manufacturers, are now starting to
retire, but it will be generations before these companies are faced with the kind of legacy costs of the Big 3.

Yes, the union contracts contributed, but poor management, a large, top heavy management unable to quickly respond to changing markets, and high costs of producing multiple model lines, had far more to do with the failure of GM and Chrysler, than the minor concessions made by the unions.

 

[Markle]

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

Your lack of knowledge makes you difficult to take seriously.

Forty seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Your lack of intellect makes you difficult to take seriously.

So your claim is that if 100% of all people were making 100k a year then only 53% would pay taxes?

You made this indecipherable statement. Which, even you have to admit bears NO relationship to what I wrote.

My post was, and I'll quote: Forty-seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Is that NOT 100% accurate? If so, what in the heck does your response have to do with my post?

 

[Asclepias]

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

Your lack of knowledge makes you difficult to take seriously.

Forty seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Your lack of intellect makes you difficult to take seriously.

So your claim is that if 100% of all people were making 100k a year then only 53% would pay taxes?

You made this indecipherable statement. Which, even you have to admit bears NO relationship to what I wrote.

My post was, and I'll quote: Forty-seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Is that NOT 100% accurate? If so, what in the heck does your response have to do with my post?

If I told you your brain was an app I bet you would actually use it more often.

 

[EverCurious]

Dragonlady actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt. - The hard truth on that is that the rich are pretty much untouchable unless you /force/ them to stay in the 'offending' country. So unless you are going to restrain the wealthy to American Citizenship by threat of law, they simply leave when the tax burden gets too high.

Thing you've missed Dragon, is that businesses and corporations are the same way. This is no longer a world where they have no option to find profit but the US. If you make it too expensive to operate, or tax them too high, they leave. The only difference is that there is a little extra leverage against businesses via import/export taxation. However, when you raise wages without slapping on an import tax, you just basically told the business to get the fuck out - rather like OWS has told the wealthy...

You posted this which is NOT true. "Dragonlady[/USER] actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt.

Of course, that depends on who you consider "rich". What income does a household have in order to qualify as "RICH"? In your opinion of course.

There in lies the problem, with the whole concept... You cannot set a 'living wage' nor define 'rich' on a national, or even a statewide scale, it varies too much from city to city. In Anchorage, the "unofficial" [aka what is generally paid out at the bottom] min wage is $10/h 30 miles to the NE it's $9/h. To force these localized economies into a one-size-fits-all $15/h min wage is a huge burden upon that economy, and unreasonable as well. $10/h is more than adequate to support someone, $20/h for a family is well more than the average of $17/h /my/ family of five used/uses - and we are well /above/ middle class in our lifestyle [aka nice house, cars, boats, snow machines, steak, and all the services we desire.]

The concept is flawed at it's roots and will never support the weight of its branches, no matter how much chat time you slather upon it's leaves.

 

[pinqy]

My post was, and I'll quote: Forty-seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Is that NOT 100% accurate? If so, what in the heck does your response have to do with my post?

No, it's not 100% accurate. Approximately 47% of people filing federal income tax returns paid no federal income tax. Not all of those would be "workers," and not all of them would also be exempt from State income tax.

So while generally accurate, I'd say 92%, not 100%

 

[OnePercenter]

Dragonlady actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt. - The hard truth on that is that the rich are pretty much untouchable unless you /force/ them to stay in the 'offending' country. So unless you are going to restrain the wealthy to American Citizenship by threat of law, they simply leave when the tax burden gets too high.

Thing you've missed Dragon, is that businesses and corporations are the same way. This is no longer a world where they have no option to find profit but the US. If you make it too expensive to operate, or tax them too high, they leave. The only difference is that there is a little extra leverage against businesses via import/export taxation. However, when you raise wages without slapping on an import tax, you just basically told the business to get the fuck out - rather like OWS has told the wealthy...

You posted this which is NOT true. "Dragonlady[/USER] actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt.

Of course, that depends on who you consider "rich". What income does a household have in order to qualify as "RICH"? In your opinion of course.

There in lies the problem, with the whole concept... You cannot set a 'living wage' nor define 'rich' on a national, or even a statewide scale, it varies too much from city to city. In Anchorage, the "unofficial" [aka what is generally paid out at the bottom] min wage is $10/h 30 miles to the NE it's $9/h. To force these localized economies into a one-size-fits-all $15/h min wage is a huge burden upon that economy, and unreasonable as well. $10/h is more than adequate to support someone, $20/h for a family is well more than the average of $17/h /my/ family of five used/uses - and we are well /above/ middle class in our lifestyle [aka nice house, cars, boats, snow machines, steak, and all the services we desire.]

The concept is flawed at it's roots and will never support the weight of its branches, no matter how much chat time you slather upon it's leaves.

There in lies the problem, with the whole concept... You cannot set a 'living wage' nor define 'rich' on a national, or even a statewide scale, it varies too much from city to city. In Anchorage, the "unofficial" [aka what is generally paid out at the bottom] min wage is $10/h 30 miles to the NE it's $9/h. To force these localized economies into a one-size-fits-all $15/h min wage is a huge burden upon that economy, and unreasonable as well. $10/h is more than adequate to support someone, $20/h for a family is well more than the average of $17/h /my/ family of five used/uses - and we are well /above/ middle class in our lifestyle [aka nice house, cars, boats, snow machines, steak, and all the services we desire.]

The concept is flawed at it's roots and will never support the weight of its branches, no matter how much chat time you slather upon it's leaves.

You CAN set a national minimum wage. Eighty percent of the population of the US lives within 200 miles of water, so the minimum should be set by the highest cost areas.

To say that wages should be less if the person doesn't live in more urban areas is a bit naive, in that typical costs are the same or more than in urban areas. You may save a little on rent, but pay more for food and services.

A rich person IMO is a person that makes so much income that he/she can funnel their wages through a corporation and pay little to no taxes. Me.

 

[EverCurious]

Uhm no, setting the fed min wage based on the most expensive COL areas will completely destroy local economies in the lower cost areas. That's what I'm saying.

If a business has been paying $10/h, and that is what the town's economy is adjusted to, suddenly saying $15/h either causes the business to shut down, lay people off, or increase the COL in the city - which cascades into folks not being able to afford to buy as much. Someone who was making $15/h /before/ the MW was increased suddenly can't afford to buy as much and therefore has a /decreased/ quality of life because MW went up. In addition the money that /used/ to be spend on said products is not being spread out as much because those folks don't have as much to go around.

Setting it on the highest COL is actually the absolute /worst/ thing you can do.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

If wages keep going up, then costs keep going up, so prices go up, then wages go up, then costs go up, then prices go up.......sooner or later it will all implode