Can There Be A Compromise on Minimum Wage?

[BillyZane]

That takes the standard though and attempts to fit it into a non-paying model. Of course it does not makes sense. Gnarly is wrong though – the supposition that the economy does not utilize non-paying labor is completely incorrect. There are many enormously successful instances of getting people to work entirely for free. Wiki is an example. They succeed with a labor force that is almost entirely free for them to draw on. Many games operate under that same principal as well. Look at anything Bethsaida produces – they pay people to code the core of the game but the VAST majority of content is actually produced after the fact. Completely for free by the community.

Free labor, in contrast to your post, does not have people that ‘deal with a boss’ or any of the other ‘drudgery’ of a common job. It is done at will. The key is, of course, finding something to motivate people other than wealth. It seems that the most common motivator is exposure.

I concede your point, which essentially proves that every rule has an exception. Let's just agree that the vast majority of people are not going to put in the labor necessary for a business to thrive without some sort of recompense.

I can concede that but I think that it misses something. The point is not the fact that pay for drives the economy but that a free labor force can and does crate and even creates successful and profitable businesses. The key here is that the labor is different. Sure, there is a pay for model owner – that is not always the case either btw – BUT the vast majority of the labor is completely free. The difference is that the labor force is also vastly larger. Wiki could employ a hundred people and complete the required tasks OR it can rely on literally millions of free laborers in varying degrees instead. It opted for the latter.

I will concede that the vast majority of people both want and demand pay for their labor. Nothing wrong or unusual with that but I think it is a mistake to underestimate the capability of a completely free and diverse laboring community. There are a lot of groups, businesses and/or communities that utilize this type of workforce to achieve some pretty interesting results. I would also state that the majority of those that charge for their labor actually go home and then offer it to another entity completely for free. Many time that entails running a hobby group or volunteering – examples of where people put in free labor all the time.

In the end, such does not drive an innovative and advanced economy BUT it is a very interesting and intrinsic part of it.

Sure, Americans volunteer for MANY things, which just shows how blessed we are as a nation, go to some poor world country and ask someone to work in a soup kitchen for example, they would think you were crazy.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm not challenging historical events and the existence of countries that you mention, Androw. But when you listen to mainstream media and take what is said as graven in stone, you are right to believe what you believe and I am wrong. I admit my view of parasitism is false as long as mainstream media is accurate.

No, your views are provably wrong. Has nothing to do with the media. Further, I don't even own a TV. Or have Cable. Or watch mainstream media. You people faced with facts, like to just make up straw-men arguments.

However, what you have understood to be facts, like externalizing costs make them disappear, are interpretations of events from a certain perspective. If you ask Jamie Dimon if he thought the 08 crisis was good or bad, he'd ultimately conclude it was overall good agreeing with you (his pay increased by 5 million while gaining millions more in unreleased bonuses). If you ask a working class citizen, they will tell you the 08 crisis was not good, especially if they lost a home as a result. Who is right, Androw? Don't answer. I know you'll say Dimon because that's the perspective you've assumed to be universal.

No, you don't know anything. That's why you have to make up more and more straw-men arguments. Look at everything you just posted.... nothing of value. No points. No facts. Just your opinion, that I would agree with whoever that is. Clear indication you lost this argument.

But what I hope you realize this is not a universal reality for millions of Americans. Please stop wasting your time on me and read those who I've mentioned. Just read the economists who disagree with your conclusions, or are you too scared your axioms will be unhinged? They exist, are rigorous and scholarly, based on case studies and they conclude financial institutions net result is harm to society, ya know, the 97% of the population.

More insults, and zero facts. I did read your economists. The problem is, your economists, are not the only economists on the planet. There are many others, with differing views.

Are you too scared your axioms will be unhinged to read them?

See how dumb that response is? Just another ad homin, empty meaningless response. Well there you go, right back at you.

The following takes issue with your common approach. You mention facts intertwined with false interpretations of them: Countrywide, in a market system, would have collapsed. So long Countrywide! The fact they were bought by BoA who was handed 25 billion to do so, kept Countrywide alive. Thus Countrywide was pretty happy, right? Why? Because they shouldn't exist but they do! So while Countrywide had to cut back some, they are now part of a larger conglomerate of wealth. And wealth=political influence. This keeps Countrywide in the game under a new, wealthier, stronger guise. Thus they can effect American policy to be super socialist, taking tax payer money to bail them out over and over.

No, Countrywide, doesn't exist. They are not alive.

Do you even understand how bankruptcy and buyouts work? They are effectively the same. When a company enters bankruptcy, assuming the company is not salvageable, the judge will order the sale of the assets. Other interested parties, can then make offers.

In this instance of Lehman Brothers, Barclay's ended up buying up most of Lehman at a discount. The creditors of Lehman wanted to reject the deal, because it lost them a ton of money, but since there was no alternative (no one else even made an offer), they accepted the deal.

No Barclay's didn't buy all of Lehman, and many parts were simply closed. Unprofitable parts of the business in bankruptcy, are just closed down, and auctioned off. GM, auctioned off Hummer and some auto plants that were closed. The profitable parts are sold intact to the highest bidder.

But that doesn't mean that management is kept. Often the management is dismissed. From what I've read, none of Countrywide's management is on staff at Bank of America.

Angelo Mozilo CEO of Countrywide.
Lost over $100 Million, and all of his benefits from the company, and is now barred from ever working in finance or in any public company. He is legally retired for the rest of his life. (he can do his own private thing, but he's done in the big realm) Does that sound like "Countrywide happy" to you?

Richard S. Fuld Jr. CEO Lehman Brothers.
Lost millions, and after that was working for a small firm, Legend Securities, which was a penny stock firm. He left there in 2012, and no one has heard from him since. At least not in public.

Warren Spector, CEO Bear Stearns.
He's now an independent film producer, making B Films.

No, sorry, you are full of it. You don't know what you are talking about. You just make up total crap, and spew it on here, and then complain that I can't see your perspective. Well duh. Your perspective is made up crap.

This is indeed the law of state-sponsored socialism or "drudgery"--bailing out the rich AT THE EXPENSE OF SOCIETY. To bail out working class people from their debts would be a fraction of 7.7 trillion.

Preaching to choir? I was against this. I was against TARP from the start. That's not Capitalism. Capitalist is a profit and loss system. You don't socialized the loss in capitalism.

You asserted a lot of information that is false, albeit reported as truth. Please stop your one-sided understanding and educate yourself. This PDF and video is a study on the economics that you say benefit the population. Their conclusion is the opposite, Failure by Design: The Story Behind America?s Broken Economy | Economic Policy Institute

You haven't said one educated thing yet. You just MADE UP, that all these bankrupt corporate people are "happy" off somewhere. You simply don't know anything. That's all there is to it. Every time you spew your made up crap, I post the facts, which prove all your BS wrong.

You can continue to ignore the data and facts that exist which directly counter many of your seemingly endless assertions. This enables you to keep claiming that much of what you say is true. So go ahead and ignore it, but don't think you are some radically intelligent person who just can't get through to me. You are smart and I hope you use your smarts to understand the world better.

Coming from someone who has simply MADE UP crap in every post. You are one to talk there buddy.

 

[Andylusion]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

 

[zeke]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

Oh horse shit. Was it union members that designed shitty cars that people didn't want to buy?

Who held the gun to the head of the companies executives to approve the contracts given to union members?

Why are you all for a declining standard of living in the USA? You do realize that it was BECAUSE of unions that YOUR (maybe grandparents) parents enjoyed the standard of living they shared with you.

The reason unions can/has been harmed in this country is BECAUSE there are no unions in the countries that are receiving our manufacturing jobs. Once the workers of those countries get tired of being exploited, a union will emerge. And wages will go up and the benefit of moving those jobs overseas will diminish. Notice we don't send jobs to Germany.

But again, unions negotiate the best in wages and benefits for their workers. Just like they are supposed to do. What is the problem? Rising wages for union members lifts all boats.
Trickle up is what they call it.

Noticed you don't have a problem when a CEO goes to his friends on the Board of Directors and get himself and his cronies multi million dollar raises and bonuses.

Why is that? You think the working man is beneath you or something. Shouldn't be able to do the best they can for family. Or do you just worship real rich people?

 

[AntiParty]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

You think unions were a part of the problem in the depression. This shows you have not studied the great depression at all. You should study it and see how similar America was then as it is now. People (the dumb ones) are fighting for lower pay instead of fair pay.

Unions have had some problems. But I'm not much on the "Nix it" attitude. I tend to lean "Fix it".

Unions should never be forced onto someone that doesn't want to be in them. That's been the biggest issue with Unions. Make law against that and most of the problems are solved. Teachers unions problems aren't so much a union problem as they are a state/federal power struggle. Let the state handle it and those unions will get better.

It's really just common sense. I don't understand anyone that would stand against "A fair days pay for a fair days work" But some people will repeat anything Fox news tells them to.

I remember a statistic basically saying that Unions were just as small in the Depression ERA as they are today. So when we hit record low in workers Unions, we seem to be in similar waters..Demand your pay! The CEO and the Owner have no right to keep all the money you help earn. You are part of the team. A lot of the time the people making the most money never walk into the business they are making the money from. And since the workers that are there everyday are struggling to provide a life for their family, that is crap.

 

[FA_Q2]

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

You think unions were a part of the problem in the depression. This shows you have not studied the great depression at all. You should study it and see how similar America was then as it is now. People (the dumb ones) are fighting for lower pay instead of fair pay.

Unions have had some problems. But I'm not much on the "Nix it" attitude. I tend to lean "Fix it".

Unions should never be forced onto someone that doesn't want to be in them. That's been the biggest issue with Unions. Make law against that and most of the problems are solved. Teachers unions problems aren't so much a union problem as they are a state/federal power struggle. Let the state handle it and those unions will get better.

It's really just common sense. I don't understand anyone that would stand against "A fair days pay for a fair days work" But some people will repeat anything Fox news tells them to.

I remember a statistic basically saying that Unions were just as small in the Depression ERA as they are today. So when we hit record low in workers Unions, we seem to be in similar waters..Demand your pay! The CEO and the Owner have no right to keep all the money you help earn. You are part of the team. A lot of the time the people making the most money never walk into the business they are making the money from. And since the workers that are there everyday are struggling to provide a life for their family, that is crap.

That is what most are fighting for though. No one wants to make unions illegal. They simply want to end the legal protections that unions have managed to acquire that allow them to cease working for their members.

Unions can and should continue BUT they should do so on their own merits. I don’t think anyone here would disagree (and I mean disagree as in they want them ended entirely).

 

[boilermaker55]

This really has to do with where in the country, state, city(town) and county in which one lives.
If profits are up with a corporation, and I am only talking about corporations, do the workers not deserve a better pay. Or do you think it should always only go to the stock holders?

I make 12/hour and my wife makes 10/hour. Not only do we get by with power, water, food, gas, car/insurance, phone, and 2 kids, we usually have some left by the end of the week.

 

[boilermaker55]

The difficulty with not looking into an entire problem is to so blithely dismiss who or what was the problem with the product.
The design and the purchasing of elements that make the product are inferior and the product itself breaks down, to many want to blame the worker.
Are workers 100% infallible. of course not, however, to many on the top end of a company/corporation always elude scrutiny.

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

Oh horse shit. Was it union members that designed shitty cars that people didn't want to buy?

Who held the gun to the head of the companies executives to approve the contracts given to union members?

Why are you all for a declining standard of living in the USA? You do realize that it was BECAUSE of unions that YOUR (maybe grandparents) parents enjoyed the standard of living they shared with you.

The reason unions can/has been harmed in this country is BECAUSE there are no unions in the countries that are receiving our manufacturing jobs. Once the workers of those countries get tired of being exploited, a union will emerge. And wages will go up and the benefit of moving those jobs overseas will diminish. Notice we don't send jobs to Germany.

But again, unions negotiate the best in wages and benefits for their workers. Just like they are supposed to do. What is the problem? Rising wages for union members lifts all boats.
Trickle up is what they call it.

Noticed you don't have a problem when a CEO goes to his friends on the Board of Directors and get himself and his cronies multi million dollar raises and bonuses.

Why is that? You think the working man is beneath you or something. Shouldn't be able to do the best they can for family. Or do you just worship real rich people?

 

[Andylusion]

Awesome post. UNIONS are the "fix".

The Left wants $10.10 per hour and the (hard) Right wants "nothing" per hour. Certain Fast Food workers want $15.00 an hour. "Nothing" per hour sounds like slavery to me.

Raising the minimum wage is hard on ALL small business. It's a movement America makes ever so often because we don't enforce Monopoly laws. Today, our people are weak.

THE FIX; Just like in the depression the only way to fix this is Unionization of other good people. The workers run the Industry and the Country, not the leaders.

Every person that wants to start a McWalMart Union gets fired for "some other reason".
This is true even in factories.

Unions have their weaknesses. Monopolies use to be against the lag. Let's just force Monopolies to have unions.

Have you ever had it happen, where you hear someone talking, and they outline the problems and issues, and point to various citation, and then in their conclusion, promote something completely opposite to everything they just said?

That just happened.

Unions were part of the problem in the depression, just as Unions were part of the problem in the 2008 crash.

Did you miss that GM and Chrysler filed bankruptcy, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost?

Did you miss that Honda and Toyota did not file bankruptcy, and both were in fact expanding during the crash?

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler. The reason the US only has the Big Two auto companies now, and Chrysler is a foreign owned company, by Fiat, is because of Unions.

You want to know why we're losing to imports and foreign companies, this is it right here.

That's it. Right there. Unions are the cause of our problems. You want to ruin America further? Promote unions.

Increasing the wages is good for the employees, only until they are laid off, and the company closes, and the entire country is worse off.

Oh horse shit. Was it union members that designed shitty cars that people didn't want to buy?

Who held the gun to the head of the companies executives to approve the contracts given to union members?

Why are you all for a declining standard of living in the USA? You do realize that it was BECAUSE of unions that YOUR (maybe grandparents) parents enjoyed the standard of living they shared with you.

The reason unions can/has been harmed in this country is BECAUSE there are no unions in the countries that are receiving our manufacturing jobs. Once the workers of those countries get tired of being exploited, a union will emerge. And wages will go up and the benefit of moving those jobs overseas will diminish. Notice we don't send jobs to Germany.

But again, unions negotiate the best in wages and benefits for their workers. Just like they are supposed to do. What is the problem? Rising wages for union members lifts all boats.
Trickle up is what they call it.

Noticed you don't have a problem when a CEO goes to his friends on the Board of Directors and get himself and his cronies multi million dollar raises and bonuses.

Why is that? You think the working man is beneath you or something. Shouldn't be able to do the best they can for family. Or do you just worship real rich people?

GM was the number one in US auto sales during that time.

This idea that GM was building cars no one wanted to buy, is nothing but mythology and excuse making.

They were the NUMBER ONE auto manufacturer in the US. The reason they were not profitable is because their labor costs due to Unions was too high.

The unions often force companies to agree to terms they otherwise would not. Why do you think the Hostess plant was forced into bankruptcy by the Unions, and then reopened as a non-union plant? Same exact deal.

Why are you all for a declining standard of living in the USA? You do realize that it was BECAUSE of unions that YOUR (maybe grandparents) parents enjoyed the standard of living they shared with you.

You are the one pushing for a declining standard of living for the USA. Compare the thousands of workers laid off from GM and Chrysler, to the thousands not laid off by Honda and Toyota.

Don't tell me you support a highers standard of living, when you ruin the lives of the people your ideology destroys.

The reason unions can/has been harmed in this country is BECAUSE there are no unions in the countries that are receiving our manufacturing jobs. Once the workers of those countries get tired of being exploited, a union will emerge. And wages will go up and the benefit of moving those jobs overseas will diminish. Notice we don't send jobs to Germany.

No, the reason unions have been harmed is that people are tired of paying into unions, pushing bad deals that wipe out their own jobs. I can point to hundreds of examples. Steel companies closing down, and moving to Japan, because the cost of labor was too high domestically, and the Japanese Unions didn't ruin their companies.

Even today, I can point to Steel companies shut down, bankrupted, and reopened as non-Union shops.

In fact, even the new GM, isn't going the Union route because of what happened. They know who screwed over the original GM.
GM?s Battery Plant Opens Non-Union | Labor Notes

New battery plant? Not union. Forget them. New trucking contract to haul new cars? Not Union. Screw those bastards.

Unions ruined GM and Chrysler, and Germany knows that. Yeah, we didn't send jobs to Germany, because...

UAW Not Welcome In The South | The Truth About Cars

The Germans are building cars in the US, and telling the unions to screw off.

A little later after the life and death announcement, the UAW revealed that it had targeted Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, and had meetings with the German metal workers union in order to drum up support. Those meetings were not highly successful. Soon thereafter, Bernd Osterloh, head of Volkswagen’s works council who represents labor of VW’s supervisory board, told Reuters he would not actively promote efforts by the United Auto Workers to broaden its membership in Chattanooga.

Why why??? The German Union, met with the American Union, and the German Union said they didn't support them.

Why???!? It's real simple. German Unions are not 'anti-corporate'. German Unions are not worried about "CEO goes to his friends on the Board of Directors and get himself and his cronies multi million dollar raises and bonuses" and all that greed and envy crap.

The reason is really simple. German Union are PRO-CORPORATION. They *WANT* their company to succeed. They don't have this "us verses them" socialistic crap going on. They know that when the company is profitable and growing, this benefits all the workers, just as much as giving them a raise does.

American Unions try to kill their companies. Ford in 2006 went to the Unions and demanded concession, or they would declare bankruptcy.

The Unions agreed. That is the only reason Ford didn't declare bankruptcy in 2009.

GM and Chrysler, went to the Unions and asked for the same concessions they gave Ford. The Unions refused because they had Obama in the white house, and knew he'd intervene on their behalf, which he did.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Thousands of workers lost their jobs. But the Union leadership was given a massive stake in the bankruptcies. Fat cat Union bosses = win. Workers = unemployment. GM bankrupt. Chrysler bankrupt and now foreign owned.

And you want to tell me that Unions benefit their members? Bull crap. Facts out weight your fiction.

 

[Andylusion]

The difficulty with not looking into an entire problem is to so blithely dismiss who or what was the problem with the product.
The design and the purchasing of elements that make the product are inferior and the product itself breaks down, to many want to blame the worker.
Are workers 100% infallible. of course not, however, to many on the top end of a company/corporation always elude scrutiny.

There was no problem with the products, as I pointed out in the prior post. GM was, and I think still is, the top US manufacturer.

There is no way to blame management for the problem, when they were out selling every other manufacturer in the US. If you are selling more product than anyone else, and yet losing money, the problem isn't bad products or lack of sales, or anything else.

The by definition, must be costs are too high, and the number one cost is labor. And as I have already proven, the fact is GM and Chrysler were paying a far greater amount in Union costs, than Toyota or Honda.

As far as inferior quality, that doesn't change the fact they were the top selling manufacturer. So apparently lower quality wasn't a factor since the largest portion of the market was to them.

But let's even say it was an issue. The amount of money customer is willing to pay is dependent on the relative value in the market for that class of vehicle.... correct? If GM makes a car extremely similar to a Honda Accord, you are not going to get people to pay $30K when the Honda Accord is $22K.... right?

So the amount that customers would be willing to pay, is going to be similar.

Yet according to the labor costs, GM was paying almost double the labor costs of Honda. So where does that extra money come from? They can't increase price, and the Union contract means they can't cut labor costs..... where does that money come from then? What makes up the difference?

Cut in quality. Lower cost material has to make up the difference.

 

[Andylusion]

This really has to do with where in the country, state, city(town) and county in which one lives.
If profits are up with a corporation, and I am only talking about corporations, do the workers not deserve a better pay. Or do you think it should always only go to the stock holders?

Here's the problem with that.

First off, the money doesn't all go to the stock holders. Some does, yes. But you seem to miss the fact that those stock holders are the reason those jobs exist.

GM sells a bunch of stock, and uses the money to open a new plant.

The new plant is successful, and thus profits increase. Some of the money has to go to the stock holders.... if it doesn't.... the stocks holders will sue.

If a company says "yes we're going to sell stock, and not pay any dividends", no one would buy the stock. If no one buys the stock, then there is no money for a new plant, thus no new plant is built, thus no one is employed.

Would those employees be better off with no job at all, earning nothing, so long as stock holders don't get a dividend?

And by the way... who are the stock holders? *WE* are the stock holders. If you have a 401K, chances are you are the stock holders. My grandmother was a stock holder in GE, and AT&T.

Saying stock holders shouldn't get a share in the profits, is the same as saying retirees should be impoverished. Most of the stock holders are these people. Instead of complaining about how the system works, open your own IRA, like I have, and buy some stock mutual funds. Own yourself some company dude!

Most of these jobs exist because of the stock system. Complaining that some of the profits go to stock holders, when without those stock holders those jobs would not exist.... is dumb.

SECOND....

No one deserves anything. You are not owed anything by your mere existence. No one is. Sucking air.... does not entitle you to anything but life, liberty and your own property.

Why people think "I 'deserve' this", is crap.

You earn what you get. If you agree to terms of employment, you earn what the terms of your employment say you do.

If you want to change those terms, you do what the rest of us do.... change the terms or leave and find someone else offering different terms.

I was working for a company in 2012, and realized that under my contract I earned a total of $12K for the year in profits. The solution was to leave, and find better terms. That's what I did.

THIRD....

People get this wacky idea that if the corporation makes X profit, that means they can give huge wage increases.

Not true. Take Walmart, or McDonald's. Every individual store operates as a separate business. It doesn't matter how much WalMart Corporate makes, or McDonald's corporate makes. Your individual store operates as a stand alone store. That store, has to make or break, on its own.

Even Corporately owned stores, are operated as separate businesses.

What that means is, even if McDonald's had $900 trillion in profits, if YOUR STORE.... does not have the money to give you a raise, then it can't.

This is why if you look at the classified ads, you'll find one store in one place, offering $10/hr to start, and another of the exact same store, in a different location, starting off at minimum wage. That store offering the higher starting pay, is doing so because they have more money to offer higher wages.

Same McDonald's corporate, and vastly different wage rates. Because it's the individual store that has to make their own budget.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Andylusion]

That's totally not true.

That's all there is too it. You don't know anything about what you are saying.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's totally not true.

That's all there is too it. You don't know anything about what you are saying.

Did you notice that my graphics include references, documentation?

Your opinion is just that and you're welcome to it.

 

[Crystalclear]

Businesses and Republicans are being really ignorant. As a big company which earns a lot of money it isn't that much of a problem to pay employees 3 dollars or something more per hour to give them a better life.

 

[Andylusion]

That's totally not true.

That's all there is too it. You don't know anything about what you are saying.

Did you notice that my graphics include references, documentation?

Your opinion is just that and you're welcome to it.

No, your picts refer to crap references. I've seen that garbage before, it's been disproved many many times. It gets a little old, when every five minutes someone comes up with more crap links to bad research. Seriously.... gah... people are so ignorant, that every single article that comes up, if it supports what you already want to believe, you don't even fact check. You just assume it's true, and everyone else is suppose to take it at face value, because you posted a cheese pict with a reference.

You people are all the same.

 

[Andylusion]

Alright... let's go over this bull again.

First off, the methods they used to get this information are not readily available. That alone is a problem. Why are they hiding the raw data.

BS#1. They say that the average shopper only spends $1,200 a year. Bull. I spend $50 a week on average, and I'm a single guy who lives alone. I'm double that number easy.

You tell me that a family of 4, buys only $1,200 a year, you are XXXX.

BS#2. They claim that much of the increase labor cost would be absorbed through lower profit margins. Do any of you know what Walmarts profit margin is?
WMT Key Statistics | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance

THREE PERCENT. For those of you who are leftists, that means they make a whooping three freakin pennies.... 3¢ for every dollar of goods sold.

And you think they are going to just cut that down to what? 1 penny? No. Fail. Wrong sorry.

Now to be fair they did say they might increase productivity. Yeah, they might, but cutting labor. Replacing more cashiers with self scanners. Now those people are earning zero. Great improvement. That will most certainly aid poor people by making them unemployed, replaced by self scanners.

BS#3. The research moronically assumes that employment will remain the same. That's never true. I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s, when Clinton passed the minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $5.25. The very first thing that happened was we fired all the part time employees.

Even at fast food joints, the only people that are paid minimum wage are part time employees. You pay the full time people more... obviously because full time is more valuable to the store, than a part time person. If you have to pay both exactly the same, guess what you do.... you fire the part time people.

BS#4. The research idiotically claims that ONLY the wages of those earning less than $12 an hour, will be affected by the new minimum wage.

This is particularly annoying to me, because anyone with half of a functional brain cell, could figure out this isn't true.

When I was at Wendy's the base pay for a full time employee was 50¢ over minimum, which as I said was for part-time employees. The cashiers earned a 50¢ more than that. The shift manager, was $1 over that. The assistant manager was up near $2 over that.

If you raise the minimum wage to $12..... do you think that my shift manager is going to do her job, for the exact same pay as me, a burger flipper? Or the assistant manager the same as the shift manager? Or the store manager is going to work for just a few dollars more an hour than the assistant manager?

SERIOUSLY? You call this intellectually sound research? Did you even look at the research?

Bumping up the minimum wage is going to bump up wages across nearly all of the store level positions... as anyone who doesn't have their head shoved so far up their ideology should be able to figure out.

It did at Wendy's when the minimum wage went up to $5.25 Everyone got a raise, which is why the prices on everything went up.

Cashiers are not going to work for the same amount the shopping cart return people are. Shift managers are not going to work for the same amount as cashiers. Assistant managers are not going to work for the same amount as shift managers. Wages across positions will be forced to rise with the minimum wage.

BS#5. Even their own numbers don't add up everything. The total wages costs listed on page 4, lists $3.2 Billion dollars in additional wages. That calculation is based on the claim that those earning $9, increased to $12, would result in an additional cost of $6,500.

Which logically, $3 an hour, times 40, time 52 weeks, would be about $6,500 a year.

Hello.... did you miss the taxes? 7.4% Social Security alone, will add an additional $500. Multiply $3.2 Billion by the 7.65% employer side tax, is another $244 Million dollars. Where was that in the calculation?

What about vacation pay? You realize that when you give a huge pay increase, that also increases the cost of that two weeks vacation?

What about unemployment compensation? You realize that when people are paid more, the company has to pay more into most states unemployment compensation system?

Where were all of those calculations into how much it would cost the customer? Oh right, we're dumb as hell ideology driven idiots, that ignore anything that doesn't fit with our "it will only cost customers 41¢" bull crap.

That's all this research is. Total and complete crap, designed to dupe people they knew would never look up the research with a critical eye, or ability for independent thought.

Sorry for getting snippy, but it's getting really old pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who can think. No one thinks anymore. You just see some dumb paper somewhere and "derp derp it mus be true! It come from smrt people!". THINK PEOPLE. Gah.... Common sense is so rare these days it's like a super power.

 

[gnarlylove]

You people are all the same.

You think this claim is justified? Who are "you people?"

What you people seems to refer to are those with whom you don't respect. It makes debate a lot easier when you ostracize. By setting up this mental compartmentalization of "us V them" you easily pick out those with whom you disagree, label them as you people, thereby effectively removing them from acceptable political discourse as defined by you. You do realize that the American media spectrum is about the most narrow spectrum of thought designed to dupe. There is lively debate within the tiny spectrum of thought and this deceives people into believing when they hear any alternative they can label it "radical" as in "you people" and therefore place them outside acceptable discourse.

This "othering" as it's called in sociology, makes it a lot easier to appear to be speaking truth since you don't have to formulate defensible arguments. Your tactics are obvious and you have a feigned interest in rational argument so you can spread your egotistical views and be a junkie for capitalism--it feeds your desire to own more. You aren't here to engage in true argument because your tactic of othering is the precise method of how you skirt rational argument and dismiss ideas based on the fact they don't align with yours! What a load!