Poll: Do You Support Extending Unemployment Beyond 99 Weeks?

[Jarhead]

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

there are two sets of signatures on a labor contract. Why would the employers sign if he thought there wasn't profit in it for him? Why blame the worker?

The "free" trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GAT et al) were sold as a way to enlarge American markets. Well, we have become a consumer society rather than the solid producer society we were in the 20th century. Our wages and benefits have fallen. Our jobs have been outsourced.

And the net result? A larger gap between the wealthy and the working class. A massive trade deficit. The loss of skilled labor and the jobs they were employed in. A consolidation of the means of production, distribution and sales. And, yes, the advent of the $50 DVD player.

Consumerism. The opiate of the masses.

Nosmo, you are an intelligent poster on here.

To ignore the likely disater created by a long term strike is irresponsible. Strikes and strike threats strong arm the employers into signing deals that do not make sense. The power of communication technology and the irresponsible use of this technology by advocates for the unions further exasperrates the potential problems of not signing deals that dont make sense.

As for the gap between the business owners/senior executives and the workers, this is only evident in the largest of companies and by no means the norm in the tens of thousands of small and mid sized businesses. Unfortunately, our politicians of today classify all of us small business owners with the few "Madoffs" out there and people like you refuse to see how disingenuous it is.

I have a woman working for me that is making more than I am right now. When times were good, I was making more than her; but as a business owner, I certainly can not decrease her salary even though my profit is nearing zero in this recession.

THAT is how 90% of the country's businesses operate.

But I agree with you in one area. Shipping jobs overseas should not be an option. But then again, benefits and 90% salaries for life after retirement should also not be an option.

 

[Againsheila]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

 

[Jarhead]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

And exactly who will pay for this education and subsequent "non essesntial" job?

 

[uscitizen]

If your complaint is about jobs being shipped overseas, I am 100% in agreement with you.
But, again, they chose to take those positions. The ones who started 10 years ago were well aware that outsourcing and overseas was something companies were doing, but they opted to take that chance. They were lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages. As sad as it is, they lost the gamble.

On the flip side, if you invested all of your time and money to build a company, and then a competative company from overseas moved into your territory and their "lower prices" ran you out of business, how would you feel?

Employees take chances when they opt to accept a job. If it pans out for their career, great for them. If not, it sucks.

Employers also take chances when they opt to open a business. If it pans out, great for them. If not, it sucks.

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

Fair enough on the owners, any employees still owed pay or benefits when the company folds is at the bottom of the heap for collecting anything.
Turn about.

 

[Nosmo King]

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

there are two sets of signatures on a labor contract. Why would the employers sign if he thought there wasn't profit in it for him? Why blame the worker?

The "free" trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GAT et al) were sold as a way to enlarge American markets. Well, we have become a consumer society rather than the solid producer society we were in the 20th century. Our wages and benefits have fallen. Our jobs have been outsourced.

And the net result? A larger gap between the wealthy and the working class. A massive trade deficit. The loss of skilled labor and the jobs they were employed in. A consolidation of the means of production, distribution and sales. And, yes, the advent of the $50 DVD player.

Consumerism. The opiate of the masses.

Nosmo, you are an intelligent poster on here.

To ignore the likely disater created by a long term strike is irresponsible. Strikes and strike threats strong arm the employers into signing deals that do not make sense. The power of communication technology and the irresponsible use of this technology by advocates for the unions further exasperrates the potential problems of not signing deals that dont make sense.

As for the gap between the business owners/senior executives and the workers, this is only evident in the largest of companies and by no means the norm in the tens of thousands of small and mid sized businesses. Unfortunately, our politicians of today classify all of us small business owners with the few "Madoffs" out there and people like you refuse to see how disingenuous it is.

I have a woman working for me that is making more than I am right now. When times were good, I was making more than her; but as a business owner, I certainly can not decrease her salary even though my profit is nearing zero in this recession.

THAT is how 90% of the country's businesses operate.

But I agree with you in one area. Shipping jobs overseas should not be an option. But then again, benefits and 90% salaries for life after retirement should also not be an option.

No one likes the strike. Least of all the rank and file worker. But, you have to agree that the strike is the only arrow in the quiver of labor. Employers can go the lock out route, hire scab labor or just shut down operations and move to a place labor is cheap and gullible and open to exploitation.

And that gap between the workers and the owners isn't confined to the largest companies. Production went up, hours worked increased, yet wages remained flat and benefits were reduced.

My family business is a small print shop. There are only two employees now. It's not really susceptible to the grand sweeping market forces that affected the steel industry, however technology has reduced the work force. But my brother (the owner/operator) still found ways to pay a decent wage and provide a modestly generous benefit package.

And if benefits can't extend to the retired, the political winds blow counter to any safety net for the retired and the free market volatility wipes away any personal gains the retired may have set aside, are we as a society merely supposed to shrug our collective shoulders and mutter "too bad. at least I've got mine!"?


p.s. I've really enjoyed this debate this afternoon with you, jarhead. You are a worthy adversary.

 

[KissMy]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

Why not just give them a job (even if it's just picking litter up off the street) so they can pay their own way through school like the rest of us do.

 

[uscitizen]

"But then again, benefits and 90% salaries for life after retirement should also not be an option."

Basically only a very few union jobs offer this now. Most govt positions come the closest to offering those kind of benefits.
It is a gross overstatement that this any longer has anything to do with corporate issues in the USA.

Very very few workers EVER got the benefits you outline.

 

[Jarhead]

"But then again, benefits and 90% salaries for life after retirement should also not be an option."

Basically only a very few union jobs offer this now. Most govt positions come the closest to offering those kind of benefits.
It is a gross overstatement that this any longer has anything to do with corporate issues in the USA.

Very very few workers EVER got the benefits you outline.

Yes, I know.
I did what I hate when others do it.

 

[Jarhead]

there are two sets of signatures on a labor contract. Why would the employers sign if he thought there wasn't profit in it for him? Why blame the worker?

The "free" trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GAT et al) were sold as a way to enlarge American markets. Well, we have become a consumer society rather than the solid producer society we were in the 20th century. Our wages and benefits have fallen. Our jobs have been outsourced.

And the net result? A larger gap between the wealthy and the working class. A massive trade deficit. The loss of skilled labor and the jobs they were employed in. A consolidation of the means of production, distribution and sales. And, yes, the advent of the $50 DVD player.

Consumerism. The opiate of the masses.

Nosmo, you are an intelligent poster on here.

To ignore the likely disater created by a long term strike is irresponsible. Strikes and strike threats strong arm the employers into signing deals that do not make sense. The power of communication technology and the irresponsible use of this technology by advocates for the unions further exasperrates the potential problems of not signing deals that dont make sense.

As for the gap between the business owners/senior executives and the workers, this is only evident in the largest of companies and by no means the norm in the tens of thousands of small and mid sized businesses. Unfortunately, our politicians of today classify all of us small business owners with the few "Madoffs" out there and people like you refuse to see how disingenuous it is.

I have a woman working for me that is making more than I am right now. When times were good, I was making more than her; but as a business owner, I certainly can not decrease her salary even though my profit is nearing zero in this recession.

THAT is how 90% of the country's businesses operate.

But I agree with you in one area. Shipping jobs overseas should not be an option. But then again, benefits and 90% salaries for life after retirement should also not be an option.

No one likes the strike. Least of all the rank and file worker. But, you have to agree that the strike is the only arrow in the quiver of labor. Employers can go the lock out route, hire scab labor or just shut down operations and move to a place labor is cheap and gullible and open to exploitation.

And that gap between the workers and the owners isn't confined to the largest companies. Production went up, hours worked increased, yet wages remained flat and benefits were reduced.

My family business is a small print shop. There are only two employees now. It's not really susceptible to the grand sweeping market forces that affected the steel industry, however technology has reduced the work force. But my brother (the owner/operator) still found ways to pay a decent wage and provide a modestly generous benefit package.

And if benefits can't extend to the retired, the political winds blow counter to any safety net for the retired and the free market volatility wipes away any personal gains the retired may have set aside, are we as a society merely supposed to shrug our collective shoulders and mutter "too bad. at least I've got mine!"?


p.s. I've really enjoyed this debate this afternoon with you, jarhead. You are a worthy adversary.

I too enjoyed the debate.

You know, as a conservative, I say if you respect the constitution, you have to accept the good with the bad that comes from it.

As it pertains to healthcare, I always said I prefer to have to pay taxes to support those that use the ER instead of forcing them to buy a policy.

As it pertains to the topic of this debate, I say you have to take the good with the bad. Yes, it may not work out for you, but the way it is designed, it may proive to be great for you.

Not sure if that makes sense, but I am tired. Had no sleep last night.

Cya tomorrow or Thursday depending on whether or not we get busy here tomorrow.

Always hoping.

 

[Barb]

The burden should be on the employee to make themselves indespensible. They should establish a differential. Work harder. Take initiative. Expand their education in their trade.

If they do not want to go that route, then they should consider becoming an employer and work the long hours at the beginning as they build a business.

If they opt to have less stress and not work above and beyond the norm, then they should be prepared for the worst to happen.

I have a woman working for me who will see me fire me before I fire her. She has proven to be THAT instrumental to my company.

I have another employee who, for the last 3 years, has used every sick day and every personal day our handbook allows. Ironically, all of them always landed on a friday or a monday. But he gives me 100% when he is here. Yet, if I need to lay off, he will be the first to go. He made that choice.

Improving supply does NOTHING to improve demand. Your personal experience with a handful of employees does not address what in some states approaches 20% unemployment.

Huh? WHere does he mention supply and demand? What does that have to do with Obama's 20% unemployment in some states? WHich states have rates that high btw?

Improving the supply of labor (duh?) does nothing to improve the demand for workers.

 

[Dis]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

Seriously? You want to pay people to sit on their ass for LONGER than almost 2 years? These people can get their OWN education if they want it.

Who's going to pay for the shit you propose? The "people"? I'm paying for enough shit that I don't use, and will likely never see.. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Againsheila]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

And exactly who will pay for this education and subsequent "non essesntial" job?

The rest of us, Jarhead. It beats having them and their families on the street.

 

[Againsheila]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

Seriously? You want to pay people to sit on their ass for LONGER than almost 2 years? These people can get their OWN education if they want it.

Who's going to pay for the shit you propose? The "people"? I'm paying for enough shit that I don't use, and will likely never see.. Thanks, but no thanks.

Our government is responsible for the loss of jobs, through allowing in too many immigrants and allowing our jobs to go overseas. Our government needs to make restitution to the people. It's ridiculous to expect the richest country in the world NOT to support it's own people.

 

[Againsheila]

What prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

Everything the companies have given the unions was worked for and agreed upon. In all cases, the employees gave up something for a secure retirement, ie, lower wages currently, no increase or a low increase in wages, etc. Now you think those companies, after getting the work out of the workers shouldn't have to keep up their end of the bargain?

 

[The Rabbi]

Improving supply does NOTHING to improve demand. Your personal experience with a handful of employees does not address what in some states approaches 20% unemployment.

Huh? WHere does he mention supply and demand? What does that have to do with Obama's 20% unemployment in some states? WHich states have rates that high btw?

Improving the supply of labor (duh?) does nothing to improve the demand for workers.

Actually it does. It makes the price for labor go down.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Or are you confusing qualitative improvements in productivity with supply of labor?

 

[The Rabbi]

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

Everything the companies have given the unions was worked for and agreed upon. In all cases, the employees gave up something for a secure retirement, ie, lower wages currently, no increase or a low increase in wages, etc. Now you think those companies, after getting the work out of the workers shouldn't have to keep up their end of the bargain?

Unions accepted a certain package of wages and benefits.
What happens when companies cannot pay those wages and benefits anymore? Two possibilities: THe company closes, throwing all the workers out of work. The company renegotiates its contract, allowing them to continue to employ people, albeit at lower wages and benefits.
Which would you choose? There's no real third choice.

 

[Jarhead]

I voted yes, but what I really think needs to be done is to give these people an education that will get them a job. And if, after getting the education if they can't get a job, we give them one and pay them for it, even if it's just picking litter up off the street or mowing the yards of people who are old or infirmed and can't take care of their own property.

Seriously? You want to pay people to sit on their ass for LONGER than almost 2 years? These people can get their OWN education if they want it.

Who's going to pay for the shit you propose? The "people"? I'm paying for enough shit that I don't use, and will likely never see.. Thanks, but no thanks.

Our government is responsible for the loss of jobs, through allowing in too many immigrants and allowing our jobs to go overseas. Our government needs to make restitution to the people. It's ridiculous to expect the richest country in the world NOT to support it's own people.

SO I assume then, that you are one who believes that it is the government that generates the revenue for unemployment? Exactly how do they do it?

"our government needs to make restitution to the people".

What a pathetic statement.

Likewise, are you one of the naive that does not realize that the employers ALSO must pay for part of those unemployment checks? Those small and midsized companies were not aware that there would be extension after extension, and now, during a recession, they have the extra burden and that very well may cost even MORE people their jobs.....and force MORE companies to go under....resulting in even LESS potential empoloyers down the road.

And the viscious circle continues.

But of course, why would your honest and caring politicians advertise this information?

The lack of knowledge of "debaters" on this board is pathetic.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are the Conservative 'pundits' telling us that businesses don't pay taxes? They explain to us that taxing business results in that business raising prices to cover the expense of those taxes. The sage 'pundits' tell us that taxing business is just a circuitous route to the consumer's pocket.

 

[Jarhead]

Why are the Conservative 'pundits' telling us that businesses don't pay taxes? They explain to us that taxing business results in that business raising prices to cover the expense of those taxes. The sage 'pundits' tell us that taxing business is just a circuitous route to the consumer's pocket.

Taxes are fluctuating operating costs and there are many instances where tax increases result in an increase to the consumer.

When operating costs for an industry as a whole go up, the industry makes the adjustment...as a whole.

It is a factor "pure competition".

You see it in Gas Prices as an example.

Over the years, it was evident in tobacco products.

 

[editec]

I think that I voted yes, under the condition that Congress cut some other social spending program to PAY for this extrension.

Sorry if my yes vote skewed the results.

How about cutting the social spending we're doing in the ASIAN land wars we're currently pissing money away on?

You down with that?