Do you support unions?

[Grumblenuts]

Some companies are paying above the MW, because it is expensive and difficult nowadays to find good employees and keep them. So, it's not like that many employees are being screwed or exploited.

 

[task0778]

So it doesn't prevent them from buying products produced domestically at a lower cost than the tariffed-applied products?

Of course not. Let's say you can buy a foreign product X at $10, pre-tariff. But the same domestically produced product costs $15, guess which one most consumers will purchase. So, at the behest of the US companies that produce that product, the gov't slaps a tariff on foreign product X and now it costs $16. Who got screwed? The consumers has to pay $16 instead of $10, and that ain't good for them, right? Their dollars don't go as far as they once did, right?

But wait, the story ain't over yet. The foreign countries that produce product X are pissed cuz now the Americans are not buying their product as much if at all, so what do they do? They slap a tariff on another US produced product Y or commodity Y, and that hurts the businesses that produce Y. So while the US companies that produce product X are dancing in the streets cuz now they're making more money, but the US companies that produce Y are screwed.

So let's see, the company Xs are happy as hell but everybody else got screwed. How is that a good thing?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course not. Let's say you can buy a foreign product X at $10, pre-tariff. But the same domestically produced product costs $15, guess which one most consumers will purchase. So, at the behest of the US companies that produce that product, the gov't slaps a tariff on foreign product X and now it costs $16. Who got screwed? The consumers has to pay $16 instead of $10, and that ain't good for them, right? Their dollars don't go as far as they once did, right?

But wait, the story ain't over yet. The foreign countries that produce product X are pissed cuz now the Americans are not buying their product as much if at all, so what do they do? They slap a tariff on another US produced product Y or commodity Y, and that hurts the businesses that produce Y. So while the US companies that produce product X are dancing in the streets cuz now they're making more money, but the US companies that produce Y are screwed.

So let's see, the company Xs are happy as hell but everybody else got screwed. How is that a good thing?

Total and complete fabrication. Tariffs are designed to equalize the costs of products not to just increase the price. If they don't cause consumers to seek domestic producers, they would be totally ineffective.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Three Lowest State Minimum Wages:

Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee — have no minimum wage at all. Two others — Georgia and Wyoming — still have their minimum wages set at $5.15 an hour.

In 20 States, the Bottom Is Still $7.25​

Three Highest State Minimum Wages:

• Maryland: The minimum wage will increase from its current $12.50 to $13.25 on Jan. 1, 2023.
• New Jersey: The minimum wage will increase from its current $13 to $14 on Jan. 1, 2023.
• Connecticut: The minimum wage will increase from its current $14 to $15 on Jan. 1, 2023.

 

[jc456]

So it doesn't prevent them from buying products produced domestically at a lower cost than the tariffed-applied products?

Finally, someone gets it

 

[jc456]

So, at the behest of the US companies that produce that product, the gov't slaps a tariff on foreign product X and now it costs $16. Who got screwed

The foreign company!

 

[jc456]

Total and complete fabrication. Tariffs are designed to equalize the costs of products not to just increase the price. If they don't cause consumers to seek domestic producers, they would be totally ineffective.

Only ignorance can miss the chip issue we all just experienced!

 

[task0778]

Total and complete fabrication. Tariffs are designed to equalize the costs of products not to just increase the price. If they don't cause consumers to seek domestic producers, they would be totally ineffective.

I do not understand how anyone cannot realize that when you slap a tariff on a product it is for all intents and purposes a TAX that is added to the cost of the foreign product and is reflected in a higher price point for the product. Raising the cost of anything increases the price, how is that not obvious?

 

[Markle]

 

[jc456]

I do not understand how anyone cannot realize that when you slap a tariff on a product it is for all intents and purposes a TAX that is added to the cost of the foreign product and is reflected in a higher price point for the product. Raising the cost of anything increases the price, how is that not obvious?

You are ignorant

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The foreign company!

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. When GW put a tariff on imported steel, China slapped a tariff on US products and forced GW to remove ours.

 

[jc456]

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. When GW put a tariff on imported steel, China slapped a tariff on US products and forced GW to remove ours.

It’s that way. Doesn’t change anything

 

[task0778]

You are ignorant

What a coincidence. Was it too hard to stick to the substantive debate?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Will Smith tried to Uncle Tom Chris Rock like that. Will Smith also just ended up looking like an idiot.

 

[Rumpole]

These days there are not many exploitative employers, and their businesses fail a lot more often than otherwise. The woke crowd will be on your ass in a heartbeat.

I disagree. A retired friend of mind drove or Uber, was exploited, got a hold of one of the executives via linked in, and she told him that the pay policy was 'as little as the drivers would accept'. He signed on as party to two class action suits over compensation issues, and a couple of years later got a total of $27,000 as his share of damages. I do not know what the particulars are, but I suspect the lady's statement of her policy didn't help their lawsuit. Anyway, in CA it resulted in Prop 22, which now compensates drives for their health insurance expense (makes a big contribution if it's not medicare or another employee plan) and adds a 30cent per mile fee, both of which they did not do prior to the proposition. Who knows how many other corporations exploit? They are out there, no doubt.

And whose fault is that? You're bitching about some people complaining about the hole they're in that they dug themselves.

People in their employment have a reasonable expectation to not be exploited, or forced to be put into a position where they only way they can get a pay raise is to quit. Your attitude stems from a neoliberal/libertarian pro-corporation exploitation policy point ov view which, in a civilized society, does not belong.

Wages and salaries are going up but people still don't want to work. Your experience and opinion has value, but let's not conflate that with the macroeconomy in general.

Inflation has one ultimate cause, federal reserve monetary policy (quantitative easing, and it's siblings, mostly) where the money supply increases at a rate faster than GDP can absorb the increase resulting in a scenario where too many dollars are chasing too few goods and services. Without that underlying cause, all that remains are temporal ups and downs caused by supply/demand and supply chain logistics, which aren't enough, normally, to result in a long term rising trend. The rising trend is what inflation is, and that is a monetary phenomenon. True, physical issues can last a long time, but it doesn't change the principle.

I do not believe that is true. Unions are NOT legally required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit. They do it anyway, but the last I checked they don't have to.

That was my recollection, subject to confirmation.

I dunno about job security, some unions have bargained themselves out of everybody's job in some places.

Unions, make mistakes, of course, but it doesn't change the principle of unionism being a worthy thing.

The company relocated their operations at least in part somewhere else where the cost of labor was not as prohibitive.

A company can relocate, of course, but I favor legislation to disallow shipping jobs overseas, unless the foreign operation is selling to markets in the foreign location. If it becomes critical for a company to survive (due to foreign competition), I favor legislation for the creation of a process of some kind to apply for the gov to create a tariff to protect a specific industry (but only on retail manufactured products, tariffs on raw materials hurt everyone).

Potential drawbacks too. I.E., your business closes or relocates. Again, I do not believe that unions are legally obligated to represent every employee even if they are not a union member. IMHO, times have changed from what they were 50 to 100 years ago. We now have tons of laws and regulations concerning employee health and safety, and in some places minimum wage laws are in effect. Some companies are paying above the MW, because it is expensive and difficult nowadays to find good employees and keep them. So, it's not like that many employees are being screwed or exploited.

Well, I haven't had a union job in 50 years, so, my experience and knowledge is subject to confirmation. I think more corporations are exploiting workers more than you might believe. Just an inclination. Not long ago, Walmart had a food drive for it's employees, because the employees (Canton, Ohio, I believe it was) couldn't afford food. Now, if employees aren't being paid enough and they apply for food stamps, the taxpayer funds paid to those food stamps are, in essence, welfare for the corporation, who should have been paying them enough to eat in the first place.

 

[jc456]

What a coincidence. Was it too hard to stick to the substantive debate?

You left the argument! You don’t remember the chip shortages supply shortages. Stay ignorant

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Only ignorance can miss the chip issue we all just experienced!

Biden passed a law financing companies to produce more chips. That has nothing to do with tariffs or unions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I disagree. A retired friend of mind drove or Uber, was exploited, got a hold of one of the executives via linked in, and she told him that the pay policy was 'as little as the drivers would accept'. He signed on as party to two class action suits over compensation issues, and a couple of years later got a total of $27,000 as his share of damages. I do not know what the particulars are, but I suspect the lady's statement of her policy didn't help their lawsuit. Anyway, in CA it resulted in Prop 22, which now compensates drives for their health insurance expense (makes a big contribution if it's not medicare or another employee plan) and adds a 30cent per mile fee, both of which they did not do prior to the proposition. Who knows how many other corporations exploit? They are out there, no doubt.

People in their employment have a reasonable expectation to not be exploited, or forced to be put into a position where they only way they can get a pay raise is to quit. Your attitude stems from a neoliberal/libertarian pro-corporation exploitation policy point ov view which, in a civilized society, does not belong.

Inflation has one ultimate cause, federal reserve monetary policy (quantitative easing, and it's siblings, mostly) where the money supply increases at a rate faster than GDP can absorb the increase resulting in a scenario where too many dollars are chasing too few goods and services. Without that underlying cause, all that remains are temporal ups and downs caused by supply/demand and supply chain logistics, which aren't enough, normally, to result in a long term rising trend. The rising trend is what inflation is, and that is a monetary phenomenon. True, physical issues can last a long time, but it doesn't change the principle.

That was my recollection, subject to confirmation.

Unions, make mistakes, of course, but it doesn't change the principle of unionism being a worthy thing.

A company can relocate, of course, but I favor legislation to disallow shipping jobs overseas, unless the foreign operation is selling to markets in the foreign location. If it becomes critical for a company to survive (due to foreign competition), I favor legislation for the creation of a process of some kind to apply for the gov to create a tariff to protect a specific industry (but only on retail manufactured products, tariffs on raw materials hurt everyone).


Well, I haven't had a union job in 50 years, so, my experience and knowledge is subject to confirmation. I think more corporations are exploiting workers more than you might believe. Just an inclination. Not long ago, Walmart had a food drive for it's employees, because the employees (Canton, Ohio, I believe it was) couldn't afford food. Now, if employees aren't being paid enough and they apply for food stamps, the taxpayer funds paid to those food stamps are, in essence, welfare for the corporation, who should have been paying them enough to eat in the first place.

Are you so stupid to not know there is no such thing as food stamps anymore? How much should they pay them, $20.00 an hour to fold shirts in the men's department for display?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I do not believe that is true. Unions are NOT legally required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit. They do it anyway, but the last I checked they don't have to.

When did you check?

Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

 

[jc456]

Biden passed a law financing companies to produce more chips. That has nothing to do with tariffs or unions.

No chips were made here then