The Collapsing American Middle Class

[The Rabbi]

Dunce. Name one monopoly today.

Walmart.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Sure it is. Walmart sets the price they sell for, they buy for, how they stock, procure, receive shipments, how the product is packaged, etc. In other words, if you want to sell your product at Walmart, Walmart will dictate how to run your business to do that.

Walmart is a retail company. Amazon is virtual. Apples and Oranges.

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.
Have you actually worked anyplace?

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.

Not if you sell to Walmart.

Have you actually worked anyplace?

My last job as an employee was the United States Coast Guard (1975-77). Since that time I've been the owner of the company.

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

 

[The Rabbi]

Dunce. Name one monopoly today.

Walmart.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

A monopoly is a market situation in which a single supplier makes an entire industry for a good or service.

Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world. If you want to sell at Walmart, Walmart will dictate everything, INCLUDING how much they will pay you for your product. Monopoly.

WalMart is not a single supplier.
Congratulations. You have just disproven your own post.

WalMart is not a single supplier.

Learn how to read: 'Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world.'

WalMart is not a supplier of retail company. WalMart is a retail company.
Didnt they teach you anything in your masters in business program?

 

[The Rabbi]

How did you do that without knowing even the most basic concepts in business. Trust fund baby?

How did you do that without knowing even the most basic concepts in business. Trust fund baby?

Which basic concept do I not know?

You've demonstrated zero knowledge of basic business concepts in any discussions we've had. You just parrot the ignorant bigotry of leftist lawyers while you claim you know that because of your success at business which you know nothing about

You've demonstrated zero knowledge of basic business concepts in any discussions we've had. You just parrot the ignorant bigotry of leftist lawyers while you claim you know that because of your success at business which you know nothing about

Again, which basic concept do I not know? No bloviating this time.

Well, Wal-Mart being a monopoly for one. Another is you know nothing about hiring people. You don't know that if you can hire someone for $5 an hour they can't get a better job but you can get a better employee for $10 an hour. You don't know that cheaper prices allow consumers to buy more with the money they have. You don't know shit about any business

Well, Wal-Mart being a monopoly for one. Another is you know nothing about hiring people. You don't know that if you can hire someone for $5 an hour they can't get a better job but you can get a better employee for $10 an hour. You don't know that cheaper prices allow consumers to buy more with the money they have. You don't know shit about any business

I've proven my point about monopolies.

I consistently hire good employees away from my competitors, which is why I have less and less competition.

Does Walmart actually have cheaper prices? Remember, Walmart dictates packaging. I think Target has lower prices.

The only poihnt you've proven is you don't know the first thing of what "monopoly" means. Which is consistent with your other posts. You would have more credibility claiming to be a lawyer, like Jillian.

 

[The Rabbi]

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

A monopoly is a market situation in which a single supplier makes an entire industry for a good or service.

Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world. If you want to sell at Walmart, Walmart will dictate everything, INCLUDING how much they will pay you for your product. Monopoly.

WalMart is not a single supplier.
Congratulations. You have just disproven your own post.

WalMart is not a single supplier.

Learn how to read: 'Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world.'

Exactly, which is not what a "monopoly" is. By your definition every industry would be a monopoly since every one has a largest player

Exactly, which is not what a "monopoly" is. By your definition every industry would be a monopoly since every one has a largest player

Name an industry and the largest player that work the same as Walmart who dictates EVERY aspect.

Airospace Boeing.
Software. Microsoft.
Both of them dictate to their suppliers the exact same way WalMart does and price to the customers the exact same way.

 

[Divine Wind]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Just to head this deflection off; this is due to the leadership of BOTH parties being bought by the corporate crony network.

This is not a slam on Dems alone, but all the bastards that undermine our lives and economic future in DC by carrying corporate water for them.

The Bruised and Battered Middle Class

Likewise, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have the 10 areas with the highest share of lower-income earners. With the exception of New Mexico, all those states have favored either Republicans or Democrats in four straight presidential elections.

The metro regions with the highest percentage of middle-income households, though, are disproportionately located in swing states or states that the Trump campaign believes are ripe for the New York billionaire's economic message. Pennsylvania and Ohio each have one, and Wisconsin alone has four.

"That tells me the trends described in this report are going to benefit the more populist candidates," said Alan Tonelson, an economic policy analyst who is critical of U.S. trade policy. "That seems to me to translate into good news for Trump … [Clinton] doesn't have very deep roots as a trade policy critic."

I think we all know who to blame......

 

[OnePercenter]

Dunce. Name one monopoly today.

Walmart.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Sure it is. Walmart sets the price they sell for, they buy for, how they stock, procure, receive shipments, how the product is packaged, etc. In other words, if you want to sell your product at Walmart, Walmart will dictate how to run your business to do that.

Walmart is a retail company. Amazon is virtual. Apples and Oranges.

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.
Have you actually worked anyplace?

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.

Not if you sell to Walmart.

Have you actually worked anyplace?

My last job as an employee was the United States Coast Guard (1975-77). Since that time I've been the owner of the company.

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Walmart is the largest retailer in the world, far bigger than number two. If you want to sell your product at Walmart, they will tell you how much they will pay for it, the size of the product package, how it is to be delivered, and the stock number. If you don't sell at Walmart, you're screwed.

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

 

[initforme]

Walmart jobs ate not real jobs.....

 

[OnePercenter]

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

A monopoly is a market situation in which a single supplier makes an entire industry for a good or service.

Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world. If you want to sell at Walmart, Walmart will dictate everything, INCLUDING how much they will pay you for your product. Monopoly.

WalMart is not a single supplier.
Congratulations. You have just disproven your own post.

WalMart is not a single supplier.

Learn how to read: 'Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world.'

WalMart is not a supplier of retail company. WalMart is a retail company.
Didnt they teach you anything in your masters in business program?

WalMart is not a supplier of retail company. WalMart is a retail company.
Didnt they teach you anything in your masters in business program?

Walmart doesn't supply retail products for it's customers?

 

[OnePercenter]

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

A monopoly is a market situation in which a single supplier makes an entire industry for a good or service.

Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world. If you want to sell at Walmart, Walmart will dictate everything, INCLUDING how much they will pay you for your product. Monopoly.

WalMart is not a single supplier.
Congratulations. You have just disproven your own post.

WalMart is not a single supplier.

Learn how to read: 'Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world.'

Exactly, which is not what a "monopoly" is. By your definition every industry would be a monopoly since every one has a largest player

Exactly, which is not what a "monopoly" is. By your definition every industry would be a monopoly since every one has a largest player

Name an industry and the largest player that work the same as Walmart who dictates EVERY aspect.

Airospace Boeing.
Software. Microsoft.
Both of them dictate to their suppliers the exact same way WalMart does and price to the customers the exact same way.

Airospace Boeing.
Software. Microsoft.
Both of them dictate to their suppliers the exact same way WalMart does and price to the customers the exact same way.

You're trying to compare end-users with retail?

 

[OnePercenter]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

 

[francoHFW]

Just to head this deflection off; this is due to the leadership of BOTH parties being bought by the corporate crony network.

This is not a slam on Dems alone, but all the bastards that undermine our lives and economic future in DC by carrying corporate water for them.

The Bruised and Battered Middle Class

Likewise, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have the 10 areas with the highest share of lower-income earners. With the exception of New Mexico, all those states have favored either Republicans or Democrats in four straight presidential elections.

The metro regions with the highest percentage of middle-income households, though, are disproportionately located in swing states or states that the Trump campaign believes are ripe for the New York billionaire's economic message. Pennsylvania and Ohio each have one, and Wisconsin alone has four.

"That tells me the trends described in this report are going to benefit the more populist candidates," said Alan Tonelson, an economic policy analyst who is critical of U.S. trade policy. "That seems to me to translate into good news for Trump … [Clinton] doesn't have very deep roots as a trade policy critic."

I think we all know who to blame......

The collapse has been going on since Reaganist tax rates and policies (big payroll tax hike). Don't be so gd dumb.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[initforme]

Workers have never worked so hard as they do today. Facts are facts.

 

[Divine Wind]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

 

[initforme]

Well in capitalism its all about money first....that's what capitalism is all about. Morals CANNOT be a part of it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Well in capitalism its all about money first....that's what capitalism is all about. Morals CANNOT be a part of it.

A bit extreme. Yes, capitalism is about making money but not everyone is willing to poison babies with snake oil in order to make a profit. That's why morals are a part of it since capitalism, like any other tool, is operated by human beings.

 

[initforme]

Morals and capitalism cannot go together since it is based upon the conflict that exists between employer and worker. This conflict is what drives capitalism

 

[Dragonlady]

Well in capitalism its all about money first....that's what capitalism is all about. Morals CANNOT be a part of it.

A bit extreme. Yes, capitalism is about making money but not everyone is willing to poison babies with snake oil in order to make a profit. That's why morals are a part of it since capitalism, like any other tool, is operated by human beings.

Not extreme at all. Corporations have no morals because people have morals and corporations are not people.

As for corporations poisoning babies, there are laws against that, and even then, it hasn't stopped them. From Love Canal to Flint Michigan, to the chemical leaks in Virginia a couple of years ago, corporations have been shown to be all to willing to poison babies, in violation of those laws.

OTOH, corporations who are willing to use government programs to supplement the wages of their workers aren't doing anything illegal, but it sure as hell is immoral. Paying low wages and encouraging employees to get government assistance, which many highly profitable companies do, may not be illegal, but it sure is immoral.

 

[OnePercenter]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said **** YOU to government employees and the flying public.

 

[Divine Wind]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said **** YOU to government employees and the flying public.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.