PDA

View Full Version : Union Labor - What it has done for us -



Pages : [1] 2

NapalmEnema
12-12-2008, 15:07
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!

greenman101
12-12-2008, 15:10
Bingo.

Dragor
12-12-2008, 15:11
wtf is unions...we dont have that here!!

Forgin
12-12-2008, 15:12
wtf is unions...we dont have that here!!

It's lazy workers complaining for more moneyz together.

Dragor
12-12-2008, 15:15
It's lazy workers complaining for more moneyz together.

ahhh...we have a diffrent name for those here :lmao:

lordofkarma
12-12-2008, 15:15
in certain places they also drove away companies that have been there for over 50 years (ALCAN in Quebec and others) and prevented new induestry in the 1st and 2nd tier sectors to even bother.

it also prevents people from actually going to school and get a better education and in the end better job because lets face it, you can make a great living at 25-35$/h with your high school diploma.

unions are bad. /thread

NapalmEnema
12-12-2008, 15:16
wtf is unions...we dont have that here!!

That's where all your workers band together for a common goal. Like if they don't get '$10/hour' they all stop working. It's a collaborative effort formed back in the day to combat rife exploitation of workers. Once the basic rights and safety measures were secured for a work environment however, this 'good idea' turned bad. People realized they could leverage unreasonable demands and press companies with unionized labor into unfair contracts.

So now you have ridiculous things like seniority labor rules, which sounds good at first, till you realize that a guy that is hot welding rivets onto the bottom of a car is getting 100k a year just because he's been there 15 years. (the list is endless, but you get the idea)

Unions are fucking shit and completely absurd. Yet they hold all the power at the end of the day. My current company has a guy that JUST deals with Unions throughout the nation which is just fucked up. He's making over 100k just because he can handle the intractable assholes that comprise Union management.

:bang:

Grimness
12-12-2008, 15:17
unions are pretty big up here in Norway, but then our government was basically communist in the 50`s..and a lot of people still vote for the party that started the biggest one, so they are probably going to stay for a while over here.

ChuckDeuce
12-12-2008, 15:20
I have a friend who works at boeing. He got a promotion, and was moving his office (himself) to his new office because he isn't a lazy %$#*. A guy came up to him and asked him what he was doing. After explaining what he was doing, the guy turned around and said, "THATS NOT YOUR JOB". He now has a grievance filed against him because MOVING HIS OFFICE TO ANOTHER OFFICE IS A UNION JOB? Unions have done their jobs, They need to move the fuck on.

holychicken
12-12-2008, 15:20
Some unions are too powerful and do more harm then good at this point, there is no denying that.

However, until all companies stop trying to take advantage of their employees for profit, which will be never, unions have their place.

But believe me, I work with some crappy unions that protect some pretty crappy workers and make my job a living hell. I would love to see them either wise up or get dismantled.

Dragor
12-12-2008, 15:21
thanks god we dont have unions...the workers already fucking around without it lol

Barbarossa
12-12-2008, 15:24
I'm a union steward for UFCW Local 1099.

I have absolutely no faith in my union whatsoever.

When contract negotiation comes, they present us with it and this heartwarming comment, "This is the best contract we've seen in some time".

Problem is, they say that with every contract thats been presented in the past 10 years. Each new contract has less and less for us, the employees and more for the union.

My union also protects the jobs of completely worthless fuckers who had they not been protected by a union would most likely be chronically unemployable.

Hard working individuals, such as myself and others, usually get the shitty end of the stick when we actually need the union to stand up for our rights. A fuck up gets suspended for three weeks, files a grievance and gets not only the pay he missed but gets it at double time to 'make up for losses incurred and make it whole'.

I got suspended for 3 weeks back in July for no reason other than a manager did not care for my opinion on a certain issue regarding the workforce in my department. I got nothing when I filed a grievance but my job back. No back pay, no apology just my job which I am thankful to have recovered.

Yeah, fuck unions...at least fuck unions that are only in it for themselves.

Spinewire
12-12-2008, 15:26
In the VFX industry in the UK they get rid of you if you join a Union.

ChuckDeuce
12-12-2008, 15:28
I'm a union steward for UFCW Local 1099.

I have absolutely no faith in my union whatsoever.

When contract negotiation comes, they present us with it and this heartwarming comment, "This is the best contract we've seen in some time".

Problem is, they say that with every contract thats been presented in the past 10 years. Each new contract has less and less for us, the employees and more for the union.

My union also protects the jobs of completely worthless fuckers who had they not been protected by a union would most likely be chronically unemployable.

Hard working individuals, such as myself and others, usually get the shitty end of the stick when we actually need the union to stand up for our rights. A fuck up gets suspended for three weeks, files a grievance and gets not only the pay he missed but gets it at double time to 'make up for losses incurred and make it whole'.

I got suspended for 3 weeks back in July for no reason other than a manager did not care for my opinion on a certain issue regarding the workforce in my department. I got nothing when I filed a grievance but my job back. No back pay, no apology just my job which I am thankful to have recovered.

Yeah, fuck unions...at least fuck unions that are only in it for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, My girlfriend is an engineer on a pretty substantial power plant construction site, and there are plenty of people that are worth more than their weight in gold. Its all of the examples that I hear about how Unions do things that workers could fucking care less about that has a huge impact on the company they are working for which further polarizes people's views on unions. I have nothing against the workers in a union that do their jobs, its the fucking unions that really piss me off.

Erroneous
12-12-2008, 15:29
The problem isn't unions per se, but the legacy of stupid deals they have worked out. Its the members of the unions that don't understand the merits of more dynamic work contracts and are too reliant on the nepotism and graft that has been created bu union negotiation in the past. That said I don't think you should dissolve all unions and make it illegal to belong in one. In theory allowing workers to unify and present a unified agenda is a valuable thing in many industries.

Barbarossa
12-12-2008, 15:37
On a side note, I personally blame the UAW as a co-conspirator for the Big 3 bailout.

The unions should have been working with these companies to help reduce costs instead of sticking it to the automakers.

I'm sorry but Henry Lee Duffleweener from Dooyersister, Tennessee who can't read, write and has a 4th grade education should not be making 75 dollars an hour making something as sophisticated as an automobile.

Ol' Henry should be cleaning fucking toilets or pushing a fucking broom at the local Dairy Queen.

Sad part of it is, even Dairy Queen won't hire poor ol' Henry because he can't read at a certain educational level...it's funny that a shithole has better hiring standards than the 'unionized' megacorporations do.

Tongue
12-12-2008, 15:38
Though it was for years that union members were begging the US automoblie CEOs to make smaller, cheaper more gas efficient cars ... and were consequently ignored ...and now Japan is kicking ass and taking names. BTW Japan car makers have Union workers just like anyone else, but their companies saw the writing on the wall and didn't bury their heads in the sand. Not saying some US unions don't suck, but they are not the root of the problem

US Unions != the problems with today's US car industry

paade
12-12-2008, 15:51
lol, we had the exact same scene a while ago with big paper companies here, than what you have now with the big 3 car producers. Workers got paid ridiculous amounts of money, and now they are all whining because everyone lost their jobs. All because of unions.

Dhig
12-12-2008, 17:18
Yellow unions. Says it all...

Malakili
12-12-2008, 17:31
Unions have done more for the quality of life in the United States in the last 150 years than almost other group.

Unions helped achieve reasonable working hours and conditions when people had to work 16 hour days in unsafe conditions.

Unions helped achieve reasonable child labor laws so children didn't have to go to work at the age of 6 to work in textile mills because their hands were so small they were ideal for reaching inside the running machines to pull out snares/jams, (often causing them to lose limbs).

If your idea of Unions is just a bunch of people whining because they don't make enough money, they you have absolutely no idea what the history of unionism is in the United States or globally.

You think those protections you enjoy were just handed down by an enlightened owner one day? They were literally fought for and died for by people who considered themselves unionists. So why don't you give a little respect, I'm sure you'd have a lot of time to browse the Darkfall forums if you had to work 16 hours a day.

Modern unions may have gone bad in some cases, but they are still absolutely necessary in my opinion. The government sure as hell doesn't regulate things they way they should, so the workers need some mechanism to control their workplace.

Barbarossa
12-12-2008, 17:36
Unions have done more for the quality of life in the United States in the last 150 years than almost other group.

Unions helped achieve reasonable working hours and conditions when people had to work 16 hour days in unsafe conditions.

Unions helped achieve reasonable child labor laws so children didn't have to go to work at the age of 6 to work in textile mills because their hands were so small they were ideal for reaching inside the running machines to pull out snares/jams, (often causing them to lose limbs).

If your idea of Unions is just a bunch of people whining because they don't make enough money, they you have absolutely no idea what the history of unionism is in the United States or globally.

You think those protections you enjoy were just handed down by an enlightened owner one day? They were literally fought for and died for by people who considered themselves unionists. So why don't you give a little respect, I'm sure you'd have a lot of time to browse the Darkfall forums if you had to work 16 hours a day.


Really?

I suppose you think that professional sports and professional actors/actresses/film industry need unions as well.

Porn stars have a union, can you believe that?

Oh yeah, they're all overworked and underpaid aren't they?

You sir, are clueless.

You're probably a fucking union representative too.

NapalmEnema
12-12-2008, 17:38
Unions have done more for the quality of life in the United States in the last 150 years than almost other group.

Unions helped achieve reasonable working hours and conditions when people had to work 16 hour days in unsafe conditions.

Unions helped achieve reasonable child labor laws so children didn't have to go to work at the age of 6 to work in textile mills because their hands were so small they were ideal for reaching inside the running machines to pull out snares/jams, (often causing them to lose limbs).

If your idea of Unions is just a bunch of people whining because they don't make enough money, they you have absolutely no idea what the history of unionism is in the United States or globally.

You think those protections you enjoy were just handed down by an enlightened owner one day? They were literally fought for and died for by people who considered themselves unionists. So why don't you give a little respect, I'm sure you'd have a lot of time to browse the Darkfall forums if you had to work 16 hours a day.

Modern unions may have gone bad in some cases, but they are still absolutely necessary in my opinion. The government sure as hell doesn't regulate things they way they should, so the workers need some mechanism to control their workplace.

Read thread - THEN POST.

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 17:45
Modern unions may have gone bad in some cases, but they are still absolutely necessary in my opinion. The government sure as hell doesn't regulate things they way they should, so the workers need some mechanism to control their workplace.

Sorry, but all the stuff they fought for now exists in law so they aren't needed anymore other than to extort concessions from the companies they hold by the balls.

Not to mention, read what some union workers have posted. Most of the time, the union looks out for the union, not the worker.

Dhig
12-12-2008, 17:48
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!

How is this the unions fault?
I can understand if they are a corrupt company union.
Other countries doesnt have a union for auto industry only.

If the management speculate that their profitable business with big, fuel consuming cars can go on for a very long time, that isnt the unions fault.
If they had joined the change towards low fuel consuming and alternatives, perhaps it wouldnt be so bad as it is now.
People just dont buy a car that cost so much to own these days.
And people blame the union :bang:

NapalmEnema
12-12-2008, 17:48
Sorry, but all the stuff they fought for now exists in law so they aren't needed anymore other than to extort concessions from the companies they hold by the balls.

Not to mention, read what some union workers have posted. Most of the time, the union looks out for the union, not the worker.

...and Bingo was his name o.

NapalmEnema
12-12-2008, 17:52
How is this the unions fault?
I can understand if they are a corrupt company union.
Other countries doesnt have a union for auto industry only.

If the management speculate that their profitable business with big, fuel consuming cars can go on for a very long time, that isnt the unions fault.
If they had joined the change towards low fuel consuming and alternatives, perhaps it wouldnt be so bad as it is now.
People just dont buy a car that cost so much to own these days.
And people blame the union :bang:

It's the unions fault because how they operate impacts morale which impacts the quality of the product being sent down the line. The best people are not retained, the ones with tenure and union protection are. And by and large they are beligerent half ass workers that take out their frustrations on 'the line'. They are the reason why when I had a Mustang, a Cobra no less, there was BARE FUCKING METAL showing under my drivers door. Why there was fit and finish problems with it, where shit didn't line up etc..

Now fast forward to my new car, a Japanese built Subaru WRX STi. It's fucking IMMACULATE. Every piece lines up perfectly. No squeeks or rattles etc..

Two identically priced cars, with funadmentally similar materials.

The main difference? One was built by someone that had pride in their job and had some honor. The other was built by some union fuckass that tossed his slop together bitching the whole time about 'the union' and how he is 'only allowed three hour breaks for the day'.

Sayin the unions and the culture they create has no impact on build qualities of cars or other services is fucking retarded.

SSguy
12-12-2008, 18:00
I don't like the new corrupt unions that don't do shit......but I like the idea of the corporate assholes being fucked over until they are out of business.

Karma is a bitch.


Read thread - THEN POST.

This is forumfall, why the fuck would his dumbass read a thread thats more than 2 posts long? Seriously.

Dhig
12-12-2008, 18:03
It's the unions fault because how they operate impacts morale which impacts the quality of the product being sent down the line. The best people are not retained, the ones with tenure and union protection are. And by and large they are beligerent half ass workers that take out their frustrations on 'the line'. They are the reason why when I had a Mustang, a Cobra no less, there was BARE FUCKING METAL showing under my drivers door. Why there was fit and finish problems with it, where shit didn't line up etc..

Now fast forward to my new car, a Japanese built Subaru WRX STi. It's fucking IMMACULATE. Every piece lines up perfectly. No squeeks or rattles etc..

Two identically priced cars, with funadmentally similar materials.

The main difference? One was built by someone that had pride in their job and had some honor. The other was built by some union fuckass that tossed his slop together bitching the whole time about 'the union' and how he is 'only allowed three hour breaks for the day'.

Sayin the unions and the culture they create has no impact on build qualities of cars or other services is fucking retarded.

I dont know how the union works in US. But where I live we use them if anything happens. If someone gets kicked without notice or someone have an accident at work and many other examples. But never, ever can they give more breaks to workers haha.
We work 8 hours and get payed 8 hours. Our breaks are not included in our pay.
If your unions works differently then that I can only agree that it is pretty fucked up. Why give people pay for doing nothing?

Kailas
12-12-2008, 18:05
It's the unions fault because how they operate impacts morale which impacts the quality of the product being sent down the line. The best people are not retained, the ones with tenure and union protection are. And by and large they are beligerent half ass workers that take out their frustrations on 'the line'. They are the reason why when I had a Mustang, a Cobra no less, there was BARE FUCKING METAL showing under my drivers door. Why there was fit and finish problems with it, where shit didn't line up etc..

Now fast forward to my new car, a Japanese built Subaru WRX STi. It's fucking IMMACULATE. Every piece lines up perfectly. No squeeks or rattles etc..

Two identically priced cars, with funadmentally similar materials.

The main difference? One was built by someone that had pride in their job and had some honor. The other was built by some union fuckass that tossed his slop together bitching the whole time about 'the union' and how he is 'only allowed three hour breaks for the day'.

Sayin the unions and the culture they create has no impact on build qualities of cars or other services is fucking retarded.

Well, while I largely agree with what you're saying and the general theme of this thread, I feel the irksome need to qualify that. In Japan there are no "unions" perse, because it's assumed that all the workers are going to form a collectivist structure anyway. They don't have a word for it, it just is. It doesn't mean the workers don't unite against the administration if they feel they're being mistreated. Collectivist culture and all that. The fact that the American auto industry is fucking retarded is unrelated.

Generally speaking, unions are an age-old vestigial cancerous organ in American society. But, there are a couple exceptions, I'm thinking mainly of some public school teacher's unions. That's more about inept management than anything else, though. Surprise, surprise, when government tries to control something, the people who actually know what's going on have to wrestle with it to get what they need. Then the teachers get demonized in the news because, after all, it's the government they're arguing with.

Like some guy with dual masters in mathematics and teaching needs to be getting paid 40,000 to babysit and teach when he could be making twice that for half the work at a corporation and all of a sudden this guy is the unreasonable cock because he wants the government to supply enough money for math books for his brat students.

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 18:45
Well, while I largely agree with what you're saying and the general theme of this thread, I feel the irksome need to qualify that. In Japan there are no "unions" perse, because it's assumed that all the workers are going to form a collectivist structure anyway. They don't have a word for it, it just is. It doesn't mean the workers don't unite against the administration if they feel they're being mistreated. Collectivist culture and all that. The fact that the American auto industry is fucking retarded is unrelated.

Generally speaking, unions are an age-old vestigial cancerous organ in American society. But, there are a couple exceptions, I'm thinking mainly of some public school teacher's unions. That's more about inept management than anything else, though. Surprise, surprise, when government tries to control something, the people who actually know what's going on have to wrestle with it to get what they need. Then the teachers get demonized in the news because, after all, it's the government they're arguing with.

Like some guy with dual masters in mathematics and teaching needs to be getting paid 40,000 to babysit and teach when he could be making twice that for half the work at a corporation and all of a sudden this guy is the unreasonable cock because he wants the government to supply enough money for math books for his brat students.

Wow, teachers union is one of the worst. Why do you think our schools suck so badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw&feature=related

We throw more money at education than probably 99% of the countries in the world. Money for 'some guy' is not the problem.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 22:34
It looks like a lot of people posting commentary even though they're ignorant to the realities of what they're talking about...

First of all, no union members are making $75 per hour to work on cars.
That figure you've heard came from a NY Times op-ed piece where the calculation was based off all pension plans, past and present, medical benefits, past and present, and benefits to widows, past and present, and wages, divided by the current, active workers' hours put in per week.

The analogy would be if we took every single penny and benefit paid out to every president in the US since the beginning and averaged it over the past 8 years of George Bush's presidency and then claimed that's how much he made each year...yeah, pretty ridiculous figure.

UAW workers make on average $24 per hour, not including benefits. When you include benefits it's around $40, which is right around what the import workers make per hour including benefits. UAW also includes students, graduate students, and higher education staff. I'm not sure what other workers are part of the UAW, but it's not only automobile workers. It could be even people like vending machine operators because those groups don't have very many people and a union of them would be rather fragile and toothless.

The reason we have so many of our rights and benefits is because of unions. And they won't stay when we don't have unions just because they are written into law. Nearly every year industries try to eviscerate the laws on the books...unions hold them back. Even just a few years ago we had widespread grocery store walkouts because the grocery industry was stripping benefits and pay concessions to the unions. We also had dock workers on strike until their pay was at least restored to a portion of what their previous contract was supposed to be.

The UAW unions already agreed to have their medical benefits siphoned off into a private fund and allowed new hires to be brought on at 50% wages. This happened two years ago the last time the auto industry whined they were headed down a slope of bankruptcy. Yet, they can pay out 12 million to one star spokesman and hire the CEO from Home Depot for 25 million dollars after that company started going belly up (and he got nearly 200 million as he went out the door!).

You guys are sure buying into this hype hook, line, and sinker. Who do you think has your interests? The government? The employers? Well whoever it is it can't be blue collar workers much like many people posting in this thread I guess :\

And there are not many unionized workers posting against the union.
You have two people who offered personal experiences in this thread, and they sound like bullshit.

One guy supposedly had a grievance filed against him because he was moving stuff from one office to the next. Well, I'm sorry, but unless I see that I'm saying it's bullshit and he either had a chip on his shoulder and was an asshole and *that's* what the grievance was about or it's completely frivolous and will be discarded once someone looks it over anyway.

The second example was someone complaining that although other people get all kinds of pay claims when they are worthless and get suspended, but he didn't when he was a prick to his boss...he called it "his opinion" but yeah, well bosses don't take too kindly to workers giving them their opinions and obviously it wasn't welcomed advice or he wouldn't be in trouble for it. That's something you learn with maturity, I suppose.

But anyway, so not only did he not get backpay like he said everyone else does in similar situations (so that undermines his claim, it's evidently just what he thinks happens to other people but evidently doesn't), but his complaint boils down to I got suspended for opening my mouth in a way the boss didn't want me to and I didn't get paid for the time they made me go home...which is ironic on many, many levels to say the least.


Those two examples are less than helpful as poster-child examples of unionized worker abuses.

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 22:42
The reason we have so many of our rights and benefits is because of unions. And they won't stay when we don't have unions just because they are written into law. Nearly every year industries try to eviscerate the laws on the books...unions hold them back. Even just a few years ago we had widespread grocery store walkouts because the grocery industry was stripping benefits and pay concessions to the unions. We also had dock workers on strike until their pay was at least restored to a portion of what their previous contract was supposed to be.

I think most of us agreed that it's not necessarily the workers that are reaping the benefits but the unions themselves. That aside, so what if they were stripping benefits. Guess what? That's what happens. You go work somewhere else.

And I don't think anyone is arguing that CEOs haven't raped the companies as well.

Both are at fault.

BlitzKriegTF
12-12-2008, 22:49
If this auto bailout goes through, I'm spending all of my student loan next year on gold coins. I reccomend you guys start buying gold asap, as when the inflation wave hits in a year or three we are gonna be in for a serious depression.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 22:50
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!

I totally agree, I see a big fucking problem with paying manufacturing employees on average $73 USD/hr(GM employees). That's just way too much and is a big part of why the auto companies are in the trouble they're in. It also brings in seniority type promotions, which give higher paying positions to people that don't deserve them.

I work for the county and of course it's union here, we're some of the laziest workers I've ever seen. We have people that haven't worked a full work week in years, people falling asleep on the job(usually a supervisor) and no one thinks anything about it.

sm007h, read this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106278/%2473-an-Hour-Adding-It-Up

You're wrong, they make on average $40ish/hr take home. Benefits add to that amount and bring it up to the 70's/hr.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 22:54
If this auto bailout goes through, I'm spending all of my student loan next year on gold coins. I reccomend you guys start buying gold asap, as when the inflation wave hits in a year or three we are gonna be in for a serious depression.

Gold's at over $800/oz, when the economy really starts to crash around us, that's going to devalue as fast as our currency. Personally, I think silver is a better option, it's under 10/oz and won't fluctuate as much.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 22:57
Unless I'm missing something, the basis of this thread and a lot of posts in it are citing the hourly wages and benefits of average workers, not the union leaders, as being at fault for companies losing the ability to compete with companies that employ non-unionized workers.

That figure of $75/hour on average is based on bullshit calculations.
The premise for that part of the argument is objectively wrong.

I find it interesting that you were the one who posted that worker protections are now codified into law so we don't need unions anymore. I presented an argument against that, and you now reply, "so what, go work somewhere else."

Well if that's the best you can do, then the "so what" is that we still need worker safety, safe and sane daily/weekly hours, and making sure that little kids aren't hired as slave shop workers. It's not enough to say go work somewhere else, but that's just an ideological position of yours that bears no relationship to reality so I don't need to belabor the point much further.

Worker accidents still account for more deaths and dismemberment than all violent street crime in the United States. The amount of deaths and crime perpetrated against employees far exceeds the cost of street crime per capita but the numbers aren't usually floated on the evening news except in the few instances when we find out that everyone's pension just evaporated because Enron execs cooked the books for decades.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:00
sm007h, read this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106278/%2473-an-Hour-Adding-It-Up

You're wrong, they make on average $40ish/hr take home. Benefits add to that amount and bring it up to the 70's/hr.
I'm not wrong. The article you linked backs up exactly what I wrote and proves that *you* are wrong. Did you even bother to read the article you linked?



So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit's defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren't making anything close to $73 an hour (which would translate to about $150,000 a year).




Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit's unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It's a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda's or Toyota's (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.


How is that different than what I said and support what you wrote?

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:02
Unless I'm missing something, the basis of this thread and a lot of posts in it are citing the hourly wages and benefits of average workers, not the union leaders, as being at fault for companies losing the ability to compete with companies that employ non-unionized workers.

That figure of $75/hour on average is based on bullshit calculations.
The premise for that part of the argument is objectively wrong.


From the article, you're obviously refusing to read.


So the number isn't made up. But it is the combination of three very different categories.

The first category is simply cash payments, which is what many people imagine when they hear the word "compensation." It includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour. (The numbers vary a bit by company and year. That's why $73 is sometimes $70 or $77.)

The second category is fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. These benefits have real value, even if they don't show up on a weekly paycheck. At the Big Three, the benefits amount to $15 an hour or so.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit's unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It's a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda's or Toyota's (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

They're making on average $40/hr, not $24.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:06
That's exactly what I wrote...are you daft?

The article says that unionized workers make $55 dollars per hour with benefits, and non-unionized workers make $45 dollars per hour with benefits.

The $70 dollar per hour figure is based on including past benefits from retired workers and widows.

The total difference between unionized workers and non-unionized workers is $800 dollars per car.



The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix -- dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so -- and end up at roughly $70 an hour.

The crucial point, though, is this $15 isn't mainly a reflection of how generous the retiree benefits are. It's a reflection of how many retirees there are. The Big Three built up a huge pool of retirees long before Honda and Toyota opened plants in this country. You'd never know this by looking at the graphic behind Wolf Blitzer on CNN last week, contrasting the "$73/hour" pay of Detroit's workers with the "up to $48/hour" pay of workers at the Japanese companies.




So here's a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That's roughly the gap between the Big Three's retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour -- the same as at Honda and Toyota.

Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $8


Now tell me again who's failing to read the article?

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 23:07
Unless I'm missing something, the basis of this thread and a lot of posts in it are citing the hourly wages and benefits of average workers, not the union leaders, as being at fault for companies losing the ability to compete with companies that employ non-unionized workers.

That figure of $75/hour on average is based on bullshit calculations.
The premise for that part of the argument is objectively wrong.

I find it interesting that you were the one who posted that worker protections are now codified into law so we don't need unions anymore. I presented an argument against that, and you now reply, "so what, go work somewhere else."

Well if that's the best you can do, then the "so what" is that we still need worker safety, safe and sane daily/weekly hours, and making sure that little kids aren't hired as slave shop workers. It's not enough to say go work somewhere else, but that's just an ideological position of yours that bears no relationship to reality so I don't need to belabor the point much further.

Worker accidents still account for more deaths and dismemberment than all violent street crime in the United States. The amount of deaths and crime perpetrated against employees far exceeds the cost of street crime per capita but the numbers aren't usually floated on the evening news except in the few instances when we find out that everyone's pension just evaporated because Enron execs cooked the books for decades.

Uh, no. Safety and child labor laws are in place. All the laws we need are in place. Stripping benefits to cut costs is what happens to everyone. That is why you go work somewhere else.

Death and crimes perpetrated against employees? Don't they have drug testing at your company?

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:07
The union is forcing the company to pay ~$73/hr per employee, that's what's wrong here. Whether the employee sees that exact number in hand doesn't matter. The point is that the companies are forced to overpay because of the union.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:10
Dude, you came in claiming they make $70 per hour. That figure isn't correct and you cite an article that backs up my position on it. Now you want to go back and nitpick that I said they make $24 w/o benefits rather than $40.

Well, here you go, I actually appear to know a bit more than you on the subject...I told you about the article you misinterpreted, I told you about the $70 dollar figure being calculated wrong and how it even came to be.

But I also told you something else you don't appear to know:
$24/hr is the average wage auto workers make. The $40 average is based on including all unionized workers: which I already told you included people like university grad students and staff, along with other unknown unionized workers. For myself, I make over $100 per hour grading papers and I'm part of the UAW. We won't need to speculate on how much union leaders make, they are as bad as the CEO's and I don't think anyone disputes that.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:12
Uh, no. Safety and child labor laws are in place. All the laws we need are in place. Stripping benefits to cut costs is what happens to everyone. That is why you go work somewhere else.

Death and crimes perpetrated against employees? Don't they have drug testing at your company?
It's not my company. I'm at a university.
I just have the figures because I am writing my dissertation on white collar crime.

I'll give you an example you'll remember if you live in the States.
A few years ago do you remember when the mine workers were caved in on and everyone died except one? Well it turns out that the mining company had been poorly equipping the miners for years, and failing to train them, they had run down safety equipment for evac, and had been cited multiple times for failure to adhere to safety regs. Yet, it was described as an accident. I guess we can even blame them for being dumb enough to work in unsafe mining conditions? well, I guess anything is possible...

Anyway, regardless, if you repeatedly fail to abide by the city's citations to fix your basement stairs and proper lighting and I walk down there and fall and break my neck. Then not only will you be liable civilly, you will also spend a nice 5-7 year prison sentence for neg. homicide. Laws are applied differently depending on the amount of power you wield in relation to it.


The law can be changed, and many of the benefits you are talking about can be reversed and have tried to be changed over the last decades. You're factually wrong on your opinion about child and safety labor laws.


Daccus, is using a bullshit $73 dollar per hour figure after he posted the article that makes it clear the number is incorrect. I don't really know what to do with people like that. I'd normally say go look it up but he has and can't understand what he read or something.

Razel
12-12-2008, 23:18
I'm a union steward for UFCW Local 1099.

I have absolutely no faith in my union whatsoever.

When contract negotiation comes, they present us with it and this heartwarming comment, "This is the best contract we've seen in some time".

Problem is, they say that with every contract thats been presented in the past 10 years. Each new contract has less and less for us, the employees and more for the union.

My union also protects the jobs of completely worthless fuckers who had they not been protected by a union would most likely be chronically unemployable.

Hard working individuals, such as myself and others, usually get the shitty end of the stick when we actually need the union to stand up for our rights. A fuck up gets suspended for three weeks, files a grievance and gets not only the pay he missed but gets it at double time to 'make up for losses incurred and make it whole'.

I got suspended for 3 weeks back in July for no reason other than a manager did not care for my opinion on a certain issue regarding the workforce in my department. I got nothing when I filed a grievance but my job back. No back pay, no apology just my job which I am thankful to have recovered.

Yeah, fuck unions...at least fuck unions that are only in it for themselves.

yup unions suck, but they are only part of the problem. was in a union myself for a while, i've never seen so many fatasses pushing a button once a day for 30-40 dollars an hour in my life. Worst part is those fatasses were always crying for more money even tho a chimp could do their job.

Unions are not bad idea tho, just poorly implemented.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:26
Dude, you came in claiming they make $70 per hour. That figure isn't correct and you cite an article that backs up my position on it. Now you want to go back and nitpick that I said they make $24 w/o benefits rather than $40.

Well, here you go, I actually appear to know a bit more than you on the subject...I told you about the article you misinterpreted, I told you about the $70 dollar figure being calculated wrong and how it even came to be.

But I also told you something else you don't appear to know:
$24/hr is the average wage auto workers make. The $40 average is based on including all unionized workers: which I already told you included people like university grad students and staff, along with other unknown unionized workers. For myself, I make over $100 per hour grading papers and I'm part of the UAW. We won't need to speculate on how much union leaders make, they are as bad as the CEO's and I don't think anyone disputes that.

So, I should have worded my first sentence slightly different, saying that they pay $73 average for each employee, but it's common knowledge that the pay is encompassing all benefits paid out to each employee.

I didn't misinterpret anything, the average amount they pay for each employee is ~$73/hr. The average amount they get paid is ~$40/hr double the national average, adding benefits brings it to ~ $55/hr, like the article says. Then they're adding another $15/hr for the cost of retirement benefits for themselves and other people. They're paying way too much for each employee and it's because the union is far too powerful.


But I also told you something else you don't appear to know:
$24/hr is the average wage auto workers make. The $40 average is based on including all unionized workers: which I already told you included people like university grad students and staff, along with other unknown unionized workers.
I'm more likely to believe the NY Times, before I take your word for it. Link?

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:26
UFCW is the grocers union.
My wife used to be a member of UFCW.

The way they come up with their hourly wage is to average across full-time employment hours regardless of full-time employees.

So, for example, my wife actually made I think base was $8 per hour. Then after about 4 years she was making $10.95 or something. But her and along with anyone else who didn't have about 20 years in Kroger Foods, were only scheduled for 4-6 hour shifts. That way they weren't eligible for union benefits, couldn't take full hour lunches (which aren't paid, btw before people scream about that), *and* can have you work two 6 hour shifts back to back (with an hour in between) to effectively work you longer than an 8 hour shift, but without paying overtime or even full time.

Then the hourly wage figure is based off adding all those hours of part time workers and then dividing by the amount of "full time" workers (who are made up). So you have 2 people working 4x6 hour shifts, but you add up all the hours they work and divide it by 1 40 hr/week employee and print out that worker's wages per hour.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:31
So, I should have worded my first sentence slightly different, saying that they pay $73 average for each employee, but it's common knowledge that the pay is encompassing all benefits paid out to each employee.

I didn't misinterpret anything, the average amount they pay for each employee is ~$73/hr. The average amount they get paid is ~$40/hr double the national average, adding benefits brings it to ~ $55/hr, like the article says. Then they're adding another $15/hr for the cost of retirement benefits for themselves and other people. They're paying way too much for each employee and it's because the union is far too powerful.


I'm more likely to believe the NY Times, before I take your word for it. Link?
You're not even taking the NY Times article for it. You are misinterpreting the article you read.

The article is clear in that UAW workers make $55 per hour with benefits included. They make $40 without and $55 with. The other $15-18 dollars you are adding in are based on past workers' retirements. How is that "dollars per hour"?

They then compare that to non-unionized workers who average $45 dollars per hour with benefits included. The difference is $10. They then calculate this out to an $800 difference between cars produced from unionized and non-unionized workers.

The $73 dollar per hour figure you keep using is accounting for all the past workers that have retired. How does that have anything to do with how much workers earn per hour today? In another 20 years, the non-unionized workers in Toyota factories will be blamed for the workers' wages and benefits of today? That's not how we average wages in the real world. LOL, where the fuck did you go to school and learn math?

Anyway, my word for what? If you don't believe me that the UAW includes non-auto workers in it then look it up yourself. The fact that the NY Times articles doesn't distinguish between UAW auto workers and UAW non-auto workers is prima facie evidence that the author didn't separate out non-auto worker wages from the $55 /hr figure.


EDIT: BTW, because I'm feeling generous:
http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=uaw_agrees_to_strike130


The UAW Local 2865 released an announcement on Nov. 25 stating that the union that represents teaching and research assistants, tutors and graders in the University of California system unanimously voted to strike this week as a result of unfair labor practices by the UC.

I told you how much I make as a grader. I don't have a link for that other than my banking statements, so dunno what else to tell you.

The other thing I told you is that last time the auto industry was in trouble the UAW took concessions by privatizing their benefits and allowing new hires to be brought in at 50%. Even if the old figures of $55 only included auto workers, then 50% of that would be around what I said: $24/hr. If you don't believe me that they made these concessions then look it up because I can't remember the name of the retirement trust to give to you. I do know that currently the UAW is going to postpone the agreement that the companies pay into that private trust, so retirees are going to be shafted here pretty soon.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:38
You're not even taking the NY Times article for it. You are misinterpreting the article you read.

The article is clear in that UAW workers make $55 per hour with benefits included. They make $40 without and $55 with. The other $15-18 dollars you are adding in are based on past workers' retirements. How is that "dollars per hour"?

They then compare that to non-unionized workers who average $45 dollars per hour with benefits included. The difference is $10. They then calculate this out to an $800 difference between cars produced from unionized and non-unionized workers.

The $73 dollar per hour figure you keep using is accounting for all the past workers that have retired. How does that have anything to do with how much workers earn per hour today? In another 20 years, the non-unionized workers in Toyota factories will be blamed for the workers' wages and benefits of today? That's not how we average wages in the real world. LOL, where the fuck did you go to school and learn math?




The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix -- dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so -- and end up at roughly $70 an hour.

They're adding that extra $15/hr onto the $55/hr because of how many retirees they have. It's a cost they have to deal with. It amounts to an extra $15/hr per person.

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 23:40
*and* can have you work two 6 hour shifts back to back (with an hour in between) to effectively work you longer than an 8 hour shift, but without paying overtime or even full time.

Many people work 12 hours a day w/ OT. Like I said, get a different job.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:45
According to the Indianapolis Star:
Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour, GM says. - September 26, 2007 UNITED AUTO WORKERS OFF THE JOB, Striking back at globalization. By Ted Evanoff


Here's what I found on the average UAW worker. That's a bit off from your $24/hr guess.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:45
Many people work 12 hours a day w/ OT. Like I said, get a different job.
I don't work any over time.
I don't really care if someone does or doesn't, I'm just explaining to you how the UFCW figure of $40ish per hour is derived. It's not actually people making $40 per hour. It's people making 8-12 dollars per hour divided by how many 40/hr workers if they actually had full time employees.

I guess you guys just want to argue, because you are just bitching about shit you don't know the facts on and when the facts are given to you, you just add dumbshit responses like this one. That's cool, but I did what I set out to do, which is demonstrate to any reasonable readers you two don't know what the fuck you are even upset about other than figments of your imagination.



Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay.

Well, Daccus, the only thing that you've demonstrated is that every time you dig a bit deeper into the figures it gets lower. Other than that, it looks about right what I said unless you are going to ding me on $4. My figure wasn't a guess and the data shows that I was right in my calculations.

StainlessSteelRat
12-12-2008, 23:49
I don't work any over time.
I don't really care if someone does or doesn't, I'm just explaining to you how the UFCW figure of $40ish per hour is derived. It's not actually people making $40 per hour. It's people making 8-12 dollars per hour divided by how many 40/hr workers if they actually had full time employees.

I guess you guys just want to argue, because you are just bitching about shit you don't know the facts on and when the facts are given to you, you just add dumbshit responses like this one. That's cool, but I did what I set out to do, which is demonstrate to any reasonable readers you two don't know what the fuck you are even upset about other than figments of your imagination.


Well, Daccus, the only thing that you've demonstrated is that every time you dig a bit deeper into the figures it gets lower.

Not arguing over hourly wage. I know how it's calculated. I'm just saying, if it's so bad, get a new job.

The cost is the cost. I already stated that the actual employees are not responsible for and not necessarily the benefactor of these wage numbers. They are responsible for shitty work though.

Daccus
12-12-2008, 23:56
Well, Daccus, the only thing that you've demonstrated is that every time you dig a bit deeper into the figures it gets lower. Other than that, it looks about right what I said unless you are going to ding me on $4. My figure wasn't a guess and the data shows that I was right in my calculations.

You really have no understanding of any of this do you? The base wages start at $28/hr and are entry level, I thought you might understand that in the next sentence where it says average wages reach $39/hr with another 33 for benefits, but I was wrong. It shows that my numbers are correct and your numbers are completely wrong.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:57
No one is benefitting from those wages, because they are fabricated.

The companies add up 4 people making $10/hr and say we pay, on average, $40/hr. Then people see that figure of a grocery clerk making $40 an hour and say, omg, that's ridiculous. The grocery stores are paying someone insane amounts of dollars to push buttons...down with lazy union workers.

But in reality, it's just some people barely making above minimum wage and receiving piddly benefits (that they don't get unless they work enough hours per week so they have to work "overtime" without being paid overtime).

So there's your "laws" protecting people and the ways to get around paying people overtime, or giving sick leave, or paying through seniority even within the unions. It doesn't happen like you're thinking and arguing about. At least, that's what you've based your argument on so far. Maybe you just don't like unions, for no specific reason then you should just say so and leave it at that instead of coming up with reasons that don't approximate reality.

sm007h
12-12-2008, 23:59
You really have no understanding of any of this do you? The base wages start at $28/hr and are entry level, I thought you might understand that in the next sentence where it says average wages reach $39/hr with another 33 for benefits, but I was wrong. It shows that my numbers are correct and your numbers are completely wrong.
Well, dude, you initially claimed that with benefits it was $73 per hour.
Then you amended it to claim that with benefits it was $55 per hour.
Now you are saying that it's really $39 per hour (reaching, lol, is the word the execs used).

But the base pay is $28 per hour.

Each time you've told me I was wrong, even though I said that average hourly wages is $24 per hour.

So you tell me who doesn't get it?

Tharkon Fargor
12-13-2008, 00:00
I'm not even going to comment on this bullshit.

More than to advise the UAE moron to read an article in National Geographics and workers situation in UAE there were unions are outlawed. Sheiks build the most expensive buildings in the world while many workers live in shacks.

Daccus
12-13-2008, 00:08
Well, dude, you initially claimed that with benefits it was $73 per hour.
Then you amended it to claim that with benefits it was $55 per hour.
Now you are saying that it's really $39 per hour (reaching, lol, is the word the execs used).

But the base pay is $28 per hour.

Each time you've told me I was wrong, even though I said that average hourly wages is $24 per hour.

So you tell me who doesn't get it?

I originally said 73, I should have said 73 with all benefits and retirement include. I then said ~55 after benefits, which still stands as I said it again in my previous post, only I used different numbers. 55 - 15(medical type benefits) = 40.

39 + 33 according to that data is ~73. The 33 is broken down into two areas, 15 for medical type benefits and 15 for the retirement. My stance hasn't changed, I've made like one correction over this entire debate and that is that my original sentence should have had a correction for the entire payment to an average employee, not that the employee was taking home that much money.

Sausagebones
12-13-2008, 00:18
union labor is nothing more than a legal form of extortion. i hope they all burn in hell.

Tharkon Fargor
12-13-2008, 00:21
You don't need to hope anything. If you read the bible then you'll KNOW that the greedy one will burn before any unionist.

Daccus
12-13-2008, 00:25
The companies add up 4 people making $10/hr and say we pay, on average, $40/hr. Then people see that figure of a grocery clerk making $40 an hour and say, omg, that's ridiculous. The grocery stores are paying someone insane amounts of dollars to push buttons...down with lazy union workers.


That's a flat out lie, you're making a very poor assumption of how they get their numbers. The most recent numbers I posted were from 2007, so they have nothing to do with these recent bailout hearings and are from the companies themselves. Those numbers aren't fabricated.


No one is benefitting from those wages
You're still missing the point, the issue has less to do with how much a particular person is earning and more about how much the company is forced to pay per employee, which I've covered numerous times. $73/hr is an accurate number, even according to the numbers from 2007.

Sausagebones
12-13-2008, 00:27
You don't need to hope anything. If you read the bible then you'll KNOW that the greedy one will burn before any unionist.

what if the unionists are the greedy ones in this instance?

Tharkon Fargor
12-13-2008, 00:35
what if the unionists are the greedy ones in this instance?

They can't possibly be excessively greedy as the general workers pay has been increasing at a 1/20 % of the top 1%.


That is, if a worker got a gain from 1000-1100 in the same period.

The CEO got a gain from 1000-3000

(if they in theory would have the same pay, which they don't. Just to simplify it for you).


Disc. for noobz: I am talking about percentage gains if that isn't obvious.

sm007h
12-13-2008, 00:43
I originally said 73, I should have said 73 with all benefits and retirement include. I then said ~55 after benefits, which still stands as I said it again in my previous post, only I used different numbers. 55 - 15(medical type benefits) = 40.

39 + 33 according to that data is ~73. The 33 is broken down into two areas, 15 for medical type benefits and 15 for the retirement. My stance hasn't changed, I've made like one correction over this entire debate and that is that my original sentence should have had a correction for the entire payment to an average employee, not that the employee was taking home that much money.
You are just pulling numbers out of your ass left and right. They don't even add up to the shit you say they do, you're just tossing them out into the air.

I also explained the basis of the UFCW numbers. If you don't believe me, then go find something that proves otherwise. Just make sure you read it first before you think it supports your opinion unlike the last article you tried to use without understanding what it said first.

Look, from the last article you posted, the average automobile unionized worker is taking home $28motherfuckingdollarsperhour.

I said $24.

Then, they said, with everything we can possibly think of related to a paycheck, it reaches $40 dollars per hour. The next article says that it's $55 per hour with all benefits included. Then they also inform us that non-unionized workers earn about $10 less per hour.

So there is no discrepancy between unionized and non-unionized car workers. The unionized workers' wages have no relationship to the failure of the American car industry or the foreign industry would be having the same issues since they pay roughly the same amount to their workers.

Yet, you keep adding in this $73 dollar per hour figure as if the current workers have any relationship to the retiree obligations Ford, GM, and Chrysler have to past workers.

Do you have a fucking job?
Your hourly wage is what you fucking earn.
Auto workers EARN approximately $28 dollars per hour.

But since companies can't afford to have full time workers anymore, they rotate through part time workers and then they aren't eligible for benefits. Some have seniority, so the few full time slots that need to be filled, managerial for the most part, are filled at full time pay and benefits.

But when the industries become busy, they have to schedule full time amounts of work again. That's when they have to schedule all their part-time workers for overtime. A lot of those workers have second jobs to make ends meet, and sometimes you just have so few workers you have to have them work 2.5-3x as much as normal.

So now, when the union workers are worked at 2-3x normal 40hr work weeks they get time and a half. So when you add all that shit up you start to get $40 per hour.

When they work full time and can qualify for benefits, then they have benefits which the company estimates at $55 per hour. They don't actually earn 55 per hour. They don't even earn $40 per hour except with all those things the article listed. But with benefits, some people would agree that it's not some ludicrous amount to average $40 + benefits per hour. $28 is pretty low when you're talking about a career. That's fine if you're a kid, but not with a family and house and you've worked somewhere for 20 years.

$40 dollars per hour + benefits is not by any means living wealthy.
It's not poor, either. It's more than fucking fair to the car companies. It's roughly the same as the foreign car companies are paying their workers.

When people talk about auto workers making $73 bucks per hour, they are not thinking that they are making ~$30+benefits+all retirees benefits. No one in real life talks about wages like that. It's a bullshit hyped number to get people riled up at unions and demand that they do the changing.

The unions members and the unions that are payed from the union members' paychecks aren't making ridiculous amounts of money.

The CEO's are payed tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per year even when their product is a market failure. They paid tens of millions of dollars to spokepersons and hundreds of millions of dollars to advertise their failed products. Then the oil prices soared and enough people were hit hard enough by their wallets to realize that the domestic products were inferior to the foreign ones in terms of efficiency that it made a difference to the ability to sell cars. Then the market volatility destabilized the lending institutions enough to dry up capital flows to the companies as well as the fewer buyers they had remaining.

That's the problem the car industries are finding themselves in. It has nothing to do with the unions unless you want to argue that auto workers don't deserve $28 bucks per hour and the industry should not pay it's retirees the pensions and medical care they were promised over 20 years of working for the company.

wait, scratch the medical care...that part is being handled by a private fund the unions agreed to take care of in the concessions a few years ago. We'll see how well that goes, bank fund options are wiped out right now and it's a big question as to whether they'll rebound in two years when the medical fund is fully privatized.

Z31Turbo
12-13-2008, 01:18
ROFL, idiots, the people in charge of the american car companies have been driving their cars into the ground for decades. Their cars have always been unreliable, which is no way can be put on the american workers, they are fantastic, look at toyota, nissan, and honda, most of their cars are made in america. But no, American car companies have always been trying to force their muscle cars on people, and they have always been managed piss poorly. Let them burn for their retardation, plus most american cars are made in mexico, canada and europe. I'd rather put my money towards a car that was built IN america BY an american, buy a Japanese car.

Incanam
12-13-2008, 17:41
I agree, let's get rid of Unions...and go business cooperatives.

Helgeran
12-13-2008, 17:43
Wtf, how is it the workers fault that the cars suck ass? Wouldn't that be the engineers who designed it or the cheap ass top hats who use second rate parts?

[Malice]Bronson
12-13-2008, 18:04
"$40 dollars per hour + benefits is not by any means living wealthy.
It's not poor, either. It's more than fucking fair to the car companies. It's roughly the same as the foreign car companies are paying their workers."

Are you freaking kidding me?!! Are you seriously freaking kidding me?


Your telling me a person without a college education, who probably has read no more than 5 books their entire life, should be paid $112,320 a year before benefits?

40/hrX9 hours a day X6 days a week X 52 weeks a year = $112,320

Most factory workers work overtime, many work 60-70 hours per week.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? You think they should be paid 40/hr


GTFO you moron. Nobody building cars save the highest level engineer or plant manager should be making 40/hr plus benefits. This is just sickening and the exact reason unions are trash. You have people working 70 hours a week at 30/hr while they come in on sundays and read the newspaper during their shift. Unions are trash.

The best American vehicles these days are chevy, ford, and dodge.

Paralda
12-13-2008, 19:08
Okay. No more unions? Sweet, you're hired. Oh, what's that? 2 bucks an hour is too little? I'm paying more than everyone else!

Tharkon Fargor
12-13-2008, 20:42
I agree, let's get rid of Unions...and go business cooperatives.

/Thread.

Silverhandorder
12-13-2008, 20:50
Okay. No more unions? Sweet, you're hired. Oh, what's that? 2 bucks an hour is too little? I'm paying more than everyone else!

I hear you like to say shit that has no factual backing to it.

Pumpkin
12-13-2008, 20:57
Bronson;2132109']"$40 dollars per hour + benefits is not by any means living wealthy.
It's not poor, either. It's more than fucking fair to the car companies. It's roughly the same as the foreign car companies are paying their workers."

Are you freaking kidding me?!! Are you seriously freaking kidding me?


Your telling me a person without a college education, who probably has read no more than 5 books their entire life, should be paid $112,320 a year before benefits?

40/hrX9 hours a day X6 days a week X 52 weeks a year = $112,320

Most factory workers work overtime, many work 60-70 hours per week.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? You think they should be paid 40/hr


GTFO you moron. Nobody building cars save the highest level engineer or plant manager should be making 40/hr plus benefits. This is just sickening and the exact reason unions are trash. You have people working 70 hours a week at 30/hr while they come in on sundays and read the newspaper during their shift. Unions are trash.

The best American vehicles these days are chevy, ford, and dodge.

Yeah and if you only give them 2x the minimum wage that is:
11$/hr * 16 hrs * 7 days * 52 weeks = $64,064

Fuck them auto-workers, they should make the minimum wage!

Even if your retarded calculations were correct, what would be your problem if somebody who apparently worked 60-70 hours week makes 100k?

Silverhandorder
12-13-2008, 21:05
Yeah and if you only give them 2x the minimum wage that is:
11$/hr * 16 hrs * 7 days * 52 weeks = $64,064

Fuck them auto-workers, they should make the minimum wage!

Even if your retarded calculations were correct, what would be your problem if somebody who apparently worked 60-70 hours week makes 100k?

Without college education no one should be payed more then 40k.

edit: in general

Daccus
12-13-2008, 21:22
You are just pulling numbers out of your ass left and right. They don't even add up to the shit you say they do, you're just tossing them out into the air.

$28 is the base pay, they add cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay to that amount to get the $39.68 number. Night shift premiums are added to the paycheck, cost-of-living adjustments are also added to the paycheck. OT is added to the paycheck, holiday and vacations are the only thing not added to the paycheck, but is actually free money to the employee. So, I'll admit the actual gross pay on the check of an average employee isn't $40/hr, but it's well above $28/hr.

What the employees earn still isn't the problem here, but you keep trying to make it part of the discussion, why? The problem AGAIN, for the fourth or fifth fucking time, is that the company is forced to pay on average $73/hr per employee to pay for current employee expenses and employee retirement. And again, this is all a result of an overly powerful union.

Kagetora8151
12-13-2008, 22:32
Wtf, how is it the workers fault that the cars suck ass? Wouldn't that be the engineers who designed it or the cheap ass top hats who use second rate parts?

The companies have to cut costs somewhere to pay the employees the outlandish wages. They can only mark the cars price up so much, so they use cheaper parts. They have to make the cars as affordable as can be, yet still make money.

Unions are a bad thing. I work at a steel foundry. They are not unionized. I haven't heard too many people complain about how much they make.

I have a friend who works for Subaru of Indiana. He is currently a temporary worker, but still gets paid almost 14 an hour. They cap out at 23 an hour there. However, most people I know that work there don't mind at all. They can work overtime every Saturday. The company treats its employees very well. Guess what? They are non-union! Amazing!

Bissen
12-13-2008, 22:41
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!


Your cars are of lower quality? Since when? And if so. Why exactly is it the unions fault?

Giving the working man rights and fairness was such a bad move. The corporations never shitpisspukescat down their employees neck...

You dang sheep Napalm. If it were up to people like you, the minimum wage would be whipping.

Didn't bother to read the thread. The OP said it all.

Vessol
12-13-2008, 22:52
Minimum wage?

Work safety?

Labor laws?

Hour limits?

Yeah! Fuck the Union for giving us all that!

Wait..

Malishan
12-13-2008, 23:45
That's where all your workers band together for a common goal. Like if they don't get '$10/hour' they all stop working. It's a collaborative effort formed back in the day to combat rife exploitation of workers. Once the basic rights and safety measures were secured for a work environment however, this 'good idea' turned bad. People realized they could leverage unreasonable demands and press companies with unionized labor into unfair contracts.

So now you have ridiculous things like seniority labor rules, which sounds good at first, till you realize that a guy that is hot welding rivets onto the bottom of a car is getting 100k a year just because he's been there 15 years. (the list is endless, but you get the idea)

Unions are fucking shit and completely absurd. Yet they hold all the power at the end of the day. My current company has a guy that JUST deals with Unions throughout the nation which is just fucked up. He's making over 100k just because he can handle the intractable assholes that comprise Union management.

:bang:


You also have to define unfair contracts though... I agree that UAW workers need to de-stupidify, but if there were no unions at all, nonunion workers pay scales would be way lower too. Unions are 90% corrupt - most of them are in the employer's back pockets. I hate mine for the theiving bastards they are, but they do some good. What is more unfair, union payscales or the CEOs earning millions if not billions for doing a little schmoozing while running their companies into the ground.

It's a shame there's no honesty left anywhere anymore, except maybe in some small companies. Don't kid yourself, if there were suddenly no unions the corporations would return immediately to exploiting workers. Where the middle ground is, I don't know.

Non union is not always the answer. Look at Walmart for example. They hire nothing but part time employees, keep them under a certain wage, limit their hours, then teach them how to get government benefits to make up a bit of the difference. They limit the hours so that the people don't make too much to get the govt benies, and so they're part time and they aren't required to pay for the benes themselves, or even the unemployment & social security taxes etc. Great way to exploit the system and get cheap labor.

Unions or no unions, nothing will work without honesty and decent ethics, both of which are non-existant pretty much.

The Cougar
12-14-2008, 00:23
Work safety?

Labor laws?

Hour limits?

Yeah! Fuck the Union for giving us all that!

Wait..
Well, those things already protected by law though. During the last 100 years of Norwegian history (all very socialist of course), worker unions went from trying to protect the rights of the workers to only exist for the purpose of crippling companies and the economy (though they always did that I guess), usually by demanding more pay for the workers than the job they're doing is actually worth. They also openly supports political parties, and given the power of unions here AP (the worker's party) is pretty much guaranteed around 30% of the popular vote every election, provided they have enough socialist policies of course.

Not that I want them outlawed, but it's pretty much a farce now.

Stiletto
12-14-2008, 00:59
Unions. Good in theory, bullshit in execution.

Last year I moved from a non-union company to a union company. Here are some real examples why unions are bullshit nowadays:


Personal performance is irrelevant all that matters is seniority. Alot of people I work with are fucking worthless lazy retards. I can get done in an hour what they milk out for an entire day. The managers know that these people are worthless bastards but they cant do anything about it. And if the company lays off I will be the first to go simply because of seniority rules. Sorry but everyone should stand on their own merits.
The union turns "jobs" into "careers". Some entry level positions should serve only to get your foot in the door and then you should aspire to move into better positions. But thanks to the union we got guys that are life long floor sweepers that are making 25 bucks an hour with amazing benefits and full retirement. These guys have no aspirations. They are content to just suck on the tit that the union provides for them.
Insane starting wages for unskilled work. There are kids at my company who got hired right out of highschool. No college. No real work experience. They hire in at 14-16 bucks an hour with full benefits and they complain about it! A key point of a recent work stoppage was that the union wanted higher starting wages. Give me a fucking break.
Unions lower over-all work quality. At the non-union company I came from, guys used to bust their ass to make themselves shine and do the best job they could. Raises and promotions were based on merit. In this union company no one cares. Everyone is content to just get by doing the bare minimum of their job description. No motivation to go the extra mile to help the company or take any pride in the quality of their work. They know the union will take care of them as long as they are "doing their job".
So these are a few of my first hand observations after spending a year with a union company. So seeing all this it doesnt surprise me at all that big american companies are struggling to make a profit.

Malishan
12-14-2008, 03:05
Well, those things already protected by law though. During the last 100 years of Norwegian history (all very socialist of course), worker unions went from trying to protect the rights of the workers to only exist for the purpose of crippling companies and the economy (though they always did that I guess), usually by demanding more pay for the workers than the job they're doing is actually worth. They also openly supports political parties, and given the power of unions here AP (the worker's party) is pretty much guaranteed around 30% of the popular vote every election, provided they have enough socialist policies of course.

Not that I want them outlawed, but it's pretty much a farce now.

the problem is, who decides what a worker's job is worth? Nobody if not the unions, or at least nobody that has the workers well being in mind. Employers will take as much as they can, give them selves golden parachutes, and could care less about their underlings. So should they set the wages? If not them, and not the unions, then who?

Malishan
12-14-2008, 03:09
Unions. Good in theory, bullshit in execution.

Last year I moved from a non-union company to a union company. Here are some real examples why unions are bullshit nowadays:


Personal performance is irrelevant all that matters is seniority. Alot of people I work with are fucking worthless lazy retards. I can get done in an hour what they milk out for an entire day. The managers know that these people are worthless bastards but they cant do anything about it. And if the company lays off I will be the first to go simply because of seniority rules. Sorry but everyone should stand on their own merits.
The union turns "jobs" into "careers". Some entry level positions should serve only to get your foot in the door and then you should aspire to move into better positions. But thanks to the union we got guys that are life long floor sweepers that are making 25 bucks an hour with amazing benefits and full retirement. These guys have no aspirations. They are content to just suck on the tit that the union provides for them.
Insane starting wages for unskilled work. There are kids at my company who got hired right out of highschool. No college. No real work experience. They hire in at 14-16 bucks an hour with full benefits and they complain about it! A key point of a recent work stoppage was that the union wanted higher starting wages. Give me a fucking break.
Unions lower over-all work quality. At the non-union company I came from, guys used to bust their ass to make themselves shine and do the best job they could. Raises and promotions were based on merit. In this union company no one cares. Everyone is content to just get by doing the bare minimum of their job description. No motivation to go the extra mile to help the company or take any pride in the quality of their work. They know the union will take care of them as long as they are "doing their job".
So these are a few of my first hand observations after spending a year with a union company. So seeing all this it doesnt surprise me at all that big american companies are struggling to make a profit.

this is all true... but there's an extreme at the other end that happens if theres no unions. So, instead of bitching, what should be done? Sweatshops or Socialism? Where is the middle ground?

Vessol
12-14-2008, 03:11
Notice I didn't defend current unions, no opinion on them, but in the past they had a very important effect on the working class.

Jamboreen
12-14-2008, 03:13
With great power comes great responsibility, the Unions have to know when they are the tyrants, and when the Employer is, When i join a union, i make sure i stand for reason, if people think they are right, they will start to beleive it, and once that train has left the station you are fucked.

Malishan
12-14-2008, 03:16
So, I should have worded my first sentence slightly different, saying that they pay $73 average for each employee, but it's common knowledge that the pay is encompassing all benefits paid out to each employee.

I didn't misinterpret anything, the average amount they pay for each employee is ~$73/hr. The average amount they get paid is ~$40/hr double the national average, adding benefits brings it to ~ $55/hr, like the article says. Then they're adding another $15/hr for the cost of retirement benefits for themselves and other people. They're paying way too much for each employee and it's because the union is far too powerful.


I'm more likely to believe the NY Times, before I take your word for it. Link?

So... what you're saying is we should lower the national average income? Take away union jobs and their payscales and everyone else's wages drop too, its a fact. Maybe the unions have too much power, but the real problem is not the payscales as much as it is the employment protection the unions provide - where lazy ass employees can't be fired, especially in unionized government jobs.

Other than that, if CEOs will stop taking multimillion dollar salaries, and find that they still cant pay the workers salaries, I'll agree on paycuts for the union workers. Otherwise their companies and the entire american economy can crash and burn for all I care.

antihero-zero
12-14-2008, 03:43
Yes, lets take a complex issue and narrow it down to a microcosm of history about the most recent media attention it has received and them we all sum it up in our genius ways to feel particularly clever for pointing out what nobody else can see. Then we'll receive praise via on fellow nerds in an mmo community. Hurray for the enlightened! Hurray for us!

Titus Ultor
12-14-2008, 05:06
Wal-Mart is evidence that unions still have ground to cover in modern America.

Reckin Crew
12-14-2008, 07:00
Without college education no one should be payed more then 40k.

edit: in general

no college degree here and i make over 100k a year...but i put in 50 to 60 hrs per week. Local 94 Operating Engineer. 17 years in the field...my Union is decent....could be better on certain issues, but they keep management in check.
If we didnt have a union, management could just change your hours if they wanted to, give some managers cousin your 8-4 shift and put you on nights.

Oh, you got bronchitis...? missed a week of work...sorry, we hired someone else to fill your spot. If you want your job back, you have to take a reduction in pay.

Vacation...? what vacation...? you dont get a vacation here....no matter how long you worked for our company.....

Overtime distribution...? why is the managers son getting it every week but we are left off the overtime list...? who are you going to take that up with...? Management...? sure...your fired....c ya.

Unions have their purpose...are some fooked up...? I'm sure.....but they do give the average joe a fair work enviroment all across this great country.

Funny how no one mentioned the Big 3's board members/ceo's salaries, golden parachutes, stock options....20 million a year to do what exactly...?

Spart
12-14-2008, 07:18
no college degree here and i make over 100k a year...but i put in 50 to 60 hrs per week. Local 94 Operating Engineer. 17 years in the field...my Union is decent....could be better on certain issues, but they keep management in check.
If we didnt have a union, management could just change your hours if they wanted to, give some managers cousin your 8-4 shift and put you on nights.

Oh, you got bronchitis...? missed a week of work...sorry, we hired someone else to fill your spot. If you want your job back, you have to take a reduction in pay.

Vacation...? what vacation...? you dont get a vacation here....no matter how long you worked for our company.....

Overtime distribution...? why is the managers son getting it every week but we are left off the overtime list...? who are you going to take that up with...? Management...? sure...your fired....c ya.

Unions have their purpose...are some fooked up...? I'm sure.....but they do give the average joe a fair work enviroment all across this great country.

Funny how no one mentioned the Big 3's board members/ceo's salaries, golden parachutes, stock options....20 million a year to do what exactly...?

To properly run the company. You know, the company that pays you, the company that you couldn't run yourself.

NapalmEnema
12-14-2008, 07:33
Minimum wage?

Work safety?

Labor laws?

Hour limits?

Yeah! Fuck the Union for giving us all that!

Wait..

As I said TO START WITH - Unions started out with the best of intentions, and did a lot of good. Then once they got the big things out of the way, they started becoming a force of evil in the end.

Reckin Crew
12-14-2008, 08:30
To properly run the company. You know, the company that pays you, the company that you couldn't run yourself.

lol...yep...they have been doing a great job...great point.:rolleyes:

Bissen
12-14-2008, 08:43
this is all true... but there's an extreme at the other end that happens if theres no unions. So, instead of bitching, what should be done? Sweatshops or Socialism? Where is the middle ground?


In Denmark we have Unions for workers and businesses have a collective of employers' associations.

Works great here. But then again. We already have the middle ground politically, here in Scandinavia. The US seem to only think in extremes...

Bissen
12-14-2008, 08:48
To properly run the company. You know, the company that pays you, the company that you couldn't run yourself.

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUjR5AReBU

Nuff said.


As I said TO START WITH - Unions started out with the best of intentions, and did a lot of good. Then once they got the big things out of the way, they started becoming a force of evil in the end.

Get a grip will ya...

Daccus
12-14-2008, 09:23
So... what you're saying is we should lower the national average income? Take away union jobs and their payscales and everyone else's wages drop too, its a fact.


Really? I live in a very heavily unionized logging town and the non union logging companies pay their employees more than the union companies for most positions. BTW, you uttering the phrase "it's a fact" doesn't make it so.

Mulambo
12-14-2008, 09:37
op

Go go UNIONS!!

I think your thread's subtitle should be "What has it done for us lately?"

Bissen
12-14-2008, 10:19
I think your thread's subtitle should be "What has it done for us lately?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvuF1gUS0DE

Spart
12-14-2008, 11:32
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUjR5AReBU

Nuff said.


Even as I made the post, I knew this would come up, so I thought up a simple way of breaking your argument.

They stole it. That wasn't due to them being able to do it, that was due to the guy before having set it all up, and then getting that factory to (barely) keep running.


lol...yep...they have been doing a great job...great point.

What, you have a problem with every company? Or is it just that you have seen a few news reports on the "out of control salaries" that these people are earning, and have decided that they are the true evil of the world.

Titus Ultor
12-14-2008, 12:15
What, you have a problem with every company? Or is it just that you have seen a few news reports on the "out of control salaries" that these people are earning, and have decided that they are the true evil of the world.

The salaries are indeed out of control, particularly in America. While domestic companies in many fields are falling to foreign competitors, American CEOs remain (often many times over) by far the best-paid across the board. It's a labor market that has simply gone destructively insane, especially given that CEOs in corporations are ultimately just fall-guys for an executive staff of hundreds.

I'm fine with business executives being wealthy. I sure as hell wouldn't turn down the pay -- but you have to recognize that, in most situations, the salaries at the top end are a bigger problem than the ones at the bottom end.

The Cougar
12-14-2008, 12:31
the problem is, who decides what a worker's job is worth? Nobody if not the unions, or at least nobody that has the workers well being in mind. Employers will take as much as they can, give them selves golden parachutes, and could care less about their underlings. So should they set the wages? If not them, and not the unions, then who?
The market. That's kind of the point of capitalism.

sm007h
12-14-2008, 15:08
The market. That's kind of the point of capitalism.
Didn't you read Adam Smith?
If you're going to talk about capitalism...who do you think is deciding the workers' wages when unions and executives sit down and discuss a contract?

The executives have their financial advisors and know how much they can afford to pay for labor costs. The union members agree if the amount is enough for their labor. How do you think this conflicts with the "point of capitalism"?

Yobaj
12-14-2008, 15:49
They stole it. That wasn't due to them being able to do it, that was due to the guy before having set it all up, and then getting that factory to (barely) keep running.

Yea, and the guy got alot of money from the community because he couldn't run it. As I see it, they already paid for it.

Tharkon Fargor
12-14-2008, 15:57
This thread should already have been ended. Statistics have pwned everything already.
I can't belive the propaganda has gone so deep into peoples heads that they are calling for collective lowering of wages instead of attacking the capitalists who's wages are increasing with 200% under the same period of time compared to the general workers of 10%

Man...there's no hope.

Yobaj
12-14-2008, 15:58
This thread should already have been ended. Statistics have pwned everything already.
I can't belive the propaganda has gone so deep into peoples heads that they are calling for collective lowering of wages instead of attacking the capitalists who's wages are increasing with 200% under the same period of time compared to the general workers of 10%

Man...there's no hope.
You are forgetting about the American Dream! Let the rich people be free, so that the day you never become one, you will also be freeee to suck the life out of poor people!

Eskareon
12-14-2008, 16:16
Executive salaries don't come anywhere close to the figure for overpaid union workers.

There's a fundamental flaw in union principle: "I can't improve myself, and I can't find another job, so you have to compensate for me."

Yobaj
12-14-2008, 16:30
Executive salaries don't come anywhere close to the figure for overpaid union workers.

There's a fundamental flaw in union principle: "I can't improve myself, and I can't find another job, so you have to compensate for me."
I don't get what you are complaining at?
If all or a majority of the workforce says pay us more or we won't work, what's your problem? It's a part of a liberal and free society.

Bissen
12-14-2008, 16:40
Even as I made the post, I knew this would come up, so I thought up a simple way of breaking your argument.

They stole it. That wasn't due to them being able to do it, that was due to the guy before having set it all up, and then getting that factory to (barely) keep running.

You mean they stole it back. He was funded for years by government money. Then he thought he could make full profit by selling a factory funded by tax payers money for years. GG.

Robin Hood syndrome ftw!

Eskareon
12-14-2008, 18:55
I don't get what you are complaining at?
If all or a majority of the workforce says pay us more or we won't work, what's your problem? It's a part of a liberal and free society.

You clearly don't understand the complexity of having a unionized workforce.

Tharkon Fargor
12-14-2008, 19:09
It is the class war. It is needed ellse the working class will always be in a constant disadvantage to the capitalist class.

That is why communism tried to circumvent this and create a classless society but until then unions are needed, period. And they should be quite strong.

Brekken
12-14-2008, 19:11
Here is an excellent article from Mitch Albom about the auto bailout.

http://www.freep.com/article/20081213/COL01/81213055/?imw=Y

Eskareon
12-14-2008, 19:25
It is the class war. It is needed ellse the working class will always be in a constant disadvantage to the capitalist class.

That is why communism tried to circumvent this and create a classless society but until then unions are needed, period. And they should be quite strong.

Your ideology philosophies fail as soon as they leave your textbook.

Bissen
12-14-2008, 19:31
You clearly don't understand the complexity of having a unionized workforce.


Your ideology philosophies fail as soon as they leave your textbook.

Why don't you explain it to us then your hIQness?

And since about, hmm say 99%, of all workers in the world would disagree with you, joo really have to come up with something good. Real good...

Pumpkin
12-14-2008, 19:46
You clearly don't understand the complexity of having a unionized workforce.

Lets see, are you actually arguing that those free-spirited noble employers are out of the goodness-of-their-heart subsidizing wages to keep an unprofitable business afloat?

You, good sir, need a lesson in capitalism.

As a matter of fact if these companies hadn't been profitable they would have simply shut down operations and called it a day.

And as an even bigger matter of fact those companies were more profitable, despite paying high wages, than simply putting your money into a bank account for an annualized 5% or else they would have shut down operations.

Capitalism is that simple.

Yobaj
12-14-2008, 19:48
You clearly don't understand the complexity of having a unionized workforce.
Ehm, sorry but I do, I just made it really simple and took the basic principles about it so that you would understand how obvious it is that unions are okay.

Wolffen
12-14-2008, 19:49
Unions... ugh.. Reminds me, I was just working a site (i'm a security guard) in an office building that was undergoing renovations. These union electricians came and the guy was making $46/hour CAD, for almost no work. I mean, watching him for like 20 minutes I could basically do his job for him it was so easy. All it was was cutting and bending pipe and bolting it to a wall. $46 an hour for that? Wtf! That's not to mention all the talking and half assing he was doing.

And i'm getting a measly $12 per hour? wth!

Yobaj
12-14-2008, 19:51
Unions... ugh.. Reminds me, I was just working a site (i'm a security guard) in an office building that was undergoing renovations. These union electricians came and the guy was making $46/hour CAD, for almost no work. I mean, watching him for like 20 minutes I could basically do his job for him it was so easy. All it was was cutting and bending pipe and bolting it to a wall. $46 an hour for that? Wtf! That's not to mention all the talking and half assing he was doing.

And i'm getting a measly $12 per hour? wth!
Ehm, yea the physical labour I bet you could do it. But there is some thinking behind it you know... Also who gives a fuck? If all electricians gang up and say "hey we want alot of money for no work". What's the problem? It's their free will.

Bissen
12-14-2008, 19:53
Unions... ugh.. Reminds me, I was just working a site (i'm a security guard) in an office building that was undergoing renovations. These union electricians came and the guy was making $46/hour CAD, for almost no work. I mean, watching him for like 20 minutes I could basically do his job for him it was so easy. All it was was cutting and bending pipe and bolting it to a wall. $46 an hour for that? Wtf! That's not to mention all the talking and half assing he was doing.

And i'm getting a measly $12 per hour? wth!

Yes. Because thats obviously all he ever does.... Sigh

The next job he gets might be to fix a broken power relay at some factory with hundreds of problems to be solved.

Fix that Mr. Iwatchairflow

Yantheman
12-14-2008, 20:22
Yes. Because thats obviously all he ever does.... Sigh

The next job he gets might be to fix a broken power relay at some factory with hundreds of problems to be solved.

Fix that Mr. Iwatchairflow

This

sm007h
12-14-2008, 20:42
lol, I can't get over some of the examples against unions in this thread.
the latest one:

"unions suck because I once spent all day at my job watching a bunch of union workers do something that didn't seem that hard..."

and you know they did this for $46/hr because you asked, "hey what do you lazy fuckers make anyway?" or did you just make the number up? of course, $46 Canadian dollars buys you what exactly these days...a video game? a full tank of gas? a movie and popcorn?

Bissen
12-14-2008, 20:49
Unions... ugh.. Reminds me, I was just working a site (i'm a security guard) in an office building that was undergoing renovations. These union electricians came and the guy was making $46/hour CAD, for almost no work. I mean, watching him for like 20 minutes I could basically do his job for him it was so easy. All it was was cutting and bending pipe and bolting it to a wall. $46 an hour for that? Wtf! That's not to mention all the talking and half assing he was doing.

And i'm getting a measly $12 per hour? wth!


Also. Make a union for watchers of air!

Eskareon
12-15-2008, 04:14
The same broken logic that says, "Union workers get paid huge cash for doing nothing!" is the same broken logic that says, "Unions protect hardworking employees from exploitation!"

Hyperbole and anecdote, meet hyperbole and anecdote.

The problem with unions is that they prevent businesses from running more efficiently. Management is forced to tipy-toe around blatant workforce problems because unions will rip them apart if they dare to blame a union worker for any misconduct, poor workmanship, or poor work ethic. Moreover, unions force companies to pay simply outrageous amount of money to workers for a plethora of situations; time-off due to suspension, forced wage increases, etc.

Unions have created an absurd sense of entitlement. Workers don't have a right to be employed at their job. It's a privilege bestowed by the company. I'm sure that makes a lot of people seethe, but it's the truth. If a business doesn't feel you are the best employee for the position, they should be allowed to dismiss you. But, no, unions will "fight for the employee," which essentially means they will run the company through so much pressure and litigation that they are forced to keep inefficient or unnecessary employees.

You can claim all day that unions are necessary due to some phantom, wide-spread corruption that you assume affects every business everywhere. Reality is that unions are beyond unnecessary; they do much more harm to a business than good. In fact, that's now their sole purpose - to resist business growth.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 04:40
Ehm, yea the physical labour I bet you could do it. But there is some thinking behind it you know... Also who gives a fuck? If all electricians gang up and say "hey we want alot of money for no work". What's the problem? It's their free will.

As long as we agree that if employer decides to not hire any of them it is perfectly fine. And if all those bums start to riot the riot police should come down hard on them. What you expect fairness to be pretty? I bet it would cost the big three less to hire a scrub workforce and kick all these unions to the door.

Vanno
12-15-2008, 05:14
All I can say on the matter is that most anti-union people don't know what the fuck they are talking about, and the gung-ho union supporters are also completely lost. As far as why the big three have been sucking, Unions have little to do with it.

Here is one of the better articles out there on the whole issue.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/107263-six-myths-about-the-big-three

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 05:22
All I can say on the matter is that most anti-union people don't know what the fuck they are talking about, and the gung-ho union supporters are also completely lost. As far as why the big three have been sucking, Unions have little to do with it.

Here is one of the better articles out there on the whole issue.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/107263-six-myths-about-the-big-three

Good article. I disagree with the conclusion tho. He points out how all is peachy with the big 3 and how there is no one to blame. That all may be true but the underlying problem that he pointed out remains. They are insolvent without government help.

I would welcome them going bankrupt. Maybe then Toyota or some other company will buy them out and make them into their trucking division.

Exultus
12-15-2008, 06:38
Safe Working Standards
Forty Hour Week
Weekends
Eight Hour Days
End to Child Labor
Etc

Eskareon
12-15-2008, 13:44
Safe Working Standards
Forty Hour Week
Weekends
Eight Hour Days
End to Child Labor
Etc

Yes, let's just focus on historical positives. Maybe we should talk about medical research advanced during the Nazi rule? Or weapon technology upgraded during the world wars? Or maybe we should talk about the exploration and discoveries made during the Crusades?

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 13:47
Yes, let's just focus on historical positives. Maybe we should talk about medical research advanced during the Nazi rule? Or weapon technology upgraded during the world wars? Or maybe we should talk about the exploration and discoveries made during the Crusades?

Only on the historical positives?


Are you completely retarded or simply a psychopath?

Eskareon
12-15-2008, 13:51
Only on the historical positives?


Are you completely retarded or simply a psychopath?


Because if we remove the bloated unions we'll suddenly find 8-year-olds working in a paint factory without breathers, on Sunday, to fulfill their 60-hour workweeks. Yes.

NapalmEnema
12-15-2008, 13:53
Because if we remove the bloated unions we'll suddenly find 8-year-olds working in a paint factory without breathers, on Sunday, to fulfill their 60-hour workweeks. Yes.

Methinks you just stumbled on a solution for the Big 3!!! Moar child labor plz. I mean those little fucking hands are PERFECT for assembling dashes of cars with those 'hard to reach' screws way up in there.

:ohno:

Eskareon
12-15-2008, 13:54
Methinks you just stumbled on a solution for the Big 3!!! Moar child labor plz. I mean those little fucking hands are PERFECT for assembling dashes of cars with those 'hard to reach' screws way up in there.

:ohno:

You mean, robots are perfect for assembling car dashes but oh, wait, if the plant upgrades to robots then it will have an enormous overhead cost because it has to continue to pay the wages of all the unionized workers it lays off.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 13:55
History teaches us that power is rarely given up freely.
If unions weren't needed and if everyone worked for the benifit of all then they wouldn't exist.

It's as simple as that and it is their full right to exist so I find it pathethic of you to even suggest infringing on that right after the struggles their forefathers had to live through.
Even on a forum you sound pathethic and that's damn hard to do.

NapalmEnema
12-15-2008, 13:56
You mean, robots are perfect for assembling car dashes but oh, wait, if the plant upgrades to robots then it will have an enormous overhead cost because it has to continue to pay the wages of all the unionized workers it lays off.

CHILD ROBOTS.

I'm calling Detroit now!!

Eskareon
12-15-2008, 14:01
History teaches us that power is rarely given up freely.
If unions weren't needed and if everyone worked for the benifit of all then they wouldn't exist.

Thanks for finally admitting that communism will never work.

Edit: But seriously, hold your ideology for after you've worked and been exposed to the rest of the world. It's easy to think you're 'right' from the perspective of your classroom and textbooks.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 14:05
Exposed to the real world? Of evil, nazi-crusader-unions that will force on me good living standards and 8 hour workdays?

Ahh the horror...Where do I enlist?

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 14:56
It's as simple as that and it is their full right to exist so I find it pathethic of you to even suggest infringing on that right after the struggles their forefathers had to live through.
Even on a forum you sound pathethic and that's damn hard to do.

No one says it is not their right. Currently they have legislature that helps them to the their side of the job. That is not right.

biggunsar
12-15-2008, 14:59
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!
agreed. Unions are now about breaking the company. Lets see how much we can squeeze before they say no. Then we will strike and force them to say yes.

Unions are bad. Should be done away with. Supply and demand of workers would dictate the wage. A union is not capitalistic.

Killuminati
12-15-2008, 15:02
agreed. Unions are now about breaking the company. Lets see how much we can squeeze before they say no. Then we will strike and force them to say yes.

Unions are bad. Should be done away with. Supply and demand of workers would dictate the wage. A union is not capitalistic.

A union is only bad when they are given a monopoly status like in the US. The voluntary association of many workers isn't a bad thing since they are simply attempting to bargain for wage increases or benefits. It becomes a problem when the union members use coercion with the power of government to get what they want and obtain a wage increase at the expense of other workers. Otherwise unions are normal voluntary organizations which are compatible in a capitalist setting.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 15:09
Relatively speaking you must recognise the fact that corporations get alot of leverage from the government and so should the workers, if not more.

<Sarcasam> Ofcourse I love the argument that something shouldn't exist because it is not "capitalistic" </sarcasam>

People who don't understand how economics work shouldn't express their opinion.
Any money that the workers get is then re-invested into the market one way or an other. It is the unfair conditions that the workers have in nations which don't allow unions that makes competition hard. The answer is obviously to make sure every workforce, everywhere is informed about unions, has the right to form them and is protected if they form them in terms of anti-discriminative legislation.

Governments should send AID-money to foreign unions and not to corporations directly as through different "fair-trade" labels.
Unions gave us the living standards we have here in Europe together with other labour movements and that should be the way forward in third world countries to.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 15:12
Relatively speaking you must recognise the fact that corporations get alot of leverage from the government and so should the workers, if not more.

<Sarcasam> Ofcourse I love the argument that something shouldn't exist because it is not "capitalistic" </sarcasam>

People who don't understand how economics work shouldn't express their opinion.
Any money that the workers get is then re-invested into the market one way or an other. It is the unfair conditions that the workers have in nations which don't allow unions that makes competition hard. The answer is obviously to make sure every workforce, everywhere is informed about unions, has the right to form them and is protected if they form them in terms of anti-discriminative legislation.

Governments should send AID-money to foreign unions and not to corporations directly as through different "fair-trade" labels.
Unions gave us the living standards we have here in Europe together with other labour movements and that should be the way forward in third world countries to.
I was there with you until the last part. You are a clueless child if you think anything forced is ever good. Don't think that since you will never be a big business owner that this will not touch you in a negative way.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 15:17
I do not want a "big business" owner to be able to force a worker to provide information if he is unionized or not. It should be his right and he should not be discriminated for that. I do not care about your opinion in regards to that the state should not force someone in any case (in this case the state forcing the business owner not to force the laborer to provide information). The state power is the collective will of the inhabitants of the state and if someone objects to the collective will of those living in the community that much then that person should be granted the right to ceede from the community together with his property. But we've had this discussion a million times. I don't care about if force is used as long as everyone are equal under the same law and as long as there are other choices in the world for those who absolutely dislike the ones made by the majority of their collective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

Interesting article, says union membership is falling in the US since legislation has again been de-regulated...and now we are seeing the shit happening. The shit wasn't happening while shit was unionized.


The labor force in unionized automobile and steel plants, for example, has fallen dramatically.

How fucking pathethic to blame the current crisis on something that has been falling in popularity while the crisis has been increasing.

Killuminati
12-15-2008, 15:18
The same broken logic that says, "Union workers get paid huge cash for doing nothing!" is the same broken logic that says, "Unions protect hardworking employees from exploitation!"

Hyperbole and anecdote, meet hyperbole and anecdote.

The problem with unions is that they prevent businesses from running more efficiently. Management is forced to tipy-toe around blatant workforce problems because unions will rip them apart if they dare to blame a union worker for any misconduct, poor workmanship, or poor work ethic. Moreover, unions force companies to pay simply outrageous amount of money to workers for a plethora of situations; time-off due to suspension, forced wage increases, etc.

Unions have created an absurd sense of entitlement. Workers don't have a right to be employed at their job. It's a privilege bestowed by the company. I'm sure that makes a lot of people seethe, but it's the truth. If a business doesn't feel you are the best employee for the position, they should be allowed to dismiss you. But, no, unions will "fight for the employee," which essentially means they will run the company through so much pressure and litigation that they are forced to keep inefficient or unnecessary employees.

You can claim all day that unions are necessary due to some phantom, wide-spread corruption that you assume affects every business everywhere. Reality is that unions are beyond unnecessary; they do much more harm to a business than good. In fact, that's now their sole purpose - to resist business growth.

Even though I agree, you must understand what gives them that power. It isn't the union themselves since they can't force the business at the point of a gun to do anything. Examine the legislation created in the US which gave them so much power.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 15:21
I do not want a "big business" owner to be able to force a worker to provide information if he is unionized or not. It should be his right and he should not be discriminated for that. I do not care about your opinion in regards to that the state should not force someone in any case (in this case the state forcing the business owner not to force the laborer to provide information). The state power is the collective will of the inhabitants of the state and if someone objects to the collective will of those living in the community that much then that person should be granted the right to ceede from the community together with his property. But we've had this discussion a million times. I don't care about if force is used as long as everyone are equal under the same law and as long as there are other choices in the world for those who absolutely dislike the ones made by the majority of their collective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

Interesting article, says union membership is falling in the US since legislation has again been de-regulated...and now we are seeing the shit happening. The shit wasn't happening while shit was unionized.



How fucking pathethic to blame the current crisis on something that has been falling in popularity while the crisis has been increasing.
I dint read all that drivel since all ti takes is to destroy your collective assumption to go ahead with the argument.

As long as we are individuals there is no such a thing as collective will. Everyone has a different opinion. Thankfully only a minority adheres to your senseless love for collectivism. Most people have no trouble recognizing that we must respect everyones private property.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 15:24
@Eskareon

Indeed a unions sole purpous is to resist business growth - on the expense of the working man. It is the class war which you said didn't exist beyond my books but now claim to exist yourself.

If everything that the working man has today would've been created without unions then what are you complaining about? Then the unions are just a phantom of whoms ideas the kind, loving corporation would have followed anyway.

If this isn't the case then obviously both legislation and unions are needed because without them the working class is much to weak. Markets, including the market of "wages" is easily manipulated between corporations and their cartels and without unions workers would've still been in a pile of shit like they are in other countries where unions were hit on even harder than in the US or Europe.

No, "Free-Markets" don't work, and if they do work then unions are just phantoms we need not care about. Either way Eskareons argument falls flat again in anything except the constant far-right nagging about "force" being used which to anyone except them is relative.


As long as we are individuals there is no such a thing as collective will. Everyone has a different opinion. Thankfully only a minority adheres to your senseless love for collectivism. Most people have no trouble recognizing that we must respect everyones private property.

The collective will is the incarnation of the will of all individuals or a majority of these. Ideas, thoughts, theories and morals all compromised with each other so that each man and woman will be able to have an as possible comfortable existance. Without the collective will we are just degenerative giants, trampling anything in our way for the purpous of nothing more than self-fulfilment, with complete and utter disregard for others or their wellbeing. Without the collective we become nothing more than the corporation and start following its only ruthless reason for existance; profit; above all ellse.

In this way we destroy each other until there is only one left, with a little of everyones wealth.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 15:30
Indeed a unions sole purpous is to resist business growth - on the expense of the working man. It is the class war which you said didn't exist beyond my books but now claim to exist yourself.

If everything that the working man has today would've been created without unions then what are you complaining about, they are just a phantom of whoms ideas the kind, loving corporation would have followed anyway.

If this isn't the case then obviously both legislation and unions are needed because without them the working class is much to weak. Markets, including the market of "wages" is easily manipulated between corporations and their cartels and without unions workers would've still been in a pile of shit like they are in other countries where unions were hit on even harder than in the US or Europe.

No, "Free-Markets" don't work, and if they do work then unions are just phantoms we need not care about. Either way Eskareons argument falls flat again in anything except the constant far-right nagging about "force" being used which to anyone except them is relative.

I guess the strategy where you can't defend your arguments so you post a wall of text on a different subject pays of somewhere. That somewhere is not forumfall.

The so called fallacy that you present here is something you can make ignoring my initial argument. It is not a phantom, things can be done the right way and the wrong way. A society where it is alright for the state to interfere in the private business of its citizens is not far off from tyranny.

All these things would have happened without the unions and we would have a society that respects inalienable rights.


The collective will is the incarnation of the will of all individuals or a majority of these. Ideas, thoughts, theories and morals all compromised with each other so that each man and woman will be able to have an as possible comfortable existance. Without the collective will we are just degenerative giants, trampling anything in our way for the purpous of nothing more than self-fulfilment, with complete and utter disregard for others or their wellbeing. Without the collective we become nothing more than the corporation and start following its only ruthless reason for existance; profit; above all ellse.

In this way we destroy each other until there is only one left, with a little of everyones wealth.

Oh my oh my. Sorry to disappoint you here buddy but humans will never agree on anything. You will always have a minority that does not agree with majority. The fact that majority gets its way over the minority is not a good thing.

Only a society that protects individuals from majority is more just then anything we have today. Societies are not formed so everyone can live comfortably.

Killuminati
12-15-2008, 15:32
Indeed a unions sole purpous is to resist business growth - on the expense of the working man. It is the class war which you said didn't exist beyond my books but now claim to exist yourself.

If everything that the working man has today would've been created without unions then what are you complaining about, they are just a phantom of whoms ideas the kind, loving corporation would have followed anyway.

If this isn't the case then obviously both legislation and unions are needed because without them the working class is much to weak. Markets, including the market of "wages" is easily manipulated between corporations and their cartels and without unions workers would've still been in a pile of shit like they are in other countries where unions were hit on even harder than in the US or Europe.

No, "Free-Markets" don't work, and if they do work then unions are just phantoms we need not care about. Either way Eskareons argument falls flat again in anything except the constant far-right nagging about "force" being used which to anyone except them is relative.

How does it "fall flat" if it merely is pointing out the means in which unions obtain higher wages. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for unions if there were no coercion involved in artifical increases of wages.

Cartels? oh you mean those things that are created with government barriers to entry. You talk about people not being able to speak if they don't know economics, but you say shit like, "the market of wages is easily manipulated." Does that even make sense to yourself? Wages are determined by a workers productivity, and their wage is reflected by it.

What exactly is the process which allows for businesses to grow at the expense of workers? I believe in competitive conditions workers are payed and are continued to be payed as they grow. Working conditions also have to increase in order to properly compete unless they desire losing workers to other companies. So, what exactly do you get the conclusion that workers are in a class struggle. Is it the belief that they are disconnected from their labor? Or class consciousness?

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 15:39
I guess the strategy where you can't defend your arguments

My arguments need no more "factual" defense. They have already been proven beyond doubt by me and others earlier in the thread, now remains only the philosophical battle.



Oh my oh my. Sorry to disappoint you here buddy but humans will never agree on anything. You will always have a minority that does not agree with majority. The fact that majority gets its way over the minority is not a good thing.

Only a society that protects individuals from majority is more just then anything we have today. Societies are not formed so everyone can live comfortably.

Bullshit, civilized humans can make compromises and work for the benifit of the many, including themselves. Your inability of do that is not of my concern, perhaps you should consult with a doctor if you cannot work well in a group of people.

Also your definition of society is bullshit. It is per se a definition of "non-society" or the non-existant society that Thatcher spoke of which ofcourse would go against all modern scientific research for the past 200 years, thus not even being worth my time.

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 15:49
Cartels? oh you mean those things that are created with government barriers to entry.

Common, why go there. Are you so stupid?


Lets do baby steps.
Without regulations, can cartels be formed?



You talk about people not being able to speak if they don't know economics, but you say shit like, "the market of wages is easily manipulated." Does that even make sense to yourself? Wages are determined by a workers productivity, and their wage is reflected by it.

Baby steps again:

Someone earlier in this thread claimed that wages should be set by supply and demand and that they in many cases are. Do you agree?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:20
The same broken logic that says, "Union workers get paid huge cash for doing nothing!" is the same broken logic that says, "Unions protect hardworking employees from exploitation!"

Hyperbole and anecdote, meet hyperbole and anecdote.

The problem with unions is that they prevent businesses from running more efficiently. Management is forced to tipy-toe around blatant workforce problems because unions will rip them apart if they dare to blame a union worker for any misconduct, poor workmanship, or poor work ethic. Moreover, unions force companies to pay simply outrageous amount of money to workers for a plethora of situations; time-off due to suspension, forced wage increases, etc.

Unions have created an absurd sense of entitlement. Workers don't have a right to be employed at their job. It's a privilege bestowed by the company. I'm sure that makes a lot of people seethe, but it's the truth. If a business doesn't feel you are the best employee for the position, they should be allowed to dismiss you. But, no, unions will "fight for the employee," which essentially means they will run the company through so much pressure and litigation that they are forced to keep inefficient or unnecessary employees.

You can claim all day that unions are necessary due to some phantom, wide-spread corruption that you assume affects every business everywhere. Reality is that unions are beyond unnecessary; they do much more harm to a business than good. In fact, that's now their sole purpose - to resist business growth.


You live in a dream world if you think employers would take care of it's workers the way unions do. Unions are afterall workers taking care of their own interests, which is NEVER a guarantee anyway. And in the free societies of the western world we (the workers) are in our good right to do this.

The employers are in their own good right to make their own "unions". Then when strike sets in it's all about who has the most money and who has the most patience.

Again. The world disagree's with you. Make a poll on it and see who wins...

Besides. Employers are in their good right to fire their entire staff and hire new ones. Stop bitching on their behalf. Or are you an employer yourself?

Titus Ultor
12-15-2008, 16:21
It's sad when someone's getting pwned in economic theory by a socialist.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:30
CHILD ROBOTS.

I'm calling Detroit now!!

duut duut

"Sorry we're closed, call back when commies"

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 16:35
My arguments need no more "factual" defense. They have already been proven beyond doubt by me and others earlier in the thread, now remains only the philosophical battle.

Really all I see is evidence to the contrary... That is the reason I switched to philosophical discussion because it seems you turned a blind eye to other arguments.



Bullshit, civilized humans can make compromises and work for the benifit of the many, including themselves. Your inability of do that is not of my concern, perhaps you should consult with a doctor if you cannot work well in a group of people.

This has nothing to do with compromising or not. It all has to do with the fact if you are willing to step on some peoples freedoms and in order to improve the lives of others.

People who are not brainwashed simpletons will recognize the importance of justice. People like you will live in their reality.

Also your definition of society is bullshit. It is per se a definition of "non-society" or the non-existant society that Thatcher spoke of which ofcourse would go against all modern scientific research for the past 200 years, thus not even being worth my time.

I did not give you the definition of society I told you what society is not about. I don't know the definition of society it means different things to everyone.

I am 99% sure on the fact that when the first society was made they did not come together and say "oh geeee we should come together so all of us lives a comfortable life". Then again I should make a concession here. Society that loves liberty and freedom does not exist to provide you with a comfortable life.


Common, why go there. Are you so stupid?


Lets do baby steps.
Without regulations, can cartels be formed?


They can exist with regulation and without regulation. Your point is irrelevant. There is evidence that they are most common when there is regulation present that makes a barrier of entrance for competition. Cartels that are made with the absence of regulation are harder to maintain and are doomed to fall apart.

Baby steps again:

Someone earlier in this thread claimed that wages should be set by supply and demand and that they in many cases are. Do you agree?

Supply and demand has nothing to do with what he said. Had you been some one besides a blind idealistic Marx lover you would know that. Productivity is a type of a worker, it determines the quality of a worker you have. There may be big supply of quality workers there may be a small supply of them. Prices are never the same across the board neither should be the wages.

Let me ask you something. I am afraid this may make your brain explode. If am a worker out of a job. I know I do better job than union workers. Why can I not offer my services for lesser wage so I can get my foot in the door? I will save money on not having to pay to the union and move up faster for doing a good job. What would be the point for me to join the union? Why does the union deserve a monopoly on a business so its people get to be hired?


You live in a dream world if you think employers would take care of it's workers the way unions do. Unions are afterall workers taking care of the their own interests, which is NEVER a guarantee anyway. And in the free societies of the western world we (the workers) are in our good right to do this.

The employers are in their own good right to make their own "unions". Then when strike sets in it's all about who has the most money and who has the most patience.

Again. The world disagree's with you. Make a poll on it and see who wins...

Besides. Employers are in their good right to fire their entire staff and hire new ones. Stop bitching on their behalf. Or are you an employer yourself?

Oh really? GM can fire the entire union and hire scrubs? Wait... something does not compute.


It's sad when someone's getting pwned in economic theory by a socialist.

It would mean something if it was comming from a capitalist and ifyou were right.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:36
Thanks for finally admitting that communism will never work.

Edit: But seriously, hold your ideology for after you've worked and been exposed to the rest of the world. It's easy to think you're 'right' from the perspective of your classroom and textbooks.

Exactly when has he said communism worked. Other than small scale ofcourse.

Ohh. And capil'ism called and asked for another bailout...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWuFagYcpTY







See what I did there?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:38
Exposed to the real world? Of evil, nazi-crusader-unions that will force on me good living standards and 8 hour workdays?

Ahh the horror...Where do I enlist?

lulz

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 16:40
Exactly when has he said communism worked. Other than small scale ofcourse.

Ohh. And capil'ism called and asked for another bailout...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWuFagYcpTY







See what I did there?

You confused crony capitalism with real one? Ohhhh.... you trying to say real capitalism never works? Riiight. Ok. I see that was clever... not.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:41
agreed. Unions are now about breaking the company. Lets see how much we can squeeze before they say no. Then we will strike and force them to say yes.

Unions are bad. Should be done away with. Supply and demand of workers would dictate the wage. A union is not capitalistic.

Troll attempt?

It's your government and your frickin banks fault. Spread your crack and prepare to get served bitch. Or atleast climb out from that rock you've been living under.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:42
You confused crony capitalism with real one? Ohhhh.... you trying to say real capitalism never works? Riiight. Ok. I see that was clever... not.

Extremes don't work. Not one, nor the other.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 16:45
Extremes don't work. Not one, nor the other.

How is it extreme to respect other human beings for being individuals? All systems are going to get corrupt. The system we have now is corrupt too. You have no point what so ever because the in-between road does not work either.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 16:48
How is it extreme to respect other human beings for being individuals? All systems are going to get corrupt. The system we have now is corrupt too. You have no point what so ever because the in-between road does not work either.

It does. And we're the happiest place on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 16:53
It does. And we're the happiest place on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4

Good for you too bad I don't give a shit if some one is happier then me. I worry about my self. Last I checked I enjoy my life here much more then I would if I lived in your tiny country of nobodygivesafuck.

edit: Life expectancy is the same. GDP is hire. Taxes are lower. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. You can lie all you want but I am completely sure that potential for happiness in America is much much greater.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:03
Good for you too bad I don't give a shit if some one is happier then me. I worry about my self. Last I checked I enjoy my life here much more then I would if I lived in your tiny country of nobodygivesafuck.

That really is too bad that you don't give a fuck. Perhaps your answer lies there?

United States of Arrogance could learn from the worlds societies. But no no. You got it ALL figured out over there hehe :lmao:




Ohh and better link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shepBx2ogJo

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 17:04
That really is too bad that you don't give a fuck. Perhaps your answer lies there?

United States of Arrogance could learn from the worlds societies. But no no. You got it ALL figured out over there hehe :lmao:




Ohh and better link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shepBx2ogJo

How about you link something that is not completly subjective?

The reason why no one gives a fuck is because we are talking about America and not some tiny country that can't even fathom our problems. Who also at the same time by all core statistics is still lagging behind us. The only thing the denizen of said country brings up is a fucking happiness argument.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:04
Good for you too bad I don't give a shit if some one is happier then me. I worry about my self. Last I checked I enjoy my life here much more then I would if I lived in your tiny country of nobodygivesafuck.

edit: Life expectancy is the same. GDP is hire. Taxes are lower. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. You can lie all you want but I am completely sure that potential for happiness in America is much much greater.


Yes. Argue with scientific research. You wouldn't happen to be religious, would you?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:05
How about you link something that is not completly subjective?


It's research based on more than 150 nations. Where's the subjectivity?


The reason why no one gives a fuck is because we are talking about America and not some tiny country that can't even fathom our problems. Who also at the same time by all core statistics is still lagging behind us. The only thing the denizen of said country brings up is a fucking happiness argument.

So you're telling me what works for 5.5 million people, couldn't work for America?

Also. Happiness is not something Americans pursuit or what? Or you do, but by following the wrong directions *cough*materialism*

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 17:06
It's research based on more than 150 nations. Where's the subjectivity?

You figured out what makes every single human being happy?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:09
You figured out what makes every single human being happy?

No. But the majority. According to science. But they can't be trusted. I agree.

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 17:14
So you're telling me what works for 5.5 million people, couldn't work for America?

300 million people is several magnitudes bigger than 5.5 million. I am not trying to say your country is shit. But your country can probably make the two extremes work also. Size changes many things.

In America’s case your countries system does not work. For the past 50 years we had politicians push us towards that and for the past 50 years our standard of living declined.

Erroneous
12-15-2008, 17:14
The reason the nordic model works is they have been employed in nations with small homogeneous populations, a wealth natural resources, and low immigration.

The United States has a different sort of culture and entrepreneurial one which leads to higher inequality, lower happiness, but a great amount of innovation and opportuinity. I've already said I'm in favor of unions, but it is also quite clear that they are the cause of a great deal of the current auto-makers problems. The foreign car manufacturers in the US are not unionized and perform much more efficiently (Without creating some sort of horiffic work environment).

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:21
The reason the nordic model works is they have been employed in nations with small homogeneous populations, a wealth natural resources, and low immigration.

The United States has a different sort of culture and entrepreneurial one which leads to higher inequality, lower happiness, but a great amount of innovation and opportuinity. I've already said I'm in favor of unions, but it is also quite clear that they are the cause of a great deal of the current auto-makers problems. The foreign car manufacturers in the US are not unionized and perform much more efficiently (Without creating some sort of horiffic work environment).


So it really is the legislation and not the unions something wrong with.

Perhaps the US lobbyism/corruption form of political agenda needs to be reconsidered?

But then again. That would demand US citizens actually give a damn. Which they don't...

Arkh
12-15-2008, 17:24
United States of Arrogance could learn from the worlds societies.
When the world follows your presidential election, I think you're intitled to some arrogance.

You're happy in Denmark ? Then stay there and don't shit your socialist propaganda everywhere.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 17:29
When the world follows your presidential election, I think you're intitled to some arrogance.

You're happy in Denmark ? Then stay there and don't shit your socialist propaganda everywhere.

Aww. Can't take the sweat hombre? This is a public forum in case you missed it. And I'll shit what ever the fuck I want. Including how society tends to function outside the Empire.

You're an American living in France? You must hate yourself...

Dhig
12-15-2008, 17:52
When the world follows your presidential election, I think you're intitled to some arrogance.

You're happy in Denmark ? Then stay there and don't shit your socialist propaganda everywhere.

Denmark is socialist country?
Thats news for me.

You can pull your head out of your butt right now.
US doesnt use more capitalism then other countries.
They only refuse, out of pride, that it can work with more humane socialism.
So everyone in their "rich" country can maintain a certain standard.

I pretty much like to watch the fall of the worlds richest country. They can always claim they held their heads up high while it happens.
They can always claim that socialism was evil.

Its just fucking stupid to blame unions (bad socialism propaganda) when it was the free market that brought it on themselves.

Way to go and promote another hummer 2008 when people asked for cars that didnt cost so much to use.
It must have been the unions fault!!!

Erroneous
12-15-2008, 17:55
The free market didn't bring about the bad business decisions, it should bring about the failure of these companies, but we're proving more and more that we aren't really a capitalist society.

Killuminati
12-15-2008, 17:57
Common, why go there. Are you so stupid?


Lets do baby steps.
Without regulations, can cartels be formed?




Baby steps again:

Someone earlier in this thread claimed that wages should be set by supply and demand and that they in many cases are. Do you agree?

Why so serious?

Cartels can be formed, but the guarantee that they will last is almost nonexistent. The prisoners dilemma shows how they can profit from immediately ignoring the agreement to keep prices high, if short term gains allow for the company to take a larger market share. The incentive is to dishonor the disagreement and lower prices. Adam smith even explained in the Wealth of Nations, that businessman always dishonor these disagreements. There is even statistical evidence on how cartels don't ever last.

Why wouldn't I not agree with supply and demand? I'm not the one who worships Marx. Next time if you attempt to talk down to someone you could first educate yourself.





It's sad when someone's getting pwned in economic theory by a socialist.

and this is happening where in this thread? All I see is more inane forumfall type arguing.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 18:16
Gold's at over $800/oz, when the economy really starts to crash around us, that's going to devalue as fast as our currency. Personally, I think silver is a better option, it's under 10/oz and won't fluctuate as much.

this makes no sense, whatsoever. You go ahead and say that gold is quoted in dollars, and then you say that when the dollar loses value, everything else will too? do you know what inflation means?

Justinian
12-15-2008, 18:21
My arguments need no more "factual" defense. They have already been proven beyond doubt by me and others earlier in the thread, now remains only the philosophical battle.




Bullshit, civilized humans can make compromises and work for the benifit of the many, including themselves. Your inability of do that is not of my concern, perhaps you should consult with a doctor if you cannot work well in a group of people.

Also your definition of society is bullshit. It is per se a definition of "non-society" or the non-existant society that Thatcher spoke of which ofcourse would go against all modern scientific research for the past 200 years, thus not even being worth my time.

this guy's trolling you guys pretty hard.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 18:37
this guy's trolling you guys pretty hard.

I think you have a hard time grasping the term "troll".

Pumpkin
12-15-2008, 18:42
You confused crony capitalism with real one? Ohhhh.... you trying to say real capitalism never works? Riiight. Ok. I see that was clever... not.

You sound like a fucking communist. "WAHH THAT'S NOT REAL COMMUNISM, LIVE THE THEORETICAL IDEAL!"

The real capitalism is the one that, you know, actually exists. And that one is fucking people over left and right at the moment.

Mungad
12-15-2008, 18:42
Every and I mean EVERY UAW worker I have ever talked to tells me stories about how the Union discourages hard work and doing more than anyone else does. They are militant and do get violent about it. I heard of one factory where the workers set up shops and sell other stuff while on the clock. (Food, bootleg dvds, etc)

Justinian
12-15-2008, 18:46
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-12-11_083_the_auto_bailout_and_other_crimes .mp3

Here's some economic fact to clear up the polite sophistry we have floating around here.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 18:47
You sound like a fucking communist. "WAHH THAT'S NOT REAL COMMUNISM, LIVE THE THEORETICAL IDEAL!"

The real capitalism is the one that, you know, actually exists. And that one is fucking people over left and right at the moment.

Respectfully, capitalism does not exist right now. Government caused all of our current problems, and it's using capitalism as its scapegoat. And you're buying the government's line hook, line, and sinker.

Check out the podcast I just posted. If for no other reason, you'll learn something.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 18:56
Respectfully, capitalism does not exist right now. Government caused all of our current problems, and it's using capitalism as its scapegoat. And you're buying the government's line hook, line, and sinker.

Check out the podcast I just posted. If for no other reason, you'll learn something.

Either way. THE BANKS FUCKED UP! Which pretty much are the backbone in capitalism. They fucked up and now they want your moneyz.

Real capitalism didn't work, so now they want socialism to fix it for them!

GETZ IT?

I can't see how anyone could judge the current situation differently.

Also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY

Best 16 seconds on the tube.

Dhig
12-15-2008, 18:57
Respectfully, capitalism does not exist right now. Government caused all of our current problems, and it's using capitalism as its scapegoat. And you're buying the government's line hook, line, and sinker.

Check out the podcast I just posted. If for no other reason, you'll learn something.

Capitalism exists if you like it or not.
Its both the market and the governments fault.
The free market for risking other peoples wealth and the government for not controlling it properly.
So please stop this bullshit where you see things only in black and white.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 19:05
Capitalism exists if you like it or not.
Its both the market and the governments fault.
The free market for risking other peoples wealth and the government for not controlling it properly.
So please stop this bullshit where you see things only in black and white.

Hello. What was the superficial root of this economic crisis, again? You know, the reason that all the banks are in so much trouble right now. I know the answer to this, but I want you to answer it first. Let's call it the Socratic method.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 19:06
Either way. THE BANKS FUCKED UP! Which pretty much are the backbone in capitalism. They fucked up and now they want your moneyz.

Real capitalism didn't work, so now they want socialism to fix it for them!

GETZ IT?

I can't see how anyone could judge the current situation differently.

Also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY

Best 16 seconds on the tube.

See my last post.

As an aside, I find it hilarious that Greenspan blames the junkies when he's the one who was handing out the heroin.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 19:13
Hello. What was the superficial root of this economic crisis, again? You know, the reason that all the banks are in so much trouble right now. I know the answer to this, but I want you to answer it first. Let's call it the Socratic method.

Greed. Nuff said.

And who's gonna pay for it?


YOU ARE!

Wonder if you Americans will ever get off the couch and march down to DC and start impaling these fuckers. Maybe after that you could do wallstreet no?

Dhig
12-15-2008, 19:22
Hello. What was the superficial root of this economic crisis, again? You know, the reason that all the banks are in so much trouble right now. I know the answer to this, but I want you to answer it first. Let's call it the Socratic method.

You mean the government forced the banks to risk other peoples wealth?
Just like the government forced the car industry to build cars that consumes alot of gasoline?
Governments fuck up by not controlling the economy. But its not their fault if banks fuck up their own economy.
So to point out one to blame is just stupid.
Just live with that your market fucked up and so did your government.

Arkh
12-15-2008, 19:47
You sound like a fucking communist. "WAHH THAT'S NOT REAL COMMUNISM, LIVE THE THEORETICAL IDEAL!"

The real capitalism is the one that, you know, actually exists. And that one is fucking people over left and right at the moment.
Thanks to the help of diligent governments, unions, consumers, employees. In fact, nearly everyone is happy to have a fucked up system.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 20:13
Greed. Nuff said.

And who's gonna pay for it?


YOU ARE!

Wonder if you Americans will ever get off the couch and march down to DC and start impaling these fuckers. Maybe after that you could do wallstreet no?

Greed isn't a factual answer. In fact, it's pretty subjective.

I'll try asking again and this time I'll expect a more factual answer: what, in reality (the TV talks about it all the time, c'mon. you should be able to get even this), was the initial problem which caused all of this. IN REALITY.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 20:15
You mean the government forced the banks to risk other peoples wealth?
Just like the government forced the car industry to build cars that consumes alot of gasoline?
Governments fuck up by not controlling the economy. But its not their fault if banks fuck up their own economy.
So to point out one to blame is just stupid.
Just live with that your market fucked up and so did your government.

All I did was ask you a simple question - what's with all the emo angst?

The question, again, was: what was the initial sign that things were going wrong with the US economy? What was the "tip of the iceberg", so to speak?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 20:22
Thanks to the help of diligent governments, unions, consumers, employees. In fact, nearly everyone is happy to have a fucked up system.

I love how you're able to ask in east and answer in west.


Greed isn't a factual answer. In fact, it's pretty subjective.

I'll try asking again and this time I'll expect a more factual answer: what, in reality (the TV talks about it all the time, c'mon. you should be able to get even this), was the initial problem which caused all of this. IN REALITY.

Greed is a factual answer. It is also the superficial root of this crisis.

Now stop acting educated and start contributing something to this thread other than bullshit.

I believe you just spend 4 posts playing "can you guess my IQ"

Justinian
12-15-2008, 20:28
I love how you're able to ask in east and answer in west.



Greed is a factual answer. It is also the superficial root of this crisis.

Now stop acting educated and start contributing something to this thread other than bullshit.

I believe you just spend 4 posts playing "can you guess my IQ"

Well, let's say greed is the factual answer. Okay mister smart "I know human nature better than thou"?

Okay, so that's our assumption. Where did these greedy bankers get the money that they used to start the bubble in housing (which was the real answer to my question, and not some nebulous, subjective thing like "greed", whatever that is)?

Taking that further, are they now blowing up another bubble, or are they contracting their loans? Hm?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 20:37
Well, let's say greed is the factual answer. Okay mister smart "I know human nature better than thou"?

Okay, so that's our assumption. Where did these greedy bankers get the money that they used to start the bubble in housing (which was the real answer to my question, and not some nebulous, subjective thing like "greed", whatever that is)?

Taking that further, are they now blowing up another bubble, or are they contracting their loans? Hm?

The subprime mortgages can't be summed up to the word greed?
Lending out money to otherwise non credit worthy people, with complex and weird looking loan contracts, is greed in my mind, and that is the answer to your question right?

The second question you ask, I choose option #1.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 20:43
The subprime mortgages can't be summed up to the word greed?
Lending out money to otherwise non credit worthy people, with complex and weird looking loan contracts, is greed in my mind, and that is the answer to your question right?

The second question you ask, I choose option #1.

Subprime mortgages can be summed up to "greed", as we both understand it, but you have to follow the money if you want a real answer. You know, some kind of scientific answer, and not some orthodoxy with taglines to follow (lol, Obama/McCain).

The Federal Reserve set interest rates artificially low. The US Government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought up all the CDOs (repackaged mortgages, mostly).

Let's steal an analogy from Peter Schiff: A kindergarten teacher hands out soda pop and Pixie Stix one day to all the kids in the classroom, then leaves. She comes back hours later to find the place completely wrecked and all the kids passed out. Who do you blame?

Bissen
12-15-2008, 20:52
The Federal Reserve set interest rates artificially low. The US Government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought up all the CDOs (repackaged mortgages, mostly).

The federal reserve (private owned bank, nothing federal about it) is in on it. The citizens of the US are forever in debt now and have no chance what so ever of repaying this debt. In other words. You're slaves.



Let's steal an analogy from Peter Schiff: A kindergarten teacher hands out soda pop and Pixie Stix one day to all the kids in the classroom, then leaves. She comes back hours later to find the place completely wrecked and all the kids passed out. Who do you blame?

I think this is a stupid analogy where the answer is obvious.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 21:01
The federal reserve (private owned bank, nothing federal about it) is in on it. The citizens of the US are forever in debt now and have no chance what so ever of repaying this debt. In other words. You're slaves.



I think this is a stupid analogy where the answer is obvious.

The point is that the answer is obvious. I'm doing this legal trick called "leading".

There is nothing to be "in on", as far as I'm concerned. It's a comedy of errors. They follow a defunct theory of economics - no more, no less. Yes, in the process they fuck us over bigtime, but they genuinely believe that they know what they're talking about.

The point is, greed is not sufficient to cause what has transpired. You need a central bank and a strong central government to cause what has transpired. The free market does not naturally do things as horrendous as this.

Getting back to the thread, organized labor has been a HUGE beneficiary of the boom/bust cycle. In fact, how the hell do you think the UAW's ridiculous wages have been paid? The fact that people could get easy financing to pay whatever GM asked for their cars is proof positive that without our current banking system, many of our problems would be solved.

Erroneous
12-15-2008, 21:09
Another word for greed is the profit motive and put simply its what makes capitalism work. It does a great job at setting the return on capital at an appropriate and high level, but it struggles with the return on labor for unskilled workers. These workers really are like commodities and have no power to control a fair wage under certain market conditions. The ideal answer in this situation is for them to improve their skill level, but that's not always possible, so in certain times a union is a good way for these unskilled workers to leverage their bargaining power.

This can be a good thing, but it can also be damaging if the contracts make the cost of hiring workers too high. A rigid work environment will lead to underemployment for these people and they will still be paying their union dues. The fundamental problem in this case with regard to union compensatin is the pension obligations and the unemployment protection for GM. Its in everyone's best interest to face this head on, but the union would lose its power if it took steps like these.

And therein lies the real issue, the union having gained power starts to face extreme agency costs in feting its leadership and protecting its bargaining position. It stops serving the union members in a beneficial way, but they often don't realize it.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 21:10
Another word for greed is the profit motive and put simply its what makes capitalism work. It does a great job at setting the return on capital at an appropriate and high level, but it struggles with the return on labor for unskilled workers. These workers really are like commodities and have no power to control a fair wage under certain market conditions. The ideal answer in this situation is for them to improve their skill level, but that's not always possible, so in certain times a union is a good way for these unskilled workers to leverage their bargaining power.

This can be a good thing, but it can also be damaging if the contracts make the cost of hiring workers too high. A rigid work environment will lead to underemployment for these people and they will still be paying their union dues. The fundamental problem in this case with regard to union compensatin is the pension obligations and the unemployment protection for GM. Its in everyone's best interest to face this head on, but the union would lose its power if it took steps like these.

And therein lies the real issue, the union having gained power starts to face extreme agency costs in feting its leadership and protecting its bargaining position. It stops serving the union members in a beneficial way, but they often don't realize it.

/thread

Yobaj
12-15-2008, 21:16
Eh. All I say is, if China would allow free unions, we wouldn't have all our toys marked "Made in China".

Crying Hyena
12-15-2008, 21:21
The point is that the answer is obvious. I'm doing this legal trick called "leading".

There is nothing to be "in on", as far as I'm concerned. It's a comedy of errors. They follow a defunct theory of economics - no more, no less. Yes, in the process they fuck us over bigtime, but they genuinely believe that they know what they're talking about.

The point is, greed is not sufficient to cause what has transpired. You need a central bank and a strong central government to cause what has transpired. The free market does not naturally do things as horrendous as this.

Getting back to the thread, organized labor has been a HUGE beneficiary of the boom/bust cycle. In fact, how the hell do you think the UAW's ridiculous wages have been paid? The fact that people could get easy financing to pay whatever GM asked for their cars is proof positive that without our current banking system, many of our problems would be solved.

So, the government deregulating or in other words loosening it's hold on the market so it would regulate itself makes the government at fault? The Federal Regulations that were enacted to prevent this were removed so the market could have more "freedom". Also, last time I checked, market crashes were always a part of free market as the market always moves in a cycle.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 21:23
Another word for greed is the profit motive and put simply its what makes capitalism work. It does a great job at setting the return on capital at an appropriate and high level, but it struggles with the return on labor for unskilled workers. These workers really are like commodities and have no power to control a fair wage under certain market conditions. The ideal answer in this situation is for them to improve their skill level, but that's not always possible, so in certain times a union is a good way for these unskilled workers to leverage their bargaining power.

This can be a good thing, but it can also be damaging if the contracts make the cost of hiring workers too high. A rigid work environment will lead to underemployment for these people and they will still be paying their union dues. The fundamental problem in this case with regard to union compensatin is the pension obligations and the unemployment protection for GM. Its in everyone's best interest to face this head on, but the union would lose its power if it took steps like these.

And therein lies the real issue, the union having gained power starts to face extreme agency costs in feting its leadership and protecting its bargaining position. It stops serving the union members in a beneficial way, but they often don't realize it.

\thread

And thus legislation needs to be adjusted. Nothing is set in stone. Something especially the US have a hard time understanding (pride?). The world evolves and the governing of these economic and political agendas needs to adapt to this evolution.

If unions have too much power in the US and hinders efficiency, then fix it.
I know. This is easier said than done in a political system where money can buy legislation. So start by fixing that!

Bissen
12-15-2008, 21:24
Eh. All I say is, if China would allow free unions, we wouldn't have all our toys marked "Made in China".


And therein domestic jobs for thousands...

Yobaj
12-15-2008, 21:34
And therein domestic jobs for thousands...
Yea but that's because there are countries where they still are agro against unions.

Capricious
12-15-2008, 21:37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When government creates crap like that, how can it be trusted?

"Even though this person isn't credit worthy, you must lend to them, or you will be labeled a racist and penalized."

Bissen
12-15-2008, 21:47
When government creates [choose any given fuck up] like that, how can it be trusted?

Fixed

It's the people that are to blame really. You've all been lulled to sleep and it's about fucking time to wake up and smell the roses...

Tharkon Fargor
12-15-2008, 21:48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When government creates crap like that, how can it be trusted?

"Even though this person isn't credit worthy, you must lend to them, or you will be labeled a racist and penalized."

That's just cause the government is sadly corrupt to the bone. As some wise guy said, a revolution is needed once every few hundred years to cleanse the evil from within. Not the exact qoute.

Ofcourse, we know who was pushing for this, those who would profit from these loans. The top bankers (those that own and control the Federal Reserve).

Z31Turbo
12-15-2008, 21:52
Yes, it's a real shame that ALL american products can't come from sweat shops...

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 21:53
The point is that the answer is obvious. I'm doing this legal trick called "leading".

There is nothing to be "in on", as far as I'm concerned. It's a comedy of errors. They follow a defunct theory of economics - no more, no less. Yes, in the process they fuck us over bigtime, but they genuinely believe that they know what they're talking about.

The point is, greed is not sufficient to cause what has transpired. You need a central bank and a strong central government to cause what has transpired. The free market does not naturally do things as horrendous as this.

Getting back to the thread, organized labor has been a HUGE beneficiary of the boom/bust cycle. In fact, how the hell do you think the UAW's ridiculous wages have been paid? The fact that people could get easy financing to pay whatever GM asked for their cars is proof positive that without our current banking system, many of our problems would be solved.

/Thread

As much as I like Erroneous' answer the whole argument by the end of thread is better served with this quote.

What is going on right now all the socialists are blaming the pixie sticks and soda pops for what the teacher did.

Federal reserve deregulated some sectors while leaving others heavily regulated. Further more we would not have a problem right now had we let the banks fail initially. We would experience a rough correction but it would not have brought down our economy as it is doing now.

In any case socialists need to learn real economics before opening their traps.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 21:58
So, the government deregulating or in other words loosening it's hold on the market so it would regulate itself makes the government at fault? The Federal Regulations that were enacted to prevent this were removed so the market could have more "freedom". Also, last time I checked, market crashes were always a part of free market as the market always moves in a cycle.

Last you checked, you were looking in the wrong book, son. www.mises.org should go a little way to straightening you out.

To get to the other point, the government has its hands in the market in many, many ways. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Reserve (at least quasi-governmental) are the best examples. Those three things are still around, so tell me: what steps has the government taken, exactly, to get out of the way of the free market?

Interest rates are not regulated by the free market - they're regulated by the government. Therefore, there is not a free market in money, nor has there been since 1914. The government fixes the price of money. What do you expect to happen?

Dhig
12-15-2008, 21:59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When government creates crap like that, how can it be trusted?

"Even though this person isn't credit worthy, you must lend to them, or you will be labeled a racist and penalized."

Read the "Relation to 2008 financial crisis" part as well.

It doesnt say with a higher risk. Its just common sense that someone that works hard should be able to buy a house or a car.
It doesnt say they would be forced to loan the money to poor people.

Malishan
12-15-2008, 22:00
To properly run the company. You know, the company that pays you, the company that you couldn't run yourself.


Rofl, my ass. Even if the CEO of GM had run it better than you or I could, they don't deserve 500-1000x the pay of a line worker.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 22:01
/Thread

As much as I like Erroneous' answer the whole argument by the end of thread is better served with this quote.

What is going on right now all the socialists are blaming the pixie sticks and soda pops for what the teacher did.

Federal reserve deregulated some sectors while leaving others heavily regulated. Further more we would not have a problem right now had we let the banks fail initially. We would experience a rough correction but it would not have brought down our economy as it is doing now.

In any case socialists need to learn real economics before opening their traps.

Or as I said earlier. The capitalists on wall street fucked up, and now they want socialism to fix it. This is doable because the wallstreet fuckers are the same fuckers as the DC fuckers. Or atleast they make demon babies at night.

Now get the torch, hay fork and gather the lynch mob! FOR TROLLS SAKE!

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:02
Rofl, my ass. Even if the CEO of GM had run it better than you or I could, they don't deserve 500-1000x the pay of a line worker.

says who?

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:02
Or as I said earlier. The capitalists on wall street fucked up, and now they want socialism to fix it. This is doable because the wallstreet fuckers are the same fuckers as the DC fuckers. Or atleast they make demon babies at night.

Now get the torch, hay fork and gather the lynch mob! FOR TROLLS SAKE!

socialism is what allowed them to fuck up, which seems to be the point you're missing.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 22:03
socialism is what allowed them to fuck up, which seems to be the point you're missing.

So deregulation is socialism? Who missed what point and where ?

Silverhandorder
12-15-2008, 22:06
Or as I said earlier. The capitalists on wall street fucked up, and now they want socialism to fix it. This is doable because the wallstreet fuckers are the same fuckers as the DC fuckers. Or atleast they make demon babies at night.

Now get the torch, hay fork and gather the lynch mob! FOR TROLLS SAKE!

I agree I will not call those people capitalists. They may think they are, that does not mean it is true.


So deregulation is socialism? Who missed what point and where ?

How the hell do you quote my post and then spew this bile?

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:08
So deregulation is socialism? Who missed what point and where ?

I'm extremely fed up with people like you spouting out words that you've heard on the campaign trail (read: TV) like "deregulation". Why don't you do us all a favor and first define what exactly the hell it is that you're talking about before saying anything else?

I define socialism as the government (lovingly called the "public sector" on the television and newspapers) meddling with an otherwise free economy. The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac provided the impetus for the problems that we now face. Therefore, socialism is to blame for our current mess.

That is what you're missing.

Dhig
12-15-2008, 22:10
says who?

Its just basic morale. If the company doesnt profit, neither should the workers.
And believe it or not, CEO's are also workers.
This is the system they use in China and that is why every worker put more effort in making the business profit.
If the business profit, so do they.
The other system used in US amongst others people get payed to do a job.
Even if the company profits they dont profit.

So why the fuck should they work harder when CEO's eating up the profit?
I wouldnt.

Bissen
12-15-2008, 22:12
How the hell do you quote my post and then spew this bile?

I think I misunderstood?

But we are agreeing that what is happening now is major regulation right? Aka socialism.

Opposite of that we have deregulation free market capitalism. What falls, falls by the will of their own hand. Or am I lost on the haze...

Splain!

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:15
I think I misunderstood?

But we are agreeing that what is happening now is major regulation right? Aka socialism.

Opposite of that we have deregulation free market capitalism. What falls, falls by the will of their own hand. Or am I lost on the haze...

Splain!

If deregulation is required, then capitalism is not in place. That should be the first red flag that goes up.

Second, look again at my examples - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Reserve. All three still in place. All three the root causes of our current debacle. How can capitalism possibly be blamed for it?

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:17
Its just basic morale. If the company doesnt profit, neither should the workers.
And believe it or not, CEO's are also workers.
This is the system they use in China and that is why every worker put more effort in making the business profit.
If the business profit, so do they.
The other system used in US amongst others people get payed to do a job.
Even if the company profits they dont profit.

So why the fuck should they work harder when CEO's eating up the profit?
I wouldnt.

I work for a law firm. Our bonuses/raises/parties are based on how well the company does, i.e. how well we do. The better we do, i.e. the better the company does, the more perks are involved. The main attorney makes the most money, bar none. Not even close.

I don't know what you're rambling about here, but if a company does well, the CEO can get whatever the fuck he wants. Executives have a fuckload more stress and a hell of a lot more work to do than some asshole in the pit who gets paid $22/h to push fucking buttons.

Dhig
12-15-2008, 22:19
If deregulation is required, then capitalism is not in place. That should be the first red flag that goes up.

Second, look again at my examples - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Reserve. All three still in place. All three the root causes of our current debacle. How can capitalism possibly be blamed for it?

Are you completely ignorant?
Every country use capitalism with more or less regulation.
US was less regulated and that was the governments failure.
The market fucked up by profit of money that didnt existed.

Blame both or none at all. If you blame only one part you are ignorant.

Erroneous
12-15-2008, 22:20
Whatever the actual cause the story that's selling politically is that we need greater government intervention. Bush's years have somehow been confused for laissez faire, and now the pendulum is going to swing strongly toward the other side.

The good part about this is keynesians now have to deal with the politicization and bastardization of their economic principles, and ultimately the public will realize the failings of this ideology. The bad part is we'll have to deal with all this new deal crap while left-wingers are riding along on their high horse feeling that everything is due to the failings of the free market.

Justinian
12-15-2008, 22:22
Are you completely ignorant?
Every country use capitalism with more or less regulation.
US was less regulated and that was the governments failure.
The market fucked up by profit of money that didnt existed.

Blame both or none at all. If you blame only one part you are ignorant.

You seem to be suggesting that we blame human nature. So, you're entitled to that, but what's the solution?

I, for one, don't presume to blame human nature since, well, I'm a fucking human, aren't I? Put in the same situation, I might've done the same thing. Blaming human nature is about as constructive as slamming my dick in the oven door until I pass out.

Leave the government out of it completely, and I will go ahead and guarantee you, here, on the venerated pages of forumfall, that things would be a lot more stable in the long-term.

Capricious
12-15-2008, 22:23
Read the "Relation to 2008 financial crisis" part as well.

It doesnt say with a higher risk. Its just common sense that someone that works hard should be able to buy a house or a car.
It doesnt say they would be forced to loan the money to poor people.

Thats a wikipedia page. Do real research... People that would usually be considered risky credit undertakings fall under the group that must be lended to.

And no one is entitled to "buy" a house or car just because they work hard...wtf. Remember when people used to rent before they could afford to buy, why does everyone think they are entitled to be a fucking home owner?

Want a new car? Can't afford it? Drive your fucking junker around until you can...

Bissen
12-15-2008, 22:25
If deregulation is required, then capitalism is not in place. That should be the first red flag that goes up.

Second, look again at my examples - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Reserve. All three still in place. All three the root causes of our current debacle. How can capitalism possibly be blamed for it?


OK I AGREE! The artists formerly known as "We digz moneyz" screwed up bigtime (with the permission of the artist formerly known as government) and then made a name change to "The Lenin trio" in order to save their own asses. In a capilist free market they would have fallen square on their asses and in the accident lost both arms and legs.

I yield. Except that. The crisis itself shows that a deregulated system is fucked up on its own.

Stuff needs to be adjusted to avoid scandals like these in the first place

Edit: So in short. We're both right!

Dhig
12-15-2008, 22:36
Thats a wikipedia page. Do real research... People that would usually be considered risky credit undertakings fall under the group that must be lended to.

And no one is entitled to "buy" a house or car just because they work hard...wtf. Remember when people used to rent before they could afford to buy, why does everyone think they are entitled to be a fucking home owner?

Want a new car? Can't afford it? Drive your fucking junker around until you can...

You posted the link and I read it.

I did not say entitled, you did. I said able to and the rest is up to the bank.
Instead of putting words in my mouth try read the things I type for you.

Remember when people could pay off a house in one year?
Pretty ignorant to say people have to save up money first to buy a house or a car when the market dont allow people to do just that.

Airius Droc
12-15-2008, 22:46
Go go UNIONS!!

Ignorance = Conservative Ideals

Capricious
12-15-2008, 22:49
You posted the link and I read it.

I did not say entitled, you did. I said able to and the rest is up to the bank.
Instead of putting words in my mouth try read the things I type for you.

"Its just common sense that someone that works hard should be able to buy a house or a car."

How is that common sense? I can work hard at moving a 2 foot pile of sand from one spot to the other...that means I should be able to buy a house?


Remember when people could pay off a house in one year?

Pretty ignorant to say people have to save up money first to buy a house or a car when the market dont allow people to do just that.

I don't own a credit card, and pay for everything I want with with cash (TV, computer, sound system, etc..). I put money down on my car and home loans and make payments that are WELL within my price range.

How is it ignorant to say people should have to save up for big-ticket items if they don't want payments? Again, you are implying that everyone is entitled to this. How does the market prohibit people from working hard and saving their money?

Airius Droc
12-15-2008, 22:54
How is that common sense? I can work hard at moving a 2 foot pile of sand from one spot to the other...that means I should be able to buy a house?

Work is work, you may just figure that out someday. What a wake up call it's going to be for you too.

Dhig
12-15-2008, 23:08
How is that common sense? I can work hard at moving a 2 foot pile of sand from one spot to the other...that means I should be able to buy a house?

I don't own a credit card, and pay for everything I want with with cash (TV, computer, sound system, etc..). I put money down on my car and home loans and make payments that are WELL within my price range.

How is it ignorant to say people should have to save up for big-ticket items if they don't want payments? Again, you are implying that everyone is entitled to this. How does the market prohibit people from working hard and saving their money?

Ignorant again.
Use your brain ffs. Do you think a bank would borrow you the money for a house if you moved a pile of sand around?
Thats not what I am saying so stop act so stupid.

Ofc they should be entitled to a loan if they have the credits for it and the bank agrees.

Atleast in my country we have loans that runs for 25-30 years. For 30 years ago when I was a kid, people could save money for a year and then buy the house.
That is just not possible today. It takes 20-30 years to buy a damn house.
So if you save up money for a house and it takes you 20 years you are 40-45 yo when you can buy it.
And the consider that the house will be worth more after 20 years so it could take longer time then that.
So no, its just stupid to think people can save up money to buy a house today.

Capricious
12-15-2008, 23:22
Work is work, you may just figure that out someday. What a wake up call it's going to be for you too.

Yes, contributing unskilled labor to society is just as valuable as skilled labor. Keep listening to mommy.


Ignorant again.
Use your brain ffs. Do you think a bank would borrow you the money for a house if you moved a pile of sand around?
Thats not what I am saying so stop act so stupid.

Ofc they should be entitled to a loan if they have the credits for it and the bank agrees.

Atleast in my country we have loans that runs for 25-30 years. For 30 years ago when I was a kid, people could save money for a year and then buy the house.
That is just not possible today. It takes 20-30 years to buy a damn house.
So if you save up money for a house and it takes you 20 years you are 40-45 yo when you can buy it.
And the consider that the house will be worth more after 20 years so it could take longer time then that.
So no, its just stupid to think people can save up money to buy a house today.

The price of houses = banks' fault how?

Funny story, house prices are falling because there is an excess of inventory.

Please build your own house since they require such little money to create. Also, land can be had cheaply, just look in the right region.

Dhig
12-15-2008, 23:39
The price of houses = banks' fault how?

Funny story, house prices are falling because there is an excess of inventory.

Please build your own house since they require such little money to create. Also, land can be had cheaply, just look in the right region.

I never said it was the banks fault. Its the market that has to speculate a profit on a house every time its sold.

Building your own house cost as much as buying an already built one. Atleast in my country. The material is very expensive so the cost of carpenters just add a very small amount to that sum.
And then the location of a house boost the value more then anything else.
Try to find a cheap beach house or one with a nice view ;)

Yonkec
12-15-2008, 23:40
Until people can fully comprehend what has gone down this year and why it occured in the first place, these arguments will lead nowhere because the amount of propoganda and false information being spewed from the media is overwhelming and there is no way to convince people otherwise.

Regulation shot our economy in the face this year, and the amazing, AMAZING amount of regulation that is about to be installed ontop of what was already the issue is only going to make things worse in the long run, its a bandaid and some neosporin ontop of a cancerous tumor. You cant fix somthing by doing what caused it in the first place.

Businesses failed because of loans of money that doesent technically exist? Lets loan them more money that doesent technically exist! Hell lets go and give out 100% of our GDP to failed business ventures. What could possibly go wrong?

PirateGlen
12-15-2008, 23:49
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When government creates crap like that, how can it be trusted?

"Even though this person isn't credit worthy, you must lend to them, or you will be labeled a racist and penalized."

You should read the act, rather than regurgitate the false interpretations about it you've been told.

Airius Droc
12-16-2008, 00:18
Yes, contributing unskilled labor to society is just as valuable as skilled labor. Keep listening to mommy.

1) Define "value." 2) Explain to me why we should live in a society that only values it's people based on your definition. 3) Thank me for making you think more than you ever have in your life before.

Spineless_DoO
12-16-2008, 00:37
Made cars of lower quality than the rest of the world. These assholes are too busy bitching about wages and taking out their frustrations on their job that they do a half ass job.

Demand too much pay for what they do, therefore companies can't make a profit and...well you know the rest.

Basically Unions are a good idea gone bad. They made sense back in the day, but have no place in the modern world and it's a shame they still retain so much power and leverage. Then again, they are using the rope they made to hang themselves.

Go go UNIONS!!

Great idea. Lets get rid of the only thing in this country that sets a standard for all types of trade work. Unions set the schooling standard. Hell they pay for it and run there own 90% of the time. They screen out the bad seeds. They do the drug testing. They handle disputes and 99% of the paper work. All a company has to do is sign the check.

Its not bad "workers" making bad cars. It has nothing to do with how much these workers are making period. It has everything to do with the people in the coperate offices making even more insane amounts of money then ever before. They keep spending more and more on expenses. They keep getting bigger and bigger presents at the end of the year. Hell they live better then most who make more then they do because the company floats the bill for everything. Housing, transportation, lavish vacations, clothing, food and pretty much whatever they want. Instead of putting a halt on growing corperate income despite the fact that the auto industry was not making the change it used to those corp folks just got bigger and bigger paychecks.

Why do you think even asian car companies are hiring out of the UAW? Its easy. They cant find more qualified workers in the entire country. You get what you pay for.

I dare any anti-union fuckbag to take a walk into a plant full of under paid non union workers. Better yet a construction site. Ask those contracters how many people get hurt. Its a VAST difference from a well oiled union environment. Unions are pretty much the only thing standing between a total takover of middle/working class jobs by the Mexican aliens as who bring nothing but a lower standard of quality, safety and standard of living for everyone in the USA.

Justinian
12-16-2008, 00:43
Great idea. Lets get rid of the only thing in this country that sets a standard for all types of trade work. Unions set the schooling standard. Hell they pay for it and run there own 90% of the time. They screen out the bad seeds. They do the drug testing. They handle disputes and 99% of the paper work. All a company has to do is sign the check.

Its not bad "workers" making bad cars. It has nothing to do with how much these workers are making period. It has everything to do with the people in the coperate offices making even more insane amounts of money then ever before. They keep spending more and more on expenses. They keep getting bigger and bigger presents at the end of the year. Hell they live better then most who make more then they do because the company floats the bill for everything. Housing, transportation, lavish vacations, clothing, food and pretty much whatever they want. Instead of putting a halt on growing corperate income despite the fact that the auto industry was not making the change it used to those corp folks just got bigger and bigger paychecks.

Why do you think even asian car companies are hiring out of the UAW? Its easy. They cant find more qualified workers in the entire country. You get what you pay for.

I dare any anti-union fuckbag to take a walk into a plant full of under paid non union workers. Better yet a construction site. Ask those contracters how many people get hurt. Its a VAST difference from a well oiled union environment. Unions are pretty much the only thing standing between a total takover of middle/working class jobs by the Mexican aliens as who bring nothing but a lower standard of quality, safety and standard of living for everyone in the USA.

This uhhhh... this is a rant. Care to back up any of the insane things you just posited? Say with numbers, figures, theory, etc? Or hell, even explain why anything you just outlined is a bad thing?

Spineless_DoO
12-16-2008, 00:55
This uhhhh... this is a rant. Care to back up any of the insane things you just posited? Say with numbers, figures, theory, etc? Or hell, even explain why anything you just outlined is a bad thing?

Any American who has spent any amount of time period away from the computer desk traveling, working or just going outside understands the above. You have to be a euro or a VERY well insulated person to be have that little of a clue.

Ill tell you what to do. Find one of those vans full of Mexican aliens. Its not hard. Just about any low income area has a spot that is not hard to find. These spots are full of alien labor waiting to be picked up. Follow that van/truck or whatever to the job site. Tell me after 5 minutes on that job you feel safe. No protection. No signs. No fire control. No safety. Its the same all over the country. Most of places that house alien labor have locked doors and wont even let you go outside to eat your lunch. They dont want you or anyone else to see what goes on. Then walk your ass into a union hall. Ask for a tour of a jobsite. Tell them why you want to see whats up and I bet they give you an address most of the time. Either way its not hard to spot a good union site. Hardhats, eye protection. Everything is done right and nobody gets hurt. You can easily traverse the area. Even in an inustrail setting. The well being of the worker is first. Everyone speaks ENGLISH!

You dont need to be a master at searching wiki pages to experience every day American life and common knowledge.

I back up everything I say with over 15 years of industrial and residential exp running jobs, hiring and firing, bidding, and getting dirty like everyone else. I just fired 3 non union fuckbags last week. Within 2 hours I had 3 well trained, groomed and hard working people from the union hall replace them. These 3 new guys get more done in one day then most without the backround, and standard of work get done in an entire week. Best part is if they give me shit I send them back and get someone to replace them just as fast as I replaced the fuckbags I fired.

Eskareon
12-16-2008, 01:10
I back up everything I say with over 15 years of industrial and residential exp running jobs, hiring and firing, bidding, and getting dirty like everyone else. I just fired 3 non union fuckbags last week. Within 2 hours I had 3 well trained, groomed and hard working people from the union hall replace them. These 3 new guys get more done in one day then most without the backround, and standard of work get done in an entire week. Best part is if they give me shit I send them back and get someone to replace them just as fast as I replaced the fuckbags I fired.

Sounds like you need more experience on screening hirees. You should probably talk to your supervisor about that.

Eskareon
12-16-2008, 01:18
My arguments need no more "factual" defense. They have already been proven beyond doubt by me and others earlier in the thread, now remains only the philosophical battle.

Yes, you and your juvenile, narrow-minded, brainwashed/indoctrinated college mindset with zero real-world experience and zero real-world source contacts. Congratulations, you're convinced.

Silverhandorder
12-16-2008, 01:22
Until people can fully comprehend what has gone down this year and why it occured in the first place, these arguments will lead nowhere because the amount of propoganda and false information being spewed from the media is overwhelming and there is no way to convince people otherwise.

Regulation shot our economy in the face this year, and the amazing, AMAZING amount of regulation that is about to be installed ontop of what was already the issue is only going to make things worse in the long run, its a bandaid and some neosporin ontop of a cancerous tumor. You cant fix somthing by doing what caused it in the first place.

Businesses failed because of loans of money that doesent technically exist? Lets loan them more money that doesent technically exist! Hell lets go and give out 100% of our GDP to failed business ventures. What could possibly go wrong?

I would kiss him if he wasn't an 08.

In any case Spineless Doo is getting into a trap of thinking his circumstantial experience outweighs other people's circumstantial experiences.

Spineless here is a test for you. Should an employer be able to fire Union people if he wishes to without government intervention? If answer is yes then we can go on from there. If no then you support a monopoly. You can paint it any way you want to form this point on.

Spineless_DoO
12-16-2008, 01:48
Sounds like you need more experience on screening hirees. You should probably talk to your supervisor about that.

Its easy. I hire union and union only. Around the holiday the owner likes to throw "friends" a bone for extra cash as its the slowest time of the year for trade work. Every year I get to fire those people and replace them with qualified folks :)

Supervisor? Who god?

Justinian
12-16-2008, 02:20
Any American who has spent any amount of time period away from the computer desk traveling, working or just going outside understands the above. You have to be a euro or a VERY well insulated person to be have that little of a clue.

Ill tell you what to do. Find one of those vans full of Mexican aliens. Its not hard. Just about any low income area has a spot that is not hard to find. These spots are full of alien labor waiting to be picked up. Follow that van/truck or whatever to the job site. Tell me after 5 minutes on that job you feel safe. No protection. No signs. No fire control. No safety. Its the same all over the country. Most of places that house alien labor have locked doors and wont even let you go outside to eat your lunch. They dont want you or anyone else to see what goes on. Then walk your ass into a union hall. Ask for a tour of a jobsite. Tell them why you want to see whats up and I bet they give you an address most of the time. Either way its not hard to spot a good union site. Hardhats, eye protection. Everything is done right and nobody gets hurt. You can easily traverse the area. Even in an inustrail setting. The well being of the worker is first. Everyone speaks ENGLISH!

You dont need to be a master at searching wiki pages to experience every day American life and common knowledge.

I back up everything I say with over 15 years of industrial and residential exp running jobs, hiring and firing, bidding, and getting dirty like everyone else. I just fired 3 non union fuckbags last week. Within 2 hours I had 3 well trained, groomed and hard working people from the union hall replace them. These 3 new guys get more done in one day then most without the backround, and standard of work get done in an entire week. Best part is if they give me shit I send them back and get someone to replace them just as fast as I replaced the fuckbags I fired.

so, if the aliens choose to work in that kind of environment, what's the problem? do you really care that much about Mexicans? do you really care that much about anyone but yourself and those closest to you?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take you down a peg. Congrats and all that for a lifetime of achievement. What does any of what you just said have to do with the economics of wage extortion through Union-based monopoly?

A wage is a price, just like any other price on the market. Unions extort companies (just as companies used to extort laborers) into paying a price that is arguably well above market levels. Unions have become a monopoly on labor prices. Like any other monopoly that has ever existed for any protracted period of time, it can only be so by acts of government. Remove the government backing you chumps up, and we'll see how long you can extort companies.

Erroneous
12-16-2008, 02:27
The price of houses = banks' fault how?


We're getting pretty far afield of union labor, but there actually is a rather strong argument that lender's played a large role in running up home prices. Basically by securitizing mortgages and collaborating with the rating agencies to have them rated the way they wanted to, lenders were able to make the simple act of origination profitable. They had willing buyers for these securities wherein each individual mortgage wasn't worth monitoring by investors who instead had to rely on the rating agencies to estimate default rates.

By selling all of the risks of these loans, they could make money as long as they found a mortgage to write (without having to worry about the creditworthiness of the borrower). SO the universe of potential homeowners increased greatly, moving demand for homes upward, prices and housing starts naturally followed.

The mechanism by which a purely free market could regulate this sort of arrangement isn't clear to me.

Spineless_DoO
12-16-2008, 02:48
so, if the aliens choose to work in that kind of environment, what's the problem? do you really care that much about Mexicans? do you really care that much about anyone but yourself and those closest to you?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take you down a peg. Congrats and all that for a lifetime of achievement. What does any of what you just said have to do with the economics of wage extortion through Union-based monopoly?

A wage is a price, just like any other price on the market. Unions extort companies (just as companies used to extort laborers) into paying a price that is arguably well above market levels. Unions have become a monopoly on labor prices. Like any other monopoly that has ever existed for any protracted period of time, it can only be so by acts of government. Remove the government backing you chumps up, and we'll see how long you can extort companies.

Or you could look at it like it realy is. Companies are always looking to make more money. People dont create a buisness for any other reason aside from making as much money as they can. As the super unqualified, lower standard workers creep there way into the work force over time they start to become viable alternatives to many employers. Its human nature to try to get away with what you can especialy in the name of money. If by extorting you mean holding companies to a minimal standard that is expected in most of the modern world then sure organized labor is guilty of that for sure. You would do well to look at those wages. Its barely enough to support 2 children and buy a house. Keep in mind these people dont get handout loans because they work legit jobs at legit standards of pay.

People hire union especialy in production and construction because they need those skill sets. They need reliable workers who are legal with certain exp and the edjucation behind it. People who speak english. People who dont put themself at risk because if one person is at risk everyone is at risk. Ever get hurt at work? Those higher standards make sure you are covered. Your kids will eat, bills get paid and you get treatment you need.

This entire topic has nothing to do with companies being extorted. It has everything to do with greed. These companies want the freedom to hire whoever they want legal or not. They want to make more money and thats the bottom line. They will still try to charge you as much as possible and they normaly still bill the same rate if its an alien worker or a qualified legal American. I see it every day. I also get to watch them go down in flames. Qualified labor has built this country and now all I see is everyone blaming them because they dont understand the primary goal of the corperate world and that is to return our work force to the standards of the early 1900s with no rights or representation giving the employer ultimate power over your well being.

I dont hate Mexicans or anyone for that matter. We have just as big of a problem in the NJ/NY area with Russians and other non-brown workers making there way into our system lowering the quality of product and safety. I do however have a problem with criminals who instead of embracing our standards try to undercut them creating a super shitty job market. The real extortion is the alien labor that cost us billions every year and almost never put anything into the system. Dont be fooled.

Keep in mind that it is "rare" aside from a few select shops around the country to find union "only" companies. There is in most cases nothing stopping a company from hiring non union. Nobody dictates to these companies. Its usually out of need. Those contracts normaly consist of minimum wages and bens ect. I have plenty of guys who work with us that are not union members. The only difference is they are paid a minimum wage that is in line with the prevailing wages that are here only because of the unions in the first place. Every contract is different. Every state has different rules ect.. A good judge of what happens is reading up on "right to work" states. Go take a look at a house in Florida being built for example. Then come here to NJ. There is a vast difference in just about every aspect of all trades in right to work states. We almost never hire people out of those areas up here because its almost always a dead end.

sm007h
12-16-2008, 02:53
I work for a law firm.
yeah, as a mail clerk...else you wouldn't have described your questioning as a "leading question" (it wasn't) nor such questions as legal "tricks" (they aren't).
in fact, except in limited application, leading questions aren't even proper in a court of law.

I'd also be surprised if someone trained in law would lead off a paragraph with a logical fallacy as you did.

you really should be more careful about who you boast to and what you brag about because you have no fucking clue what people watching do for their day jobs.

Silverhandorder
12-16-2008, 02:57
yeah, as a mail clerk...else you wouldn't have described your questioning as a "leading question" (it wasn't) nor such questions as legal "tricks" (they aren't).
in fact, except in limited application, leading questions aren't even proper in a court of law.

I'd also be surprised if someone trained in law would lead off a paragraph with a logical fallacy as you did.

you really should be more careful about who you boast to and what you brag about because you have no fucking clue what people watching do for their day jobs.

People are to be held up to the same standard as at the place where they work? The goal he was trying to accomplish with a leading questions is completely different from the reason why they are not allowed in court.

I would like you to expand in his "fallacy".

Spineless_DoO
12-16-2008, 03:11
so, if the aliens choose to work in that kind of environment, what's the problem? do you really care that much about Mexicans? do you really care that much about anyone but yourself and those closest to you?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take you down a peg. Congrats and all that for a lifetime of achievement. What does any of what you just said have to do with the economics of wage extortion through Union-based monopoly?

A wage is a price, just like any other price on the market. Unions extort companies (just as companies used to extort laborers) into paying a price that is arguably well above market levels. Unions have become a monopoly on labor prices. Like any other monopoly that has ever existed for any protracted period of time, it can only be so by acts of government. Remove the government backing you chumps up, and we'll see how long you can extort companies.

Im on my phone so I appoligize for the sloppy posting:(

First those aliens are working jobs that are against not only federal law but the laws in near every stay in the country. Not only that but they are commiting a crime by just being here. They create this "wage extortion" in the first place. People fought for a long time to get these protections. You dont get to break the law because it suites you. You have the right however to legaly participate in the system to change those laws. To defy those laws leaves you subject to punishment.

There is no union monopoly. Any company at any time can choose not to sign a new contract. There is no law stopping them anyplace or any governement agency dictating these choices made. Dont forget a contract is an agreement. In most cases gone over with a fine tooth comb by an army of legal reps and nuber crunchers in the case of the auto industry. These people are not stupid. If those agreements did not suite them they wouldnt sign them. They do so out of need. Again you have an able body of people with the skills needed organized and at your disposal. If you want less qualified workers there are plenty of legal folks who participate in the system to pick from.

Keep in mind the government has no privilages granted to break up democratic groups of localy organized citizens. We are not talking about a corperation here. Unions vote. They choose who gets what seat and how the cookie crumbles. The members are in control. These bodies are not run by dictaters or kings ect..

Oh and I do not currently carry a union card. My view is based purely on my own exp in life.

Justinian
12-16-2008, 03:13
We're getting pretty far afield of union labor, but there actually is a rather strong argument that lender's played a large role in running up home prices. Basically by securitizing mortgages and collaborating with the rating agencies to have them rated the way they wanted to, lenders were able to make the simple act of origination profitable. They had willing buyers for these securities wherein each individual mortgage wasn't worth monitoring by investors who instead had to rely on the rating agencies to estimate default rates.

By selling all of the risks of these loans, they could make money as long as they found a mortgage to write (without having to worry about the creditworthiness of the borrower). SO the universe of potential homeowners increased greatly, moving demand for homes upward, prices and housing starts naturally followed.

The mechanism by which a purely free market could regulate this sort of arrangement isn't clear to me.

Taking out the 1% interest rates and the 70% service sector economy. That'd be a good start.

sm007h
12-16-2008, 03:14
People are to be held up to the same standard as at the place where they work? The goal he was trying to accomplish with a leading questions is completely different from the reason why they are not allowed in court.

I would like you to expand in his "fallacy".
First of all, my comment had nothing to do with standards of forum behavior versus work behavior. My comment was in response to him using his position at a law office, whatever that menial position to be, as a basis of authority for the claims he was making (the logical fallacy I referred to, actually).

Secondly, the point of his question was to lead the people he was asking to a conclusion. That would actually be the same reason to use it in court, if it was actually a leading question. He stated as much in his opening, he just got the definition of a leading question incorrect.

Thirdly, even if he properly understood what constitutes a leading question, and had properly used one, then he wouldn't have labeled it a legal trick. It's not a trick. It's either proper or improper depending on the circumstances. The question will be allowed or not allowed by the judge, and everyone, witness and jury, will understand what the conclusion is to be; there's no trickery involved in a leading question. In fact, it's the opposite.

All of that together leads me to conclude that he's not a lawyer, he's not a law clerk, he's not much of anything other than a common worker in a law firm picking up terms around the office or off television.

Justinian
12-16-2008, 03:17
First of all, my comment had nothing to do with standards of forum behavior versus work behavior. My comment was in response to him using his position at a law office, whatever that menial position to be, as a basis of authority for the claims he was making (the logical fallacy I referred to, actually).

Secondly, the point of his question was to lead the people he was asking to a conclusion. That would actually be the same reason to use it in court, if it was actually a leading question. He stated as much in his opening, he just got the definition of a leading question incorrect.

Thirdly, even if he properly understood what constitutes a leading question, and had properly used one, then he wouldn't have labeled it a legal trick. It's not a trick. It's either proper or improper depending on the circumstances. The question will be allowed or not allowed by the judge, and everyone, witness and jury, will understand what the conclusion is to be; there's no trickery involved in a leading question. In fact, it's the opposite.

All of that together leads me to conclude that he's not a lawyer, he's not a law clerk, he's not much of anything other than a common worker in a law firm picking up terms around the office or off television.

When did I use my working at a law firm as justification for saying it was a leading question/legal "trick" (which I put in quotes for a reason)? I remember saying before on here that I work at a law firm. I don't remember saying it in this thread.

Sounds like you're reaching for no reason. Quit hijacking the thread with idiotic rants, please.

sm007h
12-16-2008, 03:20
When did I use my working at a law firm as justification for saying it was a leading question/legal "trick" (which I put in quotes for a reason)? I remember saying before on here that I work at a law firm. I don't remember saying it in this thread.

Sounds like you're reaching for no reason. Quit hijacking the thread with idiotic rants, please.
I didn't claim that your supposed job at a law firm gave justification for your use of a leading question. You used your work environment as support for the claims you were making about the legalities of unions and the market fallout.

I criticized your incorrect use of the term, leading question, in order to demonstrate that you likely have no formal training in law (I suppose there exists a remote possibility you could be a lawyer who does not know the proper definition of a leading question). Not only did you get the definition incorrect, you didn't even ask a leading question.

You thought that when you asked, "what was the root of this problem" that you would be leading the "witness" to the answer you expected. You gave clues like, "the tip of the iceberg." You initially called it the Socratic method, which you seemed to have given up after that one question...unless you don't really know the meaning of that method, either.
A leading question would take the form of, "didn't the forced sub-prime lending cause the catastrophic market failure?"

That would be a leading question. And as you can see, there is no trickery involved. It's not a legal trick at all to ask a leading question. Rather, it's the input of evidence into the witnesses mind before the question is answered that prompts them to answer in one way. This is the opposite of trickery actually since you give all the details you need the witness to say within the question, but you'd know this if you actually had some legal training.

You made both claims about 2-3 pages ago. If you can't even remember what you posted a few pages back then I would think you are the one falling prey to rantings. I remember my posts from when the discussion was fresh. My points stand on their own merits, since they are based on factual data.

It's interesting to see you employing some more logical fallacies now that your argument is falling apart. So far, the best you've done when confronted with differing opinions is label them as lunatic or idiotic rantings.