%@#%@ the unions!

[Bob Maxey]

Well, they didn't exist before unions won these concessions. This is strong evidence that supports me, not you. Recently, average income in this country has remained stagnant for over thirty years, coinciding with Reaganism and the decline of union power, which is another fact that supports me, not you. Furthermore, what you are doing is simply assuming that they WOULD have come to pass without unions, and are asserting that this assumption is more logical that its opposite. But it is not necessarily more logical without supporting evidence, and all that is available supports a different conclusion.

OK, post a little evidence and we will go from there. Without a little evidence, you are simply e-whining and appear to be lost and down and sad and we can fix you.

Bob

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's what they are TRAINED to do.

And it would be one thing if they were a year ahead, but FOUR Years ahead.

The rest of the developed world doesn't seem to have these problems... yet you are trying to justify them in the US?

every developed country DOES
the only real solution is smaller class sizes (which could be a good excuse to cut teachers pay)

 

[Ryan P.]

While I disagree on the right to vote... since you know, we've had that since the constitution was enacted (at least white men... let me say sorry now to everyone else), the rest is the result of the unions.

Free public education? Do I like it? No. It's a black hole where money goes and absolutely no one is accountable for the results of our education system. There is never anyone to blame except "not enough money".

You're using the wrong standard here. Irrespective of the debate between private schools and public schools, which is better: public schooling or no schooling? I'm sorry, regardless of your opinion, the positive effects of an educated population have been enormous, and the vast majority of the population was not receiving an education prior to the institution of public education.

Clean water, and sanitary working conditions? I have no knowledge of unions and clean wter, but sanitary working conditions is thanks to unions and has been taken over by government agencies (as has clean water regulations)

Workplace safety regulations? Thanks to unions, and taken over by government agencies.

Irrelevant. You are considering the "nominal" case, as opposed to the "real" case. As an example, President Lincoln nominally freed the slaves. He legally abolished slavery. Did it make one whit of difference for the average black person in America at the time? Of course not. At that time, there was no movement which could enforce these new rights.

You're familiar with the term "dead letter." This is the case with laws that protect workers if there is no union or other institutional support for them. The government is very obviously more concerned with the interests of the wealthy than the average citizen, and absent any countervailing force, it is the interests of the wealthy which will prevail, regardless of the law.

So... what exactly are unions doing now?

Driving up labor costs ridiculously? Forcing companies to export JOBS overseas in order to compete?

Yep... thank your unions.

Unions DID great things, but what was the last great things unions did?

How about keeping wages from slipping any further? Why do you think those jobs went overseas? It's because companies refuse to pay a decent wage, and if there is an institution which can force them to pay a decent wage (unions), they respond by outsourcing them. What you are doing here is making the greed of the corporations the fault of unions, which is totally unfair. Instead, you should recognize that, without unions to support wage levels, companies would not have to compete with those wages levels, and your wages would fall.

Your fallacy is trusting the theives who run these corporations. Specifically, you assume that without the unions here to demand decent wages, the jobs would come back, and would pay decent (albeit somewhat lower) wages. Wrong. Make no mistake, if companies can get low wages overseas, they will. If they can get those wages here, they will, but only if they are no higher than the overseas wages. Further curtailing unions power will not get you higher wages.

If by maintaining democracy, you mean decide which candidates should be elected into office by spending millions on ad campaigns? Then yes... you would be correct.

If you mean by making sure the people get a choice? Then no... you would be wrong.

I'm sorry, you are just flat wrong here. The only reason you can vote right now without owning a substantial amount of property is because of union pressure in the past, and then the subsequent "solidification" of this right over time. Wake up--unions ARE the people.

Pretending that ANYTHING is all good and none bad is just ridiculous, and overly idealistic.

I don't recall anyone doing this, except for the lad above with the melodramatic "#$%# the unions" statement.

When businesses feel that they have more money, and a lower tax debt, then they tend to hire more workers, increase production, increase R&D, and generally spend money in an effort to make more money. He's interested in closing the multibillion dollar deficit, but he's also interested in recovering his economy.

Wrong. Companies have more money RIGHT NOW than they have at almost any other point in US history. Are they hiring?

The truth is that, as you would expect of rational actors, businesses make decisions about hiring based not only on tax levels and cost of capital, which is but one side of the equation, but ALSO on expected sales--i.e., demand. If consumers are not spending money--if there is no demand for their products--then businesses will not hire, or expand production, no matter how low taxes are or how cheap money is. This is what conservatives refuse to understand. Companies eventually have to sell their stuff to make money, and impoverishing all of the consumers does not help the economy.

 

[Ryan P.]

What is the best way to increase government revenue? I'm not talking about spending ... just REVENUE. Answer: grow the economy!!! If your state has an anti-business climate - businesses will NOT start up and / or will move to a state with a better business climate. In the last 20-30 years, a LOT of businesses have headed south - to right to work states. (the weather helps too ).

Why are the foreign car manufacturer opening plants in the South? I imagine the infrastructure (as it pertains to autos) is better in Michigan than South Carolina - but BMW opened their plant in South Carolina. WHY? TAXES and RIGHT TO WORK.

The mistake here, of course, is thinking that tax cuts boost economic growth. If they are onerously high, it will, but if they are already low, as they are now, it will make little to no difference. Reagan dramatically proved this in the 1980s and then George W. Bush proved it again in the 2000s. Both got big holes in the deficit, but little growth.

 

[Ryan P.]

OK, post a little evidence and we will go from there. Without a little evidence, you are simply e-whining and appear to be lost and down and sad and we can fix you.

Bob

I am assuming you are aware of the pivotal influence of unions in winning workplace-related legislation. If not, I should not have to educate you, there are many books on the matter and besides, it is not controversial history anyway.

But regarding modern wage stagnation, here is the first chart I pulled off a Google search that does an excellent job showing the outright theft by the top earners in the past 30 years or so:

Google Image Result for http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg

Well over 50% of the economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 1%. Incidentally, this is reason that the top earners pay so much income tax: because their income has increased so drastically. Not really a very good reason to give them further tax cuts.

 

[Ryan P.]

When you mature and read a few books, you will discover just how wrong you are. At your tender age, I am sure it just seems like voting does not matter, but it does. Ask your dad and mom. Honey.

Bob

Mmkay, I know having your parallel-reality bubble popped is not pleasant, so I can't expect you to totally refrain from juvenile comments. I hope it gets worked out soon, though.

 

[Bob Maxey]

if they cant do it they are in the wrong profession imho

You are overlooking a few things.

Teachers must deal with ignorant parents, with curriculum that does not always help the kid, with political correctness, lack of school supplies and infrastructure, the potential for gun violence, trying to teach English to kids that refuse to learn English in a system that requires that Spanish be taught regardless of the fact that many teachers cant speak it; increasing numbers of armed guards or police milling about, with being called a racist because little Shenequa refuses to read or do an assignment. Of course, it is because she is black; never mind, that she is also quite stupid.

The result are kids unqualified to find a good job in the real world, so they end up being poor their entire life and I have to pay for it, all the while deriving zero benefits. Hate the increasing numbers of poor compared to the increasing numbers of rich? Well, it is because the poor are quite undereducated and therefore, can't be hired.

Teachers are in some cases unqualified and they simply do not know much. Or they are the product of a liberal college that creates dummies that in turn, go on to spoil the minds of our children. That is why so many actually think Obama is a good president or that we need a black president rather than a qualified president.

Kids are not taught history in history class; they are taught nothing of value or merit much past white man bad, George Bush Devil, and the poor have "constitutional rights: that do not exist anywhere in the document. They can't tell you anything about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or much else, for that matter. Except perhaps what Paris Hilton is up to or how many albums JZizzel sold.

My brother's kid was taught American History with only a few passing comments about slavery being the cause of the Civil War and nothing else was taught. Come on, the Civil war is a considerably important part of American History.

I say we push for private schools and a voucher program to eliminate teachers and their unions. The good teachers will find work and the taxpayer will pay less for better people. Let educators teach and bad teachers join the ranks of the unemployed.

There are some good teachers out there, by the way.

Bob

 

[JimmyRayBob]

The mistake here, of course, is thinking that tax cuts boost economic growth. If they are onerously high, it will, but if they are already low, as they are now, it will make little to no difference. Reagan dramatically proved this in the 1980s and then George W. Bush proved it again in the 2000s. Both got big holes in the deficit, but little growth.

Of course taxes can't be cut completely - it's all about finding the right balance (anybody got a crystal ball?). i don't know what tax rate will maximize revenue - and anyone that says they know what that rate is is lying.

As to deficits during the Reagan and Bush administrations - you are comparing apples to oranges. The argument i am making (for lower taxes) only pertains to government REVENUE - not deficits. There are two parts to deficits - revenue and SPENDING.

 

[Bob Maxey]

But regarding modern wage stagnation, here is the first chart I pulled off a Google search that does an excellent job showing the outright theft by the top earners in the past 30 years or so:

Google Image Result for http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg

Well over 50% of the economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 1%. Incidentally, this is reason that the top earners pay so much income tax: because their income has increased so drastically. Not really a very good reason to give them further tax cuts.

So you are using the first thing you find via Google? Is it the only thing you can find to support your views? Hell, I am confused, not sure what you really mean or believe. Well, other than the poor should get more and the rich should pay more? clarify.

When you say, "does an excellent job showing the outright theft by the top earners in the past 30 years or so . . ." I am free to dismiss you altogether. Sounds like you have an ax to grind. Anyone that thinks the rich steal from the poor is quickly disposable.

I would ask for a little proof of this theft, but I can't stand another infographic.

Let me give you a FACT or two: when you cut taxes, the economy grows. Period. When you increase taxes on the top 25% or so (Arbitrary number) they put money into business, increase production and output, and put people to work. Simple enough for you? Granted, I do not have a cool infographic, so I'll use my words.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

Of course taxes can't be cut completely - it's all about finding the right balance (anybody got a crystal ball?). i don't know what tax rate will maximize revenue - and anyone that says they know what that rate is is lying.

Perhaps this: Flat Tax or a consumption tax and no federal income tax. It would require that we repeal the 16th Amendment because we do not want income tax to come back and bite us.

If I earn a million and the rate is 10% (to keep it simple) I pay $100,000. If you make $10,000.00 per year, you pay one grand. If I earn a billion, I pay the same rate you pay. This is fair and reasonable.

A consumption tax would contribute because illegally earned money, when spent, would be taxed. So rather than paying income tax at the end of the year, I pay nothing. No forms or check to the IRS. If I earn money under the table and I buy something, the tax is paid.

Your tax filing would be easy and simple and take a few moments to do as would mine.

Also, deductions would be limited to just a few, but everybody has them available. The rich can deduct as can the "poor." If we still have public school, and you have zero deductions available because it is ostensibly free. But I do because I sent little Bobby to a private school and it cost me money. I suppose some will think this is unfair, huh?

The income tax problems would largely go away and everyone pays, one way or another. No more of "the rich get this and the poor suffer" argument. EVERYONE pays.

Yeah, I can't stop laughing, either.

Bob Maxey

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Perhaps this: Flat Tax or a consumption tax and no federal income tax. It would require that we repeal the 16th Amendment because we do not want income tax to come back and bite us.

If I earn a million and the rate is 10% (to keep it simple) I pay $100,000. If you make $10,000.00 per year, you pay one grand. If I earn a billion, I pay the same rate you pay. This is fair and reasonable.

A consumption tax would contribute because illegally earned money, when spent, would be taxed. So rather than paying income tax at the end of the year, I pay nothing. No forms or check to the IRS. If I earn money under the table and I buy something, the tax is paid.

Your tax filing would be easy and simple and take a few moments to do as would mine.

Also, deductions would be limited to just a few, but everybody has them available. The rich can deduct as can the "poor." If we still have public school, and you have zero deductions available because it is ostensibly free. But I do because I sent little Bobby to a private school and it cost me money. I suppose some will think this is unfair, huh?

The income tax problems would largely go away and everyone pays, one way or another. No more of "the rich get this and the poor suffer" argument. EVERYONE pays.

Yeah, I can't stop laughing, either.

Bob Maxey

Consumption Tax = Fair Tax. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation Check it out - i bet you like it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Consumption Tax = Fair Tax. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation Check it out - i bet you like it.

So what do you think? I have been to the site before.

My fear is this: we end up with a system that is bloated and becomes far removed from its original simplicity and intent. What about the state and their income taxes? I see a fight where all that remains is a bunch of bodies and a higher tax rate.

I am not sure what the AFT folks say about that; I'll watch the video clips later.

Bob

 

[JimmyRayBob]

So what do you think? I have been to the site before.

My fear is this: we end up with a system that is bloated and becomes far removed from its original simplicity and intent. What about the state and their income taxes? I see a fight where all that remains is a bunch of bodies and a higher tax rate.

I am not sure what the AFT folks say about that; I'll watch the video clips later.

Bob

Bob. i don't want to hijack this thread any more than i already have. I have sent you a PM.

Alright everyone - back to UNIONS!!!

 

[Crude]

‎"A CEO, a Republican, and a union guy are all sitting around a table. On the table is a plate with a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, looks at the Republican and says "Watch out for that union guy, he wants part of your cookie."

 

[copestag]

thats a great story but you skipped the details............

the CEO ran the company that made the cookies........ the republican was the guy who actually made the cookes

and the union guy was just strolling by and heard there were free cookies if he could convince someone that he had a constitutional right to a cookie

 

[Crude]

Wait, you're telling me that a CEO, one man is not happy with 90% of the profits? Well no wonder the union guy and the republican are conspiring against the CEO.

 

[copestag]

no Im telling you that the guy who owned the company had every right to eat 11 cookies and was rightfully giving 1 to the guy who made them......... the union guy, who neither owned the company nor did anything to make the cookies was simply there to steal part of the working mans earnings while telling him that its because of him he was able to get that 1 cookie so he should happily share it with him

 

[Teegunn]

Unions almost always price their employee's out of a job by running the employer either out of business or out of town. Where I live now, the unions have been entrenched for damn near a century, and the old boy network runs deep. Your last name means much more than your actual work ethic many times. Union groups with clubs, weapons and lighters make it known the consequences if a simple small business owner doesn't want to use union labor to build a smoke shack behind his restaurant. Doesn't matter he's doing the actual building of the unit himself, it will be burnt to the ground if he doesn't overpay for union labor. That's what I've seen of unions where I'm at now. I don't subscribe to that kind of mafia type bullying BS. I'm sure there are and have been many situations where unions served a valid purpose, but without better checks and balances they have a way of entrenching over time. Not beneficial for employee or employer in the long run.

 

[UPS92008]

Ive worked a union job for 16 years. I can tell you that my union does belong in my work place without a doubt.

 

[byteware]

You're using the wrong standard here. Irrespective of the debate between private schools and public schools, which is better: public schooling or no schooling? I'm sorry, regardless of your opinion, the positive effects of an educated population have been enormous, and the vast majority of the population was not receiving an education prior to the institution of public education.

I'm using the wrong standard? We pay a great deal of money so that the Unions can be paid by teachers.

We pay more to educate our children than any other nation on the planet (with the exception of Sweden, with which we are tied).

Our rankings are:
14th - Reading
25th - Math
22nd - Science

And they continue to slip.

So, we spend the most of any country in the world, per child, on our education, and our rankings are continually slipping.

Somethings wrong. You can no longer claim that we aren't spending enough on education, because we are... so why are our children not being educated like they should be?

Irrelevant. You are considering the "nominal" case, as opposed to the "real" case. As an example, President Lincoln nominally freed the slaves. He legally abolished slavery. Did it make one whit of difference for the average black person in America at the time? Of course not. At that time, there was no movement which could enforce these new rights.

You're familiar with the term "dead letter." This is the case with laws that protect workers if there is no union or other institutional support for them. The government is very obviously more concerned with the interests of the wealthy than the average citizen, and absent any countervailing force, it is the interests of the wealthy which will prevail, regardless of the law.

So, what you are trying to claim is that OSHA, and the various labor boards don't really do anything, it's the Unions and only the unions that ensure workplace standards, and there are no workplace standards where there are no unions.

In reality, the workplace safety standards at a union shop are the same as at a non-union shop.

You are being lied to.

How about keeping wages from slipping any further? Why do you think those jobs went overseas? It's because companies refuse to pay a decent wage, and if there is an institution which can force them to pay a decent wage (unions), they respond by outsourcing them. What you are doing here is making the greed of the corporations the fault of unions, which is totally unfair. Instead, you should recognize that, without unions to support wage levels, companies would not have to compete with those wages levels, and your wages would fall.

Greed of the corporations? I read an article where the CEO of Intel detailed WHY they built a manufacturing plant overseas. He said decisively, building the plant here would have cost us $1 Billion more than building it there.

I don't know about you, but I don't know too many companies that can afford to just throw away a Billion dollars. I guess that's greed.

And think about this.. that additional cost, is before the added operational cost. That's just the added cost to build the plant.

Your fallacy is trusting the theives who run these corporations. Specifically, you assume that without the unions here to demand decent wages, the jobs would come back, and would pay decent (albeit somewhat lower) wages. Wrong. Make no mistake, if companies can get low wages overseas, they will. If they can get those wages here, they will, but only if they are no higher than the overseas wages. Further curtailing unions power will not get you higher wages.

Your fallacy is calling those who run corporations "thieves". Companies and their employees have a symbiotic relationship. Companies need their employees. Employees need their employers. In a true open market, companies will work to keep their employees (mostly). Employees should work to keep their employer profitable.

There are cases where a union is needed because an employer doesn't value it's employees enough, but those cases are rare today.1

I'm sorry, you are just flat wrong here. The only reason you can vote right now without owning a substantial amount of property is because of union pressure in the past, and then the subsequent "solidification" of this right over time. Wake up--unions ARE the people.

Ok, I'm gonna call BS. Link please.

Unions ARE NOT the people.

I don't recall anyone doing this, except for the lad above with the melodramatic "#$%# the unions" statement.

You have. You have ignored the harm they have caused. They did great things during the first half of the last century, but has done a great deal of harm in the last half of the last century.

Wrong. Companies have more money RIGHT NOW than they have at almost any other point in US history. Are they hiring?

Again, I call BS... prove it.

The truth is that, as you would expect of rational actors, businesses make decisions about hiring based not only on tax levels and cost of capital, which is but one side of the equation, but ALSO on expected sales--i.e., demand. If consumers are not spending money--if there is no demand for their products--then businesses will not hire, or expand production, no matter how low taxes are or how cheap money is. This is what conservatives refuse to understand. Companies eventually have to sell their stuff to make money, and impoverishing all of the consumers does not help the economy.

Conservatives refuse to understand? That's a rather broad generalization, don't you think.

What you seem to fail to understand is that companies don't like to have huge reserves of money that isn't making them money. If they have extra money that they don't have a foreseeable need for, then they will find a way to spend that money in order to make more money. That's the simple fact of "corporate greed".

 

[binary_jester]

Ive worked a union job for 16 years. I can tell you that my union does belong in my work place without a doubt.

I can tell you that I have worked in a union environment for 5 years and all they have done is made my life more difficult. No...I am not management, I am a "scab" because I refuse to pay dues to a organization I am fundamentally opposed to.

 

[ElasticNinja]

BTW, the US has major issues with income distribution - but the government should be fixing this by raising taxes to pay for derives for the low income - not unions seeking constant pay rises and productivity decreases

 

[mdram]

BTW, the US has major issues with income distribution - but the government should be fixing this by raising taxes to pay for derives for the low income - not unions seeking constant pay rises and productivity decreases

what? then whats the incentive to make more money?
i'll just sit home and take from you

 

[JimmyRayBob]

BTW, the US has major issues with income distribution - but the government should be fixing this by raising taxes to pay for derives for the low income - not unions seeking constant pay rises and productivity decreases

1. Why should government re-distribute income?
2. Raising taxes does not always raise revenue to the government - it can stifle growth and lower revenue (If you disagree, try raising tax rates to 100% and see what happens).
3. Lowering tax rates can INCREASE government revenue. Every time the capital gains tax rate has been lowered, revenue from that tax has INCREASED.

 

[ElasticNinja]

what? then whats the incentive to make more money?
i'll just sit home and take from you

profit.

1. Why should government re-distribute income?

not income - but services which the rich should be able to avail of too

2. Raising taxes does not always raise revenue to the government - it can stifle growth and lower revenue (If you disagree, try raising tax rates to 100% and see what happens).

it does, but not to the amount of the percentage

3. Lowering tax rates can INCREASE government revenue. Every time the capital gains tax rate has been lowered, revenue from that tax has INCREASED.

yes which leads to booms
booms are bad, FYI