| [Head banger] Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:05:33 AM | |
|
not yet comrad. there is still much time to argue. I prefer parades like the ones in rio though.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:49:19 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Im back...
Glad to see that I won an argument (j/k)... This calls for a parade!!
Comrade Beria, shoot that silly Canuck!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah. well, on that funny note, good day.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No. I see a bit of steely, brassy and coppery. No irony.
I dont have a crystal ball, but it doesnt take one. Good companies were or are about to be sold abroad to foreign corporations that dont give a shit about our interests. No wonder then - as soon as Germany hit the reccesion, we did too. We just dont have any control over our economy anymore. It leads to a disaster, imo.
Well, that said... Im off home. See you around later.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do see the irony in that right.
my crystal ball is broken, but my giess would be that people there will enjoy a benefit, but it takes time.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:49:19 AM | |
|
Im back...
Glad to see that I won an argument (j/k)... This calls for a parade!!
Comrade Beria, shoot that silly Canuck!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:45:14 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | ah. well, on that funny note, good day.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No. I see a bit of steely, brassy and coppery. No irony.
I dont have a crystal ball, but it doesnt take one. Good companies were or are about to be sold abroad to foreign corporations that dont give a shit about our interests. No wonder then - as soon as Germany hit the reccesion, we did too. We just dont have any control over our economy anymore. It leads to a disaster, imo.
Well, that said... Im off home. See you around later.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do see the irony in that right.
my crystal ball is broken, but my giess would be that people there will enjoy a benefit, but it takes time.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:45:14 AM | |
|
ah. well, on that funny note, good day.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:23:20 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No. I see a bit of steely, brassy and coppery. No irony.
I dont have a crystal ball, but it doesnt take one. Good companies were or are about to be sold abroad to foreign corporations that dont give a shit about our interests. No wonder then - as soon as Germany hit the reccesion, we did too. We just dont have any control over our economy anymore. It leads to a disaster, imo.
Well, that said... Im off home. See you around later.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do see the irony in that right.
my crystal ball is broken, but my giess would be that people there will enjoy a benefit, but it takes time.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:23:20 AM | |
|
No. I see a bit of steely, brassy and coppery. No irony.
I dont have a crystal ball, but it doesnt take one. Good companies were or are about to be sold abroad to foreign corporations that dont give a shit about our interests. No wonder then - as soon as Germany hit the reccesion, we did too. We just dont have any control over our economy anymore. It leads to a disaster, imo.
Well, that said... Im off home. See you around later.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:18:53 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do see the irony in that right.
my crystal ball is broken, but my giess would be that people there will enjoy a benefit, but it takes time.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:18:53 AM | |
|
you do see the irony in that right.
my crystal ball is broken, but my giess would be that people there will enjoy a benefit, but it takes time.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:44:04 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:44:04 AM | |
|
It would be more accurate to say that they benefited more. That is in our version os socialism, anyway (self managing, decentralised, as oposed to complete state control in the Soviet model). The party members had privileges, that is true. Of course, how many depended on ones position in the hierarchy. A local party official wouldnt be much different than an average worker in material terms. The big shots were rich, drove expensive imported cars (in times when customs on imported cars were around 100%), but when all is said and done, the rich guys of socialism cannot compare even remotely to the transition tycoons. Mainly because they were limited. They were limited by the law (the companies were in common ownership - they just ran them, they couldnt sell them to foreigners, like its been happening ever since 91), and they had to take into consideration such things as workers councils, which meant that they couldnt cut the wages and benefits like modern businessmen do.
Now, on the question should that be so in socialism... I think not. But it was, and interestingly enough, capitalism has proven itself even worse, as far as upper class privileges are concerned.
Maybe the full effect wont be seen for years, that is true. But like as not, that effect will turn out to be a disaster, not a blessing.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:47:40 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:47:40 PM | |
|
you do realize of course that your in a time of significant economic change. the full effect of that change for your country will not be seen for years. but interestingly you said
"Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one."
so, socialism is run for first the benefit of the members of the party?
or they at least benefit more. and they dont do the labour. sort of like a factory owner, no?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:05:34 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:46:20 PM | |
|
| Too bad! That's the way it is...(*throwing my hands up as I walk away*) BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:05:34 PM | |
|
Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.
Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.
Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.
Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.
Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.
As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.
Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:42:00 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:42:00 PM | |
|
The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one. Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time. I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him. It is a sad situation.
The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning. The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally. But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants. Whose fault is the current situation? The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in. Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed. Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days. True, but it would have saved a lot for the company. It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand. The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality. Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker. Both have faults within and outside the company. Then the current financial crisis hit. Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.
I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be. You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor. If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct. But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled. Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies. Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund. Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies. When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.
Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar. I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will. I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.
When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements? If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip. If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?
Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited. I need a researcher to help with this stuff. Perhaps there is a government grant? |
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:38:48 AM | |
|
Well, the boob argument... Doesnt the law have something to say about it? I mean, that example you gave, is an example of sexual abuse. Does the union have the right to defend that? Worse, does the union have the right to defend a worker that came to work with a gun and shot a couple of his co-workers?
Not to mention one thing... If you commit a crime anywhere, and get busted, you still have a right to a lawyer, a right to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusal punishment, ect... There is nothing inherently wrong with that - except that is the domain of the judicial system and the police, not unions.
Now, I guess one could raise a point that unions are to big. IDK about that. We dont really have companies that would be so big (by the number of employees) that size would be a serious problem. Besides, most unions are very small, and are only loosely connected into an all-Slovene union alliance. I guess you would have a much harder time maintaining such a system (size issues), but for us it works as well as it possibly can.
Now, wages... Of course its better to get something, but... In this case, it is a matter of principals. The worker behind the assembly line didnt start the crisis. The white collars did. Now, we had a long period of utopic economic growth, combined with an unprecedented assault on labour rights, and a realistic lowering of wages (althought they went up nominaly). In short, the white collars privatised the profits. Now, they wont to socialise the debts, by wage cuts, layoffs ect... If the US, Canadian, Slovenian, or any other government wants to interfere, it better go after the white collars first.
The middle class is disapearing. Maybe not at your end yet, over here its the everyday reality, and Im sure that if this shit goes on for much longer, it will reach you too.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:20:33 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Just to be different I will agree with you. Unions have to be changed. But, before we get to that, is their role to oppose wage cuts, or to work to get the best they can for the majority of the workers? Unions are a business, and to stay competitive they have to grow, become larger, gain relative strength in order to both attract new members, spend money on convincing new plants and companies (more so their workers) and such of the benefits of membership. But unions are also hamstrung in some ways by rules and laws that govern them. For instance they have a duty to represent any member who asks for their help. So, union member Johnny walks past Union member Suzie, and since they are alone, he grabs her boobs. Now, that’s wrong, she complains, he is fired. The union has to represent him, but in doing that they are opposing Suzie, and if somehow they win, then she has a case against not plant management, but the union. It happens.
With the wage case, is it better to get something or nothing? Chrysler is broke. The US and Canadian govts told them to get wages in line with Toyota and Honda, the US govt also said, find a buyer, or shut it down. Now, that could have been a bluff, since they gave them a bit more cash today, but if they couldn’t find a buyer, which Fiat was the only interested party anyone heard of they were going into chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is closing down and liquidating. In chapter 7, all the workers would lose their jobs, and not get severance, as I understand it. If someone bought the plants, they could negotiate a deal as they saw fit, or move the equipment.
Changes that would make a union more effective would be to make them smaller. Have a separate union at every plant for instance. After all shouldn’t workers at a more profitable plant, building more complex cars, in an area with a higher cost of living get paid more? This has its drawbacks though, the strike threat is reduced, and the companies wouldn’t like constantly negotiating new wage rates and contracts at hundreds of plants. That would also mean that each union would need an executive group, admin staff, negotiators, offices etc, which costs the workers more. No win situation.
Average... Your approaching this concept like it’s a zero sum. If we say that current incomes are averaged in some form of a bell curve, (it’s not a perfect bell curve, but it is some form of it) and say the average is 50,000. If you legislate that everyone earns the same, say the govt were to take in all the money, pool it and distribute it (which is too simplistic as you need a paycheck before year end to eat, but just say). The average income would be nowhere near 50,000. The more money is in circulation the more money there is to end up shared around. As more money is spent, by the rich first, as the poor spend all they have out of necessity…. The more money the poor have, the more job options there are, the more jobs pay. I don’t agree that the middle class is shrinking, it’s changing. For a while the middle class lived way beyond their means, and I think the current economic situation is a result of that, at least in part. Now the middle class is living (hopefully) within their means, they have less, but by less, they have a couple of PC’s, cable TV, a TV for every family member, a bedroom for each kid plus a spare. In the 50’s, that didn’t happen, nor the 60’s 70’s or early 80’s.
By limiting the number of people who are high earners, you limit the number of winners. Nothing will ever be fair; the human condition does not permit it. We are all (or almost all) selfish bastards at heart.
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:20:33 PM | |
|
Just to be different I will agree with you. Unions have to be changed. But, before we get to that, is their role to oppose wage cuts, or to work to get the best they can for the majority of the workers? Unions are a business, and to stay competitive they have to grow, become larger, gain relative strength in order to both attract new members, spend money on convincing new plants and companies (more so their workers) and such of the benefits of membership. But unions are also hamstrung in some ways by rules and laws that govern them. For instance they have a duty to represent any member who asks for their help. So, union member Johnny walks past Union member Suzie, and since they are alone, he grabs her boobs. Now, that’s wrong, she complains, he is fired. The union has to represent him, but in doing that they are opposing Suzie, and if somehow they win, then she has a case against not plant management, but the union. It happens.
With the wage case, is it better to get something or nothing? Chrysler is broke. The US and Canadian govts told them to get wages in line with Toyota and Honda, the US govt also said, find a buyer, or shut it down. Now, that could have been a bluff, since they gave them a bit more cash today, but if they couldn’t find a buyer, which Fiat was the only interested party anyone heard of they were going into chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is closing down and liquidating. In chapter 7, all the workers would lose their jobs, and not get severance, as I understand it. If someone bought the plants, they could negotiate a deal as they saw fit, or move the equipment.
Changes that would make a union more effective would be to make them smaller. Have a separate union at every plant for instance. After all shouldn’t workers at a more profitable plant, building more complex cars, in an area with a higher cost of living get paid more? This has its drawbacks though, the strike threat is reduced, and the companies wouldn’t like constantly negotiating new wage rates and contracts at hundreds of plants. That would also mean that each union would need an executive group, admin staff, negotiators, offices etc, which costs the workers more. No win situation.
Average... Your approaching this concept like it’s a zero sum. If we say that current incomes are averaged in some form of a bell curve, (it’s not a perfect bell curve, but it is some form of it) and say the average is 50,000. If you legislate that everyone earns the same, say the govt were to take in all the money, pool it and distribute it (which is too simplistic as you need a paycheck before year end to eat, but just say). The average income would be nowhere near 50,000. The more money is in circulation the more money there is to end up shared around. As more money is spent, by the rich first, as the poor spend all they have out of necessity…. The more money the poor have, the more job options there are, the more jobs pay. I don’t agree that the middle class is shrinking, it’s changing. For a while the middle class lived way beyond their means, and I think the current economic situation is a result of that, at least in part. Now the middle class is living (hopefully) within their means, they have less, but by less, they have a couple of PC’s, cable TV, a TV for every family member, a bedroom for each kid plus a spare. In the 50’s, that didn’t happen, nor the 60’s 70’s or early 80’s.
By limiting the number of people who are high earners, you limit the number of winners. Nothing will ever be fair; the human condition does not permit it. We are all (or almost all) selfish bastards at heart.
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:55:09 AM | |
|
In that case, we are on the issue of unions again. Now, while it may be true (at least at your end) that unions are operated like businesses (and that is wrong, and has to be changed), they are still doing their primary role, in the case of Chrysler, it is opposing wage cuts.
Now, average... Everyone cannot be above it (mathemathicaly impossible), but, there are more ways we can approach this. Should we have a society in which the majority is average (by material wealth), ot should we have a society where "average" is just a calculation between the insanely rich minority and the piss-poor majority (which is the direction that we are all going to now), and where the "average" and the "middle class" dont really exist, or are so few that are hardly worth mentioning?
Now, this argument that poverty and hardship will make people aspire for better is true to a certain extent... But then we can also raise the issue of crime, depression and stress that come from a society where people have to compete for everything. That, and of course... There are only so much winners, the rest are bound to lose, no matter what they do.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, April 20, 2009 7:28:16 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, I am going to disagree with you twice.
first, unions are not looking out for the worker, they are a business and are looking out for themselfs. their marketing campain is that they help the worker, just like red bull claims to give you wings (restore mental and physical alertness). both contain half truths and outright lies. Unions used to exist to help the worker, now they make a show of it, but like any big business, the heads are living off the lower workers, which I know you hate.
secondly, you cant have everyone above average. its imposible using conventional math. some will be higher, some lower. costs will trend to the average, but will vary with location. so a nice area, will cost more than a cheap area, meaning that min wage will be hard to live on. that gives people a reason to work to get above that.
also, we dont all use the things the companies pay for, but it is an insurance scheme. I have never used employment insurance, and dont forsee using it any time soon. but I pay into it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for the worker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, April 20, 2009 7:28:16 AM | |
|
well, I am going to disagree with you twice.
first, unions are not looking out for the worker, they are a business and are looking out for themselfs. their marketing campain is that they help the worker, just like red bull claims to give you wings (restore mental and physical alertness). both contain half truths and outright lies. Unions used to exist to help the worker, now they make a show of it, but like any big business, the heads are living off the lower workers, which I know you hate.
secondly, you cant have everyone above average. its imposible using conventional math. some will be higher, some lower. costs will trend to the average, but will vary with location. so a nice area, will cost more than a cheap area, meaning that min wage will be hard to live on. that gives people a reason to work to get above that.
also, we dont all use the things the companies pay for, but it is an insurance scheme. I have never used employment insurance, and dont forsee using it any time soon. but I pay into it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:42:44 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for the worker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:42:44 AM | |
|
Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for the worker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 4:15:37 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, April 17, 2009 4:15:37 PM | |
|
I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 3:19:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, April 17, 2009 3:19:41 PM | |
|
Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:25:51 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, April 17, 2009 1:25:51 PM | |
|
min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:18:56 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, April 17, 2009 1:18:56 PM | |
|
Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:14:39 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, April 17, 2009 1:14:39 PM | |
|
yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, April 17, 2009 1:11:44 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
