| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:55:13 AM | |
|
if there are a million people there and a thousand earned a million dollars, they have very little effect on the average, but yes, some are higher and some are lower
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:03:50 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | The "average" wage may be a bit of a deception - over here its around 800€ - but very few actualy get that. Most get around 500, and the handfull with really big incomes bring the averages up. IDK, maybe the same at you end? I guess you have more people that are richer than our rich people.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:54:23 AM | |
|
I would have to drive thousands of miles to find a CAW worker, and the big three will be out of business before I go that way I think
if business flourished, workers would become scarce and companies would have to do things to atract them.
tax rate, top tier is there, botom is 15%federal (after the first 10K or so) and here 10% provincial after the first 16K)
Respect isnt given by a title or a membership, its something that most people have, if you dont, in either a union or managment position, you create problems.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:09:12 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...I am ignorant to the ways of Canadian government and her policies...so I really can't comment other than to say I believe that I have read on a number of occasions that you are taxed at 50% ?? I know it's an issue with a lot of athletes...but that may explain (partially) why some services are much cheaper (if true) than down here...and I don't honestly know of too many companies that offer more than the laws require them to, I'm sure they're out there, but where??...I'll be the first to admit that not all companies would need organized labor if companies took care of their workers (some do) but the majority do not...I mean, why give more than you have to, this isn't charity...but at one time there were no incentives at all for workers...it may seem hard to imagine nowadays, but ask your parents or grandparents what it used to be like...we take a lot for granted these days...union membership is at it's lowest in decades and you know what??...the middle class is at it's lowest percentage in decades as well...organized labor has no intention of being as wealthy as management, it's much greater than our wages, it's about quality of life...I don't need a CEOs salary to live a good life...it's about protection (insurance), retirement (our Social Security program is in debt and may not be around when I'm at that age), safety regulations (I want to go home after a hard days work and I don't need my supervisor asking me to do something stupid so they can cut costs or save time), respect (just because you have a 'title' doesn't mean you're better than me or that you 'own' me), it's about pride and self respect...ask a worker who belongs to the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) if their quality of life hasn't improved...I've met with some personally and they couldn't be happier!!...but each countrie and state is unique unto itself...but what I've been posting these past several days is what I (and many others) see on an everyday basis right here, right now!!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:50:33 AM | |
|
you mentioned a pension plan, its invested in the stock market, therefore, you are an owner of these companies. most stocks are owned by a pension or mutual fund
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:11:18 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...that may work, but you need to have $$ to invest, the average worker here does not!!...
| | | Head banger wrote: | | paying CEO's in stock sounds like a great idea, as most people have only the stock market to invest in for retirement, and the failing stock market is the reason that DB plans are on the way out. generaly they are vested for longer term employees, which may explain the CEO stat. personaly I was glad to see a DC plan come to my workplace, much more cash for me.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...here are some examples of what I'm trying to relate...these figures are a couple of years old now, but you'll get my point...
...Pay for the average CEO at a "S&P (Standard & Poor) 500" company is now 430 times that of the average US worker.
...More than one in four of nearly 200 large firms surveyed by Equilar Inc. granted raises of at least 25% to their CEOs.
...A survey of 350 companies by Mercer Human Resource Consulting found that the median CEO earned $975,000 in base salary and $6 million in total compensation.
...Defined benefit pensions for workers are under attack, as only 21% of private sector workers are covered by such plans. Meanwhile, 69% of "Fortune 1000" CEOs have defined benefit plans.
...Richard D. Fairbank of Capitol One Financial Corp. tops the list of CEOs cashing in on huge stock options. He earns no salary or bonus, but his return on options in 2006 amounted to over $18 million. His options payout the year before? $249.3 million!!
...Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) reported that software maker Ariba Inc. paid CEO Robert M. Calderoni $104 million - a 75% increase over the previous year - while the company's returns to shareholders fell 39%.
...US investors singled out executive compensation as their top concern over the next year, according to another ISS survey.
This is what I'm talking about when I state - CORPORATE GREED!!! |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:49:41 AM | |
|
sure, its member dues, that the unions spend pushing labour friendly candidates, while complaining that corporations donating money to candidates are trying to buy votes. I was a union member, earning less than minimum wage when I started at this company. thats less than minimum after paying union dues. Watched the union fight the termination of 2 members who were sexualy harasing ANOTHER MEMBER. watched unions grieve the right dicipline, going to arbitration, and lose, time and time again, just because the company had to pay most of the apb cost. sugested an arbitration cost loser pay system, but no one interested in that.
Promote the one who works harder, sells more, and get a grievance because the guy who was here before him, slacks off, calls in sick and doesnt try wants a promotion.
at the the 6-7 digit cheques, its a simple mater of scarcity. the CEO of a major company has huge knowledge and drive to get there. I wouldnt do it, hell I dont want another promotion, despite the fact it would probably push me into 6 figures, the time comitment is too huge. yesterday I worked 14.5 hours. sure I am counting 2.5 hours to drive here. I dont do that every day. I do work, Every day. check email... etc some days its a small time, but I do that because it needs to be done.
who has deeper pockets, UAW or GM? who earns more, the CEO of GM or the head of the union? well, since the CEO of ford and gm are earning total compensation this year of $1, and the head of chrylser stoped drawing a paycheque last year, right now, union membership looks good. whos fault is it that the "big" three are in the mess they are in. honestly its shared. the workers earn an unrealistic wage, and the quality of product sucks, both from a customer and design point of view. some design points go back to the union, as things that should be automated cant be in that environ, and things that need to be adressed with worker quality are not, because unions prevent dicipline. the overall design and vision of where the companies went sucks also, and thats managments fault. if people keep buying corolas and civics, dont spend a ton of money on the hummer brand, duh!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:20:07 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...unions are not supported by the government or tax dollars, they are supported by the membership at a rate (typically) of 2 hours pay per month per member...and it costs money to run a union...and unions do have to politic for regulations and fight in the courts against unfair labor practices and what not, just like any other industry (except our pockets aren't as deep as most)...and as far as being outdated, in 99% of the cases we're just trying to keep what we've earned to this point...not to regress!!...we are tired of management telling the world it's because of us (labor) that they can't (supposedly) make a profit while they are cutting 6 and 7 digit checks for themselves!!...wtf is that??
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Obama said today that trade bariers are damaging to all parties of the trade, which was where I started.
Ron, I dont deny that unions had their place, but its a historical place, like that of the musket. when they reduce the ability of business to work, create money, and pay people, hold back the higher achievers, thats unfortunatly why they are a barier to their own members. now they are a business, with slogans and marketing like any other, but only a business, out to make money, not create what they claim. |
|
|
|
| [ron h] Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:20:07 AM | |
|
...unions are not supported by the government or tax dollars, they are supported by the membership at a rate (typically) of 2 hours pay per month per member...and it costs money to run a union...and unions do have to politic for regulations and fight in the courts against unfair labor practices and what not, just like any other industry (except our pockets aren't as deep as most)...and as far as being outdated, in 99% of the cases we're just trying to keep what we've earned to this point...not to regress!!...we are tired of management telling the world it's because of us (labor) that they can't (supposedly) make a profit while they are cutting 6 and 7 digit checks for themselves!!...wtf is that??
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:28:01 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Obama said today that trade bariers are damaging to all parties of the trade, which was where I started.
Ron, I dont deny that unions had their place, but its a historical place, like that of the musket. when they reduce the ability of business to work, create money, and pay people, hold back the higher achievers, thats unfortunatly why they are a barier to their own members. now they are a business, with slogans and marketing like any other, but only a business, out to make money, not create what they claim. |
|
|
| [ron h] Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:11:18 AM | |
|
...that may work, but you need to have $$ to invest, the average worker here does not!!...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:19:04 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | paying CEO's in stock sounds like a great idea, as most people have only the stock market to invest in for retirement, and the failing stock market is the reason that DB plans are on the way out. generaly they are vested for longer term employees, which may explain the CEO stat. personaly I was glad to see a DC plan come to my workplace, much more cash for me.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...here are some examples of what I'm trying to relate...these figures are a couple of years old now, but you'll get my point...
...Pay for the average CEO at a "S&P (Standard & Poor) 500" company is now 430 times that of the average US worker.
...More than one in four of nearly 200 large firms surveyed by Equilar Inc. granted raises of at least 25% to their CEOs.
...A survey of 350 companies by Mercer Human Resource Consulting found that the median CEO earned $975,000 in base salary and $6 million in total compensation.
...Defined benefit pensions for workers are under attack, as only 21% of private sector workers are covered by such plans. Meanwhile, 69% of "Fortune 1000" CEOs have defined benefit plans.
...Richard D. Fairbank of Capitol One Financial Corp. tops the list of CEOs cashing in on huge stock options. He earns no salary or bonus, but his return on options in 2006 amounted to over $18 million. His options payout the year before? $249.3 million!!
...Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) reported that software maker Ariba Inc. paid CEO Robert M. Calderoni $104 million - a 75% increase over the previous year - while the company's returns to shareholders fell 39%.
...US investors singled out executive compensation as their top concern over the next year, according to another ISS survey.
This is what I'm talking about when I state - CORPORATE GREED!!! |
|
|
|
| [ron h] Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:09:12 AM | |
|
...I am ignorant to the ways of Canadian government and her policies...so I really can't comment other than to say I believe that I have read on a number of occasions that you are taxed at 50% ?? I know it's an issue with a lot of athletes...but that may explain (partially) why some services are much cheaper (if true) than down here...and I don't honestly know of too many companies that offer more than the laws require them to, I'm sure they're out there, but where??...I'll be the first to admit that not all companies would need organized labor if companies took care of their workers (some do) but the majority do not...I mean, why give more than you have to, this isn't charity...but at one time there were no incentives at all for workers...it may seem hard to imagine nowadays, but ask your parents or grandparents what it used to be like...we take a lot for granted these days...union membership is at it's lowest in decades and you know what??...the middle class is at it's lowest percentage in decades as well...organized labor has no intention of being as wealthy as management, it's much greater than our wages, it's about quality of life...I don't need a CEOs salary to live a good life...it's about protection (insurance), retirement (our Social Security program is in debt and may not be around when I'm at that age), safety regulations (I want to go home after a hard days work and I don't need my supervisor asking me to do something stupid so they can cut costs or save time), respect (just because you have a 'title' doesn't mean you're better than me or that you 'own' me), it's about pride and self respect...ask a worker who belongs to the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers) if their quality of life hasn't improved...I've met with some personally and they couldn't be happier!!...but each countrie and state is unique unto itself...but what I've been posting these past several days is what I (and many others) see on an everyday basis right here, right now!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:17:13 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:08:14 AM | |
|
Could be. But of the two, only the skill is under my control. And even that just so long as the public education holds out.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:20:00 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | your skill and demand for it
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:06:40 AM | |
|
...so, basicaly they have to pay the overseas labourers what they should be paying to everyone? Even less, actualy. I mean, 5% more whats that? One cup of coffe per week? Not a big improvement.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:22:37 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so the stats are different, thought they might be. one of the problems of comparing stats, there the 6% could all be looking for work, here the 5% are mostly not trying to find work. makes a significant difference in the number of employers looking to find people. we are reduced here to importing labour from overseas, even to work in fast food. what a cost, you have to pay 5% more than the average rate, about $11 where minimum is $8.40 and flights, health care and at least part of room and board. find good local talent, you take care of them
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Mothers on maternity leaves (or fathers, they get their leave too) do not count as unemployed under any circumstance. They have a leave, with some financial support, get counted as employed - and most importantly, the job has to be waiting for them when their leave is over. No debate here.
People who have a goal of not working are rare enough - at least with the handouts that they get here. There are such, admitedly, but I am absolutely sure that of those 6% unemployed the majority desperatly wants to find employment.
Now, increasing the wealth of a nation sounds more like a nationalistic than socialistic idea - in any case, the wealth of a nation must be based on the wealth of all individuals that make up the nation - but that cannot come about in a capitalist society. In a capitalist economy, the wealth of a nation is predominatly the wealth of the elite - the numbers that Ron posted speak for themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ok now, but of the lets say 5% unemployed, the way we count stats here,that includes the women on maternaty leave, who are not working, and realy cant. well they are working damn hard, but not at what we call a job. then you have the people who have a goal of not working, and those who are incompetant. not everyone can work, thru either lack of skill or will.
increasing the wealth of the nation is no incentive for the individual to work harder, thats a socialistic idea and it fails. to ensure that people as individuals earn more, increasing the wealth of the nation by making more jobs come available, full time, more total hours of work, and more things produced. that creates scarcity of labour, which is the incentive you seek. making things dificult for business does the oposit.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | 40 hrs a week may or may not be fair - personaly I think its still too much. If I connect this with the "pizza argument" - the pizza that we make is more than big enough - we produce more than enough, as does any western society, that has an abundance of material commodities. The distribution is the problem. We could simply redistribute the making of the pizza and the slices - we could all work less than now, and get more for it. If there is a certain amount of unemployment - why not employ them, and we can all work less, because there would be more people doing the work? It all comes down to the free market and the so-called "private property" - which in this case would refer to the private ownership of the means of production. That is the main obstacle.
Now, the incentive to increase wealth of a nation is usualy not an incentive for an individual to work harder. And even if it were, where would be the incentive of the employers and business owners to give us more, if we produce more?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:03:50 AM | |
|
The "average" wage may be a bit of a deception - over here its around 800€ - but very few actualy get that. Most get around 500, and the handfull with really big incomes bring the averages up. IDK, maybe the same at you end? I guess you have more people that are richer than our rich people.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:17:13 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:01:21 AM | |
|
With you a 100%. No unions, and we would be sleeping in our offices, and working for a slice of bread a day, like they used to in th 1800s. Or like they do in China still.
People suffered a lot to give us the rights we have today. Striking, sabotage, fuck, they fought for it in a war - and now just a proposal to raise a minimal wage for a couple of €, will have everyone shouting out about stiffling businesses.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:25:37 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:28:01 AM | |
|
Obama said today that trade bariers are damaging to all parties of the trade, which was where I started.
Ron, I dont deny that unions had their place, but its a historical place, like that of the musket. when they reduce the ability of business to work, create money, and pay people, hold back the higher achievers, thats unfortunatly why they are a barier to their own members. now they are a business, with slogans and marketing like any other, but only a business, out to make money, not create what they claim. |
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:22:37 AM | |
|
so the stats are different, thought they might be. one of the problems of comparing stats, there the 6% could all be looking for work, here the 5% are mostly not trying to find work. makes a significant difference in the number of employers looking to find people. we are reduced here to importing labour from overseas, even to work in fast food. what a cost, you have to pay 5% more than the average rate, about $11 where minimum is $8.40 and flights, health care and at least part of room and board. find good local talent, you take care of them
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:33:20 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Mothers on maternity leaves (or fathers, they get their leave too) do not count as unemployed under any circumstance. They have a leave, with some financial support, get counted as employed - and most importantly, the job has to be waiting for them when their leave is over. No debate here.
People who have a goal of not working are rare enough - at least with the handouts that they get here. There are such, admitedly, but I am absolutely sure that of those 6% unemployed the majority desperatly wants to find employment.
Now, increasing the wealth of a nation sounds more like a nationalistic than socialistic idea - in any case, the wealth of a nation must be based on the wealth of all individuals that make up the nation - but that cannot come about in a capitalist society. In a capitalist economy, the wealth of a nation is predominatly the wealth of the elite - the numbers that Ron posted speak for themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | ok now, but of the lets say 5% unemployed, the way we count stats here,that includes the women on maternaty leave, who are not working, and realy cant. well they are working damn hard, but not at what we call a job. then you have the people who have a goal of not working, and those who are incompetant. not everyone can work, thru either lack of skill or will.
increasing the wealth of the nation is no incentive for the individual to work harder, thats a socialistic idea and it fails. to ensure that people as individuals earn more, increasing the wealth of the nation by making more jobs come available, full time, more total hours of work, and more things produced. that creates scarcity of labour, which is the incentive you seek. making things dificult for business does the oposit.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | 40 hrs a week may or may not be fair - personaly I think its still too much. If I connect this with the "pizza argument" - the pizza that we make is more than big enough - we produce more than enough, as does any western society, that has an abundance of material commodities. The distribution is the problem. We could simply redistribute the making of the pizza and the slices - we could all work less than now, and get more for it. If there is a certain amount of unemployment - why not employ them, and we can all work less, because there would be more people doing the work? It all comes down to the free market and the so-called "private property" - which in this case would refer to the private ownership of the means of production. That is the main obstacle.
Now, the incentive to increase wealth of a nation is usualy not an incentive for an individual to work harder. And even if it were, where would be the incentive of the employers and business owners to give us more, if we produce more?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:20:00 AM | |
|
your skill and demand for it
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:34:53 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No they dont - they decide how to cut it up. I could go someplace else... But who guarantees that that wouldnt be the same?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | you, because if you are of value to your employer, they have to share better.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I understand what are you trying to say, that the more there is, the more can be "sliced up" and divided - but... Who guarantees that if the pie increases, my share of it will too? (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:51:24 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
40 hours a week seems fair. here its the norm, but you can work 44 before overtime kicks in. As to increasing personal wealth, your doing it wrong. you want each person to have a larger slice of the existing pie. beter is to grow the pie, as with dividing pizza, you probably know that a slice of 15cm pizza cut into 6 pieces is much smaller than a slice of a 30 cm cut into 12 pieces.
the incentive is to increase the wealth that spreads around the country, because by default some of that comes to each person.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Maximum work week is already 40 hrs (+ paid overtime). And the proposals from the EU parliament to make it longer were rejected so harshly, that it may come down to seizing the factories, if our government lets them through.
Personal incomes... Well, a minimum wage or circa. 500€ per month are barely enough to survive on, and the pensions that will one days come from that will be so low, that it will be impossible to survive with them. What kind of an incentive is that?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
takes time. the more wealth is created, the more each person gets. if no incentive for the individual to create wealth, none is created for anyone. wave a magic wand, double everyones rate of pay. max work week 40 hours. do that tomorow, and your unemployment will be at 20%
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Yes, country wide, tho it must be said, its not even. Over here in Ljubljana (capital and the largest city) it may not even be 2%. In some areas, you have small towns that live of one or two companies - usualy factories, mines, and the like, where you often have sons, fathers and grandfathers working together. So when that gets closed, the unemployment rate in such an area can skyrocket. A very familiar scenario, Im afraid.
Now, the more companies hire people, the more the pay... Well, yes. Pay enough? That is another matter. Give them enough spare time? Yet, again, another matter.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
strengthen the economy, and no one gets laid off. that 5-6%, is that country wide? the more companys can hire people, the more they have to pay. the union would have failed if the unemployment rate was not low. the legislation can be circumvented, its easy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, the unemployment rate here was around 5 or 6 % a couple of months ago. Probably higher now, with the incoming reccesion, and the massive layoffs. And 8,40$/h minimal wage is no joke. Over here, the worker gets maybe half of that. That, and over here many people have to survive with a minimal wage.
Another thing that is good in the legislature, and can be put down to two centuries of labour movements, is the fact that the employer cannot simply fire you and replace you with someone who is prepared to work more for less. So, the employer cannot entirely treat you like a commodity that can be replaced when a better bargain come along. Another reason are the "evil" that you put forward - the unions.
Now, more jobs. That is a good thing, I agree. But what about now? Workers all around the world are getting laid off - 50 million have already lost their jobs, or will shortly. What better way to create pressure on those still employed?
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
whats the unemployment rate there? if you strengthen the economy, people become the most scarce resource. no one here earns minimum wage, its a joke, ($8.40/hr)
go to the realy booming places, no one makes even double that. people are the ultimate comodity, and unions only work where people are scarce enough that they cant be replaced quickly.
now if 15% of people dont have jobs, the union might survive, but it needs govt help. now in that situation, people see unions as a good thing, but if they dumped them, soon enough, more people would have jobs, and therefore the pay rates would go up. now if you are in somewhere like rwanda, where its 86% unemployed, no union will work, because they can be replaced. the answer is more jobs, which make the worker, not the job of value.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ooops, sorry, I didnt notice this one before. Well, I will answer it now then.
Free market that we are looking at in this particular case would refer to the market of labour. And lets look at how free it is. In developed countries it is not all that free. It is to a large extent, and definatly more than it should be, but not as free as it is in countries that do not have as highly organised labour movements as we do. Thats it. With us, the freedom of the labour market is limited by law. As I said numerous times before, stuff like minimum wages, maximum working hours, pension funds, ect, ect... Are not the kindness of the employers, that stuff is what the employer is legaly obliged to abide.
Now, take away those regulations, and have a completely free labour market. I guarantee you, in ten years it would be either a revolution, or an Orvellian nightmare. Because, if the state does not interfere in the labour market, or does it so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, and does not set the regulations that limit the employer, the market will ultimately lead us into misery and very real slavery. No minimum wages - who guarantees survival? No pensions - who guarantees that you will ever be able to retire, even when youre unfit to continue working? The market (or better said, those that control it -the employers) would make us compete below the lines that are now set as minimum. As I said - the bottom line would be bare survival.
No, no free market, thank you very much. Id rather have my wage and my spare time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
thats not because of unions, its because of the free market that in the more developed countries people get more and have more rights
you see, the more jobs there are, the more companies need the workers, and skilled ones at that. in a place with low employement, they know they can abuse people and pay them less, a union wont help, someone else will cross the line to work. Always, the free marked decides, based on scarcity. for the worker, they improve their situation by impriving their skills. for a country, they improve their situation by creating more jobs and wealth. money and work lead to freedom, not slavery towards a union or comunism.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, thats how it is. Not just in sweatshops and third world countries. Thats how labour markets work. The person that is prepared to work the longest hours, for the smallest possible wage, with minimum allowed rights... Gets the job. The only difference between us (as in the "developed world") and them (as in the "developing world") is that we have a more organised labour movement (and in our case it is the legacy of socialism), and laws that guarantee certain minimums and maximums. The employer cannot give you less than the minimal wage. He cannot force you to work longer than the law says. The principal is the same as in sweatshops, tho, only they dont have any law-enforced bottom lines. There the bottom line is bare survival.
And quite frankly... If the choice is slavery or playing on an uneven field, I choose the uneven field. And in any case, free trade as it is applied today, leads to slavery, there can be no doubt about it.
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...oh, strat...I've watched investigations into Wal Mart and how the products end up on the shelves...not only to they pit other countries against each other in bidding wars for labor, but then they pit the workers against each other to drive costs down even more...it's very sad...and it's all legal in these countries because their governments don't care how they get the work just so long as they get it...I've watched people get beat, attack each other, fired because someone walks in the door and says they can work for 5¢ less a day...it's dehumanizing...but you'll never see any of that in a Wal Mart ad...and this is just one example, I'm not even getting into 'sweat shops'...ppl providing cheap labor to work off debts in exchange for work visa's...you won't see that legally happening in our borders!!!...and those that do face harsh penalties, jail time, deportation if applicable...this is a crux to free trade...America(n) (policy) can't and won't accept that, and 'her' ppl find it a tragedy...this way of doing business is why I claim an un-even playing field (among others)!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
I sure can say it, and it wouldnt be the first time I did it in here. We get back to the capitalist system, and its implementation on a global level, especialy in a very unevenly developed world.
Now, what you probably mean is that Wal-Mart doesnt have anything "made in USA" on its shelves - but the companies that produce it are American. 1$ a week stuff - just like you said yourself. Much the same here. I would bet my life that the computer Im using right now was made somewhere in Southeast Asia. Screw the quality of life - the bosses dont care about it. They never worked a day themselves, never had to live with a limited amount of basic neccesities... They dont understand, and if they did they probably wouldnt give a shit anyway. (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:45:55 AM)
| |
|
ronhartsell wrote: |
| |
...can anyone say 'corporate greed'??...and it is without boundaries or nationality, it's what happens in 'free' trade...the rich get richer, no matter what the cost...look at Wal Mart, owned and operated by Americans, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything American made on the shelves...a lot of it is the cheapest sh*t you'll find, but it costs nothing to put it on the shelves, and we've been dealing with this for years...why do you think companies outsource??, so they can get away with paying $1 a week in wages...wtf is that??...where's the quality of life??
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I thought it was directed at me, since I raised a voice against the US economy. In any case, if PK1990 is reading, then I will be declared an America hatin`, freedom loathin`, terrorist loathin` liberal sissy by default.
Ok, down to business. You may not care for the effects of American policies outside of the US, and you may think that it is just fine, and that you guys are helping out more than you are hurting. Bullshit. You know, markets are free, but that doesnt mean that people are too. We are pretty new to the game, admitedly. Us, the rest of former Yugoslavia, and the Warsaw pact had a very closed economy 20 years ago. But as soon as it opened, we were stormed by western companies, who came here with cheaper products (can you say outsourcing?), that were advertised wildly (and still are), and ours could not compete - hence why so many of east European companies were obliterated in the 90s. Or, whenever western companies (American or otherwise) saw competition there, they bought a company and simply closed it. That way of making money certainly is bad, wheter you care for it or not. And thats the way how the west became rich. Economic colonisation. No charity can ever outweight that. Not to mention that we buy your products, but dont recieve charity. Again, the "rest of the world" is not just some place - its many places, with different relations with you guys.
Now, plenty of morality in there... You may not care for it, but there it is. You need us way more than we need you.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it!! I knew I could count on you!! HAHAHAHAA!!! OK, debate, you say? That will be fine.
I do not refer to you personally as a "hater". In fact, I would be quite surprised if you actually "hate" anyone. You are too smart a fellow for that nonsense (you too, Soy!) .As for "arguments", I have no need for any as I am not looking to argue my feelings. There is NO debate. If you carry a personal distaste for politicians, I really cannot see how that is anything special. It is oh so fashionable to declare one's distaste for politicians. I see them as a functioning part of our world. They are what they are and I certainly cannot change that. Neither can you. For what it is worth, I do not personally know any politicians so I have no particular affinity for them, either.
As for you saying anything regarding business and trade, you are entitled to your opinion. I never said I have a problem with YOU. That would be silly. I speak of this ridiculous notion (promoted by a small but vocal group) that the US is somehow taking advantage of unsuspecting, Third World nations and forcing our evil products and policies upon them. Yeah, Yeah..OK. As you so eloquently pointed out, markets are open. FREE trade! Making money is NOT a bad thing, man! If we turn a profit, that is GREAT! That is the WHOLE idea! If we see a market wherein we can make a profit, we target that market. Smart business, I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple enough. Global colonization?!?!? HA!!!! Yeah, OK.
As for charity, you can deny it if you wish but the US sends aid to many, many "poor" countries. It is what we do and not just when a friggin tidal wave hits. We are one of the most "giving" nations on the planet. As for war..well, it is what it is. Yes, we bomb enemies. And we do it well. I believe we are 12 and 1...or is it 11 and 2?? ...not bad. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry)
As for "envy". I do not recall saying that. I am sure there are a lot of countries with a GREAT economy and lifestyle. Equally, there are a lot of poor countries and they get HAND OUTS. I do know this, if there was a way for the US to be "shut out" of the trade world, YES! It would initially have an effect on our economy..AND me. What I meant by my comments was, this country has AMPLE resources. We could survive just fine without the rest of the world and that includes OIL! We have plenty.
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, February 02, 2009 4:44:29 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Ok,... Im going to assume that you were serious... In which case I suggest that you sit back, read what you wrote and think. You are not dumb. I dont know how you can come to such conclusions as you did, but lets clear up certain things. (Oh, Im going to put my text in red, and the quoted in white - just to avoid confusion).
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash
You might as well say that that refers to me. Everyone knows it does. In any case, lets clear up this "America-Hater" bullshit, since I see that it is very popular with American conservatives, when they are out of arguments. You oppose American policies - you hate America.
What would I hate about America? The land? The mountains, forests, coasts, soil... Why? The people? Why? Most of them havent done anything to me. That means that I would have to hate Tim, Guido, Darth, Bev... You! I dont, you know that! Now, American policies, and the people that make and carry out those policies... Politicians... That would be closer to the truth. Businessmen? The big ones? Certainly.
Point: you cannot think of a country as you would think of an individual person. There is so much more to it.
forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s!
I never said or claimed that your politicians or businessmen somehow force us into trading with you. Markets are open. Companies trade. It is the way of capitalism. And it benefits you guys much more than it does us. Or, at least, it benefits your corporations. I can hardly Imagine that you personaly have any direct gain from it. Lets get another thing straight: the US companies are not trading with us because of charity or solidarity. They found a new market, and nations that are not used to living in capitalism. And they made billions. They sell their products to us. Sell, not give. And they dont sell at a loss, no way. They sell because they make profit of us. Ok. Thats the way of it, and it seems that there isnt a thing we can do right now to rectify it.
Do not for one minute think that we cant do without you, however. "We" meaning the rest of the world here. If tomorow all American products disapear from our markets... We will buy others. What will you do? What will your companies do, when they will run out of money? Remember... The worlds population is 6 billion. The American is about 300 milion. Think how the market would shrink for your companies. You (and this time I mean "you" as you, the individual) would feel it. You would feel it a lot. Because even tho it is the richest, the USA is still just one country, among hundreds of others. And you do need the rest of the world. If you want to keep up with your current lifestyle, at least. America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact.
Now, that, and the "handout" thingy. I dont know for many other countries, but we never recieved ANY handouts from the US. Yet we trade with you. We buy American stuff. Right now I have Lewis jeans on me (made in Croatia - but the profit went to the USA). And I dont actualy mind it all that much. Sure, they are not the best jeans that money can buy, but I like them well enough. Even tho the profit made from those jeans went to the USA. You see... I bought them, paid for them, and because of that, a certain amount of money went to the USA, where a certain amount of tax was paid to your government, that used that tax on something that may just well be for you. Now... Can you say "thank you"? And, knowing what wages are like in Croatia, Id say that quite a large part of the money I paid for the jeans went to the USA. Thats how it goes. And there are literary billions of euros made that way, all around the world from people who buy American goods.
And lets be clear on another thing as well - bombing a country does NOT count as a gift of weapons! And no matter how much America helps other countries - people who have suffered from American foreign policy have every right in the world to hate whatever they percieve as the USA. And please... PLEASE... What handouts? Aid when theres an earthquake somewhere? How does that equal out the economic colonisation of the rest of the world?
And please, explain... Why in the world do you think we envy you?!?! Envy you what? Your freedom? I actualy believe that I have more freedom here than you do there.
Infact, this attitude in your post is childish. "I dont need you! I dont need ANYONE!!!" Well, guess what... You do.
In any case, I went on about it.. And I think I have all points covered. Im sure that I will hear more from you... Just remember: no need to pop blood vessels, and Im not upset or anything. Just debate.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
OK. I am going to take a chance and assume that I have enough "friends" here to say somethings without being cyber-disemboweled...
I am SO sick of all the "America-Haters" talking trash about how the big, bad United States is SO mean and forces all these poor, unsuspecting countries to trade with us and genuflect and all this other b.s! WHATEVER!! Let's get something straight right here and now; we don't NEED anyone else!! NO ONE! We can survive quite nicely without the trade of ANY other country. We are kind enough to ship good and services and AID to others and accept some of the same in return. This imaginary (yes I said imaginary) belief that we would crumble without the "rest of the world" or that we somehow "man handle" these poor little countires into accepting our "inferior" products is just plain BULLSH%$ !!!!!!!!
America helps FAR more than she hurts and that is a fact. We would have NO problem slamming our doors to the rest of the world and moving along just fine but for the fact that the REST of the WORLD needs US!!!!!!! That's right! I said it!! We are the RICHEST, most POWERFUL nation on earth and that just galls some people. Well, too fu%&@$% bad!!!!!!!! I have yet to see one of these poor, oppressed and disadvantaged countries refuse an American hand out! And they won't. because they NEED us........ Just like they NEED our trade. The American worker puts out a quality product and we can compete with ANYONE, ANYWHERE! So there.
|
|
Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:09:30 PM Edited at: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15:31 PM |
|
|
Edited at: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:04:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:34:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:19:42 AM | |
|
most small businesses employ some people, and as time goes on their goal is to grow.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:48:37 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | My apologies for not stating so before - but we did talk about labour markets. Not about small businesses, that employ only the business owner(s), but those that go and employ other people, and go beyond the self sufficency of the owner.
| | | WhiskeyWoman wrote: | | ...Profits!?
from a small business...?
Yeah, right.
I run a plumbing business -- and unless you make a whole pile of money to begin with ... there are no profits! It's freakin' tough. I've put thousands of my own $$$ into it, simply trying to be self-sufficient -- not become a millionaire, but to make some money in wages for my husband and myself, and to let the business pay for itself.
But, the more you make, the more the govt. takes -- and all banking and other fees are more expensive for business and, unless you have constant work -- it's impossible. We have four vehicles to insure (two for the business), and those rates are climbing for no apparent, logical reason. Believe me, if we could unload a vehicle or two, we would. We've tried...
I give up. We're a good business, who has developed a reputation thru awesome references by word-of-mouth. My husband's a great plumber, we take care of our customers, and they know that. We have done all the right things -- and I've even lost a freakin' finger over it -- for what seems like nothing but a load of debt.
Quite discouraging, really. Now, it's an attitude of F*ck the govt, and work for cash. And, that seems to be the increasing attitude of our customers. Good guys seem to finish last...
I keep telling y'all to listen to Priest's "Revolution"! Go, Ian...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, the fact right now is that business owners own the profits of their respective businesses, and have the right to do with them as they will. As long as businesses stay private, that will be so.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...I'm not aying that 'ownership' doesn't have a right to make a profit...if I owned a business, that would be my goal as well...what I'm at odds with is the 'distribution' of wealth...and the fact it's always labor that takes the hit...it would be justifiable if we made the business decisions, but we don't...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, there you have it. I dont know the numbers, but I would say that it is much the same with us.
We all make the pizza, but those that own the kitchen distribute it - even if they dont have anything to do with the making of the pizza.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...Ok, if you have the answer to this...please do tell...
...in America, the top 5% ('upper' class) controls 85% of the money...
...that leaves 95% of us ('middle and lower' classes) to 'fight' for the remaing 15%...these are facts...
...that's what labor is trying to change!!!...and it's been this way for a long time!!!... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:19:04 AM | |
|
paying CEO's in stock sounds like a great idea, as most people have only the stock market to invest in for retirement, and the failing stock market is the reason that DB plans are on the way out. generaly they are vested for longer term employees, which may explain the CEO stat. personaly I was glad to see a DC plan come to my workplace, much more cash for me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:16:11 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | ...here are some examples of what I'm trying to relate...these figures are a couple of years old now, but you'll get my point...
...Pay for the average CEO at a "S&P (Standard & Poor) 500" company is now 430 times that of the average US worker.
...More than one in four of nearly 200 large firms surveyed by Equilar Inc. granted raises of at least 25% to their CEOs.
...A survey of 350 companies by Mercer Human Resource Consulting found that the median CEO earned $975,000 in base salary and $6 million in total compensation.
...Defined benefit pensions for workers are under attack, as only 21% of private sector workers are covered by such plans. Meanwhile, 69% of "Fortune 1000" CEOs have defined benefit plans.
...Richard D. Fairbank of Capitol One Financial Corp. tops the list of CEOs cashing in on huge stock options. He earns no salary or bonus, but his return on options in 2006 amounted to over $18 million. His options payout the year before? $249.3 million!!
...Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) reported that software maker Ariba Inc. paid CEO Robert M. Calderoni $104 million - a 75% increase over the previous year - while the company's returns to shareholders fell 39%.
...US investors singled out executive compensation as their top concern over the next year, according to another ISS survey.
This is what I'm talking about when I state - CORPORATE GREED!!! |
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:17:13 AM | |
|
explain why companies provide more benefits than regulations or contracts require?
explain also, why the province with the least unions in canada has the highest average wage. thats the middle class benefiting. is this the same in the states?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:25:37 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
|
| [ron h] Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:25:37 PM | |
|
And here's one last thing I want to say to those who find it fashionable to bash the Unions...
...try to name something at the workplace that helps a person be middle class that wasn't brought about by labor unions...
...think hard...the 8 hour work day, contract wages, paid vacations, paid holidays, retirement plans, health and hospitalization insurance, overtime pay, call-in pay, seniority rights, recall rights, safety regulations, grievance and arbitration procedures, whatever, and I can tell you where and when American workers went on bitterly faught strikes to bring those things about...
...Think, too about public schools, free text books, one-man-one-vote, direct elections of U.S. senators, child labor laws, state hospitals, workers compensation for killed or injured workers, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, mechanic lien laws, abolition of debtors prisons, anti-blacklisting laws, Social Security, all of which American unions agitated for, in some cases started in the 1880's...
...Any person who works for a living owes an unrepayable debt to the men and women who, acting through their unions, brought about by collective bargaining the wages, hours and working conditions that are today so common-place in our mines, factories, stores, and offices, whether unionized or not, that are taken for granted...
...They should never be taken for granted, for it's these very wages, benefits, and working conditions that are under assault today. Every time an air traffic controllers union gets busted, Greyhound Bus driver or Eastern Airlines pilots lose a strike, Caterpillar workers return to work without a contract our unions "give back a benefit", a little more of the "middle class" has been diminished...
...it has been said that "as the unions go, so do the middle class"...you cannot deny the parallels!! |
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:49:15 PM | |
|
This kinda goes back on the conversation,.. But its interesting
First-quarter layoffs
The following chart is a selection of some announcements of job cuts since the beginning of the year. Some numbers are estimates.
By The Wall Street Journal
| Company |
Announcement date |
Jobs cut |
% of work force |
|
Time Warner Cable
|
2/4/2009
|
1,250
|
3
|
|
Panasonic
|
2/4/2009
|
15,000
|
5
|
|
Electronic Arts
|
2/3/2009
|
1,100
|
11
|
|
PNC Financial Services Group
|
2/3/2009
|
5,800
|
10
|
|
King Pharmaceuticals
|
2/3/2009
|
760
|
22
|
|
Liz Claiborne
|
2/3/2009
|
725
|
8
|
|
SAS
|
2/3/2009
|
9,000
|
40
|
|
Macy's
|
2/2/2009
|
7,000
|
4
|
|
NEC
|
1/30/2009
|
20,000
|
7
|
|
Hitachi
|
1/30/2009
|
7,000
|
2
|
|
Eastman Kodak
|
1/29/2009
|
4,500
|
18
|
|
Bon-Ton Stores
|
1/29/2009
|
1,150
|
3
|
|
Black & Decker
|
1/29/2009
|
1,200
|
5
|
|
AstraZeneca
|
1/29/2009
|
7,400
|
11
|
|
Ford Motor Credit
|
1/28/2009
|
1,200
|
20
|
| Starbucks |
1/28/2009 |
6,700 |
4 |
| Boeing |
1/28/2009 |
10,000* |
6 |
| Jabil Circuit |
1/28/2009 |
3,000 |
4 |
| SAP |
1/28/2009 |
3,000 |
6 |
| STMicroelectronics |
1/28/2009 |
4,500 |
9 |
| Corning |
1/27/2009 |
3,500 |
13 |
| Cooper Industries |
1/27/2009 |
2,200 |
7 |
| Clariant |
1/27/2009 |
1,000 |
5 |
| Texas Instruments |
1/26/2009 |
3,400 |
12 |
| Molex |
1/26/2009 |
9,300 |
29 |
| Caterpillar |
1/26/2009 |
20,000 |
18 |
| Home Depot |
1/26/2009 |
7,000 |
2 |
| Sprint Nextel |
1/26/2009 |
8,000 |
13 |
| Pfizer |
1/26/2009 |
8,300 |
1 |
| ING |
1/26/2009 |
7,000 |
5 |
| Philips Electronics |
1/26/2009 |
6,000 |
5 |
| Corus |
1/26/2009 |
3,500 |
1 |
| Harley-Davidson |
1/23/2009 |
1,100 |
11 |
| Microsoft |
1/22/2009 |
5,000 |
5 |
| Huntsman |
1/22/2009 |
1,175 |
9 |
| Intel |
1/21/2009 |
6,000** |
7 |
| UAL |
1/21/2009 |
1,000 |
2 |
| Eaton |
1/20/2009 |
5,200 |
6 |
| Bose |
1/20/2009 |
1,000 |
1 |
| Rohm & Haas |
1/20/2009 |
900 |
57 |
| Clear Channel |
1/20/2009 |
1,850 |
9 |
| ConocoPhillips |
1/16/2009 |
1,300 |
4 |
| Circuit City |
1/16/2009 |
34,000 |
100*** |
| Pfizer |
1/16/2009 |
3,200**** |
3 |
| Advanced Micro Devices |
1/16/2009 |
1,100 |
9 |
| Hertz Global Holdings |
1/16/2009 |
4,000 |
13 |
| WellPoint |
1/16/2009 |
1,500 |
4 |
| Saks |
1/15/2009 |
1,100 |
9 |
| MeadWestvaco |
1/15/2009 |
2,000 |
1 |
| Autodesk |
1/15/2009 |
750 |
1 |
| Motorola |
1/14/2009 |
4,000 |
6 |
| Barclays |
1/14/2009 |
2,100 |
13 |
| Neiman Marcus |
1/13/2009 |
375 |
3 |
| Cummins |
1/13/2009 |
800 |
2 |
| Seagate Technology |
1/12/2009 |
800 |
1 |
| Cessna |
1/12/2009 |
2,000 |
N/A |
| Walgreen |
1/8/2009 |
1,000 |
9 |
| Lenovo Group |
1/8/2009 |
2,500 |
11 |
| EMC |
1/7/2009 |
2,400 |
7 |
| Logitech International |
1/6/2009 |
500 |
5 |
| Alcoa |
1/6/2009 |
15,000 |
15 |
| Cigna |
1/5/2009 |
1,100 |
4 |
|
Total:
|
|
294,235
|
|
*Includes Jan. 9 announcement of 4,500 layoffs from commercial-airplane staff
**Number of employees affected by plant closures, not all will lose jobs
***Company in liquidation
****Includes announcements of 2,400 cuts on Jan. 16 and 800 layoffs on Jan. 13
|
|
| [ron h] Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:16:11 PM | |
|
...here are some examples of what I'm trying to relate...these figures are a couple of years old now, but you'll get my point...
...Pay for the average CEO at a "S&P (Standard & Poor) 500" company is now 430 times that of the average US worker.
...More than one in four of nearly 200 large firms surveyed by Equilar Inc. granted raises of at least 25% to their CEOs.
...A survey of 350 companies by Mercer Human Resource Consulting found that the median CEO earned $975,000 in base salary and $6 million in total compensation.
...Defined benefit pensions for workers are under attack, as only 21% of private sector workers are covered by such plans. Meanwhile, 69% of "Fortune 1000" CEOs have defined benefit plans.
...Richard D. Fairbank of Capitol One Financial Corp. tops the list of CEOs cashing in on huge stock options. He earns no salary or bonus, but his return on options in 2006 amounted to over $18 million. His options payout the year before? $249.3 million!!
...Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) reported that software maker Ariba Inc. paid CEO Robert M. Calderoni $104 million - a 75% increase over the previous year - while the company's returns to shareholders fell 39%.
...US investors singled out executive compensation as their top concern over the next year, according to another ISS survey.
This is what I'm talking about when I state - CORPORATE GREED!!! |
|
