|
In a happy fun world when I can bend the very universe to my will, I would imagine the FairTax enacted - with a constitutionally mandated percentage attached to it that the government cannot raise without another amendment - and a balanced budget amendment. Then the government has a specific percentage of the private economy funneled to government coffers that they can spend. They can spend it inefficiently or efficiently, but they're not taking a larger bite out of the private economy with their foolishness either way.
I think I love you :D
|
|
Another option is that republic island Tega in David Eddings' The Tamuli where when you were nominated for office, you were placed under house arrest. If elected, all of your worldly possessions were liquidated and placed in the government treasury. Your worldly possessions' value as a percentage of the goverment treasury was calculated.
You lived in government provided housing with your family for your term of office. Tax rates were set in stone. When your term of office was complete, you received a payment in the form of that same percentage of the government treasury. If gov't coffers hadn't grown - you go no pay for those years at all. If htey'd shrunk, your total net worth would have shrunk by the same percentage.
Being elected to office was just about the worst thing that could happen to a person.
|
SS needs to be shrunk to return it to what it was intended to be. The SS retirement age should be greatly increased (and tracking to future changes in life expectancy), and those who don't have a desperate needs shouldn't be eligible...period. Even with those changes, demographic factors would probably mean those paying in right now will get "screwed" on the exchange -- so be it. Better that than let the problem continue to snowball.
I wouldn't mind taking a hit personally if it would help in the long run. Fiscal irresponsibility is an even bigger threat to the sovereignty of this nation than any combination of rogue nations/terrorists/unchecked illegal immigration combined, imo.
|
|
Speculation about the motives of a large group is difficult and not often helpful. That being said the outcome of many entitlement programs seems to be a virtually inescapable web of government dependency which I think is deeply destructive.I'm not sure it counts as an entitlement, but the only welfare I have adult experience with is food stamps. Food stamps saved my ass when I was unemployed. They kept food on the table for my boys. Yet at no point did I have any desire to stop looking for a job. As far as I know, I didn't end up in an inescapble web of government dependency. Further, I don't believe this was due to any inherent nobility on my part -- the program was simply unpleasant and embarrasing, and I wanted off of it as soon as possible (but you'd better believe I'm glad it was there). If the price of such a program is a few freeloaders, then so be it -- though I think people significantly overestimate the attraction of freeloading on foodstamps.
Bugleyman, first of all, you have a healthy amount of self respect and pride that a lot of people do not possess. Furthermore, it isn't just one aspect of entitlements, it's when all are used in conjunction by one person, and having a marginally secure life (yeah, it stunts growth on the Maslow scale, but some people are content with shelter and a small degree of security - or more like complacent about being in the stage) is appealing to people with less ambition, pride or self respect than you routinely show yourself to possess.
And many of those programs are a band-aid, they rarely provide any kind off funding for self improvement. I would rather see my tax dollars going to work study programs for underprivileged kids, tutoring programs for at risk kids, etc. Much of the time, inertia is too great to overcome when people grow to adulthood without the proper tools to at least survive on their own, if not thrive. But I think if we switched our focus to kids who haven't become "hard wired" to poverty the results would be much better.
And, like you alluded to about the social security fixes that needed to be made, possibly quite a few people would be hurt by the switch, but I have no problem sacrificing one generation to effective marginalization if it would strengthen the nation in the long run. Especially if the children of that generation would have better prospects of self sufficiency.
I wouldn't mind taking a hit personally if it would help in the long run. Fiscal irresponsibility is an even bigger threat to the sovereignty of this nation than any combination of rogue nations/terrorists/unchecked illegal immigration combined, imo.
Agreed.
|
|
I wouldn't mind taking a hit personally if it would help in the long run. Fiscal irresponsibility is an even bigger threat to the sovereignty of this nation than any combination of rogue nations/terrorists/unchecked illegal immigration combined, imo.Agreed.
I think a fifth or sixth seal just broke open somewhere...
Bugleyman, first of all, you have a healthy amount of self respect and pride that a lot of people do not possess. Furthermore, it isn't just one aspect of entitlements, it's when all are used in conjunction by one person, and having a marginally secure life (yeah, it stunts growth on the Maslow scale, but some people are content with shelter and a small degree of security - or more like complacent about being in the stage) is appealing to people with less ambition, pride or self respect than you routinely show yourself to possess.
And many of those programs are a band-aid, they rarely provide any kind off funding for self improvement. I would rather see my tax dollars going to work study programs for underprivileged kids, tutoring programs for at risk kids, etc. Much of the time, inertia is too great to overcome when people grow to adulthood without the proper tools to at least survive on their own, if not thrive. But I think if we switched our focus to kids who haven't become...
Wow, thanks Houston; that's very kind of you. But I really don't think of myself as unusual. I just think most people would rather pay their own way -- at least as long as they feel they're getting a fair deal -- than be a burden to others. Then again, I could be naive -- it wouldn't be the first time.
I don't know the answer -- but what I do know is that we're writing checks our children can't hope to pay, and that is unconscionable. :(
|
|
I just operate under the assumption that everything taken from my paychecks to pay my grandmother's social security is a tax, and I will never see a red cent of it myself.
It's about managing expectations. The longer we put off telling people "We won't take care of you when you're 65. Do it yourself." the deeper the hole we'll have to claw our way out of will get.
I save money in retirement accounts. I"m trying to get my budgeting tightened up so I can save more. I have a 35 year investment horizon, at least, so I'm aggressive in my investments. If I don't save enough, I'll have to work through my golden years until I drop dead of exhaustion. Such is the price of living - working for it. I'm okay with that.
Besides, I hope to get to the point where I only do work I enjoy, but I hope I never get to the point where I don't have any work to do. Ugh. That would SUCK.
I'm not trying to be snooty, trust me. My job straddles the line between white and blue collar. On the one hand, I am in the medical field and I work on equipment that requires a high level of attention to detail and precision. On the other, when you get down to brass tacks, I'm just another wrench-turner. I have found myself working on equipment that costs upward of $2 million, and I have found myself covered in hydraulic grease while working on a stretcher. It all depends on the day of the week and what the nurses have decided to destroy that day :P.
I feel your pain. I work in the Building Operations Department of a hospital as a Project Aide. Half the time I am maintaining our CAD drawings of the hospital or doing plans for in-house renovations, the rest of the time I am installing locks or signs.
As to your joke, it is not a joke. The most destructive force in a hospital is a nurse pushing a cart down a hallway.
|
|
Xpltv: I still can't understand why you insist that we hardly do any work. I work my ass off everyday. Even if you want to disparage it as manual labor fine, but guess what? Manual labor is usually the hardest kind. UPS drivers have a planned 9.5 hour day humping tons of boxes up and down stairs, etc., etc. My hometown has a Budweiser plant in it (also Teamsters). Those people do 60 hours a week, week in, week out. It's not physically easy. Same goes for the auto plants and the steel plants that this country used to have: hard, hard work.
DA, if I implied that you do not work hard, I apologize. I realize that you work hard. What I meant is that (barring physical disabilities), any person off the street could accomplish the work you're doing.
Some jobs require a specialized skill set. Workers with that skill set should be compensated accordingly. Wages should be determined by skill, not what club you belong to.
|
|
I'm not trying to be snooty, trust me. My job straddles the line between white and blue collar. On the one hand, I am in the medical field and I work on equipment that requires a high level of attention to detail and precision. On the other, when you get down to brass tacks, I'm just another wrench-turner. I have found myself working on equipment that costs upward of $2 million, and I have found myself covered in hydraulic grease while working on a stretcher. It all depends on the day of the week and what the nurses have decided to destroy that day :P.I feel your pain. I work in the Building Operations Department of a hospital as a Project Aide. Half the time I am maintaining our CAD drawings of the hospital or doing plans for in-house renovations, the rest of the time I am installing locks or signs.
As to your joke, it is not a joke. The most destructive force in a hospital is a nurse pushing a cart down a hallway.
I love when I get equipment that looks like it was used to beat somebody about the head, then shoved down a few flights of stairs. Invariably the note accompanying it reads "This machine fell. :(" (yes the frowny face is actually on the note).
I also love getting called in at 2AM, phone troubleshooting something with the first question being "is it plugged in?", then coming in to find the unit unplugged. Makes me wanna punch a kitten.
The thread continues to intrigue AND be astonishingly civil, even for these normally placid boards. It makes my heart swell with pride. Let's keep it up.
|
|
Jess's "happy fun land" of fair tax and balanced budgets.Where do I sign up?
Oh, yeah, gotta get rid of the Dems and Repubs first ;)
I'm cautiously optimistic about possible change, actually.
The Tea Party has me excited. I'm more with them than against them in the issues they push for, but what is actually important to me is:
The Tea Party is encouraging actual citizens to be active in politics again - whether you are working with them or against them, the Tea Party has galvinized Main Street into paying attention to politicians.
Let's face it, Republican or Democrat, the one thing politicians have in common is that their main goal is to get reelected often enough that they have a nice thick retirement cushion when they decide they're tired of working, and in the meantime, lots of power and perks. As long as John Doe on Main Street assumes there's nothing he can do about, politicians will be rats and that's a fact of life...it will remain so.
Only when people not only VOTE, but pay attention to what politicians do while in office, and VOTE ON THEIR ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, will politicians give a crap about the job they do for their constituents.
If we have 2-3 election cycles where people that screw up get voted out in either party primaries or general elections, other lawmakers will sit up and take notice...and actually give a crap about the job they do.
Whether you're with me or against me politically, I honestly just want people to wake up and get involved in politics. Pay attention. Argue you point of view vociferously. Fight for what you believe in.
Rather than sniping and jabbing at each other, let's hash out this whole budget thing, this whole national priorities thing, this culture thing. Let's have frank discussions about it, and sort this crap out instead of tiptoeing around it while pointing accusingly at each other. Once we're involved in active and open debate unlimited by cries of victimhood, hurt feelings and nervous self censorship, we might be able to tackle and solve some of the issues that have been plaguing us for a generation.
I'm cautiously optimistic about possible change, actually.
The Tea Party has me excited. I'm more with them than against them in the issues they push for, but what is actually important to me is:
The Tea Party is encouraging actual citizens to be active in politics again - whether you are working with them or against them, the Tea Party has galvinized Main Street into paying attention to politicians.
Let's face it, Republican or Democrat, the one thing politicians have in common is that their main goal is to get reelected often enough that they have a nice thick retirement cushion when they decide they're tired of working, and in the meantime, lots of power and perks. As long as John Doe on Main Street assumes there's nothing he can do about, politicians will be rats and that's a fact of life...it will remain so.
Only when people not only VOTE, but pay attention to what politicians do while in office, and VOTE ON THEIR ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, will politicians give a crap about the job they do for their constituents.
If we have 2-3 election cycles where people that screw up get voted out in either party primaries or general elections, other lawmakers will sit up and take notice...and actually give a crap about the job they do.
Whether you're with me or against me politically, I honestly just want people to wake up and get involved in politics. Pay attention. Argue you point of view vociferously. Fight for what you believe in.
Rather than sniping and jabbing at each other, let's hash out this whole budget thing, this whole national priorities thing, this culture thing. Let's have frank discussions about it, and sort this crap out instead of tiptoeing around it while pointing accusingly at each other. Once we're involved in active and open debate unlimited by cries of victimhood, hurt feelings and nervous self censorship, we might be able to tackle and solve some of the issues that have been plaguing us for a generation.
Nothing to add, except: Excellent post.
[QUOTE="Xpltvdeleted"
So somebody who is skilled should be earning the same amount/less than an unskilled worker? I'm not saying that unskilled laborers should be subject to a life of poverty, but $52,000/year to watch an assembly line or move boxes? C'mon, gimme a break.
As for us getting our goods from china...we wouldn't have that problem if we didn't have unions, IMO. There's a difference between having no labor laws (ie.-china) and unions having such a stranglehold that it is inefficient to produce goods domestically. It's not like if unions went away the labor laws would go with them...unions did their part by getting labor laws established. They have outlived their usefulness...it's time to pull an "Old Yeller" on them.
This is a no brainer its a free market leave the job that is paying you less and do the job that will pay you more.
Its you who chose where you work and if you are unhappy its up to you to change your situation. It comes across as sour grapes to begrudge somebody who has better working conditions.
I am a union member and I can tell you the difference between what I get and what people who opted out on a union negotiated wage....
I get unlimited sick leave, I get 1 rostered day off a month, I get 4 weeks paid holidays, I get get paid long service leave after 10 years.
I get shares in the company and a bonus when the company achieves its profit goals (which being a regulated Australian bank totally unaffected by the GFC is all the time). I got all this when I started out as a call centre worker and still have it now that I work in the IT department.
People who weren't on the deal negotiated by the Union get the bonus + shares and 4 weeks holidays and 10 days sick leave and around 10% more pay.
It is the Unions that make sure that the company complies to Equal Opportunity and Health and Occupational Safety legislation and the Unions will aid non members if they believe that they have been injured or unfairly dismissed or discriminated against in the work palace.
Unions have a place and it is to keep the bosses honest - If a company can cut costs it will do so, and if it endangers or discriminates against staff and the company can get away with it it will do so.
The thread continues to intrigue AND be astonishingly civil, even for these normally placid boards. It makes my heart swell with pride. Let’s keep it up.
Now let’s all gather in a circle to sing cumbaya. Oh wait, that’s outdated--World on Fire is the new cumbaya. ;)
This is not arrogance nor is it greed. A person should be paid based upon the work they are doing, not based upon what somebody has bullied their employer into paying them.
I agree that people should be paid based on the work they do, with the addendum ‘not based upon what their employer has bullied them into accepting.’ If unions are bullies, then so are employers. And seeing as how unions level the bully playing field, more or less, I see them as a generally good thing.
Now, union corruption and possibly union-government collusion [I think HD mentioned that] are problems worthy of attention. But so far nobody has floated any opinions on how to solve those apparent problems.
I think a fifth or sixth seal just broke open somewhere...I wouldn’t mind taking a hit personally if it would help in the long run. Fiscal irresponsibility is an even bigger threat to the sovereignty of this nation than any combination of rogue nations/terrorists/unchecked illegal immigration combined, imo.Agreed.
Consider another seal broken.
I’m cautiously optimistic about possible change, actually.Jess’s “happy fun land” of fair tax and balanced budgets.Where do I sign up?
Oh, yeah, gotta get rid of the Dems and Repubs first ;)
Count me in too.
Would trashing the electoral college ‘middle man’ be a step toward breaking the Dem/Rep monopoly on US politics?
Whether you’re with me or against me politically, I honestly just want people to wake up and get involved in politics. Pay attention. Argue you point of view vociferously. Fight for what you believe in.
I’m totally on board with getting Americans politically active; this thread is actually part of my effort to get active myself. My only caveat is that ‘argue vociferously’ can become ‘argue mindlessly, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.’ Which is a bad habit, that we as humans are all too prone to. So I’d prefer to encourage people to ‘argue to learn,’ but hey, that’s just my spineless liberal attitude coming out. ;)
Speaking of the Tea Party, I don't really know anything about it. What’s the deal?
|
|
This is a no brainer its a free market leave the job that is paying you less and do the job that will pay you more.
A lot of states are now union free, so even if I wanted to be "over"compensated, I would not be able to do so.
Its you who chose where you work and if you are unhappy its up to you to change your situation. It comes across as sour grapes to begrudge somebody who has better working conditions.
I have no problem with where I work. I'm not begrudging anybody's working conditions. I am begrudging the fact that an unskilled laborer is able to step into a job that has ridiculous compensation for what they're doing. It often has a lot to do w/ good 'ol boy networking and family connections as to whether or not a person even gets that job.
I am a union member and I can tell you the difference between what I get and what people who opted out on a union negotiated wage....
I get unlimited sick leave, I get 1 rostered day off a month, I get 4 weeks paid holidays, I get get paid long service leave after 10 years.
I get shares in the company and a bonus when the company achieves its profit goals (which being a regulated Australian bank totally unaffected by the GFC is all the time). I got all this when I started out as a call centre worker and still have it now that I work in the IT department.
Which is great for you. My question is, what more are you doing than the non-union members you mention below that entitles you to that extra pay? Chances are you're probably doing the same job but, because of the club you belong to, you get more benefits. That's not the capitalism you allude to in the beginning of this post.
People who weren't on the deal negotiated by the Union get the bonus + shares and 4 weeks holidays and 10 days sick leave and around 10% more pay.
It is the Unions that make sure that the company complies to Equal Opportunity and Health and Occupational Safety legislation and the Unions will aid non members if they believe that they have been injured or unfairly dismissed or discriminated against in the work palace.
This could be accomplished without a union. The laws are there for a reason, if a company isn't complying any employee can blow the whistle to regulatory agencies (at least here in the states they can).
Unions have a place and it is to keep the bosses honest - If a company can cut costs it will do so, and if it endangers or discriminates against staff and the company can get away with it it will do so.
With the laws that are in place a company can't legally do that anyway. Also, I'm sure we have all heard the horror stories of how it is nigh impossible to fire a union member, even when they are deserving of termination. Why should a company's hands be tied in such a manner? If an employee is underperforming a company should be able to can them, not go through union red tape to do so.
|
|
Would trashing the electoral college ‘middle man’ be a step toward breaking the Dem/Rep monopoly on US politics?
The Electoral College exists to balance state interests in the presidential election, not just raw population.
I think what we should be working toward is more power in local government rather than consolidating national government power. The Constitution was set up that way, and local government is generally more responsive government - they live a lot closer to you than the national lawmakers in Washington D.C. do.
Some things have to be handled by larger governments (state, federal) rather than smaller ones (county, city). But where local control is possible, I think it's better.
Which is great for you. My question is, what more are you doing than the non-union members you mention below that entitles you to that extra pay?
They get more money I get better conditions.... I do my job and I do it well. I am loyal to my company and of the big 4 Australian banks I only know 1 that offers anything comparable. My bank is usually in the top five for employer of the year and often wins best employer for Women.
I have been promoted and I am being lined up for a more senior position "despite" my union membership. The bank doesn't have a problem with people being in a union. It allows them to standardise pay and conditions.
Chances are you're probably doing the same job but, because of the club you belong to, you get more benefits. That's not the capitalism you allude to in the beginning of this post.
A multinational can afford lawyers accountants and business consultants to set conditions and wages - it trains staff in how to negotiate wage deals. Jo/e Schmoe on the other hand has.... Him/herself. It is unfair for Joe to negotiate for his conditions without support. Joe has the right to have somebody to represent him in the negotiations just like companies have the right to bring in lawyers and industrial relations consultants.
I like my "little Club" it levels the playing field.
This could be accomplished without a union. The laws are there for a reason, if a company isn't complying any employee can blow the whistle to regulatory agencies (at least here in the states they can).
I would like to see you blow the whistle.. can you afford the legal costs. The first thing a company will do is take you to court and rack up the legal costs until you have to bow out.
Unions provide the average man/woman with the ability to bring their case to court fairly.
With the laws that are in place a company can't legally do that anyway. Also, I'm sure we have all heard the horror stories of how it is nigh impossible to fire a union member, even when they are deserving of termination. Why should a company's hands be tied in such a manner? If an employee is underperforming a company should be able to can them, not go through union red tape to do so.
The banking sector is very strict and there are things that they can sack anybody (illegal activities, and breaches of security, or sexual harassment) with out mediation.
Other minor stuff such as under-performance requires 3 written warnings... If that happens and then I am out and there is nothing the union can do.
Small Business have special legislation allowing them to dismiss staff easier.
As an employer I really wish more workers thought like XP, they are so much easier to maximise profit with.
I also find it odd that he is complaining about how much more protected and better off you are with union membership like its a bad thing for him, does he WANT to be exploited or something?
Its not about paying Union members more old mate XP; its about paying the non-union labour less, because I can.
***Snipped***
I think the greatest difference seems to be that unions work very different in Australia than in the U.S.
In fact, from your description, they seem to work much more in line with how they operate here in Denmark. They help negotiate pay, help out with disputes, accident compensation, health code violations (and rules) and similar things. I don't think there are the same problems firing union members as Xpltvdeleted is complaining about in the U.S.Most working people (and those between jobs) here in Denmark are members of a union, heck, some unemployment insurance funds strongly advice you to be a member (it's been too long for me to actually remember if some of them actually demand it).
There are employer unions too...
I don't think there are the same problems firing union members as Xpltvdeleted is complaining about in the U.S.
Which is a strange concept given the low density of union membership in the US, and the various industrial laws.
How can it be so difficult to fire people?
It isn't
But claiming it to be such a heavy burden allows blame to be deflected when you offshore your employment and sak the locals. Unions make a great scapegoat.
Atlas shrugged indeed.
Tell the unions are bad lie often enough and people will believe it.
Australian unions aren't all roses and chocolates. There have been times when they have run business into the ground and there are still some areas that need reform, mostly around the waterfront.
Both of our political parties will reform and regulate the labour market when necessary.Even the union bassed Labor party which is in power at the moment and saw us through the GFC (with little to no impact) knows its re-election relies on ecconomic and labour reform.
The worker/employer balance will tip a little to the left or a little to the right depending on the government of the day. Industrial relations is and always will be the cornerstone of any election in Australia - push something too far one way and the government will loose.
Australian unions aren't all roses and chocolates. There have been times when they have run business into the ground and there are still some areas that need reform, mostly around the waterfront.
I still reckon that the whole waterfront issue was basically a political showpony to justify the Liberal party rolling out wider workplace reforms by way of AWA's, and trying to break up unions for philosophical ends.
On ya Mr Reith, give yourself an uppercut.Patricks were the big losers in this, though I have few sympathies.
Much was made of the wharves inefficiencies, but then that was so biased once you got down to looking at apples v apples. It was selective statistical game playing.
Shame, shame, shame.
Australian unions aren't all roses and chocolates. There have been times when they have run business into the ground and there are still some areas that need reform, mostly around the waterfront.
I still reckon that the whole waterfront issue was basically a political showpony to justify the Liberal party rolling out wider workplace reforms by way of AWA's, and trying to break up unions for philosophical ends.
On ya Mr Reith, give yourself an uppercut.Patricks were the big losers in this, though I have few sympathies.
Much was made of the wharves inefficiencies, but then that was so biased once you got down to looking at apples v apples. It was selective statistical game playing.
Shame, shame, shame.
No argument with you there. Basically a sledge hammer was used to crack a peanut.
It just caused bigger problems and AWA's are the main reason JW Howard and his lackeys are no longer running the government.
It is a also - even with the Labor government on the nose the right wing conservative "Liberal" party couldn't win an election. Because everybody knows that Tony "People Skills" Abbott would do his best to re introduce AWA's and attack the unions for philosophical reasons not because it is in the countries best interest.
Tony Abbott is all Budgie, no smuggler.
Interesting to see a perspective from outside of the country(American here).
My problem with unions is situations where the only workers that can be hired must be union members. Workers are forced to join unions. Unions take political activist roles, perhaps in opposition to individual workers preference.
Speaking of the Tea Party, I don't really know anything about it. What’s the deal?
As near as I can tell, they're the "get together and gripe about stuff" party. They are against taxes, and against government, and against this, and against that -- but so far they don't seem to collectively have any actual pragmatic, workable solutions to propose (point of reference: in my personal opinion, "eliminate taxes," "abolish the gubbermint," and/or "do away with public education" do not qualify as pragmatic, workable solutions).
Don't get me wrong; I think that a forum for griping and grumbling is an indispensable pressure valve for retaining one's sanity. I agree with a lot of their gripes. As long as no one seriously looks to them to do anything beyond that, I love them.
|
|
With the disagreement between some very left leaning types in this thread over the current topic at hand, I wish people would stop thinking conservatives are as monolithic in thought as some people think liberals are. Unions are a "sacred cow" of the Left, yet a couple of lefties here can't stand them.
Fiscal conservatives are just as divided on a lot of social issues.
|
|
As an employer I really wish more workers thought like XP, they are so much easier to maximise profit with.
I also find it odd that he is complaining about how much more protected and better off you are with union membership like its a bad thing for him, does he WANT to be exploited or something?
Its not about paying Union members more old mate XP; its about paying the non-union labour less, because I can.
I get paid just fine and am not exploited without a union, TYVM. I also negotiated for a fair salary, receive excellent benefits, and am fairly compensated. Maybe it is my work ethic, but I wouldn't feel right accepting a ridiculous salary for doing work that any person could do.
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees. Somehow, even lacking unions, they pay above minimum wage (and damn near set the minimum wage in most areas). People love to hate wal-mart because of the "low" wages and treatment of their employees. I worked at wal-mart for a time back in the day and you know what? I didn't make a truckload of money, but I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing and was eligible for health benefits. What is so wrong with that? Does running a cash register and straightening up shelves really warrant more than $8/hour? If you got unions into wal-mart they'd have to pay their employees $20/hour and full benefits and prices would go through the roof (thereby affecting everyone who shops at wal-mart...so in essence, everyone).
I wonder how many union fans purchase their PF gaming products without any sense of shame, when it is printed in the evil non-unionized, worker exploited China. I find it interesting that some folks (clearly not all), are perfectly fine looking the other way on exploitation of workers when it gets them something nice (lower priced gaming products for example), and yet get up in arms when other companies try the same tactics (shipping jobs to other nations).
I wonder how many union fans purchase their PF gaming products without any sense of shame, when it is printed in the evil non-unionized, worker exploited China. I find it interesting that some folks (clearly not all), are perfectly fine looking the other way on exploitation of workers when it gets them something nice (lower priced gaming products for example), and yet get up in arms when other companies try the same tactics (shipping jobs to other nations).
As I recall, there were any number of people who indicated they'd be willing to pay more for a product made in the USA... but Paizo stuck to their guns. It's disingenuous to imply that anyone not opposed to unions who buys Paizo products is thereby a hypocrite.
I wonder how many union fans purchase their PF gaming products without any sense of shame, when it is printed in the evil non-unionized, worker exploited China. I find it interesting that some folks (clearly not all), are perfectly fine looking the other way on exploitation of workers when it gets them something nice (lower priced gaming products for example), and yet get up in arms when other companies try the same tactics (shipping jobs to other nations).As I recall, there were any number of people who indicated they'd be willing to pay more for a product made in the USA... but Paizo stuck to their guns. It's disingenuous to imply that anyone not opposed to unions who buys Paizo products is thereby a hypocrite.
I clearly did not suggest that everyone was fine with this seemingly contradiction. I understand some people probably purchase the product and feel a little guilty about it given where it is printed at (I believe the Paizo staff themselves have stated they feel this way). I was clearly referring to those people that both jump on others for using non-union businesses (wal-mart for example) but then feel no shame of their own when it comes to purchasing a product from here that uses non-unionized workers themselves, that are probably more exploited than anyone working (legally, not under the table) in the U.S.
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees. Somehow, even lacking unions, they pay above minimum wage (and damn near set the minimum wage in most areas). People love to hate wal-mart because of the "low" wages and treatment of their employees. I worked at wal-mart for a time back in the day and you know what? I didn't make a truckload of money, but I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing and was eligible for health benefits. What is so wrong with that? Does running a cash register and straightening up shelves really warrant more than $8/hour? If you got unions into wal-mart they'd have to pay their employees $20/hour and full benefits and prices would go through the roof (thereby affecting everyone who shops at wal-mart...so in essence, everyone).
Have you seen the studies - a few years old so maybe the situation has changed - whereby Walmart employees' pay was so poor that they could not afford the basic necessities of life if they tried to buy them at Walmart. ie employees of a supermarket chain have trouble even shopping at the place they work at and where the alternatives for shopping may be very limited.
If $8 an hour is above minimum wage in 2010 then that is plain scary. I remember my first fulltime job as an 18 year old in 1986 was A$5 an hour. Fast forward 24 years and the minimum wage in the US is roughly only double that. I wouldn't begrudge anyone getting paid a decent wage for "mere" blue-collar manual work.
|
|
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees. Somehow, even lacking unions, they pay above minimum wage (and damn near set the minimum wage in most areas). People love to hate wal-mart because of the "low" wages and treatment of their employees. I worked at wal-mart for a time back in the day and you know what? I didn't make a truckload of money, but I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing and was eligible for health benefits. What is so wrong with that? Does running a cash register and straightening up shelves really warrant more than $8/hour? If you got unions into wal-mart they'd have to pay their employees $20/hour and full benefits and prices would go through the roof (thereby affecting everyone who shops at wal-mart...so in essence, everyone).Have you seen the studies - a few years old so maybe the situation has changed - whereby Walmart employees' pay was so poor that they could not afford the basic necessities of life if they tried to buy them at Walmart. ie employees of a supermarket chain have trouble even shopping at the place they work at and where the alternatives for shopping may be very limited.
If $8 an hour is above minimum wage in 2010 then that is plain scary. I remember my first fulltime job as an 18 year old in 1986 was A$5 an hour. Fast forward 24 years and the minimum wage in the US is roughly only double that. I wouldn't begrudge anyone getting paid a decent wage for "mere" blue-collar manual work.
Federal minimum wage ATM is $7.25/hour. It was lower when I worked there...i seem to remember making about $3/hour more than minimum wage (it stuck at around $5/hour for quite awhile).
From what I remember, a "liveable" wage for a family of 4 is somewhere around $14-16/hour in most areas. The problem is, if wal-mart doubled the wages of all their employees, prices would likely double as well, then you'd have to double wages to get to a liveable wage, etc etc. It would be a vicious, unresolving cycle.
Just out of curiosity, what do you feel a cashier should be getting paid? They stand (or sit) in one spot for 8 hours a day and run stuff over a scanner. I just don't see that job being worth more than $8-11/hour. It sure as hell isn't worth paying them $16/hour. If you want to look at people being underpaid, look at military, police, firemen, paramedics, nurses, etc. They are required to have a decent amount of schooling and get paid peanuts, especially considering the s$&@ they have to deal with.
My problem with unions is situations where the only workers that can be hired must be union members. Workers are forced to join unions. Unions take political activist roles, perhaps in opposition to individual workers preference.
Which is unlawful behaviour.
Freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution.
A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees.
Why? Aren't people allowed to join one?
If you got unions into wal-mart they'd have to pay their employees $20/hour and full benefits and prices would go through the roof (thereby affecting everyone who shops at wal-mart...so in essence, everyone).
Well that's a supposition you are entitled to make, but to claim it WOULD happen is just pure speculation.
If Angelina Joile met me she'd dump Brad Pitt and offer to have my babies. Thats also a fact.That said, I can't even understand how someone could live on $8/hr.
That said, I can't even understand how someone could live on $8/hr.
Me neither. Let's just do some quick math:
$8 x 40 x 4= $1280 a month
40 hour work week
Rough amount of weeks in a month
That's even less than the $1,493.40 salary I have as an example in this thread. And although I haven't disclosed what that salary is for, trust me, that's barely making ends meet.
In fact, Grand Magus/Tensor (who "...used to be a pension actuary") called it:
My comparisons are BEFORE tax:
Salary 1:
$1,493.40 * 12 = 17,920-> barely making it; almost the poverty level
Then you have taxes, health insurance, car insurance, gas etc. to deduct.
Personally I don't see that as a fair wage for a 40 hour work week... even stocking shelves or working the cashier at Wal-Mart.
Indeed, it's not really viable to work for $8/hr.
The good news is that it simply serves to ensure an ongoing servant class. Because breaking his hump all week for a pittance means that he wont be able to afford to study/develop and better his lot in life - ensuring that there's a whole working caste prepared to do what I want for peanuts.
And if anyone REALLY think all of the above is good news, then perhaps riding the wayback machine to the middle ages is for you :)
My problem with unions is situations where the only workers that can be hired must be union members. Workers are forced to join unions. Unions take political activist roles, perhaps in opposition to individual workers preference.Which is unlawful behaviour.
Freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution.
But is freedom from association?
There are some states where you have to be a member of a union to work at specific jobs. Is that the freedom of the constitution that we hold so dear?
|
|
Indeed, it's not really viable to work for $8/hr.
The good news is that it simply serves to ensure an ongoing servant class. Because breaking his hump all week for a pittance means that he wont be able to afford to study/develop and better his lot in life - ensuring that there's a whole working caste prepared to do what I want for peanuts.
And if anyone REALLY think all of the above is good news, then perhaps riding the wayback machine to the middle ages is for you :)
And yet, amazingly, poor kids bust their asses off and pay their ways through college making squat all the time. Yeah, maybe they're paying off some student loans after they graduate...
No, people make decisions in life.
The minimum wage was never meant to be a "living wage", just a floor. I'll let you in on a little secret. You could make the minimum wage $20 an hour, and $42,000 would magically become "not enough to live on". Why? Because prices go up on EVERYTHING every time the minimum wage increases. A combo meal at McDonalds was like $3.99 when the minimum wage was $5.35. Now it's $6.99 for most meals. Inflation hasn't increased that much in three years, but the minimum wage went from $5.35 to over seven dollars. Same thing at anyplace offering cheap stuff. It all got less cheap far ahead of the rate of inflation.
The thing is mean tot be an incentive to not be a slacker in high school, go to college, and never have to work earning it after high school.
Eh, but then, that's simple economics. All the cumbaya feel good liberalism in the world isn't going to overcome that.
Indeed, it's not really viable to work for $8/hr.
The good news is that it simply serves to ensure an ongoing servant class. Because breaking his hump all week for a pittance means that he wont be able to afford to study/develop and better his lot in life - ensuring that there's a whole working caste prepared to do what I want for peanuts.
And if anyone REALLY think all of the above is good news, then perhaps riding the wayback machine to the middle ages is for you :)
And yet, amazingly, poor kids bust their asses off and pay their ways through college making squat all the time. Yeah, maybe they're paying off some student loans after they graduate...
No, people make decisions in life.
The minimum wage was never meant to be a "living wage", just a floor. I'll let you in on a little secret. You could make the minimum wage $20 an hour, and $42,000 would magically become "not enough to live on". Why? Because prices go up on EVERYTHING every time the minimum wage increases. A combo meal at McDonalds was like $3.99 when the minimum wage was $5.35. Now it's $6.99 for most meals. Inflation hasn't increased that much in three years, but the minimum wage went from $5.35 to over seven dollars. Same thing at anyplace offering cheap stuff. It all got less cheap far ahead of the rate of inflation.
The thing is mean tot be an incentive to not be a slacker in high school, go to college, and never have to work earning it after high school.
Eh, but then, that's simple economics. All the cumbaya feel good liberalism in the world isn't going to overcome that.
Besides which, I've worked in some pretty crummy jobs when I was going to college, and I don't remember anyone staying at minimum wage beyond a month or two if they actually worked. Of course those jobs had a lot of turn over from people that rather party or sleep in. Funny the people with families weren't earning minimum wage, it was always the kids/young adults or the folks that never settled down that did. That didn't have to plan past next month.
But is freedom from association?
There are some states where you have to be a member of a union to work at specific jobs. Is that the freedom of the constitution that we hold so dear?
Really? If you could cite some examoples I'd be interested in reading up on it.
And yes 'freedom OF' equally equates to 'freedom FROM'.
But is freedom from association?
There are some states where you have to be a member of a union to work at specific jobs. Is that the freedom of the constitution that we hold so dear?
Really? If you could cite some examoples I'd be interested in reading up on it.
And yes 'freedom OF' equally equates to 'freedom FROM'.
Perhaps not the best source, just a quick one.
Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.
A similar arrangement to the union shop is the agency shop, under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.
The Federal Government operates under open shop rules nationwide, although many of its employees are represented by unions. And while unions representing professional athletes have written contracts which impose forced-unionism requirements,[1], their application is limited to "wherever and whenever legal," as the Supreme Court has clearly held that the application of a Right to Work law is determined by the employee's "predominate job situs." Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.). Hence, players on professional sports teams in states with Right to Work laws are protected by those laws, and cannot be required to pay any portion of union dues as a condition of continued employment. Orr v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia do not have right-to-work laws. If no union is formed in an employee's workplace, the lack of a right-to-work law does not mean an employee has to join or pay union membership dues to a union.