Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!

Originally posted by w4HoO

OP, I think you missed my point. There is a huge difference between the President speaking from the pulpit and him writing things into law. Are you arguing that workers shouldn't receive better pay where applicable?
I see people in this thread arguing policy, where none has been suggested.
I didn't hear an ultimatum in Obama's speech. He didn't say "We're passing all these tax reforms, so I'm gonna pass a bill dealing with minimum wages"
He's only "suggesting" business practices. He's at a "business conference". Those businesses don't have to listen to Obama, and you know most won't. When he writes a bill mandating it, or hands out incentives for it then I'll consider it newsworthy and raise concern.
If you want to charge Obama for making empty statements to please an electorate, then I could agree with you. I just don't see anything worth the amount of concern that posters here are giving it.

the point of the OP is really more one of this being an erroneous philosophy from which he makes the statement. Again - saying that if possible workers should earn more money to a group of business leaders is like saying "you really should breath because it's good for you".

The point of that statement was to express what he feels should happen based upon the assumption that is NOT happening.

That's why it's an idiotic statement. That was the point of the post - not to get into some long debate about policy - but others do as they will.

Companies pay their people - at least the good ones - as much as the market will bear. This is impacted by a variety of things, but chief among them is the ability to make and sell goods or services at a competitive cost. ONLY government can hire more people than you need because they are not worried in the slightest about profit margins. If they loose money - they just raise more through taxes and/or debt.

does that make my point better?

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by gncnew

Unions are good? Really - tell that to Detroit.

I'm well aware (as a "worker") that companies need the workers... but I'm also well aware that my job is a contract for services between myself and the employer and if I feel that contract is due for renegotiation - then it's on me to start the talks - not them.

You're very naive if you think the mess in Detroit is the fault of Unions! I know that y'all have been trained to believe that Unions are at best, criminal organisations - I watch American TV as well, it's all we get here in NZ.. But it's not so, unions are the only things between workers and starvation sometimes!
This thread has grown ridiculously since yesterday when I posted my first response, and I have not had the chance to read it all, but I've seen some absurd insults against minimum wage workers. Here, the minimum wage had just gone up to $13.00/hour - which is absurdly low.
(Though I am sure to y'all, that's seems absurdly generous... I heard Oprah say back about 2001, that your minimum wage was around $5.00/hour. That's virtual slavery. I've heard unemployment in the USA is around 19%, so I am sure that there are thousands of educated intelligent people who have no choice but to work for minimum wage, and furthermore, get insulted by the Right Wing, for having to do so.
What's with y'all? It could happen to you any day..
V.

My mother-in-law and father-in-law both worked for unions. And they were both laid off. Meanwhile the Toyota plant that is specifically non-union is flourishing and the employees are happy with their wage... I know - you're asking "How can this be!".

The problem with Unions is they outlasted their usefulness and because like government - feeding like a tick off their members.

Now they push insane stipulations on the companies that make it completely impossible to stay competitive... why? Because they need to keep making those workers happy or they'll lose their jobs. But they've long since stopped representing the best interests of their members.

Again - if you disagree please tell me what you think caused GM and others to close down their Detroit manufacturing jobs.

You should never get paid more than a manager at McDonalds to push a single button all day... and get free health care and a retirement package until you die.... It's too bloated and now it's killing the industry.

Thanks unions!

Originally posted by gncnew
... the Toyota plant that is specifically non-union is flourishing and the employees are happy with their wage.

Just as American jobs went to other countries with low wage workers, foreign companies who set up shop in America went to areas where wages were lower. Worker income at these non-union plants are now comparable to union plants for a couple reasons. One, just as my dad never worked a union job but always declared that the only reason he had decent wage and benefits was due to unions, unions put pressure in the labor market. Two, union changes in wage structure (to lower wages for new hires, for ex) and "save" the company.

Post WW2 wages built up the middle class. Post 1980 declines in wages helped tear it down, helping to set the stage for the current economic disaster.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by gncnew

Unions are good? Really - tell that to Detroit.

I'm well aware (as a "worker") that companies need the workers... but I'm also well aware that my job is a contract for services between myself and the employer and if I feel that contract is due for renegotiation - then it's on me to start the talks - not them.

You're very naive if you think the mess in Detroit is the fault of Unions! I know that y'all have been trained to believe that Unions are at best, criminal organisations - I watch American TV as well, it's all we get here in NZ.. But it's not so, unions are the only things between workers and starvation sometimes!
This thread has grown ridiculously since yesterday when I posted my first response, and I have not had the chance to read it all, but I've seen some absurd insults against minimum wage workers. Here, the minimum wage had just gone up to $13.00/hour - which is absurdly low.
(Though I am sure to y'all, that's seems absurdly generous... I heard Oprah say back about 2001, that your minimum wage was around $5.00/hour. That's virtual slavery. I've heard unemployment in the USA is around 19%, so I am sure that there are thousands of educated intelligent people who have no choice but to work for minimum wage, and furthermore, get insulted by the Right Wing, for having to do so.
What's with y'all? It could happen to you any day..
V.

My mother-in-law and father-in-law both worked for unions. And they were both laid off. Meanwhile the Toyota plant that is specifically non-union is flourishing and the employees are happy with their wage... I know - you're asking "How can this be!".

The problem with Unions is they outlasted their usefulness and because like government - feeding like a tick off their members.

Now they push insane stipulations on the companies that make it completely impossible to stay competitive... why? Because they need to keep making those workers happy or they'll lose their jobs. But they've long since stopped representing the best interests of their members.

Again - if you disagree please tell me what you think caused GM and others to close down their Detroit manufacturing jobs.

You should never get paid more than a manager at McDonalds to push a single button all day... and get free health care and a retirement package until you die.... It's too bloated and now it's killing the industry.

Thanks unions!

gncnew is absolutely correct with his statements regarding the unions. I have seen the same trend in the chemical industry. I work for a non-union chemical plant and have seen the unionized plants fail while the non-union plants flourish. I have several friends that work at union plants and some of their work ethics are horrible since they feel that the union lawyers will protect them when not performing their jobs at their full potential.

A job is not a right it is a privilege. The correct means of protecting that privilege is through performing at and above the standards set for your particular job responsibilities. You take care of the company and the company will take care of you!

A bit off topic here but I just finished my taxes. I consider myself middleclass and am a bit angry at the amount of taxes I had to pay. I wonder why it is that most people consider our social programs in America such as social security, welfare, and foodstamps the largest burden upon the taxpayer when the current federal income tax system we have here is the largest wealth redistrubution burden amongst them all?

reply to post by gncnew

This is the kind of moronic statement that only makes sense to the minimum wage and the stupid.

such is the gap between poor and rich, such is the state of education, that hard luck for you, that is the majority of the people.

you better hope it never reaches a vote that the public decide upon and it stay's for those who are rich to decide if they want to share their wealth/profits and bonuses more equally.

no need to worry, i doubt they will allow for themselves to be worse off for the sake of giving others an actual livable wage.

the automakers have been on the decline since the 70's, it was the imports that set it on that decline.
and, the housing bust, well, alot of the retirement funds were invested in those cdo's so I'm pretty sure that it played a role in their current problems.

most of the country's workers do not work for unions!!!
the unions aren't the problem. the problem is that the American People refuse to degrade themselves to the point where they have to wear air filters to avoid the smog, and live in a cesspool of toxic waste. And, they aren't gonna live in a small, stiffling living space on a bowl of rice a day! And, that is probably a good description of how we would be living if we have to compete with the present day india and china!
One of the requirements of them getting our trade should be that they abide by some general rules that assure that their people are lifted up to our standard of living, not we be degraded to theirs!

Originally posted by dawnstar
the automakers have been on the decline since the 70's, it was the imports that set it on that decline.
and, the housing bust, well, alot of the retirement funds were invested in those cdo's so I'm pretty sure that it played a role in their current problems.

most of the country's workers do not work for unions!!!
the unions aren't the problem. the problem is that the American People refuse to degrade themselves to the point where they have to wear air filters to avoid the smog, and live in a cesspool of toxic waste. And, they aren't gonna live in a small, stiffling living space on a bowl of rice a day! And, that is probably a good description of how we would be living if we have to compete with the present day india and china!
One of the requirements of them getting our trade should be that they abide by some general rules that assure that their people are lifted up to our standard of living, not we be degraded to theirs!

I completely agree. I think that the problem with the American Left right now is they think we are already at the point of a bowl of rice a day - they refuse to accept just how blessed we are and then fight to force other major economies to raise their quality of life to our standard.

They're so busy trying to improve the quality of life here (which if put in perspective is completely AWESOME) that they neglect the larger problem and what should be the "good fight".

How about instead of trying to equalize American and bring the rich down to lift the poor we simply try to equalize the rich and poor of our largest importers? Maybe after we get that fixed we could actually address the rich/poor "gap".

reply to post by gncnew

if we can't afford to help the poor in our country, if we can't afford to keep our police forces, if we can't afford to pay the debt that we owe to the social security funds, well.....
we can't afford anymore more wars, and that is what it would take to force those other countries to equalize their rich/poor.
and, how do we do that in other countries??
by taking from their rich, (much of gotten wrongly as they swindle the aide we give them away from the poor it was supposed to be for, and put it in their pockets.
there has been a bunch of little non profits that have popped up around the country since much of our social service structure has been "privatized".... I bet you will find the same here if you look at it. I got a feeling that the people at the top of these oraganizations are taking more and more from the funds that are supposed to be for the "poor".
so. you think it's okay to take from the rich of other countries, but not ours....
okay...what's the difference?

Originally posted by gncnew

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.

RealClearPolitics Video

This is the kind of moronic statement that only makes sense to the minimum wage and the stupid.

Thats your opinion.

Every time you get a paycheck they're "sharing" their profits with you. And here's a hint:

Any company that produces a product (of ANY kind) will expand their production base (i.e. hire more workers) if it will increase their profits. They will give raises to the people that increase the effecience and hence the profit margin of that production.

Yeah what if it was a cooperative that is wholely owned by the employees that work there? They have a competant CEO
and a board,shares(evenly split per worker) and voting rights.You can even pay them the same. Just at the end of each quarter everyone gets paid again for the products sold.Its not that different than a normal corporation

There is only ONE case where this is not true: Unionized Labor. In these specific cases where Labor Unions get to determine workers' pay - those evil corporate fat cats are not allowed to individually reward people for harder work and better productivity.

The private ownership of a business entity has 0 incentive to pay you more for your services. The only way people can get better pay is if enough people REFUSE to work for that pay. Otherwise private ownership won't feel the need to pay over minimum wage.

A job is not a right - it's a privilege. And you can only expect to enjoy that privilege so long as you make more money than you cost your bosses. This is a very simple concept. But it seems even our uber-educated president is clueless about how the world actually works outside of government.

No one is saying giving jobs out like candy for no reason other than to look cool. Not at all. Its just that the people working in the business own the business.

Before you rant into your socialistic diatribe: When you get a raise at work ... do you immediately go out and pay your waitresses more money on a tip? What about for movie rentals? Do you volunteer to pay more for each film? How about gas? Do you give the gas attendant more for each gallon now that you're making more?

Socialism is not social welfare or institutionalized allowances.Its crazy high taxes for crazy high level of living. The means of production is ran by the public. Your whole argument is flawed

Then why should a private corporation? If you want more money from your company - ask for it. If they refuse, leave. If they want you bad enough - they'll offer more.

Right. That is for a private corporation. Not a cooperative. There's a difference. In a coop you won't be able to do that either. But your argument is flawed because you don't really understand what "shared ownership" really means.

If you don't work in a field where you can ever get more - maybe it's time to change fields of work.

Not everyone has that option. Do you have that option? Did your job get outsourced?

Ambition is not expecting more money for the same job - Ambition is a willingness to work harder for more.

A privately owned corporate entity doesn't have to pay you a dime. The only reason why we can demand the pay we get is because enough people refuse to work for low level of wages. Only now corporate can cut us out all together and outsource to taiwan,china,india for $0.10 a week. What is ambition going to do to nafta?

Your entire argument is flawed. What do you think obama means by "sharing"? Do you know what socialism is?

I'm hoping, probably against all hope, that it would mean that the companies that the lower wage earners work for will have to pay a bigger share of their rent, their food, their medical care, their heating bill, and I might have a little more money not taking from my check to do this for them!!!!
after all, the companies that these employees work for have a bigger interest in them being taken care of than I do....their welfare, doesn't effect me whatsoever.....at least until they come into my realm and start rioting or whatever....

and well, why in the world, would employees who are getting the rest of their needs taken care of by the fine taxpayer, demand a raise, which if they get, well, they might find themselves in a position where they don't get the handouts, but can't pay the bills???