Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.

class warfare?...oh...the poor, poor, wealthy....it sure is class warfare, and the wealthy have been winning that war for decades...and now the rest of the people are standing their ground and fighting back
instead of the wealthy constantly saying they are "giving" us something for free...why don't the wealthy just pay us more for the work we do. maybe they can't use that line, because that's what they have been doing all along to the rest of us

edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: syntax

Here is a novel idea, how about paying people for the value they bring? Care about the workers? Then stop making it so damned hard to hire them and keep them. Unions, EEOC, ADA, health care mandates, employment tax, SS contributions (yes the employer pays into your SS too), W/C, etc. etc. etc. all make the cost of employing someone go up and up and up. Everytime the left adds another feel good program, they force another worker out of the workforce.

Geez.

It's like you have no idea about the history of the US workforce...

No, I've got a great understanding of the REALITY of the history of the US workforce.

REALLY?

So you would be against a living wage? Against a five day work week? Pro-child labor?

All of those things would make labor much cheaper... in fact china has it figured out, with its slave labor... best idea ever huh?

The reality is that, while there's corruption in every large orginization, the orginization of labor, to protect itself from very real abuse at the hands of management, is WORTH the cost.

The REAL issue is that our society is obsessed with cheap throwaway crap... and that we define ourselves via the crap we own... if we were willing to pay more for US made things, and just have less... we'd protect US jobs and protect our standard of living...

Removing protections from workers is nonsense.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Perhaps people do not wish to buy overpriced crap that is priced that way since the cancer known as unions has forced the cost of doing business to be exponentially higher than our competitors.

Unions are a major cause of businesses leaving the U.S. and the laughable part is then unions whine about losing jobs.

As Ohio goes so goes the nation?

Ohioans’ food stamp aid to be reduced
Benefit to fall $50 a month starting in January
www.toledoblade.com...

I tell you the poor will be the first hit and suffer the most.

Would anyone listen?
NO

Originally posted by longlostbrother
]

REALLY?

So you would be against a living wage? Against a five day work week? Pro-child labor?

All of those things would make labor much cheaper... in fact china has it figured out, with its slave labor... best idea ever huh?

The reality is that, while there's corruption in every large orginization, the orginization of labor, to protect itself from very real abuse at the hands of management, is WORTH the cost.

The REAL issue is that our society is obsessed with cheap throwaway crap... and that we define ourselves via the crap we own... if we were willing to pay more for US made things, and just have less... we'd protect US jobs and protect our standard of living...

Removing protections from workers is nonsense.

"Living wage" is meaningless on a national level. What someone needs to live on varies form region to region so much that a federal "living wage" does not make any sense.

The purpose of wages are to reimburse the worker's commodity--their labor--do to the value they bring. Digging a ditch will never be worth 100K a year even if the government mandates it be paid 100K a year. There would be no ditch diggers because no one would hire them at 100K a year.

I worked as a kid...bought my first pair of non-hand me down new shoes with my own money. It teaches (shudder) individual responsability and work ethic.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Except when non-liveable wages are co-opted for your current wages because money flows out of the country to areas where there is cheaper wages and lower standards of living.

Guess if the Americans can learn to live like the Chinese do... their wages can be brought down to match.

What is the average Chinese manufacturing worker's wages? Around $100/month or is it $100/year?

If you can live for that wage, you may have to leave for China, or those wage levels may have to arrive at your home.

Unfortunately, everything is tied. Taxes are tied as well. If the average Joe makes $20,000/yr for a cleaners job in the private sector, it'll sort itself out with government paying the same wages. But, if the same Joe cleaner's wages come down to $10,000/yr in the private sector, the public sector won't match the reduction in pay - at least not without an enormous gap in re-adjustment time.

So, you won't be able to afford your government's services at it's current wage levels, when trying to match the Chinese.

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Except when non-liveable wages are co-opted for your current wages because money flows out of the country to areas where there is cheaper wages and lower standards of living.

Guess if the Americans can learn to live like the Chinese do... their wages can be brought down to match.

What is the average Chinese manufacturing worker's wages? Around $100/month or is it $100/year?

If you can live for that wage, you may have to leave for China, or those wage levels may have to arrive at your home.

Unfortunately, everything is tied. Taxes are tied as well. If the average Joe makes $20,000/yr for a cleaners job in the private sector, it'll sort itself out with government paying the same wages. But, if the same Joe cleaner's wages come down to $10,000/yr in the private sector, the public sector won't match the reduction in pay - at least not without an enormous gap in re-adjustment time.

So, you won't be able to afford your government's services at it's current wage levels, when trying to match the Chinese.

edit on 13-11-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: line add

And China is a command economy where labor is concerned.

Labor is a commodity. It is sold by the worker and purchased by the employer. If the value of labor does not produce enough value to the consumer, then the consumer of labor will not buy it.

If Joe the cleaner's labor does not net 20K of value, then Joe the cleaner will not have a job.

If taxation, regulation, and mandates such as healthcare and mandated wages makes labor more and more expensive, then it is the worker that suffers and less workers are hired because none of those mandates make the labor in question any more valuable. If the value of labor remains the same, but the cost of labor increases, then the market will find alternate sources of labor.

reply to post by TheAngryFarm


Hostess Closes Three Plants After Bakers’ Union Goes On Strike [Video]

Cutting your nose off to spite your face …

www.therightplanet.com...

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yes, I agree.

But if the region's cost of living is not met, you won't have surviving labour.

Hence, the spiral towards slavery... where everyone is a slave to lowering the cost of labour and materials, but not sacrificing the concept that the price of labour is justified by the survival of the human race. Even the rich are labourers in corporations... their abilities to profit will suffer from running a tight ship, to the point that those who historically have wealth will own the governments - and their competitiveness requirements foisted as rules that the slaves should live by.

We can live like rats (if that is survivable) and the uber-rich are justified in tightening the noose and cheating.

The survival of the few at the expense of the many... unfair trade practices, unfair laws, unfair everything - bend over.

Originally posted by Kituwa
reply to post by TheAngryFarm

 

Hostess Closes Three Plants After Bakers’ Union Goes On Strike [Video]

Cutting your nose off to spite your face …

www.therightplanet.com...

Here's a link from a video (video.foxbusiness.com... ) with the CEO? of Hostess which is much more informative than a ranting striker. Apparently, an 8% wage cut was agreed to by all employees with the failing Hostess, but the 'Bakers' changed their minds and went on strike. They (the Teamsters) called for a nationwide strike last week (18K employees) but only the 'Bakers' went on strike.

This is not the time to go on strike....especially with a company facing bankruptcy and financial failure already, and the economy the way it is currently.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother
]

REALLY?

So you would be against a living wage? Against a five day work week? Pro-child labor?

All of those things would make labor much cheaper... in fact china has it figured out, with its slave labor... best idea ever huh?

The reality is that, while there's corruption in every large orginization, the orginization of labor, to protect itself from very real abuse at the hands of management, is WORTH the cost.

The REAL issue is that our society is obsessed with cheap throwaway crap... and that we define ourselves via the crap we own... if we were willing to pay more for US made things, and just have less... we'd protect US jobs and protect our standard of living...

Removing protections from workers is nonsense.

"Living wage" is meaningless on a national level. What someone needs to live on varies form region to region so much that a federal "living wage" does not make any sense.

The purpose of wages are to reimburse the worker's commodity--their labor--do to the value they bring. Digging a ditch will never be worth 100K a year even if the government mandates it be paid 100K a year. There would be no ditch diggers because no one would hire them at 100K a year.

I worked as a kid...bought my first pair of non-hand me down new shoes with my own money. It teaches (shudder) individual responsability and work ethic.

LOL at all of this.

First I never said their needed to be a national living wage. Strawman.

I work harder than most people I know, and own a business... and I still think that workers have the right to organise, that higher wages actually have shown to help the economy (ask china, who desperately is trying to create a middle class) and that 99,999999999999999999999999999% of anti-union stuff is driven by ideology, not a true understanding of any real or imaginary drag organised labour (and safety regulations, etc.) have on an economy.

Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

I wish I could give you 10,000 stars. It just so happens that Germany is my favorite example I always give to the right wing woo-woos. So far, I didn't hear a comprehensible answer.

My first car was a Mercedes. I saved money for it by almost starving myself.
'Nuff said.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother
]

REALLY?

So you would be against a living wage? Against a five day work week? Pro-child labor?

All of those things would make labor much cheaper... in fact china has it figured out, with its slave labor... best idea ever huh?

The reality is that, while there's corruption in every large orginization, the orginization of labor, to protect itself from very real abuse at the hands of management, is WORTH the cost.

The REAL issue is that our society is obsessed with cheap throwaway crap... and that we define ourselves via the crap we own... if we were willing to pay more for US made things, and just have less... we'd protect US jobs and protect our standard of living...

Removing protections from workers is nonsense.

"Living wage" is meaningless on a national level. What someone needs to live on varies form region to region so much that a federal "living wage" does not make any sense.

The purpose of wages are to reimburse the worker's commodity--their labor--do to the value they bring. Digging a ditch will never be worth 100K a year even if the government mandates it be paid 100K a year. There would be no ditch diggers because no one would hire them at 100K a year.

I worked as a kid...bought my first pair of non-hand me down new shoes with my own money. It teaches (shudder) individual responsability and work ethic.

LOL at all of this.

First I never said their needed to be a national living wage. Strawman.

I work harder than most people I know, and own a business... and I still think that workers have the right to organise, that higher wages actually have shown to help the economy (ask china, who desperately is trying to create a middle class) and that 99,999999999999999999999999999% of anti-union stuff is driven by ideology, not a true understanding of any real or imaginary drag organised labour (and safety regulations, etc.) have on an economy.

Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

Not a strawman. What the heck do people mean when they go on and on about "living wages?" Certainly not a wage based on the value the labor brings or the market will bear. It is and always has been code for government setting minimum allowed wages. HOwever, I'll not put words in your mouth. How do you propose a "living wage" come about?

No, Germany and the rest of the EU is dragging down because of artificially inflated wages beyond the value those wages produce.

No, blind support of Unions, regardless how much they harm business and growth (see how well the UAW helepd Detriot) is driven by blind ideology.

That is the problem. People do not want to work, they want to be taken care of. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Yes, I agree.

But if the region's cost of living is not met, you won't have surviving labour.

Hence, the spiral towards slavery... where everyone is a slave to lowering the cost of labour and materials, but not sacrificing the concept that the price of labour is justified by the survival of the human race. Even the rich are labourers in corporations... their abilities to profit will suffer from running a tight ship, to the point that those who historically have wealth will own the governments - and their competitiveness requirements foisted as rules that the slaves should live by.

We can live like rats (if that is survivable) and the uber-rich are justified in tightening the noose and cheating.

The survival of the few at the expense of the many... unfair trade practices, unfair laws, unfair everything - bend over.

Your wrong. Have you ever been to China? Ever been to a poor village in China? Wages (and money) essentially boils down to what someone else is willing to do for you. Yes their wages are low ($100/month) but so are all their costs - food, construction, etc. The only thing that isn't cheap is energy (oil). You can get a $0.25 meal, a hotel room can be 20rmb ($3), etc. Yes the "quality" by western mass-production standards is inferior, but it's hardly "living like rats". What's more criminal are the labor unions artificially instituting a price floor for labor so Joe, Bob, and John can have jobs but Bill and George are S.O.L. Study some economics, it'll enlighten you.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

LOL at all of this.

First I never said their needed to be a national living wage. Strawman.

I work harder than most people I know, and own a business... and I still think that workers have the right to organise, that higher wages actually have shown to help the economy (ask china, who desperately is trying to create a middle class) and that 99,999999999999999999999999999% of anti-union stuff is driven by ideology, not a true understanding of any real or imaginary drag organised labour (and safety regulations, etc.) have on an economy.

Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

Firstly your understanding of unionization is inherently wrong. Unionization by definition creates an artificial price floor, pricing many workers out of the market basically creating "haves" and "have nots". Secondly you don't need a union to protect workers, there are MANY non-union businesses that have excellent safety records. Thirdly the US unionization model (especially the public one) is unionization gone amock, unions have essentially extorted the tax-payer out of billions of dolllars - here in California Firefighters make $130k, nurses make $120k. That is unionization out of control. Your above goals of worker protection can be achieved WITHOUT unionization and without the risk of out-of-control unions similar to what we are experiencing in California.

As for your claim that Germany is "thriving" this is also inherently wrong. While an export driven economy and one of the strongest in the euro-zone, their income per capita is lower than the US while living expenses are higher, perhaps due to higher taxes & VAT - in other words quality of life is worse. Furthermore, their sovereign debt to GDP ratio is nothing to be proud of. Finally if you've ever been to Germany you'll notice that a lot of infrastructure is from the stone ages - want to go to a truly modern city? Try Shanghai.

BTW organic wage growth through inflation (or property bubble, whatever) versus ARTIFICIAL WAGE FLOOR are two very different things.... You mentioned China. Please point out a union organization within China.

As for german products, the biggest piece of crap I have ever owned was a Mercedes E55 AMG. Yes it had 500HP which was nice, but it was continuously failing, not to mention by $1500/month depreciation because no one really wants to own a used Mercedes. In the end I just lemoned that piece of crap. My 2011 E350 is even worse with all sorts of transmission problems (yes I guess I am a sucker). Sort of like my Heckler & Koch pistol. My 1999 model still works great after 15k+ rounds, my new .45 and .40 already have a variety of problems....

Originally posted by jr429

Originally posted by longlostbrother

LOL at all of this.

First I never said their needed to be a national living wage. Strawman.

I work harder than most people I know, and own a business... and I still think that workers have the right to organise, that higher wages actually have shown to help the economy (ask china, who desperately is trying to create a middle class) and that 99,999999999999999999999999999% of anti-union stuff is driven by ideology, not a true understanding of any real or imaginary drag organised labour (and safety regulations, etc.) have on an economy.

Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

Firstly your understanding of unionization is inherently wrong. Unionization by definition creates an artificial price floor, pricing many workers out of the market basically creating "haves" and "have nots". Secondly you don't need a union to protect workers, there are MANY non-union businesses that have excellent safety records. Thirdly the US unionization model (especially the public one) is unionization gone amock, unions have essentially extorted the tax-payer out of billions of dolllars - here in California Firefighters make $130k, nurses make $120k. That is unionization out of control. Your above goals of worker protection can be achieved WITHOUT unionization and without the risk of out-of-control unions similar to what we are experiencing in California.

As for your claim that Germany is "thriving" this is also inherently wrong. While an export driven economy and one of the strongest in the euro-zone, their income per capita is lower than the US while living expenses are higher, perhaps due to higher taxes & VAT - in other words quality of life is worse. Furthermore, their sovereign debt to GDP ratio is nothing to be proud of. Finally if you've ever been to Germany you'll notice that a lot of infrastructure is from the stone ages - want to go to a truly modern city? Try Shanghai.

BTW organic wage growth through inflation (or property bubble, whatever) versus ARTIFICIAL WAGE FLOOR are two very different things.... You mentioned China. Please point out a union organization within China.

As for german products, the biggest piece of crap I have ever owned was a Mercedes E55 AMG. Yes it had 500HP which was nice, but it was continuously failing, not to mention by $1500/month depreciation because no one really wants to own a used Mercedes. In the end I just lemoned that piece of crap. My 2011 E350 is even worse with all sorts of transmission problems (yes I guess I am a sucker). Sort of like my Heckler & Koch pistol. My 1999 model still works great after 15k+ rounds, my new .45 and .40 already have a variety of problems....

edit on 14-11-2012 by jr429 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-11-2012 by jr429 because: (no reason given)

"Artificial price floor" aka a minimum wage at which you can hire employees, yes, I understand that, and it's right. Even china has a minimum wage.

And of course the same mind that brought us the idea that we should offer rewer worker protections than China also brings us the, "I owned a German car which broke down a lot ergo all German manufacturing is shoddy".

The fact is that German manufacturing makes money hand over fist, while at the same time protecting it's workers and paying them proper wages.

That's a fact you can't refute, so you just ignore it.

As for, "some non-union jobs are very safe" - strawman - I never said they weren't. But the fact is that UNIONS organised because of abuse by owners, not in a vacuum. If owners had done a better job of paying and protecting workers, instead of, as you suggest, trying to make them live in worse conditions than china currently has, their wouldn't be unions...

Unions are the proof of your misunderstanding of history and naivete about the owner/worker relationship.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by longlostbrother
]

REALLY?

So you would be against a living wage? Against a five day work week? Pro-child labor?

All of those things would make labor much cheaper... in fact china has it figured out, with its slave labor... best idea ever huh?

The reality is that, while there's corruption in every large orginization, the orginization of labor, to protect itself from very real abuse at the hands of management, is WORTH the cost.

The REAL issue is that our society is obsessed with cheap throwaway crap... and that we define ourselves via the crap we own... if we were willing to pay more for US made things, and just have less... we'd protect US jobs and protect our standard of living...

Removing protections from workers is nonsense.

"Living wage" is meaningless on a national level. What someone needs to live on varies form region to region so much that a federal "living wage" does not make any sense.

The purpose of wages are to reimburse the worker's commodity--their labor--do to the value they bring. Digging a ditch will never be worth 100K a year even if the government mandates it be paid 100K a year. There would be no ditch diggers because no one would hire them at 100K a year.

I worked as a kid...bought my first pair of non-hand me down new shoes with my own money. It teaches (shudder) individual responsability and work ethic.

LOL at all of this.

First I never said their needed to be a national living wage. Strawman.

I work harder than most people I know, and own a business... and I still think that workers have the right to organise, that higher wages actually have shown to help the economy (ask china, who desperately is trying to create a middle class) and that 99,999999999999999999999999999% of anti-union stuff is driven by ideology, not a true understanding of any real or imaginary drag organised labour (and safety regulations, etc.) have on an economy.

Put another way, the strongest economy in Europe is Germany, who has public funded education and enviable publicly funded healthcare. They also have strict regulations and worker protections.

And yet, they thrive.

A country that wants to work can thrive no matter the protections workers have.

Not a strawman. What the heck do people mean when they go on and on about "living wages?" Certainly not a wage based on the value the labor brings or the market will bear. It is and always has been code for government setting minimum allowed wages. HOwever, I'll not put words in your mouth. How do you propose a "living wage" come about?

No, Germany and the rest of the EU is dragging down because of artificially inflated wages beyond the value those wages produce.

No, blind support of Unions, regardless how much they harm business and growth (see how well the UAW helepd Detriot) is driven by blind ideology.

That is the problem. People do not want to work, they want to be taken care of. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

edit on 13-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Of course this is complete nonsense, which you don't even try to bolster with facts.

Germany owes its robust economy of recent years in part to the success of its manufacturing sector, from basic materials to tools on the factory floor.

The reason Germany has remained competitive against cheaper manufacturers in Asia and elsewhere is that it has made good use of new technology.

In the Global Competitiveness Index, Germany scores higher than the U.S. on several measures, including the quality of its institutions and infrastructure.

www.scientificamerican.com...

What's hurting German manufacturing is instability in the Euro, not the wages it pays employees:

www.irishtimes.com...

To be sure, manufacturing is declining EVERYWHERE except China, but emulating China is NOT a course anyone in the US wants to take, except a few insane people.

We have been watching the ever-increasing malfeasance of the restaurant chain, The Upper Crust. They filed for bankruptcy but not before cheating employees out of proepr overtime pay, immigration violations, vilating minimum wage laws, etc. They have a laundry list of labor charges and complaints filed against them. But the poor oppressed management saw fit to give themselves a month's advance pay before filing for bankruptcy protection.

article

reply to post by longlostbrother


Not complete nonsense.
German Economy falling off a cliff.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Not complete nonsense.
German Economy falling off a cliff.

Sorry, but again, you're just arguing with yourself.

I never said the German economy wasn't hurting; it obviously is.

What I said was that it's not because of high wages. Back when all the world's economies were booming, Germany was booming, with high wages and worker protections.

The main drag on the German economy is the Eurozone crisis, which again, wasn't brought on by high wages and safe workplaces.

I know your ideology makes you predisposed to blame the deisre of workers to earn a fare wage and be safe as some sort of anti-business position, but in fact many economies have thrived while at the same time protecting workers and paying them a fair wage.

Trying to beat China in a race to the bottom of wages and protection isn't a plan. And you know that. Which is why you have to keep inventing non-existent points to argue with.