%@#%@ the unions!

Bob Maxey said:

Thanks for the post. You just confirmed what many of us gathered here already suspected. We can now be done with you and go back to arguing how crappy Apple is.

Bob

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I understand you have a very shallow and limited view of things, so you'd rather not get into a discussion that involves more in-depth commentary than "socialism=bad, capitalism=good, poor=lazy". Hopefully, I can educate some people, though.

Robert Heinlein said:

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true.

Tom Ace said:

You could save yourself some time by actually trying to understand what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

We do indeed understand what you are saying. You are as clear as a bell. Even Karl hears you.

Bob

Tom Ace said:

You could save yourself some time by actually trying to understand what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Those that have more money, have a responsibility to let the government take their money from them, and give it to everyone else.

Yes... we understand what you are saying, we just don't agree with it.

I can't even stomach to read this whole thread. Your rates of pay in ANY skilled craft today are what they are because of the unions. Maybe today they aren't quite as valid as they were, but if it weren't for unions we would all be making half or even less than what we do now, and under unacceptable working conditions. I know that there is a stigma associated with union labor, but in my experience, one bad apple can ruin a whole bushel. I have met hundreds of quality, skilled men and women over the years who are union to the end. Good hard working Americans.

I may check back in, but I'm done posting here. I know I won't convince non union types of the benefits of paying your dues and being part of something you will never understand. Have fun working until you are 80. I will be retired doing what I want, making as much as the day I left my last job when I'm 65.

-PROUD MEMBER Local 158, Operating Engineers

byteware said:

Right, because people perform a service and get paid more than you think they should, we shouldn't worry about the money WE pay public employees?

That's only makes sense if you have some hate for CEO's.

And FYI, I'm a public sector employee.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. Can you reword it?

You aren't listening to the conversation at hand, or are being intentionally obtuse.

We aren't arguing that Unions have NEVER served a purpose, or NEVER done anything good.

We are arguing that Unions AREN'T NOW serving a purpose, and AREN'T NOW doing anything good.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. You are the one who is confused. The entire point is that unions have been in the past and are now the ONLY entities able to effectively stand up to corporate interests in politics. As corporations are more powerful now than they have been in decades, so the need for unions is greater than it has been in decades.

Any contention to contrary is an admission of ignorance.

Yes, it is well known how dangerous it is politically to touch something that I am paying for, but will never EVER receive... and you are using this as an example of a GOOD thing?

Click to expand...

If you want to talk about the solvency of social security, that's fine, but this isn't the place. This comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

For this to be true, then every shop that is non-union will have horrible working conditions, and that's just not true. Even in the auto-industry, non-union shops have extremely good working conditions.

So, it appears that your anti-business beliefs are blinding you to what reality is.

Click to expand...

You're incoherent. I can't even tell what you're trying to say, and it's obvious you didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, because it's absolutely correct.

Non-union shops have good working conditions BECAUSE unions demanded those better conditions, and then over time everyone began to take them for granted. Are you seriously suggesting that, had unions never won these reforms, that things would magically be better today? That employers would have improved conditions out the goodness of their hearts? It'll be a painful day for you when you finally wake up out of your stupor.

It's also worth noting that union shops have higher wages. You may think this is good or bad, but it directly shoots down your "unions are not doing anything good today" theory. I don't know about you, but I think winning better wages for the workers it represents is pretty good. You see, there is no "trickle down" without unions. Without some organization to force them to share benefits more equitably, companies will keep as much money for themselves as they can.

Let me ask you something: how much do profits have to grow, how much money do companies have to have, before it is finally acceptable in your mind for workers to ask for a larger share of the pie?

lol. You have absolutely no idea do you. No one in this country is suggesting that we go to an entirely free unregulated market, not even Ron Paul. You haven't paid enough actual attention to his beliefs to be able to understand them, much less present them here and refute them.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. I read his book, The Revolution. It's filled with historical inaccuracies. The man really could not find his ass with both hands and the lights on.

He lies, or does not know about, the working conditions in the 19th century. Either way, he gets it horribly wrong.

He lies, or does not know about, the history of government innovation.

He lies, or does not know about, the history of extremely painful business contractions caused by unregulated markets.

So yes, I know exactly what he advocates. Perhaps you do not.

Libertarians believe that the government should do what only the government can, and everything the government should stay out of.

Click to expand...

Only what the government "can?" What does that mean? The government "can" do almost anything, not to say it should. What this boils down to is the government should do "what Libertarians think it ought to."

This is true, but not because of bias on my part, because you cannot provide proof that these people AREN'T taking advantage.

Click to expand...

Um, the top 1% control 50% of this country's wealth. The top 1% get paid $0.24 of every dollar that is paid out in America. How many teachers do you know that are in the top 1%? There's your proof right there.

We have the biggest gap between the rich and poor that we've had since 1929, and you still refuse to see the looting going on right in front of you, and prefer to blame teachers. No wonder big business has been so successful pillaging the country.

okay, don't say I didn't provide you with a few links... not like it's hard to find them, but I don't think you are interested in knowing both sides of the story.

Click to expand...

There aren't "sides" to the story. There is only the truth.

New York Teachers Paid To Do Nothing: 700 Of Them

Click to expand...

Sure, this is wasteful, and this type of thing should be reformed. But what does it cost us? The article said that it costs about $65 million a year.

In 2009, Goldman Sachs by itself set aside $16.7 billion for bonuses. That money going to idle teachers represents about 0.4% (I rounded up) of the amount going to idle bankers in ONE bank for ONE year on Wall Street.

So I agree, things like this teacher story should concern us, and we should do something about it--but should we start there, and rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? Or should we finally acknowledge the elephant in the room and admit publicly that Wall Street and other corporate giants are bleeding us dry?

The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition

Click to expand...

Now why does this bother you when workers do it, but not when executives do it at a far higher cost?

Here are just a couple. If you want more, just let me know... and I'm still waiting for those links.

Click to expand...

I'll get them to you, right after I get the link demonstrating that the sky is blue.

I've done so... now if you would please prove your statements...

Click to expand...

I have. You refuse to acknowledge them. As long as you're going to dance around the questions, I'm not going to knock myself out asking more of them.

Let me rephrase that for you in a more accurate manner...

"I only accept union propaganda"

Click to expand...

Wrong, I accept facts, which are what I have been using in my arguments. You, however, are very emotional, and have not been able to counter any of my arguments.

Yes, you ARE in fact wrong (as I pointed out above).

No one is arguing for a completely free market, and no one is arguing for a completely government run market. All Republicans and Democrats argue about is... how much regulation is necessary.

Surprise... it's the great big secret that no one wants to mention.

Click to expand...

Maybe you simply don't pay as much attention to politics as I do, and simply don't know this, but in fact, many republicans these days DO want to completely get rid of government's presence in the economy.

I hate unions.
They have destroyed our auto industry by pricing cars out of the picture just so they can get a free ride.
Now the foreign cars are cheaper.. ask yourselves why.

Keep in mind, people tend to call me a bleeding heart liberal.
Even this liberal can see that unions are destroying labor in this country by driving our AMERICAN MADE goods prices thru the roof.

When all of our jobs are outsourced what will you union people say then?
Unions had their time, and it needs to end.

1- Unions were needed a long time ago. Unions did some good but now they are in the way.

2- Everyone assumes that without unions, we would have child labor, low wages, unsafe working conditions. No proof of that; it is about the only thing union workers have to cling to to make their case. Also, they fear waking up with a severed horse head in their bed.

3- Unions are not needed these days. I don't like paying for my job.

4- I many cases, the union leadership is all about dues and power, and if a company does not go union, there is fear of retaliation. Strikes, for example. True or not, there is that perception. Non-union workers can not be hired in many cases and if the union boss knows you are not pro-union, you suffer.

In Chicago, Mr. IBEW member, what cant I plug in a work light over the small desk at the display booth? Told it is a union job by some IBEW member that likely cant plug it in without a diagram. This is a common problems across the land.

5- Unions need to die and fade away. Once needed, perhaps... now it is just one more burden company owners need to worry about.

6- In the early days, cross a picket line to feed your children and there was a good chance you would be hurt. Unions do not have any right to be proud on their entire history; violence and thuggery was what they were all about and they were controlled by organized crime.

Bob

Tom Ace said:

Ah, yes. Sure, you can take the immature view that progressive taxes are punitive. Along with that having any kind of responsibility at all is punitive. Just because I'm physically much more capable of cutting the lawn and taking out the trash, why should it be my responsibility to do it instead of my wife? That's punitive. Or you could take the mature view, which is that it's just a responsibility of making more money.

Click to expand...

Here's a quote that will make heads explode in the anti-progressive tax crowd:

" It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

--Adam Smith

Bob Maxey said:

1- Unions were needed a long time ago. Unions did some good but now they are in the way.

Click to expand...

They are in the way of corporations that want to lower wages even more.

Seriously, you either need to make some type of fact-supported, substantive argument soon, or just admit that you're a bitter conservative who doesn't care about facts, but just wants to beat up on unions. Instead of whining all the time, and resenting union members for their decent salaries, perhaps you should start your own union.

2- Everyone assumes that without unions, we would have child labor, low wages, unsafe working conditions. No proof of that; it is about the only thing union workers have to cling to to make their case.

Click to expand...

There's also no proof to the contrary, so what's your point?

Incidentally, we do have a LOT of historical evidence correlating lack of worker power with lower wages and worse working conditions. You have nothing support your argument.

3- Unions are not needed these days. I don't like paying for my job.

Click to expand...

Wake up, you already pay for your job when you support an economic system that pays your employer for your productivity increases. If unions didn't pay for themselves, they wouldn't exist.

4- I many cases, the union leadership is all about dues and power, and if a company does not go union, there is fear of retaliation. Strikes, for example. True or not, there is that perception. Non-union workers can not be hired in many cases and if the union boss knows you are not pro-union, you suffer.

Click to expand...

Wah. Compare this to the long and brutal history of using police and military forces to beat, harass, and sometimes kill union members, and you get no sympathy from me.

I mean, you've heard of the anti-union Coca Cola death squads in Latin America, right? Once unions start forming death squads, you might have a point. Until then: *pulls out violin and starts playing*

5- Unions need to die and fade away. Once needed, perhaps... now it is just one more burden company owners need to worry about.

Click to expand...

No, conservatives who won't learn history and won't learn economics need to die away, and let the rest of us resume making progress. You have cost this country literally trillions of dollars, and we cannot afford it anymore.

6- In the early days, cross a picket line to feed your children and there was a good chance you would be hurt. Unions do not have any right to be proud on their entire history; violence and thuggery was what they were all about and they were controlled by organized crime.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. Look at the Wisconsin protests. They're holding hands, for crying out loud. When people have interviewed them, they get statements like: "We ought to be able to have an adult conversation and remain civil."

Now contrast that with the Tea Party lunatics, who bring guns to rallies and yell racial slurs.

Your diatribe against unions, and their honest members who are trying to make a decent living for their families, has been exposed as a fraud. It would be proper for you to apologize, but I know better than that.

Ryan P. said:

Here's a quote that will make heads explode in the anti-progressive tax crowd:

" It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

--Adam Smith

Click to expand...

Fact is, Americans do contribute more than is represented by the taxes they pay. They/we do not find this unreasonable or a burden because They/I/We realize it is important to give back.

And the word 'contribute' is used in the above quote. Some want it forced upon us and Adam Smith would probably not want confiscation. People that quote Smith need to actually read Adam Smith.

With Mr. Smith and those of his time, context is important.

Bob

byteware said:

Of course that's how YOU want to look at it, when it's not YOUR money.

It's ok... we'll call it their "responsibility". That makes taking their property so much more palatable.

Click to expand...

Nope. I plan to make a good bit of money over the course of my life. I understand my responsibility to pay a higher percentage the more money I make. I don't mind paying more now than I did when I was 20 years old working in retail. I won't mind paying more in a few years when I'm making considerably more than I am now. Just like Bill Gates and many other celebrities who are the ones affected by the higher taxes. There was even a petition by something like 400 of the wealthiest Americans to Obama to let the tax cuts for the rich expire. If I am ever lucky enough to make $800,000 a year, I'll gladly pay 40% in taxes.

It explained your point perfectly fine, but my analogy is far more accurate to what we are talking about.

Click to expand...

You're trying to use the analogy for a different purpose. Just leave it as the purpose I used it for, and it works great.

You aren't allowed to decide for someone else how much THEY value their property.

This is a rationalization so that you feel better taking their property.

Click to expand...

I'm not telling anyone how much to value their property. I'm saying that every human being values food more than they value a second car. And it's not rationalization. It's reality.

Yep, and you are able to determine that rich people giving up a few things is ok, because well, they have lots of money.

Click to expand...

I'm able to determine that people making more money can pay a higher percentage of their income.

You are really trying to justify that people paying no taxes bear the same tax responsibility as people paying millions in taxes?

There is NO measurement by which you can argue that they have the same responsibility.

Click to expand...

OK, now you're not even reading what I'm writing.

Listen to this... you don't value their property less, just what they do with it.

You value their property less, otherwise you couldn't make the argument that it was less valuable...

Click to expand...

It's usually helpful to not mischaracterize someone's comments in an attempt to be able to argue against them. If you stop trying to use your own words for what I'm saying, there won't be any confusion here. What is more valuable to a human being: enough food to survive or an extra car that only gets used on weekend for fun?

Too many generalities here. Let's put some numbers on it. Personally I would consider progressive taxes punitive if the top rate starts going north of 35%.

Bob Maxey said:

We do indeed understand what you are saying. You are as clear as a bell. Even Karl hears you.

Bob

Click to expand...

If you understand what I'm saying so well, why are your comments such horrible mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and why do you make references to Karl Marx? If you truly understood what I'm saying (which would require more in-depth thinking that you're obviously prepared to do), you would realize how stupid you sound.

seriously, you cant compare third world unions to ones in the very developed world

LoyalServant said:

I hate unions.
They have destroyed our auto industry by pricing cars out of the picture just so they can get a free ride.
Now the foreign cars are cheaper.. ask yourselves why.

Keep in mind, people tend to call me a bleeding heart liberal.
Even this liberal can see that unions are destroying labor in this country by driving our AMERICAN MADE goods prices thru the roof.

When all of our jobs are outsourced what will you union people say then?
Unions had their time, and it needs to end.

Click to expand...

I think everyone would agree that living standards ought to improve over time. As our society becomes more productive, and can do more with less, material comforts ought to increase.

They have not. Americans' standard of living has not increased in thirty years, and is falling now. What the unions do, have always done, is to force the corporate looters to pay their fair share.

When do we stop blaming the unions for our economic system's inability to provide for its citizens?

byteware said:

Those that have more money, have a responsibility to let the government take their money from them, and give it to everyone else.

Yes... we understand what you are saying, we just don't agree with it.

Click to expand...

OK, if you understand what I'm saying, then tell me what I'm saying. I can only hope that first bit of nonsense is not supposed to be what I'm saying. If it is, then the second part is completely false.

The problem is that you don't agree with what you want me to be saying, but you're also not actually interested in understanding what I'm actually saying because you've been well conditioned to believe nonsense like "socialism=bad" and the like. The easy way out is to start thinking for yourself, and don't let your emotions make your decisions for you. If I can do it, anyone can. You ready to start?

Bob Maxey said:

Fact is, Americans do contribute more than is represented by the taxes they pay. They/we do not find this unreasonable or a burden because They/I/We realize it is important to give back.

And the word 'contribute' is used in the above quote. Some want it forced upon us and Adam Smith would probably not want confiscation. People that quote Smith need to actually read Adam Smith.

With Mr. Smith and those of his time, context is important.

Bob

Click to expand...

Sorry friend, I HAVE read Smith. Where do you think I got the quote? In fact, if you actually HAD read Smith, as I have, you would recognize that he would be far more sympathetic to a social democratic party than he would to the Republican party, which he would wholeheartedly condemn.

In his book, he rails against the rich who take advantage of their employees, and endorses government regulation of industry.

So to say Adam Smith would "probably not want confiscation" is pathetic semantic gameplaying. In the sentence just prior to that, he talks about levying taxes that specifically target the rich.

Sorry, once again, you do not adequately grasp the facts.

I'm able to determine that people making more money can pay a higher percentage of their income.

Click to expand...

Whats the issue? Thats the way it is now...and I haven't seen anyone say it shouldn't be that way. Your not arguing people with lots of money should pay more in taxes than people with little money, thats the way it is now... Your arguing the rich aren't paying enough, and I haven't seen a good reason why.

What moral responsibility argument supports 40% over 35%?

Tom Ace said:

If you understand what I'm saying so well, why are your comments such horrible mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and why do you make references to Karl Marx? If you truly understood what I'm saying (which would require more in-depth thinking that you're obviously prepared to do), you would realize how stupid you sound.

Click to expand...

We do know what you are saying. That is the problem, you are actually saying what you are saying. I think I am done, your kind will not learn.

Bob

Bob Maxey said:

What color is the sky in your world?

Click to expand...

You mean you're not going to even attempt to address any of the facts I brought up that make you look silly?

That's what I thought. Run along now, and let the grown-ups talk.

Bob Maxey said:

We do know what you are saying. That is the problem, you are actually saying what you are saying. I think I am done, your kind will not learn.

Bob

Click to expand...

He might learn, if you would actually MAKE AN ARGUMENT. You have done nothing in this thread but run away from questions and attempt to red-bait.

But don't worry; I'm sure the fact that you're unable to answer even the simplest questions asked of you means you're totally right, and the libtards who insist on using facts and data are just stupid!

Ryan P. said:

You mean you're not going to even attempt to address any of the facts I brought up that make you look silly?

That's what I thought. Run along now, and let the grown-ups talk.

Click to expand...

What moral reasoning draws the line at 40% vs 35%?

Your trying to say the rich have a moral responsibility to pay more in taxes... well, they do, problem solved.

Now, if your trying to argue they should pay 40% vs 35%, lets hear why. Government deficits? Thats a valid argument. But so is raising tax rates too high, slows economic growth, shrinking total government revenue, and defeating the purpose of raising taxes in the first place.

Thats a grown up argument and discussion.

LoyalServant said:

I hate unions.
They have destroyed our auto industry by pricing cars out of the picture just so they can get a free ride.
Now the foreign cars are cheaper.. ask yourselves why.

Keep in mind, people tend to call me a bleeding heart liberal.
Even this liberal can see that unions are destroying labor in this country by driving our AMERICAN MADE goods prices thru the roof.

When all of our jobs are outsourced what will you union people say then?
Unions had their time, and it needs to end.

Click to expand...

I already posted this link, but here it is again. In 2007 GM was the America's and the world's largest automaker, outselling everyone else. Ford outsold Honda Nissan in 2007 and 2008. And those were the latest numbers at the time of the article. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about the auto industry and unions. People should take more time to distinguish between reality and myth.