It'llrun

It gets us a wasted nation. Think this through...

Dating back to the 1930's, fascists are socialists. I'm guessing most union members don't know this.

Btw, did I call you a socialist?

We could end the discussion right here, based on you having proven you don't even comprehend what socialism is yet.

Also, I wouldn't think that any company traded publicly also qualifies as privately owned.

No they aren't things unions had to fight for. That's where so many union supporters get confused... The "that's mine" mindset... Unions chose to advocate for weekends off. There was no rule saying weekends must be worked and, since you obviously didn't know, Sundays were typically not worked, since the beginning of America. Sheesh...

I won't argue this too much. It's known to many, the "Knights of Labor" was essentially the 1st union with any power. They came about in the 1860's.

Yeah, because it's obvious the employees themselves are too stupid...

Problem is, thanks to unions, America has lost possibly millions of jobs. Unions push for this and that, then the company pulls stakes and throws up its tent in some other country, leaving behind the massive losses to unions(and our wonderful government regulations).

They have been and, as recently as last year, union thugs caused thousands of dollars in damage to a rail yard when the union didn't get "1st dibs" on the work. Corporate thugs don't threaten physical violence or purposely ruin or damage company property. Corporate thugs don't stand in the way of non-union workers going to work. It gets worse, still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQjnPhIvDo (and read some of the responses from union supporters. It takes merely seconds to see who actually is uneducated, as opposed to what the union thugs say over megaphone.
http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-fo...oys-petitions/ another article about the fine union thuggery in America today. This one from Chicago, known for corruption only the likes of New Orleans can rival in America.
http://shaunkenney.com/2011/02/union...-tabitha-hale/
http://rebelpundit.com/2011/08/milit...san-francisco/
http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-2...struction-site (article only)
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-s...144921214.html
Most of those videos/stories happened within the past year or 14months. It's proof positive that union thugs are indeed the problem, as compared to corporate 'thugs' causing damage and willfully breaking laws.

This type of thing is all too common among union members and progressives alike. With that, the normal, decent citizen has no reason to join a union, but plenty of reason not to join.


It's not that they ask, but they demand more and strike when they don't get their way. It's like a massive group of 3yr olds having a temper tantrum. It's not enough for unions members to already get better pay than the average non-union worker by thousands per year in many cases. It's not enough they get free or nearly free health coverage. It's not enough they get more paid time off than the typical American worker. It's not enough that they are less productive than their non-union counterpart. No, they need more. They need to know that the corporate thug is going to be in their pay range, or they just won't be happy.

When is the last time you heard management ask for more?

Here's "what to say"... tell us what they've given up! I've been in the union environment and out of it. Without question, non-union workers typically out-produce union workers in their day to day activities. That's one of the biggest reasons unions "fight so hard" during negotiations. 40hour weeks??? Well, maybe, but many union workers work less and get paid for 40. There are still hundreds, if not thousands getting a paycheck and not even going in to work!

Considering only about 12% of Americans are in unions, it's kinda hard to explain away all the disparities between them and the majority. It isn't like we don't learn what's going on.

Good for them being intelligent enough to know that all can be better off is the few weren't given so much for so little in return. You blame management. I blame management and unions.

Of course... This can't possibly have anything to do with a poor economy! This can't possibly be due to so many people losing their jobs and taking less pay than they used to just so they can feed their families. Union members typically can't grasp the reality, when the money isn't there, nobody can take it with them! Unions protect even bad workers(millions of them). That costs the employees money and they feel it's paid for, so fight for it. I'd agree, if not for the fact so many millions of Americans "do without" because of unions. Those people who can't find a job because they can't afford the gasoline, let alone the car to go looking. Offer them "protection" too and we'll see a total collapse of America.

The real problem, creating the graph you showed is 1 thing. LACK of production in America. Unions demanded so much, American manufacturing companies have been disappearing for 40 years. They'll be in other countries, paying a lower wage... to people willing to work without demanding the company wipe their butt after taking a dump on company time!

There are places where the law requires employees to join a union, however. Otherwise, they can't have that "dream job" they've waited for. You won't find that problem in any "right to work" state.

Now just tell me you'd gladly pay the roofer double what he quotes, just to have the happy mindset that he's worth it... Have you ever doubled the payment owed for any work someone else did for you? No? Then why on earth should you be paid double, just because the German auto worker earns double what a UAW worker gets paid? That German worker is doubling your output. He should earn double your pay! You said it yourself, German companies produced more than double what American workers did, according to the story you presented.

America isn't too big to be run properly. It's too big to be run in socialist fashion. It's too big for Congress to "manage" effectively... If you think not, explain to yourself why we're in the mess we're in...

Latch

iTrader: (8)

I'm sorry but you have NO idea what socialism actually is. If you think the ***** were socialists then you just have no clue. Fascism was corporatism, which is nothing like socialism. The ***** threw socialists in the camps.

I'm not the one who just said the ***** were socialists.

They're not owned by the state - so it's private enterprise. Yes they're traded publicly but that has nothing to do with socialism.

You act like if unions hadn't existed that management would have eventually gotten around to giving health benefits and overtime just "out of the goodness of their heart." There were a lot of union members who were KILLED fighting for things we all take for granted now, like safety standards and an end to child labor.

Workers were organizing before the Knights of Labor was formed.

The unions ARE the employees. They stand a much better chance if they're organized than fighting individually.

No, thanks to corrupt GOVERNMENT that does free trade agreements at the behest of big business so all the jobs can go to China and Mexico. Even if we didn't have unions, the jobs would STILL get outsourced, because workers in China are damn near slaves, plus their currency is being manipulated to give them an even bigger unfair advantage.

By "corporate thugs" I was referring more to these guys...



Our government serves corporate interests, not the interests of the people. Why do you think the NYPD has gotten millions of dollars in donations from JP Morgan Chase? You work for who pays you, right?

I know plenty of people who work/have worked union jobs and they're not ******* thugs. They're regular working class people who just want a god damn fair wage.

You act like unions just need to "ask politely" for what they want. Are you kidding me? And going on strike isn't a "tempter tantrum," what IS a temper tantrum is when management threatens to outsource to China because they're tired of not having slave labor to exploit!!

No it's not enough, because American workers are the most productive in the world, and get some of the shittiest pay compared to other developed countries.

Management doesn't ask for more, they say "do this or you're fired."

You act like here's what happens in a negotiation:

Union: YOU WILL GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT OR ELSE!!! *wielding baseball bat*
Management: Yes sir! Absolutely sir! Just don't hurt me! *cowering*

^ That's not a negotiation.

No proof of that. It's just your opinion.

But I can make up stuff too - management in non-union environments are lazier than management in union environments. I have no proof that's true but it's my hunch.

The economy wasn't bad from 1967 all the way through 2007. There was plenty of money to go around. It all went to the top.

The jobs are disappearing because people in Mexico and China work for less than the U.S. minimum wage, their currencies are worth less than ours, and they can pollute as much as they want (look at Mexico City). Even if we had no unions at all, the jobs would still go to the poor countries.

Yeah, unions eliminate "dream jobs." That's why movie stars are union.

The German worker isn't getting paid twice as much because he works twice as hard... it's because they have strong unions and a government that works for the people, not corporate power.

Again, Germany is NOT socialist. If it were, that would be a powerful pro-socialist argument... after all their economy works pretty damn well and the workers are very well off.

And yes, WE are in a mess. WE as in working class people. The rich are doing just fine... because they're the ones running the show... not us.

jimmy169

These are really interesting numbers and a good explanation, thank you. Do you happen to know how some large companies are also able to get by without having to pay any taxes annually?

Latch

iTrader: (8)

How does carried interest, taxed at only 15% (31% of Mitt Romney's income) factor into all of this?

wannabess00

iTrader: (1)

Oh boy! The anti union argument in the auto industry again!! As Ive said time and again on here companies like CAT, Deere Co., and CNH have the same structured union contracts as Ford,GM, and Chrysler as well as deal with the same legacy costs and somehow post record profits year after year and are still hiring. In edition JD Power continues to rate the top ten efficient plants in North America as union workforce plants. The evidence is just not in the favor of the anti-union crowd

It'llrun

No, of course they weren't socialist... They called themselves, "The National Socialist German Workers' Party ", but what the Hell did THEY know... You weren't there to "educate" them on what's what...

I've told you what a REAL German citizen claims. I've reminded you what the **** party really was and each time, you've discounted it as if you have a clue what you're talking about. You don't, the end.

Germany itself, as a sovereign nation, claims its economy is a "soziale Marktwirtschaft," which means... "social market" economy. Take a trip to Germany and get your bullhorn handy so you can inform all those uneducated fools what YOU KNOW about them, that they don't know!

Look into that nonsense as well, and you MIGHT just learn something. Ask a stock trader.

We're done here because even with the information in front of your eyes, you claim it's untrue. The people who live there can tell you themselves, but no... You know more about them than they know! It's just like...

Yeah, CAT is simply flush with cash...
http://247wallst.com/2009/01/26/another-lay-off/
http://www.kfgo.com/agri-business-ne...g=1399&ID=8470
http://www.journaltimes.com/business...9bb2963f4.html
http://racineuncovered.org/2012/02/c...ng-to-casecnh/

Judging from the above stories, I have to admit, those companies do appear to have been run just like GM, etc...

ALL those you mentioned have had layoffs since 2009... Sure doesn't seem as though they're flourishing from here. Then again, I'm not buying into union hype like you do. Unlike you, I'm not a union employee.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ganizing_N.htm There's a story for you, about how precious unions can be, while they openly threaten companies through their spokesman...

Latch

iTrader: (8)

Yeah, and North Korea is a democratic republic. I mean, they are called the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all. It's right there in the name!

The ***** can call themselves whatever they like, doesn't mean a damn thing. Fascists believed in corporatism, not socialism. They threw Marxists and other left-wingers in the concentration camps. Remember how that little saying goes?

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist." And you know how it goes on...

Politicians will always say whatever they need to in order to gain popular support. They say they're "socialists" and they're "for the workers" because that's what the people wanted to hear. Just like politicians in America who say they're "capitalists" who believe in "free markets" when they have NO such belief.

Most people who describe themselves as socialists will say that even the Soviet Union and the various socialist states around the world aren't actually socialist, because the workers aren't in control - but I'm sure this is incomprehensible to you so I'll digress.

That's like someone in Germany saying "I talked to an American, he says that President Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya! It's true, I talked to a REAL American!"

If Germans are anything like Americans, they're completely ignorant about their own government. Saying you talked to a German doesn't mean a damn thing, it would be like saying "I talked to an American."

A social market economy is not the same thing as a socialist market economy. Two seperate things my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy

Germany's "social market economy" was established in West Germany after World War II. Are you telling me that both East and West Germany were BOTH socialist??

You know what, **** it. Okay, let's call Germany a socialist state. I guess that means socialism works pretty god damn well.

Are you honestly telling me that publicly traded companies like Exxon and Microsoft are examples of socialism? Dude, where are you getting this from?

Same way I feel.

It'llrun

It's not actually about what the country calls itself by name. It's about what type of ECONOMY they have, but we're clearly well above your head in this debate... We're talking about Germany, not N. Korea.

That was about the name of their party and the link to fascism. You don't have to like it, but facts are stubborn things and they don't care what you think or what you want or what you like. They remain facts.

Same goes for union pushers.
Many of them do, but they're bowled over by others along the way, all too frequently.

Anyone who's noted history during the past 30-50yrs would know that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist, it was communist.

No it isn't, because Americans don't say that. Some angry fools say similar things, but not that.

Not hardly. First off, they're better educated in general. 2nd, the country is so small that people tend to know what's happening.

What I did in this case, however, is ask you to tell it in German so that I could show her and allow a reply from someone who, unlike you, actually knows some things about Germany. You obviously don't speak that language.

So when and where did I even HINT otherwise? I never mentioned a socialist market economy until this very sentence! Do us all a favor though, and don't waste your time using Wikipedia as an educational reference point.

No, but since they're not separate anymore, what would that have to do with ANYTHING we're discussing? I was actually in Germany when the wall came down, so I know that happened. I saw it myself. It's been over 20yrs, but somehow I don't think you have many memories from that time.

Prior to the wall coming down, East Germany was a communist country. Since then, it's (all) been essentially socialist(by gov't. standard) and had a social market economy. The good news is, "conservatism" is on the rise and people are coming to understand that nothing is free, so socialist leaders have largely been defeated in elections for quite some time and their numbers seem to dwindle with the next... They still offer "free" healthcare and other services, which are socialist traits.

You guess, but you don't know. It can work well, for a long time, but not indefinitely. A country the size and population of Germany can probably get by for 100yrs. America, however, cannot. The reason... The "have nots" will still exist and they would revolt.

No, that's not what I'm telling you. In true progressive thinking fashion, you can't stay on topic, because you LOSE when you do that! I'm not wasting more time on this. Some day, you'll have a better grasp, I hope. Today obviously ain't that day.

Then again, you even admitted you don't know what I'm talking about... and I don't make a habit of treating Wikipedia as a valid information source.

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

I am not an accountant, but have taken some accounting. There are things like depreciation on equipment (amortized over years), payroll, rent on property, company provided health care, and so forth. these things come out of Gross Revenue to reach a Net Revenue number. Alot of these items are deducted pre-Tax. If you push your Net Revenue down far enough, your tax rate can be very low.

Again not a tax accountant, but will venture a guess. As one has more disposable wealth you gain investment opportunities (think of things like providing financing to a restaurant, funding a movie; wild crap like that), that most people don't have the money to play in. That carried interest could be in invested funds of some nature and fall under the capital gains law instead of ordinary income.

The point I have been trying to make is don't neccessarily believe what you hear. The news will say "Insert rich guys name only paid 15% taxes." While that may be true from an aggregate perspective, it is not true from a daily job perspective. Now if that person gets to the point that they are living solely on invested funds, then that is true. However, at some point they paid ordinary income tax on those funds when they were initially earned. (Let's avoid inherited funds, as that is an entirely different ball of wax).

DoggyB22

iTrader: (2)

Those pics were pretty good

ez2cdave

Nope . . . It's because FORD was the only company SMART enough to TURN DOWN his BAILOUT MONEY ! ! !

A.B.O. ( anyone but Obama ) in 2012 ! ! !

Irunelevens

BrntWS6

iTrader: (7)

The CPFF was a loan program. I have no problem with companies getting pure loans from the government.

GM got ~50 billion, only 6.7 billion was considered a pure loan. Which they paid back 2 years ago from an escrow account created from the bailout money...nice shell game GM. The rest was supposed to be paid back (interest free i might add) in the form of stock. Which they have not done yet...they still owe taxpayers 25 billion.

Irunelevens

No no, we're not bringing this back. Pay attention to the dates and don't respond.

BrntWS6

iTrader: (7)

I know, it's been beaten to death. Just can't help myself when people don't know WTF their talking about.

justin455

Quality post to bump a 7 month old thread.

409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

Someone want to tell me when social programs in America became synonymous with evil?

I guess presidents like FDR and Dwight Eisenhower were evil socialist communists intent on destroying America.

I'm pretty sure ever since the Guilded Ages of the 1880s, it has been pretty much widely accepted that there are significant problems inherent to laissez faire economic systems.

ez2cdave

Sure . . . When they started being "rammed down our throats" and have "MANDATES" . . . Also, when I am told " We have to pass the Bill to find out what's in it" . . .Sounds like OBAMACARE to me !

TWO WEEKS FROM TUESDAY . . . Election Day . . . Time to CLEAN UP this "MESS" in the White House !

409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

someone is a little emotional.