Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Note to "Team Romney"
Hey, Einsteins, why don't you folks do an ad with some of the folks from the Sports
Authority and Staples - you know, to try and counter some of the more negative stuff? That, and don't you think that you've also gotta eviscerate, once and for all, this whole idiotic notion by the Democrats that every
business MUST succeed and that every business MUST hire only American
workers in order to be kosher? Would you at least consider it, for Christ?...I'm telling you, if you execute it properly, you might actually make the President look weak/petty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
.
"... also gotta eviscerate, once and for all, this whole idiotic notion by the Democrats that every business MUST succeed"
Really? Just where in the world did _you_ come up with the idea that Democrats say every business MUST succeed? Is this one of those Trash Lumbaughski talking points or did this come from Murdoch Media/Fox Networks?
As for 'weak/petty' ... how is that working out for you? Honestly, in the past this blog has reached whole new levels of petty sniveling ignorance.
As for,
".. with some of the folks from the Sports Authority and Staples - you know, to try and counter some of the more negative stuff?" ...
Are there any?
Remember _you_ are siding with OMitt Rmoney; who fired thousands of PEOPLE, who made millions of dollars destroying the worker's lives, and who is trying to avoid responsibility for his actions.
Remind us again why the people should vote for the person who fired them?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Conservative Will: ...this whole idiotic notion by the Democrats that every business MUST succeed and that every business MUST hire only American workers in order to be kosher?
Democrats have no such notions. They think there is something wrong with taking advantage of businesses in trouble by loading them up with debt, making millions in profits for yourself, and walking away when the business fails (due to you loading it up with debt).... even his fellow presidential contenders agreed. They called it "vulture capitalism".
And being involved with a company that was a "pioneer in outsourcing" does look bad for a presidential contender who claims he's going to get tough with China. You think the Democrats shouldn't point out his hypocrisy on this?
I'd guess he isn't going this route because he knows it wouldn't work. Standing up for American workers -- as president Obama has done -- is neither weak nor petty. I wish the Romney campaign would take your advice, because he'd be eviscerated by the response from the Obama campaign.
Remind us once again why the people should vote for the O man who wants to keep people dependent on big nanny gov. and increase the dependency even further Ema.
.
"... people dependent on big nanny gov. and increase the dependency even further Ema."
So the voters are given the choice between the Democratic Party candidate who is for Social Security, Medicare, other positive people programs that increase the quality of life for all and the RepublicanT Party candidate who is for the Paul Ryan 'kill all support programs for the poor and cut taxes for the extreme wealthy'. Gee, which is in the self-best interest of the average USA voter?
Obama or OMitt? Gee, I wonder ...
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
The Ryan plan in fact includes massive welfare spending for the poor. The quoted description apparently comes only from your imagination, Ema.
.
Gee, which is in the self-best interest of the average USA voter?
Obama or OMitt? Gee, I wonder ...
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Keep wondering. The average USA vote is evenly split.
Ema, I'm sure it can be confusing at times. As dmarks said, keep wondering.
So, wd, you're saying that Romney and Bain Capital (a very well respected company that even Corey Booker, Bill Clinton, Harold Ford, and Deval Patrick have defended) caused these companies to fail? That's ridiculous. Bain succeeded in saving and making profitable far more companies than not and for you to imply that every business deserves to be saved shows just how perilously little that you know about a market economy.......And nobody has a God-given right to one job for a lifetime. In this increasingly competitive global economy, a person is probably going to have to retrained 2-3 times. Standing up for widget makers, while sounding quite noble, does nothing to make us stronger in an increasingly tougher world. We need to get majorly skilled, period.
Hey, Ema, you're the ignorant one. You didn't know about the 1864 Geneva Conventions that expressly prohibited the targeting of civilian populations during war. Or that FDR routinely violated this tenet by incinerating via carpet-bombing major population centers all throughout WW2. You really need to learn a little bit more about history prior to making your "criticisms".
And I don't listen to fucking Limbaugh (a common tactic by the lunatic left - disagree with their blue-plate special and they Pavlovianly associate you with Fox, etc.), so stuff it.
Will "the Conservative" Hart: ...Romney and Bain Capital... caused these companies to fail? That's ridiculous.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest companies that are already in trouble taking on massive debt to pay enormous fees might not be problematic. YES, I think they caused some companies to fail.
And I don't give a damn what the Conservative Democrats you mention said. I heard Corey Booker got campaign contributions from Bain. The others are also protecting their economic interests... if they aren't getting money from Bain then they're getting money from similar companies (and don't want to be cut off).
Will: for you to imply that every business deserves to be saved shows just how perilously little that you know about a market economy...
I'm not implying this. I never said it. I brought up the exact same issue as the other Republicans who were vying for the nomination... the vulture capitalism. Bain swooped in and... if it was more profitable to save a company they did that... if not they they loaded it up with debt and charged enormous fees.
Will: And nobody has a God-given right... [blah, blah, blah... more straw man BS]
I never claimed anyone had a "right"... but this is a way for the plutocrats to keep down the costs of labor... prevent workers from holding a job for too long... so it's no wonder a wealthy worshiping stooge like you would support it.
Why don't you just come clean wd and proclaim yourself a collectivists and a statist. No, I don't mean Marxists as Karl Marx would likely have had problems with you.
It's clear that WD thinks of employers as welfare agencies: to employ people even when there is no work for them, and to give generous handouts without any regard to it being renumeration for the value of the work done.
Indeed dmarks.
I don't know how that can be "clear" when it's completely false. What is actually clear is that dmarks believes workers should be paid as little as possible with no regard to the actual value of the work so the plutocrats can get richer and richer. We know this because he constantly refers to fair pay as a "handout".
False representation.
"Rational" Nation: False representation.
Yes, dmarks did falsely represent my views in his prior comment.
And indeed you falsely represented dmarks remarks.
How are the rainbows, moonbeams, and unicorns wd?
No, WD. I believe that workers should be paid at the real, fair market value of the work. The meeting point between (1) the lowest the employer will pay and (2) the highest the employee will demand. In your ignorance, you act as if (2) does not exist. And then your extreme arrogance comes into play: while the worker and employee agree that they pay is fair, you don't... but you always fail to realize that your ignorant and incorrect opinion that others' fair agreements doesn't matter: it is their affair....not that of ignorant arrogant outsiders like you.
This is the way of all employment. Yet in your ignorance you claim as you do above that all employers are plutocrats. Perhaps this helps explain your hostility for small businesses, and your support for Obama's plan to clobber them. And of course you again use the word 'plutocrat' as a catch-all insult for those you are jealous of....again without regard to what the word means.
dmarks: The meeting point between (1) the lowest the employer will pay and (2) the highest the employee will demand.
Yet, very often the "highest the employee will demand" is never taken into consideration. In your ignorance you ignore the fact that the supply of labor (how many workers are seeking employment) drives down wages. The higher the labor supply the more wages are driven down... and wages being lowered in this manner has nothing at all to do with the value of the worker's labor being worth less. From a "market" perspective, yes... but from a reality perspective, no.
dmarks: This is the way of all employment.
It's one factor. You ignore the much more important factor of wages being driven down by an oversupply of labor.
dmarks: ...while the worker and employee agree that they pay is fair...
Sometimes the employee agrees. But if the employee is forced to take a low wage job because that is all that is available? I know they would not agree... and "arrogance" has nothing to do with it.
dmarks: it is their affair... not that of ignorant arrogant outsiders like you.
Yes, I understand why you want to keep it this way... because then employers can continue to underpay workers... and the rich will get even richer as they put money that should go to the workers into their own pockets... which is what wealthy worshiping stooges like dmarks desire.
dmarks: Yet in your ignorance you claim as you do above that all employers are plutocrats.
I never said that.
dmarks: Perhaps this helps explain your hostility for small businesses, and your support for Obama's plan to clobber them.
I have no "hostility" for small business. Small business is a very important driver of our economy. I would oppose any plan to "clobber" them... if any such plan existed, which (currently) none do.
We were talking about employers. And then suddenly WD replaced employer with his favorite vague catch-all insult, "plutocrat". As if it were a synonym. In doing so, you were saying you thought employes were plutocrats.
"Sometimes the employee agrees. But if the employee is forced to take a low wage job because that is all that is available? I know they would not agree... and "arrogance" has nothing to do with it."
And what if the employer is forced to pay a higher wage in order to get better employees? No different. I am sure they would not "agree" either It goes both ways. But when both come to a meeting point, both have decided it is fair.
Your arrogance has everything to do with it. Your ignorance too. If someone else decides a deal is fair, it is not the business of some arrogant person to say it isn't. Because they are (1) ignorant and (2) arrogant for trying to speak for others against their interest.
dmarks: We were talking about employers. And then suddenly WD replaced employer with his favorite vague catch-all insult, "plutocrat". As if it were a synonym. In doing so, you were saying you thought [all] employers were plutocrats.
Wrong. All employers are not plutocrats. I would never say anything that stupid. Although the plutocrats underpaying their workers does set the floor, so all workers suffer as a result... even those who don't work for plutocrats.
dmarks: And what if the employer is forced to pay a higher wage in order to get better employees? No different.
When that happens it's usually because the employee has more education and experience... and these people deserve higher wages. That doesn't justify giving other workers the shaft. Clearly dmarks believes employers are justified in taking advantage of workers whenever it is possible... but I strongly disagree because I believe in fairness and think screwing workers over (if you can) because you can benefit from it financially is WRONG.
dmarks: Your arrogance has everything to do with it. Your ignorance too. If someone else decides a deal is fair, it is not the business of some arrogant person to say it isn't.
Sorry dmarks, but something I don't have can't have "everything to do with it". I have a right to speak up in favor of fairness, and won't be stopped by insults from a wealthy worshiping stooge.
dmarks: Because they are... arrogant for trying to speak for others against their interest.
This is a lie. A dumb one too. No worker would argue that it's "in their interest" to be paid low wages. What a stupid assertion.
WD said "Wrong. All employers are not plutocrats."
Of course. Using the actual definition of the word, hardly any plutocrats exist. Yet, you slipped in "plutocrat" in as a synonym for "employer" during a discussion of how fair wages are arrived at in typical situations. From big business to the smallest.
"I would never say anything that stupid."
Guffaw...
"Although the plutocrats underpaying their workers does set the floor"
The only time underpaying can possibly be involved is when an employer promises one wage and pays one that is lower. No one is defending this or even discussing it.
Yet you confuse the issue of an employer offering a fair wage that an employee accepts as "underpaying" when it is not at all
"When that happens it's usually because the employee has more education and experience... and these people deserve higher wages."
Eureka! You are learning..
"That doesn't justify giving other workers the shaft."
No one is discussing giving them the shaft. Just paying them fairly for the real value of their experience and education.
"Clearly dmarks believes employers are justified in taking advantage of workers whenever it is possible."
No. Paying a wage equal to the value of the work is not 'taking advantage'. I believe that employers should always pay the promised wages and benefits. If that is done, then there is no possible "taking advantage of".
Again, the only "taking advantage" possible in this situation is the employer promising something and not delivering it. But we all oppose that. So it is not a issue.
"but I strongly disagree because I believe in fairness"
Not at all. You are defending greed and giving unearned handouts to people that aren't related to the value of the work.
"and think screwing workers over"
No. I oppose screwing them over (promising them one thing and not delivering) 100%.
But I know the fact, unlike you, that paying a fair wage equal to the value of the work is not "screwing".
"I have a right to speak up in favor of fairness"
It's been a long time since you have, if ever. And if you are speaking about what the people directly involved think is fair, and calling it unfair, then you are in fact arrogant and ignorant. You presume something that you don't have at all.
"and won't be stopped by insults from a wealthy worshiping stooge."
Actually, the vast majority of those who pay the fair wages that you despise are small business owners.
"This is a lie. A dumb one too."
It is quite true. The workers say one thing. You, out of complete ignorance and arrogance, say another. I side with them. They know their lives and work. Not you, not me.
"No worker would argue that it's "in their interest" to be paid low wages. What a stupid assertion."
"Low" is subjective. If someone has no skills to bring to the table, there's nothing "low" about even a $7.50 wage. That can be just right for the type of work being done.
dmarks: Yet, you slipped in "plutocrat" in as a synonym for "employer"...
I did not. You only assumed I did, but you were wrong.
dmarks: Guffaw.
You are laughing at yourself. You are the one that made the incorrect assumption that I was saying ALL employers are plutocrats. A pretty dumb assumption. You may as well be laughing at your own stupidity.
dmarks: The only time underpaying can possibly be involved...
It happens when the wage is lower than the value of the work. An adjustment to the minimum wage (to reflect inflation) would be a good place to start. Less than that and we know for certain that it's not fair.
dmarks: No. Paying a wage equal to the value of the work is not 'taking advantage'.
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing wages that are less than the value of the work. In that case the employer is taking advantage.
dmarks: But I know the fact, unlike you, that paying a fair wage equal to the value of the work is not "screwing".
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing wages that are less than the value of the work. In that case the employee is being screwed. And you don't oppose it, you're 100 percent in support of it. Proof of this is your complete denial of the fact that many workers are underpaid.
dmarks: Actually, the vast majority of those who pay the fair wages that you despise are small business owners.
You're lying about me despising small business owners. Big business often sets the floor for wages, as I earlier pointed out. This is why we need unions. Union negotiated wages often force other employers (even those without unions) to pay higher wages.
The answer to workers being underpaid is more unionization. This is why you despise unions... they force employers to pay higher wages to the workers you despise.
dmarks: "Low" is subjective. If someone has no skills to bring to the table, there's nothing "low" about even a $7.50 wage.
Subjectively speaking, if someone cannot support themselves on a wage, they will consider it too low. This is one of the primary metrics I use.
dmarks: It is quite true. The workers say one thing. You, out of complete ignorance and arrogance, say another. I side with them.
It is quite false. In your desire for their wages to be as low as possible you are siding against them. But you cannot see this due to your ignorance and arrogance.
Again, just about everything you said is untrue and an entirely false accusation (such as me wanting people to be paid as low as possible).
Or "This is why you despise unions..."
Not at all. I despise unions no more than I despise the NRA or Right to Life. Like with unions, I believe that membership should be voluntary. No person should ever be forced to join any of these organizations.
While I do detest "closed shop" unions for the fact that they are illegitimate organizations that are thuggish and get most of their money from workers who don't want to give it to them, I am perfectly fine with the unions that respect workers and don't force anyone to join.
"Union negotiated wages often force other employers (even those without unions) to pay higher wages."
It simply doesn't happen. A mom-and-pop convenience store wants to pay a fair wage. The owner doesn't call down to the nearby UAW-unionized factory to compare.
"Subjectively speaking, if someone cannot support themselves on a wage, they will consider it too low. This is one of the primary metrics I use."
Are you so sure that workers are as ignorant and greedy as that? That they would consider a paperboy wage, which is very low, as being unfair?
dmarks: I believe that membership should be voluntary. No person should ever be forced to join any of these organizations.
Membership is voluntary. Nobody is forcing workers to apply for union jobs.
dmarks: While I do detest "closed shop" unions for the fact that they are illegitimate organizations that are thuggish and get most of their money from workers who don't want to give it to them...
I said you despised unions, and you responded "not at all". Here you admit you lied. Also, these unions are not "illegitimate" as the workers voted to create them, and have the ability to vote to decertify them. As for workers who don't want to pay union dues -- they should lobby their fellow employees to decertify the union or seek employment elsewhere. So-called "Right to work" laws create a free-rider situation where some workers receive the benefits of a union without contributing to it. I strongly oppose such laws.
dmarks: The owner doesn't call down to the nearby UAW-unionized factory to compare.
I never claimed they did. But the presence of unionized labor in an area does tend to raise the wages of other workers in the same area. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), "Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries".
The presence of unions also tends to raise the wages of workers in unrelated industries. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "[it has been shown that] unions have affected nonunion pay and practices [because] unions have set norms and established practices that become more generalized throughout the economy, thereby improving pay and working conditions for the entire workforce".
The study by the EPI concludes that, "...unions have a positive impact on the wages of nonunion workers in industries and markets where unions have a strong presence".
We've had about 3 dozen convalescent homes go belly-up in CT over the past decade and they've all pretty much been union homes. I don't consider that a very "positive impact".
How much of its money does the EPI get from unions? I would very much like to know.
You want a higher wage. Get additional skills. Plumbers and electricians make 20-30 bucks an hour and you don't have to wear fry-cap/hair-net.
Will: the idea that people should earn a raise or higher wage by contributing work of higher value is antithetical to WD's idea that wages should be raised or determined due to a combination of the worker wanting it whining for it and ignorant uninvolved individuals pulling wagee numbers out of a hat.
And in WD's world that has nothing to do with earning a thing.
Will: Dollars to donuts that the EPI "study" does not include the very low wages of those fired as a result of forced unionization. Check out Flint, Michigan, filled with unemployed people after the UAW made GM close the factories.
dmarks: the idea that people should earn a raise or higher wage by contributing work of higher value is antithetical to WD's idea that wages should be raised or determined due to a combination of the worker wanting it whining for it...
No, it has to do with the worker creating value for and contributing to the profits of the company. Wages should be linked to profibility because the workers have a hand in generating those profits.
When the worker's efforts generate profits the workers should receive a share. If the company fails to generate profits then the workers can't negotiate for higher wages. It has absolutely nothing to do with just "wanting" or "whinning" for it. It has to do with everyone involved in a successful enterprise sharing in the success.
You deny this because you support the greed of the owners who don't want to share their profits with the workers who contributed to making those profits.
And the UAW never "made" GM close any factories. The factories were closed due to the greed of management who wanted more of the profits for themselves and decided to fire the people who helped generate the profits instead of paying them fairly.
So, a small business owner with 50-60 employees has to share HIS profits with workers that he's already paying mutually agreed upon wages to? And what if there's a loss that year? Do the employees then have to share in that, too?
You're sounding more and more like a hard-core Marxist every day.
WD speaks in favor of greed: paying workers amounts based on whining and unrealistic demands instead of the real value of the work.
The auto makers were not greedy, but caved in to union greed, paying workers $60 plus an hour to do very shoddy work which has resulted in way below average product. Entirley unsustainable, considering that the fair wage for such low-skill low-value work is a lot closer to $20. The UAW said, "fair wage, no way!" And forced the factories to close.
And yes WILL. WD wants that small business of 50 - 60 to be a welfare agency and just hand out vast sums to people who don't earn it or do any work that requires this.
The auto companies never paid workers $60 an hour. That's a flat-out lie. And if the work of an individual worker is "shoddy", perhaps it is because they were not adequately trained (claiming that all the workers did shoddy work is another outright lie).
The UAW never said "fair wage, no way". They said their workers deserved a fair living wage... then they negotiated with management and both agreed on what they thought was fair. This is the kind of negotiation that dmarks SAYS he supports... but he really only supports it when it's a company against an individual (an unfair matchup that results in the employer having the upper hand and being able to negotiate the better deal).
Will: And what if there's a loss that year? Do the employees then have to share in that, too?
Good job of knocking down the Marxist straw man you built up Will.
I never said ALL the profits should be shared. I believe in capitalism, and that the employer (the one who is providing the capital and taking the risk) should receive a larger share of the profits.
But these "mutually agreed upon wages" you speak of is a big load of BS. Employers pay wages that are as low as possible. Employees take jobs based on need. The more they need a job the lower the wage they are willing to accept. Taking advantage of desperate workers (and there are a lot more of them given the tough economic times we are currently experiencing) does not equal "mutual agreement".
WD said: "The auto companies never paid workers $60 an hour."
Actually it was often higher. That is, until it caused the auto industry crash and the wages had to be brought down closer to the fair value.
"And if the work of an individual worker is "shoddy""
That's it. Blame anything but the drunken slob who can barely turn a wrench.
"The UAW never said "fair wage, no way"."
The UAW strongly opposes fair pay for workers. They always have.
":They said their workers deserved a fair living wage"
1) They never asked for a fair wage at all, using the real definition of fair. They asked for a wage amount that had nothing to do with the industry's economics.
2) The "living wage" is a bogus concept. Any wage is a living wage, depending on a person's lifestyle choices.
"then they negotiated with management and both agreed on what they thought was fair. This is the kind of negotiation that dmarks SAYS he supports."
I don't support this at all. Because in this situation, half of the workers were forced to be part of the negotiations against their will.
"an unfair matchup that results in the employer having the upper hand and being able to negotiate the better deal)."
Actually, it is perfectly fair. If the wages are too low, the workers go elsewhere.
"Good job of knocking down the Marxist straw man you built up Will."
I thought about it, and you fit his "Marxist" claim perfectly, as you want workers to be paid many times above the real value of the work based on whining and greediness, instead of workers being paid fairly for the work they actually do.
"I never said ALL the profits should be shared"
It's really none of your business. It is not the business of anyone outside of the owners of the business.
"But these "mutually agreed upon wages" you speak of is a big load of BS."
Actually, mutually agreed upon wages are the rule, unless there are unions or other external factors involved.
"Employers pay wages that are as low as possible".
That is a flat out lie. They page wages that are a meeting point between the lowest they can pay and the highest the worker demands.
"Employees take jobs based on need."
So? Employers base pay decisions on their needs also.
"Taking advantage of desperate workers"
There is no "taking advantage" in paying workers fair wages as I describe.
And here are some facts about auto industry worker compensation.
From Fact Check [http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/]
"As David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times (countering, in a sense, the earlier piece by Sorkin), the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour. Add in benefits such as health insurance and pensions and you get to about $55"
I rounded to $60, which is in the standard range and practice concerning rounding of numbers.
This Factcheck article was from 2008, when such wage levels were causing the auto industry collapse.
The unrealistically high compensiation of $60 an hour is also bad for workers. Considering that the real value for such low-skill labor is closer to $20 an hour, you basically have the auto industry being forced to downsize by 2/3 in order to pay $60. That causes unemployment (so, yes, look at Flint and Detroit, as I mentioned earlier) because you can only employ a third as many workers.
As for the shoddy work done by the dope fiends and drunks at the UAW plants, this is well documented many places.
This doesn't happen hear as much at plants such as the one run by Kia in Atlanta, where the company can easily fire bad workers. They don't have the problem of the UAW sticking up for the right of workers to put together precision equipment while severely intoxicated.
Finally, for Will, you called into question the "EPI". The EPI is not any sort of respected think tank. It turns out to be, on investigation, another one of those partisan political pressure groups. And it is funded by money from labor unions, which of course explains why it tends to side with unions against workers when their interests come into conflict.
And rest assured most of that funding is illegitimate, coming from places where workers are forced to pay dues for this against their will.
dmarks: Actually it was often higher [than $60]. ...until it caused the auto industry crash...
This is a Rightwing lie that has been debunked by CBS News. As of 2007 the actual hourly wage was around $28 plus benefits worth approximately $10. The most recent figures put the amount (including benefits) at $33.77 an hour, which far below your fake $60 amount.
dmarks: That's it. Blame anything but the drunken slob who can barely turn a wrench.
This claim is complete bullshit. You're using an anecdotal story of the bad actions of a few to indict all autoworkers. Shame on you.
dmarks: I don't support this at all. ...in this situation, half of the workers were forced to be part of the negotiations against their will.
To believe this nonsense you have to accept the idea that there are workers who don't like higher wages. And when employers negotiate with unions ZERO workers are "forced" to be a part of the negotiations against their will.
dmarks: Actually, it is perfectly fair. If the wages are too low, the workers go elsewhere.
We're in a recession with high unemployment. Workers usually can't "go elsewhere" but have to accept whatever wages are being offered... fair or not.
dmarks: you want workers to be paid many times above the real value of the work based on whining and greediness...
I don't want this at all. I only want what is fair. You defend employers who don't want to pay fair wages based on whining and greediness.
dmarks: It's really none of your business. It is not the business of anyone outside of the owners of the business.
It is my business. It is the business of the government that people are paid fairly, and I'm a citizen of the United States and a voter.
dmarks: Actually, mutually agreed upon wages are the rule, unless there are unions or other external factors involved.
It is the exception unless there is a union or the worker is someone who is HIGHLY skilled/a higher wage earning worker. That is why you lie about "mutually agreed upon wages"... you only care about higher wage earning workers and don't give a shit if other workers are exploited... in fact you believe it is the RIGHT of the plutocrats to exploit these workers.
dmarks: That is a flat out lie. They page wages that are a meeting point between the lowest they can pay and the highest the worker demands.
It's the flat out truth. I've already debunked this lie.
dmarks: There is no "taking advantage" in paying workers fair wages as I describe.
What you describe is the exception and not the rule. In reality employers often take advantage of workers by paying them as little as possible.
dmarks: "...the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation... [include benefits] and you get to about $55".
Untrue. The real figure is closer to $33, an amount that was fairly arrived at when the union negotiated with management and they reached an AGREEMENT.
dmarks: you basically have the auto industry being forced to downsize by 2/3 in order to pay $60. That causes unemployment.
According to the article YOU LINKED TO previously, "labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle". Something that accounts for only 10 percent of the vehicle cost is NOT going to cause the auto industry to collapse.
In Germany the average hourly salary with benefits for autoworkers is $67.14. And that is NOT counting healthcare, as Germany has a national health care program. German autoworkers make twice as many cars. Germany is smaller then us [81 verses 312 million people], and in 2011 they made 5.5 million cars while we made 2.7 million.
This illustrates just how huge a lie dmarks' claim that UAW "demanding" fair wages caused the near collapse of the US auto industry. The claims of dmarks are nothing but laughable wealthy-worshiping bullshit.
And now for some fact checking:
"We're in a recession with high unemployment. Workers usually can't "go elsewhere" but have to accept whatever wages are being offered... fair or not."
They usually CAN go elsewhere. Check the want-ads and Monster.com. That is. they usually can go elsewhere, unless they are crappy and don't get hired.
"I don't want this at all."
You do, in fact. You consistently argue for wages at a value that is entirely unrelated to what the work is worth.
"I only want what is fair."
You want what is fair for YOU, but imposed on others whether or not they agree it is fair. That is, forced on others out of complete ignorance and arrogance
"You defend employers who don't want to pay fair wages based on whining and greediness."
I have yet to defend any employer in this fashion. Not one.
"It is my business."
No it is not. Not unless you are the worker or employer.
"It is the business of the government that people are paid fairly"
Only that of a fascist, totalitarian government that forces actually unfair decisions on everyone.
"and I'm a citizen of the United States and a voter."
Yet you do not deserve this citizenship, due to your hatred of the Bill of Rights and other rights of your fellow citizens.
"It is the exception unless there is a union or the worker is someone who is HIGHLY skilled"
When there is a union present, chances are the wages are NOT mutually agreed on or fair.
As for the lower skilled people, it is their fault for not being good at anything. You are defending lousy work and sloth.
No-one but the mentally disabled have any excuse to be anything but "highly skilled" for very long.
"
That is why you lie about "mutually agreed upon wages"...
I have yet to lie about it.
"you only care about higher wage earning workers and don't give a shit if other workers are exploited"
Your strong contempt for workers and their lives shows through in your use of the word "exploited" an arrogant insult against workers whose lives you do not know.
"in fact you believe it is the RIGHT of the plutocrats to exploit these workers."
And here again we have all employers (most of which are small business owners) smeared as "plutocrats". Again.
continued....
"It's the flat out truth. I've already debunked this lie."
No. You have no idea what you are talking about. The fair wage is in fact the meeting point between the desired level of the employer and employee. Each agrees to it: or they walk.
"In reality employers often take advantage of workers by paying them as little as possible."
But if they pay less than a fair level, the workers leave.
"Untrue. The real figure is closer to $33, an amount that was fairly arrived at when the union negotiated with management and they reached an AGREEMENT."
1) The actual level was $65 a few years ago. This is the level that is well documented and caused the collapse of the auto industry.
2) Intrusive labor laws have forced the unions into the auto plants. At least half of the union members don't even want to be in the union. A tiny minority even voted for the union. So this is not any sort of agreement between management and workers at all.
"omething that accounts for only 10 percent of the vehicle cost is NOT going to cause the auto industry to collapse."
You have zero knowledge of business, and are entirely unaware of the factors that make changes in the economics of even a few percent matters of bankruptcy and "going out of business".
"In Germany the average hourly salary with benefits for autoworkers is $67.14."
Apples and oranges.
"And that is NOT counting healthcare, as Germany has a national health care program."
Yes, a proud legacy of the totalitarianism of 1930s German socialism. Though I'm not sure why you had to mention something that the Germans of today still suffer with.
"This illustrates just how huge a lie dmarks' claim that UAW "demanding" fair wages"
I never claimed that the UAW demanded fair wages. They probably have not done this for ages.
"...caused the near collapse of the US auto industry."
They did. Auto companies like KIA, which pay fair wages (determined by the workers and managers) that are high ($20 is real good for this type of work) hire more and more workers. Of course, it is sustainable.
"The claims of dmarks are nothing but laughable wealthy-worshiping bullshit."
If I am worshipping anything, it is the workers. I side with them, not unions.
Post a Comment