|
On September 22 2011 06:49 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 05:01 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete. I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost. the Constitution and free market protects you from those things. Obviously people are still gonna buy led paint before they realize just how poisonous led is, but education on this matter does not need to be done by the government, it can be done by a company that wants to find a niche in selling paint that's not poisonous. You're saying it like all these things can't happen under the government regulations... they can and they do, the only difference is the government is picking winners and losers while robbing the people of their hard-earned money.
No, they clearly do, given the Toyota, BP cases as well as others, but it's a damned sight better than any situation in history without them. Unsafe materials have become phenomenally more widespread over the last half-century, yet the number of cases of illness, dismemberment and death as a result of them have been reduced phenomenally. Those many orders of magnitude of safety is something I am quite willing to pay for. The kinds of organizations you're talking about here compose of an almost negligible amount of government spending. You're complaining about chump change relative to the kind of systematic reform that's needed in order to combat the deficit.
|
On September 22 2011 07:06 Kiarip wrote:they get taxed 35% on salaries... how are we not taxing them?
They aren't hitting the rates they are suppose to citizens for tax justice show basically as a % of income what each bracket pays on the avg after all taxes are taken into account not just income.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LzuYe.gif)
What it shows is that the tax is not as progressive for the top 20% so it's not working as it should.
Sure the top 20 pay more in pure dollar amount in taxes but that's because they have all the money so even low rates bring in large sums of money. Also there is plenty of bias and discrimination in the tax code hell look at the most used married people pay less taxes. Don't want complex tax bullshit get rid of lobbyist that convince congress to add shit to the tax code.
They also point as as profits have increase so has the top level of pay increased while if anything the person working the floor is likely gotten a pay decrease over time
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LRxXA.gif)
The creation of right to work and the fall of unions have left the avg person quite defenseless and treated like shit by companies.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/estatetax2010.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf
http://www.faireconomy.org/files/pdf/ExecutiveExcess2006.pdf
|
On September 22 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:49 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 05:01 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete. I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost. the Constitution and free market protects you from those things. Obviously people are still gonna buy led paint before they realize just how poisonous led is, but education on this matter does not need to be done by the government, it can be done by a company that wants to find a niche in selling paint that's not poisonous. You're saying it like all these things can't happen under the government regulations... they can and they do, the only difference is the government is picking winners and losers while robbing the people of their hard-earned money. No, they clearly do, given the Toyota, BP cases as well as others, but it's a damned sight better than any situation in history without them. Unsafe materials have become phenomenally more widespread over the last half-century, yet the number of cases of illness, dismemberment and death as a result of them have been reduced phenomenally. Those many orders of magnitude of safety is something I am quite willing to pay for. The kinds of organizations you're talking about here compose of an almost negligible amount of government spending. You're complaining about chump change relative to the kind of systematic reform that's needed in order to combat the deficit.
It's still something that could be done by the free market in the private sector. My main problem with these regulations is that they are too susceptible to lobbyists which ends up costing the public a lot more money than just taxes.
also the reason they seem necessary now is the same broken structure that makes other regulations seem necessary while they're killing our economy. I don't think we should just remove all safety regulations they're not directly causing the problem, but their necessity is the result of the problem.
I've said it before, I don't think that everything should be immediately repealed, but chunk by chunk these things need to go away. I'm a bit of an optimist and I think that eventually it will be done, and when it's fixed I'm very sure that even the relatively harmless safety regulations like the ones you're talking about won't be necessary.
|
On September 22 2011 07:31 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 06:49 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 05:01 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete. I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost. the Constitution and free market protects you from those things. Obviously people are still gonna buy led paint before they realize just how poisonous led is, but education on this matter does not need to be done by the government, it can be done by a company that wants to find a niche in selling paint that's not poisonous. You're saying it like all these things can't happen under the government regulations... they can and they do, the only difference is the government is picking winners and losers while robbing the people of their hard-earned money. No, they clearly do, given the Toyota, BP cases as well as others, but it's a damned sight better than any situation in history without them. Unsafe materials have become phenomenally more widespread over the last half-century, yet the number of cases of illness, dismemberment and death as a result of them have been reduced phenomenally. Those many orders of magnitude of safety is something I am quite willing to pay for. The kinds of organizations you're talking about here compose of an almost negligible amount of government spending. You're complaining about chump change relative to the kind of systematic reform that's needed in order to combat the deficit. It's still something that could be done by the free market in the private sector. My main problem with these regulations is that they are too susceptible to lobbyists which ends up costing the public a lot more money than just taxes. also the reason they seem necessary now is the same broken structure that makes other regulations seem necessary while they're killing our economy. I don't think we should just remove all safety regulations they're not directly causing the problem, but their necessity is the result of the problem. I've said it before, I don't think that everything should be immediately repealed, but chunk by chunk these things need to go away. I'm a bit of an optimist and I think that eventually it will be done, and when it's fixed I'm very sure that even the relatively harmless safety regulations like the ones you're talking about won't be necessary.
No, they won't. It's been proven time and time again by the capitalist system. People at the top will screw over the little guy in the name of profit whenever they can. Where's the disincentive, when you're competing with other companies to reduce your operating and product costs? If you can save a bunch of money by breaking regulation and trying to get away with it, they'll do it. Beating their opponents in the game is always going to trump a sense of service to the rest of humanity when basic human GREED enters the picture. Underestimating the propensity for greed to control people's behaviour is one of the first big mistakes I made at a young age and even the most stalwart of optimists shouldn't hold on to that ideal forever. Ebeneezer Scrooge realizing the error of his ways is a fairy tale. Nothing more.
The problem with doing such things privately is how do you punish people who do not adhere to these standards? You need a judicial system. Does that need to be private, too? The justice system in the hands of private corporations, just as greedy and corrupt as government, without being answerable to the people, is not a transition, nor a system I want to live through.
All these constant debates about privatizing literally EVERYTHING in our society is absolutely ridiculous to me. Has no one actually read a History book and read about the kinds of things people got away with at the turn of the last century ALONE, before government stepped up? None of this is to say that I trust government implicitly, but I sure as shit don't trust private enterprise implicitly. A much better form of harmony has been achieved in our generation through competition of these two forces than has ever been accomplished through the direct rule of one alone. I live in hope for the day that the conservative movement (hell, both sides) realizes that the competition between private and public is just as important for our own livelihood and prosperity as that between private and private.
|
I agree with warren buffett. Changes do need to be made to the tax system or just have it over hauled entirely. I don't see any other feasible method to solve this problem without this being done. Chinese tax is much higher from what i've read for people that make over 100k yuan and I do like the sliding scale they have much more than the confusion we have here that just increases the wealth between the rich and the poor.
|
On September 22 2011 07:25 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 07:06 Kiarip wrote:they get taxed 35% on salaries... how are we not taxing them? They aren't hitting the rates they are suppose to citizens for tax justice show basically as a % of income what each bracket pays on the avg after all taxes are taken into account not just income. What it shows is that the tax is not as progressive for the top 20% so it's not working as it should. Sure the top 20 pay more in pure dollar amount in taxes but that's because they have all the money so even low rates bring in large sums of money.
actually it clearly shows that they pay a larger percent than the lower class quite considerably. at the top 20 % this doesn't hold true, a lot of it is due to lobbyists, subsidies, and similar crap. Personally I think in the ideal world tax should be a flat percentage for all, because it doesn't quite seem fair that you should get punished for succeeding.
The marginal rate is 35% for people that make over 400k or something like that.
Also there is plenty of bias and discrimination in the tax code hell look at the most used married people pay less taxes. Don't want complex tax bullshit get rid of lobbyist that convince congress to add shit to the tax code.
Of course. I'm for this as well. Simplify the tax code. I don't think we can have a fair tax right now because of the deficit, which first needs to be cut, but increasing taxes even more isn't right... cut the garbage abusable tax-returns, and cut the deficit, then when the budget is in order slowly shift to a fair tax system.
you'd figure if employees are so defenseless, then all the companies would hire a bunch of the unemployed people and bully them around...
nope apparently there's still too much liability that comes with it. The employee is still over protected. It's hard to have unions when the unemployment is so high in the first place that the companies requiring some relatively unskilled labor could easily have a high turnover.
|
On September 22 2011 07:41 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 07:31 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 06:49 Kiarip wrote:On September 22 2011 05:01 Bibdy wrote:On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete. I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost. the Constitution and free market protects you from those things. Obviously people are still gonna buy led paint before they realize just how poisonous led is, but education on this matter does not need to be done by the government, it can be done by a company that wants to find a niche in selling paint that's not poisonous. You're saying it like all these things can't happen under the government regulations... they can and they do, the only difference is the government is picking winners and losers while robbing the people of their hard-earned money. No, they clearly do, given the Toyota, BP cases as well as others, but it's a damned sight better than any situation in history without them. Unsafe materials have become phenomenally more widespread over the last half-century, yet the number of cases of illness, dismemberment and death as a result of them have been reduced phenomenally. Those many orders of magnitude of safety is something I am quite willing to pay for. The kinds of organizations you're talking about here compose of an almost negligible amount of government spending. You're complaining about chump change relative to the kind of systematic reform that's needed in order to combat the deficit. It's still something that could be done by the free market in the private sector. My main problem with these regulations is that they are too susceptible to lobbyists which ends up costing the public a lot more money than just taxes. also the reason they seem necessary now is the same broken structure that makes other regulations seem necessary while they're killing our economy. I don't think we should just remove all safety regulations they're not directly causing the problem, but their necessity is the result of the problem. I've said it before, I don't think that everything should be immediately repealed, but chunk by chunk these things need to go away. I'm a bit of an optimist and I think that eventually it will be done, and when it's fixed I'm very sure that even the relatively harmless safety regulations like the ones you're talking about won't be necessary. No, they won't. It's been proven time and time again by the capitalist system. People at the top will screw over the little guy in the name of profit whenever they can. Where's the disincentive, when you're competing with other companies to reduce your operating and product costs? If you can save a bunch of money by breaking regulation and trying to get away with it, they'll do it. Beating their opponents in the game is always going to trump a sense of service to the rest of humanity when basic human GREED enters the picture. Underestimating the propensity for greed to control people's behaviour is one of the first big mistakes I made at a young age and even the most stalwart of optimists shouldn't hold on to that ideal forever. Ebeneezer Scrooge realizing the error of his ways is a fairy tale. Nothing more.
For a lot of positions having a high turnover rate isn't good. If the legal system wasn't broken (which it has been for a while now, and it needs fixing) then standard protection of constitutional property rights can be used to stop pollution.
as for the regulations, you get contracts and you have people negotiate these contracts with the workers...
You do realize that every single improvement that a company does that favors the worker as a result of the regulation comes out of the worker's pocket right?
The problem with doing such things privately is how do you punish people who do not adhere to these standards? You need a judicial system. Does that need to be private, too? The justice system in the hands of private corporations, just as greedy and corrupt as government, without being answerable to the people, is not a transition, nor a system I want to live through.
No justice system doesn't need to be private. You have contracts between employee and employer, and if the contract is infringed upon by either side you can have a lawsuit against the offender.
All these constant debates about privatizing literally EVERYTHING in our society is absolutely ridiculous to me. Has no one actually read a History book and read about the kinds of things people got away with at the turn of the last century ALONE, before government stepped up? None of this is to say that I trust government implicitly, but I sure as shit don't trust private enterprise implicitly. A much better form of harmony has been achieved in our generation through competition of these two forces than has ever been accomplished through the direct rule of one alone. I live in hope for the day that the conservative movement (hell, both sides) realizes that the competition between private and public is just as important for our own livelihood and prosperity as that between private and private.
The problem with competition between public and private is that public gets its money from you without your decision to give it to them.
I'm not saying everything needs to be privatized, but a lot of things can be privatized and it would be an improvement.
as for what happened last century is what happens every time there's innovation... someone gets taken advantage of... it doesn't matter whether there's government intervention or not. When industrialization started factories were so profitable that they easily bought the support of the government, so it's not like the government was immediately on the side of the people... there are no immediate fixes, you have to let the exploitation take its course, or of course you can see the exploitation as an opportunity to make money by defending the people being exploited by either unionizing them or protecting their constitutional freedoms in court if they are being infringed upon.
|
your sentiment about legal matters is quite nice but there is a thing called arbitration which shit ton of people who can afford lawyers use, although often this comes to quicker resolutions they tend to be of a lesser amount. There are also little gems like this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/09/16/sonys-latest-pr-blunder-buried-in-new-psn-terms-of-service/
As for protecting rights of the worker
just take a look of the loss of rights of esp unions, workers try to organizes business illegally fire, intimidate(look at target) prevent any sort of seizable force that would legally be able to oppose them on issues so that the employer doesn't have all the power when you walk in to discuss wage and benefits.
|
On September 22 2011 04:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 22 2011 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 01:18 cydial wrote:
You don't make the weak strong by taking strength from those that already have it. You mean that if by taxing the richest you can afford a universal healthcare and free education so that the poorer category of your population can go to hospital if they break a leg or have a decent education for their children, it doesn't make their life better? That's what we are talking about. Either cutting American already minimalist social system or raising taxes for people who have an obscene amount of money. More like having to register with the state to get their leg fixed, and having their children go through over a decade of state propaganda. That way they can identify who disagree's with the regime, and then shove them in an oven. *Facepalm.* Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
I'm guessing you ditched history. You praise public schooling so heavily and then don't show up. What a shame.
|
On September 22 2011 04:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:
Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system.
places like TL are dominated by left-wing arguments, including absolutely absurd statements that "the public school system teaches american exceptionalism." You know you've been reading the general forum for too long when you see TanGeng being accused of being left wing. He's been the rational face of the right wing on tl since before you heard of Starcraft.
Lol, no shit, TanGeng is my homeboy. Very few people portray the right in its proper light, which is why so many people hate it, but TanGeng does it better than most.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 08:15 semantics wrote:your sentiment about legal matters is quite nice but there is a thing called arbitration which shit ton of people who can afford lawyers use, although often this comes to quicker resolutions they tend to be of a lesser amount. There are also little gems like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/09/16/sonys-latest-pr-blunder-buried-in-new-psn-terms-of-service/As for protecting rights of the worker just take a look of the loss of rights of esp unions, workers try to organizes business illegally fire, intimidate(look at target) prevent any sort of seizable force that would legally be able to oppose them on issues so that the employer doesn't have all the power when you walk in to discuss wage and benefits.
To use DeepBlueElem's choice of words, the legal system has become a fiefdom of lawyers and no longer bears common sense.
As for worker intimidation, unions do it. I don't see intimidation as much of a differentiating factor between companies running non-union shops and union running union shops. It's deplorable nonetheless.
Furthermore, unions wouldn't be so bad if they didn't get in the way of management and productivity (pre-determined job, inflexible break times, opposition to automation) and if they didn't cover for miscreants (stealing from company, worker neglect). That kind of behavior is committing industrial suicide.
|
On September 22 2011 08:15 semantics wrote:your sentiment about legal matters is quite nice but there is a thing called arbitration which shit ton of people who can afford lawyers use, although often this comes to quicker resolutions they tend to be of a lesser amount. There are also little gems like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/09/16/sonys-latest-pr-blunder-buried-in-new-psn-terms-of-service/As for protecting rights of the worker just take a look of the loss of rights of esp unions, workers try to organizes business illegally fire, intimidate(look at target) prevent any sort of seizable force that would legally be able to oppose them on issues so that the employer doesn't have all the power when you walk in to discuss wage and benefits.
What does it mean illegally fire? if there's no contract, it shouldn't be illegal to fire them (for every single reason that an employee can legally quit, an employer should be legally allowed to fire, unless its otherwise stated in their contract anything else is just regulations trying to protect the employees and backfiring resulting in employees not getting hired.)
Next, of course with the unemployment so high the unions are losing a lot of power. But why? Because individual workers are losing bargaining power obviously... and why is that? because of the unemployment, and the employer's ability to have turnover when necessarily, and pick and chose when possible.
Once again... the cost of labor is too high, meaning the workers are being protected so much that it's not worth hiring them... it's not the employer's fault. It's the regulations that are driving up the costs... take the regulations off the table, and the employers will be more willing to negotiate contracts, of course with unemployment this high the potential employees aren't quite in the position of power, but the more regulations you get rid of, the more employers will be willing to hire, and it will create a competition for labor force which will give the potential employees their bargaining power back, and will once again empower the unions.
|
On September 22 2011 07:43 Kiarip wrote:
actually it clearly shows that they pay a larger percent than the lower class quite considerably. at the top 20 % this doesn't hold true, a lot of it is due to lobbyists, subsidies, and similar crap. Personally I think in the ideal world tax should be a flat percentage for all, because it doesn't quite seem fair that you should get punished for succeeding.
The marginal rate is 35% for people that make over 400k or something like that.
Yea, idk about that. The Tibetan Plateau is pretty flat but its also at 15000 feet. If it was real damn flat though, like 0%, I'd definitely be down.
|
I'd like to know what "production workers'" means in that graph. Because if it means what I think it does, it's kind of deceptive. "Production" jobs having negative wage growth is thanks more to the rise of industry in the developing world than out-of-control capitalists.
And let's try not to forget that the UAW, among others, had a large hand in the insolvency of GM and Chrysler, thanks to their winning the big contract battles in the 90s that gave them overly generous terms. And state finances are in a mess again thanks largely in part to outrageously generous and ill-conceived pensions and benefits plans given to public-sector unions. Neither good capitalists nor good egalitarians are capable of keeping their hands out of the cookie jar when it appears as if the supply of cookies will never dry up.
|
On September 22 2011 09:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I'd like to know what "production workers'" means in that graph. Because if it means what I think it does, it's kind of deceptive. "Production" jobs having negative wage growth is thanks more to the rise of industry in the developing world than out-of-control capitalists.
And let's try not to forget that the UAW, among others, had a large hand in the insolvency of GM and Chrysler, thanks to their winning the big contract battles in the 90s that gave them overly generous terms. And state finances are in a mess again thanks largely in part to outrageously generous and ill-conceived pensions and benefits plans given to public-sector unions. Neither good capitalists nor good egalitarians are capable of keeping their hands out of the cookie jar when it appears as if the supply of cookies will never dry up.
But it's those contracts that granted them benefits and salary that was better then the avg american because they fought for that, What's the problem bad contracts or bad promises made in those contracts, perhaps they should have been written in consideration and in relation to how well the company would do ie things would go in and out depending on profits. =p funny how a lawyer could think of 1000 ways to screw one person but can't think ahead to the future. You forget that Ford had plenty of UAW workers too and yet because their management wasn't so stupid it didn't fail so bad that it needed to ask for a bailout.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
semantics,
The misstep is the bailout. It's not the contract.
There's nothing wrong with negotiating a generous contract. Union should get one as generous as possible. It's potentially unsustainable if the workers can't deliver the productivity to back it up, but I see that as a problem with the anti-productivity tactics instead of high wages.
|
stop taxing everything and only tax wealth of people who are very wealthy.
|
On September 22 2011 09:06 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 09:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I'd like to know what "production workers'" means in that graph. Because if it means what I think it does, it's kind of deceptive. "Production" jobs having negative wage growth is thanks more to the rise of industry in the developing world than out-of-control capitalists.
And let's try not to forget that the UAW, among others, had a large hand in the insolvency of GM and Chrysler, thanks to their winning the big contract battles in the 90s that gave them overly generous terms. And state finances are in a mess again thanks largely in part to outrageously generous and ill-conceived pensions and benefits plans given to public-sector unions. Neither good capitalists nor good egalitarians are capable of keeping their hands out of the cookie jar when it appears as if the supply of cookies will never dry up. But it's those contracts that granted them benefits and salary that was better then the avg american because they fought for that, What's the problem bad contracts or bad promises made in those contracts, perhaps they should have been written in consideration and in relation to how well the company would do ie things would go in and out depending on profits. =p funny how a lawyer could think of 1000 ways to screw one person but can't think ahead to the future. You forget that Ford had plenty of UAW workers too and yet because their management wasn't so stupid it didn't fail so bad that it needed to ask for a bailout.
Don't be fooled. Ford was bailed out as well. That was all a marketing scam.
|
On September 22 2011 09:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 09:06 semantics wrote:On September 22 2011 09:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I'd like to know what "production workers'" means in that graph. Because if it means what I think it does, it's kind of deceptive. "Production" jobs having negative wage growth is thanks more to the rise of industry in the developing world than out-of-control capitalists.
And let's try not to forget that the UAW, among others, had a large hand in the insolvency of GM and Chrysler, thanks to their winning the big contract battles in the 90s that gave them overly generous terms. And state finances are in a mess again thanks largely in part to outrageously generous and ill-conceived pensions and benefits plans given to public-sector unions. Neither good capitalists nor good egalitarians are capable of keeping their hands out of the cookie jar when it appears as if the supply of cookies will never dry up. But it's those contracts that granted them benefits and salary that was better then the avg american because they fought for that, What's the problem bad contracts or bad promises made in those contracts, perhaps they should have been written in consideration and in relation to how well the company would do ie things would go in and out depending on profits. =p funny how a lawyer could think of 1000 ways to screw one person but can't think ahead to the future. You forget that Ford had plenty of UAW workers too and yet because their management wasn't so stupid it didn't fail so bad that it needed to ask for a bailout. Don't be fooled. Ford was bailed out as well. That was all a marketing scam.
perhaps should have said bankruptcy yeah they did get loan money but the amounts are all over the place and wasn't one large package.
On September 22 2011 09:22 TanGeng wrote:
semantics,
The misstep is the bailout. It's not the contract.
There's nothing wrong with negotiating a generous contract. Union should get one as generous as possible. It's potentially unsustainable if the workers can't deliver the productivity to back it up, but I see that as a problem with the anti-productivity tactics instead of high wages.
Except the caveat that if you look at the harbour report it shows unionized plants are more productive then non union plants, the thing about non union workers is that you can fuck with them all you want, while you're contractually obligated much more so when working with a union, perhaps they shouldn't agree to shit they can't deal. Because with the auto makers it seems just like many state governments, they made deals with pensions and benefits that they could not keep =p
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 10:14 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 09:22 TanGeng wrote:
semantics,
The misstep is the bailout. It's not the contract.
There's nothing wrong with negotiating a generous contract. Union should get one as generous as possible. It's potentially unsustainable if the workers can't deliver the productivity to back it up, but I see that as a problem with the anti-productivity tactics instead of high wages. Except the caveat that if you look at the harbour report it shows unionized plants are more productive then non union plants, the thing about non union workers is that you can fuck with them all you want, while you're contractually obligated much more so when working with a union, perhaps they shouldn't agree to shit they can't deal. Because with the auto makers it seems just like many state governments, they made deals with pensions and benefits that they could not keep =p
It's all relative to their wages & benefits. However, IIRC in the most recent Habour Report, Toyota had the fastest assembly time & efficiency and retained its advantage in quality and reliability. On the other hand Toyota generally sells its cars for less.
It is all relative to wages & benefits, and Toyota has both lower car prices and lower wages & benefits. The productivity has to justify the wages & benefits. I agree that both the management and the union are as much to blame for agreeing to unsustainable wages / unsupportable wages. I thoroughly approve of the comparison to state governments. 
On the matter of pensions and retirement benefits, the Detroit manufactures underfunded those programs to maintain the illusion of profitability in the 70's & 80's. Those companies are paying for those accounting malpractices, now. Rather, I should say the taxpayers & UAW are paying for it now since said companies have managed to extract concessions.
On September 22 2011 09:47 Teejing wrote:
stop taxing everything and only tax wealth of people who are very wealthy.
Yeah, but that "unfortunately is predicated on repealing all of the subsidies, giveaways, and/or contracts to the wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
