|
On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large.
Nobody said life was going to be fair
|
On October 11 2011 12:26 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large. I agree with this thought to an extent. Yes, productivity does matter in a business-sense, but some markets are inherently more profitable than others. That has to be taken into account before making claims that could lead to how much a person should be paid in relation to another person of another motivation. Without that stipulation, those thoughts really scream socialism to me.
I'd have no desire to see the removing motivation, and I AM fine with having barely humane living standards for those who want to do NOTHING. Absolutely fine. But people who work hard their whole lives get the shaft. It happens. Conversely, there should be motivation for entrepreneurship, and rewards for capital invested for production- but there has to be a limit. There just has to be, or these people end up buying- and controlling- everything.
|
repealing bush tax cuts would take off less than 15% of the federal government's projected deficits
herp derp really good argument there mike lukovich
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
if you disagree with me you live in a fantasyland herp derp
i love to see it so i can say i love to see it because that isnt condescending at all
really persuasive argument you have there
For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy.
lololol how does this make our society undemocratic
The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits.
lololol how does this make our society undemocratic
The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business.
lololol how does this make our society undemocratic
also ridiculous unsupported assertion
The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
i think we should invade all the countries who dont have democratic governments and dont have respect for private property and don't have capitalism because they are the countries where so many people are starving that a person starves to death every 7 seconds globally
or do you really think that it is in capitalist countries that people are starving in large numbers?
your thinking is a victim of a flawed and skewed setup =/
Conversely, there should be motivation for entrepreneurship, and rewards for capital invested for production- but there has to be a limit. There just has to be, or these people end up buying- and controlling- everything.
the idea that if youre a person or organization with lots of money in this country that you just buy and control everything at the expense of everyone else is just ignorant. george soros is one of the richest men in the world and he gives almost exclusively to social democratic movements, for example (while at the same time reaming entire countries with his shady backroom finance dealings, but thats beside the point). really, how do you think democrats manage to keep up with republicans in contributions and spending? looking in their couches for change?
|
On October 11 2011 12:27 Kingsp4de20 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large. Nobody said life was going to be fair
Unfair happens. Some people just get lucky, some not so much. This also allows capitalism to continue! So, if you're poor, its not because "oh I'm an idiot or I'm stupid" its because the system is inherently unfair, and people expect that. If it was supposed to be fair, people could have a legitimate issue with inequality.
Though, a nearly totally non-democratic society, (media, work/jobs, unions, financial institutions etc) should be at least somewhat resisted/questioned.
|
Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system.
(also, im well aware of how much both parties respond to their sponsors. that just makes it 10X worse. just because "both parties do it" doesn't mean their are no other options.)
|
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports.
|
On October 11 2011 12:37 cursor wrote:
Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system.
but democracy is a bad idea in the first place..
|
On October 11 2011 12:38 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:37 cursor wrote:
Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system. but democracy is a bad idea in the first place..
^.^ Because all those "other people" are so dumb.
|
the american ideal of fair is the ability for anyone to come here work hard and provide for their family a life better then what they left. And to that extent lobbyist have shitted on the tax code claiming things are unfair and laws should be in place to even it up thus making the system the most obtuse and unfair thing there is around. Fair is subjective frankly the most literal way of fair would be no government and a free for all, you get what you are born with 2 hands for clawing your way to the top ofc all that ever created was monarchies.
On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports.
2 if everyone was in a union there would be no tax, people would all get the benefits and increase pay. This is the logic of punishing a person by making everyone in the group do push ups while the one person sits there and gets a foot rub while eating cake and watching tv.
If you never demand better you'll never get any better. Funny how you say protectionist tariffs and cheap imports hurting the poor who depend on them. So we will use a system which takes poorer people to prop up our poor people who prop up the well to do who prop up the rich? The poor's conditions will never improve in this scenario it can only degrade how is that society one can be proud of?
|
On October 11 2011 12:39 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:38 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 12:37 cursor wrote:
Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system. but democracy is a bad idea in the first place.. ^.^ Because all those "other people" are so dumb.
YES!!
|
On October 11 2011 12:33 cursor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:27 Kingsp4de20 wrote:On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large. Nobody said life was going to be fair Unfair happens. Some people just get lucky, some not so much. This also allows capitalism to continue! So, if you're poor, its not because "oh I'm an idiot or I'm stupid" its because the system is inherently unfair, and people expect that. If it was supposed to be fair, people could have a legitimate issue with inequality. Though, a nearly totally non-democratic society, (media, work/jobs, unions, financial institutions etc) should be at least somewhat resisted/questioned.
Clearly, you have no compassion for your fellow man because you can sit in your chair and say: "luck happens and if luck shits on you than hahahahahahaha it sucks to be you" because that is basically what you say when you are perfectly fine with the unfairness of life.
If we want progress in our society, we have to throw out this selfish idea and strive to make our nation as fair as possible! Because if Luck shits on you, your gonna want some help, you are going to feel that your government is responsible for your wellbeing.
So have some MOTHERFUCKING COMPASSIOn for the people that have no job, and will never own a house, and have nothing to lose except to go and express their discontent with a system that doesn't punish the "Lucky turned greedy" that think its morally acceptable to cheat the system at the expense of the "less-lucky"...
In that sense, I don't think that this fairness and luck is entirely all there is... I mean, if tomorrow some guy walked up to you on the street and shot you in the leg... you would want someone to be held accountable for that... you wouldn't want people to just be all: LUCK SHIT ON YOU BRO< ITS YOUR FAULT!
so... if you want to sit and be all "answer is life isn't fair" then FUCK YOU, and i hope you enjoy how much of a shitty person you are!
|
On October 11 2011 12:42 XerrolAvengerII wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:33 cursor wrote:On October 11 2011 12:27 Kingsp4de20 wrote:On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large. Nobody said life was going to be fair Unfair happens. Some people just get lucky, some not so much. This also allows capitalism to continue! So, if you're poor, its not because "oh I'm an idiot or I'm stupid" its because the system is inherently unfair, and people expect that. If it was supposed to be fair, people could have a legitimate issue with inequality. Though, a nearly totally non-democratic society, (media, work/jobs, unions, financial institutions etc) should be at least somewhat resisted/questioned. Clearly, you have no compassion for your fellow man because you can sit in your chair and say: "luck happens and if luck shits on you than hahahahahahaha it sucks to be you" because that is basically what you say when you are perfectly fine with the unfairness of life. If we want progress in our society, we have to throw out this selfish idea and strive to make our nation as fair as possible! Because if Luck shits on you, your gonna want some help, you are going to feel that your government is responsible for your wellbeing. So have some MOTHERFUCKING COMPASSIOn for the people that have no job, and will never own a house, and have nothing to lose except to go and express their discontent with a system that doesn't punish the "Lucky turned greedy" that think its morally acceptable to cheat the system at the expense of the "less-lucky"... In that sense, I don't think that this fairness and luck is entirely all there is... I mean, if tomorrow some guy walked up to you on the street and shot you in the leg... you would want someone to be held accountable for that... you wouldn't want people to just be all: LUCK SHIT ON YOU BRO< ITS YOUR FAULT! so... if you want to sit and be all "answer is life isn't fair" then FUCK YOU, and i hope you enjoy how much of a shitty person you are!
I wouldn't argue with you, but the level of control that would be required to produce near perfect equality for everyone all the time- is kind of scary in itself. I think I'd suffer a small bit of inequality in exchange for a little less control. You're right though, just writing everything off (the 100Billion dollar man vs the starving guy) as "unfairness o well" is a bit much. Yes.
|
Society is undemocratic because you don't have any kind of say in what happens at your job. You can only choose to go to a different undemocratic setup. Same with the financial institutions. Same with the media. They are all owned, top down, undemocratic setups. Ask anyone who works at 99% of jobs in "capitalist" countries. They are Totalitarian in organization. Though your LOLOL arguments are great- but democracy is an idea that can be applied to more than a political system.
Sorry but no.
You agree to abide by your boss's say-so when you show up to work. You don't like it, don't work there. Your boss cannot compel you to work.
The same as you cannot compel him to pay you if you don't work.
The idea that a society is undemocratic because businesses are mostly run on a hierarchical model is just silly, really really really silly.
Especially our society, honestly do you really think your boss being able to tell you to do stuff outweighs all the other democratic aspects of our society?
You're stretching the rubber band until it breaks here, and yes my lololol arguments were great because what you're saying is ludicrous. It's half-baked political theorizing.
|
On October 11 2011 12:18 cursor wrote:
I always love to see people defending the ultra rich/corporate interests because, I assume, of some fantasy that one day it will be them. Fascinating.
The notion that everyone who is rich has money that is rightfully theirs- and if we redistribute it or change the system than it would be unfair. In that future, we would be in an unjust system. Right now the system is unjust. Every business is non-democratic. For all our talk about democracy in this country (western world).. almost nothing is democratic. Our jobs, our media, our financial system, its all top down bureaucracy. The person who "owns" production gets to keep the vast majority of profits. The amount of money these people "earn" is so far beyond what would be motivation to invest or start a business. The fact that some people own 13 houses, 10 boats and a plane, while someone starves to death every 7 seconds is a symptom of a flawed and skewed setup.
No lazy argument. Really, some people are lazy, and some are motivated. But no one is a billion times more productive than the average person. Maybe 2 or 3 fold, 5 or 6 if they are super industrious- but the gap is, absolutely, insane. Anyone who defends this setup is entirely delusional. Admit the gap is, far- far to large.
Someone had to build those houses, boats and planes. It probably wasn't a member of the super-rich pounding the nails or putting in the rivets. Also, I live under the assumption that if I make good decisions one day it could be me, but it is highly unlikely. Finally, I do believe they have right to a disproportionate amount of money. If they don't claim it, who should? Why do the workers deserve it when they are almost always easily replaceable? Do you know what high unemployment means? Lots of people that want your job and may be willing to do it for less money. Based on the fact that they can replace you so easily they don't need to pay you anything more. Corporations clearly think the executives are less replaceable than you and they are probably right.
|
On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports.
Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today).
Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs.
|
On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports.
1. Wrong - employers collaborate too because they don't want to pay anyone any more than necessary either. Also, sometimes there isn't anywhere else to go.
2. Wrong - wrong. This only occurs if the people at the top are greedy. Unions don't make the members rich, they help make sure they have a decent life.
This is a massive generalization because as in any system, there are leeches. However, it's much more accurate than your statements.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
reading this thread is pretty bad for my health.
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of a propertarian system is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of their own society.
|
On October 10 2011 18:57 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 18:05 Stirbend wrote:
Germany is especially in trouble because of their debt (which is actually more than the US, hard to believe i know) because the gvt. is really big on green energy. Green energy right now being a big fluke, an expensive fluke, that is harmful to the environment one way or another anyway. More so than what we were doing.
Really? Germany: national debt: ~2.048.000.000.000 €, debt per capita: ~24.900€ ( ~ 35500$ ) USA: national debt: ~14.818.000.000.000 $, debt per capita: ~47.500$ http://www.usdebtclock.org/http://www.staatsverschuldung.de/schuldenuhr.htmhttp://www.steuerzahler.de/files/19765/Prokopfverschuldung_per__28.09.2011.pdfShow nested quote +On October 10 2011 18:05 Stirbend wrote:
Germany is especially in trouble because of their debt (which is actually more than the US, hard to believe i know) because the gvt. is really big on green energy. Green energy right now being a big fluke, an expensive fluke, that is harmful to the environment one way or another anyway. More so than what we were doing.
You're partly right about green energy being a money-losing business overall atm, that has to be supported by govt. money. But your assessment that green energy is the reason for our debt has be the worst economical analysis I have read in years. Do you know how costly even the conservative party that loves the atom-energy calculated the costs of the nuclear phase out till 2015 for the government? 16 billion euro. That's what? Wow, and increase in our debt of about 0,7 percent. Those evil green energys are really pulling us down! The EEG costs rougly 5 billion € a year, which is about 1% percent of our national income. Sounds like much, eh? Guess what, atom-energy alone was subzidized with 204 billion € during the last 50 years, which makes 4 billion a year as well, without being anywhere close to have solutions or money for the disposal of nuclear waste included in those 204 billion. http://www.taz.de/!69289/http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,693356,00.htmlhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-GesetzStop talking all smart on people for not being informed and missing the big picture when every information - or rather propaganda - you give is factually wrong.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
As far as Nuclear power goes, i'll just say that most of the energy we use here comes from nuclear power plants, and we have some of the lowest power costs in the USA. Nuclear is renewable, and cheap. I really couldn't care less about costs for nuclear energy from a country thats regulating the crap out of it to keep it from popping up.
|
On October 11 2011 12:59 oneofthem wrote:
reading this thread is pretty bad for my health.
if people do not think that the overwhelming characteristic of a propertarian system is hierarchy and power relations, then seriously the education system isn't doing its job teaching the kids the history of and structure of their own society.
This is correct, and for a long time it worked because the illusion of majority being part of a middle / working class was worth a damn.
The people are supposed to use government and regulate the game so it becomes fair for a majority and we try out damnest to keep people out of poverty with charity and safety nets.
The middle class is being eliminated and the transparency between poor and rich is growing.
SO people revolt.
|
On October 11 2011 12:53 Hamski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 12:38 CatharsisUT wrote:
Two more points about unions that I think are important.
1. Unions are unnecessary in today's era of labor mobility. In the early days of unions they were absolutely essential because many people basically had to work at the one factory in their town. This situation is gone today. Don't like the benefits, pay, or safety at an employer? Don't work there.
2. Unions are a tax on everyone who is not in a union. The rest of us have to pay for the costs of running the union and any above-market compensation they receive.
Together these factors make unions pretty frustrating to me.
They also underline a key economic point that has come up several times in this thread. Any measure to improve the situation of workers in one country, whether it is minimum wage increases or tariffs, makes things more expensive for everyone. If the US instituted protectionist tariffs it would immediately harm the quality of living of the poorest people in the country who rely on cheap imports. Both of these points are completely incorrect, I'm sorry. Unions were essential at the turn of the century because workers were taken advantage of and had no access to representation. If you required more than your employer was willing to give, barring unreasonableness, there were hundreds of unemployed waiting in line for the sub-par job you had (much like today). Secondly, unions are completely self-sufficient. Not only are they not a drain on anyone who is not a member, they are actually for-profit and pay federal income taxes. You pay weekly dues for representation, regulation, and often a fair, higher-than-market wage to account for those costs.
You clearly don't understand that union workers get compensation greater than non-union workers in similar positions at companies without unions even though they are not anymore profitable to the companies that employ them. That is the cost he is referring to, the increased cost of goods and services and the export of jobs to foreign countries. Government protections on workers protect those that still have jobs but lead to an increase in layoffs and overseas jobs.
The hundreds in the unemployment line are why you do not deserve any more money or increased benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
