SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Labor Day
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1378157190

Message started by Starlifter on 09/02/13 at 14:26:29

Title: Labor Day
Post by Starlifter on 09/02/13 at 14:26:29

<snip>

Wage Earners Workers have 30% LESS buying power today than in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept up with employee productivity, it would be $16.54 per hour instead of $7.25. Almost unimaginably, conditions for workers have gotten even worse since the recession. While 21 percent of job losses since 2008 were considered low-wage positions, 58 percent of jobs added during the recovery were considered low-wage.

Three-quarters of Americans approaching retirement in 2010 had an average of less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The percentage of elderly (75 to 84) Americans experiencing poverty for the first time doubled from 2005 to 2009. The folly of cutting Social Security is reflected in two facts. First, even though Social Security provides only an average benefit of $15,000, it accounts for 55 percent of annual income for the elderly. And second, seniors have spent their working lives paying for their retirement. According to the Urban Institute the average two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.

<end of snip>

Strong unions are needed now more than ever.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/13 at 15:26:15

Yes, we need strong unions. Lets see.......where is there an example of a major US city with a history of strong union influence that we can look to as a model of what we expect if we were to duplicate that across the nation.......

DETROIT!!!

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WD on 09/02/13 at 17:15:50

Don't forget Memphis, aka, "Deadtroit light"... between the union crybabies and the incompetent city council...

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/02/13 at 20:17:38

Unions? Why? Heck,, lets just jack the minimum wage to about $50.00.hr.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/02/13 at 21:03:41

What we need is fair upper management that doesn't put all the money in their pockets. CEO's salary's have gone up over 500% in the last few years. If it weren't for greedy SOB's like that we wouldn't need unions. Management should have enough common sense to look after the people who make the money for them but all they're worried about is their Swiss Bank accounts. Join a company, rape it for 5 or 6 years, leave with millions and a golden parachute. That's the game and they play it well.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Tony S on 09/03/13 at 06:06:59

Just for the fun of it - unlikely though it is - lets pretend like the rich and powerful actually run this country. And run it to their own benefit.

If so, one might view the last 30 years or so as almost class warfare - with the middle and lower classes losing. There are so many indicators of this - many of which an awful lot of people in this country seem totally unaware of or completely do not understand.

In 1960, CEO pay to average factory worker pay was 42:1. Now it is about 350:1. By comparison, in Europe this figure is about 25:1.

The top 20% of in the USA own 89% of the wealth. Of even more concern is that the bottom 80% in the last 30 years have lost nearly half of their wealth, dropping from 19% to 11%. Most of the wealth the the bottom 80% own is in their homes. When looking at just "financial" wealth - that is money one can actually spend - the top 1% own 42% of the wealth of this country, the top 20% over 95% and the bottom 80% less than 5%.

Wealth is a resource that is very useful in excercising power. Donations to political parties and candidates, hiring lobbyists, grants and payments to experts to fund new "studies" that benefit the wealthy. Influence in corporations (via ownership of stock) and even controlling the general social enviroment by hiring PR firms and downating money to universities and museums.

Armed with all this money and power, the rich have been able to effectively get legislation passed that helps them get richer still. Consider Estate taxes (or death taxes as they would say). Around 1% of the people that die would have enough of an estate that there would be any taxes to pay. Cuts in inheritance taxes only help the top 1%. Or legislation that has made it easier to "off shore" jobs.

But the worst has been a remarkably effective "divide and conquer" strategy. With the rich having successfully "soaked up" most of the wealth of this country - the bottom 80% have turned on each other fighting for the scraps (4.7%) that are left. Instead of banding together and demanding a fairer share of the economic pie for everyone, we instead see blue collar vs white collar, private sector vs public sector, union vs non-union, young vs old. All arguing the perception that one of these groups is getting more of the tiny bit the rich have left on the table than they should.

The minimum wage - mentioned here earlier - really needs a more appropriate name. Consider the "living wage", an initiative in over 100 communities and the state of Maryland. Simply put, a living wage law sets the "minimum" hourly wage at what a full time employee would need to make in order to pay for housing, food, transportation, health care and other living costs. Enough money that the wage earner does not need to rely on - or is entitled to - public assistance.

And that is another point - and the last one I'll make: The average person subsidizes low wages in the retail, food service and housekeeping industries. Our taxes pay for Foodstamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, freel school lunches and a host of other programs JUST SO Walmart and McDonalds can pay their employees minimum wage

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/13 at 06:21:19

I've only got a few minutes and you've stated your case clearly. Thank you.
However, as to be expected, I disagree with much of what you've said. Two quick issues.

Armed with all this money and power, the rich have been able to effectively get legislation passed that helps them get richer still. Consider Estate taxes (or death taxes as they would say). Around 1% of the people that die would have enough of an estate that there would be any taxes to pay. Cuts in inheritance taxes only help the top 1%. Or legislation that has made it easier to "off shore" jobs.

1) Why in the world do you have right to someone else's property when they die? Isn't the right to private property (in this case, money) just as important to who and what America is as freedom of speech or religion?

2nd point, you are correct, government subsidies allow an entire class to survive and become comfortable in poverty. Business takes advantage of this the same way you take advantages of the results of this policy by patronizing these business's.

Heres an idea: Get rid of welfare for healthy men and women.
What do you think the short term and then long term results would be?

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Tony S on 09/03/13 at 07:01:48

0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:

1) I'm not entitled to their estate. The government is entitled to tax it, just like they tax any number of other wealth transfers. Because that is where most taxes take place. At the point money is exchanged. Buy a car, get paid at your job, pay your plumber, on the net profit of a business. Estate taxes are just another tax.

2) I worked at what people call the "welfare dept"for 35 years - last 28 as a manager. (now retired) One of the misconceptions of welfare assistance is that there are substantial welfare benefits or programs for - as you put it - "healthy men and women". In fact, most welfare programs eligibilty revolve around either poor health or having young children. Except for Food Stamps (now called Supplemental Nutrion Assistance Program or SNAP), there really isn't anything for healthy adults with no children.

TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) requires children in the home (the assistance is actually for the children) and benefits have a lifetime limit. Five years federal but most states less than that (Indiana is two years) TANF also has substantial work/job search requirments that have to be met to stay on the assistance, Medicaid is currently only available to Pregnant women, Children, Disabled adults and the elderly (and eligibility is based on income, some programs extremely low) Huge waiting list for subsidized housing for healthy adults without children - most of the time you can't even apply because the waiting list is years. Free lunches at school are obviously for children. Medicaid for the disabled is just for who is says as is Medicaid for the Aged.

65% of the "welfare" dollars in this country are spent on Medicaid. One half of the Medicaid budget is spent on Nursing home care. It's hard to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you are in a nursing home or still in diapers.

So I know what happens if you get rid of welfare assistance for healthy adults. Exactly what is happening now.

You are correct. I am supporting business' that pay minimum wage when I patronize them. I cannot avoid all of them - I do not believe there is any grocery store in town that pays the non managment staff much better than minimum wage. But I could stop eating at Subway and make my own sandwichs. So a good point on your part.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/03/13 at 08:53:00

Rather than argue over points that are really opinions, I have a question or two:
In the hey-day of the power of American labor unions, probably in the 1950s, what was the % of American jobs that earned a middle class income, like auto workers, for instance, that did not require an education beyond a general high school diploma, and maybe even less than that?
I harken to believe that in today's world, a young person who only gets a high school education, let alone one who quits school early, has far fewer options to earn much above minimum wage in a store or fast food place than that person had 60 years ago.
The educational requirements today don't necessarily mean a full-blown college education, but they do go beyond high school, into some sort of vocation or community college training.
Read the stories of employers crying for workers who can run a computer controlled machine in a factory, and be able to do math that a 10th grader could do 60 years ago, but today's high school graduate can't comprehend.
CEO pay is a nice political point, but in reality, means nothing. Just like the incomes of actors and pro athletes, in the grand scheme of things, it's miniscule. If you cut the pay of every major corporate CEO to $400,000 per year ( salary of U.S. President ), what does it mean? Maybe an extra $100 for every employee of that major corporation.
No, Star, we don't need more unions to drive more industries to the brink of disaster like the UAW did to the auto industry.
We need people who will get themselves educated and trained to do meaningful, well paying work and earn a middle class income. That work is out there, going begging for qualified people to fill it, but our society isn't stepping up to the educational demands of today's work world.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Paraquat on 09/03/13 at 09:07:51

If I may play Devil's Advocate, Tony...

Why shouldn't CEO's be paid more?
We pay the top athletes more than the rookie athletes because they are the stars of the show. THEY are the ones who fill the stadium, that people flock to see. THEY generate the revenue are are reimbursed for it with their outlandish wages.
Carrying that metaphor over shouldn't CEO's who generate the most revenue for their companies be paid more?
... the flip side is that what if their short term growth is damaging in the long run?
However if they don't take advantage of an opportunity they are in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to their company.
I think part of the issue is a lack of fore sight.

--Steve

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/13 at 12:33:18

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/03/13 at 13:16:57

My wife helps pay the bills, house payments, car payments etc. Why should she have to pay taxes on something she's already worked and payed for.She's being double taxed. As far as my kids go I could see it. They're receiving goods and money they didn't work for. Taxing a family in grief is about as low as you as go but I've come to expect that from this country.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/13 at 13:24:42

didn't work for?.... I beg to differ with you in many cases. Ask a farmer if his kids worked or not?.....

Besides, it's not up to Uncle Sam to decide who worked hard enough for it and who didn't. It's not their f'ing money, it's the guy who earned it who just died. if he wants to give it to his worthless kid, I don't care and you shouldn't either.

Don't fall into the trap that the government is 'entitled' to anything.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/03/13 at 13:31:41

You didn't read my post. I said the kids should have to pay. They didn't buy the land, tractors, haybailers etc. I worked my tushy off around my Dads place but I didn't pay none of the bills.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Starlifter on 09/03/13 at 15:41:45

“Here’s an idea: Get rid of welfare for healthy men and women. What do you think the short term and then long term results would be?” WM

Here’s a better idea: Get rid of welfare for the rich. As Tony said, CEO pay is now about 350:1. Millions of dollars in “golden parachutes” for CEO’s who run a company into the ground and make off with their loot. That is welfare for the rich.

Meanwhile the righties wring their hands and fret over a pittance spent of food stamps, Medicare etc. All bums and welfare queens? No the vast majority of these people DO work.

The corporations give people a 39 hour work week so they don’t have to pay benefits. Give them government health care?? Oh hell no! That’s socialism! Pay them a living wage? Can't do that people will have to be laid off. Jobs will have to be outsourced overseas.

You see 80 year old greeters on oxygen at Wall-Mart, you see people working three jobs to make ends meet, you see people losing their homes… All this misery to fund “welfare” for the rich. Disgraceful!

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/03/13 at 15:55:48

Star -
As much as you and I are friends, you are all wet on this one. As I said earlier, the "rich" account for so few of the population, that taxing them at 100%, or cutting CEO pay to less than $500K per year isn't even the proverbial drop in a bucket.
So, if you really look at the facts, how do you make the system work for the average guy? I too feel for the old folks at Wal-Mart. Heck, I even keep up my membership in a fraternal organization because if financial disaster hits, at least they operate a free retirement home.
Seriously, forget the emotion and hyperbole.
Our world has just changed so fast, that our generation, and those a few years older are innocently caught in a trap of being under educated, and they didn't look out for themselves.
This doesn't mean that I don't feel for them. But what do we do with a 75 year old who made a good living in his time, didn't save much, and basically lived in denial of the realities of old age? Should the gov't just step up and keep him entirely?

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by raydawg on 09/03/13 at 15:58:45

Ok.....according to Tony:

Wealth is a resource that is very useful in excercising power. Donations to political parties and candidates, hiring lobbyists, grants and payments to experts to fund new "studies" that benefit the wealthy. Influence in corporations (via ownership of stock) and even controlling the general social enviroment by hiring PR firms and downating money to universities and museums.

Armed with all this money and power, the rich have been able to effectively get legislation passed that helps them get richer still.

Then how come Republicans are not holding more offices, for are they not reported as greedy, in the pockets of, etc?
Then using your reasoning, and seeing the results of recent elections, its the Democrats that benefited by what you report, eh?

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/03/13 at 18:07:01

Jerry probably 2/3 of my friends are college educated and they cant begin to find a job. Everyone cant sit behind a desk. The only surefire way to make money now is the service industry. Auto Technician, plumber, landscaping, heating and air etc. All these fancy gadgets of ours eventually break down or need replacing. I read over 50% of college graduates are unemployed now.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Tony S on 09/03/13 at 23:49:58

2D3E263B3E28385F0 wrote:

Ray, honestly I'm not even sure what you are saying or asking. I never mentioned any political party - and I'll explain why of that in a second.

As far as the "success" of the republicans - just not occupying the White House hardly qualifies the party as a failure. They have a solid control of the House and a large enough presence in the Senate to matter. But more importantly - the Repubs have enjoyed a GREAT deal of success in capturing governships and house/senate in the individual states. The have well over 1/2 of those. Local elections btw are much more easily influenced by $$. The presidential candidates of the two major parties are always going to have enough money to at least be competitive.

But as to why I never mentioned political parties. I suggested the RICH AND POWERFUL run the country. That doesn't change much regardless of electing democrats or republicans.

Ralph Nader - the consumer advocate, political activist and sometimes (third party) Presidential candidate wrote a book entitled "Crashing the Party" about his 2000 Presidental campaign. I believe he was he Green Party candidate that year.

Anyway, in his book he spoke of attending both the Democrat and Republican conventions. On the floor, things looked very different between the two. Different people, different values, different party platforms. BUT - go in the back rooms - and you saw a lot of the SAME people. Most of the RICH and POWERFUL hedge their bets. They want to make sure that their views are represented - no matter who wins.

So it really - sad to say - makes only a little bit of difference who is elected for the rich. Sure, a democrat might throw a few more loaves of bread to the masses and talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. But a lot of that talk goes no where. Because it does not really matter what party brand politicians wear, cash is king and they have to follow the money

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by WebsterMark on 09/04/13 at 05:21:34

Tony; yes and no, but I say mostly no. It matters a great deal which party controls the White House. Ideology still rules.

Look at it this way; say on the day Clinton got impeached; Al Gore stood up and disassociated himself from Clinton. If he had done that, he wins the election. Imagine how different history would look. With Al Gore as President, we don't attack Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11, Saddam remains in power and who knows what happens because of that. It's really hard to say. What's not hard to guess is this ridiculous "green" BS that is weaseling into more and more facets of our lives is even greater than it is now. Jump ahead; if McCain had won, no one would have heard of obamacare. if Romney had won, same thing. Obamacare is going to kill this country if it isn't stopped. McCain had by far the better proposal. It doesn't stop there, look at his spending. McCain or Romeny wouldn't have spent as much.

Elections matter a great deal...... ideology still rules the day.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/04/13 at 07:02:16

Midnight -
You make my point exactly. Meaningful post high school education isn't always a college degree. Vocational education is a lot more important for a lot more people.
My point was simply that stopping one's training with a general high school diploma was fine in the 1950s, but it doesn't make the cut today.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/04/13 at 07:45:45

5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:

Web, I know what theyve told us, but what gets done reveals more.
The D or the R in office only means they go AT things with different rhetoric. How many fewer wars are we in because a D is in office?
When administrations change, the Unelecteds in DC change, the "New Administration" needs NewAdvisers,, Theyre ALL from the same t5hink tanks. Thats why policy doesnt change. The think tanks are Globalist thinkers. We have exactly ZERO justification for being in thesae wars. No R can justify it,no Dcan either, but the Globalist agenda says GO & they use the media to create support. THIS time, there is NO support,BU&T our
"REpresentatives" are gonna give the nod,, Every YES vote needs to recalled from office.,.They are NOTrepresenting their constituents & should be fired. w/o pension.

TONY SAID

BUT - go in the back rooms - and you saw a lot of the SAME people. Most of the RICH and POWERFUL hedge their bets. They want to make sure that their views are represented - no matter who wins.

& the trumpets blare

Dunt duh duh duuuhhh!

LIke in the old movies when a great truth is revealed

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Tony S on 09/04/13 at 16:56:51

5A686F7E79687F406C7F660D0 wrote:

Elections can matter if idealogy matters to you. So for instance with presidential elections, the ability to name Supreme Court justices can and will influence a conservative or liberal bent to the court. Except that even Presidents get surprise. Justices are people and people opinions and values can evolve over time.

But does ideology matter that much to the rich? Enough money allows one to transcend a lot of ideology. What does it matter if abortion is illegal in Arkansas you can afford to go to New York. Or if you have the money to maintain a villa in France? What does it matter if gay marriage is not recognized in America when again you can go get married and spend your honeymoon in country that does?

Don't get me wrong - it should be obvious to all that I have a solid ideology (neo-conservative) and that it matters to me. But I don't think the 1% spend much time worrying about guns, gays and abortion. Their status lifts them above such concerns. Their main concern is maintaining and improving on a status quo that gives them a great deal of power, freedom, a sense of superiority and just a lot of great "stuff".

I don't have any belief at all that presidents of a different party would act all that differently on the world stage. Bush's grudge against Saddam was personal - but I think anyone in the whitehouse would have headed for Afganistan after 911.

As for Obama care, your statement is a bit over the top. How health care is funded and paid for is not going to "kill this country". All of Western Europe, Britain, Japan, New Zeland, Australia - the list would be exhausting - have some sort of national health insurance and they have continued to survive and remain democracies. America will be just fine on Jan 1, 2014. And if we aren't fine, it won't be because of the Affordable Care act.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Starlifter on 09/04/13 at 20:20:03

“With Al Gore as President, we don't attack Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11.” WM

And the country would be saying “thank God he didn’t invade Iraq” and waste a few trillions of dollars in a war for oil and greed…oh yes, and 7000 or so American soldiers wouldn’t have died for nothing! (Not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq’s).

“Obamacare is going to kill this country if it isn't stopped”. WM

;D ;D You wach too much FOX news

“It doesn't stop there, look at his spending (Obama). McCain or Romeny wouldn't have spent as much”. WM

Obama has spent less money than then any of the recent presidents…again, too much FOX news.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/08/13 at 21:31:44

5659555F5459525E594E5B594E3C0 wrote:

Jerry its not about paying off Federal Debt, its about fairness. Upper Managements salaries have gone up over 500% in the last few years while the people that manufacture the product have lost almost 50% of their salaries and benefits. There's plenty of money to go around fairly but greed is destroying us. I don't want to hear about how valuable a CEO is and how he's worth his pay. Costco has a great CEO who gets paid very well and he looks after his employees with great salaries and benefits. That's how its supposed to be done.Here in NC if you hire a temp less than 120 days no benefits. Every 120 days they change temps. They'll pay in the end one way or another. The quality of the product is going to be almost nonexistent with a changing workforce every 3 months and I remember reading something about the eye of a needle.

Title: Re: Labor Day
Post by Midnightrider on 09/08/13 at 21:44:35

Walmart is a prime example. I will not go into that store unless my wife drags me in there. Sam Walton was one of the greatest businessmen we've ever had. I bet his coffin has black marks inside where he's been spinning in his grave, God rest his soul. They make over a million dollars a minute, try to get checked out and there's 20 carts in front of you with two checkout lines. Lousy pay, lousy benefits, impossible work conditions and bad hours and that's the largest employer in the US. His kids have so much money they could buy a 3rd world country and its all came from abusing the employees. Our terrorist are right here running our businesses and government.