|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 12, 2009 11:11:26 GMT -6
Go hire a non-union electrician. I'd recommend you purchase a lot of smoke detectors as well. Logic clearly isn't one of your strong points. Your imagined causative relationship between falling wages and declining union membership is fucking hilarious. An epic logical fail. Regarding the automobiles, get back to me when the evil union laborers start designing them. I must not have been clear before, so I'll type slower this time. Declining union memberships has caused lower wages. As all of the high paying jobs that could be sent offshore were sent offshore (or to non-union plants in the South) wages fell. Do you dispute that union slugs make more than non-union workers? That just about every highly unionized American industry that could be offshored was? And as for the autos, if you don't think having to pay some union slug $80/hour to put them together (or heck, even to sit on his ass when there's not enough demand) has an effect on content and price, you don't know the first thing about the auto industry. Like most hypocrite liberals, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that foreign cars are better (it's all management's fault, man, even though we're talking about dozens of different management teams - including a foreign owner and p/e fund) and that the non-union labor (which is supposedly inferior for electricians, but ok for autos, right?) has no effect. First off, you're a fucking liar, because union auto workers are not making 80 bucks and hour. Since you insist on lying about discernible facts, your credibility is shit. Second, I'm hardly a "hypocritical liberal." I believe that a job should pay a living wage, and that labor should be fairly rewarded, not exploited. That is not a radical notion. The opposite is a radical notion, and ironically, the formula for destroying capitalism and ushering in a more, shall we say, Marxist arrangement, since the masses will only put up with naked exploitation for so long before revolting or voting for socialists. That's the hilarious irony...you don't get into discussions of socialism unless you abuse the living shit out of capitalism. Which is exactly what is going on right now. Another historical hilarity is that guys like FDR, and now Obama, who you fuckstains deride as "socialists," are actually the ones who are serious about preserving a capitalist system. It's enough to make one's head explode. Finally, we wouldn't even need unions if management and business, represented by radicals like the US Chamber of Commerce, weren't hellbent on labor arbitrage instead of a fair shake. It's called the Golden Rule. Violation of it leads to chaos. Wake the fuck up. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 12, 2009 11:57:19 GMT -6
I must not have been clear before, so I'll type slower this time. Declining union memberships has caused lower wages. As all of the high paying jobs that could be sent offshore were sent offshore (or to non-union plants in the South) wages fell. Do you dispute that union slugs make more than non-union workers? That just about every highly unionized American industry that could be offshored was? And as for the autos, if you don't think having to pay some union slug $80/hour to put them together (or heck, even to sit on his ass when there's not enough demand) has an effect on content and price, you don't know the first thing about the auto industry. Like most hypocrite liberals, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that foreign cars are better (it's all management's fault, man, even though we're talking about dozens of different management teams - including a foreign owner and p/e fund) and that the non-union labor (which is supposedly inferior for electricians, but ok for autos, right?) has no effect. First off, you're a fucking liar, because union auto workers are not making 80 bucks and hour. bince you insist on lying about discernible facts, your credibility is shit. Second, I'm hardly a "hypocritical liberal." I believe that a job should pay a living wage, and that labor should be fairly rewarded, not exploited. That is not a radical notion. The opposite is a radical notion, and ironically, the formula for destroying capitalism and ushering in a more, shall we say, Marxist arrangement, bince the masses will only put up with naked exploitation for so long before revolting or voting for socialists. That's the hilarious irony...you don't get into discussions of socialism unless you abuse the living shit out of capitalism. Which is exactly what is going on right now. Another historical hilarity is that guys like FDR, and now Obama, who you fuckstains deride as "socialists," are actually the ones who are serious about preserving a capitalist system. It's enough to make one's head explode. Finally, we wouldn't even need unions if management and business, represented by radicals like the US Chamber of Commerce, weren't hellbent on labor arbitrage instead of a fair shake. It's called the Golden Rule. Violation of it leads to chaos. Wake the f**k up. The $80/hour number (and that number is all inclusive of other benefits - yes, those do cost companies money) is for Ford from a debtwire article I read yesterday. I'd post a link, but it's password protected (they don't want proles taking their content for free). The comparable number for Toyota and Honda in the US was cited as $49/hour. I'm currently building an ark so that I will be able to survive when the deluge of tears from autoworkers whose wages and benefits are cut to a mere $49/hour (oh, the humanity!) finally hits. Please let me know if you want me to save you a seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 12, 2009 12:06:43 GMT -6
OT Chuck, Love the avatar, one of the funniest clips on Youtube. The noise that chicks makes is great. It's also pretty funny because she clearly has never had the wind knocked out of her before. ;D Yeah, it's not nearly as good without the sound, but it's still pretty funny. I'm going to try to keep the avatars fresh, but I don't post that much so I need to leave them up for awhile. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 12, 2009 12:31:47 GMT -6
Hoffa,
Here is a fantastic face plant compilation, but some are pretty brutal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 12, 2009 12:45:30 GMT -6
The face plant genre is definitely one of my favorites on youtube. Here are a couple more of my favorites. The first one's long, but the payoff is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 12, 2009 13:00:56 GMT -6
I could watch that Segway faceplant a million times and still laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 12, 2009 13:04:08 GMT -6
First off, you're a fucking liar, because union auto workers are not making 80 bucks and hour. bince you insist on lying about discernible facts, your credibility is shit. Second, I'm hardly a "hypocritical liberal." I believe that a job should pay a living wage, and that labor should be fairly rewarded, not exploited. That is not a radical notion. The opposite is a radical notion, and ironically, the formula for destroying capitalism and ushering in a more, shall we say, Marxist arrangement, bince the masses will only put up with naked exploitation for so long before revolting or voting for socialists. That's the hilarious irony...you don't get into discussions of socialism unless you abuse the living shit out of capitalism. Which is exactly what is going on right now. Another historical hilarity is that guys like FDR, and now Obama, who you fuckstains deride as "socialists," are actually the ones who are serious about preserving a capitalist system. It's enough to make one's head explode. Finally, we wouldn't even need unions if management and business, represented by radicals like the US Chamber of Commerce, weren't hellbent on labor arbitrage instead of a fair shake. It's called the Golden Rule. Violation of it leads to chaos. Wake the f**k up. The $80/hour number (and that number is all inclusive of other benefits - yes, those do cost companies money) is for Ford from a debtwire article I read yesterday. I'd post a link, but it's password protected (they don't want proles taking their content for free). The comparable number for Toyota and Honda in the US was cited as $49/hour. I'm currently building an ark so that I will be able to survive when the deluge of tears from autoworkers whose wages and benefits are cut to a mere $49/hour (oh, the humanity!) finally hits. Please let me know if you want me to save you a seat. The $80/hr is an aggregate of costs assigned to each worker, a large part of which includes auto company payments not to that employee, but to pensions and other such obligations of other, mostly retired, employees. The actual take-home wage of the median UAW guy is pretty close to that of the foreign non-union automakers. It's not like the foreigners are paying minimum wage. I'm pretty certain that the UAW guys would take $49/hr if they could have affordable health-care and a decent 401K. That's a lot of money for "unskilled" labor. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 12, 2009 13:06:12 GMT -6
Hoffa, Here is a fantastic face plant compilation, but some are pretty brutal. Thanks, I will have to check those out when I get home, YouTube is on our work server's bannned list.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 12, 2009 13:09:39 GMT -6
Also OT, but I figured I'd share: When doing some contract work last summer helping with flood recovery in CR, went into one of the porta-crappers. There on the inside of the shitter door was written: "I just birthed a union electrician!" I  heartily. Contractors are funny as hell. Okay, carry on with the serious talk.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 12, 2009 13:23:09 GMT -6
The $80/hour number (and that number is all inclusive of other benefits - yes, those do cost companies money) is for Ford from a debtwire article I read yesterday. I'd post a link, but it's password protected (they don't want proles taking their content for free). The comparable number for Toyota and Honda in the US was cited as $49/hour. I'm currently building an ark so that I will be able to survive when the deluge of tears from autoworkers whose wages and benefits are cut to a mere $49/hour (oh, the humanity!) finally hits. Please let me know if you want me to save you a seat. The $80/hr is an aggregate of costs assigned to each worker, a large part of which includes auto company payments not to that employee, but to pensions and other such obligations of other, mostly retired, employees. The actual take-home wage of the median UAW guy is pretty close to that of the foreign non-union automakers. It's not like the foreigners are paying minimum wage. I'm pretty certain that the UAW guys would take $49/hr if they could have affordable health-care and a decent 401K. That's a lot of money for "unskilled" labor. So what? I don't care if the take home pay is exactly the same (it's not, though it's closer). If the UNION bargains for (read, extorts under threat of shutdown) a bunch of benefits (like subsidized legal advice, pensions, highly subsidized healthcare, JOBs Bank, etc.), those still cost the American automakers money. Just because it doesn't show up on a paycheck, doesn't mean it doesn't cost the employer money. As for the $49/hr number, if you're talking about just wages, then that's still higher than the foreign automakers pay their workers once you add in healthcare and a "decent 401k" (whatever that means - a 401k by itself is worth nothing - somebody has to contribute money to it) and that's assuming you eliminate all the other costs in the CBA. I'm not surprised that your entitlement mindset comes to the conclusion that workers at American plants still deserve more than workers at their Japanese counterparts, even after driving the American auto industry to the brink of failure. Of course, it would have been nice if they would have accepted that kind of salary before doing so, but I'll take what I can get at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 12, 2009 14:21:03 GMT -6
The $80/hr is an aggregate of costs assigned to each worker, a large part of which includes auto company payments not to that employee, but to pensions and other such obligations of other, mostly retired, employees. The actual take-home wage of the median UAW guy is pretty close to that of the foreign non-union automakers. It's not like the foreigners are paying minimum wage. I'm pretty certain that the UAW guys would take $49/hr if they could have affordable health-care and a decent 401K. That's a lot of money for "unskilled" labor. So what? I don't care if the take home pay is exactly the same (it's not, though it's closer). If the UNION bargains for (read, extorts under threat of shutdown) a bunch of benefits (like subsidized legal advice, pensions, highly subsidized healthcare, JOBs Bank, etc.), those still cost the American automakers money. Just because it doesn't show up on a paycheck, doesn't mean it doesn't cost the employer money. As for the $49/hr number, if you're talking about just wages, then that's still higher than the foreign automakers pay their workers once you add in healthcare and a "decent 401k" (whatever that means - a 401k by itself is worth nothing - somebody has to contribute money to it) and that's assuming you eliminate all the other costs in the CBA. I'm not surprised that your entitlement mindset comes to the conclusion that workers at American plants still deserve more than workers at their Japanese counterparts, even after driving the American auto industry to the brink of failure. Of course, it would have been nice if they would have accepted that kind of salary before doing so, but I'll take what I can get at this point. My entitlement mindset? I feel like Bill Gates trying to explain the microchip to a typewriter repairman. I think, for the sake of economic stability and basic morality, that working people should have access to affordable healthcare and a reasonable retirement program. It's called the "social contract." It's a mainstream, moderate viewpoint. It built a thriving middle class and economic powerhouse. Your radical, third-world (aka "Republican") viewpoint is that working people are fucked if they get sick and should be forced to work until they drop dead. Let's run on those platforms and see who gets elected. I'm guessing that working people will be pretty fucking offended by your definition of "entitlement mentality." |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 12, 2009 15:40:45 GMT -6
I'm pretty certain that the UAW guys would take $49/hr if they could have affordable health-care and a decent 401K. That's a lot of money for "unskilled" labor. I think that sounds about right. The UAW knows that working for a lower wage is better then not working for no wage. Of course they would have to get rid of that crazy 80% job bank BS too. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 12, 2009 17:08:19 GMT -6
Your radical, third-world (aka "Republican") viewpoint is that working people are fucked if they get sick and should be forced to work until they drop dead. Let's run on those platforms and see who gets elected. I'm guessing that working people will be pretty fucking offended by your definition of "entitlement mentality." You know who will get elected - given the "Der, if I can fog a mirror I oughta get a job that pays 6 figures" mindset of our nation, the people who win national elections are those who can convince more people that they (a) are closer to God than the other guy or (b) will loot more from the treasury than the other guy. That's it. Healthcare will be debated ad nauseum. You guys will get socialized healthcare. No doubt. It's coming soon. You can even blame Republicans when its price, like nearly every other good or service subsidized by the government, keeps going up. As for working until the day you drop dead, I don't think that is a Republican policy, either. I cannot see any way to sustain the pension benefits promised by the government, Social Security and Medicare for everyone who reaches 65 -- the age simply has to go up. It's not a Democrat or Republican issue, it's an actuarial and economic issue. See, e.g., Japan. |
|
