What about "income equality"?
Are you saying that each position must pay the same?
Or are you saying that a doctor should make as much as a dishwasher?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Unions
- Thread starter AnOutsider
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Off Topic
What about "income equality"?
Are you saying that each position must pay the same?
Or are you saying that a doctor should make as much as a dishwasher?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
We should leave arguing in absolutes to Fox News. I doubt anyone here thinks that a doctor should make the same as a dishwasher. At the same time, we should acknowledge the social and economic problems created by the significant rise in income inequality, as set out in Wikipedia on this subject:
"A 2011 study by the CBO[SUP][13][/SUP] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[SUP][13][/SUP] Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[SUP][14][/SUP] In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[SUP][15][/SUP] In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[SUP][16][/SUP] Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison.[SUP][16]"[/SUP]
I really liked GlennAlanBerry post and his reference to "Henry Ford having the wisdom to pay his workers enough so they could realistically afford to buy a Model T, out of enlightened self-interest." At the same time, I understand the others here who are concerned with the problems that unions create and how those problems can be exacerbated at a company such as Tesla where freedom and individuality must be rewarded.
The good thing is, it's not for me, or any us (unless we work at Tesla) to decide.
A vision without a task is but a dream.
A slogan without concept is just that.
Besides, Henry Ford did not pay his workers more so they could afford his car. That's a myth.
The real reason Henry Ford paid workers $5 a day | GoErie.com/Erie Times-News
The problem with these lofty slogans "income equality" is that they are just that. A slogan.
This has nothing to do with Fox or MSNBC.
What does it mean to you?
Who enforces it? Who sets the limits?
People seem never to think this stuff through...
And no, there is no correlation. We have the lowest global poverty rates in the history of mankind.
The Economist explains: How did the global poverty rate halve in 20 years? | The Economist
What you earn has nothing to do with my ability to make a living. It's completely irrelevant.
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You're living in a fantasy world if you think the recent trend in income inequality is not calculated and enforced. It's not what backs the money, it's who controls its quantity. Do you understand fractional reserve lending? Do you know how money is controlled? Do you know that the federal reserve is privately owned and it prints money and then lends it to the government with interest. Do you know what backs its printing of that money, how much, and who gets paid (i.e. where does the principal and interest go?). Can you print money and lend it to the government? Why not? Five US Presidents who sought to abolish the private-owned Federal Reserve Bank were assassinated or an attempt was made: 1) Andrew Jackson (Survived); 2) Abraham Lincoln; 3) James Garfield; 4) William McKinley; 5) John Kennedy. I am not saying that they were all assassinated because of that stance but it should make you think about how power is controlled. In recent years, only one Presidential Candidate sought to abolish the Federal Reserve and he likely risked his life in doing so. Sorry to tell you this but the game is rigged and money is fixed and it's not fixed in the interest (pun intended) of fairness and decency. If you think the free market is free, and no one should be allowed to determine income equality or inequality, the 1% have done their job.
I am well off financially but I have worked very hard for every last dime, taking risks, and building a business. Unfortunately, people like me are more becoming the exception rather than the rule because the game is rigged.
This gave me a good laugh. It's like saying we have the best medicine, best farming methods, best transportation systems, best built buildings, etc. etc. in the history of mankind. Well, that's sure a surprise. Our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000 for the sake of argument. For about 98,000 years our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Then things got a bit better. Then with the industrial revolution, things got way better. Now we are living in the technological revolution. But we are to be commended for not going backwards? We are suppose to take comfort in the fact that we "have the lowest global poverty rates in the history of mankind". How much sense does that make? 1/7th of our species are suffering from chronic hunger. This is purely political because we have more than enough to feed everyone. But this Economist explanation is the 1% argument on global economics to keep the status quo when clearly we can do much, much better.
This sounds like a Fox News talking point on income inequality. Clearly, it's true. But it's not the issue. The issue is government debt!!! It's drowning us all -- well, not the 1% -- they print, loan, and collect interest on it daily. Plus, they do fractional reserve lending.
Last edited:
SCW-Greg
Active Member
Unions had a place... at the turn of the century.
Nowadays... not so much. I'd consider moving the plant to a right-to-work state.
Chrysler Workers Drinking: Fired Employees Reinstated At Jefferson North Plant In Detroit
Nowadays... not so much. I'd consider moving the plant to a right-to-work state.
Chrysler Workers Drinking: Fired Employees Reinstated At Jefferson North Plant In Detroit
Last edited by a moderator:
Adm
Active Member
In my case, I work in the oil industry. In Statoil, to be precise. Other oil companies would most likely pay me more for the job I do, but I kind of like it in Statoil. I used to work in a multinational service company, and there were times that I really benefited from the unions.
So I'm a union member now too, despite being in the upper 1% income bracket.
Krugerrand
Meow
SCW-Greg
Active Member
Boeing corporate now has the ability to farm manf. to many places across the globe. If Washington workers/machinists want the job, they have to compete - in this case make concessions.
I briefly worked in a retail union, though I did everything I could to not sign up, as long as I could, ultimately it was not an option. If I wanted to work there, I had to pay union dues. So where did that extra money go, that the union got me in the last contract? Right back to the union. And to get fired, had nothing to do with performance, or even ability to do the job, lest a lawyer get involved.
Today's unions aren't born out of hardship or need, but instead out of want... a perception that more can be had (from those who innovate, create, and take on the risk).
Entitlement vs personal responsibility.
I am shocked at the number of Union Lovers in this forum. They are dinosaurs that should be extinct! They ruined the American Car Industry, they have ruined the Airline Industry, most of the manufacturing has moved off shore due to unions. Just go to work, do your job, do it well and if you dont like where you are working then go somewhere else. The last think a new startup needs is a blood sucking union allowing mediocre workers to drag down productivity.
That's a great question! I have known the Federal Reserve was privately owned but not who those owners are by name and title. Seems their names would appear on some of those annual lists of worlds richest people. Are they that invisible?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Go to Youtube and watch the award winning documentary "The Secret of Oz" and it will answer your questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI
Beavis
Model S Signature 991
I have never been in a union. I have always been on the management side. My question is, if you espouse personal responsibility as a virtue, why is a union at fault for a business failure? Management is responsible for strategy, finance, marketing, sales, legal, and all major decisions or negotiations (including negotiating a bad labor contract). The buck always stops with company management and there are no excuses.
Back on topic, I doubt Tesla will become a union shop. They have a generous option plan and the stock has done very well.
Back on topic, I doubt Tesla will become a union shop. They have a generous option plan and the stock has done very well.
Krugerrand
Meow
Everyone, those on the company side and those on the employee side, have their own definition of personal responsibility. Sometimes those definitions are night and day.
Unions (particularly the bigger, more powerful ones) allow employees to hold companies hostage, whether there's a virtuous stance or not. Omnipotence is often abused. Since you've never been in a union and seen it work its *magic* (good and bad), I can see that you might not understand how it's led to the failure of many a company, and thus while supposedly helping employees it's put those employees out of work.
The company (which is actually people) and the employees (also people) need to nurture each other and work for each other's benefit because neither can survive without the other. Unions (which are groups of people) sometimes forget that, and to be fair sometimes companies forget that. And as has also been explained, unions equalize employees so that those of less personal responsibility can easily hide and are next to impossible to get rid of, while those of greater personal responsibility can't be and aren't recognized for their effort. How do you think that makes the latter feel? How would you feel if you worked your butt off and watched a fellow employee who showed up late regularly, did the bare minimum, and scowled at you for doing your best, received a promotion over you simply because they worked there two weeks longer than you? Yeah, that's what unions allow.
+100 Krugerrand
Unions are like socialism. Sure in socialism the rich are poorer, but the poor also are poorer. What would you rather have?
A)An income disparity gap where the rich senior mgmt make 100 times more than the poor factory worker who makes 50k per year?
Or
B)much less of an income disparity gap where senior mgmt may only make 100k per year but the factory workers only make 20k per year. Ths is where unions and socialism would lead us.
Without unions this is a free country and people are free to leave their factory job and go seek another job anywhere else they want, or start their own business even and become an entrepreneur themselves.
Beavis
Model S Signature 991
I get it. Some people don't like unions. I am just saying that I would like to be in the board room or shareholder meeting when a CEO blames his union employees for his failure to properly manage the business.
Similar threads
