A Global Union Is The Only Solution

If this top of the tier crap is allowed to continue an American worker will earn the same as a Malaysian day laborer with no benefits:

View attachment 30141

View attachment 30142

 

It not only isn't the only answer, it's the worst answer imaginable and what would be expected from a leftists. Organized crime is bad enough on a local level. On a global level we'd have a disaster. I do understand your position, Finley. Unions do benefit the lazy, corrupt, incompetent, and brutal.

 

I would quite literally prefer death.

 

Then one must assume by your statements the top 1% has enough wealth to bring the world population to middle class. Care to show us your figures?

 

I was a member of a union in the 1950's and the company allowed employees to work in unsafe conditions, left them without health care, paid them a pittance until the union officials negotiated for and got good health insurance, good pay and better working conditions. The company would also give these same new conditions to their managerial and technical staff. Who is anybody trying to fool. A company will pay as little and effect their bottom line profit as little as they can. Employees do the work and those at the top make the profits. If I were thirty-forty years younger I would set out to form a global union and by gawd greedy assed companies would begin to do better. Have you noticed....there is no middle class any longer and now those at the top are beginning to bear down on their goal of a Lord/Serf society in America.

I'm 80 years old so I won't live to see it but some day it will get so bad that those in the lower 70%-80% will revolt.

85 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half of the planet's population........about 3 1/2 billion souls. About 12,000 youngsters starve to death each day. There's something really wrong with that.

About forty years ago I knew this man who had a fancy lake home, fancy new cars, exercise rooms, spa's etc. and he used to say, "I Wonder What The Poor Folks Are Doing" He and his wife died in their 50's....pancreatic cancer and a glioblastoma brain tumor.


View attachment 30151

 

Perfect summary of 80 years of Huey Long type resentment politics and rabble rousing... glee at the misfortune and death of others. Demonstates with laser precision the true nature of the left for all to see.

 

So what exactly is your plan for this global union to do?

Raise the minimum earnings of every person in the world to 20 dollars an hour?

Your a bit short on specifics, which is typical for liberal blathering but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

So exactly what will happen that will fix this problem once we get a global union?

 

Those are the only two options, huh? Either we raise the minimum wage to something unaffordable or we lower it to something unlivable? No middle ground? It's either twenty dollars an hour or twenty cents an hour?

 

You must have missed it. I was an avid Republican for the first thirty years of my voting life. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even Reagan one time till I saw his beginning of the destruction of America's middle class. I didn't vote at all from 1984 till 2004. One thing I'll promise...I'll never vote for another Republican. The modern Republican party doesn't give a damn about anything except the rich and corporations. They're about finished though.....too many people have caught onto their game.

 

How would a global union stop that though? i mean, then we'd all earn less in order to prop up the peasants of the 3rd World - no thanks!

the solution is 'Allied Blocks of Nations' (with a federalist structure)

 

That shows how much you know about unions. Apparently nothing. Smart union leaders, like any other corporate executive, calculate from week to week and month to month where and when a strike will be most effective. Then they methodically go about the business of gaining more pay and benefits. Then it works the same way it did back when we had a middle class...elect politicians who will use the same patience and close loopholes in tax codes so that everyone who holds a job or position pays a fair share of their wages.

The largest U.S.-based companies expanded their untaxed offshore stockpiles in 2012 by $183 billion, increasing such holdings by 14.4 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg business. Mitt Romney paid 14% on his $15 million income in 2011. That's the only year he would reveal so you can bet it was the one he chose for us to see. My wife and I are retired and we paid almost that exact rate of less than $100,000. Ordinary American workers are being royally screwed by the uppercrust and apparently don't even realize it.

Unions would make it better for ordinary workers.....I saw it happen in the 50's and 60's. Employees just have to realize it and stick together.

 

The middle ground is Chikfila, when it comes to fast food. It's Costco when it comes to those kid of stores. It's the Fortune top 100 best places to work. Businesses and corporation that know how to treat their employees well don't have problems with salary or unhappy workplaces.

 

The rich are doing very well, but that does not prevent the poor from doing well too, if they want to, have the skills, and have the drive. No person is prevented by the rich, from becoming rich themselves. What prevents them from becoming rich is... themselves.

 

Unions on the scale you propose will turn the entire country into Detroit within a generation.

Businesses will behave entirely predictably with regards to where they operate and keep their money. No one should be surprised that if there is tax advantage to keeping money overseas, that business will do just that. Keep ramping up the taxes and regulations, and watch them continue to leave the country all together, and take their jobs with them. This is a global market, businesses are free to move, and have been.

Wanna help working folks in the US? Get them more jobs. Want more jobs? Get businesses to move TO our country instead of driving them away. Want to get business to move here? You MUST make this country MORE attractive to them than other countries. Its a simple concept.

 

"The rich are doing very well, but that does not prevent the poor from doing well too, if they want to, have the skills, and have the drive. No person is prevented by the rich, from becoming rich themselves. What prevents them from becoming rich is... themselves. "

Why aren't they doing well? We're talking about more than Mitt Romney's 47%

View attachment 30165

View attachment 30164

 

Well, democrats controlled congress for 40 years until 94 so I am not sure why you didn't vote in 1984 for Reagan if you voted for him before. You realize that most of the top tier income comes from investment in stocks don't you? Right now democrats are helping the rich as much as anyone else. There is a definite difference in ideology, one believes in equal outcome, the other believes in equal opportunity. Don't fool yourself in thinking that the dems believe in equal opportunity.

 

Please use the "reply with quote" function to answer my posts if you want me to respond. It was just luck that I noticed this.

They aren't doing well because there are not enough unskilled jobs available. There aren't enough unskilled jobs available because business has moved away. Business has moved away because of policies put in place by short-sighted people that share your views.

 

Exactly, and I'll look look to get paid as much as I possibly can.

I believe what you intend to do is make an argument about unequal bargaining power, no?

 

Well, I have worked with unions all over the country and the most corrupt and ridiculous are in the big cities. They methodically have chased business out of their own cities and States except for the ones that cannot move. They protect lazy and useless workers and put contractors out of business depending on the laws they have gotten passed.

Don't worry about large US based companies, they are moving their HQ overseas because we have the highest corporate tax in the world.

BTW, how much tax is enough for people like you?

 

This isn't the fifties and sixties. We spent half as much on government back then and the regulatory over burden wasn't ten percent of what it is now. You wanna know why you can't make it on 15 bucks an hour any more? The answer is government.

 

Reagan got less than he requested seven of his eight budgets. He cut taxes for his rich buddies and borrowed three trillion dollars from foreign banks. Hell...that ain't nuthin'! George W. Bush took ever a balanced budget with surpluses projected for the next 12 years...enough time to completely settle the national debt. Then he cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and borrowed nearly $6 trillion:


These figures came from the bureau of the debt....they're easily verified:


................................................................Total U S Debt........................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

Yeah, I've seen you post the above here before. Do I believe it? No, not at all. Moreover, has nothing to do with your typical leftist resentment-based schadenfreude against people who do better than you do financially.

 

Still waiting on specifics from you guys. If you have other options then let's hear them.

 

No. Not just no, but (*)(*)(*)(*) no.

 

Job markets change and people need to adapt. What your advocating for is playing to the lowest denominator. Let's just slow down the markets and dictate to them how to run their business so we can keep the unskilled people employed and that is a flawed strategy.

You need to get these unskilled people the skills they need to compete in today's world, not slow down the world to meet their needs.