All that government intervention to level the playing field, and what do we have? The same people are still at the top of the ladder. Except now, it's harder for non elites to climb the ladder. And we're wasting tons of money on government agencies
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
All that government intervention to level the playing field, and what do we have? The same people are still at the top of the ladder. Except now, it's harder for non elites to climb the ladder. And we're wasting tons of money on government agencies
Kasch and Trump are exact opposites when it comes to illegal immigration. Question is would that pick unite the party. Paul Ryan is a jackass.
I disagree that it is harder to climb the ladder. However, there is nothing you can do to make the ladder easier to climb that won't also make it easier for those at the top to stay there and further distance themselves from the pack. Of course you could limit the head start that each generation of the elite has upon everyone else...but most of you didn't like that suggestion either.
Killing unions has done nothing but put a boot on the throat of the middle class and that has nothing to do with any government agencies.
Now I'm sure you will tell me how evil and corrupt unions are... yeah, yeah, yeah. They were effective in getting labor a bigger slice of the pie. Without them, with their power greatly neutered that slice has shrunk and gone back to those at the top.
It's is harder. Because the elite can afford the lawyers and accountants to help them navigate the ever growing regulatory minefield. Others can't. So it's actually impeding vertical movement.
In terms of estate taxes, why should anyone be punished for dying with wealth? Oh and remember aforementioned lawyers and accountants? Ya, you guessed it. They navigate around it.
Unions aren't completely awful, but they do limited good. Yes they get their members a nice wage, but it's an artificially inflated wage. That results in fewer employees and higher prices. Plus it prevents the market participant from getting accurate information regarding their trade.
For example, the average auto worker sees their pay continually go up that's a market sign the job is in high demand and is valuable. When in reality the information they should be getting is their jobs will soon be mechanized, and no longer necessary. This prevents them from getting the accurate indicators and planning/reacting accordingly.
Also, I'm not sure why it's so important for you, and a growing number of others, to knock down the people on top. Instead of trying to drag the top down (socialism), you should focus on building the bottom up (capitalism)
How do you propose we fix the wealth inequality in the us? http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/21/news/economy/worst-inequality-countries-oecd/
That is the case if the rules benefit the management of those workers to do so. But what if management's pay is directly tied to the size of the workforce it manages? Replace 50% of the workers with automation, take a 50% cut in executive compensation.
We can all cherry-pick the short-comings of every approach to every problem. If there was a perfect approach, it would have been adopted somewhere at some time and then everyone would have followed suit. Since that perfect approach doesn't exist, we are left searching for the balance of approaches that render the best results.
While wealth isn't exactly a zero sum game, but I hope you can be honest enough to agree that in a hypothetical world if two economies exist of equal total size that the economy that had the flattest distribution of wealth would most likely be the strongest. Flattest doesn't mean everyone has the same, just that it has the highest median wealth. Left unfettered, wealth and power will accumulate into smaller and smaller groups. If you want to incentivize or simply allow that natural progression to take place then you're going to end up with a smaller and smaller group of elites who will garner more and more control while the economy on the whole becomes more and more weak. .
The Unions purpose is to get its members better wages and benefits. Union members wages also affect surrounding area workers wages.
They definitely have their faults, but they aren't awful.
I hate to break it to you but Trump can't do half of what he talks about doing without taking actions that would be supported by Democrats and rejected by the GOP.
NAFTA...while it was implemented by Clinton, it was an idea created and supported by Reagan and Bush 41. The negotiations for the agreement dated back long before Clinton was even running for office. H. Ross Perot's whole campaign in '92 was centered around his objection to NAFTA that was being supported by both Bush 41 who was in office and Clinton at the time.
Protectionist trade policies...the GOP has championed for decades free trade.
Healthcare that covers everyone??? Who would support him more?
After Trump builds his wall...pretty much the rest of what he has said has been from the Democratic playbook.
Get off your ass and go get it.
Do you realize some of the richest most wealthiest people that have been apart of our nation were no more educated than a GED?
It's not in the majority by any stretch but it happened. So instead of the majority expecting things to happen for them they need to focus on working as hard as possible and hope they finish ahead of where they started and that hopefully their children do the same and after a few generations maybe wealth will build in some sort of family owned business.
I am a firm believer that if you redistribute every penny equally it would be a very small percentage change from what we have now within a few years.
Some people just don't know how to get ahead much less stay ahead. To be honest I don't know a single person that is capable of saying they have a positive personal value that isn't working their ass off everyday and 90% of those same people started where I did.
And this is where stupidity kicks in. Maybe you've missed where we have all caught on during Trumps candidacy that all these people have taken donations from the same corporations which have known for decades that they could save costs by using foreign labor sources.
So yes the career politicians took millions before getting that policy passed, on both sides.
Congrats you genius!
Of course you'd focus on left/right dem/repub on the issue instead of the damn issue which is total democrat dipshit strategy.
And people wonder why someone like Trump is blowing this thing up completely and totally.
Agree.
I've worked union and non and I would work union 100 times out of 100 if given the chance. Getting a raise at a lot of non-union jobs is like seeing Haley's Comet - once every 80-something years. (And yes, Unions do have their faults and can be corrupt, but at least they get more people than the CEO and board of directors paid a decent wage.)
And if you support right-to-work and don't own a company, f--- you.
You support dicking the workers while ensuring the bossman gets richer by paying $10 an hour for $15 an hour work, but Joe Q. Work force is too stupid to realize he's being screwed by management.
The way it's framed to simpletons is "we're saving you from paying mandatory dues as a condition of employment" which means "we're saving you $10 a check in dues but screwing you out of a few grand in raises and your pay likely will never increase by much for the duration of your employment."
Unionized employers tend to be better from my experiences. Better pay. Better benefits. Less tom foolery in terms of scheduling, hours, wage increases, bonus incentives, etc.
I'm assuming you support right to work (cheap) legislation that's designed to weaken labor and strengthen corporations, although the GOP - at least in my part of Kentucky - is selling it as looking out for workers?
How does one "fix" income inequality, exactly?
Certainly makes a producer's *** pucker up....
Certainly makes a producer's *** pucker up....
I don't sell it as nothing. I support people that are smart enough to keep cost low but pay those deserving and not being forced to pay some lazy bum who worked hard for 1 year and now has a plush $15-17 an hour job making my costs go up.
I once worked at BWs and started at $7.50 and hour and by the time I quit I was at $11 and hour at 21. I then became a server because the money was better and daily instead of biweekly.
Smart business people reward those worthy and if you need the union to protect you I assume you realize you'll never climb the ladder with hard work and just want a 9-5 with known pay if hit those hours.
Typically in life that's worked for me and I've never been in Union, but I have family members that do and every time they are hurt they grab a broom for the same $15-17 for the same job because they are Union.........which is stupid and bad business.
As a worker not driven or a worker in a trade like electrical/plumbing sure.
Is is not ironic that some of the same people who support unions for higher paying jobs also support illegals who help lower wages. Does that not conflict or is there a greater purpose in mind.![[pfftt]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682173.gif "Pfffttt [pfftt]")
Last edited:
Smart business people aren't the ones that deal day in and day out with workers. Unless you're speaking of a small business.
Are you saying if someone gets hurt on the job they should lose their pay, or have to take a cut in wage?
On the job? Absolutely there is workmans comp, short term and long term disability etc but if your hurt doing something dumb at home and you get rewarded at work because they must find something you can do so grab a broom and pretend.......
What a joke!
What a joke!
I've never seen someone where I work get hurt at home and have what you describe happen.
Last year I had back surgery, I was cleared by the Dr to go back to work on light duty for a week. Company would not allow me to come back until I had no restrictions. I wanted to get back to work and I was burning up vacation time.
Got a family member that worked at UPS for years and would always hurt his back doing little stuff around the house. Wouldn't go to the dr and then his next shift claimed he was hurt at work.
Half his damn time there he was a $17 Sweep and mop guy. Meanwhile UPS was getting more expensive......G I wonder why!
Half his damn time there he was a $17 Sweep and mop guy. Meanwhile UPS was getting more expensive......G I wonder why!
Your company handled your situation the way I'm currently dealing with a related problem. At least the company is providing leave.
They call it "disability". It's unfortunate for the few truly disabled that people that could be productive but are too lazy to work are placed on disability.
Another example of why people are tired of the current state of politics. So, in order to keep the political establishment the way it has been, I suppose Jeb will vote for hillury?
Probably. I mean Hills and the bush's have the same interventionist and militaristic approach to foreign policy. $$$.
Absolutely. Some folks will publicly support Trump but you can bet a large portion of folks in Washington are pulling for Hilary because they know business in Washington will not change under her. Corruption at its finest.
Saudi prince wants Americans to vote for Hillary.
Said Americans need to make the right choice because how Trump says to not "let these people into the country", yet Jews wouldn't last a day in Saudi Arabia. A place that also beheads women who want rights.
The nerve of that Saudi shitbag.
Said Americans need to make the right choice because how Trump says to not "let these people into the country", yet Jews wouldn't last a day in Saudi Arabia. A place that also beheads women who want rights.
The nerve of that Saudi shitbag.
