Time to put the UAW Union in their place

[tbombz]

Hahaha, it's beyond me how you think you can use this reasoning to make the argument that while one isn't entitled to police protection they're somehow entitled to a wage that can support a family.

its beyond me how you can think that is what im arguing 

i think people have a right to both

you are the one who thinks people have a right to one but not the other

so make a distinction between the two which makes one essential and the other not so.

[Fury]

but there WAS  time when that tax didnt exist. somebody had to decide that even though people werent paying taxes to fund police, that people had a right to police and so they created the tax. the need, the right to police protection came before the tax which funded it.  so unless your entire view of politics and government is to preserve the status quo indefinitely, you need to develop some kind of thesis as to what the government should be trying to do, in general.

The right to a wage that can support a family has NEVER existed yet you argue in favor of that while claiming that because the property tax didn't exist at one point one isn't entitled to police protection.

You are contradicting your entire argument.

its beyond me how you can think that is what im arguing  

i think people have a right to both

you are the one who thinks people have a right to one but not the other

so make a distinction between the two which makes one essential and the other not so.

I don't think anything. I know that I'm entitled to the use of my town's police force when I legitimately need them because my property tax dollars goes to the funding of that police force.

[tbombz]

The right to a wage that can support a family has NEVER existed yet you argue in favor of that while claiming that because the property tax didn't exist at one point one isn't entitled to police protection.

You are contradicting your entire argument.

NOPE

by YOUR LOGIC, because property tax didnt exist at one time people werent entitled to police protection AT THAT TIME.

because your argument, thus far, is that people are only entitled to things which they are taxed for.

[tbombz]

I don't think anything.

good. the first step is admitting  you have a problem. 

[Fury]

NOPE

by YOUR LOGIC, because property tax didnt exist at one time people werent entitled to police protection AT THAT TIME.

because your argument, thus far, is that people are only entitled to things which they are taxed for.

That's not my argument at all. My argument is solely about a police force. It is not applicable to anything else beyond the services I am entitled to through my payment of a yearly property tax. I'm not interested in nor am I arguing about theoretical what ifs.

good. the first step is admitting  you have a problem.  

Sick burn.

Want to hear an even funnier joke? You're in junior college.

[tbombz]

That's not my argument at all. My argument is solely about a police force. It is not applicable to anything else beyond the services I am entitled to through my payment of a yearly property tax. I'm not interested in nor am I arguing about theoretical what ifs.

Sick burn.

Want to hear an even funnier joke? You're in junior college.

um...   so your argument is limited to police. right. thats what i said. you are saying you are entitled to it because you pay for it. right, got that. by saying that your entitled to what you pay for, you are indicating that you are not entitled to that which you dont pay for. you have some wiggle room, you can claim that you think we are entitled to things we dont pay for. im waiting to hear what you think those things are, if you do think that. but based on what youve said thus far, you think the role of government is to preserve the status quo and that people have a right to every current program and regulation but to no other.  if you disagree, please, be explicit.  ive been trying to get some ideas out of you, you obviously have an opinion abou the role of government, at least to the extent that you do not think the government should regulate the wages people earn. so, expand on this, why is this not a proper role of government, and why is preserving the status quo?

[Fury]

um...   so your argument is limited to police. right. thats what i said. you are saying you are entitled to it because you pay for it. right, got that. by saying that your entitled to what you pay for, you are indicating that you are not entitled to that which you dont pay for. you have some wiggle room, you can claim that you think we are entitled to things we dont pay for. im waiting to hear what you think those things are, if you do think that. but based on what youve said thus far, you think the role of government is to preserve the status quo and that people have a right to every current program and regulation but to no other.  if you disagree, please, be explicit.  ive been trying to get some ideas out of you, you obviously have an opinion abou the role of government, at least to the extent that you do not think the government should regulate the wages people earn. so, expand on this, why is this not a proper role of government, and why is preserving the status quo?

Wrong. The only reason I'm entitled to police protection from my town's government is because I hand over a property tax that entitles me to the use of its services when I have a legitimate need for them. My town govt. stipulates that a police force is part of what my property tax goes towards funding (other things being the public schools, library, fire dept., etc) when they present the yearly budget we vote on. I'm not constitutionally entitled to police protection and there are multiple court cases that support that so Hereford is right in that regard.

I couldn't care less about the sweeping argument you're trying to make so you might as well give it a rest.

[tbombz]

do you think the people who put that property tax in place initially were right in doing so? if so, why ?

[AC Slater]

tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx. 

What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?

By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves.  Why do you think communism has never worked?

[tbombz]

tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx. 

What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?

By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves.  Why do you think communism has never worked?

 

 i said educated, skilled workers should be paid more than unskilled ones. just not obscene amounts.  what part of that dont you understand, simple?

[tonymctones]

tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx.  

What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?

By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves.  Why do you think communism has never worked?

dizzle believes that ppl will work hard b/c the want to feel respected and for the own sense of self worth...

this is based on his own work ethic and tireless efforts to climb the corporate ladder.

what is your work experience again drizzle?

[tonymctones]

 

 i said educated, skilled workers should be paid more than unskilled ones. just not obscene amounts.  what part of that dont you understand, simple?

what about investors who give the companies millions to buy equipment and hire the workers?

where do they fall in your opinion?

you know part of the reason the top management make so much money is because their income is based on stock options(we can explain this to you if need be, econ didnt cover this) and b/c their actions have a much bigger impact on the stock price of the company than a laborer. So if b/c of their actions the stock price goes up the make money, if b/c of their actions the stock price goes down then well then you know what happens, right?

[tbombz]

im a socialist, i think major business decisions are far too important and have much too large an impact on the economy and thus society as a whole to be left to private entities which may act irresponsibly.

oversight of management to ensure effecient and responsible business strategies, low prices, low cost of production, minimal pollution, fair wages and quality products.  investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder.

[tonymctones]

im a socialist, i think major business decisions are far too important and have much too large an impact on the economy and thus society as a whole to be left to private entities which may act irresponsibly.

oversight of management to ensure effecient and responsible business strategies, low prices, low cost of production, minimal pollution, fair wages and quality products.  investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder.

did you read this straight off your notebook from class?

fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.

One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.

you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?

actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.

the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.

[Deicide]

did you read this straight off your notebook from class?

fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.

One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.

you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?

actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.

the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.

Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.

[tonymctones]

Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.

while taking a cut for themselves in the process...yea govt is great!!!!

[Muscleboy]

For everyone out there who has multiple degrees and is making good money, just remember.  In ten-fifteen years, everyone is going to have a bachelors, masters, and more and there will be less jobs out there so when you get laid off and they bring in a 20 something with no experience willing to do your 100,000 a year job for 60,000, your going to wish you had a union backing you up.

Its happening now.  I know companies laying off people with 20 years with them and bringing in entry level people straight out of college to do their job for cheap.  On the news they are always showing big up, 100,000 plus a year with a 700,000 house that is now laid off and cant live off the 400/week unemployment.

So even if your anti-union, you have to agree that it would be nice security knowing they couldnt do this.

Watch that episode of southpark where all the future people take all the "redneck" jobs.  Stans dad doesnt care.  But when they take his job as an scientist, "THEY TOOK MY JOB!!!"

[tonymctones]

For everyone out there who has multiple degrees and is making good money, just remember.  In ten-fifteen years, everyone is going to have a bachelors, masters, and more and there will be less jobs out there so when you get laid off and they bring in a 20 something with no experience willing to do your 100,000 a year job for 60,000, your going to wish you had a union backing you up.

Its happening now.  I know companies laying off people with 20 years with them and bringing in entry level people straight out of college to do their job for cheap.  On the news they are always showing big up, 100,000 plus a year with a 700,000 house that is now laid off and cant live off the 400/week unemployment.

So even if your anti-union, you have to agree that it would be nice security knowing they couldnt do this.

Watch that episode of southpark where all the future people take all the "redneck" jobs.  Stans dad doesnt care.  But when they take his job as an scientist, "THEY TOOK MY JOB!!!"

LMFAO so what youre saying is b/c you cant compete you need someone to make sure you have an unfair advantage?

how about you create skills and education and that becomes your job security?

what a novel idea huh?

[Hereford]

LMFAO so what youre saying is b/c you cant compete you need someone to make sure you have an unfair advantage?

how about you create skills and education and that becomes your job security?

what a novel idea huh?

+1

This is the typical union mindset. They NEED governmental or other unfair protection to survive. If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.

How about making yourself WORTH that 100K?

[AC Slater]

+1

This is the typical union mindset. They NEED governmental or other unfair protection to survive. If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.

How about making yourself WORTH that 100K?

Exactly.  If you make 100k and someone else can do the job just as good as you for 60k, you aren't worth the 100k and the price of the job will fall (basic economics here fellas).

When people have the type of job security that muscleboy is mentioning, they slack off big time and are unproductive.

[tbombz]

did you read this straight off your notebook from class?

fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.

One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.

you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?

actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.

the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.

youra lost cause, your entire post and every other from you in this thread demonstrates you do not have the ability to think on your own, your a brain washed idiot who idolizes the free market

Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.

right, better we just become anarchists, government isnt good at anything

If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.

Exactly.  If you make 100k and someone else can do the job just as good as you for 60k, you aren't worth the 100k and the price of the job will fall (basic economics here fellas).

^^^^

yup, so all tose manufacturing jobs that used to pay good wages when they were in america before they were outsourced, those jobs were never worth a decent wage, manufacturing jobs are only worth pennies per day, if you work in that industry you dont deserve anything but poverty, barely enough food to survive on. 














i swear you fucktards really are something else.

[tonymctones]

youra lost cause, your entire post and every other from you in this thread demonstrates you do not have the ability to think on your own, your a brain washed idiot who idolizes the free market

LOL so you have no idea how business works?

hahaha go on drizzle, one day you will learn my friend

[tbombz]

LOL so you have no idea how business works?

hahaha go on drizzle, one day you will learn my friend

 you mean one day ill be an ignorant clown who listens to all the propaganda bullshit big business has been touting for the past 100 years in an effort to keep the public misinformed about the realitites of capitalism vs. socialism so they can keep profits at ludacris levels... o, great.. im so looking forward to it..        

[tonymctones]

  you mean one day ill be an ignorant clown who listens to all the propaganda bullshit big business has been touting for the past 100 years in an effort to keep the public misinformed about the realitites of capitalism vs. socialism so they can keep profits at ludacris levels... o, great.. im so looking forward to it..          

if its propaganda bs then pls refute the points i made here...

did you read this straight off your notebook from class?

fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.

One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.

you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?

actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.

the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.

Dont worry Ill wait until next week when youre done with chapter 5 of your text book

[rachaelsnav]

Anyone who has ever been to Russia will tell you that Socialism doesn't work. 

Back to main point if we didn't have the UAW we wouldn't need the high import tariffs on automobiles and cars would be cheaper giving every non UAW consumer in the U.S. a raise by offering us cheaper better cars and making U.S. cars viable in international markets. Instead BMW and Hyundai come to the U.S., make better cars with non-union labor and profit from the difference making the Germany and Korea richer and the U.S. poorer.

I also love how everyone cries whenever a union member is asked to take a cut in pay or benefits so a company or state can survive, but we are cutting thousands of military jobs this year and next with no regard to people who have served this country fighting wars for 10 plus years and are losing their jobs and it nobody cares. Especially since these "cost cutting measures" are made so we can give unions more money.