AZ law is blocked

[slcdragonfan]

where's Hoffa buried?

Come on Man...sure the CEOs did it. and the Unions. and the lawyers......and I got screwed.....ask Mad.


bolded = excuses. Win or go home. Right?

I got screwed on the GM deal. Also, on the Lucent deal (my retirement). Hey, its life. I am fine with holding someone responsible for their actions. Lets jsut make sure we have all the right parties involved.

I am no fan of what the Unions are today. I see their historical necessity but they have gone way beyond that. on the other hand, we have some CEO's and management teams who have raped and pillaged metaphorically speaking, and they get a hand wave by most on here. I am just providing equal opportunity blaming...

[Tom]

Sitting on Beale at Silky OSullivans listening to the blues and reading the BS that Tom is spewing makes me wonder how he got so stupid in 28 short years.

Hope you didn't pay much for your education

Jealous. Since you brought it up, though, one of my mother's best friends is the manager at Silky's.

Vanderbilt is expensive. I always do find it funny when conservatives act like we're so liberal because of our education. Makes conservatism sound really unappealing if you can only believe it if you're not exposed to alternative viewpoints.

[Tom]

Tom knows the answer. He didn't want to lose the union vote taxpayers be damned , right birthday boy?

Son of a union member. I've managed to keep my mouth shut about that one.

[Dawg82]

Son of a union member. I've managed to keep my mouth shut about that one.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Unions served a very valuable purpose in protecting rights of typically less educated, factory workers back in the early Industrial revolution age. Since then, their motives have changed and they now have become a hindrance to competitiveness in a global economy.

A real solution might be to espouse "Right to Work" principles, work towards a more educated populace--big key--and get people back to personal accountability.

I'm a firm believer that not every person needs a 4 year college degree to be successful. This has been peer pressure and brainwashing IMHO. Skills, crafts, and trades are keys in a well-rounded economy. It's tough to outsource plumbers, A/C techs, carpenters, mechanics of any sort, welders, etc. and these professions are all compensated quite well.

[Tom]

Nothing wrong with that at all. Unions served a very valuable purpose in protecting rights of typically less educated, factory workers back in the early Industrial revolution age. Since then, their motives have changed and they now have become a hindrance to competitiveness in a global economy.

A real solution might be to espouse "Right to Work" principles, work towards a more educated populace--big key--and get people back to personal accountability.

I'm a firm believer that not every person needs a 4 year college degree to be successful. This has been peer pressure and brainwashing IMHO. Skills, crafts, and trades are keys in a well-rounded economy. It's tough to outsource plumbers, A/C techs, carpenters, mechanics of any sort, welders, etc. and these professions are all compensated quite well.

Teachers' union member in my mom's case. I agree that unions played a valuable role way back when, but to say they have outlived their usefulness... Not sure that I agree with that when current experience is that profitable companies are cutting wages and benefits to increase profits. (This destroys the myth that employees and shareholders of a company always have the same interests. Obviously different if the company is losing money, as then nobody will have a job.)

Right to work: well, right to work just says the union has to represent everybody in negotiations regardless of whether they're a union member or not. So what's the point of paying union dues? This really doesn't do much except to deprive a big Democratic contributor of funding.

I don't buy the "global competitiveness" argument since you have a heavily unionized country (Germany) that is very competitive globally in the manufacturing sector. But Germany makes quality products (Mercedes-Benz, etc.) People certainly aren't buying German cars because they're cheap.

[Dawg82]

Teachers' union member in my mom's case. I agree that unions played a valuable role way back when, but to say they have outlived their usefulness... Not sure that I agree with that when current experience is that profitable companies are cutting wages and benefits to increase profits. (This destroys the myth that employees and shareholders of a company always have the same interests. Obviously different if the company is losing money, as then nobody will have a job.) Right to work: well, right to work just says the union has to represent everybody in negotiations regardless of whether they're a union member or not. So what's the point of paying union dues? This really doesn't do much except to deprive a big Democratic contributor of funding. I don't buy the "global competitiveness" argument since you have a heavily unionized country (Germany) that is very competitive globally in the manufacturing sector. But Germany makes quality products (Mercedes-Benz, etc.) People certainly aren't buying German cars because they're cheap.

1. Teacher's Union I won't address because of a big pet peeve.
2. Please provide examples of profitable companies cutting wages to increase profits.
3. "Right To Work" has to do with unions in the fact no one can be forced to join, or be fired if they don't. It invokes a very individual contract between an employer and employee.
4. Germany has unions for sure. Germany is also less of a welfare state than the U.S. (I'll see if I can find the link for info...) http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...ion/wstate.htm (A decent link to make sure we're discussing the same things as they pertain to a welfare state. There was another I was reading previous that provided numbers per capita. I've lost it now...)

A couple of viewpoints:
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...b-ae0b106725db
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/op...is-europe.html

Happy B-Day by the way!

[Tom]

1. Teacher's Union I won't address because of a big pet peeve.
2. Please provide examples of profitable companies cutting wages to increase profits.
3. "Right To Work" has to do with unions in the fact no one can be forced to join, or be fired if they don't. It invokes a very individual contract between an employer and employee.
4. Germany has unions for sure. Germany is also less of a welfare state than the U.S. (I'll see if I can find the link for info...) http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...ion/wstate.htm (A decent link to make sure we're discussing the same things as they pertain to a welfare state. There was another I was reading previous that provided numbers per capita. I've lost it now...)

A couple of viewpoints:
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...b-ae0b106725db
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/op...is-europe.html

Happy B-Day by the way!

Just off the top of my head, I'd say the recent labor fights in the NFL and NBA were pretty clear-cut examples; the NFL basically has a license to print money while I don't believe for a second that most NBA teams were losing money (a lot of them were using accounting tricks to make it look like they've been losing money; oldest trick in the book: divert profits from the team to another entity owned by the same owner.) Although it was sorta fun to watch liberals actually attacking the unions...

I think those articles make some excellent points. A lot of the "wealth transfers" (for lack of a better term) take place on the revenue side, such as the EITC, and not the spending side. Unless you REALLY want to do away with Medicare or Social Security (a suicide mission, politically, if there ever was one) or you want to cut the defense budget (though I'd argue that there is a TON of wasted money there), then what you're really looking at is the revenue side of the equation.

Germany's vocational education is second to none, so their workforce is a positive for companies even if they have to pay more. We're kind of in a rough spot in a manufacturing sector, as we're not going to compete in low-skill industries (where companies can go to China or wherever and get glorified slave labor) and we don't invest enough in our workforce on the high-skill side -- I'd argue because we emphasize four-year college degrees. I actually like Newt Gingrich's proposal to tie unemployment benefits to job retraining as that would help make our workforce more skilled (though who is going to pay for the retraining?)

(Privately, I'll also concede that the Buffett Rule was nothing more than a political stunt designed to get Republicans on the record as supporting allowing millionaires to pay low taxes rather than an actual solution. And you're a day late on the birthday. )

[Firebird]

1. Teacher's Union I won't address because of a big pet peeve.
2. Please provide examples of profitable companies cutting wages to increase profits.
3. "Right To Work" has to do with unions in the fact no one can be forced to join, or be fired if they don't. It invokes a very individual contract between an employer and employee.
4. Germany has unions for sure. Germany is also less of a welfare state than the U.S. (I'll see if I can find the link for info...) http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...ion/wstate.htm (A decent link to make sure we're discussing the same things as they pertain to a welfare state. There was another I was reading previous that provided numbers per capita. I've lost it now...)

A couple of viewpoints:
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...b-ae0b106725db
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/op...is-europe.html

Happy B-Day by the way!

I know of no one, respectable academic or no, who can say that with a straight face. Germany spends roughly twice as much of its GDP, as a percentage, than the U.S. on welfare programs whether you include education or leave it out.

You can read about Germany's social insurance system here.

http://berlin.angloinfo.com/countrie...ocsecurity.asp

Higher and primary education is also nearly completely subsidized.

I am not saying the German model is better, but it is ludicrous to say that the welfare state in Germany (Germany invented the welfare state, by the way) is less extensive than in the U.S. There is no measure out there that shows anything otherwise.

[Dawg82]

I know of no one, respectable academic or no, who can say that with a straight face. Germany spends roughly twice as much of its GDP, as a percentage, than the U.S. on welfare programs whether you include education or leave it out.

You can read about Germany's social insurance system here.

http://berlin.angloinfo.com/countrie...ocsecurity.asp

Higher and primary education is also nearly completely subsidized.

I am not saying the German model is better, but it is ludicrous to say that the welfare state in Germany (Germany invented the welfare state, by the way) is less extensive than in the U.S. There is no measure out there that shows anything otherwise.

Wrong on multiple counts. England first established the welfare state in 1598. It was called the Poor Law. It has since gone through modifications, but the social safety net still exists in modified form and practice. Germany has a work-oriented social welfare system. Those who don't work, or are wealthy, get no benefits. The benefits that are provided are mainly from a cooperative effort between private employers and government involvement is limited. This is thought to increase work production, create a desire to work, and stimulate the economy in times of dire need by added government assistance.

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...on/socpolf.htm

(I posted the first link you highlighted in your response to me to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.)

[Firebird]

Wrong on multiple counts. England first established the welfare state in 1598. It was called the Poor Law. It has since gone through modifications, but the social safety net still exists in modified form and practice. Germany has a work-oriented social welfare system. Those who don't work, or are wealthy, get no benefits. The benefits that are provided are mainly from a cooperative effort between private employers and government involvement is limited. This is thought to increase work production, create a desire to work, and stimulate the economy in times of dire need by added government assistance.

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...on/socpolf.htm

(I posted the first link you highlighted in your response to me to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.)

The bolded highlight is absurd. Many countries and states had laws and procedures in place for the relief of the poor both before and after England's Poor Laws. Islamic states, for instance used tax dollars to provide for widows, orphans, and the disabled. The Roman Empire had programs in place for poor relief, and even the Pentateuch outlines a proto-welfare system for the Theocratic government of the ancient Hebrews. Any of those would be just as good of a choice as the Poor Act, which codified things such as sending vagrants to prison.

The modern welfare state, was introduced by Bismarck in Prussia-- a system of pensions, unemployment insurance, accident insurance, and public health care.

Your link is interesting, but doesn't tell the whole story of the welfare state in Germany. There's no comparison between the U.S. and Germany, even though much (not all) is run through the employer. It is more subsidized, more expansive, and more comprehensive. Hell, the German higher education system, which is basically fully funded higher ed. for all residents, alone sinks your argument.

You are also completely wrong about not getting benefits if you don't work. Social assistance in Germany guarantees a minimum "dignified" income for everyone, regardless of employment situation past or present, as well as other benefits for housing, medical, etc. It's in their Constitution. Currently the benefit for a single person is around 400 Euro per month PLUS "adequate" housing and medical care.

Your statements do not reflect in any way what Germany actually looks like. They have been implementing austerity measures and squabbling over funding, but there is no way whatsoever to argue that their welfare state is smaller than ours.

[Dawg82]

The bolded highlight is absurd. Many countries and states had laws and procedures in place for the relief of the poor both before and after England's Poor Laws. Islamic states, for instance used tax dollars to provide for widows, orphans, and the disabled. The Roman Empire had programs in place for poor relief, and even the Pentateuch outlines a proto-welfare system for the Theocratic government of the ancient Hebrews. Any of those would be just as good of a choice as the Poor Act, which codified things such as sending vagrants to prison.

The modern welfare state, was introduced by Bismarck in Prussia-- a system of pensions, unemployment insurance, accident insurance, and public health care.

Your link is interesting, but doesn't tell the whole story of the welfare state in Germany. There's no comparison between the U.S. and Germany, even though much (not all) is run through the employer. It is more subsidized, more expansive, and more comprehensive. Hell, the German higher education system, which is basically fully funded higher ed. for all residents, alone sinks your argument.

You are also completely wrong about not getting benefits if you don't work. Social assistance in Germany guarantees a minimum "dignified" income for everyone, regardless of employment situation past or present, as well as other benefits for housing, medical, etc. It's in their Constitution. Currently the benefit for a single person is around 400 Euro per month PLUS "adequate" housing and medical care.

Your statements do not reflect in any way what Germany actually looks like. They have been implementing austerity measures and squabbling over funding, but there is no way whatsoever to argue that their welfare state is smaller than ours.

So, I guess we agree that Germany didn't invent the welfare state?
There are many of your points I don't disagree with. I do want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, and I think it's also important for folks to realize the U.S. is one of the largest welfare states in the world. (I think some don't realize.)

It's very difficult to compare Germany and the U.S. in this category. Benefits are provided differently. We also need to step outside of the benefits of pay, medical, retirement, etc. to see the full picture. I'll add the below link for further discussion:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...-cultural-life

Germany's model is supported as a social contract to encourage advancement and is primarily funded by private interests. (At least it has tried to before the ruling the link above discusses.) This explains a lot about their education funding and principles. America's model is idealogically more universal and state run. It can be argued that Germany's model provides more incentive to work.

I'll agree with you I see good and bad in both. Bismarck was also a good point I agree with. Hopefully, people will investigate. By the way, I can argue the bolded just by population itself. Easy argument.