2

2

well played sir

sniped

hardly

i disagree that anyone indirectly benefits from unions
when a union "dives up wages" they are essentially taxing the corporations investments
the corporation responds by investing less

i also think that unions take too much credit for improved working conditions at the turn of the century
the working conditions at that time had less to do with exploitation and more to do with technology

On the subject of termination vs. re-training, I think where people are mistaken about Spencer's ideas are that it's clearly that he expects everyone to be immediately fired if they make a mistake, but it's more about companies being able to run their business as they see fit. I'm certain that it's clearly in the best interest of a company to always immediately terminate someone, but if they are good enough at what they do they can spot when they have made a poor investment and it's a better business decision to let them go.

Competition and incentives are what drive productivity in our economy and in our world. Want to succeed? Work hard and earn your place, don't bitch and complain why things aren't being handed to you.

then his complaint is clearly against unions but against all the anti-discrimination cases that have come before the supreme court that have dictated what due process is required by a company before they fire someone.

and companies can run their business as they see fit. if they dont want to be union they can hire away from unions ala wal-mart. spencers entire argument is "unions suppress competition" which is a fallacy. outside of teachers and truck drivers unions have no clout today. this graph basically shows what declining unions has brought americans.

i disagree. when unions were at their strongest the disparity between ceo pay and average worker pay was at its lowest. i dont know why we as americans accept the fact that the ceo and board of executives (ceo pay) are deserving of anything they want while the average worker is only deserving of a modest living (average working wage for all of america). so one could make the argument that unions have changed company investments but only because executives refuse to infringe on their benefits.

as for working conditions at the turn of the century, it was the general movement of unions and collective well-being of society that pushed us from 16 hour work days and freedom of the employee. its surprising how little power the employee actually has in america, while at will states hold total control over termination conditions, most states have a public policy that dictates what is legal.

there was a general movement of the betterment of society during and after the industrial revolution. technology only pushed people to work in more dangerous conditions (see the textile industries, agriculture industries).

i guess the real question is if we agree or disagree that any job should pay the employee a livable wage or if any wage is acceptable. because by "free market" standards labor is only worth the absolute minimum the employer has to pay to achieve their goals. and the robber barons of the 19th century shows us just how much labor could be exploited without unions and government intervention.

to add to that, i would actually say that technology has actually increased demands on labor as their output is greater, thus more incentive to work more hours. for example it is widely thought that slavery in america was on the decline as their production barely outpaced the costs to house and feed them. eli whitneys cotton gin increased production so much that the growing of cotton because the souths biggest business. while thats probably the most profound example i believe the same logic holds true. new and better technology increases output which creates a greater demand on the labor. less can do more, overtime has less cost per output, time is even more valuable.

fuckin idiots think the company is evil and never provides the employee with enough. companies are what is good... they provide jobs, make products, help the economy. unions are the biggest reason why people are outsourcing jobs. congrats morons, you got your benefits and resulted in losing your jobs

Proof? Facts? Don't let these things get in the way of your ideology

And if you really think unions caused labor to move overseas you really are a fucking idiot

companies are clearly all well and good.

my company for example consistently underpays employees and puts plants only in very rural and poor areas.

What do you mean by "underpay"?

there's no difference between your troll poops and conservative america because neither involve critical though, and neither will ever admit to being wrong even if it means decades of defending a failed policy.

i never thought about it, but you are right. his troll poops really are exactly the conservative rhetoric. lol.

difference of ~10k to peers with other companies that is clearly due to cost of living

can't wait to see obamacare defended in 10 years

So the "other companies" are less evil by your rationale.

Who is the best authority to place value on labor?

That's the problem with conservatives, all they want to do is wait and complain that changes to the status quo are going to be bad. There is no solution to the problem other than a single-payer system and everything up to that will be considered a small step.

cant wait to see how many questions and comments you will continue to ignore because all you can do is poop a few random punchlines you learned from the "liberal" media

and lets clearly forget anything a republican proposes is immediately considered a bad idea once the dems agree to it. health care, cap and trade, etc etc.

Workers who have the right to collectively bargain with employers who are clearly allowed to collude.

You forgot wars in the middle east.

the point is that clearly all companies are good mannered. They could do a better job of retaining talent if they paid better salaries

thats the inherent flaw in our system, the goal is maximized profits, clearly maximized wages. the whole reason unions even exist is because the employer has a terrible track record of taking good care of their employees.

A high unemployment rate is perceived as low job mobility, giving employers free retention force. Employers are forced to be more competitive with a lower unemployment rate. It is in the best interest of business owners to support politicians who are clearly actually going to create jobs or lower the unemployment rate.

I know but we are talking about maybe 70-100k a year more at my plant out of the millions and millions made monthly

With that kind of logic, business owners would be pro obama

clearly the candidates saying they want to shut down the government if they don't get their way.

now that sounds like wisconsin dems

Compare approval ratings of Democrats in the Wisconsin State Senate to Federal representatives.

Here are some national numbers for you, you can research your home bubble.

US House: 17-21% approval in the month of June (CBS/NY Times/Time/AP/NBC/WSJ/Gallup)
Democrats have a higher approval rating than Republicans according to all major polls (D R)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_the_point

you're pooping like if an employee could choose his salary with no strings attached he wouldn't choose to be making light years more than a CEO would

This post has been edited by hedonism on Sun - Jul 3 2011 - 15:52:11

i would like to make a few counterpoints (mostly based on my own experience as well as both sides look at the pros/cons of unions). ultimately i think we will agree to disagree but thank you for your response nonetheless.

(the below arguements are based on private sector)

i accept ceo pay because the ceo and executives are the face of the company. they deserve to make money directly based on the companies profits, assets, cash, and growth. this is because they are the reason that their company is successful or clearly successful. clearly by labor but by leadership and decision making. as an employee you deserve to make what the company is willing to pay you, usually based on industry standards and cost of living. most successful and profitable companies pay their employees and treat their employees the best and thats why they remain profitable. most succesful companies also understand performance improvement in regards to helping employees motivated to work at an acceptable standard. this is clearly only to show that the company has its employees best interests at hand but also to cover their ass if the employee is truely a fuckup. now whether or clearly "performance improvement" on paper translates from the top down to the front line is another story, but clearly to the extreme that the mass of workers want to unionize. when it concerns your counterpoint of company invests less = ceo doesnt want to infringe on their benefits, i would say that "their benefits" = the benefits of the company as a whole.

when it concerns my point of technology, i am speaking of things like electric machinery, lights, plumbing, safety equipment, and even medicine. to argue clearly only that technology made things more dangerous, but also caused more labor, is something i completely disagree with. before those kinds of advances (in my opinion), people worked to survive. i would also argue that unions opposed labor saving technology based on it causing unemployment. then when it happened they took credit for it.

to your last point, i believe it depends on the job and how profitable the company is. some of the most profitable companies in the world succeed (in my opinion) clearly only through good business acumen but by having integrity in the workplace. they do this because they want to continue to be profitable.

ill read and respond to your poop in a bit, but as a counterpoint to your first paragraph i present Wal-Mart. the worlds largest employer and notorious for underpaying and clearly allowing 40 hour weeks to many people. current class action lawsuit dropped due to the fact that there could be no way to prove all 3.5 mil(?) women were treated the same under similar circumstances.

As far as I know minimum wage laws are followed.

federal minimum wage = $7.25. standard work year is 2080 hours. thats $15,080. poverty line is $22,350 for 2011. so you could make the argument that they are allowed to pay below the poverty line, and by also forcing workers to clearly get 40 hours they also have no benefits. this is clearly a livable wage, which is the entire point of my statement. the employer has no incentive to take care of their employees any more than the absolute minimum required to attract workers. and since people need to work they get their employees. now couple that with the complete anti-union stance they take as a corporation, i dont see any attempts by them to better the life of their employees.

To turn the tables on you; your argument is with federal legislation, clearly law-abiding corporations.

I also used to make 22,880 and was clearly living in poverty. The issue isn't lack of wages, it's lack of intelligence and planning from morons who don't budget their money and have 4 kids while making minimum wage at wal-mart.

people (mostly on the right) think a minimum wage drives down employment. no idea how eliminating a minimum wage would allow for higher paying jobs for more people though. maybe if michelle backman could explain that to me. however, the responsibility lies with the employer to provide livable wages, clearly the federal government.

i agree with you on this, though adding a single child makes 23k clearly really go far enough without WIC and other programs.

i agree with you, but labor IS valuable. if minimum wage laws didn't exist it wouldn't drive all workers into poverty; it would create a competitive market for corporations to more freely balance their labor costs against their product costs. as long as competition exists there will be balance in the market.

balance does clearly mean livable wage though, so removing the minimum wage would increase demand for even lower wage jobs

Cause and effect, Wal-Mart is a great example of how efficient labor costs keep prices low. With enough competition the cost of living drops.

prices are low because walmart makes money based on volume. sell 1 billion rolls of toilet paper per day for 1 cent profit each. clearly much there to do with labor

clearly sure why anyone responds to hedonism's poops

he's proven himself to be on chins' level of stupidity when it comes to any real world discussions

carry on

if i make 1 billion new characters and sell their starting equipment for 1 gold each..