I don't understand

[fordman1]

My ancestors came here on the Mayflower. They fought in every war since that time. I am a Vet. Always been proud of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I am embarrassed by the man we elected last year. I find him unfit. I just don't understand his support!

[imagonman]

I think the AMerican people are GD 'fed-up' w/ the lifelong politicians lying thru their teeth & turning their backs on the common everyday Joe like you & I. Selling 'US' out to foreign interests & their own personal gain & greed while the rest of us all pay the price.
Like Geo Carlin said, "....... its a big exclusive club and you ain't in it!" After the 27 yrs.+ of the Bush's, Obama & Clinton regimes, this country looks vastly different. Maybe 1 more Clinton continuing that horrid tradition was too much. Enough of these oligarchs running this country for themselves & their friends benefit only. Look @ your hometown, they want the whole country like that?? Our freedoms have been eroded away little by little for too damn long. America 1st was a great ad campaign & just what people wanted to hear @ the right time.

[J Anderson]

I think the AMerican people are GD 'fed-up' w/ the lifelong politicians lying thru their teeth & turning their backs on the common everyday Joe like you & I. Selling 'US' out to foreign interests & their own personal gain & greed while the rest of us all pay the price.
Like Geo Carlin said, "....... its a big exclusive club and you ain't in it!" After the 27 yrs.+ of the Bush's, Obama & Clinton regimes, this country looks vastly different. Maybe 1 more Clinton continuing that horrid tradition was too much. Enough of these oligarchs running this country for themselves & their friends benefit only. Look @ your hometown, they want the whole country like that?? Our freedoms have been eroded away little by little for too damn long. America 1st was a great ad campaign & just what people wanted to hear @ the right time.

I think you are right about people being fed up with the career polititions, who think their job is just to get re-elected. I can understand voters being frustrated enough to take a chance on a minor TV celebrity. I didn't get why they thought that the son of millionaire parents would actually be on the side of the middle class. I really don't see why his supporters can't see that the emperor has no clothes.

[fordman1]

I was referring to his continued support. He is a spoiled brat.

[RobLV1]

You are referring to the President of the United States. Show some respect for the office. If you don't like the man, that's your prerogative. Don't disrespect the office, regardless of your opinion of the man.

[fordman1]

You are referring to the President of the United States. Show some respect for the office. If you don't like the man, that's your prerogative. Don't disrespect the office, regardless of your opinion of the man.

I have the utmost respect for the office. More than the man in office now. I just don't understand his supporters. What would he have to do to show the emperor has no cloths. CON-MAN

[Aslan]

This thread isn't going to end well...

I don't think the President has the support you think he does. He was elected by moderates to send a message to both parties. Thus far, he hasn't come through on any of his promises to the middle class...so I don't see him surviving a re-election bid unless the Democrats try to elect someone absurdly left. I'm not even sure Trump really wants a second term....I don't think it's as "fun" as he thought it would be.

The "supporters" you see and hear from are folks that are going to support the right-wing candidate no matter who it is. You rarely hear from the "Silent Majority"...because, as the name states, they tend to be "silent". Now you're hearing from die hard Republicans trying to make it seem like Trump still has a ton of support...and hearing from a random "trump voter" that the liberal media recruits to talk about how they regret their vote...in an attempt to convince the public that Trumps support is eroding.

If the liberal media can lay off their assault...and the Dems avoid nominating a far left politician or rap artist...Trump will likely lose in 2020. Even if he tries to keep his campaign promises to the moderates, his own party in Congress won't let him. I'm not sure if the Democrats got the message the Silent Majority sent in 2016...but I'm pretty sure the Republicans didn't get the message.

[fordman1]

Mostly agree. What is a far left liberal?

[Aslan]

Mostly agree. What is a far left liberal?

Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, Mazie Hirono, Sherrod Brown, etc...

[fordman1]

What are you aslan? I have a lot of compassion am I a far left liberal? To help those less fortunate than I am, you could raise my taxes.

[Aslan]

What are you aslan? I have a lot of compassion am I a far left liberal? To help those less fortunate than I am, you could raise my taxes.

I'm a moderate populist and nationalist.

Compassion is great...it enhances our humanity. The question is how to be compassionate while maintaining freedom, democracy, and capitalism. Those on the far left will try to be compassionate by taking money from those in the top 50% and spreading it to those on the bottom 50% in a type of socialist state. Those on the far right will simply rely on the "charity of the rich" to take care of those less fortunate; a form of modern day aristocracy. Like most things, the solution is somewhere in the middle.

The reason our country is in such bad shape right now...is we have two parties with severe ideological differences...and that divide has widened as media and entertainers have used more and more extreme rhetoric to divide the country. So, there is no bipartisan work. One side gains power...and does everything they can to stay in power. When the other side gains power, they do everything they can to stay in power. The side in power passes as much as they can while they are in power...then the new administration comes into power and the first thing they do is reverse everything the last administration did. And, the worst part...is that it's getting worse and worse...not better.

[fordman1]

I think you might be a little off on your 50-50 split helping the needy. Any way there needs to be something done about how much money can be donated. Rich Celeb's and people like the Koch brothers shouldn't be allowed to donate more than $100 No one should be allowed to buy a Congressman, Senator or POTUS. Too many lobbyist. Maybe there shouldn't be profit in keeping Americans well. Enough about this.

What is the USBC going to do with the extra money they get this year?
I have to go in front of my league every year and tell them.
Now this year I will tell them about the bump in dues this year.
Did you know that all the talk about guaranteeing you prize fund form theft and bankruptcy by a center they only back up about $5000. You would have to buy more to protect my league with $60,000 prize fund.

I got to go turn on FOX and see what a great job Trump did with his butt buddy Putin.

[Aslan]

Well, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision was a disappointing blow to campaign finance reform.

The real problem is the left gets money from unions. The right, gets money from corporations. Whenever they speak about "campaign finance reform"...they always try to limit the OPPONENT'S funding...while maintaining their own. Republicans tried to limit union contributions and called i "campaign finance reform"....Democrats opposed it. Democrats tried to limit the contributions by corporations and called it "campaign finance reform" and the Republicans opposed it. Any bipartisan effort to limit both is stomped out almost as soon as it's started. It's a popular topic at election time...and is then tossed in the garbage can as soon as the elections are over.

[fordman1]

If you are still trying to say unions have enough pull or money to sway an election you are living in a fox news dream world. Unions have been destroyed by globalization. It used to be that when the unions were strong UAW, AFLCIO and Teamsters they had a little bit to donate. Today one corp. and out donate them by themselves. That is a old stale argument. International Corp's run the world today. They have the Reps and Dems in their pocket.
If I had a dime for every $100 Trump has screwed people out of in his crooked deals I would be rich.

[Aslan]

If you doubt the power of unions...move to California.

The unions have definitely taken a hit in the Midwest...especially in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and especially Michigan. But government workers and the unions still dominate the political landscape in California.

Corporate powers outweigh them...but corporate powers, as you mentioned, support both sides. Clinton had just as many corporate donors as Trump did. Romney, McCain, and Obama all had large corporate donors. Like I said, neither side really wants campaign finance reform because they both benefit from it. And the Citizens United case pretty much destroyed any real chance of limiting monetary influence.

[fordman1]

Unions equal middle class.

[Aslan]

Unions equal middle class.

Not necessarily.

Unions are probably a "net positive"...but they have their own issues.

[fordman1]

UAW equals
Fair wages
Good Health Care
Good Dental
Good paid Vacations
Paid sick Leave
Health and Safety inspectors looking out for workers.
Everything the union man got on the shop floor so did his non union bosses.
The end of the sweat shops.

[drlawsoniii]

UAW equals
Fair wages
Good Health Care
Good Dental
Good paid Vacations
Paid sick Leave
Health and Safety inspectors looking out for workers.
Everything the union man got on the shop floor so did his non union bosses.
The end of the sweat shops.

The market dictates the price of labor. All unions do (nowadays) are cause inflation. Labor is only worth what someone is willing to do the job for. If the auto industry doesn't want to pay as much that is their right, but it is also the Workers' rights to not take that job. If someone is willing to assemble a car for 5 dollars an hour then that's what the value of said labor is. If someone is willing to flip burgers for 3 dollars an hour then so be it. If the workers don't like the wages, go work somewhere else or learn a skill that will enable them to demand more money. Unions had their purpose in the 20s but that time is long over.

[fordman1]

OK then no minimum wage. Once you get a little older you get replaced by a young person?

[Aslan]

OK then no minimum wage. Once you get a little older you get replaced by a young person?


The market dictates the price of labor.

Essentially, you're both correct.

Given the economic principles of supply and demand...a closed market would dictate prices and wages fairly.

The reason the system isn't working...is that the labor market is being circumvented by global trade and immigration. In days past, the Michigan workers competed against each other for what they'd accept as a wage. If a person would work for $12/hr...that would be the wage. Wages were generally above what we'd consider a "minimum wage" because there was a lot of competition for the worker. If Ford payed $14/hr...and GM only $11/hr...workers would reject the GM jobs in favor of the Ford jobs. With a strong manufacturing base and healthy job market...the supply/demand took care of things adequately.

Nowadays, the landscape has shifted dramatically. If a company opens a new factory, they can open it in Ohio or Michigan and pay a minimum of $10/hr or they can open it in Mexico and pay $2.75/hr....or they can open it in China and pay $0.50/hr. In some industries...they don't have to relocate the jobs...they can simply import or outsource the labor. Customer support person in Ohio costs $9/hr...but customer support person in India only costs $4/hr. If an American landscaper or contractor says they'll take care of your project for $96,000 using an American workforce and another landscaper/contractor quotes $47,000 using a primarily Mexican workforce...which is the customer going to choose?

So, the system for supply/demand to work must be a closed system. Currently it is not. And while far right conservatives will argue that is just sound, global economics...realize it comes with a severe and potentially catastrophic consequence. If you're selling a car in Detroit for $36,000...you need customers that can afford $465/month payments. If those workers are jobless...they don't buy your goods. And, the workers in other countries aren't making enough to afford that $36,000 car either. So, you've undercut your customer by reducing their ability to purchase your product.

The problem with unions is they offer very few jobs, to people that need to "know somebody" to get those jobs....especially in the UAW. I'm from the Detroit area...and those jobs were not easy to get if you didn't have a family member greasing the wheels. Unions also are filled with workers that are more interested in filing grievences for free $$$ than they are in actually doing their jobs. I've supervised a union workforce...and I can tell you first hand. I helped a couple young workers sweep the floor one night...because they had been forced to work overtime by their union coworkers who had seniority...about 2 straight weeks and the workers wanted to leave early to make some weekend plans. I helped them sweep up and the next week had a grievence filed against me. That kind of behavior is counter-productive to making the general public sympathetic to unions.

In addition, there's a serious issue with a unioinized person with a high school diploma making $75,000/year while college graduates get out of college with $40k in debt and are making $30k-$50k. I used to have a mid-management job...10 years working experience...and was making < $50,000/year. I could barely afford my bills...driving older cars...very little disposable income. My neighbor worked in the UAW...high school diploma...he had two snowmobiles...two brand new cars in his driveway...and a cabin by a lake up North. Not to mention, he had 2-4 weeks off...paid...every summer while the plant was shutdown for re-tooling. Again, it's hard to feel bad for union labor when they are being paid far more than most workers...many of those workers having more years in the workforce and a higher level of education.

It's a complicated issue. Rather than expanding unions...I'd like to see a closed border, serious fines levied against immigration law violators, shutting down free trade agreements, and rebuilding America's manufacturing base. We also need to take a serious look at CEO compensation which is roughly 300x the median income in this country. The GM CEO makes more the first day on the job than the highest paid union worker on the production floor makes the entire year...for doing a job that consists of having meetings in fancy board rooms. They don't actually "do" anything. They help direct senior managers one way or another...the real "work" is done as you go further down the ladder.

- Trade policies
- Immigration
- CEO compensation

If you solve those 3...you can get rid of unions and the minimum wage and nobody would notice. Attacking unions withOUT addressing those items will just continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor and continue the race to the bottom.

[Timmyb]

It's a complicated issue. Rather than expanding unions...I'd like to see a closed border, serious fines levied against immigration law violators, shutting down free trade agreements, and rebuilding America's manufacturing base. We also need to take a serious look at CEO compensation which is roughly 300x the median income in this country. The GM CEO makes more the first day on the job than the highest paid union worker on the production floor makes the entire year...for doing a job that consists of having meetings in fancy board rooms. They don't actually "do" anything. They help direct senior managers one way or another...the real "work" is done as you go further down the ladder.

- Trade policies
- Immigration
- CEO compensation

If you solve those 3...you can get rid of unions and the minimum wage and nobody would notice. Attacking unions withOUT addressing those items will just continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor and continue the race to the bottom.

Probably the most intelligent statement I've seen on this subject in a long time. Unions aren't the problem, but they aren't helping, either. I had a grievance filed on me because I came in on a Saturday to clean machines after everyone in the department refused the OT to do the same thing. There's going to be a tipping point in this country soon with regards to labor. A lot of them are starting to lean right, and the left is pretty pissed about that. Labor is one of the reasons Trump won. CEO pay is another. When I worked at Cat as a machinist, the CEO made 375x more than me in a year. Their answer to bad times? Get rid of me. They could have paid the entire shop for almost two years (with benefits) with what they payed Oberhelman.

[fordman1]

Aslan you sure put a lot of thought into your post and used a lot of the right wing slant. The factories that went to Mexico are the ones that make mostly small cars. We can build them here but the companies don't make any money on them.

When you were a supervisor for the auto company were you a contract worker or a actual employee?
Your job wasn't to sweep the floor it was to supervise.
Why shouldn't the high man on the totem pole get preference?
If you really worked in a factory and had neighbors making enough to own boats, snow mobiles and cabins up north you should remember the hours they put in.
Like the 7 days a week 12 hours a day for up to 6 months in a row. When were they riding their toys and going up north?
When the overtime went away they couldn't afford to put gas in the boat so they sat on the boat in the marina and drank beer.
You left out the part about the retirement. It is great if you ever get to enjoy it.
Breath in stale polluted smoke filled slag filled air for 30 + years. Hello Cancer
Stand on a metal stand and pick up 300 truck doors and put them in a rack for 12 hours 7 days a week.
Go home so tired you finally find out you wife found a new friend.
Did I mention going deaf from the noise?

The UNION tried to make it a safe place. Ask a coal miner if it is safe to go in a hole in the ground.

OK the auto jobs are not going over seas they have been killed by Automation. 9 out of 10 were replaced by Robots.
They don't dig coal mines any more the blow the top off the mountain and bull doze it out.

I need a nap....

[Tony]

Essentially, you're both correct.



The problem with unions is they offer very few jobs, to people that need to "know somebody" to get those jobs....especially in the UAW. I'm from the Detroit area...and those jobs were not easy to get if you didn't have a family member greasing the wheels. Unions also are filled with workers that are more interested in filing grievences for free $$$ than they are in actually doing their jobs. I've supervised a union workforce...and I can tell you first hand. I helped a couple young workers sweep the floor one night...because they had been forced to work overtime by their union coworkers who had seniority...about 2 straight weeks and the workers wanted to leave early to make some weekend plans. I helped them sweep up and the next week had a grievence filed against me. That kind of behavior is counter-productive to making the general public sympathetic to unions.

In addition, there's a serious issue with a unioinized person with a high school diploma making $75,000/year while college graduates get out of college with $40k in debt and are making $30k-$50k. I used to have a mid-management job...10 years working experience...and was making < $50,000/year. I could barely afford my bills...driving older cars...very little disposable income. My neighbor worked in the UAW...high school diploma...he had two snowmobiles...two brand new cars in his driveway...and a cabin by a lake up North. Not to mention, he had 2-4 weeks off...paid...every summer while the plant was shutdown for re-tooling. Again, it's hard to feel bad for union labor when they are being paid far more than most workers...many of those workers having more years in the workforce and a higher level of education.

It's a complicated issue. Rather than expanding unions...I'd like to see a closed border, serious fines levied against immigration law violators, shutting down free trade agreements, and rebuilding America's manufacturing base. We also need to take a serious look at CEO compensation which is roughly 300x the median income in this country. The GM CEO makes more the first day on the job than the highest paid union worker on the production floor makes the entire year...for doing a job that consists of having meetings in fancy board rooms. They don't actually "do" anything. They help direct senior managers one way or another...the real "work" is done as you go further down the ladder.

- Trade policies
- Immigration
- CEO compensation

If you solve those 3...you can get rid of unions and the minimum wage and nobody would notice. Attacking unions withOUT addressing those items will just continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor and continue the race to the bottom.

A couple of things to remember with your comments and conclusion, a closed market economy has no room for unions, they don't follow the rule, specific wages are paid irrespective of demand. There is also not correlation between education level, why should persons that go to school for four years and get a degree command a better wage, this would also fall outside supply and demand principals.

Certain jobs that a persons education, skill, or willingness to perform enable them to be among a small supply and large demand would get the most wages.
Persons with a degree in or unexceptional skill set would be at the bottom of the ladder.

You also elude to people doing the "real"work, this would be the actual production people in a manufacturing environment, the management, all the management is considered overhead as they don't actually produce anything and would be in the same category as the CEO, this would contradict the idea that you as a mid management person should make more than the production people that are actually making the product.

We need to remember education for the sake of education is meaningless, and only specific education allowing someone to perform tasks beyond the norm is of actual value.
Remember there is a difference between intelligence and education, recall studies showing that more than a third of students with a four year degree showed no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning or writing ability. So did four years of school substantially benefit them or increase their overall ability to perform above the level they possessed before they started school..... in over a third of students the answer is NO.

Capping CEO compensation while it makes some sense might not result is as much overall improvement as redirecting the reward systems established by the board of directors or by the government. Certainly the compensation should be based on company profits and many of them are, this results in significant jobs being shipped out of the country.
What if a new measuring stick was applied to CEO salaries and the maximum amount they could be paid be based on the number of US employees and the average wage of those employees along with profits. Yes it would be a little tricky and also a violation of the supply and demand principals, but then most of the other suggestions are as well.

[Aslan]

Capping CEO compensation while it makes some sense might not result is as much overall improvement as redirecting the reward systems established by the board of directors or by the government. Certainly the compensation should be based on company profits and many of them are, this results in significant jobs being shipped out of the country.
I recall in the 1990s when KMart went bankrupt. The CEO flew out of town with millions. CEOs run failing companies into the ground all the time....but are rewarded for it...while the rest of us lose our jobs.


What if a new measuring stick was applied to CEO salaries and the maximum amount they could be paid be based on the number of US employees and the average wage of those employees along with profits. Yes it would be a little tricky and also a violation of the supply and demand principals, but then most of the other suggestions are as well.
This is actually done in some Scandanavian countries. The CEO income is a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee. So, just as a hypothetical example:

So, if the lowest wage earner makes $8.25/hr...thats $17,160/year. If the CEO can make 180x the amount of the lowest paid worker, that's 3.09 million per year. So, the question is...Is it too much of a hardship for a CEO to be limited to 3.09 million dollars per year when they pay their lowest wage worker $8.25/hr?

Since that question, despite the obvious answer, would enrage conservatives...the beauty of the system is the CEO can still make whatever ungodly amount of money they choose to make...since 3.09 million won't put food on the table...all they have to do is pay the lowest wage earner more money.

[fordman1]

The CEO flew out of town with millions. CEOs run failing companies into the ground all the time....but are rewarded for it...while the rest of us lose our jobs.
I think this is the type of CEO I was talking about running this country. A con man! Me, Me, Me, Me, I am great, Scary!

[fordman1]

Follow the money. Then get a cell ready. The whole family are crooks.

[fordman1]

You can't make this stuff up. Can I pardon my self?