The problem with America

[drg]

So the $55 an hour compensation is a sham? Its your source - its without legacy costs. It is the cost of pay + benefits. That is compensation. I'm lost at this crying foul of the number that your source backs.

The chart and the comparison it represents is a sham because the numbers it presents are not representative of the same things. It is a poorly formed chart designed to make a misleading assertion for political means. The Heritage foundation is a right-wing think tank.

The entire automaking industry is wrapped up in the "goods producing" industry figure, so the chart both fails to make a point and fails to make a valid comparison. All industries have ranges of compensation for specific subsectors. Simply being on the high side of the wider industry range range proves nothing with regard to competitiveness of the particular companies in question, especially when the self-same data shows the competitors to those companies as also on the high side of the range.

The automaking industry is just historically a profitable industry, so its workers get paid more than less profitable sectors. Not terribly shocking or problematic.

I would like to see you address Maniacmechanics challenge of finding a job that pays that kind of money.

What are you talking about? A job you pay a company $50-75 an hour for will not result in the worker being paid $50-75 an hour. Nor do automakers pay their workers $55-70/hr, it pays them $18-30/hr. Not uncommon at all for manufacturing jobs, or jobs in general.

You claim to know the difference between hourly wage and total labor costs, yet continue to make points as if they are the same thing.

I'm glad you have such faith in your union and its representatives. I think its naive and flies in the face of history, but at least you have it.

Actually I don't have much faith that my union has much power anymore to really move things. It has some power, but not much. Same situation for all unions today, and an intrinsic part of the problem. The pendulum has swung too far away from labor organization, which opened the door for worker exploitation and caused the wage stagnation (or regression) that caused the masses to turn to debt financing in the first place.

Any entity that requires you to pay it to have a job (ie a union in a non right to work state) does not have your best interest at heart. If they did it would be so apparent to you that you would willingly pay them and they would not have to hide behind politicians making laws to require it.

For someone that mentions history a lot, you sure don't show any understanding or appreciation of it. These laws were not passed maliciously for the benefit of union bosses, remember governments are employers. They were passed to prevent employers and from weakening or breaking unions by making private side deals with workers ... a historic problem that required a legislative solution.

So-called "right to work" is just another term for anti-union policies and unionbusting, putting the workers' interests last rather cleverly by using language that says just the opposite. Very, very common conservative tactic.

[Lohman446]

Show me a job where compensation is justifiable at $55 an hour. Not just pay, as we have gone round and round I am willing to consider them one in the same. Its what you are receiving for your work. More to the point show me a relatively unskilled job deserving of that type of compensation. You are avoiding this point well.

Tell me the historic steps the UAW in particular has done to help promote work place safety or the other great things that unions tout as being needed for. Tell me how they are doing that today. Show me.

Again, if you require laws to make me part of your union to have a job, its because you cannot demonstrate the benefit of your union. Instead you simply take from the worker through legistlative practice.

PS: Not right wing - so the label you are trying to throw does not stick.

[drg]

Show me a job where compensation is justifiable at $55 an hour. Not just pay, as we have gone round and round I am willing to consider them one in the same. Its what you are receiving for your work. More to the point show me a relatively unskilled job deserving of that type of compensation.

You are talking about a wage range of $37k-62k per year. Lower middle to middle class. I would not begrudge ANY full-time worker that level of pay if the company pays it. I don't see why you would either, middle class is what people should expect for working a decent job.

If it's so unskilled, you are free to work the job and get the great compensation. See the problem is you're attacking it not from a question of competitiveness, which can actually be measured, but from a question of relative societal value, which is totally subjective and cannot be measured. In either case you're wrong.

Being middle class poses no threat to an economy, in fact it is a sign of a healthy economy. The bigger societal problem is not that a middle class worker might be "overpaid" 10% for their work because they are in a union, it's that an upper class person might not even be a productive member of society at all and have an income hundreds to thousands of times higher than a typical worker.

Remember that the upper 20% of the nation controls more than 3/4 of its wealth. Quibbling over how the rest of us divide the 1/4 pie is missing the point entirely.

[Lohman446]

You are talking about a wage range of $37k-62k per year. Lower middle to middle class. I would not begrudge ANY full-time worker that level of pay if the company pays it. I don't see why you would either, middle class is what people should expect for working a decent job.

If it's so unskilled, you are free to work the job and get the great compensation. See the problem is you're attacking it not from a question of competitiveness, which can actually be measured, but from a question of relative societal value, which is totally subjective and cannot be measured. In either case you're wrong.

Being middle class poses no threat to an economy, in fact it is a sign of a healthy economy. The bigger societal problem is not that a middle class worker might be "overpaid" 10% for their work because they are in a union, it's that an upper class person might not even be a productive member of society at all and have an income hundreds to thousands of times higher than a typical worker.

Remember that the upper 20% of the nation controls more than 3/4 of its wealth. Quibbling over how the rest of us divide the 1/4 pie is missing the point entirely.

Actually it is a form of competetiveness. Because while there are people willing to do it for far less than the $55 an hour compensation currently received GM does not have the right to hire them.

[gam-e]

Lower middle to middle class. I would not begrudge ANY full-time worker that level of pay if the company pays it.

Ad Hominem. Also, please define "right-wing" and "conservative."

Being middle class poses no threat to an economy, in fact it is a sign of a healthy economy. The bigger societal problem is not that a middle class worker might be "overpaid" 10% for their work because they are in a union, it's that an upper class person might not even be a productive member of society at all and have an income hundreds to thousands of times higher than a typical worker.

You are veering off-course. This isn't about misdirection, focus on one issue at a time - Not what you feel to be the real issue.

Remember that the upper 20% of the nation controls more than 3/4 of its wealth. Quibbling over how the rest of us divide the 1/4 pie is missing the point entirely.

That feels like a very Anti-American sentiment. It sure frees 80% of the population from responsibility doesn't it. You are promoting social reform through the legislative process, and not from the private sector. Either way, it is still way off topic.

[drg]

You are promoting social reform through the legislative process, and not from the private sector.

That's how it's done. In fact it's kind of the definition of social reform, government influencing peoples' otherwise ungoverned behavior.

[vf-xx]

That's how it's done. In fact it's kind of the definition of social reform, government influencing peoples' otherwise ungoverned behavior.

I disagree. Government is not society.

Social reform needs to come from the people. Folks like MLK and other activitsts that spoke to the people and changed their minds. Those are social reforms.

[maniacmechanic]

That's how it's done. In fact it's kind of the definition of social reform, government influencing peoples' otherwise ungoverned behavior.

Sound more like CONTROL

[drg]

Social reform needs to come from the people. Folks like MLK and other activitsts that spoke to the people and changed their minds. Those are social reforms.

Except how did MLK's efforts become lasting, become his legacy? Through civil rights legislation, the 24th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came after his I Have a Dream speech in 1963, for example. Now I won't say that social reform cannot come from nongovernmental sources, but by and large, the goal of reformists is to achieve legal changes; certainly the most significant reforms are legal reforms.

The issue here is the term "reform" ... not just social "change" but social "reform". The social "form" of the nation is heavily depenedent on its body of laws, so to get "reform" generally speaking you are looking to change or get new laws.

[Lohman446]

Except how did MLK's efforts become lasting, become his legacy? Through civil rights legislation, the 24th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came after his I Have a Dream speech in 1963, for example. Now I won't say that social reform cannot come from nongovernmental sources, but by and large, the goal of reformists is to achieve legal changes; certainly the most significant reforms are legal reforms.

The issue here is the term "reform" ... not just social "change" but social "reform". The social "form" of the nation is heavily depenedent on its body of laws, so to get "reform" generally speaking you are looking to change or get new laws.

Wait a minute. Did the argument to justify $55 an hour for unskilled labor (relatively, exceptions apply) just circle around to MLK? What?

Besides, MLK was fighting for rights already established under the Constitution, that even hard core libertarians would agree are gaurenteed rights and in the scope of the federal governments authority. To compare this topic to civil rights is to gravely understate the injustices that those fighting were standing up against.

[vf-xx]

Wait a minute. Did the argument to justify $55 an hour for unskilled labor (relatively, exceptions apply) just circle around to MLK? What?

No, he's just responding to my issue against legislating society. I don't think they're related.

I'm just saying that for reform to be useful it needs to come from society as a whole, on a person to person, or at least community to community basis. On a personal level. Not by laws.

I'm fine with the government telling me that I'm not allowed to beat people up, steal their stuff, or recklessly endanger others. That's really about all that I want out of them. They don't need to be telling me what I need to be doing with my money (other than paying something to prevent the previous statements from happening to me), or telling me what is moral. Those are MY decisions.

The problem with people today is the people. And all that legislation has done so far is to tell people tha tthey can get away with being irresponsible and someone else will clean up their mess.

[Mango]

The problem with America is lazy people. I work my butt off every day and get no credit. I got video of me at work to show my boss how hard I work so he would believe me.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSmr-0kZWFM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSmr-0kZWFM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[deathbypaint1213]

The problem with America is lazy people. I work my butt off every day and get no credit. I got video of me at work to show my boss how hard I work so he would believe me.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSmr-0kZWFM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KSmr-0kZWFM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That cat looks awfully pissed . Laziness is becoming a virtue in America. I do not even see a good future for me and other adolescents alike. Thomas Hobbes believed that people lived in chaos before government was established. John Locke, on the other hand, believed that government and the people had obligations to one another. The government is now becoming more oppressive.

[lather]

Without Unions there wouldnt be a middle class in USA. I find it disturbing how so many people in this country eagerly drink the large corporate "greed is good" mentality kool aid being doled out.

If anything we need more labor representation for the middle class, not less. Unfortunately, the only choice we have at the polls is between a party of entitlement enablers or a party of big business fat cats.

[DamianTC]

Don't believe the union representatives either - they are protecting there own interests, not those of the working class who actually pay for there lifestyle. If you believe that either party (or leaning left or right) is composed of those who have your interests at heart in today's society you are a fool. There is the exception out there who is not looking out for themselves, but they generally don't make it in modern politics.

I disagree totally. I am a member of Pittsburgh Plumbers Local Union 27. All of our business agents and business manager are voted in every 2 years. If the members feel something isn't right, we will have someone else representing us. We depend on them to get us hired through contractors that don't have to hire union.. They could very easily go with a non-union worker and pay him around $15 an hour with no benefits. We are trained as apprentices for 5 years for a reason. When a contractor hires union, he knows he is getting the best trained employees out there. Your union rep is the one who is fighting for your job, and is the one putting you in the jobs that is going to make that contractor want to hire union again. That is the reason our pay scale is alot higher than non-union:

http://www.ua27.org/library/document-library/20090520094129.2009-10%20Commercial.pdf