Is Redistributing Wealth a Bad Thing? You Betcha!

[IAMX 3,055]

..."Actions taken by this administration during the past eight years include:

* Refusal to adjust the minimum wage for inflation for 10 years, driving it in inflation-adjusted terms to the lowest level in half a century. Studies have repeatedly shown that freezing the minimum wage affects not only those working at minimum wages but also those well up the income ladder.

* Refusal to enforce hourly wage violations so that many employers could pay less than the legal minimum and refuse to pay legally required overtime with little concern over being caught or penalized.

* Appointment of a National Labor Relations Board that constantly abridged the right of workers to organize or file just grievances, and provided employers with considerable assurance that union efforts to organize their workplaces would fail regardless of wages and working conditions.

* Use of federal regulatory powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to harass and weaken labor unions.

* Lackluster enforcement of immigration laws allowing unprecedented numbers of undocumented workers to enter the United States and assume paying positions in a wide array of industries.

* Failure to enforce U.S. trade agreements with nations such a China. As the Commerce Department notes on their website, "The Chinese Government makes no secret of its support for state-owned enterprises. Foreign companies should not expect a level playing field." Yet the United States has taken no effective action to force China to abide by our trade agreements as our annual trade deficit with China more than tripled over the past eight years.

From the OP article. Does anyone read the things or just comment on the comments?

So what? Steven has made it clear in literally dozens of prior posts that he believes illegal aliens are justified in breaking our immigration / labor laws. He is also a fervent supporter of even higher levels of immigration than we already have today in the USA. All the while crowing about greater unionization of the workforce. This is a total contradiction to historical reality as I stated previously. Artificially flooding the labor market is incompatable with any sort of bargaining power for labor. There is no bargaining power in that scenario.

Of course immigration isn't the only factor, but it is definitely a huge factor along with sending the work overseas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when jobs are shipped overseas to cheap labor venues and cheap labor is simultaneously imported into the USA to do what can't be shipped overseas that labor has zilch in the way of bargaining power. Unionized labor has fallen from about 35% in the 1950's to about 12% today. Unionized labor has pretty much risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of the chart below. Go figure!

Got news for you. There'd be a hell of a lot less emphasis on labor unions if people had universal health care and more sensible living wages. Just some food for thought, since you're clearly against both universal and unions, and can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edited October 23, 2008 by SRVT

[peejay 327]

..."Actions taken by this administration during the past eight years include:

* Refusal to adjust the minimum wage for inflation for 10 years, driving it in inflation-adjusted terms to the lowest level in half a century. Studies have repeatedly shown that freezing the minimum wage affects not only those working at minimum wages but also those well up the income ladder.

* Refusal to enforce hourly wage violations so that many employers could pay less than the legal minimum and refuse to pay legally required overtime with little concern over being caught or penalized.

* Appointment of a National Labor Relations Board that constantly abridged the right of workers to organize or file just grievances, and provided employers with considerable assurance that union efforts to organize their workplaces would fail regardless of wages and working conditions.

* Use of federal regulatory powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to harass and weaken labor unions.

* Lackluster enforcement of immigration laws allowing unprecedented numbers of undocumented workers to enter the United States and assume paying positions in a wide array of industries.

* Failure to enforce U.S. trade agreements with nations such a China. As the Commerce Department notes on their website, "The Chinese Government makes no secret of its support for state-owned enterprises. Foreign companies should not expect a level playing field." Yet the United States has taken no effective action to force China to abide by our trade agreements as our annual trade deficit with China more than tripled over the past eight years.

From the OP article. Does anyone read the things or just comment on the comments?

So what? Steven has made it clear in literally dozens of prior posts that he believes illegal aliens are justified in breaking our immigration / labor laws. He is also a fervent supporter of even higher levels of immigration than we already have today in the USA. All the while crowing about greater unionization of the workforce. This is a total contradiction to historical reality as I stated previously. Artificially flooding the labor market is incompatable with any sort of bargaining power for labor. There is no bargaining power in that scenario.

Of course immigration isn't the only factor, but it is definitely a huge factor along with sending the work overseas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when jobs are shipped overseas to cheap labor venues and cheap labor is simultaneously imported into the USA to do what can't be shipped overseas that labor has zilch in the way of bargaining power. Unionized labor has fallen from about 35% in the 1950's to about 12% today. Unionized labor has pretty much risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of the chart below. Go figure!

Got news for you. There'd be a hell of a lot less emphasis on labor unions if people had universal health care and more sensible living wages. Just some food for thought, since you're clearly against both universal and unions, and can't have your cake and eat it too.

Where did you read into my posts that I'm anti-union. I was in the United Steelworkers of America in the 1970's, but I no longer work in a job that is unionized. My brother is a union man as were both of my grandfathers and several other relatives of mine. That said, I don't buy 100% into union bullshit, but when they are appropriate and well run I do support them. I have personally witnessed the darker side of unions, so I had to add the caveat "appropriate & well run".

Universal healthcare? If you like the incompetent way Social Security, Medicare, and government in general is run you'll love the government running everyone's healthcare. That said, what we have now is far from perfect. It's just that lot of people don't want to jump from the skillet into the frying pan. People that have nothing have nothing to lose, so they are willing to accept anything. And then there is the "misery loves company" crowd with the mentality that, "I have nothing, so everyone else should too." If it ain't better than what I already have, I want no part of it and don't want it shoved up my #######.

[HAL 9000 96]

Kinda like people are pro-illegal immigration when they're not, right peejay?

FWIW- I also support labor unions when they're run appropriately (not like a mafia).

[IAMX 3,055]

Universal healthcare? If you like the incompetent way Social Security, Medicare, and government in general is run you'll love the government running everyone's healthcare. That said, what we have now is far from perfect. It's just that lot of people don't want to jump from the skillet into the frying pan. People that have nothing have nothing to lose, so they are willing to accept anything. And then there is the "misery loves company" crowd with the mentality that, "I have nothing, so everyone else should too." If it ain't better than what I already have, I want no part of it and don't want it shoved up my #######.

You can blame politicians, mostly Republicans, for wanting to deconstruct government programs and privatize everything.

If you don't want something to work, why would it work? If you genuinely have an interest in making government programs work, you are fiscally responsible and allocate the resources to making it work. Those who really want universal are both the working masses and doctors, especially in this area. Tax responsibility is nice as well, because Americans pay taxes for those who can't/don't pay their medical bills ANYWAYS. Social security costs will go up for a short amount of time because of the baby boomers retiring. Like it or not if you want a country to work, you need healthy people. If you can trust your government to wiretap your lines, or fight a "war on terrorism", how could you not trust it to run HEALTH CARE? Sounds like you don't need government at all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Kinda like people are pro-illegal immigration when they're not, right peejay?

FWIW- I also support labor unions when they're run appropriately (not like a mafia).

...or corporations when they act socially responsible. There are dark sides to any representation of power, unions, business, government. Transparency and accountability are the fundamentals of keeping those in power in check.

[HAL 9000 96]

Kinda like people are pro-illegal immigration when they're not, right peejay?

FWIW- I also support labor unions when they're run appropriately (not like a mafia).

...or corporations when they act socially responsible. There are dark sides to any representation of power, unions, business, government. Transparency and accountability are the fundamentals of keeping those in power in check.

I just find it hilarious that while some folks want to attack a supposed liberal agenda to throw money at problems, they don't have a problem with throwing money at profiteering structures. Odd. Unless, of course, they stand to gain from that second part. And guess what? They do!

[SpiritAlight 1]

Kinda like people are pro-illegal immigration when they're not, right peejay?

FWIW- I also support labor unions when they're run appropriately (not like a mafia).

...or corporations when they act socially responsible. There are dark sides to any representation of power, unions, business, government. Transparency and accountability are the fundamentals of keeping those in power in check.

A rare breed.

Perhaps extinct?

Perhaps never existed?

Well, there may be one or two....

As for accountability.

That is a word that needs to be looked up for those in any position of power.

Kinda like people are pro-illegal immigration when they're not, right peejay?

FWIW- I also support labor unions when they're run appropriately (not like a mafia).

...or corporations when they act socially responsible. There are dark sides to any representation of power, unions, business, government. Transparency and accountability are the fundamentals of keeping those in power in check.

I just find it hilarious that while some folks want to attack a supposed liberal agenda to throw money at problems, they don't have a problem with throwing money at profiteering structures. Odd. Unless, of course, they stand to gain from that second part. And guess what? They do!

BINGO!!!

[peejay 327]

Universal healthcare? If you like the incompetent way Social Security, Medicare, and government in general is run you'll love the government running everyone's healthcare. That said, what we have now is far from perfect. It's just that lot of people don't want to jump from the skillet into the frying pan. People that have nothing have nothing to lose, so they are willing to accept anything. And then there is the "misery loves company" crowd with the mentality that, "I have nothing, so everyone else should too." If it ain't better than what I already have, I want no part of it and don't want it shoved up my #######.

You can blame politicians, mostly Republicans, for wanting to deconstruct government programs and privatize everything.

If you don't want something to work, why would it work? If you genuinely have an interest in making government programs work, you are fiscally responsible and allocate the resources to making it work. Those who really want universal are both the working masses and doctors, especially in this area. Tax responsibility is nice as well, because Americans pay taxes for those who can't/don't pay their medical bills ANYWAYS. Social security costs will go up for a short amount of time because of the baby boomers retiring. Like it or not if you want a country to work, you need healthy people. If you can trust your government to wiretap your lines, or fight a "war on terrorism", how could you not trust it to run HEALTH CARE? Sounds like you don't need government at all.

Well kiddo, there was a reason why a lot of things were privatized and/or eliminated. Unfortunately you weren't around to actually see it in action, but I'm sure read all about it in one of your classes. As for government, I trust my government a hell of a lot more more than I trust Osama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a host of other boogie men. That's not saying much, but let's just leave it at that.

As far as blame goes...I can assure you there is plenty to go around and it has very little to do with party affiliation. If you believe otherwise you have a lot to learn about this world.

[IAMX 3,055]

Well kiddo, there was a reason why a lot of things were privatized and/or eliminated. Unfortunately you weren't around to actually see it in action, but I'm sure read all about it in one of your classes. As for government, I trust my government a hell of a lot more more than I trust Osama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a host of other boogie men. That's not saying much, but let's just leave it at that.

As far as blame goes...I can assure you there is plenty to go around and it has very little to do with party affiliation. If you believe otherwise you have a lot to learn about this world.

So, to paraphrase your post, "I'm just gonna say you're a kid and have no experience because I have no actual relevant sh!t to say".

Thanks for reiterating.

[peejay 327]

Well kiddo, there was a reason why a lot of things were privatized and/or eliminated. Unfortunately you weren't around to actually see it in action, but I'm sure read all about it in one of your classes. As for government, I trust my government a hell of a lot more more than I trust Osama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a host of other boogie men. That's not saying much, but let's just leave it at that.

As far as blame goes...I can assure you there is plenty to go around and it has very little to do with party affiliation. If you believe otherwise you have a lot to learn about this world.

So, to paraphrase your post, "I'm just gonna say you're a kid and have no experience because I have no actual relevant sh!t to say".

Thanks for reiterating.

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

Edited October 24, 2008 by peejay

[natty bumppo 297]

Well kiddo, there was a reason why a lot of things were privatized and/or eliminated. Unfortunately you weren't around to actually see it in action, but I'm sure read all about it in one of your classes. As for government, I trust my government a hell of a lot more more than I trust Osama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a host of other boogie men. That's not saying much, but let's just leave it at that.

As far as blame goes...I can assure you there is plenty to go around and it has very little to do with party affiliation. If you believe otherwise you have a lot to learn about this world.

So, to paraphrase your post, "I'm just gonna say you're a kid and have no experience because I have no actual relevant sh!t to say".

Thanks for reiterating.

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

peejay ... can you make some room in your PM box .... thanks

[peejay 327]

Well kiddo, there was a reason why a lot of things were privatized and/or eliminated. Unfortunately you weren't around to actually see it in action, but I'm sure read all about it in one of your classes. As for government, I trust my government a hell of a lot more more than I trust Osama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a host of other boogie men. That's not saying much, but let's just leave it at that.

As far as blame goes...I can assure you there is plenty to go around and it has very little to do with party affiliation. If you believe otherwise you have a lot to learn about this world.

So, to paraphrase your post, "I'm just gonna say you're a kid and have no experience because I have no actual relevant sh!t to say".

Thanks for reiterating.

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

peejay ... can you make some room in your PM box .... thanks

Sorry...I had 4 1/2 years worth of PM's in my box.

I get PM's so rarely that I never noticed.

[IAMX 3,055]

No...that's not what I said. I'm just saying that many posts here are merely snippets thrown out there to bolster ones own view without painting the bigger picture. Often times they are snippets read from other sources that are extremely biased because they lack the historical background or important facts are omited. If you didn't live through it...you only get to opine from what you have read. It's not a cut down...it's a fact.

A lot of what is billed as "change" in this election is really just a return to failed policies of the past (from the Left and Right). And the older you get...the more past you actually have seen. Yes...a lot of programs were dismantled because they were not relevant anymore and needed to be eliminated. There are programs that exist today that should be eliminated too. When people are dependent on the perpetual largesse of government they also fear "change".

Also too, a lot of what I see from youth today is just rehashed rhetoric from my peers of the 1960's and 70's. It was exagerated back then and exagerated now. A lot of this talk about living in a "police state" is the same old sh*t I listened to 35 to 40 years ago. A lot of kids (then and now) delude themselves by playing the victim. Victimization is a high religion in liberal circles. There is a lot of self important delusion that the government is monitoring what you have to say about the power structure when they really could care less. There are bigger fish to fry than pursuing pseudo-revolutionaries talking sh*t in e-mails, phone conversations to their girlfriend, or on forums like VJ.

What is the bigger picture?

Under this current health care system, less and less people are getting insured. More people, less healthcare, less people affording it, more taxpayers eat the tab. If no taxes are raised, this makes it less likely to pay back foreign debts. How is this not like universal healthcare already? This is the issue at hand, not "change". I don't care to discuss simplistic slogans. More unhealthy people means spreading their illness means the healthy also pay more because they'll end up getting sick too. Is this logic not correct? Universal healthcare means more people with access to health care means more healthy people meaning more contributors to the workforce and more taxpayers.

You wonder why this is done in every other first world nation? Because hard-line stances on things like this aren't exactly smart.

Regarding police state, I don't care about another simplistic slogan, because I don't use it. What I do use is the fact that AT&T was given immunity for illegally wiretapping millions of Americans in collusion with the NSA. FISA had a set way of dealing with terrorism regarding international phone calls. NOWHERE did this imply that citizens can be tapped 24/7 in both domestic AND international calls. Protest has always been a common theme as a right of speech, a right of petition, and a right of expression for people to protest things, including protesting the government. Yet here we are, throwing people into protest cages because why? Some find offensive or annoying people protesting? Grow some balls.

This is indeed giving up rights for some pseudo-sense of comfortableness and security.

It makes no sense whatsoever to be for government intrusion on your phone calls (your rights of privacy and not to be snooped on without being directly suspected of something) yet against universal health care, which stands to make fiscally responsible the current health care crisis in being able to actually put a direct tab on the costs that we're paying anyways for those who cannot afford their healthcare.

[Danno 1,228]

I'd like to make 2 observations that kinda contradict each other.

Your post claimed that incomes only increased by 1%.

I'd like to know how that figure was arrived at, was there adjusting for inflation, and rire in..gas prices, Healthcare costs. ( add what ever else you want to use diminish the ACTUAL increase in wages.)

Or is the suggestion that...

The average pay per hour only increased by 1%?

This is the problem with statistics.

------

My observations,

Perhaps my city is unique but we had so many Illegals streaming in, taking over whole sectors of labor jobs in Construction and much of the food industry too.

Of course they worked for way under the going rate which had to depress wages if one were to take stats.

On the other hand, wages still were high enough that absolutely no one was even starting a job at McDonalds for less than 6 or 7 bucks an hour.

It's hard for me to believe that wages were so depressed when minimum wage was left in the dust by the rising wage of the market.

This is one reason why so many hard working Illegals came here in the first place.

Had they not come... wages in these fields would absolutely have been much higher.

So, I lack confidence in those numbers provided. While I live in just one part of the country, I

suspect it reflects what was going on in many markets.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Danno

[Pooky 3,794]

Got news for you. There'd be a hell of a lot less emphasis on labor unions if people had universal health care and more sensible living wages. Just some food for thought, since you're clearly against both universal and unions, and can't have your cake and eat it too.

Where did you read into my posts that I'm anti-union. I was in the United Steelworkers of America in the 1970's, but I no longer work in a job that is unionized. My brother is a union man as were both of my grandfathers and several other relatives of mine. That said, I don't buy 100% into union bullshit, but when they are appropriate and well run I do support them. I have personally witnessed the darker side of unions, so I had to add the caveat "appropriate & well run".

Universal healthcare? If you like the incompetent way Social Security, Medicare, and government in general is run you'll love the government running everyone's healthcare. That said, what we have now is far from perfect. It's just that lot of people don't want to jump from the skillet into the frying pan. People that have nothing have nothing to lose, so they are willing to accept anything. And then there is the "misery loves company" crowd with the mentality that, "I have nothing, so everyone else should too." If it ain't better than what I already have, I want no part of it and don't want it shoved up my #######.

Voting to become unionized/join a union should remain a secret ballot. Any moves to introduce union monitoring of these votes, whenever they occur, to me constitutes undue pressure on the voter. As a union member when I worked in the public sector in the UK, I know that it was my choice to join the union and that I was not put under undue pressure to do so. But then I joined my union once Margaret Thatcher had broken the back of union power in the UK, pushing the unions back to where they supported their members and didn't try to defy the elected government.

What I have heard from people in my industry here in the US, both union and non-union, is that given the chance, labor unions are quite willing to pressure people when it comes to voting. And it has less to do with medical care and better wages for the individual than with control of the labor supply and working practices. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of unionized companies I will gladly work with again, but then I don't work in New York any more and don't have to see those stupid inflatable rats.