Liberal Hypocrisy

a reply to: strongfp

So were the corruption of the same also inevitable?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl
Unions were a direct response to capitalists over reaching for more and more and giving less and less.

No, they were actually sold to people as a result of corrupt business owners exploiting people, and there was definitely some truth to that, that is why they were accepted by the people - and they actually did some good, during the first decade or two after they were started.

In case you hadn't noticed, the need for Unions is long passed, and they do far more harm than good.

There has never, ever been a case for 'Public Unions', even the great Socialist icon FDR was adamantly opposed to Unions wrt public (government) employees, and these should be abolished, permanently.

I work for private sector and unions hate us...eveyone looking to hire a large company for a project use the same line...hire a union outfit, you pay twice and much and the job takes twice as long.

Now the best part is sometimes they are forced to.

My friend wanted to remodel his family chain super market . Got a bunch of estimates to get an idea of cost.

After the first remodel union protesters kicked the company off the job.

Union was then. Hired at double the cost.

He had plans to remodel all.his stores and only could financially do half.

As an estimator, the prices union's charge are extreme..its not the material, it's the physically hourly rate some of these workers are getting.

Its unsustainable and a way to force companies with money to fork it over

a reply to: strongfp

No one thinks Bernie is a idiot. Its the people lining up to vote for him a healthy portion of the country thinks are idiots. Its why most of his supporters are made up of people that haven't carried their own water so to speak financially.

Bernie knows his supporters are basically like the worst of the Trump lot. He's been repeatedly coddled over this by the left. While they rail about the turdburgers from the worst of the Trump lot.

His greatest appeal is to a group of people who think this country just plain sucks but haven't got out from under their parent teats yet. That and the group of college educated recovering party animals whose college debt can't be paid off by their useless degree.

So---in short---a crowd that wants the government to take c are of their poor decision making. Its how the abortion argument started being framed as a womans right while ignoring that overwhelmingly unexpected pregnancies are poor choices. It just sounds better to get the government to help fund a womans right---rather than lazy and hormonal people with poor decision making skills.

a reply to: atlantiswatusi

It's also why there is such a steep marriage penalty for most social programs. They don't want to help you if you're just temporarily struggling on your way to a responsible lifestyle making healthy and good choices. They want you to make crappy choices and to fund you in those crappy choices forever because if they're paying your bills, they own you.

More hypocrisy and plain old callousness towards Americans from Democrats.

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

Unions were never an idea planted by 'liberals' tho...

What ?

Unions are now creations of conservatives since they threaten leftist star Cenk ?

Revisionist history much?

a reply to: M5xaz

Liberals in the sense that people blatantly and overly red scare them to be in today's world were nothing like they were when unions were first formed. You honestly think people were running around calling each other liberals during the industrial revolution? The word capitalist didn't even exist back then let alone the thought of a 'conservative'.

socialists were also feared brutes, gangs of working men organizing. I think the right term to use is that unions were invented by socialists in a classical sense, from when it was a mashup of anarchy - socialism.
Liberals back then were fleeing to the mid west and telling people to get off their land with rifles.

a reply to: atlantiswatusi

You taking a bit of a stretch and generalizing here.

There's plenty of republican voters who can fall right into the same category thinking Trump will be the savior of the people and will rid the land of every illegal alien that enters, oversteps their visas, etc, etc. and then some how magically a job will be handed to them. It's the same type of pandering just in a different tone.

When you look at the US right now, well from what I can see from the outside, Sanders even just getting this much attention, and Trump in office is a symptom of a larger issue. A lot of Bernie supporters are seeing this is a win, even if he loses. Hell, you even have Warren Buffet siding with Sanders in some regards now, a full blooded capitalist, he just came out with his Berkshire report telling his cult following even shareholders are starting to feel cheated and squeezed out by the corporate machine, and for that he's uncertain about investment opportunities and might hibernate.

With that said, Trump, and Sanders want more power for the workers, they just don't see eye to eye on how to get it right. Thing is, sanders is going the route that has worked in the past, Trump is going the route that brought America Reagan and the Clintons, look how that turned out.

a reply to: dfnj2015

What if the Company sucks and barely makes enough money to turn on the lights, do workers have to charge their credit cards like business owners?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

Unions were never an idea planted by 'liberals' tho...

You are correct, that is totally a Socialist/Communist/Fascist thing.

Is it? Isn't it employees banding together to say, "we will do this job for 'x' pay, and if you don't want to pay it, then none of us union members will do the job."?

Can't a business just say, "Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass", and hire non union workers? If nobody wants to do a job for the pay they're willing to offer, isn't that the market adjusting accordingly?

a reply to: dogstar23

It's rather hilarious how the jobs that are generally unionized are the types of jobs not the everyday person wants to do.

I worked for a union (steel workers under UNIFOR) building rolling stock rail cars. All I can say is, it takes a special type of person to actually stick to that kind of work as a career choice. Not the everyday trades person or laborer can just go and slack off at a job like that. The same thing can be said for Iron workers, or the niche carpenters trades like scaffolding, and major framing.

I think where unions pose a big problem is when they get involved in an already, and should be, protected job circle, when they are within' government and public salary. I am all for workers organizing, but when you take tax payers money, and are basically guaranteed a job for life, what is the point of unionizing? It defeats the purpose!

a reply to: Edumakated

Classic liberals should be more outraged at the current modern day "liberal" as they have co-opted the classical liberal belief system which was NEVER this insane.

This generation of millennials are literally the most stupid sheep to have been produced yet.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree. Maybe unions are not the answer. Maybe the answer is having wages based on a system of shares. The company's profit is then divided among the workers according to a worker's number of shares. This way the CEO gets his lion share but the workers have incentive to be at their best productivity throughout the year. The number of shares each worker gets could also be higher based on the number of years of service to the company. Essentially wages are percentage based instead of random reasons that always end up causing the workers to be disgruntled.

Will never happen, the current corporate model used in America is flat out feudalism bordering on slavery. The "Lord" will NEVER give concessions or parity to the "slaves".

Wondering when people will wake up and realize that liberalism, socialism, and communism is bad for America.

originally posted by: dogstar23
Is it?

Yes.

Isn't it employees banding together to say, "we will do this job for 'x' pay, and if you don't want to pay it, then none of us union members will do the job."?

Yes. They also force everyone to join their 'union' (ie, radically and violently oppose 'right to work' laws), and violently (yes, physically) attack anyone who dares to try to cross their 'picket lines'.

It is organized extortion.

Can't a business just say, "Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass", and hire non union workers?

Not most places. See above.

If nobody wants to do a job for the pay they're willing to offer, isn't that the market adjusting accordingly?

It might be in an ideal world where the union thugs weren't thugs.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

a reply to: strongfp

No, they were calling each other communists. The early communist movement in the US was a driving force behind the labor movement even if the overall movement never ended up embracing the communist movement's platform here like it did most of Europe and forming a labor party.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.