# Interesting read(not gun related)........



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

The Cost of a Decline in Unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

"This isn’t something you often hear a columnist say, but I’ll say it again: I was wrong. At least in the private sector, we should strengthen unions, not try to eviscerate them."


If you believe that the masses should be taken care of, then yes. If you believe that men have to prosper by their own efforts, ingenuity and drive, then no. All I have ever seen unions do is protect the incompetent and inefficient. I don't believe they serve as a buffer against corporate greed or avarice, as the writer suggests. In Capitalism, the capitalist has the right to succeed and receive a return because he has put up the money that is at risk in the business. Unions would have you believe they they are entitled to a share of the profits of the business because of their efforts however, in general, they never have any investment in the business and under a purely capitalist system, they have nothing at risk so should not share in any reward. Unions are only an organized attempt to forcibly extort profits from the owners of the businesses they work for. As long as the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in force are being adhered to and the unionman is being paid as he should, he has no right to anything else. 

Want to make more money, go back to school and get an education for a better trade or profession, or invent a product and start your own business. Take the risk and you may gain the reward. Don't claim you're entitled simply because you belong to a union. That's no different than saying you're entitled simply because you "don't have no job, no education and no skills, so you're entitled to a government handout". Hogwash.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

RK3369 said:


> Want to make more money, go back to school and get an education


Millions upon millions of naturalized American citizens did, only to see their company's sponsor the HB-1 visa extensions for pennies on the dollar and no benefits. And rather easier to dispose of.
I sincerely hope the middle class is waking up, even if you don't like Unions, just remember it was Unions who gave rise to that middle class. Learn and understand what they did to the working poor in this country because now they are gunning for you.

Good luck.
Always plenty of room left in the jungle.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Thateus said:


> Millions upon millions of naturalized American citizens did, only to see their company's sponsor the HB-1 visa extensions for pennies on the dollar and no benefits. And rather easier to dispose of.
> I sincerely hope the middle class is waking up, even if you don't like Unions, just remember it was Unions who gave rise to that middle class. Learn and understand what they did to the working poor in this country because now they are gunning for you.
> 
> Good luck.
> Always plenty of room left in the jungle.


Oh, fcuk, I must be sick - we agree...


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Oh, fcuk, I must be sick - we agree...


lololol........ Unions have their place, to a point. My experience with them is as I have stated. Once the "entitlement" mentality sets into the population whether it's the rank and file, or the unskilled, uneducated, government dependents, it becomes an overbeaing burden either on the workplace or the government. The demise of unions in this country over the past few decades is evidence of what happens when they become overbearing on the workplace and business community. I fear we have yet to see what becomes of the government when the entitlement generation becomes overbearing on the government.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Yup - unions have their place, and some have had their day - but the principle remains. Unless workers CAN unite to fight for fair treatment, then the system is broken. Rampant absolute capitalism leads to "worker villages" where the owner controls all, and the workers become slaves in effect since they cannot leave. Balance is key.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> ....Rampant absolute capitalism leads to "worker villages" where the owner controls all, and the workers become slaves in effect since they cannot leave. Balance is key.


like Mel Brooks said in "The History of the World, Part III,................ "it's good to be the King..........."

But seriously, folks. We're now at a place where the Government has stepped in and will never let that happen. The problem with that is it's not a free market economy any more, it's now subject to Government manipulation. Just like overbloated unions trying to run companies, we now have overbloated Government trying to be all to everyone. Can't work much longer.. Gonna break., I fear.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> like Mel Brooks said in "The History of the World, Part III,................ "it's good to be the King..........."
> 
> But seriously, folks. We're now at a place where the Government has stepped in and will never let that happen.
> 
> <snip>


Tell that to any minimum-wage worker whose company handbook advises them to turn down the thermostat and get a second job so they can survive on the crappy wages.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Tell that to any minimum-wage worker whose company handbook advises them to turn down the thermostat and get a second job so they can survive on the crappy wages.


chicken or the egg question..."wages are crappy why????????, oh you have no marketable skills......... let's see, there's a government subsidized student loan program over here you can borrow the money to go get an education to become a more skilled worker so you will earn a higher wage in the marketplace, right??????????? oh, don't want to work for it?????????/ Well, I guess you stuck on the McDonald's Drive Through window then, sorry. "

I went to college because I didn't want to go to Vietnam. As soon as I knew I wasn't going to be drafted I quit school and started driving a truck for a living. After a couple years of that and getting married, I decided truck driving wasn't going to be the be all and end all for me. Enrolled in a small college and finished a Bachelors Degree in Accounting while working part time over the next 3 years. Went to work in the field, got Certified many years ago and now earn a respectable living, but feel that I pay way too much in taxes. So, moral of the story is, it can be done it you want to work hard enough at it. If you don't want to work at improving yourself, sorry, work at the drive through window but don't bitch because you aren't worth $15 an hour. That's life.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> chicken or the egg question..."wages are crappy why????????, oh you have no marketable skills......... let's see, there's a government subsidized student loan program over here you can borrow the money to go get an education to become a more skilled worker so you will earn a higher wage in the marketplace, right??????????? oh, don't want to work for it?????????/ Well, I guess you stuck on the McDonald's Drive Through window then, sorry. "
> 
> I went to college because I didn't want to go to Vietnam. As soon as I knew I wasn't going to be drafted I quit school and started driving a truck for a living. After a couple years of that and getting married, I decided truck driving wasn't going to be the be all and end all for me. Enrolled in a small college and finished a Bachelors Degree in Accounting while working part time over the next 3 years. Went to work in the field, got Certified many years ago and now earn a respectable living, but feel that I pay way too much in taxes. So, moral of the story is, it can be done it you want to work hard enough at it. If you don't want to work at improving yourself, sorry, work at the drive through window but don't bitch because you aren't worth $15 an hour. That's life.


I guess we disagree on a lot of that stuff. I like to think that even those with limited learning skills can have a job that pays well enough for them to have a life outside of working all day and night and every weekend. Especially when their employers are making a good profit on the labor.

No point trying to tell me it ain't so - you won't convince me any more than i'll convince you.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Now you put the category of "those with limited learning skills" into the mix. Of course I believe there should be some concessions for those folks. I'm not completely without feelings. I'm just saying those who don't want to even try but are looking for the easy way out, including government handouts and "bitching" about their lot in life are the ones I say "too bad" to. If you're capable of doing more, take it upon yourself to do more. If not, we'll help you out. But don't bitch about it because you think bitching is the easiest way to get what you want. 

I've dug plenty of ditches, split plenty of firewood and shoveled plenty of horse shit in my life. Nothing wrong with any of those jobs for somebody who wants to try to get more in their pocket than the government hands them out. Just don't try to sell me a bunch of baloney about how bad your life is on minimum wage if you can do something about it. And as far as working day and night and weekends, I'm 64, have worked as a CPA since I was 30 and probably have rarely worked less than a 40 hour week, and many many nights and weekends over the years. Price you pay to make a decent living despite being able to deal with the routine things a CPA has to deal with in public and private practice. If you've been in a situation where your career didn't require you to work nights and weekends, what did you do? Are you perhaps a Politician???? Seriously though, I'd bet you've had to put plenty of extended hours in yourself over the years. Just the price of life nowadays.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> Now you put the category of "those with limited learning skills" into the mix.<snip>


Just because they are the ones that are incapable of getting back into college to improve their lot.

Either way - a living wage should be paid to every full-time worker, regardless of the job. Period.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> <snip>
> I've dug plenty of ditches, split plenty of firewood and shoveled plenty of horse shit in my life. Nothing wrong with any of those jobs for somebody who wants to try to get more in their pocket than the government hands them out.
> <snip>


Good for you. doesn't change the "fair pay for honest work" ethos, though.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

For all intent and purposes I was obsolete by the start of my late 40's. It was over for me.
That's how radical America has changed because my parents generation where not obsolete until their mid 60's.
It got so bad for me, (and thank who ever I didn't have kids or a mortgage) that by my 50's I was going to job interviews disguised as either a wet-back or a geek. Complete with shoe polish covering the grey. (which was real fun when it was hot out)

Too late to learn a marketable skill and too dumb for a better education.
And no better off than when I had started my journey in life some 40 years earlier.
But thankful somehow I made it through. And very grateful for what I do have.
I know what it is like to struggle, I know what it feels like to make the hard decisions.

The young people today are in for a very rude awakening and some are finding it out now.
I don't envy them, because even a college education today is barely worth what a high-school diploma was in the 1970's.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thateus said:


> .
> I don't envy them, because even a college education today is barely worth what a high-school diploma was in the 1970's.


Yes, for sure. Even in my field, most states have now adopted an MBA reguirement in order to sit for the CPA exam. When I took it, you had to have a Bachelors. At that time, some states only required an Associates Degree. Also, there was no "continuing Education" requirement either. Once you were licensed, you were good to go. Now I have to complete 40 hours of either self study or group based Continuing Education programs every calendar year to keep an active license. That is just a part of the upwards momentum created by a self perpetuating Educational system. I do believe it's good to be in training to maintain current skills in your field, just not sure that it should have to be so intense. Fortunately for me, although my job does not require it, my employer wants me to keep an active license so most of the cost is paid for by my unit.


----------



## Sandiphete (Jan 12, 2015)

RK3369 said:


> chicken or the egg question..."wages are crappy why????????, oh you have no marketable skills......... let's see, there's a government subsidized student loan program over here you can borrow the money to go get an education to become a more skilled worker so you will earn a higher wage in the marketplace, right??????????? oh, don't want to work for it?????????/ Well, I guess you stuck on the McDonald's Drive Through window then, sorry. "
> 
> If you don't want to work at improving yourself, sorry, work at the drive through window but don't bitch because you aren't worth $15 an hour. That's life.


First of all, college is not the answer for everyone. My profession requires that I have at least a master's degree. So I do. But, there are no grants, scholarships etc for education above a bachelor's (not bitching, just stating facts), I also have a $1000+ /mo student loan payment, and I will for years to come. My husband does not have any higher education, but has worked his way up in his company. He makes less than I do, but after subtracting my loans, his income is about the same. Not sure it was worth the time, effort and expense for me to go to school.

Also, where do you live that minimum wage is $15/hr??


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Sandiphete said:


> First of all, college is not the answer for everyone. My profession requires that I have at least a master's degree. So I do. But, there are no grants, scholarships etc for education above a bachelor's (not bitching, just stating facts), I also have a $1000+ /mo student loan payment, and I will for years to come. My husband does not have any higher education, but has worked his way up in his company. He makes less than I do, but after subtracting my loans, his income is about the same. Not sure it was worth the time, effort and expense for me to go to school.
> 
> Also, where do you live that minimum wage is $15/hr??


 Notice I said that 'don't bitch BECAUSE you aren't worth $15 an hour. Nobody is paying that for minimum wage here in SC that I know of. Boeing only pays about $15 -$18 an hour for trained assembly workers in the plants as far as I know. Your choice to go to school was just that, your choice. You saw the opportunity for a better situation and you figured out how to do it. Sorry if you had to borrow so much to go. I went to a small college and did incur some debt, but had it paid off long ago because I'm 64 now. So I guess you're saying you regret your choice of a career and incurring all that debt? Well, I can sympathize. I don't believe I make what I should either, but that' life, I guess. Perhaps you need to look at another option if you are still young enough to change careers to increase your worth. I'm too old, only a few years until Social Security. Notice I also said that my profession also requires a Masters Degree since about 2003 or so in NY where I was originally licensed. Anybody wants to take up the field now pretty much has to have that educational background in any state. And I never said education was the key for everyone. There are plenty of folks who don't go that route and as you say, I am not sure that's the best option for everyone anymore either. Regardless of what you choose to do, do something about improving your lot in life rather than to bitch about working at McDonalds and not making $15 an hour. It's all on you, not on society. That was my entire point. Don't look to society to do it for you, you have to invest something in yourself if you want a return.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...a living wage should be paid to every full-time worker, regardless of the job. Period.


What about 'teenagers in their very first jobs?
Keeping a job, and growing in it-or learning to grow out of it, into something better-is a form of education. I see no valid reason why I, as an employer, should pay a beginning 'teenage worker a "living wage" similar to that of an experienced worker, no more than I would expect a trade school to pay its students to stick around and learn.
And what about the low-competence worker, who will never rise far above flipping burgers at MacDonalds'? Does his mere existence merit him a "living wage"?

Should a young beginning worker, or a low-competence worker, with no responsibilities other than (perhaps) feeding and housing himself, be paid the same as a worker with a family to support or to help support? And suppose that this young beginner is living at his parents' home, and not on his own. Does he still merit a "living wage"?

Further, what does giving a "living wage" to beginning or low-competence workers do to the price of the commodities that these workers help produce? Paying a rigid minimum wage of $15.00/hour, such as Seattle has just recently decreed, is soon going to lift the price of MacDonalds' burgers, perhaps to a point above what a low-level worker (even at $15.00/hour) can afford, after paying rent and transportation and utilities.

I made my living in a craft shop. There was a steep learning curve. Beginners ruined almost as much finished goods as they usefully produced, but letting them ruin goods was part of the cost of teaching them the craft.
If I had to pay these beginners a "living wage," I would never have hired any of them. Instead, I would only have accepted them into my shop as unpaid apprentices, and only have begun to pay them when they could actually produce finished goods in a reliable manner. That took a year or more.
Would that have been a better system, do you think? (I don't: The pay they received helped them to achieve the practice of independence, and the promise of better pay in the future was an incentive to learn the craft quickly and well.)

Beginning and low-competence workers are paid according to the demands of the marketplace, just as experienced and high-competence workers are.
Each job-hire is a contract between a boss and a worker, and either one of them can terminate the contract at will, according to the specific conditions agreed upon at its formation. If the worker proves worse than that which is needed, he can be fired; and if the wages seem unfair to the worker, he can quit.
That is the only truly equitable arrangement, under normal working circumstances. (There are, of course, exceptions.)


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Here's a basic principle of Capitalism, there is always going to be a class of poor people. For whatever reason, there will always be those at the bottom of the economic heap. There are many reasons for it, poor or no skills, low intelligence, low motivation, antisocial and can't function in normal employment situations. Call them what you will, under Capitalism there is always going to be a class of poor people, just like there will always be rich people and the rest of those somewhere in the middle. Our different abilities make us all worth more or less to the capitalist system in terms of what we can provide to the economic process in exchange for what we receive. Capitalism does not value lack of skills or intelligence, because it provides no economic input to the process. But the reality of the world is that those people will always be there. What most of us do is to try to gain education, skills or some other marketable ability to make us more valuable to the economic process than the next fellow. That's the way it has always worked and will always work. 

Paying a "living wage" to every worker is only a temporary adjustment in the economic process. Eventually, because those folks on the bottom of the heap are providing low value economic input to the system, prices, supply and demand will adjust to a new level of overall activity which will again place those folks back at the bottom of the economic heap. There is no way around it and no way to change it. Give them the "living wage" you speak about and shortly McDonalds lunch will cost $20. Just a basic principle of Capitalism.
And if you think there is an "economic" way to "pay" ourselves out of engrained poverty, just take a look at the last 50 years of Government programs designed to eliminate poverty from our system. Pretty successful, huh???? Trillions of dollars spent and poverty now is as bad or worse in this country as it has ever been. You can not remove poverty from the basic Capitalist system. 

The only alternative is to adopt pure Communism, which makes everyone equal but which has shown that, over time, it removes personal initiative and doesn't work as an overall economic or societal system because of the basic drivers of mans need to differentiate himself from his peers. 

You can not change the economic realities of the world, and there are only two choices, live under a Capitalist system and accept that there are always going to be the "economic unfortunates" at the bottom of the heap that the government develops assistance programs for (which all the wage earners pay for) or adopt pure Communism. Me, I'll keep Capitalism. It's worked the best so far in my opinion.


----------



## Ookami86 (Dec 20, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> If you believe that the masses should be taken care of, then yes. If you believe that men have to prosper by their own efforts, ingenuity and drive, then no. All I have ever seen unions do is protect the incompetent and inefficient. I don't believe they serve as a buffer against corporate greed or avarice, as the writer suggests. .


If it wasn't for the union my mother belongs to she wouldn't have insurance, would get one week of vacation per year, and would get paid significantly less. The union at her factory ensures fair treatment of employees despite corporate intentions.


----------



## Sierra_Hunter (Feb 17, 2015)

My last job we didn't get any time off. You asked for time off and they fired you. 7 days a week, and we worked 22 hour shifts sometimes. But I still liked it better then when I was in the union.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

Do you think you would have liked that arrangement if you where married with a family ?


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thateus said:


> Do you think you would have liked that arrangement if you where married with a family ?


most likely he would have found a different job if he wanted to spend part of his life with his family. Remember, nobody is forcing anyone to stay in a particular job. Everyone is free to leave as they see fit. You weigh the benefits with the cost and make your own decision. If that was the way he could provide the best economic situation for his family, that probably would have been what his choice was.


----------



## Sierra_Hunter (Feb 17, 2015)

Thateus said:


> Do you think you would have liked that arrangement if you where married with a family ?


Who says I'm not? I was about 180 miles from home on that job, and got to see Amanda about 1 night a month.


----------



## Sierra_Hunter (Feb 17, 2015)

I'll be honest it wasn't my favorite job. But I was making 26 bucks a hour, and with the debt I was trying to get out of, it was what I had to do. I would like a job with more time off, and time to spend with my family, but sometimes a guy has to do what he has to do.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

Sierra_Hunter said:


> I was about 180 miles from home on that job, and got to see Amanda about 1 night a month.


Lovely. Perhaps in retirement you'll get to spend some 'real quality time'.


----------



## Sierra_Hunter (Feb 17, 2015)

Thateus said:


> Lovely. Perhaps in retirement you'll get to spend some 'real quality time'.


Why do you think I'm looking at a differant career?

What I was really trying to say in my first post was as much as I disliked my last job, I liked it better then when I was with the union. Honestly with the union, I was at home less and made less money


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

With my valid Honorable Withdrawal card from the Teamsters still in my wallet, I have to say that unions are just another layer of worker-exploiting management.


----------



## Thateus (Feb 12, 2015)

... and besides the local militia dues are cheaper.


----------

