Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Lokrian]

Heh, the old 'evil unions' talking point.

Some dude makes 30 million dollars running an airline that goes belly up, and the unecessary expense is actually all the people that do the work of making the airline run day in and day out? Not just no, but HAIL no.

All the same things that made unions 'once necessary' exist to this very day. Big business is more than happy to leave large portions of the population with the choice, "work for this wage or starve in the dark." It's the inevitable effect of limited liability and incorporation as they expand towards monopoly levels.

Obviously, this is not the case with pilots, but then again, professional organizations like those for doctors and lawyers are nothing but unions by another name. They set the minimum standards, and anyone who doesn't meet them is not able to work in that profession. They don't allow the corporations to define it for them just to save a buck by hiring large numbers of sub par professionals.

Why not pilots and machinists? The struggle between the owners of the means of production and service and their skilled labor is as old as civilization I think, going back to the men who were willing and able and GOOD at weilding the sword, and voted with their feet for the leader who treated them most like they wished to be treated. That's the whole thing about why the lower classes once resented the "burghers", or city folk, so much. They were in the same position of labor, but because of their training they could demand better working conditions more effectively. Only recently we see that the "burghers" are now in much the same position labor has been in for ages.

The problem with defining unskilled labor, and more and more, even skilled labor, as expendable, is that there is never going to be a time when about 50% of people are not below average, and just treating that large a portion of the population like needless trash will never float. If you then try to expand the percentage of more or less expendable laborers on into the upper 50%, well, that's a recipe for revolution.

There simply have to be good jobs for most people, end of story. If someone considerd themselves a leader of men and deserving of the wages that come with being a person of power and responsibility, let them take that responsibility to heart and take such bottom line realities into acount when designing the insitutions of production and service in our societies.

Sure, Unions are prone to a lot of the same problems large corporations are as far as serving for hiding holes for greed and corruption, but the fact is they add balance to the equation, just like the balance of powers in our governmental branches in the U.S. Without them there is no recourse for the labor half of the equation of the free market, and it ceased to be free and begins to be once more a market owned and operated by the heads of the largest corporations.

History has already taught us in painful detail where that leads.

"I owe my soul to the company store."

Unions have taken the first step to get out of the political lockstep with the Democrats. Large and powerful Unions have once more gone back to spending their time and effort increasing membership, and parted ways with the AFL-CIO. The coming years may hold some hope for those who on the one hand are not fans of socialism and government over-regulation but on the other hand know the down side of pretending corporate leadership is in any way to be trusted with the common man and woman's lifestyle and actual social security, as oposed to the government program of the same name which is nothing of the sort.

Bottom line, if people do not get up, stand up, get off their backsides and start to actively resist the trend of the few taking more and more for themselves, they aren't going to have a lot left before long.

[Aristotle]

Ah, the old CEO salaries are the problem canard.

The $30 million some CEO makes is nothing compared to the billions that the unions bilk.

Furthermore, why should an employee have to sacrifice a percentage of his pay to a union that turns around and donates money to candidates and causes that employee doesn't even support?

In the United States, unions are just a leech. They are a barrier to healthy functioning of a business. That is a big reason why so many businesses just throw their hands up in disgust and go elsewhere.

It is very easy to demand excessive benefits for employees and then get angry when the jobs go away.

Beggars can't be choosers. If you don't like the terms of employment, work elsewhere. Using non-market means of enforcing artificial controls on an employer is a one way ticket to unemployment (either the business goes under, or it leaves- take your pick).

The average cost of providing BENEFITS for an employee now exceeds the cost of their wages. That is completely out of whack. No wonder so many companies cannot afford to do business domestically any longer.

It is not a coincidence that the industries with the greatest amount of union control are the industries performing the worst in the US.

Why do you think factory jobs are almost non existent in the US now? Wouldn't it be nice if we still had millions of unskilled jobs that paid $20-50 an hour? That is no longer possible thanks to unions and all the excessive benefits they demand.

The inherent flaw in unionized labor in the modern, industrialized world is that when they "win", the company is forced to close up shop and move away. That is quite a pyrrhic victory.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Ah, the old CEO salaries are the problem canard.

Hehe, touche'.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The $30 million some CEO makes is nothing compared to the billions that the unions bilk.

Furthermore, why should an employee have to sacrifice a percentage of his pay to a union that turns around and donates money to candidates and causes that employee doesn't even support?

Indeed. Wouldn't it have been nice if companies had offered decent living wages without workers having to organize to fight for those rights? But that's what had to happen, and that's the way it is until someone comes up with a better system. It takes money to get things done.

Originally posted by Aristotle
In the United States, unions are just a leech. They are a barrier to healthy functioning of a business. That is a big reason why so many businesses just throw their hands up in disgust and go elsewhere.

It is very easy to demand excessive benefits for employees and then get angry when the jobs go away.

Beggars can't be choosers. (Emphasis added by Lok)If you don't like the terms of employment, work elsewhere. Using non-market means of enforcing artificial controls on an employer is a one way ticket to unemployment (either the business goes under, or it leaves- take your pick).

Here's the part where your argument ceases to make any sense to me whatsoever. You think incorporation, separating the ownership class from responsibility for what their companies do (limiting liability), government protection of a RIGHT for a legal entity that is not even a person to own and manipulate HUGE portions of a national economy, is anything at all other than a non-market manipulation? These are non market manipulations specifically designed to bypass certain problems, spread risk, and enable industry, but they come AT A COST. The cost is the power of the individual to impact the way these organizations operate.

I'm not your beggar, and neither are the thousands of other people on the planet who were not born to feed into an economic system specifically designed to allow a handful of people to control vast amounts of real estate and hardware, things that they themselves never were responsible for creating in the first place, for the sake of efficiency. The workers are every bit as much a part of the success of industrialization and mass production and consumption as the leadership. You can't MAKE thousands and thousands of ANYTHING without a lot of people working together as a team. Period. The end.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The average cost of providing BENEFITS for an employee now exceeds the cost of their wages. That is completely out of whack. No wonder so many companies cannot afford to do business domestically any longer.

It is not a coincidence that the industries with the greatest amount of union control are the industries performing the worst in the US.

Why do you think factory jobs are almost non existent in the US now? Wouldn't it be nice if we still had millions of unskilled jobs that paid $20-50 an hour? That is no longer possible thanks to unions and all the excessive benefits they demand.

The inherent flaw in unionized labor in the modern, industrialized world is that when they "win", the company is forced to close up shop and move away. That is quite a pyrrhic victory.

What excessive benefits? Let's get specific here. You mean horrible things like occasional vacations, health insurance and retirement? Safe working environment? What are we talking about here? Benefits cost more than wages? What does that say about the state of wages? Wages have actually begun to go DOWN lately in some sectors and markets, while we have been in a steady state of inflation since before I was born. You can’t even save money anymore. If you don’t put it safely in the hands of the professional money-grubbing class so that they can get their fair share of your hard earned cash, it loses its value to inflation.

And we are back to talking about the wonderful benefits of third world labor again. I guess the fact that Chinese rural workers are basically contract slaves with no right to even a rudimentary education just sort of bounced right off you the last time we talked about why it is that the third world is so "competitive". Why did we even bother to have a civil war if shooting people or running them down with tanks if they try to get treated like human beings is the way forward?

The problem is that neither Europe nor the third world wants any part of our spoiled elite class. If the U.S. worker stops putting up with it, there is no place left for them to go. I don't fear standing up to the rich at all. The economy will run just fine without funneling obscene resources to a handful of greedy incompetents.

Ever wonder how it is even possible that the top few percent of wage earners pay 30%+ of taxes in the USA? You know significant numbers of studies estimate that the top few percent OWN 90%+ of all there is to own? There are no reliable statistics actually, because guess who doesn't want anyone knowing for sure just how obscene things are to begin with? But, add to these estimates that they also have incomes dozens of times greater than the average, padding their advantage daily. Tell me again how you resent special interests owning the media? How do you propose doing anything about it on 30-50 grand a year? You're getting nowhere fast, fellow.

There are too many resources in the hands of too few people. That’s why politics has gone completely out of the broad middle classes control. The relative comforts of modern life have left people oblivious to the fact that they have NO power anymore. How can the Supreme Court rule that government can take your house , pay whatever they feel is 'fair', and just GIVE it to business? How did we get there?

Because they believe you will never do one damned thing about it, that’s why. They have you afraid that standing up for yourself will cause the world to fly apart at the seems. They’re lyyyyyiiiiiing toooooo yooooooou.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
Wouldn't it have been nice if companies had offered decent living wages without workers having to organize to fight for those rights?

Wouldn't it be nice if a business owner could just put out a job offer and someone could choose to accept it or not? If the business owner didn't make a fair offer, nobody would want to work for him/her and then the business would fail.

Wouldn't it be nice if the people who accept the job had some kind of appreciation that someone else risked their own money to start a business that created the job? Especially since this same person probably started a number of other businesses that failed before they finally found something that worked.

If you don't like the wage (and benefits), either don't take the job or start your own business. It is pretty simple, isn't it?

Originally posted by Lokrian
The workers are every bit as much a part of the success of industrialization and mass production and consumption as the leadership. You can't MAKE thousands and thousands of ANYTHING without a lot of people working together as a team. Period. The end.

It is true that workers are a part of the process. But guess what: the workers that are a part of the process right now are foreign workers. I hope the unions are happy. They have reaped what they sowed.

When you artificially force a business to spend more money on labor (via wages and benefits) than the free market would normally demand, businesses are compalled to move elsewhere.

Demanding more than the business is willing and able to provide is just ignorant of reality. The only system that works is for a business to say "We will pay X with benefits Y for you to do Z." If you try and *force* a business to provide more that this (through extra-market or legislative means), they leave. That is just a FACT.

You can jump up and down and throw tantrum after tantrum if you want, but that just won't change reality. We are seeing with our own eyes what happens when you try and control labor costs through legislation and union blackmail- THE JOBS LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Originally posted by Lokrian
And we are back to talking about the wonderful benefits of third world labor again. I guess the fact that Chinese rural workers are basically contract slaves with no right to even a rudimentary education just sort of bounced right off you the last time we talked about why it is that the third world is so "competitive". Why did we even bother to have a civil war if shooting people or running them down with tanks if they try to get treated like human beings is the way forward?

I guess it "bounced off you" the last time I tried to educate you that these people in the third world are THRILLED when a company moves a factory to their country. It is totally dishonest propaganda that these workers are systematically and uniformly enslaved or abused. There is no economic incentive to do so. When the company moves from the US to a third world country, they are able to provide wages and benefits that are superior to what existed before them by many orders of magnitude.

It is a pig headed example of classic American blindness to refuse to accept that workers in other counties are PSYCHED to get the jobs our businesses provide when they leave the US.

We may think working for $1 a day is horrible, but when the workers in that country were making between $0 and $1 a month prior to the US company's arrival, that's a pretty awesome improvement.

Think about that the next time you praise a union for blackmailing higher wages and more benefits than the business can afford, is willing, or feels comfortable paying. That's what sends them packing.

Originally posted by Lokrian
The problem is that neither Europe nor the third world wants any part of our spoiled elite class. If the U.S. worker stops putting up with it, there is no place left for them to go. I don't fear standing up to the rich at all. The economy will run just fine without funneling obscene resources to a handful of greedy incompetents.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. What are you talking about? What is the US Worker currently "putting up with?" Being given a job? Having someone take all the risk and do all the hard work to create a functioning company that is able to give them a job? Wow, that sure is something horrible to "put up with."

These "elites" create all the jobs and all the wealth. Without them, the economy is sunk. The true statement is that if the entrepreneurs of our country "stop putting up with it", there will be NO JOBS and therefore no U.S. workers.

There are plenty of utter economic failures throughout history that prove quite nicely that command economies don't work.

Entrepreneurs and business owners are the most important economic engines in our country. Without them, we have nothing- absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Lokrian
Ever wonder how it is even possible that the top few percent of wage earners pay 30%+ of taxes in the USA? You know significant numbers of studies estimate that the top few percent OWN 90%+ of all there is to own

...

There are too many resources in the hands of too few people.

You made a critical mistake even attempting to trot out this tired, false, class warfare BS. This is truly my favorite political lie to dispell.

As reported in the NY Times regarding the recent tax cuts: "People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of $16,000 a year saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2% from 6.7%."

A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5...edTaxRates.pdf (warning: PDF FILE!)

The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.

The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 34% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 53.25%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 64.89%. The top 25% of income earners pays 82.90% of all federal income taxes.

A common lie of the Class Warfare Pimps is that the "rich" (whom they refuse to define) have a higher % of total income than their % of taxes. This is false.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Adjusted gross income share (percentage):

Top 1%          Top 5%          Top 10%         Top 25%         Top 50%
17.53           31.99           43.11           65.23           86.19
 
Total income tax share (percentage):

Top 1%          Top 5%          Top 10%         Top 25%         Top 50%
33.89           53.25           64.89           82.90           96.03

The United States also has greater income mobility (the ability for someone to move from one income quintile to another, like from the lowest to the highest) than any other industrialized nation.

The class warfare garbage needs to stop. It only harms our country by creating animosities that should not exist. Politicians on the left know this is an easy, if dishonest, to get votes because the bottom 50% of the population pays less than 4% of all taxes while earning almost 14% of all income. The bottom 50% also happens to get the majority of government benefits paid out to them. What a coincidence, eh?

Republicans use religion and morality to scam the voters while Democrats use class warfare. Both tactics are repugnant. Class warfare is easier to dispell, however, because cold hard facts disprove it. Morality is, unfortunately, much fuzzier.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Wouldn't it be nice if a business owner could just put out a job offer and someone could choose to accept it or not? If the business owner didn't make a fair offer, nobody would want to work for him/her and then the business would fail.

Wouldn't it be nice if the people who accept the job had some kind of appreciation that someone else risked their own money to start a business that created the job? Especially since this same person probably started a number of other businesses that failed before they finally found something that worked.

If you don't like the wage (and benefits), either don't take the job or start your own business. It is pretty simple, isn't it?

That's what happens even with unions. The only difference is huge numbers of people all agree not to work for an employer. Collective bargaining. It's not some sort of evil plot; it is simple free market economics. Collective bargaining is necessary to offset collective ownership. The same advantages to the investor that make incorporation a good way to spread risk also makes it a handy bargaining tool for employers to drive wages down.

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is true that workers are a part of the process. But guess what: the workers that are a part of the process right now are foreign workers. I hope the unions are happy. They have reaped what they sowed.

When you artificially force a business to spend more money on labor (via wages and benefits) than the free market would normally demand, businesses are compalled to move elsewhere.

Demanding more than the business is willing and able to provide is just ignorant of reality. The only system that works is for a business to say "We will pay X with benefits Y for you to do Z." If you try and *force* a business to provide more that this (through extra-market or legislative means), they leave. That is just a FACT.

You can jump up and down and throw tantrum after tantrum if you want, but that just won't change reality. We are seeing with our own eyes what happens when you try and control labor costs through legislation and union blackmail- THE JOBS LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge that the only reason employers are in the driver’s seat here is because of laws which artificially increase their ability to influence the open market. There IS no open market. It is already unfairly skewed. It is that way by design, to spread risk so that individual investors don't go broke over and over, and they are GOOD LAWS, but they cause an artificial downward pressure on wages. It is a large organization with massive resources vs. one worker at a time. Organization merely remedies this situation, setting things back on an even keel.

Originally posted by Aristotle
I guess it "bounced off you" the last time I tried to educate you that these people in the third world are THRILLED when a company moves a factory to their country. It is totally dishonest propaganda that these workers are systematically and uniformly enslaved or abused. There is no economic incentive to do so. When the company moves from the US to a third world country, they are able to provide wages and benefits that are superior to what existed before them by many orders of magnitude.

It is a pig headed example of classic American blindness to refuse to accept that workers in other counties are PSYCHED to get the jobs our businesses provide when they leave the US.

That bounced off me because I told you I actually worked with some of them, and they are not as happy as you make out. I worked with Mexicans who came over the border. They do it because Mexico is corrupt, not because it is a wonderful thing in their lives to come and work for wages substantially lower than the national average. I imagine the smiling faces of slave laborers in India that you saw were artificially taken and presented to you in that light by organizations with something to gain from making people feel good that their clothes are being made by people with living standards that approach stone-age levels in some cases. Sure they are happy to be making more. Who wouldn’t be? They’re not idiots after all. Just like a slave is happy to get out from under the lash of a particularly surly owner, so too are the wage slaves of the third world happier when they move up to a slightly less abusive situation. It’s not enough. It is downright evil.

We need laws that put a requirement of measurable improvement in living standards in these nations in order to maintain low tariffs. If workers do not continue to make substantial improvement in their living standards, the wealthy of that nation should be cut off from our healthy markets, and be forced to try to make a few dollars off their own destitute populations instead. They will remember in short order why it was that they wanted to be able to sell in the States.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Think about that the next time you praise a union for blackmailing higher wages and more benefits than the business can afford, is willing, or feels comfortable paying. That's what sends them packing.[

Again, unions do not blackmail. They simply refuse en masse to work for an employer. Laws protecting their right to do so are to balance the collective bargaining abilities of large corporations which are artificial legal entities in their own right.

If I saw substantial increases in living standards in those countries where wages are a dollar an hour, I would probably see this as you do. I do not see it. The improvement is there, and real, but it is not increasing living standards at any acceptable rate.

Originally posted by Aristotle
This makes absolutely no sense at all. What are you talking about? What is the US Worker currently "putting up with?" Being given a job?

No one ever in the history of the world ever "gave" someone a job. The job itself is an exchange. I work for you if you pay me. If you don't pay me, I don't work. Using artificial means to make me work cheap, from threatening to kill me to withholding food, clothing and shelter through artificial manipulation of the job market, are immoral.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Having someone take all the risk and do all the hard work to create a functioning company that is able to give them a job? Wow, that sure is something horrible to "put up with."

All the hard work? All the hard work of fronting some excess cash to see if something will make money? How hard do you honestly think it is to see when something is looking profitable and go ahead and start a business? And if the business flops, do the employees not lose as well? Of course they do. No one goes to get a job doing something they think is not going to make money in the long term.

This is the way that the truly wealthy try to divide the working classes. The real entrepreneur is actually more like a middle manager. If his idea fails, he is fired by the fact that his business flops. The more money one has up front though, the better chance any business has. As you approach that top 1%, the amount of economic potential in the form of saved resources begins to approach the level of the foolproof. You can live off the interest the BANK gives you after your wealth reaches a certain level, much less investing with just a tiny modicum of common sense. You don’t have to have a single idea all of your life. You just need to pick the best of the dozens and dozens of people pleading with you for the money to try something because there is no loose cash in the economy for them to save up and try it on their own.

Originally posted by Aristotle
These "elites" create all the jobs and all the wealth.

There's the politics of fear. Unfortunately, even a meager inspection of the facts proves this to be untrue. It is the worker that actually creates, physically creates, wealth. Elites (those who own the means of production - land and natural resources) have ideas. If their ideas suck, the really don't deserve any more advantage than workers do. But they have it in the form of corporate laws and the capacity to incorporate to have disproportional influence on government and the market.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Without them, the economy is sunk. The true statement is that if the entrepreneurs of our country "stop putting up with it", there will be NO JOBS and therefore no U.S. workers.

That is exactly the point you comment about, "What are you talking about?" You think individual entrepreneurs, or ESPECIALLY the wealthiest of our elites, are going to physically pick up and move themselves to Mexico or India or China? Europe? None of these places want them, and the typical American business man would not know what to do with themselves in the third world cultures, most of which are also extremely corrupt. Likely as not they would lose everything they had to outright corrupt dealings without the might of the U.S. to back their interests abroad.

They don't have the option to stop puting up with it. They will either begin to treat workers better, or they will step aside for someone else who will. They don't have other options available that any of them could tolerate.

Originally posted by Aristotle
There are plenty of utter economic failures throughout history that prove quite nicely that command economies don't work.

I'm not a communist. I just don't buy that collective bargaining has become a bad thing. It is still necessary to overcome the advantage of laws governing incorporation.

Originally posted by Aristotle


As reported in the NY Times regarding the recent tax cuts: "People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of $16,000 a year saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2% from 6.7%."

A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5...edTaxRates.pdf (warning: PDF FILE!)

The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.

The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 34% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 53.25%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 64.89%. The top 25% of income earners pays 82.90% of all federal income taxes.

A common lie of the Class Warfare Pimps is that the "rich" (whom they refuse to define) have a higher % of total income than their % of taxes. This is false.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Adjusted gross income share (percentage):

Top 1%          Top 5%          Top 10%         Top 25%         Top 50%
17.53           31.99           43.11           65.23           86.19
 
Total income tax share (percentage):

Top 1%          Top 5%          Top 10%         Top 25%         Top 50%
33.89           53.25           64.89           82.90           96.03

This is exactly what I said. The top 1 percent, ONE of every hundred, have incomes that approach 20% of all the income that exists. This gross inequality is compounded DAILY. They already own WAY more than the average American, and the disparity is growing. They pay out of their gross excesses. They do not have to choose between medicine and food. They have to choose between Mercedes or BMW.

The top 5% make nearly a third of ALL the INCOME there IS.

The top 10% approach 50% of ALL the INCOME there IS. This is a huge drag on the economy, as a handful of people not only own more already, but suck up all the available income that could be used to improve the lifestyles of the average workers.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The United States also has greater income mobility (the ability for someone to move from one income quintile to another, like from the lowest to the highest) than any other industrialized nation.
…

The class warfare garbage needs to stop.

It certainly does. Inconceivably wealthy people need to stop trying to scare people into believing they actually do anything worth the obscene amounts of money they bilk the economy out of. If you like income mobility, then making our income mobility even higher will not hurt your feelings. Making wages more egalitarian will shrink the distance between the richest and the poorest, making the distance to travel between rich and poor smaller, increasing that mobility and making it more reactive to real time conditions in the economy, which is exactly what makes a free market superior to a centrally controlled one. Huge wage and wealth disparities create an artificial barrier between moving from labor to management, thus giving people who already have resources an unfair and counterproductive advantage in the decision making processes that govern the market.

Originally posted by Aristotle
It only harms our country by creating animosities that should not exist. Politicians on the left know this is an easy, if dishonest, to get votes because the bottom 50% of the population pays less than 4% of all taxes while earning almost 14% of all income. The bottom 50% also happens to get the majority of government benefits paid out to them. What a coincidence, eh?

Republicans use religion and morality to scam the voters while Democrats use class warfare. Both tactics are repugnant. Class warfare is easier to dispel, however, because cold hard facts disprove it. Morality is, unfortunately, much fuzzier.

I wish you had some idea how it sounds to a LOT of people when you complain how unfair it is that the bottom 50%, fully HALF of ALL Americans, are only making 14% of all the income there is, and yet you begrudge them a lower tax percentage. This is what fuels the class warfare - the utter lack of concern about gross inequalities.

And as I said in my other post, not a single fact or figure is available concerning what percentage of all wealth is owned by what percentage of people. If the income distribution is this skewed, imagine how the compounding effect of that income distribution is padding the advantage of the very wealthy.

And yet they cry as if you are sawing off their limbs if they are called on to give out of their amazing excess for the good of the nation. The poor bleed for their country. They literally give their blood. The rich whine for themselves.

I make a reasonable living, and I have never been a member of a Union. I am just of the opinion that workers deserve a healthy lifestyle. If foreign nations want that for themselves, let them reform their governments. I don't want policy that merely shuffles domestic jobs off to nations where tin pot dictators and/or incompetent and crooked businesses. If slave labor was the way to go, the south would have won the civil war. Treating people like beasts has the extra, added disadvantage, aside from being immoral, of having a depressive effect on innovation. Why work so hard to make things easier or safer when you aren't the one doing the work?

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
That's what happens even with unions.

No it doesn't. If you own a grocery store, and you do not employ union labor, unions from OTHER grocery stores will stand outside your store and protest- even if your own employees are perfectly fine not having a union take a percentage of their paychecks. I've seen it with my own eyes in 3 different states. That is not people being able to choose to take a job or not. That is unions engaging in outright bullying and strong arming OTHER businesses.

Originally posted by Lokrian
Collective bargaining is necessary to offset collective ownership.

No it isn't. It is a leechlike drain on efficiency. The union bosses have no interest in harmony. If things go smoothly, they don't feel useful and fear workers will want to pay less in dues. They deliberately foment dissent and repeatedly make outrageous demands. So, businesses leave. Then the workers are out of a job, and the unions bosses move on to some other town and business and start over. Unions leaders MUST create strife in order to justify their existence and the dues they drain from the workers' paychecks.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I imagine the smiling faces of slave laborers in India that you saw were artificially taken and presented to you in that light by organizations with something to gain from making people feel good that their clothes are being made by people with living standards that approach stone-age levels in some cases.

It’s not enough. It is downright evil.

The reason this is clearly false propaganda is pure, cold self-interest.

Aside from the fact that most human beings, even "Horrible Evil CEOs", would not happily engage in slavery, there is no financial incentive to treat people in the manner you claim they are treated. In fact, there is a financial disincentive. People who are treated like slaves are not as productive. That is, after all, the main reason slavery died out as an economic entity in the western world. It just isn't efficient.

It is arrogant and ignorant to act like the Knight in Shining Armor for these third world workers when they are not forced to work at these factories, and they are in fact better off than before the factory was built there.

It reminds me of a quote from Full Metal Jacket: "Pvt. Eightball: I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

Americans love to think we know what people in other countries want for themselves. We are rarely correct. If those people chose to work in those factories, maybe, just MAYBE, they had enough brains to make a choice that was best for them. Insiting you know better than they do what is best for them is paternalistic and insulting.

Furthermore, it is not evil to give someone a job that pays 10-100 times what their last job paid (if they had a job at all).

Originally posted by Lokrian
We need laws that put a requirement of measurable improvement in living standards in these nations in order to maintain low tariffs.

That's always the answer for the loony left. "Well, we abused the business owners here and they ran away, so lets try and get other countries to pass some stupid laws like the ones we passed in the US. Hey, if we get all countries to treat business owners like shit, maybe they won't have anywhere to run! We already ruined our country, lets ruin theirs too!"

That is just crazy. You make the domestic environment inhospitable to business owners, and decide the best course of action is to try to make it equally crappy elsewhere in hopes of luring them back?

That is like a hotel that loses its customers because they stop cleaning the sheets lobbying for a law that bans all hotels from cleaning their sheets. Ever read Harrison Bergeron?

Originally posted by Lokrian
All the hard work? All the hard work of fronting some excess cash to see if something will make money? How hard do you honestly think it is to see when something is looking profitable and go ahead and start a business? And if the business flops, do the employees not lose as well? Of course they do. No one goes to get a job doing something they think is not going to make money in the long term.

Is that really what you think is involved in starting a business? Do you realize that right there, in that one paragraph, you completely divorced yourself from any possible hint of credibility on this entire issue?

Yes, all the hard work. The months or years of 80+ hour weeks with no overtime (often no pay at all), no benefits, no vacations, no sick days, to get a business running. The risk of personal savings (that could result in total financial ruin if the business fails). The sleepless nights lying awake thinking about what you can do to try and make the business successful. The complete and total sacrifice of leisure time for months or years on end. When I started my business, it was 7 years before I was able to take a vacation. The overwhelming majority of new businesses are founded by individuals, with their own money, and their own blood, sweat, and tears to make it work.

I'll give you an example that some Threshers are familiar with. FunkyLAN, the place where we had our ThreshCon event, is a business owned by 3 guys who live here in town. They invested tens of thousands of dollars of their own money on computers, networking equipment, furniture, etc. They have full time jobs they work during the day. At night, they work at FunkyLAN for (so far) no pay. They work 7 days a week, including holidays. Some nights, they work all night so they can host lock-in events. After more than a year, they only occasionally break even for the month. When they do not break even for the month, the owners have to dip into their own savings to cover the bills. They are not even close to recouping their initial investment. They have a handful of employees who get to have a fun job thanks to the entreprenurial spirit of the business owners. This story is not rare, it is typical of the hardships many business owners endure to get their business going.

It is truly insulting that you refuse to acknowledge the real engine of economic growth in our country. People taking risks, working their butts off, and starting businesses is what creates jobs and opportunities for other people.

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html

Small businesses:

• Employ more than half of all private sector employees
• Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.

One third of all small businesses fail in the first 2 years, and half fail in the first 4 years. The employee just moves on and gets another job. The business founder/owner often has to face the loss of his/her savings and the crushing agony of personal failure. Some have to face bankruptcy which haunts them for 14+ years. After a couple years of killing themselves, they are left with nothing to show for it, no savings, and very likely a huge pile of debt.

Now, keep in mind that for every successful business venture, that same entrepreneur most likely endured numerous prior failures.

Your total lack of respect and admiration for people who start businesses is both shocking and dismaying. These people are the engines of growth in the US. They are the backbone of our economy. Without them, we have absolutely NOTHING.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I wish you had some idea how it sounds to a LOT of people when you complain how unfair it is that the bottom 50%, fully HALF of ALL Americans, are only making 14% of all the income there is, and yet you begrudge them a lower tax percentage. This is what fuels the class warfare - the utter lack of concern about gross inequalities.

Please stop with the straw men. I did not say it was unfair that the bottom 50% only pays 4% of the taxes. I provided actual statistics that show people in the top 50% pay a higher percentage of taxes than the percentage of income they earn. Thus, they are clearly carrying the bottom 50%. Maybe the bottom 50% should appreciate that instead of demonizing "the rich."

By the way, that top 50% is everyone who makes more than $16,108. That is hardly "rich."

The only inequality that exists is one that favors the bottom 50%. They earn 14% of the income and pay 4% of the taxes. They are being CARRIED by the top 50%. Someone else is paying their way. Most of this bottom 50% is also drawing benefits from the government that are paid for by the top 50%. But lets just pretend that doesn't exist, right?

The reason the top 50% makes 86.19% if the income is becasue they work harder and they care about making responsible choices. They put education and hard work above other frivolities. Do you really want to argue it is a herculean task to get a job that earns $16,108 per year? That is approximately $8 an hour (assuming 2 weeks of vacation).

Here's the thing. A lot of people are happy not working hard and thus not making a lot of money. That is fine. That is their choice. Thankfully, most people who make this decision understand and accept that it was truly their choice. To choose not to care about your education, or not to work hard, and then also complain that you are not in the top 50% income wise is just clueless and ignorant.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I make a reasonable living, and I have never been a member of a Union. I am just of the opinion that workers deserve a healthy lifestyle.

They don't "deserve" anything. They get what they are willing to WORK FOR- nothing more, nothing less.

Frankly, if they show as little appreciation as you have in this thread for the person(s) who created the business and the job, they deserve very little.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
No it doesn't. If you own a grocery store, and you do not employ union labor, unions from OTHER grocery stores will stand outside your store and protest- even if your own employees are perfectly fine not having a union take a percentage of their paychecks. I've seen it with my own eyes in 3 different states. That is not people being able to choose to take a job or not. That is unions engaging in outright bullying and strong arming OTHER businesses.

That's one example of a union abuse. It's not proof that all unions are driving large businesses of the type I specifically described into the dirt.

Texas is a "right to work" state so it's not something I have a lot of experience with, but as I mentioned, Southwest has a union of its own and it seems to be working fine. I have seen first hand the negative effect union busting has on labor though.

Originally posted by Aristotle
No it isn't. It is a leechlike drain on efficiency. The union bosses have no interest in harmony. If things go smoothly, they don't feel useful and fear workers will want to pay less in dues. They deliberately foment dissent and repeatedly make outrageous demands. So, businesses leave. Then the workers are out of a job, and the unions bosses move on to some other town and business and start over. Unions leaders MUST create strife in order to justify their existence and the dues they drain from the workers' paychecks.

I'd like to hear these demands that are supposedly so outrageous. You never get very specific with that accusation. If unions were not necessary, then we would not have had the business abuses of the past. I don't see any evidence that anything has happened to make them obsolete. I don't see any support for your assertion here.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The reason this is clearly false propaganda is pure, cold self-interest.

Aside from the fact that most human beings, even "Horrible Evil CEOs", would not happily engage in slavery, there is no financial incentive to treat people in the manner you claim they are treated. In fact, there is a financial disincentive. People who are treated like slaves are not as productive. That is, after all, the main reason slavery died out as an economic entity in the western world. It just isn't efficient.

In the same breath you say that no one would do this because of self interest and mention how it has been done. According to this logic, China would already be a free and thriving democratic, capitalistic society.

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is arrogant and ignorant to act like the Knight in Shining Armor for these third world workers when they are not forced to work at these factories, and they are in fact better off than before the factory was built there.

It reminds me of a quote from Full Metal Jacket: "Pvt. Eightball: I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

Americans love to think we know what people in other countries want for themselves. We are rarely correct. If those people chose to work in those factories, maybe, just MAYBE, they had enough brains to make a choice that was best for them. Insiting you know better than they do what is best for them is paternalistic and insulting.

Here again I have the advantage of having been to a few other countries. Not India or China, mind you, or really any places that apply directly to the export of jobs abroad, but places like Greece, Turkey, Egypt and so forth. There's no great up swell of support for America because of the positive effects we are supposedly having on the world economy in general.

Also I have repeatedly explained to you the first hand experience I had with the Mexicans I worked with. There are also repeated attempts by various media outlets to try to let people know that not everyone thinks America's way of running things is as benevolent as you seem to be implying.

I just see no evidence that there is this mass of overjoyed third world workers cheering American job creation where they are still left with a low living standard. Maybe if you offered some evidence of how the living standards are increasing or something.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Furthermore, it is not evil to give someone a job that pays 10-100 times what their last job paid (if they had a job at all).

No argument here. I just am pointing out that taking advantage of people, even if you are taking less advantage of them than others, is still not benevolent.

Originally posted by Aristotle
That's always the answer for the loony left. "Well, we abused the business owners here and they ran away, so lets try and get other countries to pass some stupid laws like the ones we passed in the US. Hey, if we get all countries to treat business owners like shit, maybe they won't have anywhere to run! We already ruined our country, lets ruin theirs too!"

That is just crazy. You make the domestic environment inhospitable to business owners, and decide the best course of action is to try to make it equally crappy elsewhere in hopes of luring them back?

That is like a hotel that loses its customers because they stop cleaning the sheets lobbying for a law that bans all hotels from cleaning their sheets. Ever read Harrison Bergeron?

No one is moving themselves to the hospitable third world. They are buying things from people who are running labor camps there, basically. And no, I never read the author in question.

This has to be at least the third time you have ignored that without the U.S. market these third world sweat shops would have no one to sell to, since their own populace is incapable of buying the things that they're making.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Is that really what you think is involved in starting a business? Do you realize that right there, in that one paragraph, you completely divorced yourself from any possible hint of credibility on this entire issue?

Yes, all the hard work. The months or years of 80+ hour weeks with no overtime (often no pay at all), no benefits, no vacations, no sick days, to get a business running. The risk of personal savings (that could result in total financial ruin if the business fails). The sleepless nights lying awake thinking about what you can do to try and make the business successful. The complete and total sacrifice of leisure time for months or years on end. When I started my business, it was 7 years before I was able to take a vacation. The overwhelming majority of new businesses are founded by individuals, with their own money, and their own blood, sweat, and tears to make it work.

I'll give you an example that some Threshers are familiar with. FunkyLAN, the place where we had our ThreshCon event, is a business owned by 3 guys who live here in town. They invested tens of thousands of dollars of their own money on computers, networking equipment, furniture, etc. They have full time jobs they work during the day. At night, they work at FunkyLAN for (so far) no pay. They work 7 days a week, including holidays. Some nights, they work all night so they can host lock-in events. After more than a year, they only occasionally break even for the month. When they do not break even for the month, the owners have to dip into their own savings to cover the bills. They are not even close to recouping their initial investment. They have a handful of employees who get to have a fun job thanks to the entreprenurial spirit of the business owners. This story is not rare, it is typical of the hardships many business owners endure to get their business going.

It is truly insulting that you refuse to acknowledge the real engine of economic growth in our country. People taking risks, working their butts off, and starting businesses is what creates jobs and opportunities for other people.

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html

Small businesses:

• Employ more than half of all private sector employees
• Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.

One third of all small businesses fail in the first 2 years, and half fail in the first 4 years. The employee just moves on and gets another job. The business founder/owner often has to face the loss of his/her savings and the crushing agony of personal failure. Some have to face bankruptcy which haunts them for 14+ years. After a couple years of killing themselves, they are left with nothing to show for it, no savings, and very likely a huge pile of debt.

Now, keep in mind that for every successful business venture, that same entrepreneur most likely endured numerous prior failures.

Your total lack of respect and admiration for people who start businesses is both shocking and dismaying. These people are the engines of growth in the US. They are the backbone of our economy. Without them, we have absolutely NOTHING.

Please. I specifically excepted entrepreneurship of the type you describe, noting that it would actually be easier for them if there were more cash flowing through the economy. I even used the specific example of people who have an amount of money that would allow them to make enough to live on simply by leaving their money in the bank. I doubt a union has bothered you much lately, for example.

Having said that, the man I worked for the last two years is an entrepreneur. He has had good times and bad. The reason he succeeds though is because he knows what he is doing. He opened his business in a field he knew and understood.

A lot of people go into business for themselves poorly prepared for the endeavor. They do indeed lose their shirts. What do they do afterwards? They get normal jobs again. Why are they so destitute after their failures? For precisely the reasons I already laid out - i.e. that too many resources are in the hands of the top few percent, and there is simply no way to recover on the wages most of us are allowed by our present economic setup.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Please stop with the straw men. I did not say it was unfair that the bottom 50% only pays 4% of the taxes. I provided actual statistics that show people in the top 50% pay a higher percentage of taxes than the percentage of income they earn. Thus, they are clearly carrying the bottom 50%. Maybe the bottom 50% should appreciate that instead of demonizing "the rich."

By the way, that top 50% is everyone who makes more than $16,108. That is hardly "rich."

You can't get blood out of a turnip. I don't know what the official poverty line is, but anyone making less than $17,000 has to be close. That's a disturbing statistic in and of itself.

The way I understood it, you were providing these statistics to prove something about what I said about the top few percent paying a large portion of the taxes. I specifically noted that this would not even be possible except that income distribution was hugely disproportional. I think at this point that is something we agree about. We just disagree why it is true.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The only inequality that exists is one that favors the bottom 50%. They earn 14% of the income and pay 4% of the taxes. They are being CARRIED by the top 50%. Someone else is paying their way. Most of this bottom 50% is also drawing benefits from the government that are paid for by the top 50%. But lets just pretend that doesn't exist, right?

The fact that you interpret that fully 50% of people are dirt poor as them being horrible people who are being "carried" by others leaves me wondering where else to go from here. Fully 50% of all humans are more or less worthless? Nothing about how we have our economic model organized has anything to do with that at all?

Originally posted by Aristotle
The reason the top 50% makes 86.19% if the income is becasue they work harder and they care about making responsible choices. They put education and hard work above other frivolities. Do you really want to argue it is a herculean task to get a job that earns $16,108 per year? That is approximately $8 an hour (assuming 2 weeks of vacation).

Here's the thing. A lot of people are happy not working hard and thus not making a lot of money. That is fine. That is their choice. Thankfully, most people who make this decision understand and accept that it was truly their choice. To choose not to care about your education, or not to work hard, and then also complain that you are not in the top 50% income wise is just clueless and ignorant.

Or a Mexican working for less than minimum wage, or a black man stuck in an inner city without the means to get a job anywhere else, or a working mother trying to find a way to both work and raise her kids, or just anyone who may not be that bright.

I tell you, your opinion of people just in general is shocking to me. Do you know any working poor people? They're not THAT lazy and stupid.

[Lokrian]

It occurs to me that the lower 50% could also be made up largely of second incomes. I don't know what that would mean to your overall argument, but for me it still looks like a huge disparity between the rich and the poor.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Lokrian
That's one example of a union abuse. It's not proof that all unions are driving large businesses of the type I specifically described into the dirt.

Look at the topic that originally started this thread.

Originally posted by Lokrian

Texas is a "right to work" state so it's not something I have a lot of experience with, but as I mentioned, Southwest has a union of its own and it seems to be working fine. I have seen first hand the negative effect union busting has on labor though.

Do you know anyone who has ever needed money and tried to work while the union was on strike? Do you know what kind of abuse they go through because they are so poor and so intent on providing for their families that they work in spite of the union's demands? If you live in any small, rural town, you know things happen like houses getting graffitied or torched or threatening phone calls are made. That, to me, is an extreme negative.

Originally posted by Lokrian

[SNIP]..., then we would not have had the business abuses of the past. I don't see any evidence that anything has happened to make them obsolete. I don't see any support for your assertion here.

I highlighted what I felt were the key words here. Business abuses of the past. Unions were NECESSARY when they were formed. Child labor was still in high demand though MANY companies wished for it to be stopped. They simply couldn't be the first to stop because that would put them out of business. Working conditions WERE poor. People were losing limbs and getting fired with no hopes of ever getting another physical labor job. This simply does not happen anymore in the U.S. Now, unions are fighting for things such as more benefits or increased wages. UNIONS should not be the ones to determine this. More benefits or increased wages are NOT life-threatening situations nor are they inhumane. Can you not entertain the possibility that unions could now be HURTING things more than they're helping? Unions now make a lot of money in dues. Once money is involved, there is a desire to keep that organization alive.

Originally posted by Lokrian

Here again I have the advantage of having been to a few other countries. Not India or China, mind you, or really any places that apply directly to the export of jobs abroad, but places like Greece, Turkey, Egypt and so forth. There's no great up swell of support for America because of the positive effects we are supposedly having on the world economy in general.

Have you ever lived in a third world country? Do you have relatives fighting to survive in a third world country? Are you immersed in another culture enough to understand how the people think and feel?

When the first American factory came to my country of birth, the drop in people working for housing and clothing in rich people's houses increased dramatically, forcing rich people to actually give them wages and compete for servants. Before the factories came, these women would work for clothes and a place to live, which often involved sexual favors to the big man in the house. (You've never seen true income disaparity until you've lived in a third world country. There is no middle class. It's the rich or the poor. Thankfully, things have gotten much better in Thailand in the past 30 years.)

Please keep in mind, though, that the factories that have been introduced in Thailand are not just US factories. The Japanese have SEVERAL car parts manufacturing plants in Thailand. Several western European countries also have factories in Thailand. The point is that these first world nations have had massive impact on the country's poor. There is much more of a middle class there than there was in the 40s and 50s. People are able to work hard and make more money. They also have more choices. (I won't get into prostitution in Thailand. That would take its own thread.)

Originally posted by Lokrian

Also I have repeatedly explained to you the first hand experience I had with the Mexicans I worked with. There are also repeated attempts by various media outlets to try to let people know that not everyone thinks America's way of running things is as benevolent as you seem to be implying.

No country's way of running anything is ever perfect, yet the Mexicans KEEP trying to get to the US. Since we live in a rural community and I grew up in a rural community and speak rudimentary Spanish, I, too, worked with a LOT of immigrants, especially taking them to doctors and being there to translate. Invaribly, when two immigrants meet in the US, we always get around to saying, "Why did you come here?" Almost always, the answer, at least with the Mexicans, was "to find work and make money for my family." One family came for the chance their children would get a better education than where they were. I have yet to meet anyone who says they came "because of a corrupt government". Sorry, they are thinking about their families and their situation, not their government. While a corrupt government MAY be behind the reasons they are leaving, people who are desperate don't always stop to analyze and think that's the reason. The reason we are able to look at the politics of it all is that Americans live well. We have plenty of free time to be thinking about stuff like that.

Originally posted by Lokrian

I just see no evidence that there is this mass of overjoyed third world workers cheering American job creation where they are still left with a low living standard. Maybe if you offered some evidence of how the living standards are increasing or something.

It's not a matter of joy, and it's not only Americans that are putting these jobs in Southeast Asia. This is a matter of changing the world and giving other people a chance that Americans/First World nations have already had and thrown away or moved beyond. This is a matter of choices where people in these third world nations can now CHOOSE to not work for just the clothes on their back and a roof over their heads. They can now work for WAGES. They can also work 100 hours a week for wages if that's what they want to do. Why is this important? Because once they've saved enough, it provides them with more opportunities to rise out of poverty.

Originally posted by Lokrian

No argument here. I just am pointing out that taking advantage of people, even if you are taking less advantage of them than others, is still not benevolent.

You cannot go into a country and begin paying them the same wages. First of all, it's not exactly smart business. Second of all, if you want to cause a serious rise in class warfare, that's how you would do it. There is ALWAYS a limited number of jobs, even if 100 Western countries opened 100 factories in the east. Not everyone can have a factory job even if it is desired. Minimum wage in Thailand is approximately $800 a year, or a little less than $.40 an hour. [Called to verify these numbers and made corrections.] This is what the government demands of all employers. While we think, "Holy crap! How can anyone live off that?" we need to remember that the cost of living in a first world nation is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH higher than the cost of living in a third world nation. For example, I really can't think of a meal that can be bought in the US for less than $2, and that's if you're being really stingy and buying chicken on sale to cook yourself. In Thailand, you can easily feed yourself for a day for $1. When we were there, we had a banquet for 30 that was filled with seafood of all kinds, and that cost $100. I am no economist, so I don't know for sure what would happen if you introduced a limited number of jobs that was paying $4 an hour for unskilled labor in Thailand.

Originally posted by Lokrian

No one is moving themselves to the hospitable third world. They are buying things from people who are running labor camps there, basically. And no, I never read the author in question.

There are tons of people moving back to the third world all the time. They come to the US, making their living, and then move back to the old country in their old age. It really isn't the shithole it's made out to be.

China is not some piece of shit country where no one is happy because everyone is in a labor camp. Neither is Thailand. Neither is India (though India has TONS of problems beyond just poverty). All of these countries have cities that offer as much as any major western city. Tons of Westerners are living in these countries now. Some consider it simpler, and others just love the culture and charm.

Originally posted by Lokrian

This has to be at least the third time you have ignored that without the U.S. market these third world sweat shops would have no one to sell to, since their own populace is incapable of buying the things that they're making.

This assumes that the people in the third world WANT the things they're making. First of all, the first world factories are enabling citizens of that country to create their own factories that produce products that people DO buy in the country. They also export a great deal to Europe and North America. Yes, prices get really marked up in the Western World, but the Westerners also get charged more than the locals do for the product.

Last but not least, it is up to the LOCALS to demand a change in work conditions or pay wages, not some yahoos across the ocean who don't know a damn thing about the country or the people within the country. Contrary to popular belief in the Western world, third world people are neither stupid or incapable of higher levels of thought. Don't think that locals appreciate it when these people come over and get their jobs taken shut down. They just end up in the shitty jobs they were trying to escape when they came to work in the factory.

The people who do need our helps are the people who are truly enslaved and the children who are forced into child labor. Not every factory job that's not in a Western country is a sweat shop, nor are the people who work there abused. There are, though, plenty of cocoa farms and sugar farms that are actually using slave labor as well as child slave labor. THOSE are the people who need help because they truly are being abused.

Originally posted by Lokrian

The fact that you interpret that fully 50% of people are dirt poor as them being horrible people who are being "carried" by others leaves me wondering where else to go from here. Fully 50% of all humans are more or less worthless? Nothing about how we have our economic model organized has anything to do with that at all?

I don't recall anyone saying that people below the poverty line are worthless, unless that is your opinion. However, I am totally boggled by the fact that you believe that people are ENTITLED to things they didn't earn or aren't even trying to earn. In school, they are striving to teach people that you are rewarded by working hard. Do you think giving away things that aren't earned still teaches that message?

Originally posted by Lokrian

Or a Mexican working for less than minimum wage, or a black man stuck in an inner city without the means to get a job anywhere else, or a working mother trying to find a way to both work and raise her kids, or just anyone who may not be that bright.

Tell me why ANY of those situations are inherently better than an Asian couple who worked 3 jobs when they came to America and didn't have heat in the middle of winter in BOSTON because they couldn't afford it but managed to work their way up to being upper middle class over a period of 30 years. Does being poor make you somehow a 'better person' and more deserving of a hand out than millions of Asians in the US who have scratched and clawed their way up to middle class or upper class? What's the lesson there? Don't work hard or try to make a better life for yourself because then you are just a shitty, wealthy person who doesn't give a shit about poor people because you want to keep more your hard-earned money for your family. Yes, let's teach everyone to underachieve.

Originally posted by Lokrian

I tell you, your opinion of people just in general is shocking to me. Do you know any working poor people? They're not THAT lazy and stupid.

I honestly don't believe that any opinions posted here are that different. Your lack of caring for the people who work and bust ass but fail (but who aren't "poor" when they started) is no different than the opinion that people should work for what they have.

People aren't all lazy and stupid, but there are a lot of people who ARE horribly lazy. You can't live in a rural area without seeing that. You can't walk into a Social Security office without running into that. We shouldn't be teaching people to wait around for a handout and income redistribution. We need to empower people with the ability to go out and get more for themselves with their own two hands. That, however, requires commitment that can't be solved by throwing a few dollars in their direction and giving yourself a pat on the back. Teaching people to change their way of life and thinking and educating them on how to work in order to become more prosperous takes tons of time and tons of commitment. Why don't we do it? Because it's easier to just blame "rich people" and throw a few dollars at the poor. That's sure to make their life "better".

[Jidoe]

As I see it. Unions can be blamed for at least two of the main problems in Western Countries:

1) Foreign Workers - Domestic workers have become overly spoiled over the years and unwilling to do most of the hard work (mainly construction and farming) unless they are paid more than can be afforded - and it is always easy to find a foreign worker who will work for much less. In Israel, for instance, there are about 300,000 or more legal and illegal foreign workers (with about 180,000 unemployed people) out of a working force that consists of about 2,000,000 people. Which means about 15% of all the workers are foreign. That's an absurd!

2) Factories moving to 3rd world countries - I can't blame only the unions here, mainly because the taxes in Israel are very very high (most of the people pay around 40-50% income tax), but since the peace with Jordan, many factories have moved just a few miles across the border for a much cheaper labor force (and less taxes).

So who's to blame in all this mess? I guess the govt. and the Unions are both at fault, but I can hardly blame the rich people for moving to other countries (and even to the US, just for some perspective on how awful things are around here) to advance their business.