Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Dalaena
Look at the topic that originally started this thread.

My original post was in response to Ari's post in the airlines thread. This thread was split off and attributed to me. I am not trying to argue that unions do no wrong. So there's one problem right off the top.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

This was every bit as true when unions were first being formed. Not everyone was all for the American Revolution either. It takes sacrifice and teamwork to make large scale changes and progress. More on that in a moment.

Yes, I do feel bad that things get harsh and confrontational, though. I had a good friend, a single mother, who worked for a long, long time at the register in a store up north where things were unionized. Because she was part time, she played hell getting the support from the union she needed. It would be better if the people running things thought in terms of the big picture. Laying it all at the feet of the union is simply not in line with the reality though. The abuse from large companies came first, and the unions came into existence and continue to exist because that is the only way for labor to negotiate against the power of large corporations.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

Of course I can entertain the notion. I said already I am not a member of a union and I never have been. One could even describe me as an "entrepreneur", though "independent" is probably more apt. I have seen working conditions in the unionized north and here in Texas, and I do not see the lack of unions in the south as a benefit.

And you have joined Aristotle in refusing to define what the benefits are that are unnecessary. I don't know why this is not part of this discussion if they are at the heart of what unions are supposedly doing all wrong. I also balk at the idea that we should wait until abuses are life threatening before we do anything about the atmosphere of profit before safety in the work place.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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 good 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.)

I never denied it could be a benefit, I said it is not enough. I suggested we require a continued rate of improvement to open our markets to those goods. Ari continually speaks of how people have no right to a job. The problem is that in America, we fought and died for that right. No one in this country is interested in being told they have no right to work, or that the sacrifices of the past were all for the benefit of the wealthy or large corporations.

Ari himself said American can't change the whole world. I want to try, but I want to do it in ways that respect the sacrifices already made by many here. Where is the Chinese revolution? Where is the Mexican revolution? Where is the civil war? Where is their union movement? Why do we have to sacrifice for those who will not fight even so much as alongside us to get the same benefits we've struggled for two hundred years to secure?

Originally posted by Dalaena
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. Invariably, 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.

Yes, and some Mexicans even come here thinking it would somehow be a good idea to annex the desert southwest into Mexico. They have no understanding of why it is better across the border. I understand that. I also understand it doesn't change the underlying fact that this is what is causing the problem, and ignoring the underlying problem is a mistake.

I'm not trying to BLAME the very people I wish I could help. I notice you do not mention any of them moving because they like the weather better though, for example. My experience has been that the brighter of the folks who come on over understand exactly why things are as they are.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

All good as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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 $8000 a year, or a little less than $.80 an hour. 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.

Two things - First, it would be handy if people adjusted for cost of living before they threw wage numbers around. When whatever the wage is in Thailand is paid, I imagine it is not paid in dollars. The conversation is made to dollars in terms of the exchange rate. Living standards are not taken into account. The bottom line though is that wages do not need to be going down and down here just for things to get better elsewhere. There needs to be a steady rise overseas without this massive shift of money from the poor to the rich here.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

This is because it is what they are used to. But I have seen, have read, and know that for example, rural labor in China is treated very different than city labor. I know this. This is unacceptable. It is not 'competition'. It is force being used to undercut labor. These are the kinds of abuses unions fought, in many cases physically had to fight strike breakers, police that were in the pockets of the companies, scabs in some cases rounded up by the mafia... People voted for politicians who were elected on a platform of supporting unions because people were sick and tired of being used and being told pretty much exactly the same things you and Ari are saying now - that they are lazy, not deserving of a higher lifestyle, owed all they were and had to people better than they were, and so on and on. It changed because they stood up and changed it. It is not going to change where you come from until you do the same thing. It may get better for a while, but these people are not just going to volunteer their massive advantage. Eventually the effect of the vast difference between the US and the far east will cease to be enough to make things better, and folks will have to stand up for themselves as well. Why not try to get the ball rolling in that direction by taking a long careful look at how the economies relate and trying to speed up the advancement overseas and stop or at least slow down the drop in the standard of living here?

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

This is the hard part. I did not say what I said about the market there thinking folks there wanted to buy the same things. I said that whatever supposed resistance corporations might like to give here in the US to dealing with labor fairly, if they want to sell to this market, they will do it, because there simply is no such market elsewhere. Our market is good because we have a broader middle class. We who belong to that middle class are not bound by any law or moral code to simply let that slip away.

To turn Ari's mantra on its ear, people don't deserve workers. They get what they are willing to pay for, and to pay for without using immoral extra market pressures to try to reduce.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

These sorts of things are probably going to require labor movements in those countries. This really is the crux of the matter. Right now you see everything as a benefit for people who deserve it. You are not acknowledging the huge shift of money back towards the rich, the larger gap between the rich and poor that is happening here. People who have lived free and equal for generations see these things, know what they mean and are preparing once more to fight for what they deserve. It would be nice of third world labor could become part of that. I think as the AFL-CIO has split and the unions that left have vowed to concentrate once more on organizing, that it would be a good idea if they spent a lot of effort along the border organizing the Mexicans. They are by and large a people who work their asses off, and if they could be made to understand their own value, they could carry the fight back across the border, and a more permanent solution could be had at least for that portion of the equation.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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?

Well let me lay this to rest. As far as I am concerned, people who refuse to work can refuse to eat as well. It's amazing how fast people get motivated when they get hungry.

I am not talking about lazy good for nothings here. I have seen people work 70 and 80 hour week’s hard labor in the hot sun for less than minimum wage. I think given the abundance the wealthy enjoy in this country, that is criminal. I think that we can do a lot better than minimum wage for anyone who is willing to work at a responsible job.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

Would have been nice if they could have come here and been paid better. Would have been even nicer if things were better where they came from.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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.

It is a mischaracterization of what I have said to say I do not appreciate people who bust their asses. I am supporting organizations that help people who bust their asses get paid more for it. Professional organizations do it. Labor might as well to.

Originally posted by Dalaena
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. (Emphasis Lok's) 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".

That's what I'm trying to tell you about the third world labor. Instead if undercutting OUR lifestyle, people in the third world need to see how sometimes you have to stand up for yourself and yes, even fight, even risk your lives, if you want to be treated fairly.

People did die in the union movement in the early days, just like our revolutionaries died, just like our civil war soldiers died. It didn't take as much blood. As each generation takes its stand, greed and corruption learn to cut and run earlier and earlier. But it still takes effort and the will to resist in order to continue to push for advancement.

You like what American is today? You can thank a long list of people who DIED fighting like HELL for it, not sitting around feeling like they didn't deserve a better life and taking what the rich are giving.

You have no idea how much I DO respect people who come here. I worked WITH them. Dal, Ari, I KNOW how hard they work. The difference is I truly believe there is a lot more that can be done about it, and capitulating to corporate wailings about organized labor and having to do horrid things like provide benefits is NOT the solution I look for.

[Lokrian]

It seems to me the only real thing you two have pointed out is that unions need to be looked at and perhaps cleaned up. THAT i could agree with. But that's not all you are saying at this point.

It occurs to me also that my rhetoric against "the rich" is sloppy. I just don't know a handy noun to use to single out the portion of "the rich" that I need to be aiming at. Obviously, not every person above salary level 'x' is a horrid troll.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Dalaena
Look at the topic that originally started this thread.

Heh, it suddenly occured to me you might mean you think the union was what killed the airline. I already answered that accusation and have yet to hear a response. Southwest's people have a union. Southwest is doing fine. All unions may not be created equal.

[Aristotle]

Lokrian, I don't even know where to start. Your continued insistence on arguing against straw men is very frustrating. You keep claiming I said things that I did not even come close to saying. I never said the bottom 50% of income earners are "horrible people." The fact that you would act like I said such a thing is incredibly deceitful and disingenuous.

Every time I provide concrete examples and accurate income and tax statistics, you either ignore them or say "well that's just one example."

You repeatedly denigrate the herculean efforts of entrepreneurs who are the most important economic force in our country.

You keep trying to make arguments from authority, but each one is exceptionally vague and includes no actual examples. You provide your personal conclusions and opinions of what other countries think with no facts to support them.

For some reason, you think people in other countries do not know what is best for themselves. You seem to think you know what is best for them instead. Their freely made choices are irrelevant to you. You repeatedly wallow in cliched American arrogance and paternalism.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I tell you, your opinion of people just in general is shocking to me.

Sadly, what shocks you is not my actual opinion, but what you PRETEND is my opinion. All of the horrible things you attribute to me are not things I actually said or argued. You seem to want to argue with someone who thinks poor people are worthless dregs of humanity. If that is who you want to argue with, then go find someone who actually thinks that. Stop pretending that person is me, because that is not my opinion and I never made such statements.

The bottom 50% is being carried. That is a simple fact of reality. They are paying less than their share of taxes, and they are pulling in almost all the government hand outs. Can you imagine what a terrible state we would be in if the top 50% of our population was as (un)productive as the bottom 50%? Do you think we would still be the nation that invents more than 90% of all new medicines? Do you think we would be the nation that invented the internet?

There is nothing inherently shameful about being carried. People who are being carried, however, should show some appreciation for a system that allows them to be carried- a system where harder working, better educated, more driven, more creative, more successful people are willing and able to help those who are either unwilling or unable to take care of themselves.

I have continually made a pure fact based, productivity argument, and you respond with a touchy-feeling quality of human being argument (by repeatedly pretending I argued that the bottom 50% of income earners are "horrible people"). This makes no sense. It is undeniable, however, that the bottom 50% are less productive and really should appreciate the fact that there are other, far more productive people in the country that make the USA a pretty darn good place to live. They raise the standard of living for EVERYONE, and they pay the taxes that make the government able to operate (and provide benefits like SSI disability, welfare, roads, defense, etc., etc., etc.).

Thomas Edison was certainly one of the most productive human beings to ever live. I am exceptionally thankful that he existed, and I'm proud that he was an American. From many historical accounts, he was not a very nice human being, and used a variety of schemes to discredit his competitors. Most people on the planet will never be as productive as Thomas Edison. Does that make them inferior human beings? Of course not. Does it mean most people contribute less to their country than Thomas Edison? It sure does. Does it mean these less productive people should be thankful that Thomas Edison did what he did? Well... do you enjoy the electric light bulb or watching movies?

Originally posted by Lokrian
Do you know any working poor people? They're not THAT lazy and stupid.

The funny thing about this comment is that YOU are the only calling them lazy and stupid. Do a search on this page for the word "lazy" and notice that the only time it appears in one of my posts (before this one) is in my signature file. I will ask you though: do you really think there are no people who are poor because they are lazy?

As for whether or not I know any working poor people, I was one. I didn't even own a car for 6+ years of my adult, working life. If pancake mix went on sale, I was eating dry pancakes (no butter, no syrup, nothing) for every meal for weeks. I couldn't afford to buy meat, so I just added something called VegeFuel (a powdered soy protein product I sold as part of a nutritional supplement business) to pancake mix, ramen, or spaghetti sauce for protein.

There really is no need to try and make the discussion personal, Lokrian. The fact that you know very little about me personally just sets you up for embarrassingly bad arguments.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by 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.

It's fascinating to me that people contnually blame the people who live in and FORMED the better economies of the west for being lazy. The children of the immigrants likewise become "lazy".

It's called getting used to be treated like a human being.

And why is it the western culture's fault if the economies in poorer nations are SO BAD that there is no self sustaining economy there? Why is it not Jordan's fault for having horrid leadership?

It's like the west has a deathwish. I'm sorry but I don't buy the "blame the western working class" mentality. We're the ones that more or less invented the middle class. For goodness sake, will the third world workers not even TRY some of the things we've done before badmouthing our fat, lazy workforce for all their woes?

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Lokrian

This was every bit as true when unions were first being formed. Not everyone was all for the American Revolution either. It takes sacrifice and teamwork to make large scale changes and progress. More on that in a moment.

I disagree that unions are needed ANYWHERE as badly as when they were first formed, if at all. The working conditions are NO WHERE near the same.

Originally posted by Lokrian
Laying it all at the feet of the union is simply not in line with the reality though. The abuse from large companies came first, and the unions came into existence and continue to exist because that is the only way for labor to negotiate against the power of large corporations.

The abuse from large companies came first. It was solved by unions. Unions won't go away. Large companies CANNOT exist without its workers, and workers in THIS country aren't willing to go work in a factory that chops their arms off on a regular basis without compensating pay. As a country, we are way more educated than that now.

Originally posted by Lokrian

Of course I can entertain the notion. I said already I am not a member of a union and I never have been. One could even describe me as an "entrepreneur", though "independent" is probably more apt. I have seen working conditions in the unionized north and here in Texas, and I do not see the lack of unions in the south as a benefit.

I'm not sure why you say there are a lack of unions in the south. I grew up in the south. The factories that kept my hometown up ALL had unionized workers. Now, only 1 of those factories remain.

Originally posted by Lokrian

And you have joined Aristotle in refusing to define what the benefits are that are unnecessary. I don't know why this is not part of this discussion if they are at the heart of what unions are supposedly doing all wrong. I also balk at the idea that we should wait until abuses are life threatening before we do anything about the atmosphere of profit before safety in the work place.

I have not refused to do anything. You ignored several of the points I made while in my arguments, and I thought it was pretty obvious that most of my post dealt with Western attitudes towards 3rd world countries. Maybe that's a bit off topic, but that was what actually got me interested in this topic at all. Ari has already posted this, but I will repeat it. The cost of BENEFITS (such as health insurace and paid leave) is now MORE than wages for the first time. Why is that a bad thing? Because, what if I want to work 60 hours and get it in cash and find my OWN health insurance for possibly cheaper than what my company is getting it for? What if my spouse has a job with excellent benefits and I would rather have the wages from my job rather than the benefits they have to force on me? Unions and the government totally prevent companies from being able to offer people higher wages for less benefits. Unions also pay money into specific political parties REGARDLESS of what their members wish. I would have to look it up, but there are certain unions well known for this. THEY decide what is done with those dues they've collected, NOT the members of the Union. A few decide for the many. And yet, if you work in unionized company, have you ever tried to NOT be a part of that union? Try it. You're fucked. So, are you saying it's better to be controlled by the union than to decide for yourself?

Originally posted by Lokrian

I never denied it could be a benefit, I said it is not enough. I suggested we require a continued rate of improvement to open our markets to those goods. Ari continually speaks of how people have no right to a job. The problem is that in America, we fought and died for that right. No one in this country is interested in being told they have no right to work, or that the sacrifices of the past were all for the benefit of the wealthy or large corporations.

No, people fought and died in America for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I'm pretty sick and tired of all these made up rights that we supposedly fought and died for. No where in the Constitution is it written that you have a right to a job. You have the right to PERSUE a job. You have the freedom to pick the job you wish to work. You also have the liberty to not work at all if you wish. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for you to live well if you decide not to work.

That's a far cry from having no right to work, and that's a serious mis-interpretation of everything written here. You are simply not guaranteed a job by the Constitution. When people say you are not given a "right to work", it doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to work. It means that there's no guarantee that you'll work.

You have the right and the freedom in this country to work your ass off, build up your business, and try to make as much money as you can. You don't have that right or freedom in several countries. You act like all companies are nameless, monstrous entities. Behind a lot of companies are people who work their asses off in school, at their jobs, and at home.

Originally posted by Lokrian

Ari himself said American can't change the whole world. I want to try, but I want to do it in ways that respect the sacrifices already made by many here. Where is the Chinese revolution? Where is the Mexican revolution? Where is the civil war? Where is their union movement? Why do we have to sacrifice for those who will not fight even so much as alongside us to get the same benefits we've struggled for two hundred years to secure?

China had their revolution in the 1920s. Mexico had theirs in 1910. Russia had theirs in 1917. The French had theirs in the 1790s. These people all tried to make a better life for themselves. What civil war are you wanting? I wouldn't wish civil war on ANY country. Those are the bloodiest wars. I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.

Originally posted by Lokrian

Two things - First, it would be handy if people adjusted for cost of living before they threw wage numbers around. When whatever the wage is in Thailand is paid, I imagine it is not paid in dollars. The conversation is made to dollars in terms of the exchange rate. Living standards are not taken into account. The bottom line though is that wages do not need to be going down and down here just for things to get better elsewhere. There needs to be a steady rise overseas without this massive shift of money from the poor to the rich here.

You'll have to recheck my numbers. I had to call over to some cousins to check the numbers and make changes. If you read my whole post, I explained pretty clearly that the cost of living in Thailand is MUCH, MUCH lower than in First World countries. I also gave an example of this.

Wages are NOT going down here. They will never go down. They'll only keep going up. I don't even know where you get info that would make you think wages are going down. Wages are not going down here. Companies are simply going to places where they won't go out of business. Not ALL companies are going there either. Many companies that require educated workers never leave the First World nations, but those that mostly require minimum wage workers do. They simply cannot keep up with the demands of union and government. (Whether it's because they are not willing to for profit reasons or because they cannot do it without going out of business.)

Originally posted by Lokrian

These are the kinds of abuses unions fought, in many cases physically had to fight strike breakers, police that were in the pockets of the companies, scabs in some cases rounded up by the mafia... People voted for politicians who were elected on a platform of supporting unions because people were sick and tired of being used and being told pretty much exactly the same things you and Ari are saying now - that they are lazy, not deserving of a higher lifestyle, owed all they were and had to people better than they were, and so on and on. It changed because they stood up and changed it. It is not going to change where you come from until you do the same thing. It may get better for a while, but these people are not just going to volunteer their massive advantage. Eventually the effect of the vast difference between the US and the far east will cease to be enough to make things better, and folks will have to stand up for themselves as well. Why not try to get the ball rolling in that direction by taking a long careful look at how the economies relate and trying to speed up the advancement overseas and stop or at least slow down the drop in the standard of living here?

There is no doubt that many third world nations still need unions. We have never said otherwise. The unions we are discussing are the ones in the US, where Unions have an ungodly amount of power over the average worker who works for unionized companies. I'm not sure how you are even implying that I am saying any of these people working in factories in the third world are lazy. These people really do everything they can to pull themselves out of poverty and support their families in a legitimate (rather than illegal) lifestyle. Obviously, in any country, there are people who work hard and people who are lazy. People who are content to live off the government and never try to better their lives will always be considered lazy in my book. You can call me inhumane, and you can imply that I'm a horrible human being for thinking so. It won't bother me, because I will always point to the fact that there are tons of people out there who have been horribly poor, poor in ways people in the US can never imagine, and they have pulled themselves out of that. My parents lived that life. They were poorer than anyone I've ever met in the US aside from utterly homeless people. (Even those people have more cash that my family did.) They worked and labored to get out of that. When they were poor, they weren't looking for a hand out. They looked for a way to achieve and improve their family. People who are utterly content to live on whatever the government gives them and teach their children to do the same are wrong in my book. (If you've EVER lived in a rural farming community, you see TONS of these people.) For the most part, I think that the people who are in this situation are trapped and need to be educated to help them get out of this poverty, but doing that is a LOT harder than throwing some governement money at them every now and then, teaching them that the rich (anyone who pays taxes) are "evil", and using them to get you elected.

I definitely don't need a lecture on what needs to happen in Thailand. I've lived there. I have family that live there. I regularly keep tabs on political and social events there. It's ridiculous to even say that there's a drop in the standard of living here. As a nation, we are able to afford things that no third world nation can even think of affording. People who live in projects have TV, hot water, and electricity for the most part. People who live in metal shacks in Thailand don't have running water, electricity (let alone any electronics like a TV), any kind of a modern stove, or even basic creature comforts. People in China consider a board with a hole in it over a hole in the ground an awesome toilet. People in India simply crap and piss on the streets or in the river, river water that other people downstream drink, by the way. You're not finding events or stories like that in America on a regular basis. It's ridiculous to even imply that the standard of living is going down here, especially when you compare with the rest of the world and even more so when you compare with third world nations.

Unions and the constant demand for more, more, more are making businesses build more factories outside the US or to try to recruit more of their workforce outside the US. In some cases, they are simply putting companies out of business. With the airlines, the government has to keep bailing them out. That's more tax dollars to feed the monster.

Okay, rambling now. Gonna stop!

(I kind of hi-jacked this thread, I guess, to discuss more than unions. Sorry about that!)

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Lokrian, I don't even know where to start. Your continued insistence on arguing against straw men is very frustrating. You keep claiming I said things that I did not even come close to saying. I never said the bottom 50% of income earners are "horrible people." The fact that you would act like I said such a thing is incredibly deceitful and disingenuous.

But yet you say,

Originally posted by Aristotle
The bottom 50% is being carried. That is a simple fact of reality. They are paying less than their share of taxes, and they are pulling in almost all the government hand outs. Can you imagine what a terrible state we would be in if the top 50% of our population was as (un)productive as the bottom 50%? Do you think we would still be the nation that invents more than 90% of all new medicines? Do you think we would be the nation that invented the internet?

There is nothing inherently shameful about being carried. People who are being carried, however, should show some appreciation for a system that allows them to be carried- a system where harder working, better educated, more driven, more creative, more successful people are willing and able to help those who are either unwilling or unable to take care of themselves.

That's not implying they are stupid or lazy? "They can't or won't take care of themselves, but I'm not saying they are lazy or stupid or anything like that." Am I putting words in your mouth?

I don't guess I know what you are saying then. They are being bilked out of a decent wage for doing the work that allows a Thomas Edison the time away from threshing wheat to invent things. It is all about working together and everyone respecting each other's place in society.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Every time I provide concrete examples and accurate income and tax statistics, you either ignore them or say "well that's just one example."

I addresses your statistics and explained why they do not apply to what I originally posted, but actually support it. There is a huge disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. It is not conducive to an independant, non-centralized economy.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You repeatedly denigrate the herculean efforts of entrepreneurs who are the most important economic force in our country.

This would be twice now that I have told you no about that. Entrepreneurs with a very few exceptions are not the targets of unions. Where they are, in some cases it may be legitimate, and in some cases no. I can't make a broad judgement based on indivudual examples you may make. Indivual examples are always more or less anecdotal. The examples you have provided so far are ones I tend to agree with you that there is an abuse there. That doesn't mean unions in general have outlived their usefulness.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You keep trying to make arguments from authority, but each one is exceptionally vague and includes no actual examples. You provide your personal conclusions and opinions of what other countries think with no facts to support them.

Possibly this is where we should start then. I have no idea which of my arguments you mean.

Originally posted by Aristotle
For some reason, you think people in other countries do not know what is best for themselves. You seem to think you know what is best for them instead. Their freely made choices are irrelevant to you. You repeatedly wallow in cliched American arrogance and paternalism.

No. I feel badly for people who are born in countries where there is obviously not much in the way of equality or freedom. I reserve the right though to maintain the economic conditions in my own country regardless. I will help those who want help. I will not just fold to the demands of industry and corporate wealth out of guilt for others. They are free, even welcome, as far as I am concerened, even WANTED, in the fight against inequality and abuse.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Sadly, what shocks you is not my actual opinion, but what you PRETEND is my opinion. All of the horrible things you attribute to me are not things I actually said or argued. You seem to want to argue with someone who thinks poor people are worthless dregs of humanity. If that is who you want to argue with, then go find someone who actually thinks that. Stop pretending that person is me, because that is not my opinion and I never made such statements.

I'm sorry I am making you angry or frustrated. Above I posted some examples of why I do not understand your frustration. If at any time I begin to infuriate you or others too much, let me know and I will bow out. I have plenty of other places to fuss about politics. There's only one Thresh. I just don't understand how you can say some of the things you say and not see how it sounds like what I have accused you of.

Originally posted by Aristotle
I have continually made a pure fact based, productivity argument, and you respond with a touchy-feeling quality of human being argument

I have answered all the factual, statistically based arguments you have made. Did I provide other statistics? No. I simply disagreed with your interpretation of them. I don't need other statistics to disagree with your interpretation, and I can't address your interpretation if I am no allowed to do so in light of what you have said about the statistics you supplied.

Originally posted by Aristotle
As for whether or not I know any working poor people, I was one. I didn't even own a car for 6+ years of my adult, working life. If pancake mix went on sale, I was eating dry pancakes (no butter, no syrup, nothing) for every meal for weeks. I couldn't afford to buy meat, so I just added something called VegeFuel (a powdered soy protein product I sold as part of a nutritional supplement business) to pancake mix, ramen, or spaghetti sauce for protein.

There really is no need to try and make the discussion personal, Lokrian. The fact that you know very little about me personally just sets you up for embarrassingly bad arguments.

I don't even know why you feel the thing has been made personal. I asked you this question because of the understanding I have of the things you have said above which I have pointed out, as to why it seems to me you are saying what you claim not to be saying.

At some point, it really shouldn't matter which exact word I use or you use to express the idea that, according to you, being in the bottom 50% of the population means you can't or won't take care of yourself. As for your work history, obviously it is something to be proud of. Hell, I wish it had been easier for you. I am arguing for a way forward that would have made it easier for you.

Again, please don't let this get you angry. I fidget and fuss all the time all over the net. Maybe I am used to a tone or level of heat that wears you out. We can always agree to disagree. I am not in this to make anyone angry.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about it though. I do enjoy these sorts of discussion. I might even be addicted.

[Caer]

Originally posted by Lokrian
For goodness sake, will the third world workers not even TRY some of the things we've done before badmouthing our fat, lazy workforce for all their woes?

It is -this- sort of statement that is, as Ari put it, "cliched American arrogance and paternalism". It implies that our methods are the best for every culture out there, and those that don't just suck up and imitate us are just doomed to fail. And yet, sometimes it is those very cultures who -do- try to imitate us that ultimately fail because the methods do not fit very well with their culture and cause new problems that did not exist before.

Of course, in today's global world, everyone is tied together so it would be difficult for many different "systems" of economies and ways of living to exist. For better or worse, no matter how it came to pass, the Western system is the one that is or is becoming the standard way of doing. However, you simply cannot point to poorer countries and say, "Well they're poor because they just aren't doing it right." Such countries have additional hurdles to jump before they can really join the "developed countries" list.

Hmm, I really have so much more to say on this but it really gets outside of the original topic of unions and classes and so forth. If anyone wants to hear more, I'd be happy to go on. I'm by no means an expert, but this is something I've studied a decent bit already.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Lokrian

It's like the west has a deathwish. I'm sorry but I don't buy the "blame the western working class" mentality. We're the ones that more or less invented the middle class. For goodness sake, will the third world workers not even TRY some of the things we've done before badmouthing our fat, lazy workforce for all their woes?

Where the heck are you getting this? I've not seen anything like this posted anywhere except for in your posts.

Jidoe is from Israel, in case you haven't noticed. They are definitely NOT considered a third world country. In fact, Israel is having the SAME problems as the US with people moving factories and companies a few miles just so that they can be inside the Jordan border. (I'm simply reposting what he said.) He was simply giving his view from another part of the world, and I actually appreciate his comments. It's always good to see how people think from different parts of the world or even different parts of this country.

You keep calling our workers lazy and now they're fat, too, but you are the only one doing that. Linking the term "worker" with "lazy" is kind of silly, and I'm not sure why you keep doing it.

I'm bothered by the fact that you seem to think that the third world has all the advantages and the abilities of people who have grown up in a First World nation. Most of them don't have a chance at education. The average Thai hooker has a 4th grade education. I wonder why they're a hooker? Most of my posts are made to try to give people another view point from someone who has very close ties with TWO third world nations, one of which is also a communist nation. When you ask why they don't try these things, the answer is because they have no clue these things exist until one of the First World nations come and builds a factory and shows them how things could be. One of my aunt's business actually got started this way. She was already an excellent seamstress, and she was readily hired by some European clothing company. From what she learned in that factory, she was able to leave that kind of work and open her own factory. Now, she employs over 250 women and a few men. She also married a man who lived in the US for 6 months (with my family) who did nothing but tour factories when he was here. Together, they built a great business, and now they're one of the evil corporations that employs tons of people!! The fact is that they studied how things were done by Western companies and implemented them in Thailand. These things weren't taught to them in school, and even if they were, neither of them could afford to have that much schooling. One has a 4th grade education and taught himself to read. The other has a 10th grade education. They both left school early to work to support their immediate familes and put younger brothers and sisters in school.

Seriously, though, I really don't think that you have to keep going down the "fat, stupid" route. We're really just throwing out information and such, and I don't honestly think anyone is trying to say that there everyone who works is fat and stupid, or else I'd just be sitting around insulting myself.