Who would profit from turning one $100,000 union job into two $50,000 union jobs?

 

Where is this magical demand for increased labor coming from? Why wouldn't ownership simply pocket the $50k they just saved on labor?

Where is this magical demand for increased labor coming from? Why wouldn't ownership simply pocket the $50k they just saved on labor?

 

I forgot. No companies have gone bankrupt with union labor.

I forgot. No companies have gone bankrupt with union labor.

 

That doesn't actually answer the question. If they currently aren't profitable, how does cutting the union laborer's wages by 50% so that profits for ownership can be maintained result in an additional position being filled? Or, assuming an additional position, Balta's point that ownership now has 2x production for the same cost means that you've just class-warfared yourself decreased wages for workers and increased profitability. How does this result in across-the-board equality instead of increased inequality?

 

 

Edited January 12, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

That doesn't actually answer the question. If they currently aren't profitable, how does cutting the union laborer's wages by 50% so that profits for ownership can be maintained result in an additional position being filled? Or, assuming an additional position, Balta's point that ownership now has 2x production for the same cost means that you've just class-warfared yourself decreased wages for workers and increased profitability. How does this result in across-the-board equality instead of increased inequality?

 

So how does cutting profits ensure continued employment, when the whole reason most companies are going under is that they can't compete on high labor costs?

Two points: cutting wage costs to ensure profitability for ownership who might otherwise move labor overseas is a large source of current inequality, not a solution to it.

 

second, support for the claim that the reason most companies are going under is labor cost?

Two points: cutting wage costs to ensure profitability for ownership who might otherwise move labor overseas is a large source of current inequality, not a solution to it.

 

second, support for the claim that the reason most companies are going under is labor cost?

 

Point one. In order to have labor, you have to have an investor class willing to invest. Criminalizing profits isn't going to create jobs.

 

 

I'd recommend you be choosy as to whose posts you read. I can't really do that as an Admin, though I admit I do tend to scan some more than read them.

 

I'll almost certainly just disappear again once the Republican candidate is chosen

Point one. In order to have labor, you have to have an investor class willing to invest. Criminalizing profits isn't going to create jobs.

So how did we manage to for decades have much smaller levels of corporate profits as a share of the economy, higher wages, better living standards, and yet still have plenty of increases in innovation/investment/productivity? We pulled that off for decades. Then, at about 1980, we stopped. We have a much bigger investor class, and what we've seen as a result is much more inefficient allocation of investable resources (I have $8 trillion in houses to sell you if you don't believe me).

Since when are taxes criminal?

 

Adam Smith understood that taxes were necessary and I believe even suggested graduated taxes.

Point one. In order to have labor, you have to have an investor class willing to invest. Criminalizing profits isn't going to create jobs.

 

So, how does this support your contention that unions are hypocrites for decrying gross inequality while not accepting paycuts that would have the effect of increasing said equality? For your claim to work, you have to exclude the people who would actual benefit from those cuts from the picture and only focus on dragging down union jobs to non-union levels in the name of "equality."

 

Also lol "criminalizing profits." No class warfare in that rhetoric.

Since when are taxes criminal?

 

Adam Smith understood that taxes were necessary and I believe even suggested graduated taxes.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Instead, some of the largest subsidies the government provides are the subsidies for moderate/large homes.

Point one. In order to have labor, you have to have an investor class willing to invest. Criminalizing profits isn't going to create jobs.

 

 

And without labor, there would be nothing to invest in. Once we moved from a society that was 100% self employed, both sides needed each other. We have to look at why humans created governments to see where society should be involved in business affairs.

Sounds like Colbert may try and get on the SC ticket.

So how did we manage to for decades have much smaller levels of corporate profits as a share of the economy, higher wages, better living standards, and yet still have plenty of increases in innovation/investment/productivity? We pulled that off for decades. Then, at about 1980, we stopped. We have a much bigger investor class, and what we've seen as a result is much more inefficient allocation of investable resources (I have $8 trillion in houses to sell you if you don't believe me).

Sounds like Colbert may try and get on the SC ticket.

 

I got an email this morning from his SuperPAC announcing that he's handing it over to Stewart. Not sure what he'd have to do with his show, or if he'd even be able to get on the ballot in time. The whole point is to mock Citizens United and SuperPACs, though, so it still works even if he ultimately doesn't run.

I got an email this morning from his SuperPAC announcing that he's handing it over to Stewart. Not sure what he'd have to do with his show, or if he'd even be able to get on the ballot in time. The whole point is to mock Citizens United and SuperPACs, though, so it still works even if he ultimately doesn't run.

 

Did anybody watch it last night? I thought it was brilliant.

Did anybody watch it last night? I thought it was brilliant.

We don't have cable so I catch it on Hulu later in the week. Probably will watch it tomorrow.

The business owner, who now sees a substantial increase in productivity and decrease in labor costs.

 

Well that's just not true. His costs have actually increased due to the extra benefits he has to pay for the extra worker.

Well that's just not true. His costs have actually increased due to the extra benefits he has to pay for the extra worker.

 

His costs certainly haven't doubled like his productivity has. Taking all three actors into account (and assuming the second laborer had no job before), inequality has increased.

Federal judge rules that Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman missed their chance to be on the Virginia ballot, and furthermore missed their window to file an injunction. So as it stands, only Romney and Paul will be on the VA GOP primary ballot.

 

There may be appeals, but it doesn't look favorable for them.

 

A judge rejected the ballot challenge by Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman and Santorum in Virginia. They won't be on the ballot.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/vir...llot/index.html

 

scoped by NSS!

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

I win.

 

Nah, Romney wins. Boo.

 

I just dont understand how you can screw this up. All of these guys have run in elections before, they all know you need to follow the rules.

 

Just mind blowing.