[andyt]

Yeah, but those job givers deserve their pay. All unions do is take take take.

[stratos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The 25 right to work states also have high rates of unemployment in comparison to states that do not have that legislation.

Facts are stubborn things.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I stand corrected. 5.0 in Right to Work states, on average. 5.2% in other states. Marginally better employment in Right to Woirk states, marginally less income in right to work states.

What would make and or break this disagreement on what is and is not good is the cost of living in these states. In some states people making 13hr have more spending power then people making 15 in another state do to the cost of living.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yup, so much for that argument. Let's look at some of the CEOs on the business side:


Gerald W. Schwartz, Onex Corporation, $87,917,026

Nadir Mohamed, Rogers Communications Inc., $26,769,973

Michael M. Wilson, Agrium Inc., $23,818,740

Donald J. Walker, Magna International Inc., $19,557,600

Steven K. Hudson (partial year, Element Financial Corp, $18,865,028

Apples to oranges.

Union leaders are paid for by the union members themselves. Every worker chips in a chunk of every paycheck to pay for the union staff.

CEO's of private companies are paid for by the consumer of their product or service, not employees of the company.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Apples to oranges.

Union leaders are paid for by the union members themselves. Every worker chips in a chunk of every paycheck to pay for the union staff.

CEO's of private companies are paid for by the consumer of their product or service, not employees of the company.

Yeah but you were saying that the union bosses were similar to the CEOs in wages, when it isn't even a contest.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Yeah, but those job givers deserve their pay. All unions do is take take take.

That sounds somewhat...familiar.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yeah but you were saying that the union bosses were similar to the CEOs in wages, when it isn't even a contest.

That's not what I said at all.

$1:

You are aware that many of these union leaders are part of the 1%?

Many of these union leaders make enough that would put them in the 1%'er group.

That level starts around 191k/year

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

That's not what I said at all.

None of the ones you posted were at $191K. You posted these guys making $130 or $140K. Meanwhile you have these CEOs pulling in tens of millions adn you're trying to say hoiw the union bosses are greedy pigs. It doesn't add up.

[Lemmy]

All this semantics dance tells us is that "The 1%" is really a number less than 1%. The connotation of "The 1%" clearly does not include doctors, lawyers, union bosses and others earning a few hundred thousand per year. So, while OTI's contention that union bosses are part of the 1% may be technically true (for some), it's not likely true for most and definitely not in line with the general use of the term "The 1%", which is more synonymous with "Filthy Rich" than a mathematical statistic.

[andyt]

Those are referred to as the .1% - that's were the real concentration of wealth is happening.

[Thanos]

I'd rather see a doctor make $100 million a year than some goddamn banker. At least the doctor is doing something for the world, as opposed to being nothing but a bloody locust the way the banker is.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

That's not what I said at all.

None of the ones you posted were at $191K. You posted these guys making $130 or $140K. Meanwhile you have these CEOs pulling in tens of millions adn you're trying to say hoiw the union bosses are greedy pigs. It doesn't add up.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and ignore things that have been said to you multiple times?

Again, we're talking salaries that are 12-14 years old! How many times do you intend to skip over that fact? How many times do you need to make up things I've said? I never said they were greedy pigs.

Do you think those salaries are the same? Highly doubtful. Likely, at least they increased with inflation....which would place any salary at 150k, 12-15 years ago at 190k+ today.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and ignore things that have been said to you multiple times?

Again, we're talking salaries that are 12-14 years old! How many times do you intend to skip over that fact? How many times do you need to make up things I've said? I never said they were greedy pigs.

Do you think those salaries are the same? Highly doubtful. Likely, at least they increased with inflation....which would place any salary at 150k, 12-15 years ago at 190k+ today.

Your intent is clear. I really don't know who you think you're fooling. The president of my union, with some 57,000 members, makes around $160,000. No overtime, and working a lot of long days. Show me a CEO with 57,000 staff that takes $160K a year. Your point was ludicrous to start with.

[JaredMilne]

All of the above aside, something about this whole "precariat" leaves me puzzled.

The spending of money by consumers for goods and services is the basic foundation of capitalism. The jobs generated by industrialization, particularly after World War II, as well as various government actions such as infrastructure spending and public education, all helped create a vibrant middle class that enabled Canada and other countries like the U.S. and the U.K. to thrive.

Nowadays, though, we're repeatedly told that those same consumers who keep the economy running have to lower their expectations, and accept cuts to their salaries if they expect to be able to compete with workers in other parts of the world who will work longer hours for less pay. But with the constant downward pressure on wages and benefits, and the increased precariousness of employment, how much consumption and spending will those same workers really be able to contribute to keep the economy going? Obviously there's always going to be winners and losers in society, and some inequality in income and spending power is inevitable, but how long can the tendencies towards the "precariat" continue without seriously risking the economy itself?

That's one of the things that worries me about the current economic model-if we're constantly told that we need to become leaner in our salaries and our expectations from government in order to remain competitive, how can most of us be expected to contribute meaningfully to the economy through consumer spending?

Unfortunately, too often these days it seems like people who raise these questions are demonized as capitalist-hating leftists who don't want to let anyone keep what they earn, are jealous of success, and so forth. Never mind that I, speaking for myself, am asking how we can maintain the positive aspects of capitalism under an economic model that's increasingly strained.

The last thing I want is for cancers like Marxism-and let's not kid ourselves, a cancer is exactly what Marxism always has been and always will be-and fascism to regain support both in Canada and anywhere else in the world. Cancers like these might not manifest in their previous forms, but if more and more people don't see any way to prosper in society, such as Thanos here at CKA-who's to say they might not come back in some form?

That's one of the things keeping me up at night.

[andyt]

Yep, good points. I think where it's going is Dollarama globally for most people, ie capitalists getting rich selling real crap to the masses, and then high end goods for the 1%. I guess the profits will come from the volume of selling crap the the global billions, instead of half decent goods only to 1st worlders.

The whole scheme is doomed anyway - we can't keep using 2 worlds or more worth of resources to keep the cash flowing. Marxism is actually based on the same idea - industrial production and ever increasing material well being of the proletariat - can't keep going that way. Likely we'll have big dieback, and the people left will have to find a commutarian way of organizing themselves if they hope to survive.

The positive aspects of capitalism only work within when there are no limits, when there were colonies to conquer and resources seemed infinite. Capitalism is the cancer that requires ever greater growth. We're starting to see the limits of it now.

[martin14]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

That's one of the things that worries me about the current economic model-if we're constantly told that we need to become leaner in our salaries and our expectations from government in order to remain competitive, how can most of us be expected to contribute meaningfully to the economy through consumer spending?

Vast amounts of debt.