[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The number I provided wasn't 12 years old. It was last year.

The numbers we're referring to were posted by someone else earlier in the topic.

What you said was that the union bosses were all 1%-ers. I provided evidence othersie---and didn't have to go far to do it either.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What you said was that the union bosses were all 1%-ers. I provided evidence othersie---and didn't have to go far to do it either.

Wrong. That's not what I said.

I said:

$1:

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

Not once did I say all union leaders are part of the 1%.

[OnTheIce]

[Zipperfish]

You win this round. But I'll be back! ha ha ha

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You win this round. But I'll be back! ha ha ha

Not really. All those salaries combined don't even amount to the yearly bonuses any of the evil fucks that triggered the 2008 collapse receive. I wouldn't suggest any of the bigger unions or their leaders are innocent angels but all put together they haven't even caused a minute fraction of the venality-driven economic destruction that the leaders of the financial sector have over the last thirty years. Worrying about bad union leaders instead of bankers and corporate heads is like worrying about the tiny jellyfish that might sting you while the shark from Jaws has already chewed your legs off.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You win this round. But I'll be back! ha ha ha

Not really. All those salaries combined don't even amount to the yearly bonuses any of the evil fucks that triggered the 2008 collapse receive. I wouldn't suggest any of the bigger unions or their leaders are innocent angels but all put together they haven't even caused a minute fraction of the venality-driven economic destruction that the leaders of the financial sector have over the last thirty years. Worrying about bad union leaders instead of bankers and corporate heads is like worrying about the tiny jellyfish that might sting you while the shark from Jaws has already chewed your legs off.

Well OTI's claim was that many union bosses are one-percenters (up around $190K), which he has demonstrated.

I personally still think we need more of a labour movement to bring corporate excess into hand. And you're right--union or corporation, the scum rises to the top.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You win this round. But I'll be back! ha ha ha

Not really. All those salaries combined don't even amount to the yearly bonuses any of the evil fucks that triggered the 2008 collapse receive. I wouldn't suggest any of the bigger unions or their leaders are innocent angels but all put together they haven't even caused a minute fraction of the venality-driven economic destruction that the leaders of the financial sector have over the last thirty years. Worrying about bad union leaders instead of bankers and corporate heads is like worrying about the tiny jellyfish that might sting you while the shark from Jaws has already chewed your legs off.

Well OTI's claim was that many union bosses are one-percenters (up around $190K), which he has demonstrated.

I personally still think we need more of a labour movement to bring corporate excess into hand. And you're right--union or corporation, the scum rises to the top.

Back in 1989, when I was young and still had hope, I took a Poli-Sci class at the U of C taught by none other than Tom Flanagan. It was actually a fairly good class and Flanagan, in his pre-libertarian defend-the-pedos days, was a damn good instructor. Even then though, when I wasn't even a quarter as cynical as I am now, I couldn't help but laugh when Flanagan went on about how "in politics, like in the rest of life, the cream rises to the top" because what popped into my head at the exact moment when he said that was "so does pond scum".

Like Jarvis said, shit floats.

[JaredMilne]

martin14 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.

Vast amounts of debt, huh?

The problem with that, though, is that as the consumers end up in more and more debt, they have less and less money to spend on disposable goods, being forced to use it solely on essential household goods and paying interest on their debts?

And how many of them are they even going to be able to do that, given the constant downward pressures on wages and benefits?

Either more and more people end up being unable to truly contribute to the economy, or they're going to end up in more and more debt until they end up defaulting...in which case they end up unable to truly contribute to the economy.

...I need a freaking drink.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

And none of the salaries you listed were in the 1%. You like to dismiss links that are not totally current, yet here you are using them yourself. How about some consistency here.

You're right, those salaries weren't in the 1%.

However, you and Zip, ignore that those numbers are 12-14 years old. If you take basic inflation into play, many are in that 1% group today.

Current numbers aren't available because they don't provide them openly.

To repeat, if I posted 12 y.o. info, you would say it has no validity. Well right back at ya slick.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You win this round. But I'll be back! ha ha ha

Not really. All those salaries combined don't even amount to the yearly bonuses any of the evil fucks that triggered the 2008 collapse receive. I wouldn't suggest any of the bigger unions or their leaders are innocent angels but all put together they haven't even caused a minute fraction of the venality-driven economic destruction that the leaders of the financial sector have over the last thirty years. Worrying about bad union leaders instead of bankers and corporate heads is like worrying about the tiny jellyfish that might sting you while the shark from Jaws has already chewed your legs off.

Well, obviously OTI is going to have to set you straight why the job givers deserve their multi-million dollar incomes, but union leaders don't deserve wages that barely put them in the 1%. It has something to do with the union leaders working for their members, but CEO's working to fuck over the public, I think. He can explain it better than I can.

[martin14]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

martin14 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.

Vast amounts of debt, huh?

The problem with that, though, is that as the consumers end up in more and more debt, they have less and less money to spend on disposable goods, being forced to use it solely on essential household goods and paying interest on their debts?

And how many of them are they even going to be able to do that, given the constant downward pressures on wages and benefits?

Either more and more people end up being unable to truly contribute to the economy, or they're going to end up in more and more debt until they end up defaulting...in which case they end up unable to truly contribute to the economy.

...I need a freaking drink.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2044760/hudso ... ape-frays/

$1:

“Retailers that provide middle-priced products seem to be losing ground. Probably one of the most obvious is Sears,” Atkinson said in a recent interview. “We’ve seen this phenomenon evolving for years, but now we are seeing the impact on our retail base.”

The variety of stores Canadians shop at is beginning to visibly reflect the widening inequality that’s been playing out in this country and other advanced economies for more than a decade, some experts say; the high- and low-ends of the retail market place are flourishing while the middle chips away. It’s just now becoming clearer to casual observers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/high-ho ... -1.2946287

$1:

It concluded household debt levels in Canada are higher than those in the U.K. and U.S. during the peak of the financial crisis in 2007.

Equifax debt report says Canadians now owe $1.5 trillion
House-poor adults aged 35-44 carry heaviest debt load

McKinsey estimated the debt-to-income ratio in Canada at 155 per cent for 2013 and said it had risen by 22 points since 2007.

Better make it a double.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

To repeat, if I posted 12 y.o. info, you would say it has no validity. Well right back at ya slick.

First, I never posted 12 year old numbers. Second, I posted current numbers before you replied.

andyt andyt:

Well, obviously OTI is going to have to set you straight why the job givers deserve their multi-million dollar incomes, but union leaders don't deserve wages that barely put them in the 1%. It has something to do with the union leaders working for their members, but CEO's working to fuck over the public, I think. He can explain it better than I can.

People deserve whatever they can negotiate as part of their pay plan. I don't have a jealousy/hate thing like many do for people who earn a lot of money for running a large organization.

They were given that salary by a board of their peers. Good for them.

As a consumer, you have the option to not do business with that company if you choose but we have no right to dictate how much people in the private sector should make.

I never once said that union leaders don't deserve their pay. I noted that many of these leaders are part of the 1%. If they negotiate that salary and it's approved by the board and members, that's how it works. Union members should have full disclosure to what they're paying their leaders.