Dock Workers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

Based on this system, if all people tried to pay off all their debt at the same time there wouldn’t be enough currency to do so.

[/quote]

It all revolves around the idea that is this a really dumb thing for people to do in mass.

Leverage is a powerful tool. If I can borrow funds at 5%, and use them in a way that gets me an 8% return, I’m making 3% on the float.

So, the customer is getting what they want, I’m making a profit and the bank is making a profit, and the saver is making interest from the deposit. Everyone wins and the pie has grown.

Not everyone should attempt this, as it takes a certain level of competence that not everyone has.

82

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t really get why someone should be able to collect interest on money that doesn’t actually exist. Just seems wrong.[/quote]

Because you’re completely ignoring the remaining portions of the station and focused on one small notch in the process.

83

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

Unions are not corporations, they are not-for-profit bureaucracies that, if left untended, will gorge themselves out of control, kinda like the Blob
[/quote]

The people in power at unions are definitely for profit. And large companies are bureaucracies too. It can be bureaucratic and a company.

And, while I’m no expert on non-profits, when the UAW owns large parts of GM, Ford, est. I’m not sure how they can be non-profit.[/quote]

“Non-profit” doesn’t mean “doesn’t make money”. It means “has special tax rules, and is limited in activity”. Owning equities is not one fo those things, but you pay tax on them.

There is a lot more detail involved in what I just said, but I’m trying not to go all tax nerd here. [/quote]

Basically, I don’t think “non-profit” means what most people think it means.

84

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

Unions are not corporations, they are not-for-profit bureaucracies that, if left untended, will gorge themselves out of control, kinda like the Blob
[/quote]

The people in power at unions are definitely for profit. And large companies are bureaucracies too. It can be bureaucratic and a company.

And, while I’m no expert on non-profits, when the UAW owns large parts of GM, Ford, est. I’m not sure how they can be non-profit.[/quote]

“Non-profit” doesn’t mean “doesn’t make money”. It means “has special tax rules, and is limited in activity”. Owning equities is not one fo those things, but you pay tax on them.

There is a lot more detail involved in what I just said, but I’m trying not to go all tax nerd here. [/quote]

Basically, I don’t think “non-profit” means what most people think it means.[/quote]

Correct. In fact, most 'Non-profits" make quite a bit lol, and at better rates than “corporate greed” rates.

They are just heavily restricted in what they can or can’t participate in, and pay tax on only certain activities rather than all.

85

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It seems you don’t know what I’m talking about do you?[/quote]

yeah, I’m kinda in the dark here - please dont think less of me Sexy~

86

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So I assume you can explain the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and perfectly articulate how it was the “corporations” and their “greed” then?

Ohhh right, nope you probably can’t.

No one has a problem if you voice your opinion but don’t come in here with stupid implication that “corporations caused” the FC and then make statements like above.
[/quote]

yeah, I definitely cant articulate the financial meltdown of '08 - ya got me there.

87

The more people push for this mystical “living wage” the more companies will be forced to automate.

The more unions push for pay increases that are not in line with the market, the more business are going to move to places like Utah…who are right to work states.

Minimum wage was not designed to raise a family on…and no company should be held at gunpoint for not offering a pension that is unfundable.

88

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The more people push for this mystical “living wage” [/quote]

I have yet, to ever even once, have someone tell me what number that “living wage” is.

People sure like to say “living wage” an awful lot, no one can tell me what it is.

89

As long as there is a little human nature trait called greed, each side (labor and management) will attempt to take as much of the pie as they can extract from the other side.

I don’t mind the collective bargaining side of unions, but using dues to fund political, which invariably seems to be support of liberals - drives me bonkers.

90

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t really get why someone should be able to collect interest on money that doesn’t actually exist. Just seems wrong.[/quote]

Because you’re completely ignoring the remaining portions of the station and focused on one small notch in the process. [/quote]

Ok, lets hear the rest.

91

[quote]Edgy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So I assume you can explain the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and perfectly articulate how it was the “corporations” and their “greed” then?

Ohhh right, nope you probably can’t.

No one has a problem if you voice your opinion but don’t come in here with stupid implication that “corporations caused” the FC and then make statements like above.
[/quote]

yeah, I definitely cant articulate the financial meltdown of '08 - ya got me there.[/quote]

Well the fact of the matter is yes “corporations” played a role, so did government, the Fed and every single person who signed a mortgage they couldn’t afford (or were dumb enough to not do simple math/read what they were signing.)

People like to blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame “the man”, and sure, they all had hands in the pot. But you dont’ get systematic fucking collapse from such specific individuals. You get systematic failure WHEN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS FUCKED.

But leftist gained power by pushing the “evil rich people and corporations” narrative, and gullible natives that are more interested in Honey Boo Boo than basic economics eat that shit up because it absolves their lazy ass from having to think. So we end up with “corporations caused the meltdown.” Which is so far from the truth it isn’t even funny. In fact if it weren’t for AIG being moronic, this would have been exponentially better.

Still waiting on the explanation of when profit become greed. At what point does that happen?

92

[quote]treco wrote:
As long as there is a little human nature trait called greed, each side (labor and management) will attempt to take as much of the pie as they can extract from the other side.

[/quote]

I’ve only been in practice for a decade, but I’ve never once seen management upset in anyway for paying people what they are worth.

It isn’t greed. It’s that people think they are worth more than they are.

93

I probably shouldn’t respond to you Beansie - basically cause I just dont have the time, and definitely dont have the depth of understanding that you have.

If this were a tennis match, it would be like putting Maria Sharapova against Federer…(I would be Sharapova by the way).

I am not a corporation hater, Union-for-union-sake person by any means, I am in a trade union like AC, and he has nailed it as far as training, safety, etc. - no need to expand on that.

but you all have to admit that unions are not necessarily bad in their inception, but the abuses are what make the news, and what is in everyone’s daily lives. I definitely don’t have the time or breath to try to change your minds, or even argue the point. - you win.

but…

If you will allow me this comparison, there were hundreds of rulers of what was Rome back in the day, and most were competent facilitators and rulers, but the only ones that you read about in the history books are the 1/2 dozen or so that were psychotic.

It’s kinda the same thing here.

94

[quote]Edgy wrote:

but you all have to admit that unions are not necessarily bad in their inception, but the abuses are what make the news, and what is in everyone’s daily lives.

[/quote]

Unions aren’t the devil, and they aren’t the saving grace either. Henry Ford was well on his way to completely changing the management/worker landscape without unions. If Unions never existed I have the full confidence we would have come to similar conclusions about work/life balance that we have with them. They may have expedited the inevitable, but they certainly didn’t invent it.

Where Unions shine is the in quality standards. When they are applied to make sure the work getting done is high quality, they kick ass. Where Union’s get applied to keep shit workers employed and 14 different specialists to change a belt on a broken machine, they are an utter failure.

But ultimately, if Unions would fuck off and stay out of politics, no one would hate on them at all to the degree they do.

So, back to the point where profit becomes greed and what a living wage figure is.

95

[quote]Edgy wrote:
but you all have to admit that unions are not necessarily bad in their inception, but the abuses are what make the news, and what is in everyone’s daily lives. I definitely don’t have the time or breath to try to change your minds, or even argue the point. - you win.
[/quote]

You could just as easily say:

“but you all have to admit that corporations are not necessarily bad in their inception, but the abuses are what make the news, and what is in everyone’s daily lives. I definitely don’t have the time or breath to try to change your minds, or even argue the point. - you win.”

96

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So I assume you can explain the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and perfectly articulate how it was the “corporations” and their “greed” then?

Ohhh right, nope you probably can’t.

No one has a problem if you voice your opinion but don’t come in here with stupid implication that “corporations caused” the FC and then make statements like above.
[/quote]

yeah, I definitely cant articulate the financial meltdown of '08 - ya got me there.[/quote]

Well the fact of the matter is yes “corporations” played a role, so did government, the Fed and every single person who signed a mortgage they couldn’t afford (or were dumb enough to not do simple math/read what they were signing.)

People like to blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame “the man”, and sure, they all had hands in the pot. But you dont’ get systematic fucking collapse from such specific individuals. You get systematic failure WHEN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS FUCKED.

But leftist gained power by pushing the “evil rich people and corporations” narrative, and gullible natives that are more interested in Honey Boo Boo than basic economics eat that shit up because it absolves their lazy ass from having to think. So we end up with “corporations caused the meltdown.” Which is so far from the truth it isn’t even funny. In fact if it weren’t for AIG being moronic, this would have been exponentially better.

Still waiting on the explanation of when profit become greed. At what point does that happen?
[/quote]

I would actually place the blame of the MELTDOWN itself entirely at the feet of the government. They (FASB) changed to rules to MTM (mark to market) accounting and INSTANTLY the banks were over-leveraged and has to report “losses” (paper losses, not revenue) on assets that were performing JUST FINE.

One day they were profitable and in good standing, the next day they were leveraged 30:1 and their shareholders, who didn’t understand a god damned thing about risk and how they were exposed by that particular asset class (CDO’s), panicked and shit the bed. The next thing you know, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are GONE… Just like that. Way to think it through, Congress!

They made knee jerk reaction to Enron (just like they try to ban guns every time there is a shooting) because they are a bunch of incompetent pieces of shit.

97

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
As long as there is a little human nature trait called greed, each side (labor and management) will attempt to take as much of the pie as they can extract from the other side.

[/quote]

I’ve only been in practice for a decade, but I’ve never once seen management upset in anyway for paying people what they are worth.

It isn’t greed. It’s that people think they are worth more than they are. [/quote]

I’ve negotiated on behalf of the employer directly with people for a little over 30 years. While it is certainly true that I’ve never resented paying what someone was worth; it’s also true that I’ve never offered a dime more than necessary to get the agreement made. Of course it’s also true that occasionally common ground isn’t to be found…

98

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I don’t really get why someone should be able to collect interest on money that doesn’t actually exist. Just seems wrong.[/quote]

Because you’re completely ignoring the remaining portions of the station and focused on one small notch in the process. [/quote]

Ok, lets hear the rest.[/quote]

I sort of explained it in the post above this one.

Person A makes a deposit, earns 2% interest for doing nothing.
Bank leverages that deposit and lends at 10 times to Person B at 6%.
Person B takes that loan and invests in his business and it increases his gross margin to 28% from 18%.
Person C loves what Person B makes and buys a ton of it.
Person C works for Person D, who makes machines that Person B bought it increase his productivity.
Person D borrows from the Bank at 6% to make those machines that he sells to person B at 12% margin.

So:
1)Bank makes money because they have default risk, by charging interest.
2)Person A makes money by doing nothing.
3)Person B makes money because he leveraged his loan into returns that outpace his interest rate paid to the bank. Effectively speeding up his growth timeline.
4)Person C is happy in that Person B makes things he likes and buys them, and also that he has a job because:
5)Person D makes money by leveraging his loan into new machines to sell Person B.

This isn’t even getting into the use of leverage in financial industry…

You’re worried about #1 and how it relates to the money supply, and ignoring the effect lending has on velocity of money, which is the game changer.

99

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Edgy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So I assume you can explain the Financial Meltdown of 2008 and perfectly articulate how it was the “corporations” and their “greed” then?

Ohhh right, nope you probably can’t.

No one has a problem if you voice your opinion but don’t come in here with stupid implication that “corporations caused” the FC and then make statements like above.
[/quote]

yeah, I definitely cant articulate the financial meltdown of '08 - ya got me there.[/quote]

Well the fact of the matter is yes “corporations” played a role, so did government, the Fed and every single person who signed a mortgage they couldn’t afford (or were dumb enough to not do simple math/read what they were signing.)

People like to blame Bush, blame Wall Street, blame “the man”, and sure, they all had hands in the pot. But you dont’ get systematic fucking collapse from such specific individuals. You get systematic failure WHEN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS FUCKED.

But leftist gained power by pushing the “evil rich people and corporations” narrative, and gullible natives that are more interested in Honey Boo Boo than basic economics eat that shit up because it absolves their lazy ass from having to think. So we end up with “corporations caused the meltdown.” Which is so far from the truth it isn’t even funny. In fact if it weren’t for AIG being moronic, this would have been exponentially better.

Still waiting on the explanation of when profit become greed. At what point does that happen?
[/quote]

I would actually place the blame of the MELTDOWN itself entirely at the feet of the government. They (FASB) changed to rules to MTM (mark to market) accounting and INSTANTLY the banks were over-leveraged and has to report “losses” (paper losses, not revenue) on assets that were performing JUST FINE.

One day they were profitable and in good standing, the next day they were leveraged 30:1 and their shareholders, who didn’t understand a god damned thing about risk and how they were exposed by that particular asset class (CDO’s), panicked and shit the bed. The next thing you know, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are GONE… Just like that. Way to think it through, Congress!

They made knee jerk reaction to Enron (just like they try to ban guns every time there is a shooting) because they are a bunch of incompetent pieces of shit.
[/quote]

This can’t be ignored, at all, when taking into account what happened.

I remember screaming at my radio on the way home at dickface reporters.

100

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Why can’t white-collar workers organize .[/quote]

Because we don’t need a collective to negotiate for good pay?

If I were in a Union, I’d make less than I do now. Individually I’ve done exponentially better at securing pay raises. And I don’t need the “protection” of a Union, because I’m not a lazy shit. [/quote]

I’m not a lazy piece of shit either. And if I were stuck getting paid “scale”, I’d probably work non-union. But companies understand value and believe me when I tell you they have no problem paying for people that make them money consistently. I make WAY above scale - more than the Superintendents at most other companies, in fact. Plus all the other bennies that are above and beyond the “agreement”. Just because you are a union member, doesn’t mean you are unable to negotiate.

I’m not in a union for “protection”, I’m in a union because they took a chance on an ex-felon without a high school diploma and taught him FOR FREE for five years and gave me a fucking chance at LIFE… And I ran with it. But when I was getting doors slammed in my face left and right, the union welcomed me in with open arms and helped to make me who I am today. Could I possibly make a few dollars an hour more working non-union? Probably. But I won’t ever forget where I came from. And I’d be known as a “brother-fucker” for the rest of my life for breaking my oath.