[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Why does it cost so much for the US to produce a product? Why do Americans deserve to be paid more to produce the exact same product than people from all over the world? IMO the unions drove up the cost of labor to the point that people were getting paid more than what they should have been paid.
I use the word pay to also include benefits. Once the surrounding community was used to being paid that much the cost of the community rose to a point that was unsustainable. Instead of slowly decreasing the pay to reflect the true market, the unions went on strike to make sure their unsustainable increases continued to increase. At some point the Piper has to be paid, so the industries shut down.
I am sorry these jobs are being lost all over the country. IMO it is Unions that are causing this mess. You can blame management only for giving into the extorsion of the Unions. Unions were good when they first started out, but when the US Government started regulating Working conditions all the Unions were left to do was get pay and benefits up, and when you control a mob you can get that for a short period of time.
It is perceived that the US is going down, I see the rest of the world catching up to us. [/quote]
Unions were part of the problem , the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements . The Unions still have a grip in those areas. If you want to open a business they will put their foot on your throat and you will concede or move else where… Unions today are not effective they are in business to justify their exsistence.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?
Isn’t history supposed to be the judge of how great a president he turns out to be, not current events?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Isn’t history supposed to be the judge of how great a president he turns out to be, not current events?[/quote]
You would think that, but he is the Messiah. He is going to help the UNworking man get a leg up with no effort on their part. The Rich man has kept down the wages long enough. Bout time someone gets something for nothing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused.
We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused.
We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
If you do not like the pay find another place to work. If your education does not allow you to get a better job then go back to school. I am not 100% in favor of a college education, but statistically you have a better chance of getting a higher paying job then a person with a High School diploma, or a person without a high school diploma.
This is how the market works. At some point the low wage payer will have to go out of business because they do not have enough employees to make or service whatever.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused.
We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
If you do not like the pay find another place to work. If your education does not allow you to get a better job then go back to school. I am not 100% in favor of a college education, but statistically you have a better chance of getting a higher paying job then a person with a High School diploma, or a person without a high school diploma.
This is how the market works. At some point the low wage payer will have to go out of business because they do not have enough employees to make or service whatever.[/quote]
I agree , we would have to do away with our endless supply of cheap labor for your program to work
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
The conservative in us will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of themselves. It is the people that are able to take care of themselves but refuse to take care of themselves are the ones that we do not want to take care of. We are on the side that charity needs to help these people, and not the federal government. Taxes are forced upon us, so taking care of these people are forced upon us whether we want to or not. I would prefer a local person who can watch these people more closely to handle the money. The government sends them a check in the mail or direct deposit. How closely can they truely watch these people.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to force others to take care of the people that can take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
Fixed that for you.
The notion that being liberal is the ideology of wanting to personally provide for others is explicitly false. You can absolutely be anti-liberal and pro-personal acts of charity. Being liberal has absolutely nothing to do with personally doing for others.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
Aye - nothing wrong with voluntary charity, that is consistent with liberty - but “coercive charity” is slavery, that is consistent with tyranny . . . .
I think subsizies are the worst idea - definitely not free market . . .
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
The conservative in us will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of themselves. It is the people that are able to take care of themselves but refuse to take care of themselves are the ones that we do not want to take care of. We are on the side that charity needs to help these people, and not the federal government. Taxes are forced upon us, so taking care of these people are forced upon us whether we want to or not. I would prefer a local person who can watch these people more closely to handle the money. The government sends them a check in the mail or direct deposit. How closely can they truely watch these people.[/quote]
This ^^^ is 100% correct.
How the hell is FDR number 1? His policies took what should have been a 1-2 year depression and turned it into the monster that happened.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
Aye - nothing wrong with voluntary charity, that is consistent with liberty - but “coercive charity” is slavery, that is consistent with tyranny . . . .
I think subsizies are the worst idea - definitely not free market . . .[/quote]
This is where I split with Republicans , no mention of subsidizing BIG corporations , War War and more War the War on drugs . Maybe we subsidize the poor too much but we need a safty net , sorry we will disagree on this
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the companies were protected so they did not feel the need to stay curent on technology advancements .[/quote]
So you agree the protectionism was bad…?[/quote]
To a degree yes , but Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. I think unions had their place at one time . But now I think there are adequate laws to ensure the American worker will not be abused. We need to structure our labor market so we do not subsidize employers that pay their employees below what we call a livable wage . If a company employs some one , then that person would have to make a percentage more than they could make on welfare [/quote]
NO, we need to structur eour labor market so that the government is not subsidizing ANYONE!
[/quote]
The liberal in me will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of them selves, but I am sure we could widdle down the amount of money pretty easily [/quote]
The conservative in us will always want to take care of the people that can not take care of themselves. It is the people that are able to take care of themselves but refuse to take care of themselves are the ones that we do not want to take care of. We are on the side that charity needs to help these people, and not the federal government. Taxes are forced upon us, so taking care of these people are forced upon us whether we want to or not. I would prefer a local person who can watch these people more closely to handle the money. The government sends them a check in the mail or direct deposit. How closely can they truely watch these people.[/quote]
This ^^^ is 100% correct. [/quote]
we disagree, charitable notions are fine , but like now people do not have the extra money to be charitable , so they will not be so . I agree that we need to widdle down our charity. I just do not believe most people would take care of the truly needy
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
we disagree, charitable notions are fine , but like now people do not have the extra money to be charitable , so they will not be so . I agree that we need to widdle down our charity. I just do not believe most people would take care of the truly needy[/quote]
So we will rob people to get the money! Hell yeah land of the free!
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
we disagree, charitable notions are fine , but like now people do not have the extra money to be charitable , so they will not be so . I agree that we need to widdle down our charity. I just do not believe most people would take care of the truly needy[/quote]
So we will rob people to get the money! Hell yeah land of the free![/quote]
I assume you are referring to taxation being robbery ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
we disagree, charitable notions are fine , but like now people do not have the extra money to be charitable , so they will not be so . I agree that we need to widdle down our charity. I just do not believe most people would take care of the truly needy[/quote]
So we will rob people to get the money! Hell yeah land of the free![/quote]
I assume you are referring to taxation being robbery ?
[/quote]
When you take money out of my paycheck you are stealing. Wether you do it or some government whore does it.