Would you say the same thing to sweat shop workers in the early 1900s? The children forced into hard labor? It took an organization of unions to fix that problem its not as easy as if you don't like where you are at fix it. It's no coincidence the plummet of the middle class goes hand in hand with the dismantling of the unions. It is also no coincidence that the wealth inequality is as great now as it was before the great depression. Kinda funny how we just had a great recession and a very slow recovery where all the real recovery is going to the rich. I'm sure you are one of those guys that will ride the free market bs into a total economic collapse.
OT: Union Pacific
- Thread starter chrsmneric
- Start date
Would you say the same thing to sweat shop workers in the early 1900s? The children forced into hard labor? It took an organization of unions to fix that problem its not as easy as if you don't like where you are at fix it. It's no coincidence the plummet of the middle class goes hand in hand with the dismantling of the unions. It is also no coincidence that the wealth inequality is as great now as it was before the great depression. Kinda funny how we just had a great recession and a very slow recovery where all the real recovery is going to the rich. I'm sure you are one of those guys that will ride the free market bs into a total economic collapse.
Just waiting for a study in the administrative spending at Lincoln Public Schools. Huge number of people making big money with light workloads, ample budgets who never step inside a classroom unless its for a photo op.
Yes. If we are going to go back to the early 1900's should we also go back to who made up the workforce back then? Or the technology of the early 1900s. What about the transportation? Considering this thread is titled UP, I would bet that we would all be good with that. It's 2017 and things are different.
Your statement is very misleading.
Part of the reason why the middle class has decreased is because the upper class has increased. Yes, the lower class has increased too, but more have moved from middle class to upper class than from middle class down to lower class.
Upper-middle class has seen the biggest increase.
Unions made much more sense back in the early 1900's where working conditions were terrible and people could get fired for any reason. So thank goodness for unions back then. But now many unions try and suck a business dry (x-amount of vacation, health benefits, cant be fired if tenured, etc) but the pay and working conditions (safety) are very fair.
Not saying all unions are bad, but please don't compare the necessity for unions back in the day to unions now.
Let me get this straight. We can't criticize fat cat ceos who make millions but we can criticize union workers who want more because their pay is already "very fair."
That's lunacy.
Last edited:
I think the manufacturers would create their own insurance company to protect their product and users.
You'll start seeing GM, Google, Telsa Insurance Company rather than Geico, Farmers, State Farm, etc
One of the big problems I see with this is that now we get to argue on what's considered "necessary procedures". Some will say basic check ups & medicine for common cold while others will say paying for dialysis & birth control are "necessary".
We have kids about the same age I believe. What are your thoughts on how the job force (types of available jobs) 20-25 years from now?
All I know is farming and insurance (I like to think I can do anything business related, but experience wise those are the 2 industries I know real well) so I feel like those 2 jobs won't be lucrative 20-25 years from now.
Basically I'm worried for my kids as i feel a lot of jobs today won't be around when they hit the work force. But maybe I'm being too big of a worry wart....
Makes you glad they aren't running things. Yes, we are in trouble. Throw enough money at it and it is fixed, oh wait, that was what we needed to do to get this program back on track. uh oh, here we go!
As for the original topic: I hate to be the guy making that lame "make lemonade" speech, but...
Many years ago I had a good job with a pretty good company to work for, which was bought out by a pretty bad company to work for. They liked my work so much they gave me 7 or 8 additional jobs, with no more pay. Then they handed my department over to a politically connected person who they could not fire, so they just kept giving her promotions.
The whole thing pissed me off, but it was a battle I could not win. So I changed cities, changed jobs and eventually changed industries. I've had experiences since then that I never could have sniffed had I stayed put. And now have the best job I've ever had working for one of the smartest people I've ever met.
So yeah, sometimes a bad break turns into a good one, but only if you're willing to make it happen.
Many years ago I had a good job with a pretty good company to work for, which was bought out by a pretty bad company to work for. They liked my work so much they gave me 7 or 8 additional jobs, with no more pay. Then they handed my department over to a politically connected person who they could not fire, so they just kept giving her promotions.
The whole thing pissed me off, but it was a battle I could not win. So I changed cities, changed jobs and eventually changed industries. I've had experiences since then that I never could have sniffed had I stayed put. And now have the best job I've ever had working for one of the smartest people I've ever met.
So yeah, sometimes a bad break turns into a good one, but only if you're willing to make it happen.
If that's what you're taking out of any of my posts then you're not paying attention.
You can criticize fat cat CEOs or whoever you want. I don't think anyone is stopping you.
Oh, I know I 'CAN' say and hold to logical fallacies like, "CEO's/coaches should make as much as they legally can" while at the same time determining "workers/athletes already make what is fair...they shouldn't try to suck businesses dry." However, I would think consistency of speech and thought would be better.
I don't think I am inconsistent in my speech. I am all for players or employees making as much as they possibly can. I have no problem with college athletes creating a union and getting paid. But they need to pay taxes on it, and be considered employees.
the business owners or team owners will determine what they want to pay. The employee or player makes the determination if that is acceptable. If the employee believes they can earn more somewhere else, they are free to leave after their contract expires. If the employer believes the player or employee isn't living up to the contract or isn't getting the return on their investment, they should also be free to maximize their profit or pay though too, right?
I have a 1 and a 3 year old... Some of today's jobs may not be around, but there have always been other jobs to take their place. For whatever reason people think that industry is done developing. But we are at like 3% unemployment and have hovered around that for a very long time. Machines, tractors, alarm clocks, computers all changed the job market. So will self driving cars and a bunch of stuff we've never thought of yet. I can't imagine my parents could understand that a social media director would be a job if you told them that when I was a kid.
So I am not particularly worried about the job market that lay ahead for my kids. Partly because I work for a family business and as long as something completely unforeseen doesn't happen (knock on wood) they will have options. And partly because I don't think I'm in the part of the timeline of the world where the machines take over everything and there is no need for the human brain.
As long as I teach my kids to work hard, be respectful and business/financial principles they'll be good.
I wasn't pointing all of this at you. You have been pretty consistent. However, it often goes hand in hand that people will defend the top dog making whatever he makes but say things like, "They already are getting enough" when talking about workers. Overall I agree with what you said above with one caveat: I would add that in the private sector the workers should be able to band together and collectively bargain if they so choose.
P.S. If we were to pay players, you mention that they would have to start paying taxes. I believe they currently pay income taxes on a good chunk of their scholarships. It is only tuition that is tax free. Most of the taxes for tuition are written off by most families anyway so that would probably be a minuscule number. When you add the increase that would come to most, they would come out far ahead.
The tuition is not taxed, my kids had to pay taxes on the R&B and Stipend, but that number was typically less than 10k, so as you said the impact was negligible.
But if they want to be treated as employees, I would pay them a salary, which would be taxed as income and make them pay their own way to school and pay for their related expenses.
The only way to make college players get paid and have it work is to let each player recieve payment for any advertising they generate, commercials etc. best players will get money, others just sholarships, it will be market based. This solves the "how would tulane afford it?" dillema.
Have to be some rules in place
Have to be some rules in place
Since CSX hired the Canadian to run the business
he has be cutting and slashing to the point there
might not be a railroad track left in Indy.
