Need some extra cash? Union dues refund?

[alph]

I enjoy my job, it’s non union, two years ago the union tried to get in and the owner of the company said that if we went union, they’d close the plant.  Now we have a new manager, his belief is that an unhappy worker is a more productive worker.  If they had the union vote again, I don’t care what they say, I’d vote for it.  when management believes that making a person miserable makes them more money, then it’s time to unionize.  

Our government is responsible for all the jobs going to mexico, not the unions.  Thank you Mr. Clinton for giving us NAFTA.  (funny thing, most union workers voted for Clinton)

Jabba, I tried three times to join the local IBEW.  I event went so far as to give the guy a list of co-workers that were interested in joining.  I have no idea why none of us ever got a call. 

[9Ball]

Union people have a tendency to buy American WHENEVER POSSIBLE!! You won't catch them in WalMart, sending their cash to China, nor will you find them driving Honda's and Kia's.

Sure, there's one in a thousand

That is complete BS

agreed...this is a really poor generalizaton and delusional at best.  One in a thousand might believe this statement...

[Jess Tolbirt]

or call 1-800-fairtax

[Momz]

I've worked at both hourly union jobs and as a salaried professional.

I would like to ask all the union haters, "would you want your police, firefighters and your childrens teachers to be non-union, underpaid and overstressed workers".

Even non-union workers have benifited by the wages and benifits of union workers. Unions have caused employers/companies to pay more competeitive wages and benifits,...period!

[JerryB]

NAFTA was done before Clinton was in office.He de-tuned some of the language so work would not leave the country so fast......JB.

[Pale Rider]

"Our government is responsible for all the jobs going to mexico, not the unions.  Thank you Mr. Clinton for giving us NAFTA.  (funny thing, most union workers voted for Clinton)"


The impetus for NAFTA began with Reagan, endorsed by Bush, signed by Clinton.  It's not a Clinton thing...........many had a hand in it. 

[Cliff]

Do you honestly think that if a company pays a worker $10 an hour here in the USA and finds a country that will make the same product and pays workers $2 an hour would not close up shop and move the work Greg?Unions have stopped more work going out of the country than the average person realizes......JB.

My wife worked at Levi's ( non-union ) for 15 years she averaged between $14.00 and $15.00 a hour working production pay. They shut Levi's  down and moved it to Mexico taking well over 2500 jobs from the area. I heard the Mexican's make .86 cents a hour at Levi's. When my wife worked there my 502's was around $35.00 a pair...My 502's are still around $35.00 a pair. ...You union haters stand tall and proud when your grand-kids are making 50 cents a hour.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1   can't agree more.

[hubcapsc]

We have a history of non-union in South Carolina...

http://www.lib.unc.edu/stories/cotton/about/village3.html

A quote from a Mill owner, 1920 or so, I'm not sure...

is matter of unionism . . . that is another thing. We are the owners of our mills
and we propose  to run them ..We do all we can for our
help . . . We do not propose, however, to have any of this unionism business.


Unions had an easier time getting their feet in the door when the mills started to falter
and fade away between the 60's and the 70's...

Families worked hard, ate well, kids went to school, social life revolved around baseball
and similar activities, the houses in the mill villages were nice... they liked it a lot more than being share
croppers and living in shacks...

-Mike

[Serk]

It's REALLY amazing how skillfully the union bosses and the politicians have managed to polarize us, ain't it?

(And yeah, I've got a VERY strong opinion about unions, but I'm keeping it to myself...)

[Chattanooga Mark]

     Maybe taking a look at what industries are unionized and how they're doing would be helpful.

Auto manufacturing - seems to be on the skids in the union states and doing OK in the non union states. So much of last years bailout simply went to prop up a still failing union pension fund.

Teachers - no matter how much we spend per pupil, we keep graduating dumber and more ignorant kids compared to nearly every other 'industrialized' country. I think I read where New Jersey spends nearly $27,000 per pupil and has a terrible drop out rate along with an equaling terrible education system. How is it possible to spend that much per pupil, graduate stupid kids and still the teachers unions want more for less. Private schools and school vouchers are the clear choice here.

Trucking - I know very little about this industry and will defer to those who are in it or know it better

General Manufacturing - the union shops I call on are doing very poorly and outsourcing a lot of work to the non union shops. Others are looking to move either across state lines or out of the country

Construction/Plumbers/Electricians etc. - so many are out of work here in Illinois that the union shop guys are working for cash while collecting their unemployment checks through our broken system.

     The general rule of thumb is that many jobs are simply only worth so much. Especially the semi and non skilled ones. It's sad, but a bad situation for many long term employee and the company they work for, are long term employees themselves. After 'x' amount of years, the employee ends up being at or above the top pay scale for their position. That often makes them a target to be 'downsized', 'rightsized' or passed over for promotion. When too many in the companies labor force are at or above the scale for the job, the company looks at moving elsewhere.
     I'm a sales rep for a big company. My job is only worth so much whether I've been doing it for 5 years or 25 years. Same as if I poured and finished cement, built widgets, plumbed houses, dug ditches, drove a garbage truck or cut your grass. Society, all of us, union and non non, dictate the price we'll pay for any service or product. It's the companies first priority to make a profit at providing what they provide. I have no rightful 'claim' to anyone else's income in my company or my companies profit. It's pretty simple really.

All the best,

Mark
 

[Jabba]

Oh no...

Anyone that OWNS a company is RICH beyond belief, selfish as hell, greedy and an abuser of the defenseless worker.

Don't you know ANYTHING?
 

Jabba
 

[bigvalkriefan]

It's REALLY amazing how skillfully the union bosses and the politicians have managed to polarize us, ain't it?

(And yeah, I've got a VERY strong opinion about unions, but I'm keeping it to myself...)

That Serk, is probably the smartest thing said on this topic. They do the same thing with Dems vs Repubs, they want to have us distracted by the nonsense between us. It's an effective tactic when the people don't think for themselves. I know because I've been caught up in it occasionally.

[musclehead]

I've been union, i worked at the post office for 8 years. I've heard them crowing about cutting 40,000 jobs, big wup. theres like 3 million letter carriers. all they've done so far is let jobs fall off by attrition and not replaced the worker.

The U.S. Postal Service employed 343,300 mail carriers in 2008. The majority of mail carriers work in cities and suburbs, while the rest work in rural areas. - quote from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos345.htm

ok I was off by a decimal point,

That's a FAR cry from "like 3 million letter carriers". And 40,000 is "like 10+%", for the math-impaired. Pretty substantial, considering EVERY house is STILL delivered to, and the weather is still the same. There is NO LESS WORK for letter carriers, just 10% more OF it!! How many times have YOU not received your mail?

ok I was off by a decimal point

I might be math impaired BUT mail volumes are WAY WAY down from years past. there isn't 10% more work trust me I know I worked there, I still have friends that I talk to that work there.

[musclehead]

and the reason theres less violence at the post office is because the vietnam vets have pretty much retired. now you vets don't get your dander up, you know I love ya but some of them were a lil twitchy.  we had one guy that was E.O.D. in 'nam, he was extremely twitchy  

Actually, no...

From NY Times opinion  http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/19/opinion/violence-in-the-post-office.html:

an opinion peice from the times no less, no possible way that could be slanted stilted AT ALL! 

Violence in the Post Office
Published: May 19, 1993

    * Sign In to E-Mail
    * Print

The United States Postal Service has developed a reputation for violence. Over the last decade 10 rampaging workers have killed 34 co-workers and supervisors at post offices in seven different states.

The most recent episodes -- two on the same day -- occurred earlier this month. A former postal worker in California and a worker in Michigan each killed a colleague; they wounded three others between them.

No reasonable person would blame the Postal Service for murder. With 700,000 workers, the largest civilian work force in the nation, episodes of violence and mental instability are impossible to avoid.

But it's also clear that the Postal Service's management style aggravates the problem. Angry critics have called the Postal Service a treadmill of angry monotony . . . a minefield of festering grievances . . . a boot camp, where supervisors behave like drill sergeants.

Earlier this week, Peter T. Kilborn of The Times described a pathologically overmanaged system that in some cases assigns one manager to every 10 employees. Those employees endure what Mr. Kilborn described as "an archaic, Army-like environment in which many top managers communicate by directive and front-line supervisors often hover over their charges, waiting for a mistake and timing workers' trips to the bathroom."

And, from Wikipedia:

Analysis

Researchers have found that the homicide rates per 100,000 workers at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 0.26 per 100,000.[14]

However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies. In a 1993 joint hearing of the United States Congress in its review of violence in the U.S. Postal Service, NIOSH estimates were cited as part of the record for the 1980s where it is noted that during this timeframe 13% of the employee-directed homicides occurred at postal facilities by current or former employees, where less than 0.75% of the total full-time civilian labor force was employed.[15]

having worked there and I assume you haven't I feel I might have an "insiders" view. in the office I worked at managers would tell someone not to do a particular operation, and could re-tell them 100 times in 100 days. the employee would nod and go right back to do whatever they wanted to. its a toothless threat and they know it. there are 4 ways to get fired from the P.O. and ignoring a manager isn't one of them.

[musclehead]

and the reason theres less violence at the post office is because the vietnam vets have pretty much retired. now you vets don't get your dander up, you know I love ya but some of them were a lil twitchy.  we had one guy that was E.O.D. in 'nam, he was extremely twitchy 

I have never seen such blatant libel committed against a group. You can take any group, whether it be a church, the local garden club or the Young Republicans/Democrats and find those that are a "little twitchy".

I aim to find out if this board has an "Ignore" feature and put you smack dab at the top of it. I guess you could say this post has made me "a little twitchy" and got "my dander up".+

you know I love ya, my brother from another mother. I was trying to be cute I shoulda known better 

[musclehead]

Fair Tax would bring MANY production jobs to the USA.  When polled 200 overseas manufacturers said, that if the US went to the FairTax, they would build a plant here.  Right away.

I have been in the Teamsters, IBEW, and the UAW.  All 3 did nothing for me but take my $ and tell me to slow down, I was making others look bad.

We're in a global economy.  Period.  Our government taxes us out of prosperity.  We ARE the most productive people on earth, and if we could get the government out of the way, companies would flock here. So, production goes to places where workers get $2/hr, are willing to work in dangerous conditions, and are HAPPY for the opportunity.

If you don't KNOW about the FairTax, do a little reading.

www.fairtax.org

It'll surprise you.

Jabba

I like it!  now can we throw some tariffs on the crap coming into the country so that american products can compete. we've all become pretty acustomed to cheap crap, maybe we can change.

[Chattanooga Mark]

The fair tax seems a bit involved. Maybe a flat tax would be a better option. Everyone, regardless of income, pays the exact same tax rate. Nothing is more fair than that. Whether you make $50,000, $500,000 or $5,000,000 a year, everyone pays the same tax rate.

Just a thought,

Mark

[Jabba]

Involved?  Compared to 80,000 PAGES of tax code we have now?  Seriously?

The FairTax taxes the money we SPEND rather than the money we Earn.  Thus getting illegally earned and foreign money as well.  It eliminates the whole process of witholdings.  The whole filing process.  There are no loopholes.  None.  It's fundamental to the system. 

You don't want to pay tax?  Don't spend your money.  It's that simple.

But more importantly, it puts IN YOUR FACE how much tax is collected from you EVERY day.

NONE of us know how much we are taxed, and the politicians LIKE it that way.  That's why they won't go for the FairTax.  You can not POSSIBLY know how much tax you pay in any given year.  There are too many, and many of them are imbedded in the costs of goods.  The government spends about 35% of the GDP.  That's the ONLY way I know of to judge it.  1/2 the people in the country don't pay ANY income tax. 

What's YOUR share?  I think I pay more than 50% of what I EARN to the government.

That's too much.

Jabba

[Bobbo]

The FairTax taxes the money we SPEND rather than the money we Earn. 

How would FairTax work when people starting using cashless bartering rather than purchasing from vendors?

[Jabba]

The FairTax taxes the money we SPEND rather than the money we Earn. 

How would FairTax work when people starting using cashless bartering rather than purchasing from vendors?

How does cashless bartering collect taxes now?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but just because something isn't PERFECT doesn't mean it's not WAY WAY better than what we have now.

We have drug money, prostitution, illegal labor, etc now... that goes untaxed.  Plus barter. 

I think the FairTax will do a lot better job of collecting taxes, and more importantly, at least to me, make it more obvious how much we pay, so we can hold the bums in office accountable for their spending.

They say that the government spend like a drunk sailor on leave.  As a former drunken sailor, I take offense to that, as I stopped spending when I ran out of money.

Jabba

[hubcapsc]

The FairTax taxes the money we SPEND rather than the money we Earn. 

How would FairTax work when people starting using cashless bartering rather than purchasing from vendors?

You mean, like trading someone a pig for some butter and eggs, or are you imagining an all encompassing
black market taking over to thwart such a tax system...?

People who have studied Fair Tax (not me) think evasion could be a problem...

According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion

on the other hand...

For example, the sale of illegal narcotics would remain untaxed (instead of being guilty of income tax evasion, drug dealers would be guilty of failing to submit sales tax), but they would face taxation when they used drug proceeds to buy consumer goods such as food, clothing, and cars. By taxing this previously untaxed money, FairTax supporters argue that non-filers would be paying part of their share of what would otherwise be uncollected income and payroll taxes.

while illicit income is not taxed directly, spending of income from illicit activity results in business income and wages that are taxed. This raises the price of goods bought using illicit income, and indirectly taxes the underground economy.

The biggest deal might be in repealing the 16th amendment to keep congress from cranking the income tax back up next time they need a dime...

-Mike "I just looked at the wiki page on Fair Tax is all... "

[Kaiser]

Union people have a tendency to buy American WHENEVER POSSIBLE!! You won't catch them in WalMart, sending their cash to China, nor will you find them driving Honda's and Kia's.

You are a union person.
You drive (ride) a Honda.
Your Honda was "Made in America".
Your Honda has a bunch of "Made in China" parts on it.
You sent your cash to China.

[Bobbo]

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but just because something isn't PERFECT doesn't mean it's not WAY WAY better than what we have now.

My question wasn’t to discredit FairTax, but to see if it addresses things like bartering, which I’m sure would increase substantially.  Also, since more money would be handled by retailers to collect and distribute these taxes to the government, there may be a greater incentive for fraud.  No tax system is perfect, but I would like to consider how the market would shift and adapt to a tax system like this.

[Valkernaut]

[I can see both sides, can you?

more importantly how do we bring maufacturing BACK to this side of the border? don't tell me it can't be done, we put a man on the moon we can rebuild a manufacturing base.
[/quote]

I think that going to the Fair Tax method would bring it back. Our govt, has taxed them out of this country....

[DIGGER]

Union people have a tendency to buy American WHENEVER POSSIBLE!! You won't catch them in WalMart, sending their cash to China, nor will you find them driving Honda's and Kia's.

You are a union person.
You drive (ride) a Honda.
Your Honda was "Made in America".
Your Honda has a bunch of "Made in China" parts on it.
You sent your cash to China.

Yes I'm a union person, 38 yrs in the IBEW Electrical Union.  I wouldn't work any other way.   I paid the union over $3,000 last year in dues.   I made $20,000 more last year than a non-union electrician in my area.....do the math.

Yeah, I'm a union man....and I bought a Valkyrie because it was made in Maryville, Ohio.   Yeah it's got some Honda parts from China and Japan I'm sure.   Ck out a Harley......Mikuna carbs (foreign made.....ck out the rear shocks  (foreign maid).....If I remember right the windshield is foreign made.   You want the most American made bike ya gotta buy a Victory so I'm told.

If we did away with the unions......or even if the unions took a 75 percent pay cut to get the business back in America......wouldn't work.....the Chinese would cut their workers 80 percent.....YOU'LL NEVER GET BELOW THEM ON THE PAY SCALE.    Even here, in the 80's during the oil bust our IBEW UNION took an across the board 20 percent pay cut to try and get under the non union.    They cut their workers 20 percent also......you'll never get under them.

[Walküre]

You are a union person.
You drive (ride) a Honda.
Your Honda was "Made in America".
Your Honda has a bunch of "Made in China" parts on it.
You sent your cash to China.

I bought a USED Honda. The money has LONG SINCE gone to China, and I had no part of it. Nice rationalization, incorrect, but, nice try...

I also drive a Chevy Silverado, the wife has a Malibu, the oldest daughter has a Caddy Seville, the younger has a Chevy Aveo, the closest to a true "import". I buy American WHENEVER I CAN, and look whenever I buy something. Unfortunately, the pickings have gotten mighty slim, and often, I just can't buy American, no matter what. And it's primarily from people, that go OUT OF THEIR WAY, to buy chinese goods, instead of even trying to look for, and buy American goods.

To believe I can buy solely American, is ridiculous. To not attempt to buy American whenever possible, is foolish...

[Walküre]

I think that going to the Fair Tax method would bring it back. Our govt, has taxed them out of this country....

Excuse me? Taxed them out of this country?? Not by a LONG shot!! GREED drove them out of this country. Taxes, until 1980, on the top wage earners, were between 70 and 90 percent!!! Now, at 35%, those same people are screaming and crying. And they'll do WHATEVER it takes, to keep from paying even that...

Here's the truth... but of course, they don't want you to look at that. http://crbest.com/taxes/

If you look real close, you'll see that the highest taxes, were during the biggest boom this country has ever seen.

[Jabba]

My question wasn’t to discredit FairTax, but to see if it addresses things like bartering, which I’m sure would increase substantially.  Also, since more money would be handled by retailers to collect and distribute these taxes to the government, there may be a greater incentive for fraud.  No tax system is perfect, but I would like to consider how the market would shift and adapt to a tax system like this.

I wasn't trying to bust your balls man.  Unlike many here... I won't kick you just to kick you.

I am sure there would be some barter... but there is NOW.  "If you do this work for me... I'll do this work for you, and it's off book for BOTH our companies."  

I want the FairTax for 2 reasons:

1. My fundamental belief that companies do not pay taxes... they simply pass them onto the consumer.

2. I want people to FACE the FULL taxation they pay every day.  To see a line on a receipt and a dollar amount that went to Uncle Sam for everything they buy, WITHOUT exemption.  

That's the key, right there.

Jabba

[Jabba]

 Taxes, until 1980, on the top wage earners, were between 70 and 90 percent!!! Now, at 35%, those same people are screaming and crying. And they'll do WHATEVER it takes, to keep from paying even that...

I don't think it's reasonable for ANYONE to pay 70-90 % of what they EARN.  There would be no incentive to EARN it to begin with.

There is NOTHING equitable about a sliding scale tax system.  If everyone paid the same % that would be fair.  I mean if everyone paid 25% then a guy making $100K would pay $25K and a guy making $10M would pay $2.5M.  Earn 100 times as much, pay 100 times as much.  But making that same guy that made $10M pay $8M in taxes is absolute bullshit, and pushes us all toward mediocrity.

Without incentive to excel, people will lounge in mediocrity.  It's WHY communism (and Socialism) doesn't WORK.

Jabba 

[Walküre]

I don't think it's reasonable for ANYONE to pay 70-90 % of what they EARN.  There would be no incentive to EARN it to begin with.

What a crock of baloney stew...so, are you saying between 1936 and 1981 NO one had incentive to work?? During the time when a single income family could live, keeping mom at home, for the most part? When the majority of major industry came about in this country? When there were more innovations, than in any other time in American history?? Have some more kool-aid...

There is NOTHING equitable about a sliding scale tax system.  If everyone paid the same % that would be fair.  I mean if everyone paid 25% then a guy making $100K would pay $25K and a guy making $10M would pay $2.5M.  Earn 100 times as much, pay 100 times as much.  But making that same guy that made $10M pay $8M in taxes is absolute bullshit, and pushes us all toward mediocrity.

We have been on the decline, towards "mediocrity" since Reagan dropped the taxes substantially. And now? We are at the very bottom of mediocrity! And we just gave the wealthy MORE!! I hasn't worked for the last 10 years, and it won't work for the next. The ONLY thing we have accomplished, is moving the money to the top. People are SO easily fooled. Shame, but there aren't too many that were alive, and of serious working age, when the crash of '29 occurred. They would be 110 years old, now. They watched the top-heavy greed, and paper money and Wall Street manipulations, cripple this country, and wipe out a HUGE amount of ordinary folks. And all you hear about today, is the millions lost by the rich. Most weathered it very well, with MANY actually using the recession, to increase their wealth. Those WITH, prosper during recessions...buy for one, sell for four - that 3% adds up.

Without incentive to excel, people will lounge in mediocrity.  It's WHY communism (and Socialism) doesn't WORK.

Jabba 

Actually, socialism is what broke the back of the recession. Throwing money at it, helping those that needed it, by MAKING jobs, brought this country back.

The money that USE to go to jobs, now goes to the greedy "shareholders". The teenager's "first" jobs are gone - the stores use "job-stealers" - self-scanners, that make YOU do the work, instead of having an employee. And not only do they not have to pay someone, they don't pay YOU, either! Gone is the bag-boy, and the service station attendent. I went to the only full-service station until they finally closed the full-service, even though I paid a bit more for gas. Now that same kid is sitting at home, not giving a crap, because there ARE no jobs for them. But the shareholders made extra money...greed!

Some guy makes widgets. The widget costs $100 on the store. His labor (and overhead, building, etc) on the widget is $40, $30 for labor, $10 for overhead, and materials are $40. He makes $20 a widget. He sells 1 million a year, netting 20 million.
Now, he moves his industry off-shore. His labor drops from $30, to $6. His building is boarded up, and he works out of an old warehouse - overhead drops to $3. Shipping climbs to another $3. So now, instead of $80 to make his widget, it costs him $28 less. So, does he DROP the price? Hell, no! He makes another $28 million a year. In the meantime, he has put American's out of work. If the widget is a luxury, the shareholders can now buy 2 instead of 1, and if it's a necessity, the unemployed will figure out a way to buy it, regardless. ANYONE who believes that giving the wealthy MORE money, will result in more jobs, is out of their minds. Just remember, it costs a LOT to move the first jobs off-shore. But that's now the American way. Greed-based industry, is exactly that.

[RP#62]

So who all do you figure make up all those greedy shareholders?
-RP

[Jeff K]

I don't think it's reasonable for ANYONE to pay 70-90 % of what they EARN.  There would be no incentive to EARN it to begin with.

What a crock of baloney stew...so, are you saying between 1936 and 1981 NO one had incentive to work?? During the time when a single income family could live, keeping mom at home, for the most part? When the majority of major industry came about in this country? When there were more innovations, than in any other time in American history?? Have some more kool-aid...

There is NOTHING equitable about a sliding scale tax system.  If everyone paid the same % that would be fair.  I mean if everyone paid 25% then a guy making $100K would pay $25K and a guy making $10M would pay $2.5M.  Earn 100 times as much, pay 100 times as much.  But making that same guy that made $10M pay $8M in taxes is absolute bullshit, and pushes us all toward mediocrity.

We have been on the decline, towards "mediocrity" since Reagan dropped the taxes substantially. And now? We are at the very bottom of mediocrity! And we just gave the wealthy MORE!! I hasn't worked for the last 10 years, and it won't work for the next. The ONLY thing we have accomplished, is moving the money to the top. People are SO easily fooled. Shame, but there aren't too many that were alive, and of serious working age, when the crash of '29 occurred. They would be 110 years old, now. They watched the top-heavy greed, and paper money and Wall Street manipulations, cripple this country, and wipe out a HUGE amount of ordinary folks. And all you hear about today, is the millions lost by the rich. Most weathered it very well, with MANY actually using the recession, to increase their wealth. Those WITH, prosper during recessions...buy for one, sell for four - that 3% adds up.

Without incentive to excel, people will lounge in mediocrity.  It's WHY communism (and Socialism) doesn't WORK.

Jabba 

Actually, socialism is what broke the back of the recession. Throwing money at it, helping those that needed it, by MAKING jobs, brought this country back.

The money that USE to go to jobs, now goes to the greedy "shareholders". The teenager's "first" jobs are gone - the stores use "job-stealers" - self-scanners, that make YOU do the work, instead of having an employee. And not only do they not have to pay someone, they don't pay YOU, either! Gone is the bag-boy, and the service station attendent. I went to the only full-service station until they finally closed the full-service, even though I paid a bit more for gas. Now that same kid is sitting at home, not giving a crap, because there ARE no jobs for them. But the shareholders made extra money...greed!

Some guy makes widgets. The widget costs $100 on the store. His labor (and overhead, building, etc) on the widget is $40, $30 for labor, $10 for overhead, and materials are $40. He makes $20 a widget. He sells 1 million a year, netting 20 million.
Now, he moves his industry off-shore. His labor drops from $30, to $6. His building is boarded up, and he works out of an old warehouse - overhead drops to $3. Shipping climbs to another $3. So now, instead of $80 to make his widget, it costs him $28 less. So, does he DROP the price? Hell, no! He makes another $28 million a year. In the meantime, he has put American's out of work. If the widget is a luxury, the shareholders can now buy 2 instead of 1, and if it's a necessity, the unemployed will figure out a way to buy it, regardless. ANYONE who believes that giving the wealthy MORE money, will result in more jobs, is out of their minds. Just remember, it costs a LOT to move the first jobs off-shore. But that's now the American way. Greed-based industry, is exactly that.

It bewilders most of the population of the United States Of America that you actually believe the stuff you ramble about. You are in a tiny minority. A loud and outspoken  liberal minority but still a minority.
In other words... most people think you are full of

[Chattanooga Mark]

If everyone paid the same %, I'd call it a flat tax and yes, it would certainly be fair. Regardless of income, everyone pays xx%. It's a one sentence personal income tax code. The 80k pages we have now are rediculous and the fair tax web site seemed a bit busy to me compared to:

 "Regardless of income, you owe xx% in Federal income tax. "

Whether you're on unemployement or making millions, you pay the same percent. That covers every income earner fairly. Having the top 10% of income earners covering 90%+ of the entire Fed tax burden only pits people against each other. By reading this forum, you can quickly see how effective it is for the 'ruling class' to keep everyone else arguing and pointing. May as well get rid of all job and school entrannce type 'quotas' as well. 

Mark

[98valk]

Porter Stansberry comment: My motivation is simple. I am deeply offended by the way the management team of General Motors has lied to the public for the last 25 years. Equally inept teams of manager and union bosses have slowly bled one of history's greatest industrial corporations to death. Both groups have been living off the marrow of this company, leaving nothing behind for future generations of Americans. To me, what happened to GM is a crime.

I tell the story of GM's demise as it should be told because I know when the company finally goes bankrupt the mass media will report the story in one of two ways. Fox News will blame the failure on the union. CNN and CBS will blame current senior executives. Neither will get the story right.

Both groups – management and union workers – have stolen something from GM shareholders and from future generations of Americans. Since 1992, union workers have been paid to do nothing – sitting in a so-called "jobs bank." These kinds of ridiculous union demands left GM with dozens of money-losing plants. On the other hand, the company's board of directors continued to pay big dividends to hold the stock price up. Meanwhile, the company was running at a capital loss, with no funds available for the continual investments necessary to compete in the global market. The result is what we have today: The shell of a formerly great corporation getting crushed in its home market by Toyota – a company that 30 years ago barely sold cars in America.

If telling this story honestly and completely is unprofessional… well… that's probably why I write newsletters instead of kowtow to advertisers in a newspaper or a magazine. GM still buys a lot of ad space and TV time. You won't see the true story of GM in any other type of media.

And......

This is why there are no jobs in America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 24, 2010
10:37 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.

Oh ... and one more thing.

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur, if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs.

Editor's Note: Learn more about Porter Stansberry's work.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Porter Stansberry is the founder of Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, based in Baltimore, Md. His financial newsletters are available to WND readers here.


Read more: This is why there are no jobs in America http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=195493#ixzz1E5UXX669

[TheSpadMan]

+100 CA ExhaustCoatings     

[Jess Tolbirt]

are you an inside or outside electrician?
i sat on the books for 8 months about 7 years ago and got a long call that lasted 32 days,,,sat on the books for another year before i could even get a short call,,,
i told the BA to take his union and keep it, I left...
got a non-union job at 3 dollars an hour less and havent missed a pay day since...also havent had to collect unemployment either,,,
the IBEW sued me,,and about 10,000 others,, the IBEW lost...
so lets see i can make 30 per hour and work 3 months out of a year and put 10.00/hr. into bennies or
make 20 per hour year round with bennies paid,,, HMMMMMM.....kinda like it where i am,,,at least I know the family will be cared for...you know like being able to eat and a roof over our heads...

now after reading the above dont go and calll me a union hater,,, thats not what i said but i wont work for them any more...

[Varmintmist]

So who all do you figure make up all those greedy shareholders?
-RP

You know, dem rich greedy rich guys who never worked for a living keeping all of dat money instead of giving it to the workin man.

[Walküre]

So who all do you figure make up all those greedy shareholders?
-RP

You know, dem rich greedy rich guys who never worked for a living keeping all of dat money instead of giving it to the workin man.

Once again on the Sunday news shows, Republican Leader John Boehner declared that "America is broke" -- his premise for why we "can't afford" important investments that are critical to America's future.

In fact, of course, America is far from "broke". It is the largest economy in the world. After collapsing as a result of the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks -- and Republican economic policies in late 2008 -- the economy has, in fact, grown for six consecutive quarters. The stock market has almost doubled since the crash -- regaining most of its value. Corporate profits are soaring. And American corporations are now sitting on close to two trillion dollars in cash.

What's more, we still have the same highly-skilled, productive labor force and the same stock of plants and equipment that we did before the financial meltdown -- the same ability to create the goods and services that are the real measures of economic wealth.

The problem isn't that America is "broke." The problem is that economic growth is not being shared with most Americans. The problem is that the very rich are wealthier than ever and everyone else is falling behind. Not only does that mean that the massive store of wealth that we create today is not widely shared. It also means that -- taken together -- we have less wealth as a nation because so many Americans who could be creating goods and services are unemployed, creating nothing.

Of course the implication of the "America is broke" mantra is that we have to make massive cuts in programs and services that benefit the middle class and poor because we "can't afford them" -- us being broke and all.

Frankly, you have a hard time taking that kind of talk seriously from a guy who just recently demanded that America continue to give massive tax breaks for the wealthy for the next two years -- and who wants to flat out abolish the estate tax that, by definition, benefits only the sons and daughters of multimillionaires and billionaires.

Is America broke? Have a look at John Paulson. In 2007, as the financial crisis descended, he made $4 billion in personal income betting against subprime mortgages that helped sink the rest of the economy. Last year he made a record $5 billion in personal income as the manager of a hedge fund. By the way, had he somehow managed to make that astronomical sum of money laying bricks or sweeping floors, he would have paid taxes at a rate of 35% on the bulk of that income. Instead, he paid at a rate of only 15%, since he earned his money by speculating as a hedge fund manager instead of making a useful good or service. Makes sense, right?

Last year Mr. Paulson made as much as 100,000 of his fellow citizens who earned $50,000 per year.

[Walküre]

It bewilders most of the population of the United States Of America that you actually believe the stuff you ramble about. You are in a tiny minority. A loud and outspoken  liberal minority but still a minority.
In other words... most people think you are full of

Well, suffice it to say, the feeling's pretty well mutual. Especially about loud and outspoken Right Wing majorities, that press themselves into MY life, MUCH more than I press myself into theirs, because they feel "righteous" doing it. What a load of

[Jabba]

Here's what I know for sure.

When you tax a corporation... the cost of the widget goes up.  For the rich guy and the POOR guy.  Stop taxing the company that makes the widget.

My boss owns a company that grosses between $1M and $1.3M per year.  He employs 11 people, at a cost of about $800K.  Most of what's left goes to overhead, you know... rent, utilities, office equipment stuff like that.  He makes personally $150K ish. 

That's the guy that tax increases are gonna pound.  And cost jobs.  Giant corporations don't employ all the people in the country.  Small businesses do.  Well, at least 1/2 of them.

Small businesses:
Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

We've not had raises in 3 years.  And my employer has personally lent the company money to keep it solvent without ANY layoffs even thru the slow time, and we SHOULD have laid off 3 IMO. 

I also know that oppressive taxation and socialism has ground Europe into a morass of lethargy.  Spain, France, Greece, etc, have all seen decline into mediocrity at best.

You're reference to the "good old days" was when people actually WORKED.  Not stood around with their hands out, on the public teat, while having smart phones and designer shoes. 

I would LOVE for Americans to earn a fair wage, for a fair days work.  I just don't SEE that anymore.  They want excessive wages for lazy and sloppy work. 

And it's in EVERY industry.  I get disgusted with the quality of work that my contemporaries do.  They survive with good marketing, not a good product.  Much like Harley Davidson IMO.  There... a motorcycle tie-in.   

Jabba