actual american UAW worker wage/package
gippe...@comcast.net
determined ?
thanks
PeterL
Doobie Keebler
OK, so , if retiree benefits are 'pre-funded' in the VEBA, how did
anyone come up with that $70/hr wage?
Are they counting the retiree benefit twice?
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200811250012
.-=d00b
John Galt
First off, let's all be clear that mediamatters is a left-wing spin
site. Any columnist that references another columnist from the Daily Kos
can be discounted as "dishonest" out of hand. In fact, the author spends
the first umpteen paragraphs bemoaning the use of the "bad figure", and
doesn't get around to explaining WHY it is bad until the end.
That said, let's review the little bit of content that's actually in the
article:
"Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that
automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to
"make their case, to the Congress and the American people," for a
federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for
economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, "[M]aybe letting the auto
companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry
collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it's a
decision that should be taken carefully" [emphasis added]."
Very important paragraph. First, Reid accurately characterizes the auto
package as a "bailout". Further, when Krugman (who is the closest thing
to a functioning "liberal" economist there is) questions the sanity of
an auto bailout, even the large-government types need to give some
serious thought to the wisdom of the action,
"And it's funny, because I don't remember hearing much coverage in the
press about AIG workers' six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S.
government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I
haven't seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries
pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in
quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug."
Two thoughts. First, you see the writer mischaracterize the Wall Street
packages as "bailouts." When the government takes warrants against a
company whose problem is not SALES, but DEBT LOAD, that's certainly not
a bailout -- it's an investment. Second, most of the high wage earners
on Wall Street held most of their net worths in company stock, which is
now next to worthless. An article that seeks to deflate myths about the
auto pay packages ought not create myths about what's happened to the
Wall Street types. Job losses are close to, if not over, 100,000 in the
industry, and those that still have jobs have seen their net worths
decrease by 80%, despite the government infusion.
"As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings
last week, "There is apparently a cultural condition that's more ready
to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry,
and that has to be confronted.""
Let's confront it here, then. Wall Street has lost 100K jobs. If the
auto package goes through, they will lose almost no jobs. Sounds like
Frank is simply playing to the cameras, as usual.
"What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM
in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos."
Finally.
"Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the
misinformation at play: The average GM assembly-line worker makes
about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying
$42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather,
the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous
number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension
costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other
words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired
workers. [emphasis in original]"
What this new writer is pointing out is that the $70+ number per hour is
the fully-burdened cost of labor found in the average UAW produced
vehicle. He's right that it's ridiculous to infer that this number is
paid wage to the current UAW worker, but it's actually the most
important number to understand when deciding of the auto manufacturers
ought to be bailed or not.
Typically, you burden a nonunion laborer at 1.5X salary. If the average
Toyota worker in San Antonio makes $17 on the line, his fully loaded
cost of labor will be around $25.50 per hour. If, OTOH, the UAW laborer
makes $28, and the fully burdened cost of labor is $73, that means that
the burden factor is not 1.5X, but 2.6X **until 2010, when the UAW takes
the retiree load.**
I don't know what the movement of the pensions will drop the burden
factor to, but the Detroit burden factor MUST be the same as the Toyota
burden factor in order for the domestic manufacturers to stay in
business. If the Detroit business plans do not bring that factor into
line with their competitors by 1/1/10, then the government is just
wasting taxpayer money.
"By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18
column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big
Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour,
closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus
never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because
they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven
Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so
misleading.)"
Ah, OK. good. $45 would put the burden factor for Toyota at 2.6X. I
highly doubt that benefits at Toyota in the US are so high (the fact
that those factors between Detroit and Toyota are the same gives me some
suspicion that the latter is not real), but even if they are, that gives
the UAW a choice: it can either force a 40% wage cut in the rank and
file, or it can (better choice) throw the job bank and other
anti-competitive measures under the bus, and let Detroit actually FIRE
people they don't need anymore.
JG
Doobie Keebler
> First off, let's all be clear that mediamatters is a left-wing spin
> site. Any columnist that references another columnist from the Daily Kos
> can be discounted as "dishonest" out of hand.
Just to "be clear," John, Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a
501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and
author David Brock.
David Brockis an American journalist and was CONSERVATIVE journalist
during the 1990s. During that time he was best known for his book 'The
Real Anita Hill' and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to
Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. He tells his
personal story in his memoir 'Blinded by the Right' and criticizes the
"conservative media machine" in his book 'The Republican Noise
Machine.' His work on the latter book led him to found Media Matters
for America
Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-
profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to
comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative
misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines
"conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the
media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards
the conservative agenda."
To dismiss them as a 'left wing spin site' is to ignore the wisdom of
John Kenneth Galbraith, who cautioned us that without countervailing
power:
. . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
others who are intrinsically weak as individuals. Such decisions would
be a proper object of state interference or would soon so become."
http://tinyurl.com/american-capitalism
MMfA does a heckuva a job pushing back against the Corporate
Mediocracy.
Speaking of 'spin sites,' I'm still waiting for an answer to the
quetion: did Heritage Foundation concoct that $70/hr figure by
counting the pre-funded VEBA expenses?
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm
That would mean they counted retiree expenses twice.
. . ."The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in
wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in
health insurance and pension plan contributions."
If the retiree expenses component of that mysterious $42/hr is pre-
funded in VEBA, then Heritage Foundation should be on your 'spin'
list, not MMfA.
But, hey, when you've got the genetics of McCarthy Republicanism and
the accounting standards of Reagan's voo-doo economics on your side,
why bother with trifles like intellectual honesty, eh? Just demonize
the loyal opposition and catapult the propaganda, ain' so?
'Dishonest' ? Like this?
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
propaganda."
- G.W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
.-=d00b
.
John Galt
> On Dec 4, 8:04 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First off, let's all be clear that mediamatters is a left-wing spin
>> site. Any columnist that references another columnist from the Daily Kos
>> can be discounted as "dishonest" out of hand.
>
>
> Just to "be clear," John, Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a
> 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and
> author David Brock.
Yes.
>
> David Brockis an American journalist and was CONSERVATIVE journalist
> during the 1990s. During that time he was best known for his book 'The
> Real Anita Hill' and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to
> Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. He tells his
> personal story in his memoir 'Blinded by the Right' and criticizes the
> "conservative media machine" in his book 'The Republican Noise
> Machine.' His work on the latter book led him to found Media Matters
> for America
I know the entire story of his movement from a paid right wing shill to
a paid left wing shill.
Think about it. Did you admire him for his Troopergate work as much as
you do today, or did you despise him for it? He was an intellectually
dishonest shill, earning money by whipping up partisan fervor both then
and now, and if you're fair, you'd despise him now as you did then. If
you only despised him then, then your opinion is tarnished by
partisanship, and it's not Democrats or Republicans that are the threat
to America, it's blind partisanship. To wit:
"I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be
President of the United States of America." ---Barak Obama
>
> Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-
> profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to
> comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative
> misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines
> "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the
> media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards
> the conservative agenda."
Fox News describes itself as "fair and balanced." I'll concede to Media
Matters description if you concede to Fox's.
>
> To dismiss them as a 'left wing spin site' is to ignore the wisdom of
> John Kenneth Galbraith, who cautioned us that without countervailing
> power:
>
> . . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
> unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
> others who are intrinsically weak as individuals. Such decisions would
> be a proper object of state interference or would soon so become."
> http://tinyurl.com/american-capitalism.
I disagree with your interpretation of Galbraith. You seem to assume
that the public has no mouthpiece other than a left-biased website. The
existence of labor unions, national chambers of commerce, and multiple
media outlets which attempt some level of objectivity dispute that view.
>
> MMfA does a heckuva a job pushing back against the Corporate
> Mediocracy.
Certain articles may indeed do so. This one was a little wanting in
objectivity, IMO. You can be anti-corporatist without being pro-union,
for example.
>
> Speaking of 'spin sites,' I'm still waiting for an answer to the
> quetion: did Heritage Foundation concoct that $70/hr figure by
> counting the pre-funded VEBA expenses?
> http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm
>
> That would mean they counted retiree expenses twice.
The VEBA expenses should be represented once, of course.
>
> . . ."The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in
> wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in
> health insurance and pension plan contributions."
>
> If the retiree expenses component of that mysterious $42/hr is pre-
> funded in VEBA, then Heritage Foundation should be on your 'spin'
> list, not MMfA.
They would be added to it, but MMfA not deleted.
>
> But, hey, when you've got the genetics of McCarthy Republicanism and
> the accounting standards of Reagan's voo-doo economics on your side,
> why bother with trifles like intellectual honesty, eh? Just demonize
> the loyal opposition and catapult the propaganda, ain' so?
I prefer intellectual honesty. Obviously, you and I disagree as to which
one of us is dishonest.
>
> 'Dishonest' ? Like this?
>
> "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
> over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
> propaganda."
> - G.W. Bush
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
Your point? We're discussing the auto bailout. The above is irrelevant
to the discussion.
JG
Doobie Keebler
> > Doobie Keebler wrote:
> >
> > . . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
> > unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
> > others who are intrinsically weak as individuals. Such decisions would
> > be a proper object of state interference or would soon so become."
> >http://tinyurl.com/american-capitalism.
>
> I disagree with your interpretation of Galbraith. You seem to assume
> that the public has no mouthpiece other than a left-biased website.
IMHO, MMfA as indy media, not 'lefty' media.
In that sense they are utterly opposite of the corporate media.
That doesn't make them 'lefty.'
I agree with the notion that the main stream media is, on the whole,
far more conservative than liberal.
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
You and I may disagree about that, which would explain why I see MMfA
as a lonely voice in a wilderness dominated by paid corporate hacks
all touting the same talking points, while you dismiss them as left
wing kooks.
IMO, Media Matters for America is a sorely needed example of
'countervailing power.'
> The existence of labor unions,
I guess you missed the public lynching of the UAW in the 'liberal' MSM
this past news cycle, John?
> national chambers of commerce,
Are you joking?
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a powerful BUSINESS lobbying group.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce
They exist to serve corporate (not consumer) interests.
> and multiple media outlets which attempt some level of objectivity
In the ongoing debate about whethjer the USA is a 'center-left' or
'center-right' nation. . .
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/30/waldmaned.html
. . . you and I may disagree over just where the 'center' is.
Viewing the spectrum of US media thru NewsPrism:
http://www.newsprism.com/
. . . I say the 'center' is typified by Time and Newsweek, not The
Politico.
That is to say, the so-called 'liberal' media is a myth, and in fact
75% of the MSM is heavily skewed to right-wing talking points that are
not journalism per se, but instead are push-marketing instruments
intended to advance corporate interests.
'Catapulting The Propaganda' is EXACTLY what's going on, and has been,
for decades.
John Mitchell (remember him?) said during the Watergate hearings that
"This country will swing so far to the right in the next 20 years you
won't even recognize it".
He was correct.
Please refer to this helpful diagram:
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/tr/2003/tr030726.gif
.-=d00b
.
John Galt
> On Dec 4, 10:50 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Doobie Keebler wrote:
>>>
>>> . . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
>>> unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
>>> others who are intrinsically weak as individuals. Such decisions would
>>> be a proper object of state interference or would soon so become."
>>> http://tinyurl.com/american-capitalism.
>> I disagree with your interpretation of Galbraith. You seem to assume
>> that the public has no mouthpiece other than a left-biased website.
>
> IMHO, MMfA as indy media, not 'lefty' media.
>
> In that sense they are utterly opposite of the corporate media.
>
> That doesn't make them 'lefty.'
>
> I agree with the notion that the main stream media is, on the whole,
> far more conservative than liberal.
> http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
After outlets such as the ombudsman for the Times, Post, and MSNBC pubic
ally admitting their bias in the election cycle? Please.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/
>
> You and I may disagree about that, which would explain why I see MMfA
> as a lonely voice in a wilderness dominated by paid corporate hacks
> all touting the same talking points, while you dismiss them as left
> wing kooks.
>
> IMO, Media Matters for America is a sorely needed example of
> 'countervailing power.'
>
>
>> The existence of labor unions,
> I guess you missed the public lynching of the UAW in the 'liberal' MSM
> this past news cycle, John?
Besides the point. Labor remains a channel for people to express
themselves. The treatment of it in a given situation is not relevant to
its existence.
>
>> national chambers of commerce,
> Are you joking?
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a powerful BUSINESS lobbying group.
People work for businesses.
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce
> They exist to serve corporate (not consumer) interests.
People work for businesses. If you destroy businesses, you destroy jobs.
Obviously.
>
>> and multiple media outlets which attempt some level of objectivity
> In the ongoing debate about whethjer the USA is a 'center-left' or
> 'center-right' nation. . .
> http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/30/waldmaned.html
There's no debate. All you have to do is look at a data-driven site such
as Political Compass. The policy positions of ALL the US Senators and
ALL the major POTUS candidates (not Nader or Kucinich) call into the
"Authoritarian Right" zone. Only in America is Obama a "liberal". Put
him in Europe, and he's be the leader of the Conservative party. Compare
Obama to McCain, and he's simply LESS authoritarian and LESS leftist,
but he has more in common with McCain than with a guy like Nader.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Even Bob Barr and Ron Paul tucked into the Authoritarian Right -- they
were just closer to the line past which they would be classed as real
"libertarians."
>
> . . . you and I may disagree over just where the 'center' is.
> Viewing the spectrum of US media thru NewsPrism:
> http://www.newsprism.com/
> . . . I say the 'center' is typified by Time and Newsweek, not The
> Politico.
Uh, now you're quoting a site that ADMITS MSM bias to the left? The
right is all Fox, financial rags, and admittted right/leaning material.
The MSM is all on the left.
Good site, seems accurate. Time and Newsweek just drip with liberal bias.
> That is to say, the so-called 'liberal' media is a myth, and in fact
> 75% of the MSM is heavily skewed to right-wing talking points that are
> not journalism per se, but instead are push-marketing instruments
> intended to advance corporate interests.
The liberal media bias is documented.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
>
> 'Catapulting The Propaganda' is EXACTLY what's going on, and has been,
> for decades.
>
> John Mitchell (remember him?) said during the Watergate hearings that
> "This country will swing so far to the right in the next 20 years you
> won't even recognize it".
>
> He was correct.
It didn't. It got back to neutral, then stalled.
JG
Doobie Keebler
> > I guess you missed the public lynching of the UAW in the 'liberal' MSM
> > this past news cycle, John?
>
> Besides the point. Labor remains a channel for people to express
> themselves. The treatment of it in a given situation is not relevant to
> its existence.
The demonization of unions by corporate MSM most certainly IS relevant
to it's existence.
The people have been fed so much anti-union propaganda that they now
vote against their own self-interest.
I work in an office where $20/hr customer service personnel openly
gossip about the Auto Bailout, and the bashing of "those $70 dollar-
per-hour union workers and thier gold-plated health plans" gets kicked
around much more so than the million-dollar executives and their
private jets.
I mentioned that, "no, actually, the average UAW worker makes more
like $25/hr, around $60k per year gross." . . . and was ignored.
After all, they had the facts from Fox/Drudge/MSNBC/Rush . . .
therefore any dissenting information must be wrong, eh?
Across the dial and across the net, "$70 per hour workers ruined
Detroit!" is the meme.
It's dishonest, it's untrue, but it serves corporate interests by
fueling class warfare and distracting from corporate malfeasance.
I call bullshit on your "the treatment of it in a given situation is
not relevant to its existence."
The treatment the UAW receives in the press IS VERY relevant to it's
existence.
Corporations have been trying to kill unions for decades, so this is
nothing new. That you would dismiss it out of hand as 'not relevant'
is beyond the pale, John.
> > The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a powerful BUSINESS lobbying group.
>
> People work for businesses.
Without Galbraith's "countervailing power" people are exploited by
business,
. . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
others who are intrinsically weak as individuals."
The UAW is a countervailing power, and look at how it was lynched in
the so-called 'liberal' MSM this week !
> People work for businesses. If you destroy businesses, you destroy jobs.
> Obviously.
Holding greedy and corrupt executives accountable is NOT 'destroying'
business.
Thirty years ago, chief executives averaged only 30 to 40 times the
average American worker paycheck.” In 2007, top executives faced
almost “no institutional challenge from their workers,” and earned
“344 times the salary of the average American worker.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/25/ceo-compensation/
> Time and Newsweek just drip with liberal bias.
Compared to the supposedly 'centrist' Politico leading with this
story:
"Obama like Nixon"
http://www.politico.com/politico44/
I think you need to recalibrate.
Time and Newsweek are mainstream, middle-of-the-road, centrist,
Dentist office fare.
> > That is to say, the so-called 'liberal' media is a myth, and in fact
> > 75% of the MSM is heavily skewed to right-wing talking points that are
> > not journalism per se, but instead are push-marketing instruments
> > intended to advance corporate interests.
>
> The liberal media bias is documented.
> http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-66...
Documented?
The UCLA study authors (Groseclose and Milyo) are both former fellows
at conservative think tanks.
The study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its
findings are next to useless:
. . ."To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet
cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this
with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in
their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the
citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.
"
For instance, according to their data, the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the third most-quoted
group on the list. But stories about race relations that include a
quote from an NAACP representative are unlikely to be "balanced" with
quotes from another group on their list.
From the quality of this work, one might expect Groseclose and Milyo
to next try their hands at proving Intelligent Design, or Flat Earth
Theory.
Their UCLA study suggests to me that they'd be able to design a
statistical model to prove just about anything.
> > "This country will swing so far to the right in the next 20 years you
> > won't even recognize it".
>
> > He was correct.
>
> It didn't. It got back to neutral, then stalled.
If Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 qualify as 'stalled' and 'neutral'
movements towards the Right, I have to wonder what your benchmark is?
Goldwater or McCarthy?
http://tinyurl.com/GOP-genetics
.-=d00b
.
John Galt
> On Dec 4, 5:46 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I guess you missed the public lynching of the UAW in the 'liberal' MSM
>>> this past news cycle, John?
>> Besides the point. Labor remains a channel for people to express
>> themselves. The treatment of it in a given situation is not relevant to
>> its existence.
>
>
> The demonization of unions by corporate MSM most certainly IS relevant
> to it's existence.
>
> The people have been fed so much anti-union propaganda that they now
> vote against their own self-interest.
There are multiple assumptions in that single sentence that are
challengable.
First is the implication that unions always operate in the best
interests of the worker. Cases exist where unions have existed to enrich
union bosses. Also, after a union has gained a certain level of work
rules and wage, further improvements in rules and wage begin to weaken
the company and their ability to fulfill those agreements.
I believe that unions, **acting rationally**, can definitely deliver
benefits to both worker and business. However, when unions act
irrationally, they can put worker's jobs at risk and weaken the
competitiveness of the business.
The second assumption is that there is some sort of goodness in people
voting their own best interests. I realize that this is a leftist
talking point, but I highly doubt you'd like living in a country where
people only voted selfishly, without regard to long-term sustainability,
patriotism, the good of the entire nation, etc. Simply put, the joint
wouldn't last long,
>
> I work in an office where $20/hr customer service personnel openly
> gossip about the Auto Bailout, and the bashing of "those $70 dollar-
> per-hour union workers and thier gold-plated health plans" gets kicked
> around much more so than the million-dollar executives and their
> private jets.
>
> I mentioned that, "no, actually, the average UAW worker makes more
> like $25/hr, around $60k per year gross." . . . and was ignored.
> After all, they had the facts from Fox/Drudge/MSNBC/Rush . . .
> therefore any dissenting information must be wrong, eh?
I find it interesting that both the right and left outlets picked up
this number without analysis. Kind of illustrates the sloppy condition
of what's called journalism today,
>
> Across the dial and across the net, "$70 per hour workers ruined
> Detroit!" is the meme.
>
> It's dishonest, it's untrue, but it serves corporate interests by
> fueling class warfare and distracting from corporate malfeasance.
>
> I call bullshit on your "the treatment of it in a given situation is
> not relevant to its existence."
>
> The treatment the UAW receives in the press IS VERY relevant to it's
> existence.
>
> Corporations have been trying to kill unions for decades, so this is
> nothing new. That you would dismiss it out of hand as 'not relevant'
> is beyond the pale, John.
My point was that unions provide a platform for people to be heard.
Perhaps you believe that the media trumps that, and in this singular and
unique case where a bailout is being considered, perhaps it does.
However, if this was just a negotiation without taxpayer money at stake,
the media would be uninterested in the details, preferring to
commiserate about the latest kidnapping or double murder or whatever
sensationalistic load of crap Nancy Grace or Greta Van S is interested
in on a given day.
>
>
>
>>> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a powerful BUSINESS lobbying group.
>> People work for businesses.
>
> Without Galbraith's "countervailing power" people are exploited by
> business,
Define "exploited." I suspect your definition is different than mine.
>
> . . . "private decisions could and presumably would lead to the
> unhampered exploitation of the public, or of workers, farmers and
> others who are intrinsically weak as individuals."
>
> The UAW is a countervailing power, and look at how it was lynched in
> the so-called 'liberal' MSM this week !
>
>
>> People work for businesses. If you destroy businesses, you destroy jobs.
>> Obviously.
> Holding greedy and corrupt executives accountable is NOT 'destroying'
> business.
I would never argue that it was. However, the national C of C also
fights back against ill advised regulations which may benefit some worm
in a wetland but cost thousands their jobs by increasing the cost of
doing business.
>
> Thirty years ago, chief executives averaged only 30 to 40 times the
> average American worker paycheck.” In 2007, top executives faced
> almost “no institutional challenge from their workers,” and earned
> “344 times the salary of the average American worker.”
> http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/25/ceo-compensation/
>
>> Time and Newsweek just drip with liberal bias.
> Compared to the supposedly 'centrist' Politico leading with this
> story:
> "Obama like Nixon"
> http://www.politico.com/politico44/
The article seems factual. Certainly Obama did, in fact, break a
campaign promise to take public funds and did, in fact, outspend McCain
rather significantly as a result, and certainly agree that had the
situations been reversed, the GOP candidate would have gotten the shit
kicked out of him by the MSM.
>
> I think you need to recalibrate.
>
> Time and Newsweek are mainstream, middle-of-the-road, centrist,
> Dentist office fare.
In your opinion, of course.
The methodology is reasonable, which is why the leftist MediaMatters
took the time to hammer it.
Get a grip, bubba. If you want to poison the well, you can't use water
from a well that's already poisioned.
>
>>> "This country will swing so far to the right in the next 20 years you
>>> won't even recognize it".
>>> He was correct.
>> It didn't. It got back to neutral, then stalled.
>
> If Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 qualify as 'stalled' and 'neutral'
> movements towards the Right, I have to wonder what your benchmark is?
Off the top of my head: A functional conservative government starting in
1980 would have balanced the budget by 1988 and kept it there, avoided
entanglements in Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, avoided entanglements in
Iraq, Somalia, and Serbia, cut spending rather than raised taxes, left
education to the states, done away with agricultural subsidies to
millionaire nonresident farmers, avoided the expansion of Medicare,
avoided a second entanglement in Iraq, vetoed the hell out of any bill
with an earmark until Congress got the message, gotten rid of most of
the 30's era regulations on financials, BUT AT THE SAME TIME made sure
that there was a prudent reserve requirement tied to any and all
financial instrument, and codified generally accepted principles of banking.
Our government has grown enormously in the last 8 years. That datapoint
enough should tell you that the guy in charge walked like a duck and
talked like a duck, but he wasn't a duck. Same old
Nixonian/Rockefellerian corporatist/statist/left of center Republican.
It's high time we all remembered that the terms "conservative" and
"liberal" have real meanings, and that they are not synonymous with
"Republican" and "Democrat", respectively.
JG
>
> Goldwater or McCarthy?
> http://tinyurl.com/GOP-genetics
It's not an either/or -- that's a false dichotomy -- and don't tell me
for a minute that both parties don't have the "McCarthy gene". Check out
who is Obama's Chief of Staff.
JG
>
>
> .-=d00b
> .
Doobie Keebler
> > The people have been fed so much anti-union propaganda that they now
> > vote against their own self-interest.
>
> There are multiple assumptions in that single sentence that are
> challengable.
>
> First is the implication that unions always operate in the best
> interests of the worker. Cases exist where unions have existed to enrich
> union bosses.
Do you mean, like for instance, Klaus Volkert?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3419050.ece
VW bribed him to serve there corporate interests, rather than the
interest of the rank-and-file VW workers.
He's serving two years in a German prison for that.
Oddly, no VW executives have been similarly punished.
> I believe that unions, **acting rationally**, can definitely deliver
> benefits to both worker and business. However, when unions act
> irrationally, they can put worker's jobs at risk and weaken the
> competitiveness of the business.
The cure for that is open-book management and transparency in
negotiation.
> The second assumption is that there is some sort of goodness in people
> voting their own best interests. I realize that this is a leftist
> talking point, but I highly doubt you'd like living in a country where
> people only voted selfishly, without regard to long-term sustainability,
> patriotism, the good of the entire nation, etc. Simply put, the joint
> wouldn't last long,
The tyranny of the majority is a non-trivial issue, Prop 8 being a
case in point.
That is one reason we have courts, and the Federal Arbitration Act.
> I find it interesting that both the right and left outlets picked up
> this number without analysis. Kind of illustrates the sloppy condition
> of what's called journalism today,
The 'left' outlets DID pick it up!
Again, you need to re-calibrate your 'center' benchmark.
> My point was that unions provide a platform for people to be heard.
> Perhaps you believe that the media trumps that, and in this singular and
> unique case where a bailout is being considered, perhaps it does.
OK.
> However, if this was just a negotiation without taxpayer money at stake,
> the media would be uninterested in the details, preferring to
> commiserate about the latest kidnapping or double murder or whatever
> sensationalistic load of crap Nancy Grace or Greta Van S is interested
> in on a given day.
True Dat!
Really, we're not talking about genuine journalism, are we?
It's a cable TV version of the tabloids masquerading as 'news.'
Infotainment, Irritainment, it's all the same crap.
> > Without Galbraith's "countervailing power" people are exploited by
> > business,
>
> Define "exploited." I suspect your definition is different than mine.
Try this for starters:
" . . .top executives faced almost “no institutional challenge from
their workers,” and earned “344 times the salary of the average
American worker.”
What is the Value Added Activity that justifies this degree of income
disparity?
I work with clowns like these, and many aren't worth the paper their
MBAs are printed on.
Try Wal Mart workers forced to use Badger Care or ER because they have
no health plan.
(you and I pick up that burden via cost-shifting, by the way.)
Try Hormel meat packers forced to piss themselves on the line because
if they go to the bathroom they'll be fired.
Try home health care and hospice nurses reimbursed at a portion of the
IRS mileage reimbursement rate while the for-profit agency claims the
full tax deduction.
Or, try my all-time favorite, The Radium Girls:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=660
> I would never argue that it was. However, the national C of C also
> fights back against ill advised regulations which may benefit some worm
> in a wetland but cost thousands their jobs by increasing the cost of
> doing business.
How is the redifining of 'navigable waterway' in the public interest?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/12/04/new-epa-rules-do-little-to-protect-water-quality-despite-bush-administration-claims.html
or http://tinyurl.com/coal-dump
Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, who chairs the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, went a step further. "The new
guidelines substantially limit the number of waters which will be
protected by the Clean Water Act," he said in a statement. "Contrary
to the views of the administration, tying clean water protections to
commercial navigation has no basis in statute or case law."
This makes the consequences of Rapanos v. United States substantially
worse, not better.
In their Amicus brief filed 8/7/07, NCLC arguied that the Supreme
Court's holding in Rapanos v. United States did not allow for federal
regulation of wetlands which had a "speculative or insubstantial"
connection with traditional navigable waters.
http://www.uschamber.com/nclc/caselist/issues/environment.htm
There's your Chamber of Commerce, John,.
skipped the rest, I gotta get to work . .
.-=d00b
John Galt
> On Dec 4, 10:24 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The people have been fed so much anti-union propaganda that they now
>>> vote against their own self-interest.
>> There are multiple assumptions in that single sentence that are
>> challengable.
>>
>> First is the implication that unions always operate in the best
>> interests of the worker. Cases exist where unions have existed to enrich
>> union bosses.
>
> Do you mean, like for instance, Klaus Volkert?
No. I mean like Hoffa and Fitzimmons.
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3419050.ece
>
> VW bribed him to serve there corporate interests, rather than the
> interest of the rank-and-file VW workers.
>
> He's serving two years in a German prison for that.
>
> Oddly, no VW executives have been similarly punished.
>
>> I believe that unions, **acting rationally**, can definitely deliver
>> benefits to both worker and business. However, when unions act
>> irrationally, they can put worker's jobs at risk and weaken the
>> competitiveness of the business.
> The cure for that is open-book management and transparency in
> negotiation.
I wouldn't call that a cure, but it certainly would solve most of the
problems.
>
>
>> The second assumption is that there is some sort of goodness in people
>> voting their own best interests. I realize that this is a leftist
>> talking point, but I highly doubt you'd like living in a country where
>> people only voted selfishly, without regard to long-term sustainability,
>> patriotism, the good of the entire nation, etc. Simply put, the joint
>> wouldn't last long,
>
> The tyranny of the majority is a non-trivial issue, Prop 8 being a
> case in point.
> That is one reason we have courts, and the Federal Arbitration Act.
Tyranny of the majority is a different topic. The point is that citizens
are often called to act against their own best interests for the sake of
civil society and patriotism. We all make those choices (me or thee) and
voting is no different.
>
>
>> I find it interesting that both the right and left outlets picked up
>> this number without analysis. Kind of illustrates the sloppy condition
>> of what's called journalism today,
>
> The 'left' outlets DID pick it up!
That's what I said.
>
> Again, you need to re-calibrate your 'center' benchmark.
I disagree.
>
>> My point was that unions provide a platform for people to be heard.
>> Perhaps you believe that the media trumps that, and in this singular and
>> unique case where a bailout is being considered, perhaps it does.
> OK.
>
>> However, if this was just a negotiation without taxpayer money at stake,
>> the media would be uninterested in the details, preferring to
>> commiserate about the latest kidnapping or double murder or whatever
>> sensationalistic load of crap Nancy Grace or Greta Van S is interested
>> in on a given day.
> True Dat!
>
> Really, we're not talking about genuine journalism, are we?
> It's a cable TV version of the tabloids masquerading as 'news.'
>
> Infotainment, Irritainment, it's all the same crap.
Yes, AND it contributes to the dissolution of an honest medium. IMO,
Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are honest, credible, albeit right of
center, journalists. HOWEVER, their credibility is undermined NOT for
anything they do or don't do, but because the network is defined by
O'Reilly, Hannity, and Greta VS. Perhaps the same situation exists on
the other side of the scale at MSNBC because of the shenanigans of
Matthews and Olbermann.
>
>
>>> Without Galbraith's "countervailing power" people are exploited by
>>> business,
>> Define "exploited." I suspect your definition is different than mine.
>
> Try this for starters:
> " . . .top executives faced almost “no institutional challenge from
> their workers,” and earned “344 times the salary of the average
> American worker.”
I don't relate that to exploitation, but irrational business practices.
Take those guys compensation down to 20X and spread the money around,
and the rest of the workers get a raise of, on average, a cent or two an
hour.
>
> What is the Value Added Activity that justifies this degree of income
> disparity?
None.
>
> I work with clowns like these, and many aren't worth the paper their
> MBAs are printed on.
Many are. Are you reading Carl Ichan's blog? He agrees with you completely.
>
> Try Wal Mart workers forced to use Badger Care or ER because they have
> no health plan.
> (you and I pick up that burden via cost-shifting, by the way.)
>
> Try Hormel meat packers forced to piss themselves on the line because
> if they go to the bathroom they'll be fired.
>
> Try home health care and hospice nurses reimbursed at a portion of the
> IRS mileage reimbursement rate while the for-profit agency claims the
> full tax deduction.
>
> Or, try my all-time favorite, The Radium Girls:
> http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=660
>
>> I would never argue that it was. However, the national C of C also
>> fights back against ill advised regulations which may benefit some worm
>> in a wetland but cost thousands their jobs by increasing the cost of
>> doing business.
>
> How is the redifining of 'navigable waterway' in the public interest?
> http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/12/04/new-epa-rules-do-little-to-protect-water-quality-despite-bush-administration-claims.html
> or http://tinyurl.com/coal-dump
You can prove anything by isolated instance. If you're going to attempt
to argue that there has never been a stupid regulation that hurt
business far more than any benefit received, we'll have to part company.
Enviro lobbies and business lobbies are just two sides of the same coin,
and when one gets control over the other, you have a mess.
JG