Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Aug 16, 2009
- 19,744
- 2,473
That's correct.
The "income" tax, the Federal Reserve Act and Social Security Act were adopted with Repblican support.
.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
8Hr workday? Weekends? Thank Henry Ford and Capitalism!
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
That's correct.
The "income" tax, the Federal Reserve Act and Social Security Act were adopted with Repblican support.
.
Flash
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 71,172
- 62,058
[Q
That's correct.
The "income" tax, the Federal Reserve Act and Social Security Act were adopted with Repblican support.
.
Not all Republicans are conservatives. In fact most Republicans aren't. They support big government the same as the stupid Democrats. Bush was a great example.
Democrats promise bad big government and deliver bad big government.
Republicans promise good conservative government but usually deliver the same bad big government as the Democrats.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2008
- 55,567
- 14,699
Henry Ford didn't bring about the 8 hour work week. It was started long before him.
United States
In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized the first general strike in North America, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals.[9] Labour movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.
In 1864, the eight-hour day quickly became a central demand of the Chicago labour movement. The Illinois legislature passed a law in early 1867 granting an eight-hour day but had so many loopholes that it was largely ineffective. A city-wide strike that began on May 1, 1867 shut down the city's economy for a week before collapsing.
On June 25, 1868, Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees[10][11] which was also of limited effectiveness. It established an eight-hour workday for labourers and mechanics employed by the Federal Government. President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the act but it was passed over his veto. Johnson told a Workingmen's party delegation that he couldn't directly commit himself to an eight-hour day, he nevertheless told the same delegation that he greatly favoured the "shortest number of hours consistent with the interests of all." According to Richard F. Selcer, however, the intentions behind the law were "immediately frustrated" as wages were cut by 20%.[12]
On May 19, 1869, President Ulysses Grant issued a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation.[13]
In August 1866, the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."
During the 1870s, eight hours became a central demand, especially among labour organizers, with a network of Eight-Hour Leagues which held rallies and parades. A hundred thousand workers in New York City struck and won the eight-hour day in 1872, mostly for building trades workers. In Chicago, Albert Parsons became recording secretary of the Chicago Eight-Hour League in 1878, and was appointed a member of a national eight-hour committee in 1880.
At its convention in Chicago in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labour from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labour organizations throughout this jurisdiction that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution by the time named."
The leadership of the Knights of Labor, under Terence V. Powderly, rejected appeals to join the movement as a whole, but many local Knights assemblies joined the strike call including Chicago, Cincinnati and Milwaukee. On May 1, 1886, Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue, Chicago, in what is regarded as the first modern May Day Parade, in support of the eight-hour day. In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers who went on strike at 1,200 factories, including 70,000 in Chicago, 45,000 in New York, 32,000 in Cincinnati, and additional thousands in other cities. Some workers gained shorter hours (eight or nine) with no reduction in pay; others accepted pay cuts with the reduction in hours.
Artist impression of the bomb explosion in Haymarket Square
On May 3, 1886, August Spies, editor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers Newspaper), spoke at a meeting of 6,000 workers, and afterwards many of them moved down the street to harass strikebreakers at the McCormick plant in Chicago. The police arrived, opened fire, and killed four people, wounding many more. At a subsequent rally on May 4 to protest this violence, a bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square. Hundreds of labour activists were rounded up and the prominent labour leaders arrested, tried, convicted, and executed giving the movement its first martyrs. On June 26, 1893 Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld set the remaining leader free, and granted full pardons to all those tried claiming they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried and the hanged men had been the victims of "hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge".
The American Federation of Labor, meeting in St Louis in December 1888, set May 1, 1890 as the day that American workers should work no more than eight hours. The International Workingmen's Association (Second International), meeting in Paris in 1889, endorsed the date for international demonstrations, thus starting the international tradition of May Day.
The United Mine Workers won an eight-hour day in 1898.
The Building Trades Council (BTC) of San Francisco, under the leadership of P. H. McCarthy, won the eight-hour day in 1900 when the BTC unilaterally declared that its members would work only eight hours a day for $3 a day. When the mill resisted, the BTC began organizing mill workers; the employers responded by locking out 8,000 employees throughout the Bay Area. The BTC, in return, established a union planing mill from which construction employers could obtain supplies — or face boycotts and sympathy strikes if they did not. The mill owners went to arbitration, where the union won the eight-hour day, a closed shop for all skilled workers, and an arbitration panel to resolve future disputes. In return, the union agreed to refuse to work with material produced by non-union planing mills or those that paid less than the Bay Area employers.
By 1905, the eight-hour day was widely installed in the printing trades – see International Typographical Union (section) – but the vast majority of Americans worked 12- to 14-hour days.
In the 1912 Presidential Election Teddy Roosevelts Progressive Party campaign platform included the eight hour work day.
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.[14][15][16][17]
In the summer of 1915, amid increased labour demand for World War I, a series of strikes demanding the eight-hour day began in Bridgeport, Connecticut. They were so successful that they spread throughout the Northeast.[18]
The United States Adamson Act in 1916 established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the U.S. in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal. As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the U.S. labour force. In those industries, it set the maximum workweek at 40 hours,[19] but provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.[20]
Eight-hour day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It wasn't Ford that brought about the 8 hour work week, it was the unions that did it, after getting the idea from Britain.
United States
In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized the first general strike in North America, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals.[9] Labour movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.
In 1864, the eight-hour day quickly became a central demand of the Chicago labour movement. The Illinois legislature passed a law in early 1867 granting an eight-hour day but had so many loopholes that it was largely ineffective. A city-wide strike that began on May 1, 1867 shut down the city's economy for a week before collapsing.
On June 25, 1868, Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees[10][11] which was also of limited effectiveness. It established an eight-hour workday for labourers and mechanics employed by the Federal Government. President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the act but it was passed over his veto. Johnson told a Workingmen's party delegation that he couldn't directly commit himself to an eight-hour day, he nevertheless told the same delegation that he greatly favoured the "shortest number of hours consistent with the interests of all." According to Richard F. Selcer, however, the intentions behind the law were "immediately frustrated" as wages were cut by 20%.[12]
On May 19, 1869, President Ulysses Grant issued a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation.[13]
In August 1866, the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."
During the 1870s, eight hours became a central demand, especially among labour organizers, with a network of Eight-Hour Leagues which held rallies and parades. A hundred thousand workers in New York City struck and won the eight-hour day in 1872, mostly for building trades workers. In Chicago, Albert Parsons became recording secretary of the Chicago Eight-Hour League in 1878, and was appointed a member of a national eight-hour committee in 1880.
At its convention in Chicago in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labour from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labour organizations throughout this jurisdiction that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution by the time named."
The leadership of the Knights of Labor, under Terence V. Powderly, rejected appeals to join the movement as a whole, but many local Knights assemblies joined the strike call including Chicago, Cincinnati and Milwaukee. On May 1, 1886, Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue, Chicago, in what is regarded as the first modern May Day Parade, in support of the eight-hour day. In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers who went on strike at 1,200 factories, including 70,000 in Chicago, 45,000 in New York, 32,000 in Cincinnati, and additional thousands in other cities. Some workers gained shorter hours (eight or nine) with no reduction in pay; others accepted pay cuts with the reduction in hours.
Artist impression of the bomb explosion in Haymarket Square
On May 3, 1886, August Spies, editor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers Newspaper), spoke at a meeting of 6,000 workers, and afterwards many of them moved down the street to harass strikebreakers at the McCormick plant in Chicago. The police arrived, opened fire, and killed four people, wounding many more. At a subsequent rally on May 4 to protest this violence, a bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square. Hundreds of labour activists were rounded up and the prominent labour leaders arrested, tried, convicted, and executed giving the movement its first martyrs. On June 26, 1893 Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld set the remaining leader free, and granted full pardons to all those tried claiming they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried and the hanged men had been the victims of "hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge".
The American Federation of Labor, meeting in St Louis in December 1888, set May 1, 1890 as the day that American workers should work no more than eight hours. The International Workingmen's Association (Second International), meeting in Paris in 1889, endorsed the date for international demonstrations, thus starting the international tradition of May Day.
The United Mine Workers won an eight-hour day in 1898.
The Building Trades Council (BTC) of San Francisco, under the leadership of P. H. McCarthy, won the eight-hour day in 1900 when the BTC unilaterally declared that its members would work only eight hours a day for $3 a day. When the mill resisted, the BTC began organizing mill workers; the employers responded by locking out 8,000 employees throughout the Bay Area. The BTC, in return, established a union planing mill from which construction employers could obtain supplies — or face boycotts and sympathy strikes if they did not. The mill owners went to arbitration, where the union won the eight-hour day, a closed shop for all skilled workers, and an arbitration panel to resolve future disputes. In return, the union agreed to refuse to work with material produced by non-union planing mills or those that paid less than the Bay Area employers.
By 1905, the eight-hour day was widely installed in the printing trades – see International Typographical Union (section) – but the vast majority of Americans worked 12- to 14-hour days.
In the 1912 Presidential Election Teddy Roosevelts Progressive Party campaign platform included the eight hour work day.
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.[14][15][16][17]
In the summer of 1915, amid increased labour demand for World War I, a series of strikes demanding the eight-hour day began in Bridgeport, Connecticut. They were so successful that they spread throughout the Northeast.[18]
The United States Adamson Act in 1916 established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the U.S. in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal. As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the U.S. labour force. In those industries, it set the maximum workweek at 40 hours,[19] but provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.[20]
Eight-hour day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It wasn't Ford that brought about the 8 hour work week, it was the unions that did it, after getting the idea from Britain.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Aug 16, 2009
- 19,744
- 2,473
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
I do not object to workers and/or their representatives take steps to improve their wages and benefits.
My objection is to corrupt politicians interceding on behalf of either the employers or employees behalf.
.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,182
This thread started talking about Henry Ford. Henry Ford knew that you had to pay Americans a good wage so they can buy American products. The whole Walmart way of thinking has ruined our middle class.
This is a complete lie. First of all, if you pay your workers a dollar more, the most you are going to make is LESS than a dollar more, even in the magical event that the employee buys only your products. Can libbys do extremely simple math?
Ford paid wages, not for such idiotic reason, but to reduce turnover... And next you have regressive democrats coming in and saying everybody should be forced to do this, since it worked for this one business... but guess what, businesses are already choosing the best policies for them, and if everyone did it the competitive advantage would be zero anyway.
You can confidently rely on the economic understanding of a regressive liberal to be the reverse of reality.
Last edited:
sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,821
- 22,179
China's better than us? Maybe that's why you don't have a candidate running this year? Go suck a kasich and shove it up your cruzBecause we shouldn't be buying tv's made in china stupid. They don't buy tv's made here so why do we buy tv's that are made there? I understand why you do. Because you are a cheap ass who wants a cheap tv more than you do a booming economy.Why would anyone pay 5 times as much for a TV made here than the one they can already buy that was made in China?[Q
They are making less. Seems as though those unions are great for wages.
Then how come some many companies go bankrupt having to pay extorted union wages?
How come so many American companies are forced to go elsewhere to get their labor?
Some of them even have to get bailed out by the fucking government.
Greed always works out to be a bad thing and just remember Moon Bat, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
Bloated union wages, higher than the free labor market wages, creates a false unsustainable economy that is always destined for failure. If you don't believe me ask General Motors.
How many big Democrat controlled cities in non right to work states are in serious trouble because of bloated union wages?
Despicable unions create an artificial bloated labor rate, especially when they are protected by a corrupt government whose leaders are in the back pocket of the filthy unions. You know like Obama.
Only an asshole would join an union. Are you an asshole?
Ok, start a non-union business and bring back electronic manufacturing to the US. Build some American made televisions, for instance.
I want the best quality for the best price and that ain't a TV that is built here,
I would rather pay less and save more money for my retirement than pay 5 times as much for something that isn't as good just because it says made in the USA
sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,821
- 22,179
Bingo! Then they'll say they are also for higher wages.Because we shouldn't be buying tv's made in china stupid. They don't buy tv's made here so why do we buy tv's that are made there? I understand why you do. Because you are a cheap ass who wants a cheap tv more than you do a booming economy.Why would anyone pay 5 times as much for a TV made here than the one they can already buy that was made in China?Then how come some many companies go bankrupt having to pay extorted union wages?
How come so many American companies are forced to go elsewhere to get their labor?
Some of them even have to get bailed out by the fucking government.
Greed always works out to be a bad thing and just remember Moon Bat, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
Bloated union wages, higher than the free labor market wages, creates a false unsustainable economy that is always destined for failure. If you don't believe me ask General Motors.
How many big Democrat controlled cities in non right to work states are in serious trouble because of bloated union wages?
Despicable unions create an artificial bloated labor rate, especially when they are protected by a corrupt government whose leaders are in the back pocket of the filthy unions. You know like Obama.
Only an asshole would join an union. Are you an asshole?
Ok, start a non-union business and bring back electronic manufacturing to the US. Build some American made televisions, for instance.
I want the best quality for the best price and that ain't a TV that is built here,
I would rather pay less and save more money for my retirement than pay 5 times as much for something that isn't as good just because it says made in the USA
So you admit that American workers would have to work at China wages to ever get that sort of manufacturing domestic again.
Republicans are for whatever sounds good. Such bushitters
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,182
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,821
- 22,179
Fucking right wing moron who doesn't have a clue how important manufacturing is.And yet I'll bet you're the first asshole who picks up the cheapest crap he can while complaining about price.Because we shouldn't be buying tv's made in china stupid. They don't buy tv's made here so why do we buy tv's that are made there? I understand why you do. Because you are a cheap ass who wants a cheap tv more than you do a booming economy.Why would anyone pay 5 times as much for a TV made here than the one they can already buy that was made in China?Ok, start a non-union business and bring back electronic manufacturing to the US. Build some American made televisions, for instance.
IN any case the market has spoken. And Americans wont spend 5 times the amount on American made. Nor should they.
Shouldn't we just manufacturers here pay 3rd world wages and be done with it?
We don't need manufacturing jobs what don't you understand about that?
But hey if you want them so badly why don't you open up a manufacturing plant and show us all how it's done
I can't even take you seriously. What side of your mouth will you talk out of next?
sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,821
- 22,179
If you give 1 guy a million he will save it. Give 1 million people $1 they will spend that million[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,182
If you give 1 guy a million he will save it. Give 1 million people $1 they will spend that million[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
How the hell did you jump to that? His argument is that because one portion is the largest stimulating that portion will result in the largest stimulus. That is a class retard grade argument. And he even put "obviously" in front of it. Classic regressive arrogance.
But by all means, try disproving that equation. I am betting you won't succeed, as you didn't in life.
sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,821
- 22,179
I don't even understand what you said other than I live on a lake and have two vacation properties up north one on lake Huron and 65 acres near lake Michigan and my homes paid off. 45 years old. You roll better than me?If you give 1 guy a million he will save it. Give 1 million people $1 they will spend that million[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
How the hell did you jump to that? His argument is that because one portion is the largest stimulating that portion will result in the largest stimulus. That is a class retard grade argument. And he even put "obviously" in front of it. Classic regressive arrogance.
But by all means, try disproving that equation. I am betting you won't succeed, as you didn't in life.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
I do not object to workers and/or their representatives take steps to improve their wages and benefits.
My objection is to corrupt politicians interceding on behalf of either the employers or employees behalf.
.
I agree completely. Unions have and do sometimes engage in counter productive cuntery. IMO they should only engage in reasonable bargaining with employers to find a happy medium that all parties benefit from. Perhaps more regulation to narrow the scope of unions is required but throwing them out or making it impossible for them to operate at all is dangerous to the working class and the economy.
Flash
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 71,172
- 62,058
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
It always amazes me how ignorant Libtards are when it comes to economics. It would be nice if you Moon Bats could take a course in economics one day instead of always spouting ignorant Left talking points.
The best way to stimulate the economy is get the government off the backs of the job producers.
High taxation and oppressive regulations are the major impediments to job creations.
The filthy ass government doesn't produce jackshit. It only takes money that has already been made and spends as directed by the politicians that were elected by special interest groups and that usually produces disastrous results like we saw with Obama's failed Stimulus package and his disastrous Obamacare.
Artificial wages like what is created when the filthy ass government dictates higher wages or protects bloated union wages does nothing to stimulate the economy because the consumer spending by the welfare queens and union pukes is taken from other sources that would have produced other jobs.
Conservatives argue that the way to create wealth is make the economic pie bigger by having less government interference and lower taxation.
Stupid uneducated Liberals thinks that somehow wealth is magically created by dividing up the pie in more equal pieces and that is bullshit. Always has been and always will be. In fact that mindset is the destroyer of economies. Just look at Greece and Venezuela as recent examples.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
So you continue to illustrate my point so effectively. Thank you. Timely examples are always welcome.
Like I said, no critical thinking ability.
Which is a better deal for growth?
5,000 people spending a million bucks.
Or ....
50, 75, or 100 million people spending 1,000 bucks.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
If you give 1 guy a million he will save it. Give 1 million people $1 they will spend that million[Q
That was supposed to say "many more" not 5 . How many companies have gone bankrupt because of unions ?
Numerous ones like the steel industry.
GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt if the filthy ass government hadn't given them $50 billion. That was because of the UAW. The same bunch of butt pirates that gave hundreds of millions to Obama in 2008.
Many companies didn't go bankrupt but moved their labor out of the US because of bloated union cost. Carrier is the latest example.
Unions, oppressive regulations and high taxation (all championed by stupid Liberals) have destroyed the American economy and that is why we have such dismal economic growth.
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
This post illustrates exactly the abject ignorance of the RW media driven narrative and their internet lackeys.
On the one hand they argue against any suggestion of taking any action on wage stagnation or inequity. They hate unions with a passion and wish to see them gone entirely. So what mechanism is left to put upward pressure on wages?
On the other hand they endlessly lament the slow recovery and anemic growth with full throated, red faced diatribes against Obama.
Herein lies the idiocy.
The largest component of the GDP, 70%, is consumer spending. The largest component of consumer spending is wages. Wages alone is 45% of GDP. Just for scope, 90% of consumers in America make less than 100K. So the largest group of Americans make up the largest share of GDP and their personal incomes are not keeping pace with the growth in other components of the GDP. Why are they surprised then that over all growth is only 3%? Obviously stimulating the largest portion of the GDP will yield the largest return. Yet they continue to defend business even though they are directly responsible for wages and corporate profits only account for 12.5% of GDP.
It's a stunning display of how easily their ignorance is used against them by the RW media who hammers these ridiculous ideas into their heads day after day. They have absolutely no critical thinking ability. Trump all the way!
View attachment 73626
"Obviously stimulating the largest portion will yield the largest sum".
A other regressive democrat that has failed his math test. If you simulate the large portion by one dollar, it's one dollar of stimulus. If you stimulate the small portion by one dollar, the economy still grows by one dollar (+hypothetical multiplier).
1=1, an equation too difficult for a regressive to comprehend.
How the hell did you jump to that? His argument is that because one portion is the largest stimulating that portion will result in the largest stimulus. That is a class retard grade argument. And he even put "obviously" in front of it. Classic regressive arrogance.
But by all means, try disproving that equation. I am betting you won't succeed, as you didn't in life.
Too funny.
Flash
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 71,172
- 62,058
[Q
I agree completely. Unions have and do sometimes engage in counter productive cuntery. IMO they should only engage in reasonable bargaining with employers to find a happy medium that all parties benefit from. Perhaps more regulation to narrow the scope of unions is required but throwing them out or making it impossible for them to operate at all is dangerous to the working class and the economy.
The problem I have with union is twofold.
First is that use political influence to gain them bloated concession that they could not have got in a reasonable negotiation with management. That is corruption and it is despicable and a great example of greed.
Second is that unions demand that union participation be mandatory and that is against the concept of freedom.
Third is that unions protect the lazy assholes that don't deserve a job because they have no responsibility. That is wrong on any level.
Some companies may chose to deal with collective barging and that is OK. However, it should never be forced by the government.
Unions represent the greed and selfishness of America, There is no reasonableness to it.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2009
- 117,063
- 13,888
I guess you don't know that American car manufacturers are opening factories in Mexico GM Ford and Chrysler for exampleReally?
And soon there will be even more "American" cars made in Mexico than in the US
Aren't they all moving to places in the South where they run non-union plants?
Are you saying even that can't keep the jobs here?
Do you think Mexican wages here in the US would keep the jobs here?
I really don't care.
We do not have to have a large manufacturing base anymore. We are and have been on the road to a service based economy for a long time nowServices, Not Manufacturing, Will Revive The U.S. Workforce
Thinking that we need to revive manufacturing is obsolete thinking
We don't have manufacturing because we let foreign manufacture at dirt cheap wages into this country with little or no penalty.
Good job losing this debate, loser.
You mean we can't compete unless the government raises the prices on foreign goods?
We can't compete against businesses playing by a different set of rules.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 119
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 925
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 295
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 45
- Views
- 221
- Replies
- 322
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8516
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-