Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent

[SniperFire]

"Too much" is when labor costs make the company uncompetitive. I dont care if union thugs are making $28/hr or 500/hr or whatever. If unit labor cost is above their competitors then it is too much.
You have cleared up that you are a moron of galactic proportions. Not that anyone had much doubt.

As I pointed out before, wages for working people have remained flat since 1980. The only thing that has gone up are CEO wages.

Wrong, as per usual. :

"The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class Since 1980" (10/25/2011) is a research paper by professor Bruce D. Meyer of the University of Chicago and The National Bureau of Economic Research and professor James X. Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame.

In it they report: "Our results show evidence of considerable improvement in material well-being for both the middle class and the poor over the past three decades. Median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009. In addition, the middle 20 percent of the income distribution experienced noticeable improvements in housing characteristics: living units became bigger and much more likely to have air conditioning and other features. The quality of the cars these families own also improved considerably. Similarly, we find strong evidence of improvement in the material well-being of poor families."

Poverty in America? - Walter E. Williams - Townhall Conservative Columnists

 

[The Rabbi]

It is typical of left wing deception to quote stats for household, whose numbers vary, rather than per capita. Similarly they confuse "rich" with high income.
Joe just got his ass handed to him in Toro's excellent post.

 

[Foxfyre]

[


I won't comment on the European woes with their healthcare systems further so as not to sidetrack the thread. If you are interested in the truth, however, you are as capable of looking that up as I am.

Yeh, I have looked it up. I've even been to some of those countries. What I don't do is listen to Insurance company propaganda of the parasites trying to convince you they are vital organs.

As for you resenting your employer getting rich off your labor, well that is pretty much the only reason he would hire you in the first place. He funds the infrastructure including the physical property, maintenance utilities, insurance, and taxes. He provides the raw materials, transportation costs, clerical support, marketing expense, and assumes all the risks of doing business--have you priced a business owner's policy recently? In addition he funds whatever bonding is necessary, E & O, and whatever licenses are required to do the business. On top of the wages you see in your paycheck, he is most likely paying additional for liability insurance to cover you, work comp, FICA, SUTA, FUTA, Medicare, and, if he makes a profit, state and federal taxes on top of that. If he goes bust, he could take a financial hit that would set him back decades. You lose a pay check or two or draw unemployment until you find another job. If he loses a contract he takes the loss. You get your paycheck anyway.

It's funny how some who assume none of the risks of doing business think they are entitled to as much as the ones who do.

If you don't like the system, however, then do what I've done for the last 25 years. I haven't drawn more than a half dozen paychecks in all that time because I worked strictly for commission except for the last 10 years in which I ran my own business. In both cases I provided my own transportation, paid most of my own expenses, and furnished almost all of the tools or other equipment I used in my work. And provided my own healthcare. When you work for yourself and/or for commission, if you don't work you don't get paid. But you can't be underpaid or overpaid.

Blah, blah, blah...

I'd make life a lot more miserable for the whining businessman.

I deal with small businesses all day, if you want to know why I have a real contempt for capitalism and the free market. Because I'm a buyer, they blow smoke up my ass all day, and frankly, I'm happy to put the screws to them.

Frankly, we worked a lot better when we were mostly unionized, things were strictly regulated, and we looked out for working people first. (THis would be the period after FDR and before Reagan). Unfortunately, the Democrats embraced the hippies, and got a lot of working folks to vote against their own interests by playing the God Bullshit.

Yeah, blah, blah, blah. You got that right. As long as people like you hold the mentality that you are deserving of somebody else's money just because you're you, then we will definitely stick it to the businessman, beat up on those who just want to work and don't belong to a union, and continue to drive good paying jobs out of the country. And we will continue to elect people like Barack Obama who don't have a clue what makes an economy run or what makes all the people prosperous.

Not only will we not know or care that the Titanic is sinking, but we are willing to back it up to hit the iceberg again.

(And I'm going to guess that I've been working for the other guy for a far sight longer than you have.)

 

[Toro]

It is typical of left wing deception to quote stats for household, whose numbers vary, rather than per capita. Similarly they confuse "rich" with high income.
Joe just got his ass handed to him in Toro's excellent post.

Thanks.

Here is what has happened to households.

Here's what has happened to the number of households in the US:

2000 105 million
1990 93 million
1980 81 million
1970 63 million
1960 53 million

So between 1960 and 2000, the number of households has doubled. What happened to population over that same period? Again from the Census:

2000 282 million
1990 250 million
1980 228 million
1970 205 million
1960 181 million

The average American household has gotten a lot smaller:

2000 2.7
1990 2.7
1980 2.8
1970 3.2
1960 3.4

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/04/families-and-pe.html

I don't know what it is for 2010, but you get the idea.

 

[Toro]

Here is some more. It also looks at households, so the per capita figures will skew upwards.

From 1996 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Too much" is when labor costs make the company uncompetitive. I dont care if union thugs are making $28/hr or 500/hr or whatever. If unit labor cost is above their competitors then it is too much.
You have cleared up that you are a moron of galactic proportions. Not that anyone had much doubt.

As I pointed out before, wages for working people have remained flat since 1980. The only thing that has gone up are CEO wages.

Wrong, as per usual. :

"The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class Since 1980" (10/25/2011) is a research paper by professor Bruce D. Meyer of the University of Chicago and The National Bureau of Economic Research and professor James X. Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame.

In it they report: "Our results show evidence of considerable improvement in material well-being for both the middle class and the poor over the past three decades. Median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009. In addition, the middle 20 percent of the income distribution experienced noticeable improvements in housing characteristics: living units became bigger and much more likely to have air conditioning and other features. The quality of the cars these families own also improved considerably. Similarly, we find strong evidence of improvement in the material well-being of poor families."

Poverty in America? - Walter E. Williams - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Sniper, that is not the answer to the question. Has increases in median income and consumption been offset by increased purchasing power. It hasn't, and you can't find it.

Try answering the question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is some more. It also looks at households, so the per capita figures will skew upwards.

From 1996 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Show us documented growth in purchasing power of incomes.

 

[rdean]

What is even more hilarious is how little in common the Republican leadership has with their base. It's why they squat all over their base, but they don't have to worry. Getting people who are barely making it and suffering to believe being fair is "class warfare" and having health care is a "bad thing" is what they do. Being 90% white unifies them.

 

[sealybobo]

Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent






yes the 1%

Michael J. Sullivan, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Salary: $1,043,023

Robert A. Scardelletti, international president of the Transportation Communications Union
Salary: $748,531

Newton B. Jones, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Salary: $607,022

Terence M. O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America
Salary: $589,124

John T. Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 464A
Salary: $532,752

Gerald McEntee, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Salary: $512,369

You right wingers have some nerve. But you think its ok that 5 years ago the average ceo made 270 times the average worker and today the number is 320? P.S. My brother is a VP and makes $500K a year. Have you forgotten we just want to do away with the Bush tax breaks that ONLY benefit people making over $1 million a year.

These guys aren't even top 1%ers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent






yes the 1%

Michael J. Sullivan, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Salary: $1,043,023

Robert A. Scardelletti, international president of the Transportation Communications Union
Salary: $748,531

Newton B. Jones, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Salary: $607,022

Terence M. O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America
Salary: $589,124

John T. Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 464A
Salary: $532,752

Gerald McEntee, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Salary: $512,369

You right wingers have some nerve. But you think its ok that 5 years ago the average ceo made 270 times the average worker and today the number is 320? P.S. My brother is a VP and makes $500K a year. Have you forgotten we just want to do away with the Bush tax breaks that ONLY benefit people making over $1 million a year.

These guys aren't even top 1%ers.

If you aren't having to write the check to pay their salaries, why does it bother you so much what they make?

 

[sealybobo]

What is even more hilarious is how little in common the Republican leadership has with their base. It's why they squat all over their base, but they don't have to worry. Getting people who are barely making it and suffering to believe being fair is "class warfare" and having health care is a "bad thing" is what they do. Being 90% white unifies them.

I love it when righties point to union leaders and say, "look, their rich too", like they did to Gore or John Kerry. As if its all rich people we hate. Do they really believe that? I think the ones putting that message out there like Rush say it to con these fools. But they actually believe their bullshit arguements. That's the whole point to this thread. Suggesting that Democrats who make good money are traitors? Suggesting we want communism where everyone makes the same amount? Fucking Republicans.

They forget the fact that you have to be rich to run for Federal Government. Democrats too. And they forget that what is in Gore's heart is different than what's in his wallet. Romney is clearly a greedy rich white man.

 

[sealybobo]

Union Boss salaries- They have a lot in common with the people they represent






yes the 1%

Michael J. Sullivan, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Salary: $1,043,023

Robert A. Scardelletti, international president of the Transportation Communications Union
Salary: $748,531

Newton B. Jones, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Salary: $607,022

Terence M. O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America
Salary: $589,124

John T. Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 464A
Salary: $532,752

Gerald McEntee, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Salary: $512,369

You right wingers have some nerve. But you think its ok that 5 years ago the average ceo made 270 times the average worker and today the number is 320? P.S. My brother is a VP and makes $500K a year. Have you forgotten we just want to do away with the Bush tax breaks that ONLY benefit people making over $1 million a year.

These guys aren't even top 1%ers.

If you aren't having to write the check to pay their salaries, why does it bother you so much what they make?

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Gadawg73]

What is even more hilarious is how little in common the Republican leadership has with their base. It's why they squat all over their base, but they don't have to worry. Getting people who are barely making it and suffering to believe being fair is "class warfare" and having health care is a "bad thing" is what they do. Being 90% white unifies them.

I love it when righties point to union leaders and say, "look, their rich too", like they did to Gore or John Kerry. As if its all rich people we hate. Do they really believe that? I think the ones putting that message out there like Rush say it to con these fools. But they actually believe their bullshit arguements. That's the whole point to this thread. Suggesting that Democrats who make good money are traitors? Suggesting we want communism where everyone makes the same amount? Fucking Republicans.

They forget the fact that you have to be rich to run for Federal Government. Democrats too. And they forget that what is in Gore's heart is different than what's in his wallet. Romney is clearly a greedy rich white man.

"Al Gore, he cares so much in his heart."
You have been brainwashed.

 

[Toro]

Here is some more. It also looks at households, so the per capita figures will skew upwards.

From 1996 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Show us documented growth in purchasing power of incomes.

Jake, purchasing power is income adjusted for inflation. That is what this data is showing you. It has been rising. There is no "income adjusted for purchasing power." There is income adjusted for inflation, which is purchasing power.

This should be obvious. If you were making $50,000 and your income rises to $500,000, clearly, your purchasing power has gone up. If, however, inflation also rises by 10x, then your purchasing power is flat. If inflation has risen by 5x, then your purchasing power has doubled. Ergo, inflation-adjusted income is purchasing power.

 

[Foxfyre]

You right wingers have some nerve. But you think its ok that 5 years ago the average ceo made 270 times the average worker and today the number is 320? P.S. My brother is a VP and makes $500K a year. Have you forgotten we just want to do away with the Bush tax breaks that ONLY benefit people making over $1 million a year.

These guys aren't even top 1%ers.

If you aren't having to write the check to pay their salaries, why does it bother you so much what they make?

What is the point of this thread?

I took it as a look at Union Boss's salaries compared to the rank and file union worker. But, as these things go, it quickly turned into another class envy thread in which the 'have nots' express their opinion that they somehow deserve or should be entitled to more of what others earn.

The Union Bosses take their salary from union dues that, in some cases, the worker has no choice but to pay if he is going to work. It is not a matter of the Union Boss taking the profit from what the worker earns for him. It is a matter of the Union Boss taking money from the worker unrelated to any profit or productivity of that worker.

CEO's take their profit from what income the business is able to generate, and the worker is not required to contribute to that in any way. The worker is offered a job at a given salary, and is entitled to whatever agreed salary and benefits he accepted in return for his labor.

And again, why should it bother any of us who are receiving the wages we agreed to work for what the boss makes?

 

[JoeB131]

It is typical of left wing deception to quote stats for household, whose numbers vary, rather than per capita. Similarly they confuse "rich" with high income.
Joe just got his ass handed to him in Toro's excellent post.

Clem, that just ain't true... But before I let you go off and play your banjo while waitin' for them city fellas to come through so you can re-enact the movie "Deliverence", let's lay some facts out...

•Over the 25 year period from 1980 to 2005 the median family income has increased by 18 percent. During the same period the income of this country’s wealthiest individuals has gone up 200 per cent. The financial magazine, The Economist, reports that in the United States “the gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country.
•In 1980 the income of the average CEO of an American Corporation was forty-two times the average blue collar worker’s pay. Twenty-five years later the average CEO’s compensation had climbed astronomically to 431 times the average worker’s pay.
•CEO compensation increased 340 percent from 1992 to 2002, while the average employee’s pay increased only 36 percent, barely enough to keep up with inflation.

Nope, it's not that the working class have these unreasonable demands for pay...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is some more. It also looks at households, so the per capita figures will skew upwards.

From 1996 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Show us documented growth in purchasing power of incomes.

Jake, purchasing power is income adjusted for inflation. That is what this data is showing you. It has been rising. There is no "income adjusted for purchasing power." There is income adjusted for inflation, which is purchasing power.

This should be obvious. If you were making $50,000 and your income rises to $500,000, clearly, your purchasing power has gone up. If, however, inflation also rises by 10x, then your purchasing power is flat. If inflation has risen by 5x, then your purchasing power has doubled. Ergo, inflation-adjusted income is purchasing power.

Then surely you can produce graphs that clearly show that the purchasing power of working Americans have significantly increased.

We await. Don't want words, want graphs with explanations (not yours).

 

[Toro]

Show us documented growth in purchasing power of incomes.

Jake, purchasing power is income adjusted for inflation. That is what this data is showing you. It has been rising. There is no "income adjusted for purchasing power." There is income adjusted for inflation, which is purchasing power.

This should be obvious. If you were making $50,000 and your income rises to $500,000, clearly, your purchasing power has gone up. If, however, inflation also rises by 10x, then your purchasing power is flat. If inflation has risen by 5x, then your purchasing power has doubled. Ergo, inflation-adjusted income is purchasing power.

Then surely you can produce graphs that clearly show that the purchasing power of working Americans have significantly increased.

We await. Don't want words, want graphs with explanations (not yours).

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...the-people-they-represent-19.html#post5311255

The post you quote is lifted from the Census. You can read it and calculate it yourself if you don't want it in "my explanations."

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, nice deflection, Toro... You are teaching the master of deflection there...

Of course, the middle class has declined as unions have declined.

Which is why the Koch Brothers want us fighting over the last cookie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, purchasing power is income adjusted for inflation. That is what this data is showing you. It has been rising. There is no "income adjusted for purchasing power." There is income adjusted for inflation, which is purchasing power.

This should be obvious. If you were making $50,000 and your income rises to $500,000, clearly, your purchasing power has gone up. If, however, inflation also rises by 10x, then your purchasing power is flat. If inflation has risen by 5x, then your purchasing power has doubled. Ergo, inflation-adjusted income is purchasing power.

Then surely you can produce graphs that clearly show that the purchasing power of working Americans have significantly increased. We await. Don't want words, want graphs with explanations (not yours).

SNIP [/url]

Not what I asked for. If you can't give the graphs I have requested or won't, then by Affirmative Silence, you admit that the working classes have not prospered well in the last 30 years.