meh, i can run a canned strat as well as the next Earther.

Without reading all this trash... I went to an aviation class last winter. One of my classmates for the 6-week class was an ex-GM employee that accepted a layoff package. He had been an USAF air traffic controller for a number of years, but he was too old (32!) to even *apply* for a job in the private sector. That's off the point, but here's what he told me:

He was working as a GM forklift operator, with about five years experience. He got paid _$65_ _an_ _hour_. He worked three 8-hour shifts during the week, and every other Sunday, he worked a 12-hour shift at TRIPLE OVERTIME. That's $195 an hour, to wheel fluff around on a forklift. Not saying the job doesnt require some coordination, but that's fluffing outrageous. Even during the week, $65 is insane. I work in a very safety-sensitive high-up job in an airline, and make less than a third of that. I'd like more, but I'm happy knowing that my airline is one that's consistently made money over the last few years of troubles in aviation. I gladly don't fluff too much about pay raises, because I know we can currently sustain ourselves indefinitely. Much easier to sleep knowing your job's going to last than it is making a quick buck at the sake of being volatile.

On that subject, though... I might be pretty well fluffed if the feds drop Essential Air Service off the national budget, as well as probably a good 300 other employees in my company. That's not even mentioning the detriment to local economies when these small airports can no longer maintain a scheduled flight service.

Shrug, definitely sidetracked at the end... just my two cents.

That's just insane...

But we already know what UAW has done is not representative of unions. That is clearly insane.

The company I work for is a fortune 300 company. They start technicians who no nothing about the job at 12 dollars an hour. 2 weeks paid vacation and insurance after 3 months. Paid holidays from day one. After 1 year you get paid sick time after 2 years you get another week of paid vacation. We have had profit sharing (4k this year for me. Very Sweet!) and end of year raise every year since I have been there. Most union companies have been laying off people the past few years.

To top that off as soon as you hit pre set goals you can take tests to level up, there are 4 levels of techs each level is a 10% raise. Plus we only work 4 days a week.

All that and no union was needed to get it, I think I am treated just fine by my non union shop and am compensated nicely.

I made level 3 tech in 1.5 years and by the 2 year mark was ready to level up to 4. Instead they made me a field service manager for NE Indiana

Let me sum this up:

Unions were originally set up to help workers against those EEEEvil corporations.

A 'public servant' union is working against...(drum roll) the tax payers of America.

Ipso facto, every teacher is the enemy of the people.

All other conclusions and opinions are JUST PLAIN STUPID.

Carry on.

Wow you sound like that other dude everyone is talking about.

I'm not pro unions, but the real point is that if Organisations take care of their employees then there is no need for unions in a oppositional role, instead unions can provide support to members eg services and legal support.

If I get a full time teaching position I will probably join the union for their legal support and services not because of pay issues.

the big difference is between idustries aiming to get whats fair and industries with strong unions eg.

Wharfies getting crazy pay per hour vs Teachers pay per hour. It all depends on what value you place on the difference in pre-employment education.

However the Wisconsin protests aren't just about pay, like in other American states, its against the cost saving idea of reducing class days per week. This impacts on Children more than the pay the teacher is getting. In Hawaii they were talking about doing or have done the same thing and it also has extra costs for parents because they then have to pay for day care.

TY, if your company is not laying people off it is probably more due to what the company makes or does versus the fact they are not union.

How come no one is talking about how CEO's and company Exec's are taking hundreds of millions each year in bonuses and then complaining about unions? Just one Exec's salary would keep 2-3k union workers working for the entire year.

All of this is a brainwashing tactic used by big business to make even more money off the little guy and destroy the middle class. Think about supply and demand. If there was no money to be made using union workers in the private sector there would be no unions. And pretty soon that 12$/hour job that sounded nice- well, you'll have to take your vacation sitting at home cause you won't be able to afford to drive any where.

Not always true, but since about 2001, CEO pay has become less and less related to performace. Human resources is to blame in that they convinced everyone that you need to pay money to retain talented CEOs. Marketing is to blame because they convinced everyone that CEOs were a brand, and a product that gives benefits beyond performance.

Responsible Executives took pay cuts, non responsible executives demanded excessive pay rises/bonuses when the GFC started to lift.

Exec pay has gotten bloated and out of hand, although as Evolution stated it is at least somewhat coming back down. I'm also surprised we don't see more shareholder groups pushing against that as well, at least for those companies with no single, large, controlling owner.

However, it also doesn't fit the argument or desired result. While I agree they are WAY overpaid, they also have a choice. Just as we can all chose to work elsewhere, they can also take the company elsewhere. As bloated as it is, they also will protect what they have as well. SOME would take a cut, but how many will simply say the cost of labor is too high and move? Does that help the labor market? Also, what SHOULD a CEO make? I think some think anything over the lowest paid worker in the company is enough.

Also, way too many confuse the "company" with the executive pay. On a corporate level few are making the killing many claim by lumping every term related to what they see as "rich" into one bucket. A company may have billions a year in revenue, but after costs they manage a few percent in net profit. Showing the total revenue is meaningless and meant to only show things out of proportion. For the investment risk few shareholders, the real owners, are making anything like the killing we so often hear.

It isn't fair, and we also know "trickle down" only works in rare cases where a business is already wanting to expand. Otherwise, it just pads their margins. However, that doesn't mean the reverse, in making them less profitable, doesn't drive them away.

I would think a balance could be found, but we can't change reality. Drive up the cost of doing business, the business will go elsewhere.

The one problem that those who think businesses will just lower wages to nothing have is that they don't see labor as a commodity. It seems that you all think businesses could just charge $1,000 for a pair of shoes and people will buy them, but they obviously don't. Why? Because people have a choice on what to buy and not buy, just as they have a choice of where to work and not work. If a job offers $1/hr, is there any incentive to work there? Obviously not. Therefore they must raise that pay to encourage people to apply for the job. If the job requires a level of expertise, they pay according to the supply and demand of the job, or they will inevitably end up with the bottom of the barrel employees.

The reason the "trickle down" effect works is that it encourages more people to create their own businesses and thus a more competitive working environment. Competition drives everything in a capitalist environment, so why would one stifle entrepreneurship with wage caps? (I would also like to mention that natural caps come from stock holders/board of directors because they want to see the business succeed, not all the money taken out of it) For anyone interested in a time in history that this the norm, read 'Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. The first half of the book is a wonderful look at a capitalist system in progress.

The rich only take their money out of the US economy because our taxes are insane. Take a look at Google and what they did about their tax rates. They pay around(if I remember correctly) 2% on their profits because they decided that they can pay less in another country, so why pay US taxes? Competition is not local anymore and we must compete on an international scale.

This is all a moot point though when talking about teachers. Who are the big bad CEOs ready to strip their pay at any moment? The taxpayers? What do the teachers need protection from? Who is taking advantage of them? There isn't some CEO running it all, so why do they need a union?

Do you know nothing about labor history? When you can work for $1/hour or starve to death people will work for next to nothing.

How can you say trickle down works? Have you not seen this country try and use trickle down economics? The economy dives everytime.

Republican ideology is like communism - both are great in theory but fail in practice (although China is starting to make Communism look alright so far...)

Trickle down doesn't work? Oh Im sorry I must have been under a rock when Reagan took over for Carter during stagnation and 15% interest rates. I must have forgot the boom that followed the next 2 decades after the lowering of tax rates. I must have forgot about the depression of 1920 where tax rates were lowered and we had the roaring 20's until Hoover(a progressive republican) turned that all back around and sent us into the great depression. I must have forgot about how the New Deal stuck us in the great depression for over a decade. I must have forgot how every time tax rates are lowered, tax revenues have risen. I must have forgotten how the most business friendly environment for years became the most prosperous nation in history. It takes a willing suspension of belief to think that capitalism does not work and trickle down nearly literally is capitalism.

Answer me this...will you starve on $1/hr? Obviously you cannot support yourself, so you cannot work there and you must find another job that pays better. Since everyone cannot live on $1/hr(obviously todays dollars) in America, nobody can pay $1/hr and actually have any workers other than high school labor. Instead of being fed what to think by the so called education these days, read some real books about history and think for yourself for a change.

Reagan did not doing anything special.

There was a spike followed by continuous decline in economic growth until Clinton actually started reducing our debt AND increasing wealth rate.. of course Bush v2 came along and ruined that quickly... http://upload.wikimedia.org/...ange-us-gdp-1977-2007.png

Roaring 20's were again the same thing we just went through - uncontrolled bankers who destroyed the economy... fortunately we had FDR and fix the economy through economic stimulus hiring....

Maybe you should read some books that have facts and try to get educated... all I do is think for myself - it is my job...

I would not starve on $1/hr. I would work 80 hours/week and I'd be able to get by, barely. All you're saying though is that companies would only pay the bare minimum salary people could live on... I am glad your dream of America is a few guys getting obscenely rich while the rest of the country lives in poverty...

Another socialist that doesn't understand the entire picture.

Clinton reduced our debt, or was it the Republican congress who set the budget? I forget, can you remind me?

Reagan only did half the solution, we still spent way too much, but the lowering of tax rates brought us out of the Carter years.

Nearly everything under Clinton was done against his will in a compromise, yet he always gets credit, Im always confused on how that happens...

You have no understanding on how the market crashed in 1929 then do you? It wasn't the stock market crash that caused it at all, but the tariff that was put into place right after it, by Hoover. Take a look at the Hawley-Smoot Tariff and its effects.

FDR to fix the economy? Surely you must be joking. *looks around* Surely...even his own advisors turned against the New Deal in hindsight.

You would be able to live on $80 a week? huh...good luck.

Its always microeconomics with you liberals. No they wouldn't pay the minimum, or they would only get kids out of high school and never any quality labor. Thus they would be inefficient and your company would stagnate. A company builds on quality labor as much as anything else, so why would they try to short shrift themselves on possibly the most important part of their company?

Instead of thinking that a person gets paid less and the CEO gets more, think through the ENTIRE problem. Get through the economic cycle at least once and you'll see that it isn't the case, especially today where travel is as easy as it is.

As to that graph, did you read it correctly? It shows stagnation to end the Carter years, a dip to begin the Reagan years, followed by the highest growth followed by a few more years of nearly 4% growth until a year in the middle of Bush 1's term, then back to near 4% to end his term. Clinton with a democrat congress did no better and possibly worse, (but it was to start his term), until the Republican congress made some compromises with Clinton and it leveled off for awhile until 9-11-01(which liberals always forget about when talking economics...magically Im sure). Its a wonder he kept it in positive growth after 9-11.

If CKHustler was running things we would all be living like the Amish. We couldn't own any land. We would be living in the national forest and eating nuts and berries. Thank God i am good with a bow and arrow. Seriously, the guy must be on crack.

BOTH party's have gone too far. The republicans want to turn America into Mexico (cause its working so great down there) where it will be a two class system. The Democrats want to make us Socialism even if we don't want it (forcing health care is prime example).

Sad part is both partys keep moving further to their extremes. AMERICA IS STILL SLIGHTLY RIGHT OF THE MIDDLE. Neither one gets that. Dems, stick health care where the sun don't shine. And repubs, stop blaming unions for all the worlds woes. I major part of our economic problems has to due with our foreign policy. We kill our selves when we have free trade with countries who do not have to meet all our gov regulation, tax, safety, and emissions. The labor is not where we loose- it's all the other stuff.

As far as China doing good as a commie- that's because the got a billion people working for a few dollars a day. Child labor working 12-16 hours a day? No problem. Slums with shacks? No problem. Good thing they had that wall up during the Olympics or the rest of the world would have gotten to see just how good their people really have it. China is nothing more than something really ugly with a pretty mask on. When you get close, it stinks. You kiss it, you get sick.

I am waiting on the great tribulation !

Trickle down doesn't work. If it did, wealth would not be concentrated in the top 0.1% of population.

Please, go ahead and demonstrate how many jobs are created with tax cuts.. there is no data. Unless, of course, you really want to go up against Bruce Bartlett.

CK: This budget is 100% Republican. The bailout is 100% republican. It must kill you that Obamacare is the single most debt-reducing bill in the history of the US.

You read the graph wrong. Please try again. Carter stagnation -> Reagan spike -> Reagan stagnation -> Bush stagnation -> Clinton rise -> Clinton economic constant growth -> Bush stagnation.

Basically Reagan made a quick fix and things slowed down after that. Decreasing economic growth is a bad trend, even if there is still economic growth.

Smoot-Hawley certainly was a contributing factor... that is true.

People want cheap labor - not quality labor. They want them to be able to read at a basic level and then work their hands to the bone for virtually no money until they die. Keeping the population uneducated is something republicans know is in their best interest.

Serious on the New Deal... I am not the only person who sees it worked although there are of course critics (in denial).