|
#34
●
07-12-2015, 08:00 PM
|
|
Re: Jeb Bush: 'People Need to Work Longer Hours
Non unionized jobs are leaving too you fucking idiot. I guess you just conveniently ignored that wages in Mexico are less than $5 a day. Do you think you want to work for that? Caterpillar shut down a plant in Canada, to move to Indiana. The workers here were asked to take a 50% pay cut, lose 4 holidays a year, reduced vacation time, loss of their pension, and drastic cuts to their healthcare plan. Caterpillar made a 60 billion dollar profit the same year, and closing the plant actually cost more than keeping it open under terms the union could agree to, but they left anyway. And guess what? Mass layoffs in Indiana now. Next stop? Lol, where the fuck do you think? Keep on blaming the unions, they're a convenient scapegoat. Someday you'll wake up and finally realize that all manufacturing is leaving. |
|
#38
●
07-13-2015, 08:01 AM
|
|
Re: Jeb Bush: 'People Need to Work Longer Hours
It's very interesting you have such strong feelings towards others working when you are at their largesse. I was told two very interesting things as a young school student, one of which has not come true: 1) Thanks to nuclear energy, electricity will be pennies a day 2) Thanks to modern science and increased productivity, one of the major concerns of the future will be what to do with all the free time everyone will have due to decreased demand for labor. |
|
#39
●
07-14-2015, 08:31 AM
|
|
Re: Jeb Bush: 'People Need to Work Longer Hours
I agree, I live in the Okanagan valley in British Columbia. I worked in the packinghouse sorting apples and cherries and most of the workers were East Indian. Most of the pickers in the orchards are Mexican. I am a white woman who is married to a black man, so cultural diversity is not a problem for me. I just wonder why we have to bring in people from other countries to work when the unemployment rate is moderate to high in some regions. |
|
#40
●
07-14-2015, 12:07 PM
|
|
Re: Jeb Bush: 'People Need to Work Longer Hours
Why did it go to Indiana I wonder? No unions possibly? Washington Post : The big problem is that when you look at the wage gap we used to see between manufacturing and non-manufacturing, that’s getting smaller,” said William Spriggs, chief economist for the AFL-CIO. Factory workers, he said, spend less than they would if wages were higher, which reduces domestic demand for goods and services: “That’s what we’ve been doing in the United States for the last 30 years,” he said. “We’ve been cannibalizing our own consumer base.” Ohio is laying off, Indiana is not. Nearly all of the Ohio workers belonged to a labor union. Workers at the Indiana plant don’t. Their fates fit a post-recession pattern: American factories are hiring again, but they’re not hiring union members. U.S. manufacturers have added a half-million new workers since the end of 2009, making the sector one of the few bright spots in an otherwise weak recovery. And yet there were 4 percent fewer union factory workers in 2012 than there were in 2010, according to federal survey data. On balance, all of the job gains in manufacturing have been non-union Manufacturing is the industry that many Americans most associate with unions, but the industry has moved away from unionization for decades. There were 12.5 million non-union manufacturing workers in America last year, the same number there were in 1977. In contrast, there were 1.5 million employees represented by a union in 2012 — 6 million fewer than 1977 So why is that Rob? Why are non unionized companies maintaining or growing? And unionized companies are going under? Of course cheaper labor in other countries affects us. Ridiculous trade agreements affect us. But you are blind if you don't see how unions create less investment. Which create less jobs. |