[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

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.

Idiot.

The Indiana plant just had a mass layoff.

The same mentality that took caterpillar out of Canada to cut wages in half is going to put them in Mexico next.

All of that money that used to support middle class families, that used to stay in communities and stimulate local economies is now padding the salaries of CEO 's and shareholders.

Moving high paying jobs to a different state with lower wages is not a winning situation.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by twayblade ↗

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.

In the oil patch it's really, really striking because it's so obvious what the companies were up to.
The good companies are paying trades $40/hr and up, and a lot of the TFWs are not even making $20.

It's all about driving down wages and saving money.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Idiot.

The Indiana plant just had a mass layoff.

The same mentality that took caterpillar out of Canada to cut wages in half is going to put them in Mexico next.

All of that money that used to support middle class families, that used to stay in communities and stimulate local economies is now padding the salaries of CEO 's and shareholders.

Moving high paying jobs to a different state with lower wages is not a winning situation.

It's a shame that no one has the balls to place massive taxes on everything that border-jumping outsourcing American companies try to import back into the States. Fuck them hard not for exporting jobs, but for trying to fuck their best and most well-paying customer.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

It's a shame that no one has the balls to place massive taxes on everything that border-jumping outsourcing American companies try to import back into the States. Fuck them hard not for exporting jobs, but for trying to fuck their best and most well-paying customer.

They've hired the best PR people, paid off the politicians, and have "news" people devoted to spreading the message.

The real shame of this whole situation is they've convinced people to vote against their own interests.

It's beyond fucked up that middle class and lower middle class people have been convinced to give tax cuts to the business class, buy into anti union propaganda, and believe the whole trickle down lie

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

They've hired the best PR people, paid off the politicians, and have "news" people devoted to spreading the message.

The real shame of this whole situation is they've convinced people to vote against their own interests.

It's beyond fucked up that middle class and lower middle class people have been convinced to give tax cuts to the business class, buy into anti union propaganda, and believe the whole trickle down lie

There are more deeper reasons people don't vote in favor of those that give false promises of taxing the rich.

Most everyday republicans would love to see the rich burn, but they also know, giving it to the left to bring it isn't the answer.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

There are more deeper reasons people don't vote in favor of those that give false promises of taxing the rich.

Most everyday republicans would love to see the rich burn, but they also know, giving it to the left to bring it isn't the answer.

I don't think that the "left" really has existed for a long time.

The Clinton's signed into NAFTA, and Obama is about as "left" as Reagan.

Other than Bernie Sanders, I don't see anyone addressing this.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I don't think that the "left" really has existed for a long time.

The Clinton's signed into NAFTA, and Obama is about as "left" as Reagan.

Other than Bernie Sanders, I don't see anyone addressing this.

You're right, people 30 years ago would vote for the best interest of the people with selfless intent. That isn't the case anymore by heavily influenced rep/dem parties.

Just because a Democrat candidate don't scream leftist idealism, don't mean they won't be heavily influenced. their track record can be dead give away to which way they could lean.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

You're right, people 30 years ago would vote for the best interest of the people with selfless intent. That isn't the case anymore by heavily influenced rep/dem parties.

Just because a Democrat candidate don't scream leftist idealism, don't mean they won't be heavily influenced. their track record can be dead give away to which way they could lean.

Everybody screams socialist about Obama, but

His foreign policy is almost as hawkish as bush's, more so in certain ways. I guess creating a government option for healthcare would qualify, but most of his economic policies don't really seem that drastically different

I really think the difference between now and 30 years ago is the rise of political TV and Radio, attack adds, and the influence of corporate money in the whole picture.
It's so hard to determine who is telling the truth, and distinguish opinion from fact.

It seems that they try to take an extremely complicated issue, turn it into a black & white one along partisan lines, and misrepresent each other's positions horribly.


And so you wind up with poor people voting for things like tax cuts for the highest earners, right to work initiatives, and other things that at face value would seem like basic issues they would want

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Everybody screams socialist about Obama, but

His foreign policy is almost as hawkish as bush's, more so in certain ways. I guess creating a government option for healthcare would qualify, but most of his economic policies don't really seem that drastically different

I really think the difference between now and 30 years ago is the rise of political TV and Radio, attack adds, and the influence of corporate money in the whole picture.
It's so hard to determine who is telling the truth, and distinguish opinion from fact.

It seems that they try to take an extremely complicated issue, turn it into a black & white one along partisan lines, and misrepresent each other's positions horribly.


And so you wind up with poor people voting for things like tax cuts for the highest earners, right to work initiatives, and other things that at face value would seem like basic issues they would want

Exactly, no one votes with selfless intent, however voting for one side versus the other, how it stands now, results in huge conflict for the other side.

Our politics has took a huge turn from it being about Dem/repub policies, to being libs/cons wars. Libs/cons are more interested in social bullshit than economical woes.

Both sides refuse the other over SOCIAL issues, and in some cases rightly so, in others not so.

That's why I've said a thousand times, and i'll continue to say it, liberals and conservatives are destroying this country.

All of this is why TTP was able to pass through with hardly a blink of the eye from anyone. Social issues were all people cared about.

EDIT to add.

It is important that we settle our social issues before we tackle our economical issues. Right now, a democrat policy is tainted by a liberal agenda.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Idiot.

The Indiana plant just had a mass layoff.

The same mentality that took caterpillar out of Canada to cut wages in half is going to put them in Mexico next.

All of that money that used to support middle class families, that used to stay in communities and stimulate local economies is now padding the salaries of CEO 's and shareholders.

Moving high paying jobs to a different state with lower wages is not a winning situation.

Nobody said it was. Stop changing the debate pocahontas.
You said job losses have nothing to do with unions. That is the point I disagreed with. You basically said that was a complete fallacy created by the Republicans.

I said their are several factors that play into America losing jobs.

Cheaper labor, less restrictions, less taxes, fewer laws, less environmental protections, UNIONS, poor trade agreements on and on.


My point is proven by the fact that unions have lost jobs over the last 30 years. And non union jobs numbers are basically the same. I'm not saying the economic conditions are great .
They're terrible. But if you pay attention to the workers, they don't want the unions. And just because you unionize doesn't mean you get higher wages.

What you make 2% more? That 2% ends up in the unions pockets anyway.

But as I said, I'm not arguing that the jobs situation looks good. I'm saying unions cost us jobs. Jobs we didn't have to lose, jobs we couldn't afford to lose.