The Forever War Against Tyrants? We've been keeping tyrants and their glorious totalitarian states in power with our trade agreements. In exchange for their slave labor, we enrich our elite and up their dividends. Our manufacturing base is now less than 10% of our GDP, which means less good paying jobs here which again helps the elite ke…
The Forever War Against Tyrants? We've been keeping tyrants and their glorious totalitarian states in power with our trade agreements. In exchange for their slave labor, we enrich our elite and up their dividends. Our manufacturing base is now less than 10% of our GDP, which means less good paying jobs here which again helps the elite keep labor costs down. Since Clinton this is one of the few policies both the Dems and the Republicans have agreed on.
I thought unions in America made manufacturing jobs bad investments due to high pay, health insurance, pensions, etc. Many of those jobs can be done by a teenager after instruction ranging from a few hours to weeks.
Unionized companies through the fifties and sixties were still a good investment. They would have been a better investment if they hadn't been unionized, but is that the only consideration? If someone works hard and stays reliable they should get a living wage, at least from where I stand. I remember when the Teamsters went on strike at Welch's in my hometown, they were after what I think could fairly be called a living wage. The grape farmers said they would be ruined if the strike was successful, it was successful and the town prospered, working class people could afford to buy their own homes, and the grape farmers, kept their yachts, even got larger ones, I remember driving my girlfriend's family yacht. I make my money through investing and I'd rather make less and live in a fairer society (not a leftist by the way). There's also a security issue here, too.
The Forever War Against Tyrants? We've been keeping tyrants and their glorious totalitarian states in power with our trade agreements. In exchange for their slave labor, we enrich our elite and up their dividends. Our manufacturing base is now less than 10% of our GDP, which means less good paying jobs here which again helps the elite keep labor costs down. Since Clinton this is one of the few policies both the Dems and the Republicans have agreed on.
I thought unions in America made manufacturing jobs bad investments due to high pay, health insurance, pensions, etc. Many of those jobs can be done by a teenager after instruction ranging from a few hours to weeks.
Unionized companies through the fifties and sixties were still a good investment. They would have been a better investment if they hadn't been unionized, but is that the only consideration? If someone works hard and stays reliable they should get a living wage, at least from where I stand. I remember when the Teamsters went on strike at Welch's in my hometown, they were after what I think could fairly be called a living wage. The grape farmers said they would be ruined if the strike was successful, it was successful and the town prospered, working class people could afford to buy their own homes, and the grape farmers, kept their yachts, even got larger ones, I remember driving my girlfriend's family yacht. I make my money through investing and I'd rather make less and live in a fairer society (not a leftist by the way). There's also a security issue here, too.