NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Of the many pressures to "realign" pay and benefits in the higher end of the workiing population, most of them having to do with international competition, this is one of the most serious. Yet if companies are to remain competitive in a global economy, the pressure to continue in this process is only going to get more serious. Your solutions???


Two Tiers, Slipping Into One (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/business/yourmoney/26wages.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: February 26, 2006
PEORIA, Ill.

RICK DOTY is a 30-year veteran of Caterpillar, the big tractor and earth-moving equipment manufacturer. He is paid $23.51 an hour as a machinist, and he receives additional benefits worth almost as much. That sets him far above newly hired workers consigned to a much lower wage scale.

To these fellow workers, Mr. Doty, who is also a local union leader, struggles to justify an inequality that he helped to negotiate.

"I remind them they are making more now than they were before they came to Cat," said Mr. Doty, who spends part of his day at the one-story union hall of United Automobile Workers Local 974 arguing that $12 to $13 an hour is good pay here. "And I assure them that five years down the road, when the present contract expires, we in the union are going to improve their lot in life."

That does not seem likely. After more than a decade of failed strikes and job actions — mainly in Illinois, where Caterpillar has its biggest factories — the U.A.W. reluctantly accepted a two-tier contract that provides for significantly lower wages and benefits for newly hired employees. The new second tier is as much as $20 an hour below the cost of employing Mr. Doty, 50, and a dwindling band of other veterans.

As older workers depart, at Caterpillar and at other companies, the longstanding wage advantage that manufacturing workers enjoy over their counterparts in services or construction is shrinking fast. The trade-off is the promise of a manufacturing revival at long last in the old Rust Belt, as new hires come aboard at much lower labor costs.

"What we've done is reposition ourselves to actually grow employment in our Midwestern plants," said Jim Owens, Caterpillar's chief executive. "We finally have a labor cost that is viable."

Caterpillar is adding a significant chapter to the labor cost-cutting that is widespread in America, particularly at old-line manufacturing companies. Until recently, cutbacks in the wages and benefits of hourly workers were limited mostly to money-losing companies: failing steel mills, for example, and struggling airlines. They have said that their survival was at stake.

Now, however, even healthy and highly profitable companies like Caterpillar are engaging in the practice, and as they do so, the longstanding presumption that factory workers at successful companies can achieve a secure, relatively prosperous middle-class life for themselves and their families is evaporating.

"Caterpillar is a powerful symbol of this process," said Harley Shaiken, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley. "It dominates its field. It is one of America's largest exporters, and it is very profitable. If there ever was a company that could bring back the social contract of the mid-20th century, it is Caterpillar. But it chooses not to."

AS Caterpillar's managers see it, they have no choice. "There is a balance that must be struck between being competitive and being middle class," said Douglas R. Oberhelman, a group president. Although Caterpillar's factories are among the most productive in the world, the managers argue that the company cannot afford to be more generous simply because it is doing well right now.

"You could say that in good times you could afford a different kind of package and in bad times you couldn't," said Christopher E. Glynn, the director of corporate labor relations. "The real question is: What's competitive? And our target is competitiveness."

The new contract reflects the company's success in imposing a "market competitive" pay scale; that is, wages and benefits that attract enough qualified workers by being slightly better than the packages offered by others in each community or region where Caterpillar has operations.

In the Midwest market, the competitive wage-and-benefit package is about $23 an hour, on average, Mr. Glynn says. Caterpillar's package for new hires in the U.A.W. contract ratified 13 months ago is pegged above that, at $28 an hour, which includes about $9 an hour in benefits.

Only the most skilled workers in the new lower tier — electricians and machinists, for example — make more than $20 an hour, or $41,000 a year, while in the gradually expiring upper tier, everyone does, even unskilled laborers and shop helpers.

[ This article is three pages long. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/business/yourmoney/26wages.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

It's not just in America, but here as well. I've been checking out the job market here for when I graduate from university later this year, and the results are rather disappointing...

An undergraduate university degree plus 5-10 years of work experience will probably net you a job worth $40000 a year. That's around $30,000 in US dollars.

Without the experience, you're looking at around $30,000 ($22,500USD) for pencil-pushing work.

Mind you, that's for an arts degree, but science graduates are only slightly better off from brief research - a degree plus experience will get you from $40-50,000. And if you don't have a degree? You'll probably only find part-time work...if you're lucky. I had a difficult enough time getting a part-time job bagging groceries in a supermarket, and I have friends out of work who have been rejected for jobs like factory assemblers and slaughterhouse labourers for "lacking experience". It's a buyers market, it seems...

Maybe i'm overly pessimistic, and i'm certainly no expert, but I can't see myself supporting a family in the future. There's always the promise of the aging baby-boomers tipping the balance towards the workers rather than the employers, but we shall see.

Silly capitalists. Won't you ever learn?

Yep, lower wages = higher profits.

It's the same in the UK with final salary pension schemes being closed first to new workers, then the original workers having their entitlements progressively cut. Sucks, but there you go.

A statement to companies who want to cut wages: minimum wage workers don't buy $100,000 houses. They don't buy $30,000 cars or $3,000 computers either. And whatever you're selling, minimum wages workers probably won't be buying it.

The transit workers went on strike in New York City to prevent this sort of thing. That's one possible solution, though it doesn't seem to have worked in this case.

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.

L'Internationale sera le genre humain.

With the "free movement of capital" allowing it to maximize profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, this trend will continue. As long as it can maintain a very consumerist upper middle class that will buy the goods produced, the system will also maintain its stability for a while, at least if we ignore the risk of environmental catastrophe.

The solution is to devise a system where capital is not subservient to a small cadre of elite capitalists but rather to the population as a whole.

A statement to companies who want to cut wages: minimum wage workers don't buy $100,000 houses. They don't buy $30,000 cars or $3,000 computers either. And whatever you're selling, minimum wages workers probably won't be buying it.

They aren't producing for minimum wage workers, though. They're producing for the upper middle class - the people with plenty of disposable income, but without enough to seriously invest.

Since lower wages for the irrelevant people mean (somewhat) lower prices for the upper middle class, it does not have all that much to worry about at the moment. Furthermore, as long as the benefits of extreme exploitation are somewhat passed on to upper middle class consumers, that class will maintain its support of the system, seriously impeding any attempt to get rid of it.

A statement to companies who want to cut wages: minimum wage workers don't buy $100,000 houses. They don't buy $30,000 cars or $3,000 computers either. And whatever you're selling, minimum wages workers probably won't be buying it.
Wages in the $10-$20 range aren't "minimum wage."

The transit workers went on strike in New York City to prevent this sort of thing. That's one possible solution, though it doesn't seem to have worked in this case.

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.

L'Internationale sera le genre humain.

With the "free movement of capital" allowing it to maximize profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, this trend will continue. As long as it can maintain a very consumerist upper middle class that will buy the goods produced, the system will also maintain its stability for a while, at least if we ignore the risk of environmental catastrophe.

The solution is to devise a system where capital is not subservient to a small cadre of elite capitalists but rather to the population as a whole.

They should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.

Oh, by the way, by having cheap labor, this actually serves most of the population because we, the consumers, get lower prices. Under communism, the unions control the economic output, and don't think for a second that they care about the consumers.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!

They should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.

Oh, by the way, by having cheap labor, this actually serves most of the population because we, the consumers, get lower prices. Under communism, the unions control the economic output, and don't think for a second that they care about the consumers.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!

This is parody, right?

Wages in the $10-$20 range aren't "minimum wage."

No, but you're conveniantly sidestepping his point. People in that wage catagory are loosing their ability to live better than thier forebearers.

Why is it that you seem to have this callousness toward those "beneath" you?

This is parody, right?

I remain unsure. Much of what the diction exudes bitterness and recriminatory emotion, and is spurious, however the principle remians justifiable. Those bereft of an eductaion through personal transgression have little right to complain.

This is parody, right?

No, I was being as serious as death.

Wages in the $10-$20 range aren't "minimum wage."
No, but if you're supporting yourself (and others???) its not enough to allow you to buy nice stuff.

I remain unsure. Much of what the diction exudes bitterness and recriminatory emotion, and is spurious, however the principle remians justifiable. Those bereft of an eductaion through personal transgression have little right to complain.

Wow... all those big words. I'm impressed. :)

No, I was being as serious as death.

You scare me.

Wow... all those big words. I'm impressed. :)

Irony meter currently haywire;)

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.

Oh my god, you're a politically philisophical genius.:eek:
I agree

They should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.

Oh, by the way, by having cheap labor, this actually serves most of the population because we, the consumers, get lower prices. Under communism, the unions control the economic output, and don't think for a second that they care about the consumers.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!
Corrected for spelling and grammar: "I'm sick of this glorification of the 'American worker.' [ quotes come after punctuation ] You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school, and who [ comma and additional clause ] slept during math class. [ Superfluous "And" deleted. ] I spit upon [ incorrect use of "on" ] that person. [ eliminated run-on sentances ] They deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have gotten [ incorrect use of "got" ] an education when they had the chance [ unnecessary comma deleted ] instead of bitching about how those evil baddies in [ not "at" ] management cut their wages."

Now ... what were you saying about getting an education? :)

Not everyone is capable of absorbing every aspect of education. Some people's talents lie in other areas. A bit of understanding might make you a tad less critical, although I doubt it. :(

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.


Moron, an econmy run by the working class would be untenable.

No, I was being as serious as death.

I hate people like you, honestly. You are totally, and willfully, ignorant of other human beings. You just lumped every person who can't break out of social inequity together and called them lazy party mongers as a way to justify your disdain for the poor. You make me sick. People like you need to STFU and get over your myopic idiocy and be forced to watch what real people have to go through a' la Clockwork Orange.

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.
Unworkable. The ability to effectively manage is a skill just like any other. Not everyone has the necessary abilities.

Unworkable. The ability to effectively manage is a skill just like any other. Not everyone has the necessary abilities.So let those people who want to acquire those abilities and advise the workers on how to manage.

Or have machines do it.

The transit workers went on strike in New York City to prevent this sort of thing. That's one possible solution, though it doesn't seem to have worked in this case.

My personal preference? Two steps:

1. Expropriate the means of production from the capitalist class.
2. Establish an economy run by the working class.

The solution is to devise a system where capital is not subservient to a small cadre of elite capitalists but rather to the population as a whole.
I agree with you in theory. But that will take forever, and may turn into an unproductive dictatorship. More pragmatic solutions, please.

They should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.

Oh, by the way, by having cheap labor, this actually serves most of the population because we, the consumers, get lower prices. Under communism, the unions control the economic output, and don't think for a second that they care about the consumers.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!
This is sort of true if only way overstated. The workers do often get there due to their lack of dedication to their long-term well being. They should only get as much as is necessary for us to give them to work at the job. Competition for labor and competition for selling products both work to set wages at the rate that is fair for these people. I think that what should be done is that education should be a more glorified part of America so that we would have more employable workers and such.... however, I think that people would not want to glorify education as much as it should be.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.
I don't get convinced by arguments based on groundless generalisations.

You are totally, and willfully, ignorant of other human beings. You just lumped every person who can't break out of social inequity together and called them lazy party mongers as a way to justify your disdain for the poor.
True. Dubya needs to consider that education is often closed to working class people by either government policy, financial reasons or cultural reasons. Most are not where they are because of laziness, but because that's where they were programmed (as it were) to be.

Wages in the $10-$20 range aren't "minimum wage."
No, but $10 an hour workers aren't buying those houses or cars or computers either. Based on an average 40-hour work week, that's roughly $21K a year before taxes. At $20 an hour, that's $42K a year, which is barely middle class in may parts of the country. Hell, my girlfriend and I combined make a little more than $60K a year and we can't even think about buying a house in our market, and neither of us drives a vehicle made in this century.

What would help make us more competitive, I think, would be to globalize our labor and environmental standards when we globalize our trade. Make suppliers of US imports pay their workers a living wage and not pollute. Make them allow union organization. As long as we're the largest importer of foreign goods, we can exert financial pressure on other countries to force their manufacturers to raise the levels of their workers, and that will not only make us more competitive globally (the US companies outsourcing will have less reason to do so), but it will raise the standard of living for people in underdeveloped countries. It's not foolproof, and it won't completely solve the problem, but I think it would help.

Unworkable. The ability to effectively manage is a skill just like any other. Not everyone has the necessary abilities.

And it should be treated like any other skill. Managers should be paid the same as everyone else and they should have to muck in and actually work like everyone else.

Except middle-management. Middle-managers are parasites and should have no place in society whatsoever.

And it should be treated like any other skill. Managers should be paid the same as everyone else and they should have to muck in and actually work like everyone else.

Except middle-management. Middle-managers are parasites and should have no place in society whatsoever.

No, they should most unequivocally not be compelled to do so. The educationa nd mental capacity pre-requisite for management and professional careers afr exceeds that of your much lauded worker, and were the incentive of self-advancement to be removed from such a career, few would pursue them.

Moron, an econmy run by the working class would be untenable.
Yeah, because every co-op fails utterly and miserably. :rolleyes:

You should know better than to make universal statements like that--they prove you to be short-sighted and inexperienced.

Yeah, because every co-op fails utterly and miserably. :rolleyes:

You should know better than to make universal statements like that--they prove you to be short-sighted and inexperienced.

The working class, as demonstrated in the ramifications of Lenin's worker's control decree of 1917, are utterly incapable of administrating industry.

Yeah, because every co-op fails utterly and miserably. :rolleyes:

You should know better than to make universal statements like that--they prove you to be short-sighted and inexperienced.
Uh ... most co-ops with which I am familiar either hire a manager or train someone with the requisite aptitudes to become a manager.

What would help make us more competitive, I think, would be to globalize our labor and environmental standards when we globalize our trade. Make suppliers of US imports pay their workers a living wage and not pollute. Make them allow union organization.

but what about the profit margins?! won't somebody think of the profit margins?

help save the ultra rich - donate your time, benefits, and rights today. for just pennies a day they can keep on owning 90% of the total wealth in the world. that's isn't too much to ask, is it?

Corrected for spelling and grammar: "I'm sick of this glorification of the 'American worker.' [ quotes come after punctuation ] You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school, and who [ comma and additional clause ] slept during math class. [ Superfluous "And" deleted. ] I spit upon [ incorrect use of "on" ] that person. [ eliminated run-on sentances ] They deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have gotten [ incorrect use of "got" ] an education when they had the chance [ unnecessary comma deleted ] instead of bitching about how those evil baddies in [ not "at" ] management cut their wages."

Now ... what were you saying about getting an education? :)

Not everyone is capable of absorbing every aspect of education. Some people's talents lie in other areas. A bit of understanding might make you a tad less critical, although I doubt it. :(

What I wrote was a rant, and I wasn't paying particular attention to my grammar, as you have surely noticed. However, I still stand by my opinion that people who are less educated should not be glorified simply because they do meniall work. Difficult menial work, but menial work neverthless. Almost anyone could be quickly trained to work at a construction site or on a farm, but it takes many years of hard study to become a doctor, lawyer, enginner, teacher, etc.

One does not have to "absorb every aspect of education." Some people have certain talents that others don't have, and the key is in exploiting the talents that one has. However, operating heavy machinery or other menial work does not require talent.

I would like to see the people who contribute most to society get the respect they deserve. That's right, I'm talking about the CEOs, the lawyers, the teachers, to name a few. We hear everything about how those corporations screw people over, we hear everything about those scummy lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits, and we hear everything about how unqualified and terrible teachers in America are, while overlooking the positive aspects of these people that far outweigh the negative aspects.

Uh ... most co-ops with which I am familiar either hire a manager or train someone with the requisite aptitudes to become a manager.
The ones I dealt with in San Francisco had managers--but they were paid the same as everyone else in the store. And in some cases, they took rotations acting in management functions. The Blessed Chris was making a ridiculous universal statement, that the working class could not effectively administrate an economy, as though there's something inherently defective about people in the working class, that they're too stupid to handle the job and therefore they need the elite management class to do it for them. That's bullshit, and I pointed out a single example that contradicts him.

I'm not saying that we ought to turn the US economy over to people who haven't studied the complexities of the system, not by any means, but it's not as cut and dried as The blessed chris tried to make it out to be.

The ones I dealt with in San Francisco had managers--but they were paid the same as everyone else in the store. And in some cases, they took rotations acting in management functions. The Blessed Chris was making a ridiculous universal statement, that the working class could not effectively administrate an economy, as though there's something inherently defective about people in the working class, that they're too stupid to handle the job and therefore they need the elite management class to do it for them. That's bullshit, and I pointed out a single example that contradicts him.

I'm not saying that we ought to turn the US economy over to people who haven't studied the complexities of the system, not by any means, but it's not as cut and dried as The blessed chris tried to make it out to be.

Bereft of education, no, the working class cannot operate in any mangement roles, since they empathise with their inferiors to the detriment of the extablishment.

Unfortunately this is happening all over the world.

In Mexico before the revolution, it was the same exact way; the peons and the elite. They always say we are doomed to repeat history again, although I hope they are wrong.

Bereft of education, no, the working class cannot operate in any mangement roles, since they empathise with their inferiors to the detriment of the extablishment.
To which I can only say, I hope you find yourself under the thumb of such a person one day. It would be perfect justice.

What I wrote was a rant, and I wasn't paying particular attention to my grammar, as you have surely noticed. However, I still stand by my opinion that people who are less educated should not be glorified simply because they do meniall work. Difficult menial work, but menial work neverthless. Almost anyone could be quickly trained to work at a construction site or on a farm, but it takes many years of hard study to become a doctor, lawyer, enginner, teacher, etc.

One does not have to "absorb every aspect of education." Some people have certain talents that others don't have, and the key is in exploiting the talents that one has. However, operating heavy machinery or other menial work does not require talent.

I would like to see the people who contribute most to society get the respect they deserve. That's right, I'm talking about the CEOs, the lawyers, the teachers, to name a few. We hear everything about how those corporations screw people over, we hear everything about those scummy lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits, and we hear everything about how unqualified and terrible teachers in America are, while overlooking the positive aspects of these people that far outweigh the negative aspects.
Based on what I know of economics and history, I think the best way to determine what people with what skills earn what money is to let the market decide. Any other way will invariably lead to artificial disparities which create rather bizzare pay inequities. These "other ways" also result in problems finding people willing to go into occupations requiring long periods of training, hazardous duties, and other aspects of training and/or difficult duties. However, the disabled, the mentally challenged, and those temporarily unable to find work ( such as single mothers of small children, etc. ) should have a reasonable expectation of assistance in order to survive.

I would love to see all forms of public assistance totally eliminated, and a "negative income tax" substituted for them. However, not everyone will use the money from a negative income tax for necessities, so the system would require a considerable number of monitors/investigators.

It's an ongoing conundrum.

Silly managment. Screw the work force too much and you will see the return of unionism.

Silly managment. Screw the work force too much and you will see the return of unionism.
Not to mention more laws and regulations and ever-larger bureacracies. :headbang:

Not to mention more laws and regulations and ever-larger bureacracies. :headbang:
Regulation isn't always a bad thing. Remember what happened to the S&L industry when they were deregulated and allowed to run amok. Or when accounting regulations were loosened on companies like Enron and Global Crossing. It's a statement of faith among Republicans (and I'm not directing this at you personally, Eutrusca) that regulation is necessarily bad, but it isn't always. Too much regulation can indeed choke industry, but take it all away and you wind up with the worst excesses of the Gilded Age, which almost led to a worker revolt a la the Bolshevik Revolution.

Regulation isn't always a bad thing. Remember what happened to the S&L industry when they were deregulated and allowed to run amok. Or when accounting regulations were loosened on companies like Enron and Global Crossing. It's a statement of faith among Republicans (and I'm not directing this at you personally, Eutrusca) that regulation is necessarily bad, but it isn't always. Too much regulation can indeed choke industry, but take it all away and you wind up with the worst excesses of the Gilded Age, which almost led to a worker revolt a la the Bolshevik Revolution.
I agree.

( We're going to have to stop this being in agreement too often. People are starting to talk! ) :D

It's not just in America, but here as well. I've been checking out the job market here for when I graduate from university later this year, and the results are rather disappointing...

An undergraduate university degree plus 5-10 years of work experience will probably net you a job worth $40000 a year. That's around $30,000 in US dollars.

Without the experience, you're looking at around $30,000 ($22,500USD) for pencil-pushing work.

Mind you, that's for an arts degree, but science graduates are only slightly better off from brief research - a degree plus experience will get you from $40-50,000. And if you don't have a degree? You'll probably only find part-time work...if you're lucky. I had a difficult enough time getting a part-time job bagging groceries in a supermarket, and I have friends out of work who have been rejected for jobs like factory assemblers and slaughterhouse labourers for "lacking experience". It's a buyers market, it seems...

Maybe i'm overly pessimistic, and i'm certainly no expert, but I can't see myself supporting a family in the future. There's always the promise of the aging baby-boomers tipping the balance towards the workers rather than the employers, but we shall see.
Sounds like you are finding exactly what I am.

I plan on being a high school teacher. There is a program called Teach America, where you go teach a poor town (mostly southern or midwestern). The problem? Southern and Midwestern towns and states don't pay nearly what a New England district will pay. I am looking more at teaching in Australia for a year or two instead of just somewhere else in America. Even at the pay rates of New England, Australia, and the other areas I'm considering, I don't see it being livable with a family.

I don't see you being pessimistic, and that is probably because everything you are saying is exactly what I'm thinking and my friends are thinking. Great, I'll have an English degree. Would you like fries with that?

Sad thing is, this seems to be all the industrialized nations. Even a part time job is getting harder and harder to find. Seems noone really wants or needs to hire.

Sad thing is, this seems to be all the industrialized nations. Even a part time job is getting harder and harder to find. Seems noone really wants or needs to hire.

that's cause we are all culturally and economically insisting on having people do more work than there really is that needs to be done. so now we're having trouble coming up with enough busy work for all these college grads - the service sector can only take us so far.

Moron, an econmy run by the working class would be untenable.

Like a government run by the people?

As usual, the contempt for democracy manifests itself rather clearly.

Unworkable. The ability to effectively manage is a skill just like any other. Not everyone has the necessary abilities.

Of course. If the workers do not wish to manage every decision themselves, they appoint someone capable of doing so, and get rid of him if he doesn't do a good job.

Shareholders (capitalists) don't run corporations, either, they appoint someone to do the job for them. Same thing here, only the appointee would probably make a lot less.

I agree with you in theory. But that will take forever, and may turn into an unproductive dictatorship. More pragmatic solutions, please.

There are a few, but none that will solve the ultimate problem. Try to raise wages or regulate corporations, and capital will flee.

Guaranteeing greater access to higher education might help. Protectionism might help, too, but it will only delay the end at best, and it will mean very severe problems with the rest of the world. Universal health care would do some good too.

They should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place.

I'm sick of this glorification of the "American worker". You know who the American worker is? He's the guy who drank away his weekends in high school and slept during math class. And I spit on that person, they deserve no better fate than to be cheap labor. They should have got an education when they had the chance, instead of bitching about how those evil baddies at management cut their wages.

Oh, by the way, by having cheap labor, this actually serves most of the population because we, the consumers, get lower prices. Under communism, the unions control the economic output, and don't think for a second that they care about the consumers.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!

I do indeed hold the belief that the people who actually work deserve compensation for that work. I am aware that this is a controversial position among some, especially among those who benefit from their exploitation.

And be careful, you may be "they [who] should have never had their high wages and benefits in the first place" sooner or later.

Silly managment. Screw the work force too much and you will see the return of unionism.

The miraculous global market provides solutions to that problem. Trade unionists are shot in Colombia.

I hate people like you, honestly. You are totally, and willfully, ignorant of other human beings. You just lumped every person who can't break out of social inequity together and called them lazy party mongers as a way to justify your disdain for the poor. You make me sick. People like you need to STFU and get over your myopic idiocy and be forced to watch what real people have to go through a' la Clockwork Orange.

Based on what I see at my school, (I live in a middle class town), I can conclude that the majority of poor people are poor because of their own shortcomings. The kids at my high school who party and do drugs, they are just so stupid and wasted that I don't see them going anywhere. Even if one lives in the ghetto, or a low income neighborhood, it doesn't take an effort of Biblical proportions to get out of that situation. All they have to do is stay away from drugs and gangs, and be willing to give studying a chance, and they will be fine.

I would know this because I'm a first generation immigrant, and for most of my childhood I was poor (although I'm better off now), so I know what those areas are like.

I need to "STFU and get over my myopic idiocy?" Shows how tolerant you are of dissenting viewpoints. :rolleyes:

Based on what I see at my school, (I live in a middle class town), I can conclude that the majority of poor people are poor because of their own shortcomings. The kids at my high school who party and do drugs, they are just so stupid and wasted that I don't see them going anywhere. Even if one lives in the ghetto, or a low income neighborhood, it doesn't take an effort of Biblical proportions to get out of that situation. All they have to do is stay away from drugs and gangs, and be willing to give studying a chance, and they will be fine.

I would know this because I'm a first generation immigrant, and for most of my childhood I was poor (although I'm better off now), so I know what those areas are like.

I need to "STFU and get over my myopic idiocy?" Shows how tolerant you are of dissenting viewpoints. :rolleyes:

Yeah, all of us are poor for all the same reasons. I, like, totally did drugs when I was 9, and wasted the rest of the money I had left on booze and prostitutes.

Wanna know what really made me poor? My dad suffered chronic heart and kidney failure, and we had to go on welfare because none of us could work (I was 9, and my brother was 12). We've been stuck ever since.

Get off your pedestal, dick.

Yeah, all of us are poor for all the same reasons. I, like, totally did drugs when I was 9, and wasted the rest of the money I had left on booze and prostitutes.

Wanna know what really made me poor? My dad suffered chronic heart and kidney failure, and we had to go on welfare because none of us could work (I was 9, and my brother was 12). We've been stuck ever since.

Get off your pedestal, dick.
*passes a beer* well said. Very well said.

*passes a beer* well said. Very well said.

I could've done better, but I did what was necessary.

*chugs beer*

There is no working class of any kind in the first world, especially in the US and UK.

Except for the so called illegal immigrants.

The miraculous global market provides solutions to that problem. Trade unionists are shot in Colombia.

That happened in the US as well. Didn't stop it from happening.....

There is no working class of any kind in the first world, especially in the US and UK.

Except for the so called illegal immigrants.
right. No one works factory jobs. at all. ever. not even the people who work at the UTC companies (pratt and whitney, otis, honeywell, hamilton sundstrand, sikorsky), General Electric companies, Boeing, Stanley, Solo, Dixie, Catepillar, GM, Ford, Toyota, black and decker...they don't exist. It is all part of the Jewish conspiracy.

The kids at my high school who party and do drugs, they are just so stupid and wasted that I don't see them going anywhere.

Except they do - if they have the right parents. That's what class privilege is all about.

Look at people like Bush.

The problem is that laziness, incompetence, and stupidity are often ignored if you're rich, and hard work and intelligence often doesn't mean much if you're poor (or black, Hispanic, female, transgendered, disabled, etc.)

There is no working class of any kind in the first world, especially in the US and UK.

Except for the so called illegal immigrants.

There isn't? I wonder what I have been doing m-f for many years.....

That happened in the US as well. Didn't stop it from happening.....

You may be right. I certainly hope it won't.

But as long as there's plenty of non-unionized cheap labor, unionizing is going to be next to impossible, and I don't see that situation changing any time soon.

You may be right. I certainly hope it won't.

But as long as there's plenty of non-unionized cheap labor, unionizing is going to be next to impossible, and I don't see that situation changing any time soon.

You forget that unions aren't limited to the trades. You could have IT unions.

Even if you set your centers in cheap countries, you still need them in your headquarters, etc.

Don't forget that a management that will screw workers where they live; will also screw workers in other countries.

A properly managed company never needs a union.....

Yeah, all of us are poor for all the same reasons. I, like, totally did drugs when I was 9, and wasted the rest of the money I had left on booze and prostitutes.

Wanna know what really made me poor? My dad suffered chronic heart and kidney failure, and we had to go on welfare because none of us could work (I was 9, and my brother was 12). We've been stuck ever since.

Get off your pedestal, dick.

That's why we need universal health care. By the way, your case is an anomaly, I didn't say that all poor people are poor of their own doing, only most of them.

You forget that unions aren't limited to the trades. You could have IT unions.

Even if you set your centers in cheap countries, you still need them in your headquarters, etc.

Don't forget that a management that will screw workers where they live; will also screw workers in other countries.

A properly managed company never needs a union.....

All true. I do not mean to imply that all is hopeless, or that struggle is pointless.

It's just looking pretty bad right now.

The problem with Third World unions is that Third World workers don't even have the protections First World workers do against being replaced. They don't tend to be much more skilled than their counterparts, for instance, and labor laws and protections tend to be far laxer. When the economy has been globalized and the unemployed from all the sectors sacrificed to the Idol of Efficiency are desperate for jobs - especially in places like Mexico where unemployment insurance is a joke - it's pretty easy to get rid of obstinate workers.

That's why we need universal health care. By the way, your case is an anomaly, I didn't say that all poor people are poor of their own doing, only most of them.
actually, his case is fairly common. Sure, not that exact thing, but illness, young pregnancy, etc. are high causes.

Except they do - if they have the right parents. That's what class privilege is all about.

Look at people like Bush.

The problem is that laziness, incompetence, and stupidity are often ignored if you're rich, and hard work and intelligence often doesn't mean much if you're poor (or black, Hispanic, female, transgendered, disabled, etc.)

The priviledged people do get perks, but unless their parents are multi-millionares, like Bush's parents, those people won't get anywhere unitl they do some real work. They can't just live off their parents.

If you're black, Hispanic, etc, you're chances of getting a good job and education are greater because of affirmative action.

Seems to me like most people on this thread think that poverty is a result of social class, and the environment. While that is true to some degree, people need to be held accountable for their shortcoming, you can't just blame everything on everyone else.

actually, his case is fairly common. Sure, not that exact thing, but illness, young pregnancy, etc. are high causes.

Drug use, alcoholism, and laziness are higher causes.

The priviledged people do get perks, but unless their parents are multi-millionares, like Bush's parents, those people won't get anywhere unitl they do some real work. They can't just live off their parents.

If you're black, Hispanic, etc, you're chances of getting a good job and education are greater because of affirmative action.

Seems to me like most people on this thread think that poverty is a result of social class, and the environment. While that is true to some degree, people need to be held accountable for their shortcoming, you can't just blame everything on everyone else.
every single study shows that socio-economic status is the number one predictor for at-risk students, and therefore, future shortcomings. Yes, they are partly responsible...but no, it is not entirely just their fault.

actually, his case is fairly common. Sure, not that exact thing, but illness, young pregnancy, etc. are high causes.
I thought that pregnancy was largely a choice. You can keep those legs spread or you can choose not to. It is not like there is some pregnancy virus going around.

EDIT: Ok, I probably shouldn't have jumped in but still... I would consider pregnancy different from kidney failure and things like that because of the fact that the young pregnancies were probably not rapes.

The priviledged people do get perks, but unless their parents are multi-millionares, like Bush's parents, those people won't get anywhere unitl they do some real work. They can't just live off their parents.

The point is that you do not know whether or not the people you saw slacking off are in fact poor. It is perfectly possible that they can afford to get into decent colleges and will end up with good jobs, while some of the people you saw working hard, but weren't intellectually exceptional, will be stuck working menial jobs.

If you're black, Hispanic, etc, you're chances of getting a good job and education are greater because of affirmative action.

There is no affirmative action for transgendered people. Nor is affirmative action particularly effective. It mostly benefits those who need it least, middle and upper middle class minorities.

Seems to me like most people on this thread think that poverty is a result of social class, and the environment. While that is true to some degree, people need to be held accountable for their shortcoming, you can't just blame everything on everyone else.

The problem is that accountability is distorted by social class, and very severely. Upward mobility is very difficult in this country; downward mobility is easier, but not for the elite.

every single study shows that socio-economic status is the number one predictor for at-risk students, and therefore, future shortcomings. Yes, they are partly responsible...but no, it is not entirely just their fault.

That's my point. Some people on this thread (who I won't name) think they have the higher moral ground simply because they were once poor. They don't believe in accountability for their own actions, and they just want to blame it on their environment.

That's why we need universal health care. By the way, your case is an anomaly, I didn't say that all poor people are poor of their own doing, only most of them.
Potarius's story is more common than the situation you posit, Dubya1000, which you would know if you paid close attention to the very subject you talk about in your post--universal health care. The majority of bankruptcies come from overburdening health care costs--did you know that? And that a significant percentage of people live one paycheck away from homelessness and going hungry--these are working people, dude. These aren't leeches--they're people struggling to pay the goddamn rent.

But I won't beat your ass about it too badly because you're young and don't know what it's really like to try to provide when there's jack shit of an opportunity out there for you to get ahead.

The problem is that accountability is distorted by social class, and very severely. Upward mobility is very difficult in this country; downward mobility is easier, but not for the elite.

I don't know which country you're talking about, but in America social mobility is the norm.

I thought that pregnancy was largely a choice. You can keep those legs spread or you can choose not to. It is not like there is some pregnancy virus going around.

EDIT: Ok, I probably shouldn't have jumped in but still... I would consider pregnancy different from kidney failure and things like that because of the fact that the young pregnancies were probably not rapes.
when you can show me a person who has a choice in a sperm fertilizing an egg, then you will have an argument. Sex is a choice. Pregnancy is not. Yes, you could choose not to have sex.

Yes, pregnancy is different from kidney failure. But that is, none the less, one of the top ways to end up poor.

That's my point. Some people on this thread (who I won't name) think they have the higher moral ground simply because they were once poor. They don't believe in accountability for their own actions, and they just want to blame it on their environment.
how is that your point? you said people were responsible for being poor. I just said that starting out poor is the biggest predictor for ending up poor. that isn't someones choice. No one chooses to be born into a family that is poor.

I don't know which country you're talking about, but in America social mobility is the norm.
Ha. right. Come to a poor community and then tell me just how easy it is for those children to move up. Hell, come to a rich community that has housing projects, and I will prove that the children in those housing projects will not go nearly as far as the people who are well off in general.

when you can show me a person who has a choice in a sperm fertilizing an egg, then you will have an argument. Sex is a choice. Pregnancy is not. Yes, you could choose not to have sex.

Yes, pregnancy is different from kidney failure. But that is, none the less, one of the top ways to end up poor.
Sex is a choice, therefore the result of sex is caused by choices taken. The leap from sex as a choice to pregnancy caused by said sex is not that massive. My meaning was clear enough despite the muddled language I used to describe it. So yes, the people who get pregnant had a choice and their choice led them to get pregnant. It is not as if pure bad luck is the reason why they became pregnant.

I think in many ways this is a good thing; an economy that requires education in order for a person to succeed is an economy that will be healthier and more competitive in the long run. If anything, the disappearance of high-paying, low skill jobs is good for the economy because it will increase the overall educational level of the workforce which ultimately translates in to faster growth.

What we should to is step up the providing of educational opportunity and provide plentiful retraining opportunities for displaced workers. If a person loses their job but is willing to put in the time, effort, and discipline to educate themselves as a way to move forward, there is no reason why we should deny them that opportunity due to inability to pay.

If anything, these programs should be greatly expanded to cope with the global economy; a well educated workforce is the future, and we can't attempt to preserve unsustainable high-cost, low skill jobs at the expense of better ones that require more education. And that education should be unquestionably and even freely available to anyone willing to put the effort and discipline in to getting it.

I don't know which country you're talking about, but in America social mobility is the norm.

Say what? If you born into the bottom quintile of income in America, you have about a 90% chance of remaining in that bottom quintile at the end of your life. Meanwhile, such avatars of capitalism as Germany, France, and Sweden all significantly top the US in terms of social mobility.

You just keep clinging to your Horatio Alger myth, though, because dreams do come true. . .just enough to keep the rich on top.

I don't know which country you're talking about, but in America social mobility is the norm.
Take a gander. (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0606-27.htm) You might learn something.

The problem with Third World unions is that Third World workers don't even have the protections First World workers do against being replaced. They don't tend to be much more skilled than their counterparts, for instance, and labor laws and protections tend to be far laxer. When the economy has been globalized and the unemployed from all the sectors sacrificed to the Idol of Efficiency are desperate for jobs - especially in places like Mexico where unemployment insurance is a joke - it's pretty easy to get rid of obstinate workers.

That's why globalization is necessary; we need to create economic growth worldwide to properly utilize the world's workforce and make it possible for these people to get the benefits and opportunities afforded the workers in the industrialized world. If we revert to protectionism, that won't happen; indeed, it was protectionism and its close counterpart economic nationalism that created the dire and oppressive situation in many of the third world nations today.

Sex is a choice, therefore the result of sex is caused by choices taken. The leap from sex as a choice to pregnancy caused by said sex is not that massive. My meaning was clear enough despite the muddled language I used to describe it. So yes, the people who get pregnant had a choice and their choice led them to get pregnant. It is not as if pure bad luck is the reason why they became pregnant.
well, use clear language to get a clear point across. Someone could use a condom and have it break. Hell, they could be on the pill and still get pregnant. Accidents happen. Rape happens. Drunken flings happen. Life happens.

That's why globalization is necessary; we need to create economic growth worldwide to properly utilize the world's workforce and make it possible for these people to get the benefits and opportunities afforded the workers in the industrialized world. If we revert to protectionism, that won't happen; indeed, it was protectionism and its close counterpart economic nationalism that created the dire and oppressive situation in many of the third world nations today.The problem is that we're globalizing the ability to make profits, but we're not globalizing the ability to climb into the middle class. To do that, we need to force multinationals to pay living wages, to honor the right to organize and to respect the environment. Without that, it's a race to the bottom as far as wages are concerned, and developed countries lose their manufacturing base as a result. I'm not suggesting protectionism--merely saying that if we're going to globalize, there has to be a way to protect underdeveloped countries from being exploited while simultaneously remaining competitive.

The problem is that we're globalizing the ability to make profits, but we're not globalizing the ability to climb into the middle class. To do that, we need to force multinationals to pay living wages, to honor the right to organize and to respect the environment. Without that, it's a race to the bottom as far as wages are concerned, and developed countries lose their manufacturing base as a result. I'm not suggesting protectionism--merely saying that if we're going to globalize, there has to be a way to protect underdeveloped countries from being exploited while simultaneously remaining competitive.

I would absolutely support those standards if they can't be achieved naturally (as is the case in the Third World); the goal is to create sustainable growth that will eventually raise wages to a parity level through the market, but at first those kinds of labor and environmental requirements are necessary to get that market working properly.

Really, the Third World labor market is a market failiure in many ways, and the only way to really fix that is through government regulation.

well, use clear language to get a clear point across. Someone could use a condom and have it break. Hell, they could be on the pill and still get pregnant. Accidents happen. Rape happens. Drunken flings happen. Life happens.
Oh, sorry. Still every one of those things that you mention except for rape ends up being that the individual in question took a risk and got screwed(literally and figuratively). So, still, they made their choice and it backfired for them. They could have not taken that risk and been fine. Pregnancy is not the same as cancer or heart problems.

I would absolutely support those standards if they can't be achieved naturally (as is the case in the Third World); the goal is to create sustainable growth that will eventually raise wages to a parity level through the market, but at first those kinds of labor and environmental requirements are necessary to get that market working properly.

Really, the Third World labor market is a market failiure in many ways, and the only way to really fix that is through government regulation.
Goddamn--we keep this up and people are going to start thinking we're dating or something. :D

Oh, sorry. Still every one of those things that you mention except for rape ends up being that the individual in question took a risk and got screwed(literally and figuratively). So, still, they made their choice and it backfired for them. They could have not taken that risk and been fine. Pregnancy is not the same as cancer or heart problems.
Not even when cancer or heart problems are brought on by smoking (as an example)?

Oh, sorry. Still every one of those things that you mention except for rape ends up being that the individual in question took a risk and got screwed(literally and figuratively). So, still, they made their choice and it backfired for them. They could have not taken that risk and been fine. Pregnancy is not the same as cancer or heart problems.
I don't argue that pregnancy is the same as cancer or a heart problem...what I do argue is that it is a great predictor for future financial hardships, and that sometimes people mess up.

That's why globalization is necessary; we need to create economic growth worldwide to properly utilize the world's workforce and make it possible for these people to get the benefits and opportunities afforded the workers in the industrialized world. If we revert to protectionism, that won't happen; indeed, it was protectionism and its close counterpart economic nationalism that created the dire and oppressive situation in many of the third world nations today.

I don't really favor First World protectionism. Within the framework of the current global economic system I do favor certain forms of Third World protectionism, principally impediments to capital flight and protections for high-potential industry, but First World protectionism mostly comes at the expense of Third World workers.

I'm not opposed to globalization at all, quite the opposite.

I don't really favor First World protectionism. Within the framework of the current global economic system I do favor certain forms of Third World protectionism, principally impediments to capital flight and protections for high-potential industry, but First World protectionism mostly comes at the expense of Third World workers.

Third World protectionism is useful at times for infant industries; many times, entrepreneurs in the country want to start a company or establish an industry, but they are unable to compete at first due to the sheer challenges facing them in their country of operation.

If the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, I'm all in favor of temporary protectionism to establish an industry in an extremely poor country.

I don't argue that pregnancy is the same as cancer or a heart problem...what I do argue is that it is a great predictor for future financial hardships, and that sometimes people mess up.
People's choices are their problem. If they aren't financially ready for the child then they can give it up for adoption in order to allow for them to prepare for their own lives. People do mess up, but they should also take responsibility for their failures to some extent, even if that does mean that they must make difficult choices.

People's choices are their problem. If they aren't financially ready for the child then they can give it up for adoption in order to allow for them to prepare for their own lives. People do mess up, but they should also take responsibility for their failures to some extent, even if that does mean that they must make difficult choices.
i'm not arguing anything you're saying. My one point in bringing up pregnancy in the first place was that it is, in fact, a top predictor for poverty.

i'm not arguing anything you're saying. My one point in bringing up pregnancy in the first place was that it is, in fact, a top predictor for poverty.
and my 1 point was to make sure that it was not given the same place as a legitimate illness. I can respect the people have problems because of bad luck but not those who have it due to bad choices. I would prefer to eliminate the bad choices.