Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Sanders Propsed Plan to Cost $20,000 per Taxpayer


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Labor unions have a real uphill battle. It’s weird to see the general population take a have/have not approach and side with the man

13 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Yeah why is that exactly? I never understood it and just assumed it was big corporate media influence. Big media certainly pushed an anti-union message historically in this country. 

Maybe because some people believe that through their own hard work, they can achieve greater success on merit.  Instead of relying on an organization to negotiate your wages.  Union labor doesn't inspire people to over-achieve.

Where no unions exist, companies pay wages based on supply and demand of labor, and the skill level of that labor.  When unemployment is low, and a company needs a unique, specific skill set from its employees, they will pay higher wages.  But if they just need a guy to run a machine that a guy off the street can learn with a week of on-the-job training, the wages will be lower.

It's basic economics.  Has nothing to do with "big corporate media influence."  Whatever that is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheCommish said:

When unemployment is low, and a company needs a unique, specific skill set from its employees, they will pay higher wages. 

 

Are you saying they will pay higher wages in this situation due to the lack of a union?  I'm a little confused about how this line fits in to your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheCommish said:

Maybe because some people believe that through their own hard work, they can achieve greater success on merit.  Instead of relying on an organization to negotiate your wages.  Union labor doesn't inspire people to over-achieve.

Where no unions exist, companies pay wages based on supply and demand of labor, and the skill level of that labor.  When unemployment is low, and a company needs a unique, specific skill set from its employees, they will pay higher wages.  But if they just need a guy to run a machine that a guy off the street can learn with a week of on-the-job training, the wages will be lower.

It's basic economics.  Has nothing to do with "big corporate media influence."  Whatever that is.

 

There is a long history of media being anti- union. Organized labor is a fascinating history worth studying. Average union workers as of 2014 made 22% more than non-union workers. Employers are always going to have leverage over employees. The only way employees can combat that and fairly negotiate is in numbers. That is basic economics. The fact that so many people don’t understand or acknowledge the important role unions played in shaping so much of the things we take for granted (5 day work week, safe work environments, workers comp, etc) is sad. Many people risked their lives and liveliahoods so the average worker could make a decent wage and be treated with respect. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John Blutarsky said:

You know what is interesting is you liberals can't have any sort of debate without adding snark and condescending comments.

The snark and condescending comments come from both sides. 

I appreciate that you're trying to discuss this productively. Would be interested in more policy discussion and less "you liberals" and "socialism". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Are you saying they will pay higher wages in this situation due to the lack of a union?  I'm a little confused about how this line fits in to your argument.

Yes, it's common sense.  When unemployment is low, there aren't as many people looking for work (supply is low).  If a company needs a specific skill set that is tough to find in the job market, they will pay a higher wage to hire that person.  It fits in perfectly with my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a woman for example, being in a union is really important. White  hourly female workers in a union make 94% of what their white male counterparts make. Non-union white females make 76% of what their male counterparts make. But sure you are right, that’s just because the men are working harder and deserve more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, supermike80 said:

+1  I said that when Trump got elected and some of the folks I know lost their ever loving minds.

Guys, it's ONE guy.....and hes part of a very well designed governmental system.   Relax...He isn't going to become Hitler.   

...no matter how hard he tries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

The snark and condescending comments come from both sides. 

I appreciate that you're trying to discuss this productively. Would be interested in more policy discussion and less "you liberals" and "socialism". 

If it comes from both sides, then call out both sides instead of trying to parent that one poster

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheCommish said:

Yes, it's common sense.  When unemployment is low, there aren't as many people looking for work (supply is low).  If a company needs a specific skill set that is tough to find in the job market, they will pay a higher wage to hire that person.  It fits in perfectly with my argument.

Over the last couple years has: 

unemployment been exceptionally low?

Has corporate profit been rising? 

Have wages been rising?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/business/economy/wages-workers-profits.html

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheCommish said:

Yes, it's common sense.  When unemployment is low, there aren't as many people looking for work (supply is low).  If a company needs a specific skill set that is tough to find in the job market, they will pay a higher wage to hire that person.  It fits in perfectly with my argument.

They'll do that whether a union exists or not. The difference is where the starting point of the payscale is. If that specific skill set deserves $10/hour more than the general laborer, the higher union-negotiated pay of the general laborer also affects the rate of the skilled employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheCommish said:

Yes, it's common sense.  When unemployment is low, there aren't as many people looking for work (supply is low).  If a company needs a specific skill set that is tough to find in the job market, they will pay a higher wage to hire that person.  It fits in perfectly with my argument.

What will they do under the same circumstances if there’s a union?  Just not hire anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I would be curious to see what your hard work and merit philosophy says about the idea most here have that if we went to government health care, most employers wouldn’t shift the ~$7000 they pay for insurance into salary. Just like that all their employees deserve $7000 less compensation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheCommish said:

My company has a profit sharing bonus.  So I will answer "yes" to all of your questions.

Maybe you're working at the wrong company.

That’s very good and I’m glad that has been the case for you. Does the janitor get to share in the profit? Are you guys hiring another 30 million people?

We have to look at the big picture. You know the macro answers to the questions I posed. Unemployment is very low, companies are super profitable and wages among middle and lower class has been very slow. I like the profit sharing and more companies would offer things like profit sharing if their workers were unionized. My wife works for a really great nonunion company that treats their employees well but we are fortunate. It doesn’t blind me to the larger realities of the world of employment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

Also I would be curious to see what your hard work and merit philosophy says about the idea most here have that if we went to government health care, most employers wouldn’t shift the ~$7000 they pay for insurance into salary. Just like that all their employees deserve $7000 less compensation?

The ~$7k that companies currently pay?  That's a company expense, and doesn't even show up on your W-2 form.  Why should they raise everyone's salary just because expenses are lower?  That said, my guess is that salaries would see some kind of bump, but certainly not the full $7k per person.  But my company would have a higher income (all things being equal) in this scenario, so I would also get a bump in my profit sharing bonus.

If you guys are stupid enough to vote for a person who would dramatically increase your individual income tax rate, then you get what you get.  Stop trying to tell "the rich" to pay for your stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheCommish said:

If you guys are stupid enough to vote for a person who would dramatically increase your individual income tax rate, then you get what you get.  Stop trying to tell "the rich" to pay for your stuff.

I am not a Bernie guy. Didn’t vote for him last time and won’t vote for him this time either. You’ve completely changed the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

That’s very good and I’m glad that has been the case for you. Does the janitor get to share in the profit? Are you guys hiring another 30 million people?

We have to look at the big picture. You know the macro answers to the questions I posed. Unemployment is very low, companies are super profitable and wages among middle and lower class has been very slow. I like the profit sharing and more companies would offer things like profit sharing if their workers were unionized. My wife works for a really great nonunion company that treats their employees well but we are fortunate. It doesn’t blind me to the larger realities of the world of employment. 

Everyone gets a piece of the profit sharing bonus, yes.  No, we aren't hiring 30 million people.

Your wife works for a great non-union company.  So you see first-hand that great non-union companies exist and work well for the company and the employee.  Yet you still claim that unions are necessary.  If your company treats you like crap, you need to find another company.  Why would you work at a place that doesn't value you as an employee, especially when unemployment is so low?

Got to get back to work.  Peace.

Edited by TheCommish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheCommish said:

Everyone gets a piece of the profit sharing bonus, yes.  No, we aren't hiring 30 million people.

Your wife works for a great non-union company.  So you see first-hand that great non-union companies exist and work well for the company and the employee.  Yet you still claim that unions are necessary.  If your company treats you like crap, you need to find another company.  Why would you work at a place that doesn't value you as an employee, especially when unemployment is so low?

I’m in a union, I’m fine. I just think it’s poor practice to ignore the big picture data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

If it comes from both sides, then call out both sides instead of trying to parent that one poster

 

Blutarsky said he wanted discussion and not snark. But as soon as people questioned the article or his assumptions, he disappeared. There are a ton of non-snark questions for him in this thread, but he hasn't responded to any. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:

 

Blutarsky said he wanted discussion and not snark. But as soon as people questioned the article or his assumptions, he disappeared. There are a ton of non-snark questions for him in this thread, but he hasn't responded to any. 

 

It was far worse than that:  The main counter-argument was essentially "if it's so good for the country, why hasn't it been implemented before?"

Imagine that was the rebuttal to US current institutions like Social Security or Medicare?  Or one step further circa mid 19th century:  "If slavery is so bad, why wasn't its prohibition written into the Constitution?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is fair to say instead of giving the employees back the full $7k that was covered for insurance that it should be the nets difference on the employers end after whatever tax credits they receive on insurance is factored in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2019 at 9:51 PM, John Blutarsky said:

If this is such a wonderful plan that won't hurt working families, the middle class etch then why hasn't it been put into place. 

Because we are run by a Plutocracy and the ruling class has identified their useful idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2019 at 9:53 PM, Amused to Death said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it would cost an *average* of $20k per taxpayer?  If the super wealthy pay the same tax rate, working class families should pay a lot less than $20k/year.  Oh, and corporations like Amazon and Walmart that pay near-zero should start contributing a few hundred million a year.  That'd be useful to help lower working class taxes.

Progressive payroll taxes could go a long way to generating revenue as well as close the obscene wage gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2019 at 11:49 PM, Ilov80s said:

That’s a major issue for sure and the reason that labor unions need to be way more prevalent. The idea that your employer could instantly give you a ~$10k pay cut because the government starts to cover health care for all is seriously screwed up and should be a reminder to everyone how important the right of labor to organize is.

There will be a secondary market for private insurance.  Employees receiving benefits now will still get that benefit in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Short Corner said:

There will be a secondary market for private insurance.  Employees receiving benefits now will still get that benefit in one form or another.

Hopefully, most here disagreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Hopefully, most here disagreed.

It will never happen as a matter of trickle down theory.  At the very least, contacted employees will have the private insurance.  I can't imagine an employer refusing to trade the cost of those premiums for 60-80 cents on the dollar in salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Short Corner said:

It will never happen as a matter of trickle down theory.  At the very least, contacted employees will have the private insurance.  I can't imagine an employer refusing to trade the cost of those premiums for 60-80 cents on the dollar in salary.

The few posters here think the employers will just take all the money and offer no additional compensation to employers. At least that’s what I think they were saying. But you are right with contracts, there would need to be a renegotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...