Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by SynGamer Ditto. As previous said, the problem currently are all the factory jobs where compensation was extremely high, while the rest of the industries have essentially leveled out and even lowered considerably. I see plenty of jobs that require a BA/BS and pay between $25k and 35k. It all depends on the market and the type of job. That said, I see no reason why factory jobs should be making $34,000 and complaining that it's too little when they can easily be replaced.

Listen you little shit stain, before you go blowing hard about the pay of unskilled laborers, let me tell a little personal story.

My father worked most his life in a powder coatings factory. A unionized factory. Were it not for that union, he wouldn't have been able to provide my mother and me the life that he did. That meant her not having to work, providing us with a safe place to live, providing us with health insurance, and enabling me to be able to go to college in the first damn place rather than having to immediately go to work to help the family. He couldn't have done any of that had their union not fought to get them that wage and those benefits.

In closing, you don't know shit about shit, you.

Originally Posted by SynGamer Ditto. As previous said, the problem currently are all the factory jobs where compensation was extremely high, while the rest of the industries have essentially leveled out and even lowered considerably. I see plenty of jobs that require a BA/BS and pay between $25k and 35k. It all depends on the market and the type of job. That said, I see no reason why factory jobs should be making $34,000 and complaining that it's too little when they can easily be replaced.

2 Things:

1)There'd be more for the bottom if the top didn't take so damn much. You want to see a massive increase in annual salaries, look at CEOs.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331...top-1-percent/

From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.

But yeah, blame the factory workers trying to support their families.

2) A 40 hour a week job at minimum wage is about $15,000/year. You want to have a talk about how minimum wage is set so that it is below the poverty level then we can do that but don't use minimum wage as your high water mark for those who choose not to, or simply can't, go to college.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Definitely not. But you can often get a doctorate with no debt as you can usually get assistantships with stipends for master's and doctorate degrees in most fields. Especially those that have lower paying careers as it's a way to get more people to pursue the degrees. The stipends can be tough to live on if one doesn't have a spouse/partner working or isn't willing to keep living with roommates like in undergrad as they tend to be $12-20k depending on university/location.

That's true - if he was talking about working as a TA or something of that ilk then it makes total sense. Plus he did say part time, if that's >20 hours then the person with the job could potentially double their salary.

But honestly in any other situation it's kind of pointless to offer 38K to someone with a degree because at the first hint of a better offer they are going to bolt and when talking about skilled labor, turnover is a bitch.

Originally Posted by Clak Listen you little shit stain, before you go blowing hard about the pay of unskilled laborers, let me tell a little personal story.

Lol, "shit stain", great start, very mature. Now, let me tel YOU a story...

My father worked most his life in a power coatings factory. A unionized factory. Were it not for that union, he wouldn't have been able to provide my mother and me the life that he did. That meant her not having to work, providing us with a safe place to live, providing us with health insurance, and enabling me to be able to go to college in the first damn place rather than having to immediately go to work to help the family. He couldn't have done any of that had their union not fault to get them that wage and those benefits.

My family has been with the UAW for roughly three decades. My grandfather worked in the factory for 25 years working 18 hours shifts 7 days a week to provide for his family...oh, and was exposed to asbestos. He made an honest living and during that time conditions and benefits improved, as they should have. My grandmother stayed home and watched the five children they had which was their choice.

In closing, you don't know shit about shit, you.

Classy, I'm sure your parents would be proud. Good to see they brought up a mature "man" who is able to debate in a civilized fashion.

Unlike you, my mother, single parent, brought me up with respect. She worked two jobs early on to provide all while going to school to get a degree. Much of that said respect came from my grandparents' influence. My grandfather showed me the value of honest living, but is quick to point out that unions, the UAW in particular, are greedy bastards today. They no longer fight for [deserved] better wages and benefits. They are no longer needed to fight for better conditions with so many laws and agencies in place to watch for these issues.

Today is a completely different beast altogether. Many families see BOTH parents working. I firmly believe in BOTH parents providing income, even if that means the children need to be in daycare OR the parents work alternating shifts. There is no reason only one of the parents should be the sole provider if both parents are capable of working and providing an income. Should a family decide to have only one parent work, don't ing get all high-and-mighty because your father worked in a factory while your mother stayed at home and watched the kids. That was a choice your family made. If he worked long shifts in a factory, so be it. I'm not saying anything bad, I'm merely pointing out that is a choice. A choice that SHOULDN'T require said factories/companies to overcompensate so that said one parent can support the entire family.

That's what you clearly don't understand. We live in a society and economy today where both parents generally need to work to support the family. It is NOT the responsibility of the company to compensate for one parent staying home.

Do you have any idea how much day care costs? If both parents are unskilled laborer's the day care will likely more than eat up the second income making it pointless.

For the middle class and up, sure both parents working to make extra income is valid. For the working class and poor, not so much as they can't get jobs to make enough money cover the cost of full time day care.

Originally Posted by dohdough rabble rabble rabble

I'm done discussing this with you, but I want to drop this before I go, written back in July. It completely breaks down every facet of the problems Hostess faced. Maybe you'll read it and learn something. Then again, I'm not sure reading comprehension is your strong point...

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/

The unions are to blame. The management is to blame. Everyone who let this company go bankrupt is to blame. The unions made the decision to strike. The unions APPROVED the CEO's and upper management getting those 80-300% raises FYI.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 Do you have any idea how much day care costs? If both parents are unskilled laborer's the day care will likely more than eat up the second income making it pointless. For the middle class and up, sure both parents working to make extra income is valid. For the working class and poor, not so much as they can't get jobs to make enough money cover the cost of full time day care.

And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.

And like most government assistance programs there are millions of families that make just enough to not qualify, but still can't afford day care on their salaries.

The choices people face aren't as simple and cut and dry as you make them out to be as there are millions of families that just scrape by, don't qualify for any government assistance and don't have any real options to change their life situation as they're stuck in their job (if they're lucky enough to have one), don't have time or money to go back to school and learn new skills while raising kids etc.

Now the one choice they did control, is having kids in the first place. And I'd agree that far too many people have kids when they don't have the financial stability needed to justify starting a family. But on the other hand, shouldn't society be as such that everyone who's willing to work hard can afford to raise a couple of kids? So it's not just an irresponsible decision problem, but also the problem of living in a shitty capitalistic society where people just care about getting as much as they can and don't care hardly at all for others or the common good.

Originally Posted by mtxbass1 I'm done discussing this with you, but I want to drop this before I go, written back in July. It completely breaks down every facet of the problems Hostess faced. Maybe you'll read it and learn something. Then again, I'm not sure reading comprehension is your strong point... http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/

So in other words, you can't refute my points. And FYI, the article doesn't either especially when you don't understand some key factors highlighted actually work. Your lack of understanding some very of those important concepts is the reason why you don't understand what the article is saying.

The unions are to blame. The management is to blame. Everyone who let this company go bankrupt is to blame. The unions made the decision to strike.

You might as well blame the dead for not being alive to buy more Hostess products too!

The unions APPROVED the CEO's and upper management getting those 80-300% raises FYI.

LOLOLOLOL Proof? This is one of the most outlandish things I've ever read.

I'm a Twinkie.

Originally Posted by SynGamer And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.

Lol, because if you have two working parents, you totally quality for childcare assistance. And that money comes from the middle class anyways. So now you have the factory workers getting paid less, but the ones with degrees get taxed more. And the salary disparity stays roughly the same. Big whoop.

Cheap childcare here is like $1300 a month. A kid. Two kids and you'd need to make like $40000 just to pay for daycare. But you want factory workers to make less than $38k and to put their kids in daycare? Lol.

Originally Posted by SynGamer And that is why most states offer assistance to help pay for childcare if they fall below a certain household income.

Do you have any idea how long it will take to get in something like that? My city has free child care for low income, but there is such a long waitlist you probably won't get in until your kid starts school. And this is one of the most liberal city in the country.

Instead many people rely on family or relatives for childcare, unlicensed but usually not a problem. However not everyone has those kinds of network.

Originally Posted by elessar123 Lol, because if you have two working parents, you totally quality for childcare assistance. And that money comes from the middle class anyways. So now you have the factory workers getting paid less, but the ones with degrees get taxed more. And the salary disparity stays roughly the same. Big whoop. Cheap childcare here is like $1300 a month. A kid. Two kids and you'd need to make like $40000 just to pay for daycare. But you want factory workers to make less than $38k and to put their kids in daycare? Lol.

So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice...

Originally Posted by SynGamer So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice...

Why pay now? Because it'll be more expensive if you don't, regardless of your "choice."

In case you don't know, a lot of those people making a lot more than you do are saying the exact same shit about you. Instead of railing against your fellow workers, a little solidarity would serve you well.

Originally Posted by SynGamer So what about people who recently graduated from university that were forced to take any job they could find, even if it undercompensated for their field or they were overqualified for the position. What if they are only making $40k? Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids? Perhaps my wife and I are too responsible and our CHOICE to not have kids until we are financially able to support them is a poor choice...

While that blows (I graduated at the downturn as well, and knew lots of people in that boat), it's also not really the factory workers' fault that the economy turned the way it did. So asking to punish them so you can get what you worked for isn't the right way, imo. Fixing the problem requires fixing the very top earners, but the poorest people tend to vote Republican for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by SynGamer Why should I or the rest of the working class care of a single factory working makes less than $38k just so the wife can stay at home and watch the kids?

Yet you seem to care deeply. You seem downright angry that these workers had the balls to stick it to the man on Thanksgiving.

Originally Posted by camoor Yet you seem to care deeply. You seem downright angry that these workers had the balls to stick it to the man on Thanksgiving.

No, I'm angry that they "stuck it to the man", cost 18,500 jobs, and then had the balls to complain and act like they had no choice/it wasn't their fault. Very large difference.

I'll try and perhaps break through the flame wars with this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-judge-hostess-union-agree-to-mediation-20121119,0,2355592.story

In a nutshell, Hostess and the union are going into mediation starting tomorrow.

That is great news. The last thing people need is the loss of 18,000+ jobs when it doesn't have to happen.

Horray? But will this actually solve the problems that plagued the company in the first place? From terrible management, executives not funding pensions yet taking money from it, unions demanding more pay etc. etc?