If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some professor)   A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour   (robertreich.org) divider line 134
    More: Fail, Wal-Mart, salary, big-box retailers, unfair labor practice, workers earned, Sam Walton, technological change, pensions  
•       •       •

2998 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Nov 2012 at 10:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-22 01:50:03 AM
Oh, oh, now do a CEO. Then show how the dollar has gone down the shiatter the past 40 years.
 
2012-11-22 07:16:37 AM
Only communists complain about being exploited by global corporations.
 
2012-11-22 07:24:13 AM
If we get rid of the unions things will be better. If we get rid of the auto workers things will be better. If we get rid of the public sector employees things will be better.
 
2012-11-22 07:40:12 AM
Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-22 07:42:23 AM
So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.
 
2012-11-22 08:37:42 AM
What would be great is if Obama turned out to be a true socialist, and did something like said "American can't tolerate subsidizing the Walmart family any longer" and then nationalized the business, just took it over.

Epic lulz. Won't happen, but America needs an aggressive prosecution of companies that shove their expenses out onto the public (not providing health care, underpaying its employees leading to them being on food stamps, etc) .. while pocking billions in profits.

All so you dumb sh*ts can have cheaper crap from china.


// haven't shopped a wal mart in decades.

/// still visits peopleofwalmart.com though
 
2012-11-22 08:45:31 AM
What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.
 
2012-11-22 08:54:28 AM
"America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week

/I know, it's more boring that way. "People making cars a half century ago earned a lot more than people in retail do today" is not much better, though.
 
2012-11-22 09:06:42 AM

Snarfangel: "America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week

/I know, it's more boring that way. "People making cars a half century ago earned a lot more than people in retail do today" is not much better, though.


I'm sure a hell of a lot of those retail workers would be delighted to be making cars instead. Oh but wait, we can't. Unions are to blame for high wages.

You see how it is, Tea-mitters?

High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.

Now back to work Thursday Retail .
 
2012-11-22 09:45:00 AM
I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...
 
2012-11-22 10:03:55 AM

Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...


Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.
 
2012-11-22 10:10:16 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...

Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.


But if I kiss enough corporate ass like some wanna-be Pinkerton jackass, doesn't that mean I've got a million percent chance of becoming a job creator? The 1% always stands up for their moronic lapdogs, doesn't it?
 
2012-11-22 10:12:49 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...

Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.


if you ONLY followed the corporate news, then yes - that's what you'd end up believing. there has been VERY little analysis about how Hostess ended up in such deep fiscal trouble. when I point out the facts to my conservative friends I'm met first with flat out disbelief and denial, followed by accusations that i'm lying or distorting facts. when I prove my statements true with valid third party neutral sources, from that point the reactions diverge into 'oh yeah well you just don't understand finance' to 'I don't wanna talk about this stuff, lets go shoot zombies or something'.

I honestly don't know what to say at that point. Hostess was run into the ground by an elite group of investors who made bad decisions and looted the company then shifted the blame to the unions. were the unions completely blameless? well, i'm sure you could find SOMETHING they did wrong....but even if you wanted to go that route you STILL have to look at the CEOs and board of directors who kept giving themselves pay raises while forcing workers to take pay cuts and question their motives. Most of my conservative friends WILL NOT blame a CEO under any circumstances. I find that reluctance to be quite strange.
 
2012-11-22 10:13:52 AM

Snarfangel: "America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week


The bolded part in the headline implied to me what your bolded alteration said.

Unless there's a semantic different I'm not aware of.

/always up for semantics
//Typed that as "sementics" at first. Not up for those.
 
2012-11-22 10:20:20 AM
The greedy assed corporations will kill their own golden goose.
For the past 30 years, wages have been declining as the money flows up into private wealth hoarding accounts. Declining wages undercut demand, which undercuts profits, which the ownership uses to require cost savings in the form of layoffs, which undercuts demand and so on and so on and so on, until the whole thing goes under.

Welcome to the vicious circle.
 
2012-11-22 10:23:03 AM

born_yesterday: But if I kiss enough corporate ass like some wanna-be Pinkerton jackass, doesn't that mean I've got a million percent chance of becoming a job creator? The 1% always stands up for their moronic lapdogs, doesn't it?


Yeah.
And everybody sits at home watching their goggle boxes being programmed to buy things and be aspirational voters for the elites.
It's some sad stupid shiat.
 
2012-11-22 10:27:05 AM
Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?

Good times, good times.
 
2012-11-22 10:29:21 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: born_yesterday: But if I kiss enough corporate ass like some wanna-be Pinkerton jackass, doesn't that mean I've got a million percent chance of becoming a job creator? The 1% always stands up for their moronic lapdogs, doesn't it?

Yeah.
And everybody sits at home watching their goggle boxes being programmed to buy things and be aspirational voters for the elites.
It's some sad stupid shiat.


Imma kill two birds with one stone--and eat Thanksgiving dinner right at the Walmart!

/Which reminds me, Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
 
2012-11-22 10:30:42 AM
False. Robert Reich is a liar and is lying to you.
 
2012-11-22 10:30:58 AM
If you want to understand the problem, and the solution, please read Retail's Hidden Potential: How Raising Wages Would Benefit Workers, the Industry, and the Overall Economy by Catherine Ruetschlin.
 
2012-11-22 10:35:25 AM
its all about the shareholders (owners) now, babycakes.

they call that 'Freedom/Liberty'.

the Freedom to exploit this Nation's citizens and undermine our Democracy. bust those Unions, otherwise, the workers might start having some rights and might start being treated fairly.

this process began 30 years ago and we're seeing the fruits of that process now.

and we're seeing the middle class fade away into the poor class.

and the owners think that is just fine, even though they are too stupid/short sited to see that they're undermining themselves and that they'd make more money in the long haul if our country had a prosperous thriving middle class.

Greed/selfishness blinds even those with the best eyesight.
 
2012-11-22 10:36:32 AM
Reich pulls some real fast ones in that article. He compares the equivalent wage at General motors (full-time, skilled workers) with the average wage at a company that hires a lot of UNskilled workers.

He also lies a bit. Wal-Mart's starting "sales associate" (starting) salary average is about where he claims their average is (yes, they pay some people less - in areas where living costs are much, much lower). Their overall average is closer to $12 an hour, which is pretty good for mostly-unskilled labor... and much, much higher (adjusted) than unskilled labor used to get in the 1950s. US average pay is not, by the way, $50 per hour - it's closer to $20 per hour, and that includes skilled and unskilled pay.

The real kicker? When you compare average hourly wages for the whole US, with adjusted dollars, pay has increased by about 50% in the last half-century.

Of course, in 1960, Federal government spending was a bit over 1% of GDP. Now, it's over 7%...
 
2012-11-22 10:37:16 AM

born_yesterday: Imma kill two birds with one stone--and eat Thanksgiving dinner right at the Walmart!


You could use some teevee trays and eat in the teevee department, right in front of all the teevees!
Pure genius.

Back at you.
 
2012-11-22 10:41:32 AM
cirby

Doesn't change the fact that the auto industry (GM, Chrysler, etc.) was the largest employer in the country back then, and their wages lifted wages for all workers. Walmart is now the largest employer, and their piss-poor wages are contributing to falling wages for all workers.
 
2012-11-22 10:49:26 AM
The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

A decade or so ago, a convention moved from one city, where it had been held for decades, to another, larger city a couple of states over. The new city had larger convention halls, more hotels, and was generally much better to hold a national convention in. The problem was, the new city was in a very union-friendly place, and everything was unionized.

The day before the convention was due to open, the trucks for the exhibitors and vendors rolled in. They'd been going to this convention (and others in the same field) for years, or decades. They knew the normal deal, roll in, set up your booth, unload your merchandise, get ready for tomorrow when tens of thousands of visitors would be strolling by.

Now, when they showed up, there were union reps waiting at the convention center. That convention center was a union shop. Since the vendors weren't part of the Union, they couldn't unload their own trucks, they couldn't set up their own booths, they couldn't even plug in their own lamps for their tables. They had to hire union laborers, union carpenters, and union electricians to get everything done, at union rates and union rules. Basically each vendor was being shook down for around a thousand dollars, on-the-spot, or they wouldn't be allowed to set up. Pay 3 guys for a minimum of 8 hours of labor despite only working about 1 hour each, at $30/hour, plus some hefty fees directly to the union). The workers could collect a full day's pay for simple unpaid labor (you shouldn't need a freaking electrician to plug a lamp into a socket on the wall, or a carpenter to set up a folding table and a couple of signs) at three times a reasonable rate for an hour of work, then do it again for a different vendor, getting paid for an entire weeks work at union rates in one afternoon.

There was a bit of a showdown, as you might imagine. Many vendors & exhibitors didn't have a thousand dollars or so to just throw at Union organizers on the spot to let them set up the trade show booths they'd already paid for with the convention organizers. Apparently some of the vendors from large corporations just threw them the money to end it, but some of the small businesses refused and started to do the work themselves (to threats and intimidation by the union members, and apparently formal complaints by the unions to venue management demanding they be banned from ever being allowed there again). The small businesses that ignored the unions said they basically had to keep a worker at their booth around the clock during the convention because occasionally, including late at night, goons would come by to see if the booth was unstaffed, presumably so they could damage/vandalize it.

After that, the convention stayed in the city, but some back-room deals had to be made with the unions between the convention organizers and the venue management. Unions didn't harass the vendors again in future years, but there was a curious spike in the cost of a booth at next years show.

It's behavior like that, that makes people not like unions.
 
2012-11-22 10:49:55 AM

Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...


imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-22 10:53:43 AM

Generation_D: High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.


Well considering even the union guys are not averaging $50/hour anymore I fail to see how this argument holds up, but unions are to blame for a lot of the downturn in the car industry with their selective striking against the big 3 back in the 70s to force them to submit to terms.

What was really amazing is that when they had to retool their lines for different makes or models, you would think the workers would help the plants do that since they are employees, right? No, there is a separate entity that retools the lines so I guess the other workers get put to work somewhere else or have to take time off during that re-tooling right? Well that would make sense but instead they get to come to the plant and "work" by playing cards, watching TV, eating donuts for 95% pay during that time, same as when they have sluggish sales, they show up to sit in a room then find out whos working then go home but they still got a lot of their pay.

Unions served a purpose at one time because of safety, now they are a hindrance to innovation and union leaders are just as shiatty as the companies from who they are supposed to "protect" workers. Im sure most of the 15,000 former Hostess employees would rather be working for a slight pay cut that was due to have half reinstated in a year rather than telling their families they wont have much of a Christmas this year. Unions seem to think they should be immune to economic downturn but thats not how business works, oh and before you think I am defending management, Im all for a federal law mandating that companies cannot give bonuses to execs if their lose money or take bailout funds.
 
2012-11-22 10:55:08 AM
I am watching Kidz Bop perform The Jackson 5's ABC at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and reading about a class conciousness that the United States has somehow always been inable to grasp.
 
I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
 
2012-11-22 10:59:52 AM

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

[long story]...


So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.
 
2012-11-22 11:02:02 AM
>>A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour


A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour. 

/replaced the parts you decided to remove
 
2012-11-22 11:04:50 AM
Hostility to unions is just an expression of jealousy.
But we're getting to the point where the owners would rather cash in and kill and eat the golden goose than deal with those pesky irritating expenses like wages and benefits.
 
2012-11-22 11:07:17 AM

stiletto_the_wise: So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.



No.

1. Exhibitors showed up.
2. Union folks said they weren't allowed to set up without paying off the union.
3. Some companies paid off the union, others didn't and were intimidated and threatened consistently for the next few days for not using union labor.
4. The convention went on, vendors threatened to leave, not come back, and generally the convention threatened to leave the town over the whole stink.
5. A back-room deal was made where the cost of booths went up, so the unions would get a kickback from the con in exchange for not bothering the convention. Now the unions get money from the convention for doing no labor at all.

Yeah, unions can be awful, when they just see places to shake down people for money.  You shouldn't need goddamn union thug permission (or around $1000 of payoff) just to unfold a table, plug in a lamp and a cash register, and unpack a few boxes of products.
 
2012-11-22 11:09:42 AM

RickN99: >>A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour


A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour. 

/replaced the parts you decided to remove


?

So it didn't suck at GM, but Walmart is horrible. That was his point wasn't it?
 
2012-11-22 11:12:21 AM
Wouldn't $8.81 an hour today be about a brazillion $$$ in the future? Wal-Mart is creating future millionaires! What's wrong with that?
 
2012-11-22 11:15:39 AM
In 1961, things weren't so different:
Mr. Frederick Donner, Chairman of the Board of the General Motors Corporation, received in salary and bonuses an amount of $2,922,000 for the period from 1956 through 1960. By contrast, the wages of an average GM hourly worker totalled $28,329, assuming that he worked 52 weeks each of these years, which the average GM worker did not. Mr. Donner received in this period more than 100 times the compensation of a GM worker.

From here.


Further, using the b>BLS inflation calculator, I see that the average wage of the GM worker in 1960 of $28,329 is the 2012 equivalent of earning $221,384.44.
 
2012-11-22 11:19:07 AM
Also, $10 an hour in 1913 would be $233.65 today.

Because irrelevant comparisons are irrelevant.
Except that I'd bet my last worthless dollar that in 1913, chairman and CEOs and etc., were earning 100 or 200 times more than the lowest-paid workers in their firms.
 
2012-11-22 11:20:00 AM

Silverstaff: Yeah, unions can be awful, when they just see places to shake down people for money.  You shouldn't need goddamn union thug permission (or around $1000 of payoff) just to unfold a table, plug in a lamp and a cash register, and unpack a few boxes of products.


Apparently they didn't need permission from any union thug. Was anyone physically prevented from setting up their own booths?

I'm not arguing that their attitude wasn't bad, but it just sounds to me like a bunch of pushy guys being asshats about not being hired to set up exhibitor's booths. Big whoop.
 
2012-11-22 11:22:33 AM
subby is lying, but she knew that.

she claims that the 50 years ago, the average worker was making the same as the average GM worker (the average GM worker made 50/hour in today's dollar).

Then compares that to a low end retail worker.

Why don't you compare what an average retail worker made 50 years today vs. today if you want to at least pretend to be honest?

apples != oranges.
 
2012-11-22 11:24:39 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: subby is lying, but she knew that.

she claims that the 50 years ago, the average worker was making the same as the average GM worker (the average GM worker made 50/hour in today's dollar).

Then compares that to a low end retail worker.

Why don't you compare what an average retail worker made 50 years today vs. today if you want to at least pretend to be honest?

apples != oranges.


I believe he is comparing the two largest private-sector employers in the United States.  I was somehow able to suss that information out from the first two paragraphs.  
 
2012-11-22 11:26:26 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: In 1961, things weren't so different:
Mr. Frederick Donner, Chairman of the Board of the General Motors Corporation, received in salary and bonuses an amount of $2,922,000 for the period from 1956 through 1960. By contrast, the wages of an average GM hourly worker totalled $28,329, assuming that he worked 52 weeks each of these years, which the average GM worker did not. Mr. Donner received in this period more than 100 times the compensation of a GM worker.

From here.

Further, using the b>BLS inflation calculator, I see that the average wage of the GM worker in 1960 of $28,329 is the 2012 equivalent of earning $221,384.44.


2,922,000 in 1960 is about 23M today. So CEOs were paid well then also.
That is just salary and bonus for those 5 years. Who knows what his stock would be worth today.
 
2012-11-22 11:28:28 AM
Subby is indeed wrong to turn Reich's midcentury GM wage (America's largest employer) into "Average American Wage."

I'm not happy with this state of affairs, but I encourage everyone to note/remember what stuff cost in the 1950s-60s (clothing, household goods, etc.). A November 1962 Torrance, CA paper has turkey prices would equate to about $5.50/lb today--does anyone today pay that much (except for a uber-artisinal-organic turkey)? Or a non-lux, smallish 1962 gas stove at what equates to almost $2500 right now? 

One more (same paper, Dec. 1962):

Link

The 29.50 Remington shaver you might buy as a gift for "the man in your life" = $216 today; but if your 2012 Walmart charged even a third of that, wouldn't you gripe?
 
2012-11-22 11:28:42 AM
Actually, the average GM worker of 1960 made $106 an hour in today's dollars.
 
2012-11-22 11:29:17 AM

brap: tenpoundsofcheese: subby is lying, but she knew that.

she claims that the 50 years ago, the average worker was making the same as the average GM worker (the average GM worker made 50/hour in today's dollar).

Then compares that to a low end retail worker.

Why don't you compare what an average retail worker made 50 years today vs. today if you want to at least pretend to be honest?

apples != oranges.

I believe he is comparing the two largest private-sector employers in the United States.  I was somehow able to suss that information out from the first two paragraphs.


That is now what the subtard wrote.
She wrote that average worker made $50/hour back then and then compared it to Walmart wages.

Then made it worse by comparing full time workers with wages that included part time workers..

That is a lame lying spin.
 
2012-11-22 11:32:20 AM

cirby: Reich pulls some real fast ones in that article. He compares the equivalent wage at General motors (full-time, skilled workers) with the average wage at a company that hires a lot of UNskilled workers.

He also lies a bit. Wal-Mart's starting "sales associate" (starting) salary average is about where he claims their average is (yes, they pay some people less - in areas where living costs are much, much lower). Their overall average is closer to $12 an hour, which is pretty good for mostly-unskilled labor... and much, much higher (adjusted) than unskilled labor used to get in the 1950s. US average pay is not, by the way, $50 per hour - it's closer to $20 per hour, and that includes skilled and unskilled pay.

The real kicker? When you compare average hourly wages for the whole US, with adjusted dollars, pay has increased by about 50% in the last half-century.

Of course, in 1960, Federal government spending was a bit over 1% of GDP. Now, it's over 7%...


Well, it's true that the piece is a bit biased to cause outrage that maybe shouldn't exist. But you also want to remember that the people who went to GM weren't skilled when they started. You could skate through high school with a C average, get a job at GM and soon enough you'd be making a family-supporting wage. There are still a lot of people skating through high school with a C average, but now they can't get those jobs anymore so when they meet somebody and start making kids there's not enough money to raise a family anymore.

I suppose one could explain this with the idea that the 1946-73 period was a labor bubble and that a normally functioning economy is meant to have many people just scraping by in a low-paying job.
 
2012-11-22 11:34:04 AM

GrizzledVeteran: Subby is indeed wrong to turn Reich's midcentury GM wage (America's largest employer) into "Average American Wage."

I'm not happy with this state of affairs, but I encourage everyone to note/remember what stuff cost in the 1950s-60s (clothing, household goods, etc.). A November 1962 Torrance, CA paper has turkey prices would equate to about $5.50/lb today--does anyone today pay that much (except for a uber-artisinal-organic turkey)? Or a non-lux, smallish 1962 gas stove at what equates to almost $2500 right now? 

One more (same paper, Dec. 1962):

Link

The 29.50 Remington shaver you might buy as a gift for "the man in your life" = $216 today; but if your 2012 Walmart charged even a third of that, wouldn't you gripe?


That really is an excellent point.
Look at how much batteries cost back then, or a gas powered lawnmower, or a quality stereo.
 
2012-11-22 11:34:59 AM
All the pesky comparisons aside -- which actually serve well to show that the more things change the more they stay the same -- the Wallyworld serfs should at least be given benefits or raises enough to cover health insurance. This would take the social welfare burden off the government, in other words, the taxpayers, you and me.
I'll bet Walmart could get a hell of a group rate on employee insurance.
 
2012-11-22 11:46:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: That really is an excellent point.
Look at how much batteries cost back then, or a gas powered lawnmower, or a quality stereo.


You know, I'd trade those cheap 2010-era batteries and stereos any day, for a 1960-era job that would let me buy a house, raise a family, afford medical care, and a pension to take care of me when I'm old--all on one income.
 
2012-11-22 11:54:33 AM
Okay, so what's a GM worker earn today, in wages and benefits? Let's compare apples to apples. Anyone know anyone who works for GM?
 
2012-11-22 11:54:52 AM

steamingpile: Generation_D: High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.

Well considering even the union guys are not averaging $50/hour anymore I fail to see how this argument holds up, but unions are to blame for a lot of the downturn in the car industry with their selective striking against the big 3 back in the 70s to force them to submit to terms.

What was really amazing is that when they had to retool their lines for different makes or models, you would think the workers would help the plants do that since they are employees, right? No, there is a separate entity that retools the lines so I guess the other workers get put to work somewhere else or have to take time off during that re-tooling right? Well that would make sense but instead they get to come to the plant and "work" by playing cards, watching TV, eating donuts for 95% pay during that time, same as when they have sluggish sales, they show up to sit in a room then find out whos working then go home but they still got a lot of their pay.

Unions served a purpose at one time because of safety, now they are a hindrance to innovation and union leaders are just as shiatty as the companies from who they are supposed to "protect" workers. Im sure most of the 15,000 former Hostess employees would rather be working for a slight pay cut that was due to have half reinstated in a year rather than telling their families they wont have much of a Christmas this year. Unions seem to think they should be immune to economic downturn but thats not how business works, oh and before you think I am defending management, Im all for a federal law mandating that companies cannot give bonuses to execs if their lose money or take bailout funds.


Well, 92% of the Hostess union voted against accepting the offer, so... no, it seems they were pretty much on board with it.
 
2012-11-22 11:59:37 AM

stiletto_the_wise: Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

[long story]...

So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.


Your amazing reading comprehension obviously missed the point where the unions were doing a shakedown saying the vendors had to use the union contractors, or risk intimidation and/or vandalization of their booths.
 
2012-11-22 12:11:08 PM

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

A decade or so ago, a convention moved from one city, where it had been held for decades, to another, larger city a couple of states over. The new city had larger convention halls, more hotels, and was generally much better to hold a national convention in. The problem was, the new city was in a very union-friendly place, and everything was unionized.



You're talking about McCormick in Chicago. The shakedowns there are legendary.

A friend of mine who regularly displayed there always brought a stack of cash to grease the loading dock folks to make sure his shiat got unloaded early. Whoa unto thee who didn't do this and were left scrambling to get set up. The heavy handshake gets shiat done.
 
2012-11-22 12:11:13 PM
Wait a second, yes, things are cheaper now, but we expect that because of automation and technology, not because we've screwed over the people making them.

On one side the economy is based on unabated growth, on the other efficiency is based on less people doing more. Those are mutually exclusive, I think.
 
2012-11-22 12:15:39 PM
I always thought one of the temp-agencies was the largest employer in america.
 
2012-11-22 12:21:17 PM
At the peak of its power and influence in the 1950s, the United Auto Workers could claim a significant portion of GM's earnings for its members.

Unfortunately, the UAW didn't learn the lesson of successful parasites: don't kill your host.
 
2012-11-22 12:25:27 PM

Martonio: Your amazing reading comprehension obviously missed the point where the unions were doing a shakedown saying the vendors had to use the union contractors, or risk intimidation and/or vandalization of their booths.


Yet, apparently nobody was physically stopped from setting up their own booths if they didn't want to hire the union guys. So, they were basically pushy salesmen who some people found intimidating.
 
2012-11-22 12:27:19 PM

Ed Finnerty: So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.


The left isn't about alternatives and personal choice, it's about making sure the One True Path is followed. WalMart and Fox News don't fit that template and therefore must be vilified and, if possible, destroyed.
 
2012-11-22 12:30:19 PM
50 years ago we were the only industrial power left standing after WWII. Competition does crazy things.

Now, if someone is going to say that quality of life was somehow better then, there's nothing I can do for you, because you're nuts.
 
2012-11-22 12:33:19 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: False. Robert Reich is a liar and is lying to you.


Just misleading you (again). It's an apples and oranges headfake.

Union workers today make over $50 an hour, there just aren't as many union jobs.

The girl who worked at the dimestore in 1962 was not making today's equivalent of $50 an hour. More like $1.15 an hour (the then minimum wage), which would translate to about $6.00 an hour today. $8.81 is close to 50% more.
 
2012-11-22 12:40:36 PM
One of the arguments I hear all the time for needing illegal immigration is, "You don't want to pay $5 for a head of lettuce do you? That's what you'd pay if farmers had to hire legal workers." Sounds like WalMart should hire nothing but illegals, because apparently it's okay to exploit them, and guys like Reich wouldn't be complaining how crappy the WalMart wages are. You wouldn't want to pay $20 for a box of paper clips, would you?
 
2012-11-22 12:42:28 PM
From the article:

But if retail workers got a raise, would consumers have to pay higher prices to make up for it? A new study by the think tank Demos reports that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers.

If it only costs 1% then why doesn't a major retailer do it? Oh that's right: because Reich is talking out of his ass again.

Retail jobs aren't a profession, it is staffed mainly by young people that will transition into higher paying jobs. Reich seems to want to desire a way to stop the world and have people be satisified working as a cashier all their life.
 
2012-11-22 12:54:02 PM

stiletto_the_wise: You know, I'd trade those cheap 2010-era batteries and stereos any day, for a 1960-era job that would let me buy a house, raise a family, afford medical care, and a pension to take care of me when I'm old--all on one income.


Yea, but in 1960 there was no Ceelo Green and if you wanted a sitcom you certainly didn't have "Two Broke Girls". My god man, you'd be stuck with Andy Griffith and "The Flintstones"! And if you want immersive evening entertainment there's no WoW, you'll have to read a book! Is the certainty of your future and reasonable job prospects really worth the loss of all these modern gems!?

/ shut up and enjoy your cheap bread and circus you ungracious peasant
 
2012-11-22 12:55:49 PM

jjorsett: Unfortunately, the UAW didn't learn the lesson of successful parasites: don't kill your host.


Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. I realize this would cut your vocabulary to nearly nothing, but I'm prepared to accept the risk that we'll never be assaulted by your "wisdom" again as a result.
 
2012-11-22 01:31:05 PM

jjorsett: At the peak of its power and influence in the 1950s, the United Auto Workers could claim a significant portion of GM's earnings for its members.

Unfortunately, the UAW didn't learn the lesson of successful parasites: don't kill your host.


Parasites? The people who build the products that the company sells to make money are parasites?
I guess that the managers and executives who dug the pit and drove GM into it are the host, then?

/You must be some kind of bizarro-fark.
 
2012-11-22 01:34:10 PM
farm8.staticflickr.com
.
 
2012-11-22 01:39:10 PM

cchris_39: Debeo Summa Credo: False. Robert Reich is a liar and is lying to you.

Just misleading you (again). It's an apples and oranges headfake.

Union workers today make over $50 an hour, there just aren't as many union jobs.

The girl who worked at the dimestore in 1962 was not making today's equivalent of $50 an hour. More like $1.15 an hour (the then minimum wage), which would translate to about $6.00 an hour today. $8.81 is close to 50% more.


$1.15 in 1962 is worth $8.81 today
 
2012-11-22 01:43:36 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: In 1961, things weren't so different:
Mr. Frederick Donner, Chairman of the Board of the General Motors Corporation, received in salary and bonuses an amount of $2,922,000 for the period from 1956 through 1960. By contrast, the wages of an average GM hourly worker totalled $28,329, assuming that he worked 52 weeks each of these years, which the average GM worker did not. Mr. Donner received in this period more than 100 times the compensation of a GM worker.

From here.

Further, using the b>BLS inflation calculator, I see that the average wage of the GM worker in 1960 of $28,329 is the 2012 equivalent of earning $221,384.44.


That $28k is for working from 1956 to 1960, not just one year.
 
2012-11-22 01:52:44 PM

Linux_Yes: .. el snippo...
and the owners think that is just fine, even though they are too stupid/short sited to see that they're undermining themselves and that they'd make more money in the long haul if our country had a prosperous thriving middle class.

Greed/selfishness blinds even those with the best eyesight.


Blindness? I don't see blindness at all - I see a careful and calculated strategy. You're undervaluing the notion of Globalization that needs to be in this discussion. The "owners" are quite willing to suck the West dry (not just the USA, but Europe, Australia and Canada) then move on to emerging markets like India and China. That is the general long term strategy that is being employed.

Part of that strategy is to get as rich as possible right now, so that you've got enough money to keep moving to where you get the lifestyle you want. Earn $100 Million right now and you can simply move from one country to another when the situation warrants. It also means a pretty nice retirement fund for yourself for when you finally do get out of the game, with interest building up from savings in transnational banks and investments in the new markets your former colleagues are now exploiting. By the time any of these owners will really need to deal with the consequences of their actions, they'll be dead of old age.
 
2012-11-22 01:53:21 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...


It's essentially an extended bumper sticker argument. Tax policy was different enough that a direct comparison of marginal rates isn't an accurate representation. Nor is the social safety net as it asserted "weakened" today in comparison to the 1950s. If anything due to the Great Society programs of LBJ, our "social safety net" guarantees far more than the 1950s ever saw.

America is in a productivity funk. Everyone wants wealth but they think shuffling around doing menial labor or work will bring it to them. Please tell me what skills in the bulk of the American workforce justify paying people 50$ an hour?

Everyone wants the pay that a skilled machinist or master electrician pulls in but few want to actually have the duty or build the skills for it.
 
2012-11-22 02:40:14 PM

Mrbogey: FirstNationalBastard: Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

It's essentially an extended bumper sticker argument. Tax policy was different enough that a direct comparison of marginal rates isn't an accurate representation. Nor is the social safety net as it asserted "weakened" today in comparison to the 1950s. If anything due to the Great Society programs of LBJ, our "social safety net" guarantees far more than the 1950s ever saw.

America is in a productivity funk.
Everyone wants wealth but they think shuffling around doing menial labor or work will bring it to them. Please tell me what skills in the bulk of the American workforce justify paying people 50$ an hour?

Everyone wants the pay that a skilled machinist or master electrician pulls in but few want to actually have the duty or build the skills for it.


I see you've been asleep for the past thirty-odd years, Rumplestiltskin. I suggest you review the welfare reform legislation of the past three decades and think about how that interacts with the radical redistribution of wealth and income since 1979 and get back to us.

I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like

/Crack: You're smoking it.
//Just whose, I'm not certain.
 
2012-11-22 03:19:02 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: All the pesky comparisons aside -- which actually serve well to show that the more things change the more they stay the same -- the Wallyworld serfs should at least be given benefits or raises enough to cover health insurance. This would take the social welfare burden off the government, in other words, the taxpayers, you and me.
I'll bet Walmart could get a hell of a group rate on employee insurance.


Hate to break to all you farkers but Wal-Mart does offer decent insurance plans and benefits
And never heard of any personal manger sending workers to sign up for welfare.
/ 14 year employee of Wally world
 
2012-11-22 03:49:47 PM
False equivalency is false.
 
2012-11-22 03:54:30 PM

RickN99: A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour.


So why do we have fewer full time, quality positions?

Is Walmart offering their workers full time positions, and the workers are refusing?

Or is Walmart only offering part time position for the specific purpose of keeping salaries low?
 
2012-11-22 04:24:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mrbogey: FirstNationalBastard: Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

It's essentially an extended bumper sticker argument. Tax policy was different enough that a direct comparison of marginal rates isn't an accurate representation. Nor is the social safety net as it asserted "weakened" today in comparison to the 1950s. If anything due to the Great Society programs of LBJ, our "social safety net" guarantees far more than the 1950s ever saw.

America is in a productivity funk. Everyone wants wealth but they think shuffling around doing menial labor or work will bring it to them. Please tell me what skills in the bulk of the American workforce justify paying people 50$ an hour?

Everyone wants the pay that a skilled machinist or master electrician pulls in but few want to actually have the duty or build the skills for it.

I see you've been asleep for the past thirty-odd years, Rumplestiltskin. I suggest you review the welfare reform legislation of the past three decades and think about how that interacts with the radical redistribution of wealth and income since 1979 and get back to us.

I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like. 

/Crack: You're smoking it.
//Just whose, I'm not certain.


Productivity has little to do with wages. If you have 1,000 highly productive workers competing for 1 job, the job will pay minimum wage.
 
2012-11-22 04:29:04 PM
That is perhaps the best cartoon that Tom Toles has ever done (not the funniest, wackiest or most orignal, maybe, but very likely the most acute and elegant expression of fundamental truths of the type that Tom Toles endeavours to convey with humour and wit each week or so).

Mais revenons à nos sheeple.

$50 in 1955 was fairly good pay. The work week was six days for many, but was probably reduced to Saturday half-day off towards the end of that period. That $50 was earned in more hours than most salary or even wage workers consider "full time" today, although the notional 37.5 hour week is more like 42 hours on average.

This reduces the value of that $50 slightly because it was less per hour. Leisure is worth a little something. I believe economists value it at about $2.50 an hour. I would put the price higher.

According to Measuring worth, $50 in 1955 was the equivalent of:

If you want to compare the value of a $50.00 Commodity in 1955 there are four choices. In 2011 the relative:
real price of that commodity is $420.00
real value of that commodity is $530.00
labor value of that commodity is $538.00(using the unskilled wage) or $656.00(using production worker compensation)
income value of that commodity is $964.00

If you want to compare the value of a $50.00 Income or Wealth , in 1955 there are four choices. In 2011 the relative:

historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $420.00
contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $530.00
economic status value of that income or wealth is $964.00
economic power value of that income or wealth is $1,820.00


If you want to compare the value of a $50.00 Project in 1955 there are four choices. In 2011 the relative:
historic opportunity cost of that project is $342.00
contemporary opportunity cost of that project is $530.00
labor cost of that project is $538.00(using the unskilled wage) or $656.00(using production worker compensation)
economy cost of that project is $1,820.00

In other words, the worker who got $50 in 1955 was as well of (if unskilled, like WalMart employees, as if she was getting $538 a week). If a line worker (semi-skilled, unionized) they were as well off as if they were pulling down $656. And in terms of how well other people were off, they would be making $964, because people were poorer then. Mr. Ford's pay packet looked a lot better when other people were more likely to be making $35 a week. Your status was higher with the same amount of purchasing power than it is today. Lots more rich people today.

In terms of what you could buy relative to your fellow Americans (let alone those beggers overseas), that $50 was like $1820.00, even if it only bought $580 worth of stuff. A TV set was still a luxury in 1955 although roughly half or two thirds of homes had one, almost certainly a BW set with a tiny screen by today's lowest standards (non-TV owning hipster standards). Or roughly the size of a computer monitor with a cathode tube.

So people who got $50 a week were quite happy with their pay in all likelihood. They were definitely better off than WalMart employees, because the WalMart pay packet usually has no benefits and the WalMart masses are usually working part-time and shifts. NASTY. And they may be locked into the store if they are night crew. REALLY NASTY IF THE STORE BURNS.

It was a fire and locked doors that created the reforms that lead to unions in the first place. People died because the FIRE DOOR was locked at a sweat shop in New York. A sweat shop that is so famous now that a GOON comic book had an issue based on the story. This was before Mr. Roosevelt went commie on you. Well, went liberal. He was an American aristocrat, of sorts, being distantly related to the Oyster Bay Roosevelts, who were just that much more tony.

The idea that $50 in 1955 was better than $8.81 an hour in 2012 is moot. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Depends on how much you value your freedom, your leisure time, clean hands, and job portability.

Some WalMart workers (mostly illegal and semi-legal types from low-income backgrounds) might think they were better off than you would in the same place.

But $8.80 times 20 hours a week is not enough money for anybody to be really happy unless they are totally retarded and living in their Mother's basement. Please feel free to confirm this, Fark Conservatives!

That much is bang on.

It's not so much the absolute disappearance of benefits, pensions, home-ownership and hope. And it definitely isn't Obama. When you get down to brass tacks, it is the disappearance of manufacturing and full time jobs with unions.

CURSE YOU ONE PERCENTERS! And curse you Republican 47 percenters. You stupid schmucks. You hate immigrants, blacks and liberals so much you handed your owners your balls and said, do with 'em as you please, just hurt other people more!

You not what they did with your balls, Amerika-ka-ka? They threw them out the window, just like anybody who cuts off your balls, stupid!

Personally I love Lady America, but her Evil Twin, Amerika-ka-ka is a real BIOTCH with a CAPITALIST B, which stands for Bullshiat, and which you are deep, deep in, seeing as your heads have been up your arses for over 400 years now.

They say on the far right (or K-K-Konservative Middle America, as they call themselves) that they want a Second American Revolution. They deserve one, but not the one they want. Not a counter-revolution, but the real drag-'em down and string 'em up from the lamppost revolution that they thrill to fear every time a Democrat (mealy-mouthed, useless wimps though they may be) gets elected.

Say hello to your balls if you ever find them. Oops! Stepped in something squishy. Gotta run!

Amerika-ka-ka can bite me. If I ever find where she ditched her democratic, liberal and kindly sister, there is going to be Hell to Pay.
 
2012-11-22 04:31:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I see you've been asleep for the past thirty-odd years, Rumplestiltskin. I suggest you review the welfare reform legislation of the past three decades and think about how that interacts with the radical redistribution of wealth and income since 1979 and get back to us.

I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like. 

/Crack: You're smoking it.
//Just whose, I'm not certain.

Productivity has little to do with wages. If you have 1,000 highly productive workers competing for 1 job, the job will pay minimum wage.


It used to. So you agree that government and tax policies that allowed for and subsidized manufacturers exporting good-paying jobs - and the successful attacks on unions - were stupid, short-sighted moves. Thanks for your support.
 
2012-11-22 05:02:41 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like.


Reminds me of a comment about peasants making boars hair soup.

Someone else took the rest of the pig.
 
2012-11-22 05:10:02 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mrbogey: FirstNationalBastard: Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

It's essentially an extended bumper sticker argument. Tax policy was different enough that a direct comparison of marginal rates isn't an accurate representation. Nor is the social safety net as it asserted "weakened" today in comparison to the 1950s. If anything due to the Great Society programs of LBJ, our "social safety net" guarantees far more than the 1950s ever saw.

America is in a productivity funk. Everyone wants wealth but they think shuffling around doing menial labor or work will bring it to them. Please tell me what skills in the bulk of the American workforce justify paying people 50$ an hour?

Everyone wants the pay that a skilled machinist or master electrician pulls in but few want to actually have the duty or build the skills for it.

I see you've been asleep for the past thirty-odd years, Rumplestiltskin. I suggest you review the welfare reform legislation of the past three decades and think about how that interacts with the radical redistribution of wealth and income since 1979 and get back to us.

I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like. 

/Crack: You're smoking it.
//Just whose, I'm not certain.


My names not Rumpelstilskin, Rip.

The argument was 1950s versus 2012. Not 1979 versus 2012. Also the largesse of social spending is easy when the GDP is growing. We've seen America abandon advocating for work since then and everyone wants in on the dole. You can't have a strong safety net when you gut your economy.
 
2012-11-22 05:20:13 PM

Mrbogey: My names not Rumpelstilskin, Rip.

The argument was 1950s versus 2012. Not 1979 versus 2012. Also the largesse of social spending is easy when the GDP is growing. We've seen America abandon advocating for work since then and everyone wants in on the dole. You can't have a strong safety net when you gut your economy.


So you see my point, then, Ms. Frank?
You obvious logic and history flaws aside, then, you agree that government and tax policies that allowed for and subsidized manufacturers exporting good-paying jobs - and the successful attacks on unions - were stupid, short-sighted moves. Thanks for your support.
 
2012-11-22 05:21:36 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mrbogey: My names not Rumpelstilskin, Rip.

The argument was 1950s versus 2012. Not 1979 versus 2012. Also the largesse of social spending is easy when the GDP is growing. We've seen America abandon advocating for work since then and everyone wants in on the dole. You can't have a strong safety net when you gut your economy.

So you see my point, then, Ms. Frank?
You obvious logic and history flaws aside, then, you agree that government and tax policies that allowed for and subsidized manufacturers exporting good-paying jobs - and the successful attacks on unions - were stupid, short-sighted moves. Thanks for your support.


Your. (I get a freebie due to your missing apostrophe.)
 
2012-11-22 06:05:41 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Hate to break to all you farkers but Wal-Mart does offer decent insurance plans and benefits


Offering and being able to afford are entirely separate matters.
 
2012-11-22 06:42:27 PM

starsrift: Okay, so what's a GM worker earn today, in wages and benefits? Let's compare apples to apples. Anyone know anyone who works for GM?


when my dad retired from Ford 3 years ago, he was making $74K a year. And he wasn't in any sort of management position.
 
2012-11-22 06:58:34 PM

Generation_D: What would be great is if Obama turned out to be a true socialist, and did something like said "American can't tolerate subsidizing the Walmart family any longer" and then nationalized the business, just took it over.

Epic lulz. Won't happen, but America needs an aggressive prosecution of companies that shove their expenses out onto the public (not providing health care, underpaying its employees leading to them being on food stamps, etc) .. while pocking billions in profits.

All so you dumb sh*ts can have cheaper crap from china.


// haven't shopped a wal mart in decades.

/// still visits peopleofwalmart.com though


Just try buying any consumer item that isn't made in China. There is very little choice.
 
2012-11-22 06:59:43 PM

EnviroDude: What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.


This over printing would not have happened if Bush hadn't rogered the economy.
 
2012-11-22 07:03:34 PM

Generation_D: Snarfangel: "America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week

/I know, it's more boring that way. "People making cars a half century ago earned a lot more than people in retail do today" is not much better, though.

I'm sure a hell of a lot of those retail workers would be delighted to be making cars instead. Oh but wait, we can't. Unions are to blame for high wages.

You see how it is, Tea-mitters?

High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.

Now back to work Thursday Retail .


Walmart is a classic example of why we need unions to stand up for workers. How the hell does anyone live on $8 an hour?
 
2012-11-22 07:19:38 PM

Therion: Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?.


As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution. Not anything that cost money really, mostly just time, how about we all carry around our tax returns and when you come to a line the person who pays the most taxes gets to go to the front of the line? Or how about the more you pay in taxes the faster you can drive and people have to get out of the lane I want to drive in an let me go by?

And yes, I really am serious. If I have to pay more to make up for those who earn less than I should get perks for it, seems fair to me. And yes, I get nicer things for the larger income I receive but I worked for that larger income, through putting in more time, more education and more devotion to my career.
 
2012-11-22 07:27:14 PM

MasterAdkins: Therion: Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?.

As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution. Not anything that cost money really, mostly just time, how about we all carry around our tax returns and when you come to a line the person who pays the most taxes gets to go to the front of the line? Or how about the more you pay in taxes the faster you can drive and people have to get out of the lane I want to drive in an let me go by?

And yes, I really am serious. If I have to pay more to make up for those who earn less than I should get perks for it, seems fair to me. And yes, I get nicer things for the larger income I receive but I worked for that larger income, through putting in more time, more education and more devotion to my career.



iseeahappyface.com
 
2012-11-22 07:32:36 PM

Ed Finnerty: So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.


Show me one time in the history of mankind where "ignore it and it goes away" actually worked.
 
2012-11-22 07:34:08 PM

MasterAdkins: Therion: Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?.

As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution. Not anything that cost money really, mostly just time, how about we all carry around our tax returns and when you come to a line the person who pays the most taxes gets to go to the front of the line? Or how about the more you pay in taxes the faster you can drive and people have to get out of the lane I want to drive in an let me go by?

And yes, I really am serious. If I have to pay more to make up for those who earn less than I should get perks for it, seems fair to me. And yes, I get nicer things for the larger income I receive but I worked for that larger income, through putting in more time, more education and more devotion to my career.


The biggest perk is one you already get: You live in a country where you have been able to acquire lots of nice stuff.

(Also: Poor people don't break into your house/car, kill/eat you/and your pets/spouse/kids and take your stuff.)

/I know you were just trollin'.
//If not, I have a question: What, precisely, do you build/grow/mine?
 
2012-11-22 07:37:51 PM
If the owners weren't dicks, we wouldn't need unions.

If unions weren't dicks, the owners couldn't so easily demonize them.
 
2012-11-22 07:41:22 PM

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.


So vote CEO.
 
2012-11-22 07:51:50 PM
I'd like to see the SEC get a spine and just suspend Walmart's stock until it fixes things so the public is no longer picking up the tab for their employees. And if Walmart doesn't want to play along, take away their being a publicly traded company all together.
 
2012-11-22 09:20:56 PM
Rumplestiltskin /= Rip Van Winkle
 
2012-11-22 10:35:20 PM

Any Pie Left: Rumplestiltskin /= Rip Van Winkle


And what was Rumplestiltskin's special skill?

/I know you know, but please enlighten the troll shoot down that bogey.
 
2012-11-22 10:44:13 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: HotIgneous Intruder: All the pesky comparisons aside -- which actually serve well to show that the more things change the more they stay the same -- the Wallyworld serfs should at least be given benefits or raises enough to cover health insurance. This would take the social welfare burden off the government, in other words, the taxpayers, you and me.
I'll bet Walmart could get a hell of a group rate on employee insurance.

Hate to break to all you farkers but Wal-Mart does offer decent insurance plans and benefits
And never heard of any personal manger sending workers to sign up for welfare.
/ 14 year employee of Wally world


The Wal-Mart my sister works at has Medicaid applications in the HR office. She has been scheduled less than 40 hrs. TWICE in the past 11 months, and each of those were 32 hrs, yet she is denied benefits because she works a "part-time" position.

Go sell that bullsh*t somewhere else. We ain't buyin' it 'round here.
 
2012-11-22 10:47:20 PM

schrodinger: RickN99: A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour.

So why do we have fewer full time, quality positions?

Is Walmart offering their workers full time positions, and the workers are refusing?

Or is Walmart only offering part time position for the specific purpose of keeping salaries low?


They are hiring workers for "part-time" positions but working them full-time so that they don t have to give them benefits or raises, and they can still brag about how well their full-time employees have it.
 
2012-11-22 11:53:52 PM

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

A decade or so ago, a convention moved from one city, where it had been held for decades, to another, larger city a couple of states over. The new city had larger convention halls, more hotels, and was generally much better to hold a national convention in. The problem was, the new city was in a very union-friendly place, and everything was unionized.

The day before the convention was due to open, the trucks for the exhibitors and vendors rolled in. They'd been going to this convention (and others in the same field) for years, or decades. They knew the normal deal, roll in, set up your booth, unload your merchandise, get ready for tomorrow when tens of thousands of visitors would be strolling by.

Now, when they showed up, there were union reps waiting at the convention center. That convention center was a union shop. Since the vendors weren't part of the Union, they couldn't unload their own trucks, they couldn't set up their own booths, they couldn't even plug in their own lamps for their tables. They had to hire union laborers, union carpenters, and union electricians to get everything done, at union rates and union rules. Basically each vendor was being shook down for around a thousand dollars, on-the-spot, or they wouldn't be allowed to set up. Pay 3 guys for a minimum of 8 hours of labor despite only working about 1 hour each, at $30/hour, plus some hefty fees directly to the union). The workers could collect a full day's pay for simple unpaid labor (you shouldn't need a freaking electrician to plug a lamp into a socket on the wall, or a carpenter to set up a folding table and a couple of signs) at three times a reasonable rate for an hour of work, then do it again for a different vendor, getting paid for an entire weeks work at union rates in one afternoon.

There was a bit of a showdown, as you might imagine. Many vendors & exhibitors didn't have a thousand dollars or so to just throw at Union organizers on the spot to let them set up the trade show booths they'd already paid for with the convention organizers. Apparently some of the vendors from large corporations just threw them the money to end it, but some of the small businesses refused and started to do the work themselves (to threats and intimidation by the union members, and apparently formal complaints by the unions to venue management demanding they be banned from ever being allowed there again). The small businesses that ignored the unions said they basically had to keep a worker at their booth around the clock during the convention because occasionally, including late at night, goons would come by to see if the booth was unstaffed, presumably so they could damage/vandalize it.

After that, the convention stayed in the city, but some back-room deals had to be made with the unions between the convention organizers and the venue management. Unions didn't harass the vendors again in future years, but there was a curious spike in the cost of a booth at next years show.

It's behavior like that, that makes people not like unions.


If this was the case, then the venue management or show organizer wasn't that good at their jobs. I've worked in a union arena. The show promoters know up from the union costs, and should pass that information on to the vendors. I'm not saying the costs weren't excessive, they can be. But there is no reason that shouldn't have been communicated to the vendors ahead of time.
 
2012-11-23 12:21:14 AM
Too many workers. Supply and demand. We should be keeping our population in equilibrium with declining demand as it is displaced by robots. Automation has put employers in a tyrannical negotiating position. If they had a harder time finding workers, they would have to offer more money. We should be restricting immigration and disincentivizing large families through the tax and welfare codes.
 
2012-11-23 12:41:46 AM

IlGreven: Ed Finnerty: So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.

Show me one time in the history of mankind where "ignore it and it goes away" actually worked.


The last Ice Age?
 
2012-11-23 01:04:12 AM

Tommy Moo: Too many workers.


No such thing. Oh sure you can argue too much supply leads to depressed wages, but if there's tons of workers around and no one is coming up with new ways to employ them, after all there's not a lot of market pressure prohibiting it, then you have a market failure.
 
2012-11-23 01:18:38 AM

EnviroDude: What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.


This

Many of you have no clue that it is the federal reserve that is destroying wealth in this country......thank the public education system for this
 
2012-11-23 02:39:28 AM

giftedmadness: EnviroDude: What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.

This

Many of you have no clue that it is the federal reserve that is destroying wealth in this country......thank the public education system for this


And this is why you shouldn't get your information from Ron Paul "gold standard" web sites. They omit a good bit of information regarding fiscal theory and practice here in the US, and you seem very silly when you act as if you know something that others don't.

Long story short, foreign holding in American currency from international trade, as well as rich people and corporations sitting on their cash reserves, cause a lack of real dollars here in the United States for paying employees and buying and selling goods and services. Instead of making this up by printing enough money to cover the difference, or at least buying dollars back from whatever country now holds them, "fake" currency is allowed to be issued by the banks. The banks generally only hold about 20% of their outstanding loans, meaning they just literally "make up" the money that goes into your checking account when you take out a loan, or the "credit line" you are given when you get a new credit card. Only about 20% or so of your credit line or your loan actually exists as real money. THIS is what's actually killing our currency, and not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is forced to work around such nonsense because the rules about how much money banks have to have in "real" money are made by Congress. (And with Barney Frank, the sole voice of reason left on the House Finance Committee, retiring after this year, there is no telling what might happen. Thankfully, we now have a few more intelligent people like Elizabeth Warren that might help keep the pro-business congress critters in check, although she's a Senator-to-be, not a Congresswoman).

This is inflated further when banks loan one another "money", as the same rules apply - Bank A might have an extra $20,000 over the daily FDIC close limit, while bank B is short $100,000. Bank A loans Bank B $100,000, $80,000 of which does not actually exist, in order for Bank B to close its books for the day. Bank B then "repays" Bank A the daily interest on $100,000 the following morning, and it's all good.

You should be down on your knees thanking the people at the Federal Reserve for working around this kind of crap and keeping the economy moving as much as it is.

If you ever wonder about the inflation of the late 80's through the early 00's, try correlating it with the large number of credit cards which were issued with no real money backing them during the same period. THIS is the cause of the economic woes you have blamed on the Federal Reserve (it also had a lot to do with the Clinton Boom and the money that people had to invest in the dotcoms, but that's another story).
 
2012-11-23 03:03:56 AM
The problem with America is that most people are still living in the past and not adjusting to the new world reality. Republicans want to live in the Norman Rockwell past. Democrats want to live in the post-war, heavily unionized past when there was no competition from cheap and HIGHLY MOTIVATED foreign labor. It's over folks. Sign up for Alibaba.com and see how fast some Chinese or Pakistani is emailing you to see what he can make for you. That's what's missing amongst America's lower classes. Everyone derides the notion of "job creators" as a falacy, and yet they sit around and wait for job creators to create a good paying job for them. Cheap foreign labor notwithstanding, it has never been easier to set up any kind of business, and manufacture and sell goods anywhere on the planet.

Yes, I know. I'm being all bootstrappy. But the lower classes in China, Pakistan, Brazil and a hundred other countries are being more bootstrappy than Americans and they are kicking the American workers' ass. Until things change, people will be stuck in Wallyworld, service economy jobs.
 
2012-11-23 05:43:18 AM

Ebbelwoi: The problem with America is that most people are still living in the past and not adjusting to the new world reality. Republicans want to live in the Norman Rockwell past. Democrats want to live in the post-war, heavily unionized past when there was no competition from cheap and HIGHLY MOTIVATED foreign labor. It's over folks. Sign up for Alibaba.com and see how fast some Chinese or Pakistani is emailing you to see what he can make for you. That's what's missing amongst America's lower classes. Everyone derides the notion of "job creators" as a falacy, and yet they sit around and wait for job creators to create a good paying job for them. Cheap foreign labor notwithstanding, it has never been easier to set up any kind of business, and manufacture and sell goods anywhere on the planet.

Yes, I know. I'm being all bootstrappy. But the lower classes in China, Pakistan, Brazil and a hundred other countries are being more bootstrappy than Americans and they are kicking the American workers' ass. Until things change, people will be stuck in Wallyworld, service economy jobs.


China? Income disparity in China is worse than it is here! Chinese peasants have to deal daily with the horrors of living in a country where "growth at all costs" is the mantra and government works of business. If these places are so great then why do they want come to America?
 
2012-11-23 05:44:14 AM

MasterAdkins: Therion: Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?.

As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution. Not anything that cost money really, mostly just time, how about we all carry around our tax returns and when you come to a line the person who pays the most taxes gets to go to the front of the line? Or how about the more you pay in taxes the faster you can drive and people have to get out of the lane I want to drive in an let me go by?

And yes, I really am serious. If I have to pay more to make up for those who earn less than I should get perks for it, seems fair to me. And yes, I get nicer things for the larger income I receive but I worked for that larger income, through putting in more time, more education and more devotion to my career.


Really?
 
2012-11-23 06:11:36 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: The greedy assed corporations will kill their own golden goose.
For the past 30 years, wages have been declining as the money flows up into private wealth hoarding accounts. Declining wages undercut demand, which undercuts profits, which the ownership uses to require cost savings in the form of layoffs, which undercuts demand and so on and so on and so on, until the whole thing goes under.

Welcome to the vicious circle.


They just have to get into industries with captive consumers; privatized utilities, privatized prisons, and post-2014 health insurance.
 
2012-11-23 07:45:07 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: IlGreven: Ed Finnerty: So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.

Show me one time in the history of mankind where "ignore it and it goes away" actually worked.

The last Ice Age?


An eclipse?
 
2012-11-23 08:00:38 AM

WhyteRaven74: Tommy Moo: Too many workers.

No such thing. Oh sure you can argue too much supply leads to depressed wages, but if there's tons of workers around and no one is coming up with new ways to employ them, after all there's not a lot of market pressure prohibiting it, then you have a market failure.


The other day I was in a bar and a man in the bathroom offered to squirt soap into my hand and hand me a paper towel. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of coming up with new ways to employe people. When the manufacturing and mining sectors are saturated, new jobs tend to be created in the service sector, which generates no actual wealth, and can only be supported on the wealth generated by the creation of things of value. This is fine to a certain extent. A man who makes millions of gold widgets might rather use some of that wealth to have a person mow his lawn or walk his dog, but it's getting a bit ridiculous when we have to share our wealth with people who squirt soap into our hands. It's basically just disguised welfare at that point.
 
2012-11-23 08:09:31 AM
Clinton sold us out to China. He needed that sweet campaign money and Hilary needed her Walmart stock to go up.
 
2012-11-23 08:11:57 AM

nmemkha: China? Income disparity in China is worse than it is here! Chinese peasants have to deal daily with the horrors of living in a country where "growth at all costs" is the mantra and government works of business. If these places are so great then why do they want come to America?


I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that conditions in the emerging economies are hardscrabble, means those people are more motivated than Americans who have become complacent after decades as the top dog. The tide has turned. There are, however, ways to adapt other than being a low-skilled and low paid cashier at wallyworks.
 
2012-11-23 08:45:50 AM
www.feministfightback.org.uk


capitalism is a game where the winners take all
 
2012-11-23 08:50:56 AM

EnviroDude: What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.


You didn't have a fark account 5 years ago. In at least one respect, the world was a better place.
 
2012-11-23 10:26:21 AM
I know in the company I work in the CEO makes 1,000,000 per year. Average wage for worker in the company is about 40,000. This is more typical of the majority of American corporations but it creates outrage to make up stats like all CEOs make 3000 more times average worker. There are 6000 workers in the company where I work.
 
2012-11-23 12:21:14 PM
Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.
 
2012-11-23 12:34:49 PM

kukukupo: Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.


Too bad you can't eat 50 inch tvs
 
2012-11-23 12:47:21 PM

kukukupo: Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.


Before I agree, are we measuring diagonally, or front-to-back?
 
2012-11-23 12:52:02 PM
And tax rates were much higher. And those jobs went to china because the high pay was uncompetitive. And the dollar was stronger because real debt to GDP was lower so things didn't cost as much which helped sustained hose wages. Not the case today. But you all o on believing that a stock boy should get 50/hr. morons.
 
2012-11-23 01:38:06 PM
It would be better to compare apples to apples here. What was the average retail employee making 50 years ago? I'll bet it's not $50/hour.
 
2012-11-23 02:02:19 PM

tjfly: And tax rates were much higher. And those jobs went to china because the high pay was uncompetitive. And the dollar was stronger because real debt to GDP was lower so things didn't cost as much which helped sustained hose wages. Not the case today. But you all o on believing that a stock boy should get 50/hr. morons.


Yes, you're absolutely corr....

Oh , fark it: Look, maroon, you're echoing a party line that utterly fails to account for the simple fact that Europe has thriving manufacturing and heavy industrial sectors. Strong unions. Strong social safety net. Universal health care. High wages. Robust infrastructure. Mom-and-pop stores everywhere. All of these are things that the argument you're aping claims to be unpossible in a global economy.
 
2012-11-23 02:11:33 PM

Asako: It would be better to compare apples to apples here. What was the average retail employee making 50 years ago? I'll bet it's not $50/hour.


It is apples to apples, because you're comparing the largest American employer for both time periods.

Do you really believe that the 1956 GM worker worked "harder" than the average Wal-Mart employee? Or that he (no such thing as "or she" back then) was somehow more skilled or knowledgeable or doing a job that another person could not be trained to do in a matter of a week or so?

This isn't about "what job" as an apples-to-oranges comparison; the apples are apples when you consider the knowledge, skill, and physical ability necessary to do either job. Picking vegetables isn't the same as loading a truck, but they both require about equal physical effort, and very little brainpower. Neither requires specialized skills, and only a modicum of training. Working as a stockboy at Wal-Mart does require training in the use of the computer scanners, as well as some knowledge of chemical hazards and the ability to lift heavy items repetitively. What is the difference in between that job and working on an assembly line at a car manufacturer? Yet you seem to believe that they deserve different pay.

Explain your answer.
 
2012-11-23 02:28:53 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Yes, you're absolutely corr....

Oh , fark it: Look, maroon, you're echoing a party line that utterly fails to account for the simple fact that Europe has thriving manufacturing and heavy industrial sectors. Strong unions. Strong social safety net. Universal health care. High wages. Robust infrastructure. Mom-and-pop stores everywhere. All of these are things that the argument you're aping claims to be unpossible in a global economy.


He's also failing to take into account the protective tariffs in the E.U. that make imports not exactly cost-effective, as well as the high taxes on the rich (especially capital gains) that pay for those things that they refer to as "necessities of life" and American Conservatives refer to as "entitlements".

Yet their economy thrives (with certain exceptions in Greece and Italy, but that has to do with their government - Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world). Funny thing, that. Conservatives will tell you that is impossible. Of course, they also tell you that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Jesus rode a dinosaur, and Global Warming is a hoax. It's like they believe so much in their ideology they refuse to look at the evidence of their own eyes in every single facet of the way they wish to govern.
 
2012-11-23 02:55:37 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...

Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.

if you ONLY followed the corporate news, then yes - that's what you'd end up believing. there has been VERY little analysis about how Hostess ended up in such deep fiscal trouble. when I point out the facts to my conservative friends I'm met first with flat out disbelief and denial, followed by accusations that i'm lying or distorting facts. when I prove my statements true with valid third party neutral sources, from that point the reactions diverge into 'oh yeah well you just don't understand finance' to 'I don't wanna talk about this stuff, lets go shoot zombies or something'.

I honestly don't know what to say at that point. Hostess was run into the ground by an elite group of investors who made bad decisions and looted the company then shifted the blame to the unions. were the unions completely blameless? well, i'm sure you could find SOMETHING they did wrong....but even if you wanted to go that route you STILL have to look at the CEOs and board of directors who kept giving themselves pay raises while forcing workers to take pay cuts and question their motives. Most of my conservative friends WILL NOT blame a CEO under any circumstances. I find that reluctance to be quite strange.


Well, I am sure the people running the company had a big hand. However, when you refuse to produce there is no getting around that.
 
2012-11-23 03:04:58 PM

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.



RLY? Ever hear of a guy named FORD?
 
2012-11-23 04:32:31 PM

ox45tallboy: Yet their economy thrives (with certain exceptions in Greece and Italy,


And Spain. And Ireland. The only country holding up Europe is Germany.
 
2012-11-23 06:10:17 PM

ox45tallboy: Asako: It would be better to compare apples to apples here. What was the average retail employee making 50 years ago? I'll bet it's not $50/hour.

It is apples to apples, because you're comparing the largest American employer for both time periods.

Do you really believe that the 1956 GM worker worked "harder" than the average Wal-Mart employee? Or that he (no such thing as "or she" back then) was somehow more skilled or knowledgeable or doing a job that another person could not be trained to do in a matter of a week or so?

This isn't about "what job" as an apples-to-oranges comparison; the apples are apples when you consider the knowledge, skill, and physical ability necessary to do either job. Picking vegetables isn't the same as loading a truck, but they both require about equal physical effort, and very little brainpower. Neither requires specialized skills, and only a modicum of training. Working as a stockboy at Wal-Mart does require training in the use of the computer scanners, as well as some knowledge of chemical hazards and the ability to lift heavy items repetitively. What is the difference in between that job and working on an assembly line at a car manufacturer? Yet you seem to believe that they deserve different pay.

Explain your answer.


You explained it. The day women gained equal rights (which I am for) is the day your labor became 1/2 as valuable.
 
2012-11-23 10:39:04 PM

lelio: And Spain. And Ireland. The only country holding up Europe is Germany.


Sweden, Finland, hell, all of Scandinavia is doing pretty well, the Socialist bastards.
 
2012-11-23 10:40:34 PM

Nemo's Brother: You explained it. The day women gained equal rights (which I am for) is the day your labor became 1/2 as valuable.


www.collectorsquest.com


Let me know when that happens.
 
2012-11-24 01:15:11 AM

MasterAdkins: As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution.


The extra financial security you get is your "little something extra," you dickwad.
 
2012-11-24 08:57:01 AM
your blog sucks
 
2012-11-24 09:34:36 AM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...

Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.

if you ONLY followed the corporate news, then yes - that's what you'd end up believing. there has been VERY little analysis about how Hostess ended up in such deep fiscal trouble. when I point out the facts to my conservative friends I'm met first with flat out disbelief and denial, followed by accusations that i'm lying or distorting facts. when I prove my statements true with valid third party neutral sources, from that point the reactions diverge into 'oh yeah well you just don't understand finance' to 'I don't wanna talk about this stuff, lets go shoot zombies or something'.

I honestly don't know what to say at that point. Hostess was run into the ground by an elite group of investors who made bad decisions and looted the company then shifted the blame to the unions. were the unions completely blameless? well, i'm sure you could find SOMETHING they did wrong....but even if you wanted to go that route you STILL have to look at the CEOs and board of directors who kept giving themselves pay raises while forcing workers to take pay cuts and question their motives. Most of my conservative friends WILL NOT blame a CEO under any circumstances. I find that reluctance to be quite strange.


Everything you said is amazingly wrong. There has been tons of analysis. The number one cost driver was shipping. 70-80 million a year more than if shipping was optimized. Union contract did not allow this. Wonder bread could not be shipped with Twinkies. Separate trucks. Line example.

How do you continue to be wrong about absolutely everything?
 
2012-11-24 01:08:00 PM

ox45tallboy: lelio: And Spain. And Ireland. The only country holding up Europe is Germany.

Sweden, Finland, hell, all of Scandinavia is doing pretty well, the Socialist bastards.


How many illegals do they have?
 
2012-11-25 02:53:37 AM

Nemo's Brother: How many illegals do they have?


HAHAHAHAHA

/slaps knee

I bet you are great fun at parties.
 
2012-11-25 03:05:24 AM

MyRandomName: Everything you said is amazingly wrong. There has been tons of analysis. The number one cost driver was shipping. 70-80 million a year more than if shipping was optimized. Union contract did not allow this. Wonder bread could not be shipped with Twinkies. Separate trucks. Line example.

How do you continue to be wrong about absolutely everything?


I don't ordinarily agree with Weaver95 about much, but I'm with him here.

I think the first thing you need to address is, why in the world would the union demand that separate products be shipped by different employees? That seems at best inefficient and at worst taking advantage of a power of collective bargaining. Surely there must be some logical explanation?

When you figure out why in the world the union might demand such an odd thing, you will be on your way to understanding why your response sounds so silly.

When you realize that the private equity firms had been pocketing the employee's 3% contribution to their pension funds since they conceded that as a "loan" in 2005, and that management was demanding that the employees forgive that loan and f*ck their own pensions, you might realize one of the main reasons that the union refused to capitulate on the new contract. The bankruptcy actually protects the employees' pensions, as the taxpayers will now be on the hook for making up the money the private equity firm payed themselves out of the pension fund.

Seriously, anyone who blames the union for not talking their employees into further capitulations after they had already given so much in the past few negotiations just has no f*cking idea what they are talking about.
 
2012-11-25 11:08:11 AM

stiletto_the_wise: You know, I'd trade those cheap 2010-era batteries and stereos any day, for a 1960-era job that would let me buy a house, raise a family, afford medical care, and a pension to take care of me when I'm old--all on one income.


All of that can be yours if you decide to only have one TV in your house that picks up 3 channels, no air conditioning, a fireplace for heat and one family vehicle. Each and every one of us would go batshiat insane if we were thrust in to the way a 1960's family lived for a day. Thats probably why people get a drunk as possible and look for excuses to leave early whenever it is time to visit grandma and grandpa during the holidays.

ox45tallboy: I think the first thing you need to address is, why in the world would the union demand that separate products be shipped by different employees? That seems at best inefficient and at worst taking advantage of a power of collective bargaining. Surely there must be some logical explanation?


For the same reason why if i wanted to remodel my bathroom, I could hire a non-union handyman to do the tile work, replace the toilet, and install a power outlet in a day but if I hired a union contractor, I'd have to pay for him to sub the job to a floor guy, a plumber and electrician. Mindless waste and inefficiency are hallmarks of union work since the goal isn't to get the job done, it is to have as many guys on the clock and paying dues as possible.
 
2012-11-25 05:10:52 PM

o5iiawah: For the same reason why if i wanted to remodel my bathroom, I could hire a non-union handyman to do the tile work, replace the toilet, and install a power outlet in a day but if I hired a union contractor, I'd have to pay for him to sub the job to a floor guy, a plumber and electrician. Mindless waste and inefficiency are hallmarks of union work since the goal isn't to get the job done, it is to have as many guys on the clock and paying dues as possible.


Nope. Try again.

Here's a starting place: grocery stores were making the bread companies stock their shelves as a condition of carrying the product.
 
Displayed 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report