An odd conundrum.

An odd conundrum. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 12:20:52 PM)
If you look at the GOP vision of an ideal American economy, it would consist of numerous small businesses, agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes. The company owners would reap benefits, and the workers would be low paid and nonunion, to stay competitive. The Dems' vision is for lots of desk jobs and union jobs, and a highly paid workforce. So why is it that the Reps consistently support bills that benefit the big businesses that provide the Dems' dream jobs, and the Dems consistently support antibusiness legislation that hurts those businesses?

mnottertail -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 12:26:35 PM)
The real GOP would have eschewed the part about low wages, and the nonunion. Like I said, I am gonna get up the gumption to quote a little Abe one of these days. they called that freelabor as opposed to slavery and they saw wage working as a temporary situation on the way to owning your own business or other success. They thought freelaboring would inherently be pretty good turnover, for the next person to mount the first rung of the ladder in their time.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:05:45 PM)
I disagree with your characerization of the GOP vision (or at least the conservative vision) of the ideal economy. Your framework isnt so much "GOP vs Dem" or "Conservative vs Liberal", but really "Management vs Labor", and I would characterize the Management perspective as : "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." It is then each business' management's responsibility to determine whether it is possible and how to achieve a reasonable risk adjusted ROI within that vision. Where the Conservative vs Liberal labels might become relevant is that conservatives believe that the above is beneficial to BOTH management and labor, while Liberals view it as potentially exploitative. Obviously achieving that vision entails numerous components, but I dont see the GOP positions being antithetical to that vision overall.

mnottertail -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:15:05 PM)
Cute dimwitted propaganda, but the continuous and current vision of not allowing labor to find their own market and ROI massively puts the lie to the horseshit base. That is, no strikes, no collective bargaining, have to revote unions, and other union busting measures.

outhere69 -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I disagree with your characerization of the GOP vision (or at least the conservative vision) of the ideal economy. Your framework isnt so much "GOP vs Dem" or "Conservative vs Liberal", but really "Management vs Labor", and I would characterize the Management perspective as : "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Guess that explains CEOs getting multimillions even with mediocre or disastrous performance. And the wages are competitive with China, Vietnam, etc. Of course, that's not enough money to buy anyone's products.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I disagree with your characerization of the GOP vision (or at least the conservative vision) of the ideal economy. Your framework isnt so much "GOP vs Dem" or "Conservative vs Liberal", but really "Management vs Labor", and I would characterize the Management perspective as : "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Guess that explains CEOs getting multimillions even with mediocre or disastrous performance. And the wages are competitive with China, Vietnam, etc. Of course, that's not enough money to buy anyone's products. If a board sets a CEOs pay in a manner that rewards them for "mediocre or disastrous performance" they can be sued for violating their fiduciary responsibilities. CEOs, even more so than rank and file workers, have their pay linked tightly to performance in most companies. That hasnt always been the case, but has been evolving to that point for the last 15-20 years. Wages are competitive with China Vietnam etc? That could very well be the stupidest single statement Ive ever seen here.

mnottertail -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:34:55 PM)
I knew it, you don't read or understand what you write then.

rulemylife -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 2:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 Guess that explains CEOs getting multimillions even with mediocre or disastrous performance. And the wages are competitive with China, Vietnam, etc. Of course, that's not enough money to buy anyone's products. If a board sets a CEOs pay in a manner that rewards them for "mediocre or disastrous performance" they can be sued for violating their fiduciary responsibilities. CEOs, even more so than rank and file workers, have their pay linked tightly to performance in most companies. That hasnt always been the case, but has been evolving to that point for the last 15-20 years. Wages are competitive with China Vietnam etc? That could very well be the stupidest single statement Ive ever seen here. No, I'm pretty sure your first paragraph was the stupidest statement ever on here. Can you say Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas? Top 10 CEOs in Prison: Why'd They Do It?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 4:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 Guess that explains CEOs getting multimillions even with mediocre or disastrous performance. And the wages are competitive with China, Vietnam, etc. Of course, that's not enough money to buy anyone's products. If a board sets a CEOs pay in a manner that rewards them for "mediocre or disastrous performance" they can be sued for violating their fiduciary responsibilities. CEOs, even more so than rank and file workers, have their pay linked tightly to performance in most companies. That hasnt always been the case, but has been evolving to that point for the last 15-20 years. Wages are competitive with China Vietnam etc? That could very well be the stupidest single statement Ive ever seen here. No, I'm pretty sure your first paragraph was the stupidest statement ever on here. Can you say Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas? Top 10 CEOs in Prison: Why'd They Do It? Well, you're competing for the stupidest counter example award. What happened to those 4? Was their fraud part of their Board set compensation package? Did 85000 employees, all but a couple of dozen of which had nothing to do with Enron lose their jobs as a result of that fraud? Is red blue?

DomKen -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 4:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce.

Sanity -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 5:26:14 PM)
In reality, your conspiracy theory works exactly opposite of that. Unions conspire against businesses and effectively demand unrealistic pay and benefit packages, with the long term effects proving disastrous to the overall economy. See "Detroit" "California" or "Wisconsin" for three real world examples of how this works quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 7:49:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce. Like any cartel, business owners that attempt to conspire to set wages will find members breaking off and paying more to attract better workers. And to the extent that such a conspiracy can survive, those with the ability to earn more than the artificially low wages will simply move to a different industry or to other companies within that industry.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 7:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In reality, your conspiracy theory works exactly opposite of that. Unions conspire against businesses and effectively demand unrealistic pay and benefit packages, with the long term effects proving disastrous to the overall economy. See "Detroit" "California" or "Wisconsin" for three real world examples of how this works quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce. I think you have to qualify that to public sector unions and unions that use force to get or maintain certification. Private sector unions still have a valid role.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 7:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce. Like any cartel, business owners that attempt to conspire to set wages will find members breaking off and paying more to attract better workers. And to the extent that such a conspiracy can survive, those with the ability to earn more than the artificially low wages will simply move to a different industry or to other companies within that industry. You might try looking at what happened to small "mill towns" during the first 75 years of the 20th century. 1-3 textile mills would basically control the wage structure of an entire town. If you dont like it, get the fuck OUT. My town was like that from about 1915 to about 1985 with North American Rayon and Bemberg working together to set the wage scale for the entire county. The best and brightest just left because they knew they would never be able to make a decent wage here. Hundreds of small towns in the southeast had the same situation.

popeye1250 -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 7:58:04 PM)
Steven, I don't see a problem here, vote for Independants and throw both the Dems and Reps out!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 8:01:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce. Like any cartel, business owners that attempt to conspire to set wages will find members breaking off and paying more to attract better workers. And to the extent that such a conspiracy can survive, those with the ability to earn more than the artificially low wages will simply move to a different industry or to other companies within that industry. You might try looking at what happened to small "mill towns" during the first 75 years of the 20th century. 1-3 textile mills would basically control the wage structure of an entire town. If you dont like it, get the fuck OUT. My town was like that from about 1915 to about 1985 with North American Rayon and Bemberg working together to set the wage scale for the entire county. The best and brightest just left because they knew they would never be able to make a decent wage here. Hundreds of small towns in the southeast had the same situation. You might try living in the 21st century.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 8:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services." Of course to achieve that goal would require far higher degree of regulation, to prevent business owners from conspiring to set wages, or a completely unionized workforce. Like any cartel, business owners that attempt to conspire to set wages will find members breaking off and paying more to attract better workers. And to the extent that such a conspiracy can survive, those with the ability to earn more than the artificially low wages will simply move to a different industry or to other companies within that industry. You might try looking at what happened to small "mill towns" during the first 75 years of the 20th century. 1-3 textile mills would basically control the wage structure of an entire town. If you dont like it, get the fuck OUT. My town was like that from about 1915 to about 1985 with North American Rayon and Bemberg working together to set the wage scale for the entire county. The best and brightest just left because they knew they would never be able to make a decent wage here. Hundreds of small towns in the southeast had the same situation. You might try living in the 21st century. I am, if you had your head out of your ass, you would see I am pointing out VERY recent history and how businesses can form cartels to keep wage scales low.

joether -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 8:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You might try living in the 21st century. You first! Willbeurdaddy, have you never heard of the concept called 'The Conservative Nanny State'? I'm sure you have heard of 'The Liberal Nanny State' concept; as you push it every second on the forums (and in different forms I might add). The conservative nanny state operates on two ideals that work in tandum: A) Conservatives are able to convince everyday Americans, that Goverment is to blame for their problems. That its unable to deal with the problems facing Americans, and only through limiting them to a joke, will Americans experience better wages, less taxes, more freedoms, and less irritation at 'being an informed citizen'. In essence, goverment is demonized to the point that its irrelavent. B) Conservatives push the company as the building blocks of society, that all persons who strive to be the best, will get paid more, live in a bigger home, more luxuries, and attain a better enjoyment of life. That those who do not behave like good little mindless drones, would crush their 'American Dream', and must resist against those evil socialist/communist/fanatist/anarchist thoughts and ideals. Only by supporting the company will the fanatical loyal become more then just a mere citizen. Schools, statues, and even streets will be named in their honor, to show others, what a motivated citizen can do. What is the end result? The company attains full control and are above the law. The senior executives can kill everyday citizens in front of police officers, and just walk away without being penalty. That the workers are simply undermined to the point of being slave labor. Any sort of resistance is put down violently and/or covertly. Since goverment is irrelavent, the citizens have no protections against the company. Hell, the company will simply remove 'the 2nd' while programming citizens to think firearms are only used by undesirable types. Do you really think the company fears your firearm, when they control your mind? I think we have seen during the 18th-19th century of the many instances inwhich this concept developed. And in each case, only a tiny percentage of people prosperred, while the masses suffered. This is what your advocating, willbeurdaddy: The Conservative Nanny State. Not convince? quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Businesses free to organize in a size and manner that keeps them agile and capable of responding nimbly to changes, in a regulatory environment that levels the playing field with other countries and that enables it to pay its workforce what a free labor market commands for their skills and services. So, American companies, according to your concept of 'good business ideals' should be allowed to pay its workers, what other workers in other countries are paid. How fast would that be abused? Tell me your not REALLY this retarded. It simply stuns me, that you claim your a business man in America. Maybe people should seriously question your business ethics.

tweakabelle -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 10:29:06 PM)
The myth/fantasy at the core of the conservative argument is that a level playing field exists in the labour market. Anyone here ever felt that they were on equal power terms with their boss? Anyone here who hasn't felt that the boss has more power over them than they have over the boss? Anyone here who can nominate a place where there is a level playing field between labour and bosses today? You'd really have to have rocks in your head to swallow such a ludicrous proposition! But since when has that ever stopped our beloved right wing pundits?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An odd conundrum. (3/24/2011 11:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The myth/fantasy at the core of the conservative argument is that a level playing field exists in the labour market. Anyone here ever felt that they were on equal power terms with their boss? Anyone here who hasn't felt that the boss has more power over them than they have over the boss? Anyone here who can nominate a place where there is a level playing field between labour and bosses today? You'd really have to have rocks in your head to swallow such a ludicrous proposition! But since when has that ever stopped our beloved right wing pundits? No, youd have to have rocks in your head to think that anyone, conservative or otherwise, thinks that there is or should be a level playing field between someone and their boss. They are your boss for a reason.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875