Opps even Fox news in claiming Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is willing to make concessions on his attempt to end collective bargaining.

Fox Nation Responds To Reports Of Concessions In WI: "Uh Oh"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103090003

 

Karl Marx and the growing income gap

I have probably read more of Karl Marx than any other poster on XNXX.com. I took a seminar on Das Kapital under the aegis of the American Communist Party that was given by an obviously brilliant physicist, who was also a Communist Party member. I have read The Communist Manifesto many times. I recommend it for anyone who wants to know what Marxism is all about. It is a fairly short work. It can easily be read in a single sitting.

Many on the right call anyone on the left a "Marxist," without knowing or caring what Marx actually wrote. Marx never claimed infallibility for himself. When he learned that others were claiming it for him he said, "I thank God that I am not a Marxist."

I am not a Marxist either. Marx's main mistake was his assertion that among blue collar workers class consciousness is stronger than nationalism. If he had spent less time in the Reading Room of the British Museum, and more time patronizing working class pubs in London he would have learned that the opposite is usually more nearly the truth.

Nevertheless, Marx had good insights into laissez faire capitalism. He held that the natural tendency of capitalism was to increase wealth, while reducing the standard of living of most people. He did not anticipate the Keynesian economic policies which counter acted this tendency. As those tendencies are being scaled back through tax cuts for the rich, and de regulation the tendency is becoming more obvious: stock holders are getting richer; wage earners are getting poorer.

I do not think this is politically sustainable. Even if it is I do not think it nurtures a healthy society.

 

Fact Check

The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour...

The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees...

The result is the per-hour labor cost to the automakers, which is very different from "pay" or "wages" or even "wages and benefits" earned by their workers...

A final note on all this: Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it's not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they're already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

 

This seems to be a favorite gambit on the right...to include benefit costs when talking about union labor and exclude them all the rest of the time.

 

Funny Freudian slip by Fox...but if I were the Wisconsin Dems, I wouldn't take the deal. They've already compromised on the benefit contributions. They should insist on full collective bargaining rights in return. THAT's a compromise.

I also wouldn't trust Walker not to reneg on any deal he DOES make. Get it in writing, read the fine print, and make sure it's VERY public.

 

Unfortunately, those misconceptions become unshakable dogmas for the millions of Americans who get their information from FOX News and the demagogues of right wing hate radio.

 

I understand about averages, but some union workers DO make $75.00 an hour working the line. I know this as a solid fact.

I also understand what it costs to employ people, although I am no longer albe to. Another fact check for me.

It's not about how much the/a corporation earns from its goods/services. They deserve to earn money too. It should be about people having a job and living life the best way each of us knows how without demanding things we don't necessarily deserve. Anyhoo, I am only commenting and sharing my opinion.

 

Actually the Wisconsin Democrats have called a bullshit on Gov. Walker's emails, claiming they are planted and only released selectively to make it appear like he's willing to negotiate when he's actually still stone walling.

The heats on though. There is an increasing shift towards support for unions and collective bargaining the longer this drags on and it appears Micheal Moore is right when he says the "rich have over-played their hand."

Also I think they are beginning to worry about the recall petitions that are being filed. The majority of Wisconsin residents do not approve of the way the "Budget Repair" bill was drafted and tried to be railroaded through.

 

You left out part of that "Fact-check":

Even they show that labor cost and employee pay are not the same animal. True labor costs per automobile were significantly higher at domestic auto producers pre-bankruptcy. In 2007, GM and Ford paid almost double the cost that Toyots, Nissan and Honda did in their US plants.

The difference is almost entirely in "legacy" costs, what the retired autoworker receives in benefits applied to each car produced.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/26/news/companies/pluggedin_taylor_ford.fortune/index.htm

 

I'm a bit confused on your repy... but there is a significant cost to providing benefits. Most NON union employees get basic health care... if they are lucky. And it's expensive for both employer and employee. There's the 401k nightmare too. Of course vacation and sick time. Why should employers pay for anything else for anyone??? Unless your name is actually on the door to a business, and you own it, I don't think it's anyone's business to know who gets paid what nor to demand more than one is really worth.

 

If that is a "solid fact," you should document it.

I welcome your opinions, and do not want anyone to flame you for expressing them.

However, you claimed that automobile workers earn

That sounds to me like you believe that auto workers earn wages of $75 an hour, plus benefits. That is not true, as I have demonstrated. People can agree on the facts pertaining to an issue, and disagree profoundly as to the policy implications of those facts. Nevertheless, facts are of critical significance when deciding policy.

 

Why are benefits not a cost of employment?

Who excludes them, please show us.

 

If you know that for a solid fact can you post a link to your source? I'd kind of like to see that.

Why aren't you able to employ people? Did you have unionized workers?

No, you see this is actually a direct contradiction. US corporations are making record profits right now and yet the unemployment rate is still above 8% and actually far higher than that because it does not count people who have run out of unemployment benefits or those who have given up looking for work.

And the reason for that is because for the past 30 years US corporations have been exporting US jobs to countries like China and India and third world countries.

So while it should have been about people having a job and living life the best way we know how instead its been about three decades of the middle class slipping into poverty (and needing more government services and assistance because of it) while the top 1% of this nation raked in more and more money.

The only way people are going to get a job and get paid a living wage is to follow President Obama's economic/energy plan and then unionize to protect those jobs and workers.

PS Can anyone show me where we've paid out more than $13 TRILLION on union benefits?

 

You'll have to show me some documentation for this assertion. Here's the latest information I can find...

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6009359_auto-worker_s-average-salary.html

 

This one cheered me up enough to donate $10 to Wisconsin democrats.

Anyone who wants to stop the conservative/Republican/Koch Brothers war on the middle class might want to do the same.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...Wisconsin-GOP,-wavering-under-recall-pressure

 

As usual, your reading comprehension sucks. What I said was, they don't compare apples to apples (i.e. they include benefit costs when it suits their purpose, but they don't do it consistently).

 

And who decides what an employee is really worth?

My point, as I explained patiently to tenguy, is that right wing commentators often include benefit costs when they're trying to make it look like public employees or union employees are making too much money...because most people think in terms of their own salary WITHOUT adding benefit costs. That's intellectually dishonest.

And by the way, what's nightmarish about 401k's?

 

Wisconsin Republicans split bill, kill collective barganing

Wisconsin GOP Senators Pass Stand-Alone Anti-Union Bill Without Democrats Present

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/wisconsin-gop-plan-advance-anti-union_n_833796.html

 

I heard that it was passed, and I think the way they did it was a dirty shame...I'm wondering if it will even hold up when challenged, and it will be...

 

Who are they?

What I have seen, the comparison is always been on gross labor costs. It is you folks who want to use net pay as the comparison and then you kick the can down the road.