This is why unemployment is so high in America!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridg...aylist=14594944

why is it that this really don't surprise me

http://www.industryweek.com/global-economy/governor-outsources-pennsylvania-turnpike-spain
not real hard to figure out if ya think about it. these people thought 12.8 billion was a good deal, when the state was losing money running it.

Is it time to get rid of Unions?

Could they be the reason so many jobs leave this country?

I am opposed to unions and requiring new workers in a union shop to become members or at a minimum pay union dues. But having said that unions have done alot for American workers. Most people like to point a finger and blame the unions for pricing jobs our of existance here in America and forcing companies to outsource jobs to other countries, when in reality it was a combination of management agreeing to union demands and the union demanding rediculous pay levels and benefits for its members. Management is just as guilty as the unions is destroying America economically right along with all members of Congress in both houses and every Presidential administration for the past 100+ years.

Dang there goes this post down the crapper now LOL , you just had to go and open that can of worms huh

Less than 10 % of factory jobs are union,but if you still want to point that finger that way,go ahead and turn a blind eye and do that,the real issue is in some 3 rd world countrys there is no unemployment bennies to pay there is no work comp,there are no child labor laws,there are no EPA laws,the factorys can dump there waste right in the rivers.So really if we want to compete with that all we have to do is lower ourselves back to where we were in the 30's-40's.....B....

The jobs are there, but the people are just to lazy to work

Right on brianroberts!!!

i'm not sure how all that applies to other countrys buying and operating our roads, while we can't?

[u][/u]
X3!!!

Preach on Brian!!

maybe its because .like gm. we give them billions .in return we get plants closing .13 new gm plants built out of the country since then.now thats real gratitude.

The jobs are there, but the people are just to lazy to work

About the size of it. Plants not unionized seem to be doing just fine, but keep the union mantra going up north, we need more jobs down here.

Could it be that unions helped create a higher standard of living for the average person ? Even though I am not a union person I rely on those that are. So I say Unions are a good thing in our situation, but, we have to work together and not be selfish !!!!

we have to work together and not be selfish !!!!

haha good luck with that.

Unions and corporate America the difference between the two- NONE they are both big bussiness out for themselves.

My guess is American workers are not productive, don't show up on time, call in sick too much, make bogus comp claims, look forward to long paid vacations on unemployment compensation, abuse drugs and alcohol too much, and whine how tough they got it. Not all, but enough.

I was in a Union for 34 years, so was my Dad.
I retired at age 55, 12 years ago .
I still have not touched any of my savings, and am doing just fine.
I have no regrets about being a union member all those years.

Dang here we go again. Open our eyes and look at the big picture. It is a sad combination of things. A lot starts at home ethics plays a real important role in our everyday lives from learning to work ethics as well as interaction with each other. Back in the 20s and 30s unions fought for the working man as it was the working men that founded it. Now the unions are doing just like our government is today. Whatever the big guys decide that are pulling the strings.

Business has to make money to survive. To do that they have to control their cost to produce a product they can sell at a profit. The government with the help of the EPA,OSHA,MSHA and a gang on other alphabet agencies are putting the squeeze on them and there is no real recourse to stop that. Common sense regulation is one thing but when you are crippling the company's ability to compete you are signing it's death warrant.

To cut costs they have to look to every area, raw material and labor are usually one of the first places they look. Raw material goes up because of regulations. So the price of the finished product goes up to off set it. Simple as that. Same with labor cost or transportation.

When our kids are told they need to go to college and get a job they only use their head with is killing our trades and skilled labor force. A service economy can not sustain itself. Someone has to produce so they can parasite off it. If you don't produce a good you are a parasite, and we all know a host can only survive so many parasites before it dies.

Drifter

Every one wants to condemn our federal government for making all these trade deals and ruining our economy and in this case it is the states that are outsourcing the jobs. Say it would cost even 20% more for a US firm to build the bridge the rolloever impact on the local economy would get that back in no time. Obvoiusly these leaders or business planners don't know much about economic growth. Short of welders?? When the turbine industry decided to land in our area our tech college ran three shifts 6 days per week and turned out the lower skill welders fast and also trained the more skilled ones as well. Sounds like a poor excuse to me but I don't know the tech college system of other states either.

Bryce

I can only speak for the field I work in,but most of the employees we hire and its a bunch show up early,work hard and give it there best.I'm in Michigan right now and we have 60 workers on the payroll,all in all there pretty good help.We have pre hire 10 panel drug testing and a breathalizer.Plus randoms,we have had zero positives!So you see there are good honest hardworking people out there....B.....

I can tell you this about welding. You won't train a welder to be able to weld structural steel in a few weeks. The operators are the same story that is why it takes a 4 year apprenticeship for most trades.

Drifter

From what I've seen the guys with a background in heavy equipment(dad had equipment or uncle john did) make the best operators.Get a good one and he's worth his weight in gold,get a bad one and you'll pull your hair out!
The best I ever saw were in the Mountains of WV,MD and PA,bar none,them boys are top notch....B....

This is the issue I am running into and seeing . I hired a kid last week to help with my landscaping ,he was afraid to get dirty. I hired another kid I knew of for $15.00hr yesterday to help no show. I can't get anyone that wants to work for anything more than beer money.I was in the same biz for about twenty years and this was an escalating and continuing problem until I hired mexicans .Then problem resolved ...had to tell em to stop working. Next back to foreigners they have a sense of responsibility and pride .Something lacking in USA as it has been destroyed by our gov't and modern upbringing . We have become a nation of lazy dependent good for nothings and it's only going to get worse .

By Pa I assume you mean the farm kids here and not the Philiy, Pittsburgh, Erie Harrisburg etc ones. With all the gas drilling, Fracing, pipelines etc going on here, lots of kids start out but it seems only the farm kids can produce and stay at it. Another thing, when I graduated form high school, most guys either went to service or college and their college studys were in chemistry, physics, engineering and math, things that made jobs. Not history, english, biology and all the psych stuff that they take now. In the 20 years that I have been here there are so few going into the science and engineering fields it is really sad. Visiting schools those fields are filled with all foreigners(many of who become good American citizens). What a big loss......jk

Now you've gone and done it. You've told the real truth and taken one of the quick and easy come back excuses from those who listen to the lies spread by some of our most popular talk show fools..... I guess the real story will never get in the way of a convienent story for some though.

It won't be long 'till some of our bussiness leaders have us begging to gain the standard of living they will have in India and China. They will still live some of the highest lifestyles in the world, and the faster they can bring down american wages the faster they will get there. The economic difficulties have hurt them little and, in many cases, have been more profitable for them.

The funny thing about this whole Union,EPA,Child Labor,etc is that at one point in time our country had none of them and the people stood up and created them, as well they should have and with the way human nature is they kept asking for more and more.There was a time when lake erie was just about toxic,there was a time when 12 years old was old enough to go to work,there was a time if you really got hurt at work your career was over.All of that stuff needed attention and it got it,now some of it is out of control.I understand that,people that are in charge of that stuff have jobs and want to keep them.
But remember these, the very same companys that abused all of those things have now moved to countrys where the govts can be bought off.
So don't for one second think they don't need oversight,I do however agree they are out of control on a lot of things....B.....

Interesting, You don't figure our government is bought off. Secondly, the last time I researched this, Unions were the biggest political contributors in the U.S. Just a fact, not a judgement.

So you think our Govt.can be bought off to where some corperation can dump toxic waste in a river or get by the child labor laws and I did include the Unions in the whole speal!
Which part of that didn't you get?

9 of the top 15 political contributors between 1989-2012 were Unions and gave over 90% of their money to the Democrats. 3 of the top 15 were corporations and they gave out the money pretty much 50/50.

Source: OpenSecrets.Org.

I'll try to confirm.

This is what I found when I googled it.

Lobbying in Washington Top Spenders
All years (1998-2012)


Lobbying Client
Total

US Chamber of Commerce
$885,975,680

General Electric
$274,100,000

American Medical Assn
$274,017,500

Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
$224,263,920

American Hospital Assn
$223,869,136

AARP
$217,612,064

National Assn of Realtors
$194,515,133

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
$191,197,552

Northrop Grumman
$180,565,253

Exxon Mobil
$176,362,742

Verizon Communications
$167,546,543

Edison Electric Institute
$165,566,789

Boeing Co
$164,139,310

Business Roundtable
$162,910,000

Lockheed Martin
$158,350,688

AT&T Inc
$145,529,336

Southern Co
$138,680,694

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
$132,340,000

General Motors
$131,704,170

Pfizer Inc
$126,227,268



From this list, I believe we can see why their is a healthcare crisis in this country. Many unions did very bad damage to themselves in the late 80s through the 90s. But anyone who claims that unions are the problem with our economy, or even a major part of it, is not considering the facts.

Now, look up campaign contributions.

Lobbying money goes to lobbying firms. Campaign contributions go to the politicians.

I suspect the numbers will show that the government is bought off by the unions not corporations, as is incessantly claimed by many.

One should also give a look at the "Super PAC Contributors"(group and individuals giving more than half million dollars to back their party/candidate). Seven of the top ten back the Rep. candidates. Two of the three that back the dems are unions.

The supreme court has found that attempting to buy elections is not as frowned upon as most American think it should be.
Unions or individuals, democrate or republican, these PACs are not good for a republic like we'd like ours to be.

From all the facts, or data that is supposed to factual, you would be wrong in that suspicion.

Everyone has the right to favor unions, hate them, or not care one way or the other. I see the need for unions. I can also see that they cannot be allowed to be the tail that wags the dog. I am curious, though, as to why those who hate them so strongly, do so.

But that doesn't completely describe contributions. 2 of the top 10 may be union pacs, but how many total union pacs are there and how much do they spend?

I'm not sure which party has been given the most money. I'm not even sure who has the most PACs in their corner. The list is made up of something like 112 contributors. Some individuals have givens millions by themselves.

It's funny, when I read through the list, it makes me angry to see any person or group doing what I believe is attempting to buy an election, no matter which party they support.

To bad we aren't able to take the top five ideas from BO, MR, and Ron Paul and hammer out some way to use the ones that would really better the country.

One source I read said that 159 Congressmen list unions as their top political contributors.

I think this is going to be tough to shake out. Independent spending by unions does not have to be reported to the FEC. The list I gave earlier as the all time top donors means what, maybe direct contribution to candidates. Work in progress, may not be able to compare apples to apples. The only consistent things is overwhelming support of Democrats by Unions.

The congress in place today????? That does suprise me.

Why does that surprise you? There are a lot of unions out there. The same source said that only 2 Senators list unions as their top contributors.

I think it would be a good thing if NO one could contribute to any canidate,but than no one but us poor people would run and that would be a terrible thing!....B...

Example: My son works for a company pulling product in a warehouse. The same company has a union shop in another part of the country. The top guy in the union shop with all the modern equipment does 50 pulls per hour....my son did 300 per hour last Friday. I do find some fault with the company because apparently they did not include productivity numbers as part of the contract however, with the gap that big you have to work pretty hard to only do 50....and that is an ethics issue, not a contract issue.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

I don't know about every sector of the economy, but when I quit my union job in Washington and moved to a non-union job in Nebraska doing the exact same thing, I made more money.

In Washington my wages were determined by a union contract, and limited by that contract. In Nebraska they were determined by my value to the company and what kind of deal I could cut with management.

So I know first-hand that non-union doesn't always mean lower wages.

I'll never understand the political position of some unions. I take that back. I understand them, and have no idea why the rank and file support those positions.

Take a look at some of the big unions' positions on immigration. They openly support open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants because they want to swell the union membership, which gives the union bosses more political clout. But it does nothing for the rank and file, who would then have to share the jobs with a much larger membership. I'm talking the trades, here.

Seems to me, if they wanted to actually help the current rank and file, they'd oppose amnesty and open borders so their members would have more work. But that isn't the goal of the union bosses. The real goal is power, and they get that with more members, regardless of how much the rank and file are working.

To me, the more a man or family makes the better. That same man or family will go out and spend his money and it will build the economy as a whole. He will go out to eat and support a waitress or go buy gas at the local station which employs a local guy. Maybe go to a movie or buy a new TV. He may buy 3 dozen American made MB550's instead of a dozen Dukes. It all turns over making a more healthy and robust economy.


The median weekly earnings of union workers are 28 percent higher than non-union workers.
According to a January 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, workers who belong to a union typically earn higher pay than non-union workers doing the same kind of job. Although it varies based on sector and occupation, the overall averages are striking.

$917 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of union members.

$717 = Median weekly earnings in 2010 of non-union workers.

That's a yearly difference in salary of $10,400 for union members vs. non-union members.

Union members earn an average of $4.95 more per hour - which equates to a yearly difference of $10,300.

Although it varies based on sector and occupation, the union difference for workers across the board is undeniable.

Hey, I'm all for PRIVATE SECTOR unions. I'm adamantly opposed to public sector unions, as many labor leaders in the past have been and for the same reasons.

But I think the rank and file need to get control of their unions back. They've lost control to union leaders who do not have the well-being of the rank and file as their number 1 priority.

I agree Buck. My BA hates me, as I get loud with him at meetings. For just about everything political. Thank god we have open solicitation here or that pine bench would be quite uncomfortable. lol

Buck we lost the power to vote for our BA. He is now appointed by higher up the chain. When he talks of who we should vote for, I laugh and say I just want one vote right now and that is to be able to vote you out! I always get a few claps at the meetings for that. The other loads dare not show any back bone under the eyes of the BA.

RJ Cooper. You should have heard the conversation I had with some boilermakers in New York a few months ago.

They were sitting around the smoking area griping about Obama's EPA regulations causing the coal plants in the area to shut down, which left them with almost no work. I asked them if their union endorsed and contributed to Obama and they said yes. Then I asked them if they voted for Obama, and they just sat there quiet.

I said, "Hey, he said on the campaign trail in 2008 that he was going to bankrupt all the coal fired generating plants. He told you what you were getting if you voted for him."

They all just sat their looking worried, because after that job, they had nothing available until fall.

I really felt for them. They got sold a line of BS about Obama by their union, and it put them in the poor house.

Obama didn't BS them. He told them exactly what his plans were. Their union fed them the line of BS.

The United Mine Workers endorsing Obama after he promised to "bankrupt" all the coal fired plants is what really blows me away.

What's a BA?

well when we keep voting the lesser of two evils .we will just keep getting evil.in fact if it wasnt for the party backing them .and they had to run on there own merits or beliefs.there isnt a one of them whould have ever been voted in.

plus i think they get 90 day trial before they serve.if they dont try to do what they promiced to get elected in the first 90 days they get a bus ticket home.

Why should public sectors not have unions?

I believe the move away from coal fired powerplants has much more to do with the fact that we now have so much gas production that they must find a market for it. I certainly hope the mines in my area continue to have a market for there coal. It is one of the few place where a man without a college degree can earn a decent living. But it is also and industry that has seen many up and downs. My late father supported a wife and seven kids by mining union coal. I don't think there is now a union mine left in the county where he worked.

The coal industry, when one looks at it's history, is a perfect example of why unions are often needed. Before the unions, a miner was often no better off than a slave. The miner paid to live in the mine owners houses, shopped at the mine's company store, and some mines paid their workers in money that was only good at the company store and for things that could be bought from the mine owners.

It's easy for us to say we'd better off without unions and ignore the power that big companies can have over the working class when they are the only ones with a means to keep a man and his family fed and housed.

Also, Union wages are also a major driving force in keeping some of the non-union wages high(a realative term) in many industries.

The funny thing is, right now the MAJORITY of all unions in the USA are PUBLIC SECTOR. The private sector unions have all but ran their industries in the ground so they moved to the Pubic sector and have grown their because government is not a business therefor, no profit is necessary and they can get their dues no matter how far in the whole the budget goes.

The issue with all of this is that we (the USA) should impose a labor index tax to any goods imported into our country. For instance, if a company wants to import goods to be sold in America, the cost of labor needed to produce said goods in that country would be compared to the same cost if it was made in the USA, and then based on the Labor Matrix a import tax would be imposed to level the playing field with American labor. Our biggest strength right now is that we are consumers. We need to use that to level the playing field in the cost of labor and that way, companies would move factories back here, and save the cost of international transportation.

As long as we do not take the incentive away, the CEOs job is to increase the market share price for his shareholders, and labor is always going to lead that CEO to outsource.

I'm not a real smart guy, but it seems simple to me

I grew up in a Union Family, Coal miners to be exact. My grandfathers on both sides, and father were all memebers of the UMWA, and the coal industry really did need unions before, OSHA, Department of Labor, and the other various agencies were put in place to protect workers. So in my grandfathers day, and prior I get it, they needed protection. However, when I was in high school and started to learn about the political systems in the USA, it became quickly appearant to me that I would not be going into the "family business" as I leaned way to the right. After having the first of many discussions with my father about this area, he told me "never tell your grampa you fell this way" he won't understand.

My father didn't seem to be as Pro union as the older generation and had frustrations with his representatives. At the age of 44 with over 20 years as a member of the union my father lost his job when the mine closed, and had to go look for a new job in a different sector with basically no education in an area that was strictly a coal economy up to that point (WVA). Obviously not a good situation to be in.

Having to watch my father go through this taught me a lot about unions, and the security they provide to your family. To each his own, but I personally will never put myself in the position that I rely on a organization to take care of my family, that independence has served me well so I guess I do owe that to the Unions, thanks guys.

I'll give you the same reason that labor leaders have given in the past.

In the private sector you have union, and you have management. Management's job is to look out for the bottom line of the investors. Union's job is to look out for the bottom line of the labor. When things work right, there is compromise and both parties make out.

In the public sector it is different. The politicians fill management's role in looking out for the investors (taxpayers). But those same politicians can be bought through campaign contributions. What is left is nobody looking out for the taxpayers.

It is like if you had the UAW sending checks to the management of Ford who is negotiating the contracts. Nobody would be looking out for the Ford stockholders.

Is a business healthier with investors or loans?

Until recent years, public sector jobs made less on average than private sector ones. Those in public sector union jobs did have a perceived security that was not afforded those in the private sector. that is no longer the case. Just last week, on one of the finacial shows, The man being ineterviewed said that nearly 2% of those rec. unemployement benifit currently, are from public sector jobs-firefighters, cops, teachers, city workers, etc..


Sam, my father told me many times in the late seventies that he believed the "new, younger union miners"(his words) didn't understand what the union was for and that they would ruin a good thing by making unreasonable demands. He felt that many of them thought the union should see that they were paid the most possible while allowing them to do the least possible, "Too many think the mines owe them a living, not that they must earn a living by working for the mine."(again, his words) This mind set across unions pulic and private have done damage that will forever be used by union haters to condemn them.

but people wont stop buying stuff made overseas. We all complaine about jobs going overseas but continue buying all their stuff. How many of use use traps made in taiwan? I went to five different stored just to find an American made shovel. Its convenient but we cant keep blaming companies for "sending jobs overseas" while we buy everything they make/ We the people are snding the jobs overseas.

Corky, a BA is a Bussines Agent , the highest ranking official in a Local Union.

Sam, my father told me many times in the late seventies that he believed the "new, younger union miners"(his words) didn't understand what the union was for and that they would ruin a good thing by making unreasonable demands. He felt that many of them thought the union should see that they were paid the most possible while allowing them to do the least possible, "Too many think the mines owe them a living, not that they must earn a living by working for the mine."(again, his words) This mind set across unions pulic and private have done damage that will forever be used by union haters to condemn them. [/quote]

While I totally agree with you, this mindset is prevelant in pretty much any organization. I'm military, and I see the new kids running around and think, they would have never made it in my day, and I'm sure the old guys when I started said the same thing about us in the early 90's when I joined. The older generation always seems to have this opinion about the younger. Same holds true with Trappers and just about any other group you could classify.

If we only had an import labor index tax, the incentive would be taken away. I only wish we had some one like, I don't know an elected group of individuals that could come together and draft legislation to make this a reality and protect our economy, which would in hand create jobs, increasing the tax base and put our country back on track. I only wish their was an organization like that somewhere ??

The problem with that is it would lead to a cost increase in nearly everything, because nearly everything is made overseas. And people have gotten used to cheap "stuff". And I'm not so sure it could even be manufactured in the US. We just don't have the labor force available to manufacture it all, even with 100% employment. Could 10 million American workers manufacture all of the "stuff" we import from all those countries where hundreds of millions of workers are making "stuff" for us?

BuckNe, it's always been my experience that the wage set by a local union is the MINIMUM wage that could be paid by a signatory contractor. Many guys I knew, including my brother and I, have been paid " over-scale" by various contractors.

I have to admit that your story of being paid more by a non-union contractor is a first for me. LU 697 IBEW.

Old man, I was a licensed operator at WNP-2 in Washington. There was a class of new potential licensed operators preparing to be tested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These tests take place over a period of days after a year and a half of training. One of the tests is a simulator exam where they throw accident scenarios at the operators and grade them on their handling of them. The operators are tested in 3-man crews, one senior reactor operator and two reactor operator candidates.

This time one of the testing crews was short a reactor operator candidate, and as a current licensed reactor operator I was asked to fill in on that crew. Despite the fact that I already had an RO license, I would be tested along with the others. I would be putting my license on the line so the other guys could be tested.

As compensation, I was offered a $2000 bonus for 3 hours of testing. Because the bonus was outside of the contract, it had to be approved by the union (IBEW Local 77). The BA for our local was against any compensation not in the contract, and it was like pullng teeth to finally get him to approve it.

Not at all, this is why it should be an INDEX, not a hard fast rule on all things like a flat tax. We would just have to figure out the specific sectors on which to apply it. If we could do everything we wouldn't need to import anything in the first place.

Thanks Old Man. I learn something on here every day.

Yep..Just looked up in Wikipedia about union density's..looks like in 2010..the unions public or privite only made up like 11.4 percent of the total workforce..So to me that is like 1 in every 11 workers had any affilation with any union..It doesn't matter to me one way or another..I always wonder why people rant about the dreaded unions..When if the fact if this or close to correct information then they are not even close to the majority..Adios

But, one of the problems today is that we have made welfare and ssi benifits pay as well, or nearly so, than many entry level or dead-end jobs. And most of these jobs provide no healthcare benifits. Many of our no-skill, low-skill workers see no gain from getting a job.

We are entering a one-world economy where the masses in all countries will have a more equal standard of living. We cannot expect the rest of the world will come up to our standards, we will almost certainly move downward to a standard more like the rest of the world is used to. Good for them, no so much for us.

Except that 36.8% of all public sector employees are union members.

CC,

The only problem with that is that the Majority, of this minority are PUBLIC sector which means they are payed by the tax payer who has no say in the negotiations. Our reps, as BuckNE so astutely pointed out above are paid off by the unions that they are negotiating with on our (taxpayers) behalf.

Yep..OK...

BuckNe, by way of contrast, every BA I have interacted with was all for me getting whatever I could " over-scale". Foreman's pay, even if working alone, or an hour a day overtime for an eight hour day were the two most common I ran into. Paid vacation or year end bonuses were also offered and excepted. To be " part of the family" was one I always turned down. LOL.

Buck, from your posts, I take it you think public union workers are overpaid? If so, what do you feel police officers, teachers, garbage collectors, etc.. are worth?

This thread has been a good exchange of views and opinions from many sides. I find it very interesting.

I probably missed it, but would one of you union guys tell us what a BA is. Sorry.

Allow me to address this one, I like a lot of people, don't necessarily think teachers, cops, and any other emotionally charged public employee are overpaid as a rule. The problem is the loop wholes in the contracts that allow rediculous amounts of overtime to be paid that get abused. I am and have been a Public employee for over 20 years, and I'm not offered a union, nor do I feel like I need one. The rules are plain and simple.

That won't work at all. In addition to raising the cost to the consumer of everything you tax, it would be detrimental to the economy overall. If we import nothing, what would you tax ? Look at China. It has become an economic force in the last 20 years. Did they do that by not importing stuff ? No they did it by exporting junk to other countries.

My point here is that if your plan succeeded in limiting imports then you will have no customers for your exports because other countries will have to money to trade with us.

We can't have a closed system where we are just trading dollars between Americans. There is no way to grow that economy. In addition, the government would still tax every transaction, eventually eliminating the dollars that we are shuffling among us.

I'm not real sure where I came across as advocating for a closed system with no imports, that obviously wouldn't work. But, in the case of China, they have made their huge gains specifically by using our labor costs against us. We have given them their economic growth. Yes, in my scenario we would likely see a small increase in costs, but if someone had a decent salary and were no longer on umemployment, I'd be willing to bet it would gladly be accepted.

My entire point is Free trade doesn't work for us. It's great for any country that has a lower labor cost than us, and we are one of the top consumers in the world so we have to fix this or we will not recover economically. Our strength is that we are large consumers and that's it, we have to use the tools available.

Not overpaid, but maybe overcompensated. Chicago is darned near bankrupt because of the pension liabilities they have. When you can retire at 55 with 75% or more of your pay, and live for another 30 years, it has to put a hurting on everyone that is still working.

I know a few teachers and they say they cna only get "overtime" if they teach summer school or something similar, and then it is a falt rate. I think one sadi the flat rate is 24-32 dollars an hour. That's a pretty good wage, but I don't think it's out of line when the chevy dealership charges around 80 bucks an hour to fix my pick up.

And as for the pension, our teachers in PA must pay 7 1/2% of their salary toward their retirement. To Ridge fooled around with the pension when he was gov and said it was a"shared risk/shared reward" arrangement. Now we tax payers look like we'll be paying for the catching-up cuased by the "risk" he was willing to take.

Your statement that .." If we could do everything we wouldn't need to import anything in the first place." is what I was responding to.

I'd disagree that free trade doesn't work. The more trade is restricted, the worse it gets for all concerned. Recall the Smoot-Hawley tariff and it's effects.

I wish you were correct in your view that someone would rather have a decent salary than unemployment. Unfortunately today we have many who still choose the latter. Pursuing that line of thought....who decides what a 'decent' salary is ? Do we just set wages arbitrarily regardless of the worker's ability or the managers resource to pay ? Sounds like you're suggesting a "living wage" argument here...and I really don't believe that is what you'd favor.

Teachers are salaried employees as far as I know? Overtime is for hourly employees. As far as the chevy dealer analogy, you're comparing private versus public sector. If you don't like the dealer's price simply shop somewhere else. In the case of the teacher I have to pay property/school taxes or I loose my house even if I don't have children attending school.

Did you attend public school?

I do think some other method of funding must be found for public ed. Especially when so many who pay no taxes birth so many of the consumers of it.

Personally, I believe we need to rethink what is considered retirement age. 50 years ago, people usually retired around 65, and the average lifespan was 67. Now, not only the public, but many of the private retirement plans are designed for retirement in the early to mid 50's.

In addition, people are living much longer. Now, that doesn't mean they are healthy enough to work longer. But you throw in people living 10 years longer, and retiring 10 years earlier, and it is a recipe for economic disaster. Just ask Greece.

Saving for our own retirements is a must in today's US. I find it hard to believe that so many who could afford to put money away for their retirement have all their money spent by the following pay day-or sooner.

we need a change in mind-set.

Absolutely right ! Unfortunately we have a government that is trying to force us into spending what little we do have by inflating the currency. Why save when your savings are worth less every day ?

White,

I was responding to BuckNE in a previous post and was being half sarcastic, I obviously didn't make myself clear. I was arguing the fact that it's obvious we can not survive with out imports. I apologize for not being clear.

As far as workers really wanting a job in order to make more money than doing nothing and drawing a check anyway you may have me there unfortunately.

Free trade would work for us if we were not at the top of the list for costs, but we are. When you couple our environmental policies, and access to resources, cost of living, and you have to include the labor. It simply costs more to make anything in the Us, than it would elsewhere, and while I don't believe in anything arbitrary relating to pay, we do need some rate at which we use for a baseline comparison to make with other countries on labor costs. If we ever hope to compete as anything other than a services economy, and that doesn't really look to hold much hope itself.

I have to get to work Gents, I appreciatte the debate and truely value the inputs and opinions of this group as always. Have a great day Gents.

Respectfully,

Sam

No question it costs more to produce here. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing IF the more expensive product is higher quality. Remember back in the 80's when Toyota was eating Detroit's lunch ? Better product at a lower cost.

Another huge problem that puts us at a cost disadvantage is that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Also, double taxation on some types of income. That isn't beneficial to the country as a whole.

But here's the biggie that convinces me that free trade is the way to go regardless of cost disadvantages.

The more we engage China in trade the less likely we are to engage them militarily. The more they move toward capitalism the better for us. I'd rather defeat them economically than deal with them in a war. It will be better and cheaper for us in the long run

Do you really think most people are living on minimum wage? Really?

Did I attend public school? Really, is this your argument for paying school taxes cradle to grave, because if it is well, you've just won it for me in the first place and no need for me to even comment. Thanks.

There is no response to that.

Sure there is but you would rat me out and I would get banned.

I am amazed that anyone could open a newspaper or turn on the tv and see what is happening in Europe, and still believe that socialist policies work.

That would apply to me too

gryhkl, a BA is a Business Agent, the highest ranking officer in a Local Union.

there are plenty of skilled and unskilled jobs listed in our small newspaper, more than a few yrs ago

There are roughly 3.6 million unfilled jobs in the US. Those are jobs where businesses are actively looking for people to fill them. Most of them are high paying jobs. There are 70,000 unfilled construction jobs. 600,000 education and healthcare jobs.

The biggest problem seems to be that many of the jobs are in areas where unemployment is already low, and people with the skill sets to fill those jobs either can't move to them, or won't move to them. Some of people are so upside down on their homes that they can't afford to move. Others don't want to leave family behind. Some others had higher paying jobs, and are reluctant to take a permanent pay cut by working in another field, and are riding it out hoping to get their higher paying job back.

It seems to me we've entered an era of immobility, with the jobs moving and the population either unable or unwilling to follow them.

Amen!! I know first hand, you can make almost as much on ssi and get medical insurance, compared to working a min wage job with no insurance. I *like* my low-paying job, and generally I don't mind paying for the occasional dr visit out of pocket, but I can't afford to pay when someone needs more expensive care. Its a pickle, that's for sure

Did you read past the first line? The part about finding some other way to pay for ed. so that we're not paying for property we have already paid for?

We were educated with tax dollars paid by the generation before us. Education has become much more expesive because of programs and mandates that didn't exist back in the day. We must continue to pay for education,but putting entirely on the property owners is unfair and other funding sources must be found that will spread the burden equally. We all benifit from an educated populace.

What I find absolutely amazing is when I was growing up in the 60s,and 70s,only my Dad worked outside the home,as well as the neighborhood kids Dads,and those in school,mostly.And most had everything needed,and some wants,and most of us came from homes with 2,3,4,or in my case 5 kids in one household.Now,one mabe 2 kids,both parents working,and lots of cheap chinese stuff to choose from,and near all have no savings,and live paycheck to paycheck.How can this be?

Stuff. I grew up the same way. But the average house was 1200 square feet, 3 bedroom, 1 bath. No cell phones or cell phone plans. One tv. No cable. 1, maybe 2, plain jane cars without any bells or whistles. No computers or internet. No $300 video game console.

Stuff costs money.

Buck and PSB must be about my age. I grew up the same way and had to save the money to buy anything I wanted that was not a need. It helped me learn the value of money and work.

Most of my friends lived pretty much the same way and only one came from a family with divorced parents. Times have changed greatly and now there are so many things that didn't exist then that are seen as absolutely needed to function.

Thats the same way I grew up.I was the youngest of 5 kids and Mom worked in an in home beauty shop, Dad worked at an asphalt plant,we had what we needed but not a lot of frills!.....B.....

A lot of us were children of the '60's. I was born in 1952 and enjoyed the simple things in life. One of the earliest ways I earned money was selling nightcrawlers and worms when I was around 10 years old. Set my first traps (old #1 longsprings my father had) when I was 12 and the first thing I sold was a muskrat I only got 25 cents for since I stretched it on a bent coat hanger. Sure learned a lot since then, but sure have a lot more to learn!!!

I was born in 1970, but was raised by my grandparents. They were raised during the Great Depression. They new all about the dollar, what needs and wants were.

I started working with my g-pop as soon as I could care a tool box. Always, went with him. I learned a lot about life, just sitting in the passenger seat of his old dodge pick-up.

Keeping up with the Jones is what really hurt many peoples savings plans.

Brian, back then there just weren't many frills available like there are now. People complain about the cost of living skyrocketing and how much better it was in the 60's and early 70's, but in most cases, if they lived like we did in the 60's and 70's they'd have all kinds of disposable income. Things that used to be beyond our wildest dreams are now considered necessities.

Today with interest rates manipulated down to .15% for savings, why would anybody save money. Your losing money every day it's in the bank. It appears to be debtors run nation.

Discipline.

"It is the easiest money made".

Now that the workers unions have been weakened to the point where they can no longer stand up to big companys to protect jobs,big companys and govt are doing what they did before workers became unionized-using whoever they can get to do the job cheaper.Today its Chinese govt slave labor.Dont be surprised when bridges and such start falling apart in a few years.You get what you pay for.

Protect jobs....? Can you define this please? I have heard it numerous times of late and when I engage the debate the definition always seems to change in the middle of the debate.

Well,one way would be to NOT hire chinese firms to build bridges that American workers should be building???

Did the industries destroy the unions or did the unions destroy the industries?

The industries are not destroyed,,,they just moved overseas where they dont have to pay exorbitant taxes,dont have to worry about worker safety issues,dont have to worry about being fined for polluting,all those kinds of things that cost them money here.

160 years ago we imported thousands of Chinese workers to build our western railroads, so why are we surprised that foreign labor is used today to build some roads? Things don't really change too much over time the arguments do and the oxes that are getting gored do I guess.

Bryce

Well they are destroyed as a U.S. based and at times U.S.owned industries. Now which Party would generally support all those taxes, and regulations on a U.S. based industry? And which Party are union members dues used to get elected to office?

Are you implying there should be no workers safety laws or environmental regulations here in the USA?Wouldnt that be cute.

I saw a show on the building of the railroads that said the Chinese came to the US to build the railroads because it was a lot cheaper for a Chinese to sail to California from China than it was for a European immigrant to sail from the east coast or from Europe around South America. The railroads didn't pay their way, and it was a lot cheaper for the Chinese to travel.

If that is the case, the reasons for Chinese building the railroads are vastly different from what is happening now.

You stated that those were the reasons U.S. industries are disappearing. If a union supports all these things and ends up disappearing themselves, then who caused the unions to disappear?

I am implying nothing.

I believe those firms do hire American workers.

Why is it so different they are still seeking the lowest cost alternative from their perspective. Where they sail from really was not the issue the firms wanted to build a railroad and found the lowest cost source of labor. The eastern portion of the railroad was cnstructed more by European labor than Chinese and thus they did not need to sail from Europe around South America to CA. Going accross land from the Eastern seaboard probably was not all that expensive and one could use a lot of river travel to do so if needed or existing trains.

Bryce

You don't get what I'm saying. It wasn't a question of getting the lowest cost source of labor, because the railroad wasn't footing the bill for the travel. It was a question of what labor was available, and Chinese labor was more available because it was cheaper to get to California from there, so the Chinese flocked there in droves.

Anyone see on the news today where General Motors is once again on the verge of collapse because nearly all of their loans are to sub-prime borrowers?

another would be to NOT buy chineese, taiwan etc. products. But everyone does.

Much of immigrant labor came to the U.S. for one main reason-the work was here and there weren't enough workers to do it. My ancestors came here because of the conditions ( famine and wages) in Germany in the 1800's . They arrived in the late 1800's. My great grandfather was a member of a guild (forerunner of today's trade or construction unions), and his two brothers were merchants and cigar makers. My grandfather was one of the original members in the UBC. I support trade unions not because of political reasons,but because they are responsible for training and quality of work as well as safety of workers.

So a low bid is not what it was 160 years ago. It matters not who is paying for the travel it matters who submits the lower bids unless there were no bids. When my son-in-law bids a contract he does so on his costs not the cost of his employees to get to the job site unless that is part of the bid and it typically is not unless people are locating and their is a per diem involved.

Bryce

i am not discussing politics nor picking a side or trying to make others feel the way i do but if u think our work force is bad now pay attention to the guy who is trying to become president now...not the guy who is....its simple facts that can be looked up on your computer about all the jobs he has sent away out of the country and pockets millions because of being in places that are exempt to taxes.................not a debate simple facts.........think about it

bandit come on now he has a r on his hat.be a party man and vote for the lesser of two evils.i dont think he has a chance.but then again either way we are screwed . we cant keep voting for the lesser of two evils and get away from evil it just gets worse every elections.

Right Mark. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, just let the greater of two evils win. Smart.

You are right Mark. At least Romney has had a job, run a business etc. This administration is protecting the people who don't want to work and they want to take it from the small business people who do most of the hiring. Take it from a small business owner, if it continues like this, this country is going to get alot worse. Wait till healthcare comes into law, you will see inflation go through the roof because this program has to be paid by the business people through the consumers. Don't even get me started on regulations, come to eastern Kentucky and see how the new epa changes have devastated the coal industry. See how easily able body people are given food stamps, welfare, social security and disability. I not talking about laid off coal miners, god bless them and their families, i talking about people who can work and won't and never will. this administration is enabling this culture and if you can't see that negatively impacting this country, i feel sorry for you and your children and their children as well.

so voting for romney who thinks sending jobs over seas is profitable helps me how.he does not have the best voting records on guns.we are doomed regardless who gets in.sasd to say but the sooner we crumble or get sick of both partys and demand change the better.i will sit this one out or write a name in.i will not vote for evil.

sooo, who you gonna vote for that you don't consider "evil" ?

I take it you are a Ron Paul supporter who is going to take their ball and go home....?

Maybe Romni will quit taxing the jobs makers so they will quit leaving. Heck maybe they will come back. When the gov. Makes it cost to much to stay, they leave. Liberal are nasty.

Tim.

We should ask the foreign automakers and paper companies why they are building plants here, hiring US workers to do their manufacturing instead of shipping their products to the USA. We could learn some things about what costs more.

Bryce

I'm going to vote for the guy who will promise not to solve all my problems for me. This will be the guy that says; "That's your problem, not the governments responsibility!" Anybody got an idea when he is going to run?

Not sure what you are getting at, but Japanese auto workers make more money and have better benefits than UAW members. Building cars in Japan wouldn't buy them anything as far as labor costs.

Of course, they could have Toyotas built in China and shipped here, but I guess it would all boil down to whether or not the shipping cost of a vehicle is less than what they'd save manufacturing in China.

They could have them built in Mexico, but the Japanese and the Mexicans aren't on friendly terms, trade-wise. The Mexicans pulled some stunts several years ago that ticked the Japanese off. Had something to do with import tariffs.

Japan is to smart to make their stuff in China. Japan took a long time after WW2 to get their products viewed as good or great. They are not going to ruin that by things being built in China. Plus, the bad blood between them.

Bain Capitol also saved quite a few American jobs, so don't go bashing Romney, just because the Dems/Left/Liberal talking heads say so.

Bain Cap. Steel Plant

Didn't Obama and his cronies lay off several thousand workers and close auto dealersips when they bailed out the Auto makers?

I think so! Also, it is not the governments job to do this, they are not investors, they are to govern.

It is a said day when the government gets involved with private capitalism.

Name one program the government has touched that has done well?

LOL.....

Social Security is one program that has done very well for over 75 years. That is longer lived than many businesses.

Bryce

But it's only "longer lived" because it is enforced by armed IRS agents. Most private businesses don't operate that way.

Really? I've been paying Social Security for 36 years, and in most of those years I've made a very good living. I've topped out on many of those 36 years.

I'll never see it all back unless I live to be 100. And I definitely won't see any kind of return on it.

I think he was referring to the folks who haven't paid in but are getting a check, those people are doing pretty good. lol

They should change the name to Socialism Security.

SSI is a ponzi scheme.

Read what a ponzi scheme really is and then read how SSI works.

When it started it was 2% (1% employee and 1% employer) now it is 15% split. With more people collecting and less people paying in (worker bee's) how can it be sustained.

It is a rob Peter to pay Paul scheme.

It worked when you started drawing at 65 and the average lifespan was 67.

It worked when people worked! It worked until the government borrowed from it!

A Ponzi scheme works till there are no more investors.

The average recipient gets back what they put in (their half) when in about 7.5 to 8 years. If you are self employed you would double that. So if you retire as a self employed recipient you would get back what you paid in at at about 82 years of age. If you earned over the cap then you probably will take longer to earn back your payments into the system as you had more income in the upper bend points where a lower percentage of payment per dollar put in occurs. Yes it is a social program, yes it has been and will continue to be abused and many don't like it as a retirement system but that does not make it unsuccessful in what it attempted to do.

Many say that SSI created dependents because many were not smart enough to figure out they needed to save money also for retirement. That may well be true. A real good example of the private sector having the same issue is the fact that most IRA and 401 K programs are horrifacally underfunded by their owners to provide for retirement and thus it is the nature of people to not plan for the future be that on their own or with or without government. A forced savings program for those that have little ability to save money even with modest returns is better than no savings at all in my opinion. The SSI system is based on progressive income growth over time. The bend points need to be changed as in the USA wage earnings have not kept up with total economic and income growth as more income is coming from unearned sources. This keeps the SSI collection lower than projected and with the bend points paying on a much higher percentage of the lower earnings this is one way the shortfall is being perpetuated along with Medicare in 1976 and longer lived persons collecting for more years.

Bryce

No person in my family lived to be 82 that I know of. So who gets their share? I don't like forced anything!

Except that the employer's contribution is part of your total compensation.

So what you are saying is that since the average lifespan for a male in the United States is 76 years, most people will never see all of what they have contributed.

Taxes for Honda are more in Japan. So they come here to build them cheaper. If a company comes here to build or make something you can be sure it is cheaper for them. Same is true for a company that moves from here. Follow the money. A lot of traps are not made here because of epa. And taxes. Follow the money. If is not the money or regulations, it could be that they hate America. But I dought it.


Tim.

The vast majority start at 62 so most do come close to receiving what they contribute including their employers share. The accuaries that calculate the payments for the system probably know those calculations very well and why recipients my age won't reach maxium payments until age 66 years and 10 months. I will be 65 in December and plan to begin receivng payments in January. By waiting 3 years my monthly stipend goes up about $330 per month or a bit more. I have been able to work the 3 years instead of starting to receive payments early.
There has only been one male in my family that lived past 74 so yes SSI may not be the best program for several but it does provide a program for millions.
As to Japan, France, Sweden, Netherlands building here that may be due to taxes but if we have the 2nd highest corporate rate in the World then they are not saving taxation money. Just maybe they know how to run a business better than many US companies do and compete in a high cost envrionment better as they may have more experience and knowledge with high cost production environments than we do.
Bryce
Bryce

People like you are the problem why hes going to get re elected!
you really dont understand the situation if your going to sit back and not vote for Romney, sure hes not that good but of Osama gets elected again were screwed! Because hes not going to care about getting re-elected and the stuff hes going to push through is going to bemind boggling... gun control laws, more welfare reforms, shoving a stick in the eye of small business owners, and giving all his worthless boogie friends in the ghettos money to live off of. All in all plunging America towards socialism. If he gets re-elected hope that December 21, 2012 really is the end. Please at least cast a vote for Romney, 10x better than what we have.

I like all the people that just want to slow the leak in the boat long enough until they're dead and then when it sinks it won't matter to them. Sink her now! Then we can get to building a new boat.

Ain't you tired of bailing?

Yes Sir!! keep talking - I pay in and pay in but I dount I ever see a dime of it. It is already broke?? I cannot understand why anyone thinks it is a "well run" gov program???? No way - period another program gobernment has run in the ground.

Said it before on here, cannot understand how any outdoor loving =, hunting trapping fishing individual could vote for obama? does not make any sense at all. You might as well pay your dues to AR groups, seriously? - one in the same.

Chief

I have lived in other coutries partner and can tell ya that the average American works alto harder than what I have seen and encountered in other countries. Seriously - we are the hardest working nation without a doubt in my mind. Alot of the issues you point out are very true though.

I run a firehouse, I am fairly young still though, but just in the time I came up through the ranks - to what I see now in younger firemen there is a mentality of "I deserve more pay" froom doing nothing yet expecting return? it is an attitude and I have still not a grasp of it. I am a "earn it" individual I guess, so I agree with ya there, but Americans I think have a better working mentality than most countries, least where I have been and lived.

Chief

Romney gives approx. 15% to charity while Obama gives approx. 1%. I'd much rather have a President who puts his money were his mouth is instead of mine.