Top Tax Bracket in the 50's was 90%, yet US prospered
LastSixtySix
Posts: 352 Member
"How did the US prosper in the 50's when the top tax bracket was 90%?
According to fiscal conservatives today, there is absolutely no way the country should have been able to survive."
Saw this striking question this morning and immediately wondered what you think. :noway:
I started my life in the 50's but technically grew up in the 60s. I remember a few things such as my parents took long vacations (6 - 8 weeks or more) every summer. They worked hard and saved all year for that but it was the reward. My dad never lacked for work or the means to provide the necessities for us. We had one car and the little-box house they lived in the suburbs was new but smallish. Most of the neighborhoods were like this, and looked similar to middle to lower-middle class neighborhoods today. Coming from the farm where one took care of everything, my parents loved the city picking up the garbage every week and reliable electric, not to mention paved roads! Maybe the biggest difference was their priorities. Once my parents moved into their little house in the city they didn't want more. It was not their goal to build bigger and fancier. To them, they had enough and it was good.
Neither my working-class parents nor my husband's, of course, ever paid a 90% tax rate. But it appears that technically the rich did or were suppose to. I'm sure there were loopholes for the wealthy but the whole wealth and responsibility conversation back then seemed different and they did pay a lot more effectively than they do today. Unlike today, however, there was grudging respect towards the bosses from the workers and vice versa. Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
---President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Okay, your turn! I'm gonna sit back and enjoy now.
According to fiscal conservatives today, there is absolutely no way the country should have been able to survive."
Saw this striking question this morning and immediately wondered what you think. :noway:
I started my life in the 50's but technically grew up in the 60s. I remember a few things such as my parents took long vacations (6 - 8 weeks or more) every summer. They worked hard and saved all year for that but it was the reward. My dad never lacked for work or the means to provide the necessities for us. We had one car and the little-box house they lived in the suburbs was new but smallish. Most of the neighborhoods were like this, and looked similar to middle to lower-middle class neighborhoods today. Coming from the farm where one took care of everything, my parents loved the city picking up the garbage every week and reliable electric, not to mention paved roads! Maybe the biggest difference was their priorities. Once my parents moved into their little house in the city they didn't want more. It was not their goal to build bigger and fancier. To them, they had enough and it was good.
Neither my working-class parents nor my husband's, of course, ever paid a 90% tax rate. But it appears that technically the rich did or were suppose to. I'm sure there were loopholes for the wealthy but the whole wealth and responsibility conversation back then seemed different and they did pay a lot more effectively than they do today. Unlike today, however, there was grudging respect towards the bosses from the workers and vice versa. Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
---President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Okay, your turn! I'm gonna sit back and enjoy now.
0
Replies
-
The reason is actually very simple, the republicans are lying to justify massive tax breaks."How did the US prosper in the 50's when the top tax bracket was 90%?
According to fiscal conservatives today, there is absolutely no way the country should have been able to survive."
Saw this striking question this morning and immediately wondered what you think. :noway:
I started my life in the 50's but technically grew up in the 60s. I remember a few things such as my parents took long vacations (6 - 8 weeks or more) every summer. They worked hard and saved all year for that but it was the reward. My dad never lacked for work or the means to provide the necessities for us. We had one car and the little-box house they lived in the suburbs was new but smallish. Most of the neighborhoods were like this, and looked similar to middle to lower-middle class neighborhoods today. Coming from the farm where one took care of everything, my parents loved the city picking up the garbage every week and reliable electric, not to mention paved roads! Maybe the biggest difference was their priorities. Once my parents moved into their little house in the city they didn't want more. It was not their goal to build bigger and fancier. To them, they had enough and it was good.
Neither my working-class parents nor my husband's, of course, ever paid a 90% tax rate. But it appears that technically the rich did or were suppose to. I'm sure there were loopholes for the wealthy but the whole wealth and responsibility conversation back then seemed different and they did pay a lot more effectively than they do today. Unlike today, however, there was grudging respect towards the bosses from the workers and vice versa. Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
---President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Okay, your turn! I'm gonna sit back and enjoy now.
The optimal tax rate for growth (according to the laffer curve) is around 70% - at 90% it can be sustained for some time, but after a while it starts to impact growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve.
FYI - that tax rate isn't on low or middle earners.0 -
There were also a bajillion and one tax breaks.... if we didn't already have those already... I would think that top earners probably paid closer to what their bracket is now... I am in favor of closing tax loopholes...0
-
I would love to contribute more to this, but you three said it all. The wealthy pay less because of loopholes and probably always have, but what it comes down to is, to quote Warren Buffet: "It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be."
The real question, the only question, is this: What are we going to do about it? Because I'm ready to fight. Just show me how to fight effectively. Otherwise, I'm going to throw up my hands and leave the country.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.0 -
Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
How come he hasn't put his money where his mouth is? You can write a check to the US Treasury.........if he feels it is SO unfair that he's wealthy, pony up...........0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.
so tell me why we need to unionize public workers?
I worked at a charter school in Oakland, as a non-union teacher. While I was there, Oakland proposed Measure N, a very small ($18 per year per property) property tax increase in order to increase the money for Oakland schools, some of the worst-performing schools in the state. My school also would have received the funds, as the measure was written to include all schools in Oakland, charter and district schools. The teacher's union rose up and fought tooth and nail against the increase wich would have brought more money to their schools, because they wanted to make sure the charter school (who was wildly out-performing them) would not get the money.0 -
Because he doesn't mean a word he says. But he knows what happened to the wealthy in France, Cuba, Russia and many, many other countries that started where we are today and he's hoping to keep his head at the end of it.Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
How come he hasn't put his money where his mouth is? You can write a check to the US Treasury.........if he feels it is SO unfair that he's wealthy, pony up...........
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.
It's the greed of everyone.... just because one is a union worker doesn't mean they are exempt from being greedy... In a company my husband used to work for that used UAW for their labor, there were plenty on the line that would mess up products on purpose, so they would be forced to stay and work... they did this so they could get overtime. Thus costing the company money in extra labor and extra materials... This is just one example of an indviduals greed... Now I get that CEO's and heads of major corporations are greedy... I get that, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that they are the only ones... Anyone who lives outside of their means is essentially greedy... they are willing to sell their livelihoods for the newest car, biggest house, and most up to date technology... It's just more apparent when you have millions or you are successful at the ponzi schemes.0 -
Because he doesn't mean a word he says. But he knows what happened to the wealthy in France, Cuba, Russia and many, many other countries that started where we are today and he's hoping to keep his head at the end of it.Warren Buffett is the only wealthy one I hear of today with any willingness to contribute more of his wealth to the nation. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
How come he hasn't put his money where his mouth is? You can write a check to the US Treasury.........if he feels it is SO unfair that he's wealthy, pony up...........
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
This... to both previous posts... If a billionaire is so worried about how little his tax bill is, he is more than welcome to not take out deductions... he is more than welcome to write a check... But they don't.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.
so tell me why we need to unionize public workers?
I worked at a charter school in Oakland, as a non-union teacher. While I was there, Oakland proposed Measure N, a very small ($18 per year per property) property tax increase in order to increase the money for Oakland schools, some of the worst-performing schools in the state. My school also would have received the funds, as the measure was written to include all schools in Oakland, charter and district schools. The teacher's union rose up and fought tooth and nail against the increase wich would have brought more money to their schools, because they wanted to make sure the charter school (who was wildly out-performing them) would not get the money.
You've had one bad experience with a union. I live where there are none. State law pretty much makes them impossible to form and maintain. Corporations move down here to the south to save money by underpaying workers and firing and hiring temps to save on benefits. Great for corporations and investors, terrible for workers.
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas, where they pay even less and treat workers even worse and where unions are put down with lethal violence. That should never be allowed. American markets should never be open to products from countries where workers are treated as slaves. Stop that, force corporations who want to sell here to create jobs here, then we can worry about the power balance between corporations and workers unions and what is and is not appropriate for either to do.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
No explanation needed - the historical record is already clear. Read up on these couple of incidents:
1894 The Pullman Strike (no easy soundbites, you just need to read the history here).
Pro-big business President Hoover’s refusal to provide aid to the unemployed and destitute resulted in shameful shantytowns that grew nationally, even under the very shadow of the nation’s pride, the Empire State Building, which was completed in 1931. A year later Hoovervilles sprang up in Central Park.
1931 Ford Hunger March in Detroit - In Detroit in 1932, capital of the new auto industry, the unemployed starved. Henry Ford, at the time the world’s richest man and the one who laid off the workers, said that the unemployed created their own misery by not working hard enough. In March, thousands protested and four were killed and many injured by the authorities.
In the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt commented repeatedly and with pride on the productivity of the American worker. They would stop and meet his train but then would run back to their fields or places of business.
I do not recall or quote from idealism, fairyland dreams, or a Hollywood movie set. Freedom is a fight and responsibility - constant and unending. When the powerless ever stop being vigilant and give their innate sovereignty away, only then are we sunk.
-Debra0 -
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas,
Why would they do that when they could stay here, pay a higher wage for an inferior product, and get the added bonus of not being able to fire unproductive workers (who do things like intentionally cost the money overtime, as described above....also known as stealing) AND also get to provide them with cadillac health care policies, AND also get to pay for retirements at 80-90% after a worker puts in as little as ten years.
Why on earth would hiring outside the country look so attractive? The union *kitten* screaming "they took our jobs" are the ones that forced the companies away by demanding ever more.0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.
so tell me why we need to unionize public workers?
I worked at a charter school in Oakland, as a non-union teacher. While I was there, Oakland proposed Measure N, a very small ($18 per year per property) property tax increase in order to increase the money for Oakland schools, some of the worst-performing schools in the state. My school also would have received the funds, as the measure was written to include all schools in Oakland, charter and district schools. The teacher's union rose up and fought tooth and nail against the increase wich would have brought more money to their schools, because they wanted to make sure the charter school (who was wildly out-performing them) would not get the money.
You've had one bad experience with a union. I live where there are none. State law pretty much makes them impossible to form and maintain. Corporations move down here to the south to save money by underpaying workers and firing and hiring temps to save on benefits. Great for corporations and investors, terrible for workers.
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas, where they pay even less and treat workers even worse and where unions are put down with lethal violence. That should never be allowed. American markets should never be open to products from countries where workers are treated as slaves. Stop that, force corporations who want to sell here to create jobs here, then we can worry about the power balance between corporations and workers unions and what is and is not appropriate for either to do.
I don't know what state you live in... but here in Texas unions are allowed and they are used... the companies that don't have unions (like Toyota) typically pay better and have better benefits than those that do.
And I agree, shipping our jobs overseas was/is atrocious... but the only thing that could save us from that would be isolationism (at least economic) with large tariffs on exports... which is touted as a bad idea (whether it would be or not, I don't know as I am not economist).0 -
So why do we have to focus on what we hate about each other here. How can we MOVE FORWARD or BEYOND to a place where each has more respect for the other?
So workers truly want with their every rising day to go into their factories or cubicles and sabatoge their company? How can anyone who has worked a day in their life or know post-civil war history really believe that?
-Debra0 -
Stop that, force corporations who want to sell here to create jobs here,
YOU, consumer, have the power to decide which companies get to sell here, by deciding who to buy from. We don't need the government to "force" it, all you have to do is vote with your dollars.
If you want an American to be the one making your t-shirt, then shop at American Apparel. If you want an American to be the one making your car, go buy a Toyota Camry (the most American-made car). Buy an RCA instead of a Sony.
It's in your hands. The government isn't supposed to be picking the economic winners and losers in life.0 -
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas,
AND also get to pay for retirements at 80-90% after a worker puts in as little as ten years.
Why on earth would hiring outside the country look so attractive? The union *kitten* screaming "they took our jobs" are the ones that forced the companies away by demanding ever more.
I'd like to have worked for a unionized company that provided benefits like these, especially the pension. The only people I've ever heard of who get pensions in such a short time are politicians.
Companies send work offshore because they want to make more money for their shareholders. Quality has little to do with it. They look at the books and see (surprisingly...not) that the majority of their costs are in labour, you know the ones who actually do the work, produce the goods, and provide customer service, and decide that that just won't do. They fail to realize that eventually, if people can't make a living wage, no one will have money to buy their goods.0 -
So workers truly want with their every rising day to go into their factories or cubicles and sabatoge their company? How can anyone who has worked a day in their life really believe that?
I went to high school with a lazy jerk who managed to get into UPS. He is protected by a union, and he knows exactly what he can get away with, so he pulls tricks such as, pick a package up from one location, walk (slowly.................... mosey) across the entire warehouse floor to the wrong destination, make the manager of the wrong destination "check" to see if it is supposed to go here, feign surprise when he learns that it doesn't, repeat. All day long. He brags about how few parcels he actually moves to their proper locations. He gets paid $30 an hour, has astounding health care, gets 4 weeks paid vacation every year, has a company matched 401K that he fully vested in immediately, and will retire after "working" there for 15 years on 65% of his salary. For the rest of his life. His union has insured that his laziness will be protected, and he will stay on the payroll, screwing around every day and draining the company of resources and efficiency. He laughs about this.0 -
So why do we have to focus on what we hate about each other here. How can we MOVE FORWARD or BEYOND to a place where each has more respect for the other?
So workers truly want with their every rising day to go into their factories or cubicles and sabatoge their company? How can anyone who has worked a day in their life really believe that?
-Debra
The media told them so. In a thousand little ways. Some have been conditioned to believe that workers are lazy, greedy, and evil and that corporations are headed by generous, put upon, wonderful people with the best interests of humanity at heart.
In reality, people are people, and we're a nasty bunch from top to bottom. The only reason the wealthy are worse than the poor is that they have more power to be worse, and we all gang up on each other trying to stop others from taking advantage of us. This is the human condition. Workers are no saints, neither are the wealthy. And we're at war. And the workers are losing. As a lifetime worker, I'm not happy.0 -
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas,
Why would they do that when they could stay here, pay a higher wage for an inferior product, and get the added bonus of not being able to fire unproductive workers (who do things like intentionally cost the money overtime, as described above....also known as stealing) AND also get to provide them with cadillac health care policies, AND also get to pay for retirements at 80-90% after a worker puts in as little as ten years.
Why on earth would hiring outside the country look so attractive? The union *kitten* screaming "they took our jobs" are the ones that forced the companies away by demanding ever more.
Do you work? If so, why would you want corporations to force American workers to compete with workers in countries where there is no worker safety, no environmental protections, where child and prison labor are used, and where even a living wage is far less than what an American can live on due to economic differences.
Do you want to be a malnourished, impoverished, terrified worker in a brutal dictatorship? Because that's what we're competing with. Shall we become that to do better in the global marketplace?
If you're not a worker, your position is understandable. Loaded with propaganda phrases, but understandable. So long as you are wealthy and attempting to keep and grow that wealth, I wouldn't expect you to care about the welfare of others. Humans generally don't. But if you are a worker, you are speaking out against your own best interests, and that has never made sense to me.0 -
So workers truly want with their every rising day to go into their factories or cubicles and sabatoge their company? How can anyone who has worked a day in their life really believe that?
I went to high school with a lazy jerk who managed to get into UPS. He is protected by a union, and he knows exactly what he can get away with, so he pulls tricks such as, pick a package up from one location, walk (slowly.................... mosey) across the entire warehouse floor to the wrong destination, make the manager of the wrong destination "check" to see if it is supposed to go here, feign surprise when he learns that it doesn't, repeat. All day long. He brags about how few parcels he actually moves to their proper locations. He gets paid $30 an hour, has astounding health care, gets 4 weeks paid vacation every year, has a company matched 401K that he fully vested in immediately, and will retire after "working" there for 15 years on 65% of his salary. For the rest of his life. His union has insured that his laziness will be protected, and he will stay on the payroll, screwing around every day and draining the company of resources and efficiency. He laughs about this.
It is really dangerous to base a whole philosophy on a limited experience. You might know one lazy union worker but to project that outward is a fallacy. I worked in logistics for three decades, the last ten with the parcel carriers.
First off, did you know that these "hated" union UPS guys and gals have to bid each month for their two (two!) 8-hour days? That's right, the rest of the time they are required to work overtime because it would cost too much to staff adequately for an 8 hr day. This seems to undo all the work and sacrifice of the workers in the 1900's who fought and received an 8-hr day.
Second, is it appreciated at all the tremendous time and safety pressure these workers are under, especially the ones who drive? Have you ever had to drive an empty truck around in the wind and snow under a time clock?
Third, and most signficantly especially if you have little to no appreciation for UPS workers, have you ever seen an old UPS driver?
-Debra0 -
Stop that, force corporations who want to sell here to create jobs here,
YOU, consumer, have the power to decide which companies get to sell here, by deciding who to buy from. We don't need the government to "force" it, all you have to do is vote with your dollars.
If you want an American to be the one making your t-shirt, then shop at American Apparel. If you want an American to be the one making your car, go buy a Toyota Camry (the most American-made car). Buy an RCA instead of a Sony.
It's in your hands. The government isn't supposed to be picking the economic winners and losers in life.
Good luck with that. We are too large a nation to organize in that fashion. But what we could do if we got properly organized is elect lawmakers who ban those items for us. And that is what we should do. That is where our power is, if only we would seize it. It used to be most Americans only knew of the two main political parties. Now there is the net, and any American who cares to can learn in a few hours about the possibilities for change. Real change, outside the corporate supported parties.
So far, Americans haven't been angry and desperate enough to vote those corporate shunned, underfunded parties. But times might get worse, and then Americans just might decide it's time for real change. Probably not, as humans are a species that tend to panic and get stupid when times are tough, but maybe. Just maybe.0 -
So workers truly want with their every rising day to go into their factories or cubicles and sabatoge their company? How can anyone who has worked a day in their life really believe that?
I went to high school with a lazy jerk who managed to get into UPS. He is protected by a union, and he knows exactly what he can get away with, so he pulls tricks such as, pick a package up from one location, walk (slowly.................... mosey) across the entire warehouse floor to the wrong destination, make the manager of the wrong destination "check" to see if it is supposed to go here, feign surprise when he learns that it doesn't, repeat. All day long. He brags about how few parcels he actually moves to their proper locations. He gets paid $30 an hour, has astounding health care, gets 4 weeks paid vacation every year, has a company matched 401K that he fully vested in immediately, and will retire after "working" there for 15 years on 65% of his salary. For the rest of his life. His union has insured that his laziness will be protected, and he will stay on the payroll, screwing around every day and draining the company of resources and efficiency. He laughs about this.
I worked in logistics for three decades, the last ten with the parcel carriers.
First off, did you know that these "hated" union UPS guys have to bid each month for their two (two!) 8-hour days? That's right, the rest of the time they are required to work overtime because it would cost too much to staff adequately for an 8 hr day. This seems to undo all the work and sacrifice of the workers in the 1900's who fought and received an 8-hr day.
Second, is it appreciated at all the tremendous time and safety pressure these workers are under, especially the ones who drive? Have you ever had to drive an empty truck around in the wind and snow under a time clock?
Third, and most signficantly especially if you have little to no appreciation for UPS workers, have you ever seen an old UPS driver?
-Debra
My friend works a 40 hour week. Every week. I don't know what you're referring to, he doesn't have to "bid" anyone for his schedule.
What does the general age of the drivers have to do with the topic at hand?0 -
Perhaps it helped that from the top down there was respect from the bosses to those who did the work!
So explain to me why we needed to create giant powerful unions whose greed has torn apart our country? Because of all those happy, well-respected workers living behind picket fences in your imaginary utopia?
be realistic.
Giant powerful unions are needed to counter giant powerful corporations. If greed has torn our country apart, it is not the greed of workers unions, it is the greed of those corporations.
so tell me why we need to unionize public workers?
I worked at a charter school in Oakland, as a non-union teacher. While I was there, Oakland proposed Measure N, a very small ($18 per year per property) property tax increase in order to increase the money for Oakland schools, some of the worst-performing schools in the state. My school also would have received the funds, as the measure was written to include all schools in Oakland, charter and district schools. The teacher's union rose up and fought tooth and nail against the increase wich would have brought more money to their schools, because they wanted to make sure the charter school (who was wildly out-performing them) would not get the money.
You've had one bad experience with a union. I live where there are none. State law pretty much makes them impossible to form and maintain. Corporations move down here to the south to save money by underpaying workers and firing and hiring temps to save on benefits. Great for corporations and investors, terrible for workers.
But the worst thing corporations have done is take our jobs...overseas, where they pay even less and treat workers even worse and where unions are put down with lethal violence. That should never be allowed. American markets should never be open to products from countries where workers are treated as slaves. Stop that, force corporations who want to sell here to create jobs here, then we can worry about the power balance between corporations and workers unions and what is and is not appropriate for either to do.
I don't know what state you live in... but here in Texas unions are allowed and they are used... the companies that don't have unions (like Toyota) typically pay better and have better benefits than those that do.
And I agree, shipping our jobs overseas was/is atrocious... but the only thing that could save us from that would be isolationism (at least economic) with large tariffs on exports... which is touted as a bad idea (whether it would be or not, I don't know as I am not economist).
I think if we refused to allow most imports and put heavy tariffs on the ones we did allow, there would be such a surplus of jobs in this country that we would actually risk a labor shortage. In those circumstances, conditions and wages for workers go up even without unions.0 -
Good luck with that. We are too large a nation to organize in that fashion. But what we could do if we got properly organized is elect lawmakers who ban those items for us. And that is what we should do.
Here is where we differ. I think the freedom to choose should be left in the hands of the consumer. My Dad is very strongly against buying foreign-made goods. He chooses American-produced items because this topic is important to him. I enjoy having the freedom to decide if I want to buy the $4 Taiwan-made shirt over the $20 American-made one.
I do NOT want to elect lawmakers who will decide for me which companies to ban, which companies should win or lose. NO NO NO.0 -
What does the general age of the drivers have to do with the topic at hand?
"Do not judge a man [or in your case a whole segment of the working population]. . .until you've walked in his shoes" !!!
-Debra0 -
Good luck with that. We are too large a nation to organize in that fashion. But what we could do if we got properly organized is elect lawmakers who ban those items for us. And that is what we should do.
Here is where we differ. I think the freedom to choose should be left in the hands of the consumer. My Dad is very strongly against buying foreign-made goods. He chooses American-produced items because this topic is important to him. I enjoy having the freedom to decide if I want to buy the $4 Taiwan-made shirt over the $20 American-made one.
I do NOT want to elect lawmakers who will decide for me which companies to ban, which companies should win or lose. NO NO NO.
And if the majority of Americans agree with you that there should be no laws restricting goods, I am content that this is democracy, whether I agree with it or will continue to live here or not. But one day the majority may decide that personal purchasing power and attempts to organize boycotts are less efficient than simply electing those who will carry out policies we desire, and then that will be democracy at work, too.0 -
If you're not a worker, your position is understandable. Loaded with propaganda phrases, but understandable. So long as you are wealthy and attempting to keep and grow that wealth, I wouldn't expect you to care about the welfare of others. Humans generally don't. But if you are a worker, you are speaking out against your own best interests, and that has never made sense to me.
I am a worker. I am a teacher, and I've purposefully sought out a position where I am working for a private corporation rather than a public school district. I am not protected by any union. I will keep or lose my job based on how well I perform that job.
I'm currently the #1 GED teacher in all the country, in my company. I don't need a union to protect my job for me. I do a fantastic job, and that's what ensures I'll keep it. That's just the way I like it.0 -
If you're not a worker, your position is understandable. Loaded with propaganda phrases, but understandable. So long as you are wealthy and attempting to keep and grow that wealth, I wouldn't expect you to care about the welfare of others. Humans generally don't. But if you are a worker, you are speaking out against your own best interests, and that has never made sense to me.
I am a worker. I am a teacher, and I've purposefully sought out a position where I am working for a private corporation rather than a public school district. I am not protected by any union. I will keep or lose my job based on how well I perform that job.
I'm currently the #1 GED teacher in all the country, in my company. I don't need a union to protect my job for me. I do a fantastic job, and that's what ensures I'll keep it. That's just the way I like it.
Fair enough, but for every one of you, there are a lot of other teachers who can't afford to pay off their student loans on their salaries, who face oversized classrooms and difficulties due to underfunding. Shall we fire them all and keep a few dozen top performers? Who will teach all those children you don't have time for?0 -
If you're not a worker, your position is understandable. Loaded with propaganda phrases, but understandable. So long as you are wealthy and attempting to keep and grow that wealth, I wouldn't expect you to care about the welfare of others. Humans generally don't. But if you are a worker, you are speaking out against your own best interests, and that has never made sense to me.
I am a worker. I am a teacher, and I've purposefully sought out a position where I am working for a private corporation rather than a public school district. I am not protected by any union. I will keep or lose my job based on how well I perform that job.
I'm currently the #1 GED teacher in all the country, in my company. I don't need a union to protect my job for me. I do a fantastic job, and that's what ensures I'll keep it. That's just the way I like it.
Fair enough, but for every one of you, there are a lot of other teachers who can't afford to pay off their student loans on their salaries, who face oversized classrooms and difficulties due to underfunding. Shall we fire them all and keep a few dozen top performers? Who will teach all those children you don't have time for?
There are also a lot of teachers who took district jobs because they thought they couldn't lose them then used their unions to demand more time off, more benefits, and when the budget fell apart, they got pink slips instead of all the goodies they thought they were going to get.
They killed their golden goose.
We should abolish teaching unions, and rid ourself of the dead weight teachers who signed on for three reasons only (June July and August)
If you truly only think there are a "few dozen" top performers, then education is more doomed than I even think........................0
