On Wisconsin! (Read 2075 times)

Heh, funny one.

Because of rising cost of materials, labor and benefits - There is likely only 2 cookies at the table and the CEO needs to take both of them to disburse to shareholders or they will take the company off-shore to China.

Although I have said my Dad is collecting a great Teamster Pension - The company he worked for went bankrupt as they could not compete with the wages/benefits they paid.  He went form $60,000+ a year to making $10/ hr and self paying his last 5 years to his pension.

Here's a good one I just saw on FB:

A Unionized public employee...a member of the Tea Party and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it.  The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies...looks at the tea partier and says, "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

 

When the unions seek to appropriate more than their fair market value, competitive pressures drive the company to a poor position -- declining stock price, uncompetitiveness of cost structure, bankruptcy, or offshore where they can regain their competitiveness projected profit margin.  Or to Right to Work states where they can regain sanity in their expenses compared to their competitors.

Very informative.

 

I would add to the very first line that it wasn't just greedy bankers...it was also greedy large investment funds seeking returns they should have known could not be obtained legitimately, and the greedy bankers taking advantage of greedy everyday citizens who could not exercise the self-control and fiscal discipline to live within their means and got themselves over-leveraged to begin with.  Lots of blame to go around on that one...the bankers are blamed for removing the brakes but that doesn't remove blame from the drivers taking it up to 100mph in a 50 zone approaching the hairpin turn.

 

Correct.  But I can't help but add that all of this was made possible in an under regulated mortgage origination system, where unqualified borrowers took out loans on houses they couldn't or wouldn't afford and the loan originators sold those toxic loans to investment banks who were then able to pass on the risk of default through unregulated insurance policies known as credit default swaps.

Then we, the People, bailed out AIG and made them all whole.  Awesome system.

As much as I'm for limited government, our financial system requires sufficient regulation to prevent this kind of garbage.

+1.

 

Companies are owned either by private individuals or the public through stock offerings.  In either case, these are the parties that put forward the financial resources for the company and bear the risk if the company does not succeed.  I am always amazed by unions/workers that feel that they are somehow entitled to the company's profits, be it $1 or $1 billion, just for being employed there.  Employment entitles you to fair market compensation for the work you do -- no more.  If fair market in your industry includes profit sharing good for you, but one is not entitled to that simply for working for a company.

 

When the unions seek to appropriate more than their fair market value, competitive pressures drive the company to a poor position -- declining stock price, uncompetitiveness of cost structure, bankruptcy, or offshore where they can regain their competitiveness.  Or to Right to Work states where they can regain sanity in their expenses compared to their competitors.

All correct except government employee unions don't worry about market discipline as they are not subject to it - their partners in these contract negotiations ("our" elected officials) have been bought and paid for by the unions.  Unions, including public sector ones, ARE big money interests.

As I have said before - I am not for or against unions - I am for USA being able to compete and not lose jobs

Everyone is responsible for the current state of the economy

Just as I believe both lenders and borrowers are equally responsible for the financial crisis - I do not buy victimization

I do not blame unions for the current state of wages or benefits any more than who they work for ...

Long term it will be interesting and important how these issues work themselves out - 5-10 year time frame.  As the economy limps to moderate life - Will attitudes change? 

Sometimes the people making the largest demonstration and "Noise" do not represent the largest part of the population.  A completely unrelated example would be smoking in public places (Prior to the statewide ban) - Appleton put it into place @ 2 years prior to the state - If you took your gage by the people making the paper + demonstrations - You would think everyone was for smoking in public places - 3 total votes were taken and each time by a large margin the ban was upheld.

I do see many comercials (Money spent) in support or against what is going on.

I think 5/10 years from now - Huge changes will be nationwide in benefits of public workers.  It will mimic most of the private sector.

I think there will be more of a nationwide reduction in standard of living - Globalization.  Enjoy what you have while you have it ...

Burnt Toast, you input "projected profit margin" as if this is a bad thing.  We live in a capitalist system, no?  If you allow your profit margin to get slashed, people will no longer invest their money in your company.  Your stock price will plunge and you can no longer sustain growth as you cannot access capital.  There goes your competitiveness, no?

Making a profit is not evil in this country...at least it shouldn't be.  A company is not evil because they don't want to pay you more than what they can get someone else to do the job for.  You are free to leave and pursue greener pastures.