I can get down with unions in certain industries but when you wrap up the story with “A fast-food worker gets up in the morning. If they have a union, they have one dignified job—not three. They can go to their kid’s soccer practice. They can be engaged as citizens and address what their parks, schools, and communities look like. They can be who they want to be and what they want to be for their families and communities.” is simply silly.
There is always going to be low wage workers and the above statement pretends that if fast food or any other low earning/low skilled job will just unionize, they will earn enough to have a dream life. If that's the case get ready for Happy Meals that cost ya about $65.00. Would you like fries with that?
That is such a great point. Fast food jobs are primarily for children getting their education in the real world, not something you raise a family by. The lack of basic understanding of economics is staggering by people who say that. A company needs profits to reinvest in new equipment or to pay off a loan to start the business. Now, in many corporations where there are people at the top who have nothing to do with building the company and are living large off of the work of others, you have the right to leave and find a new place of employment. Great post.
Yes. A fast food job should not be the end goal in life. It is what you are doing as you work up in the world. It's not what you stick with because you have a happy middle class life working at a low-end job. You will never aspire to greater or work hard to improve your life if you get everything you want without ever trying.
We used to have well-paid industrial jobs for low-skill workers. In the so-called “golden age of capitalism” a high-school dropout could support a family on a single wage, afford to buy a house, a car, take vacations, etc. Due to mechanization, globalization, and tech, most of those jobs don’t exist. Those people now work in the service sector where it is impossible to support a family on full-time work, much less own a home or take family vacations. How can they afford child-care, college, to save for retirement? Does it occur to you that hugely profitable corporations are offloading the full cost of maintaining a human being onto the taxpayer and keeping the change? Anyway, don’t know where you think these workers are going to go. I don’t know why you would want this to be the reality in the United States of America when it was not so in the era conservatives love to love.
Your sentiments are beautiful but how does this work in reality? Your system has failed in every place its been tried. Read about the Soviet Union for a light Saturday afternoon read. I love all your write about but its the same as talking about unicorns, faires and fantasy. It just won't work. You might be able to use the EITC but many should work to become a manager, learn a trade and get better. Thanks for sharing!
As I wrote, it worked in reality in this very bastion of capitalism, the United States. The Soviet Union was a cruel disaster. Please re-read my comment to find where I suggested the government should own the means of production. Workers used to do better here. I want that back. That does not make me a communist, or even a socialist.
I am sorry about calling you a communist. It was snarky and out of line. I see your point but the 50's were a historical anomoly on two counts. First, you had the US coming out of the depression and WW II. The world needed goods and services and the US produced that. But then after that ran out we now have a government out of control consuming trillions in tax dollars that could be invested in new businesses. You are right that would be wonderful but sadly will never happen again.
Working class and middle class wages peaked in 1972. Before that, as the poster said, a livable wage was earned by the top 80%. Since 72 wages have stalled for the vast middle and dropped for the working class. At the same time we have reduced poverty and increased amount of jobs. While working at McDonalds will never be able to produce a living wage for a family of four, there are many similar jobs that could.
That was roughly a 30-40 year time period in a pre-globalization world
Even then, your average worker in a car or shoe factory or a steel mill wasn't going on a beach vacation yearly or even FLYING anywhere yearly. They didn't have multiple TVs, computers, etc. They had A radio, A TV, drank and smoked and died before their pension had to pay for a decade of retirement.
You’re right that standards have changed. There are so many factors involved in this comparison, though, it’s nearly impossible to hash them all out. Here are some off the top of my head:
1) women’s unpaid labor
2) homes much less expensive (also smaller)
3) different level of “necessities” It’s hard to argue that computers, smart phones, appliances like refrigerators and laundry machines, even t.v.’s are luxuries today. Even having two cars is more or less a necessity for two-income families depending on where they live which is most often not near transit.
4) Consider other expenses today that people didn’t have then: child care (see unpaid labor), exorbitant healthcare (granted it was of a much lower standard, but that doesn’t account for why it’s so expensive now), housing, and of course college (not even considering all the expenses upper class folks today consider standard for their kids’ future success: sports, tutoring, test prep, specialty camps, music lessons, etc)
5) when I say “vacations” I mean road trips, motels, camping. I don’t mean flying to Disneyland or the beach (tho many did, actually, stay cheaply at the beach - a lot of places in Florida for example were cheap! And do lakes count? A ton of regular folks not only vacationed on lakes but owned cabins on lakes)
6) not included in this rosy picture are a majority of Black people who were shut out of the middle-class economy.
6) hard drugs and devastating levels of addiction were hardly a thing
Very, very anecdotally, my best friend’s father was a garage door salesman. They had three kids, owned a house near us, mother didn’t work, they took vacations (see lakes :). They were not even close to poor. They were the very image of middle-class. That was the 70’s. No way would they be able to live like that in my parents’ neighborhood now. Probably not possible just about anywhere.
(This comment’s supposed to come after the next one :)
Agreed. A parent grew up on a farm in West Texas. Probably considered middle class economically. Getting more than one new pair of jeans at Christmas was a huge deal. His family purchased ONE new vehicle ( a early 1980s Chevy hatchback) in their whole time on Earth.
"Fast food jobs are primarily for children getting their education in the real world, not something you raise a family by."
Not so much that way anymore. Labor shortages pushed many fast food restaurants to offer $20/hr as a starting rate. Adults with fewer school, band, athletics, etc. commitments took a lot of those. Further, the number of HS age children who work has been declining for sometime. So has the rate of teenagers seeking their driver's license.
That said, it sure should work the way you described. I started working in hospitality at fourteen. Busboy, host, waiter, bar tender, etc.. I did them all. I even worked for about 6 months after grad school tending bar. Children today don't appear, in general, to have that same desire for work, driving, et al.
Maybe Naje getting a useful degree would help him avoid the burden of handling millions of dollars. As I wipe tears from my eyes over his burdens.
How about the Wounded Soldiers that the government says thanks, here is a few bucks, but the VA will help and thanks? Do any of those people want to trade with the military?
Hey now. Naj is the man. Or at least one of them. Henry played for 'Bama too BTW. But seriously I think Henry nailed it - RBs are on the way out. Few teams, college or professional (as if there is much of a dufference) rely on a running game anymore. It IS about the QBs and receivers. At the moment. Because to be, or stay, successful coaches have to adjust strategies to do so. Sports may be the only arena where winning is still the standard. At places like Alabama where Saban is very upfront about helping athletes "build value" for themselves you can see the change - 'Bama was never traditionally a QB school but man is that changing; I predict you will see less emphasis on RBs in the coming years. Why would a young man go for it? Lastly I am not sure that unionization would be fruitful here. Sports agents for this caliber of player are very savvy.
Running back is probably the easiest positon to play on a football team. Good RBs are a dime a dozen. Quality quarterbacks are hard to find and so they get the big bucks. The best teams, though, invest in their linemen.
Yes and no about the RBs. RB is strictly a strength position so some dismiss it as simple but the really good ones have a talent at knowing where the defense is weak on any given play. Good RBs are rare It always changes though. Right now quarterbacks are the glory boys. Me, I like smash mouth, run it down their throat football. My beast against your beast. Which makes for great defensive football as well. Alas that is not the current trend.
Absolutely-and especially about there being little difference in college ball and pro. What happened to “for the love of the game”. Yeah, I know, I am old school. I’m fairly certain that you’re also correct about Saban helping players build value and that includes knowing what to do once they land the big contracts. Not all pay attention though (Ruben Foster) and that just mirrors real life. Most people could make 12 million last a lifetime.
Soldiers are a perfect example of what happens when you ban unions from a workplace, leaving all decisions on pay, benefits, and working conditions to cheap employers. Worker is required to perform impossibly dangerous and back-breaking work for pennies on the dollar of wages. Worker gets broken, worker is thrown away and replaced with a cheery, "thanks for your service, and hey, don't worry, a triple amputee can still flip burgers!"
But I'm guessing you were more interested in slapping around Naje than about the plight of nonunion military.
If that is to me no I am not more interested in football than the military. I am a red-blooded American so I love both but love those who have served more. IMO there are no bigger men (using that to include female participants) than those who serve. But I am not sure warfare or preparedness for warfare can be unionized. They have to do what is required and are called upon to make horrific sacrifices. What could a union do? Require x numbers of hours of sleep? Require gear to be trudged through the arena of war only weigh x number of pounds? In theory they have lifetime benefits of all sorts now. I do agree that the US government does not serve our vets well. But I also think that is because it has spread itself too thin trying to satisfy an increasingly spineless, needy and whining public. The Constitution explicitly charged the federal government with two things - a standing army and border security. It is, IMO, abysmally failing at both.
No, that wasn't to you, Lynne! You'd never say something that required a slapback like that. It was to the poster who made fun of Naje and then compared his salary complaints to those of wounded soldiers.
To address what you raised, though, the military cannot be unionized. Soldiers have to do whatever they're told, else an army could not function.
I used the military only as a good example of how employers can treat employees when employers KNOW a union is out of the question: Soldiers should be paid a hell of a lot more money. They should have guaranteed access to ongoing, first-class medical care when wounded and/or disabled. Yet they have no way to insist on these things, so pay remains low and the VA nearly Third World in operation.
I agree completely that the feds have spread themselves too thin.
Well since I served 28 years and then worked for DoD for another 17 I know firsthand unions would not work in the military. Experience and having been to war tells me that. Plus I was a UAW member when I was in high school. All they did was protect drunks and lazy workers.
Hi, Terry. I agree, and said specifically in a followup comment that the military cannot be unionized. Soldiers must do what they're told or the whole system falls apart. My only point was that this provides the perfect illustration of how an employer--in this case, the U.S. government--can treat employees when unions are banned from a workplace.
Mileage varies greatly in terms of unions being good or bad. I've been part of the Newspaper Guild--a local chairman for several years--since the 1980s and it's an excellent outfit. Part of the reason, I believe, is that everyone except the executive director (chief contract negotiator) and attorney have to be working members of the newspaper being represented in order to be on the board of directors. That cuts way down on featherbedding and bullshit.
Curious that the article doesn’t mention the effect Biden’s Gubment induced inflation has had on workers standard of living. I’m sure the rise in Union affection is just coincidental with the decrease in purchasing power they’ve all experienced in the last three years.
The war on fossil fuels, ignoring infrastructure needs while lavishing billions on the “green” energy scammers, turning our currency into Monopoly money with deficit spending to benefit cronies that include corrupt “defenders” of democracy in countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map, allowing hordes of low skill workers to flood across our borders….
The workers of this country don’t need more unionization, they need a president and congress committed to less gubment.
Agree 100%, unfortunately the blue collar job market dried up in the 1990s thanks to offshoring, and those became jobs for adults. Some people just will not develop better skills than fast food, and aren’t clever enough to game the welfare system, and that’s who ends up working at Mickey D’s.
it didn't dry up though. It just changed. We have a massive shortage of people in skilled trades - jobs that can't be offshored because they are mostly performed on location, in the US. No sure why fewer people are entering skilled trades. On the other hands, the unions of these skilled trades serve as gatekeepers, artificially keeping the number of tradesmen down in order to keep salaries high for those already "in the club"
I’m not super smart on this, but i tend to believe certain people just can’t learn a skilled trade the way they could learn to stand in a factory (or amazon or walmart warehouse) and do a repetitive task. I certainly agree that “going to college” has been elevated above the trades, and many folks who aren’t well suited for college would be great mechanics or HVAC techs, as opposed to wasting four years and six figures getting Bs toward a criminal justice degree.
I’m a physician and I see a lot of patients, including in wealthy areas. I would argue that based on what I’m seeing, most people should not attend college. A lot of the wealthy parents pay for their kids to attend college for their own “prestige” and these kids graduate and become bartenders, waitresses. Many of the The middle class parents also want their kids to attend and the kids take on huge loans that they can never repay and have crap jobs or no jobs. The kids I see go into skilled trades are doing fantastic and they have wonderful lives. I think people just have no idea what’s out there and don’t realize that these are amazing jobs for their kids.
HVAC, mechanic, jeweler, carpenter, welding, shoe repair, blacksmith, plumber, electrician.....I can go on and on. I have 3 daughters and I already can tell you that one of them will definitely do a skilled trade and I will encourage her to do so because she would be great at it
In my area, and I suspect most, electricians/carpenters/plumbers, etc. are reaching retirement. The kids don't want those jobs, so we have a crisis of finding those trades people to do work. I keep thinking this will turn and the kids/counselors/parents will figure out that these jobs for many make more sense than putting yourself in debt for a college degree.
But the problem is, even if this is true, we cannot make a very low skill, safe job highly paid. Because that eliminates any incentive to those who can do better to do better. Yes, some people might be stuck in a low skill, safe job that doesn't pay well because of their innate ability level. But I don't think you can rectify that by forcing employers to pay them the same as workers who have more value to the company. That destroys incentive to those who are entering the work world.
I would rather have a no responsibility job that had not required me to pay for college or to study hard for years and that offers a safe work environment if it will pay me the same as the jobs that require more effort and skill or might be more dangerous or physically taxing.
Some members of the community are going to be lower class. The economy does not work if everybody makes the same amount no matter the value of the contribution to society.
What is unfair in the world is that some of us are born better equipped or are raised better equipped to navigate life. But you can't change that yet. You can't fix that by re-engineering the economy somehow.
Perhaps there's a way to help people be raised better equipped early in life. Perhaps there will be a way to medically help those who are innately inequipped. But you can't fix it by throwing money at adults.
My mentally disabled cousin worked for “Micky D’s” for two decades because it was a job he could do. He liked it, was good at it, and felt proud, but never got benefits due to the owners keeping his schedule just under full time. He was unable to advocate for himself. His income remained poverty-level and he was only able to live independently with financial help from his parents. I don’t think this is an inspiring American story.
Having a family member with mental illness who can also work, they struggle with working full time hours. The lower wage, part time jobs help young kids learn how to work and those who are always going to need additional financial support from others, be productive members of society. McDonalds does a lot for those who don't fit the traditional mold of employability. But even I’ve found McDonalds prices to be getting expensive on the rare occasion I eat there for what the food is…
Exactly. People don't realize that the "Golden age of unions" existed before globalization and literally millions of workers globally gunning for your job.
I often think the response to increased wages and work-life stability for low income workers being , well expect to pay an obscene amount for that thing now, misses some of the point. Not that your wrong of it being a possibility, but that it’s part of the overall issue in American working class life that it is a possibility at all. Corporations are largely responsible for inflation due to unjustified price hikes, corporate owners and managers are seeing huge increases in salaries and bonuses these past few decades. Why shouldn’t a poor person who has to resort to low income labor be able to live a decent life? (It’s not like higher education is getting any cheaper making it harder and harder for people to get out of low wage existence) I read one stat that reported average corporate salary increases in the past 30 years was 65% while the workers that make there bonuses possible was only 12%. ‘Workers’ includes store managers who are required to work over 50 hours a week or more without qualifying for overtime compensation. Point is, McDonald’s corporate is using low wage labor to get extremely wealthy. It’s only fair that workers get represented better by our government to help level the playing field. Does it make sense that millions of McDonald’s employees struggle to pay bills month by month while a few fat cats own luxury yachts, planes, even there own islands? I don’t think so.
Yeah.....there is so much to push back on there its hard to know where to start. So I'll just go to the first one in your comment and also the one most taken up by the main stream media:
"Corporations are largely responsible for inflation due to...."
So lets list causes of inflation?
1. Demand-pull. The most common cause for a rise in prices is when more buyers want a product or service than the seller has available....
2. Cost-push. Sometimes prices rise because costs go up on the supply side of the equation....
3. Increased money supply....
4. Currency devaluation....
5. Rising wages....
If I'm a betting man the inflation we're all seeing right now would be behind curtain #3 & #4.
Krystal Ball with Breaking Points has a great episode about corporate profits and inflation. All I’m saying is it seems to be the wrong direction for our country. The working class make it possible so why not invest in them more?
Right, there are other factors. However many studies are showing that corporate price increases far out weight government spending in terms of their effect on inflation.
“A study in April finds corporate profits accounted for more than half of price increases between 2020 and 2021.”
Not here to argue and not defending corporate greed but just to put things in perspective real quick, the current administration in 2020 increased the US money supply (printed money) by $3.5 Trillion US dollars. As if that wasn't completely insane enough, they printed $13 trillion in 2021. Is it any wonder we saw corporate profits skyrocket during those times? Just wait and watch what happens to corporate earnings in the next 18 - 24 months. Its going to be a sh*tshow IMO. Finally.....I'm not sure I'd list ABC news as a pillar of facts in any story they cover.....but I digress.
You beat me to asking the same question. Quality thought and analysis is impossible in this morass of ignorance, misinformation, cognitive dissonance, and self-reinforcing group think. Lynne seems to be one who "gets it".
As far as I can tell, the inflation spike was caused by (primarily) two things:
A. Trillions of dollars of Covid stimulus working its way through the system.
B. Businesses raising prices when inflation spiked but not reducing prices when inflation eased, which vastly increased their profits.
It's fair to call out B loud and strong. Businesses are entitled to profits without us screaming bloody murder. They are not entitled to gouge us without pushback.
But A? I wouldn't dream of criticizing that. Without the trillions Biden provided to replace the incomes of people and businesses who couldn't work or run their shops during Covid, tens of millions of Americans WOULD have become bankrupt and homeless. Those trillions of dollars literally kept them alive and off our welfare rolls.
Sure, when Covid ended, the paycheck protection plans should have ended too. But figuring out WHEN Covid ended was tricky, so Biden decided to let the program run a while longer to make sure nobody suffered.
Yes, that double-barrel of stimulus made inflation spike for a year. But it also kept people from starving. I'd rather we suffered a year of hard inflation than watch tens of millions of Americans be forced to move to tents under freeway overpasses, wouldn't you? That was the choice at the time, and Biden/government chose the right thing for the most people.
Corporations used that inflation spike to jack up prices--correctly so, they needed to cover their higher expenses just like people did--but did not reduce those prices when inflation cooled. That's price-gouging, and while it's not illegal, it should be called out by the screams of millions as immoral.
Maybe if we didn't have such an insane lockdown (a la Sweden) we wouldn't have needed to throw trillions at everyone (those who honestly needed support, and those who were just grifting (Cali cons, already being supported by the state!)??
The Covid money was not nearly closely enough monitored, and thus billions were given to fraudsters and--as you said--people working or incarcerated the entire time. Water under the bridge, unfortunately, but I truly hope we don't repeat the shutdown mistake next pandemic. It was a $%^^%% disaster on so many levels.
Inflation is cumulative. The rate of increase slowed, but prices did not drop back to previous levels. We had 9% inflation, now we have only 3%. Inflation is measured year over year. The previous 9% increase is still there, in addition to the new rate of “only” 3%. Prices and costs have not dropped, and there’s no reason to assume business would or should reduce prices back to pre-pandemic levels.
You might find this interesting: "Normally, Andrew says, profits contribute less than a third to inflation. He found that in 2021, corporate profits could account for about double that, nearly 60% of inflation, meaning it was not costs driving inflation. It was corporate profits."
I don't expect companies to drop prices to pre-pandemic levels, but they certainly should drop them by 6 percent. Why that number? As the story explains, businesses raised prices by 9 percent because they anticipated their costs rising by that amount. When costs only rose 3 percent, they kept the price hike at 9 percent, pocketing the difference. It's legal for them to do that, of course, but legal and "fuck consumers, they'll never figure it out, high fives" are two different things and the latter should be condemned loudly and strong.
The federal government and its cronies at the Federal Reserve are the sole cause of inflation. We have only been completely removed from the gold standard since the Nixon years. Since then we have experienced cycle after cycle of inflation, deflation, bubbles, and stagnation. A fiat currency with a federal government will not even attempt to pass and stick to a budget but rather just fires up the presses and prints some more is a fool's errand. As for poor people being guaranteed a good life, that too is pue in the sky if you require government fixes to assure it. There are many, many, many people, countless numbers in fact, who have lifted themselves out of poverty. There are many poor people who just make their puece with it. Your bitterness about CEOs is, IMO, misplaced. Many celebrities who arguably perform no valuable service other than entertainment have yachts, planes and outrageous estates. One of those reportedly hired private firefighters to protect her 1500 acres on Maui during the recent tragedy and then trotted down to shelter yto see what she could do to help. With a TV crew in tow. I read a couple of years ago that Taylor Swift had the most private plane rides of all, some for 19 minutes. Every time you watch a movie, attend a concert, etc. you support that. Now the CEO of Southwest Airlines I am right there with you but I do not know if he has a yacht or private plane. Next to last, all corporations (that is what it means to be a corporation) are owned by shareholders some of whom do indeed get rich, including mutual funds in which unions frequently invest. But corporations are governed by boards of directors; that board is accountable to the shareholders. Part of the board's duty is to choose the CEO. Because they are accountable to the shareholders they must puck someone likely to assure financial success. Twitter pre-Musk was an example of what a corporation cannot lawfully do - sacrifice the well-being of its shareholders to satisfy the wants of its executives and staffers. All of this tripe about altruistic corporate activity is just that. If it ain't making money, or at least designed to do so, it is not legitimate corporate activity. Period. So almost all of it is passed off on the corporate books as marketing. IOWs it is a marketing ploy. Right, wrong, or indifferent this nation is a capitalist society. We reward successful behavior at the workplace. We have a big pie and everyone who wants a piece and is willing to put forth some effort can remove themselves from poverty. On the other hand, the government cannot fix poverty. It had tried for a hundred years now. Seriously tried for over 50. BTW McDonald's had 200,000 employees as of 2022.
Keep in mind that many McDonald's are franchises, not corporate so the franchisee is on the hook, not the corporation. A friend of mine owned a Subway franchise, it was a disaster for him personally. Today, he has nothing good to say about Subway and their corporate offices.
Our government has done a great job exploiting one class against the other. Instead of asking why every level of government needs so much money, there are those among us who demonize "corporate" rather than the root of the problem, the unelected bureaucratic/administrative state.
LOL "McDonald’s corporate is using low wage labor to get extremely wealthy. It’s only fair that workers get represented better by our government to help level the playing field. Does it make sense that millions of McDonald’s employees struggle to pay bills month by month while a few fat cats own luxury yachts, planes, even there own islands?" I don’t think so." well you think wrong. a level playing field means no one gets anything. workers at Mc Donalds should be entry level jobs.. not a job where you can get a yacht or a plane. those jobs are reserved for people who RISE up in the job. or have the skills for management and beyond. dont hate the who said hey I bet a .15 burger would sell he was the smart one.. so yes it does make perfect sense in the world of free enterprise
You may have misread or misunderstood. My point was with wealth disparity not that owners have more money. McDonald’s was only an example to make a point of this as well. While not the best example, many low wage workers are forced to work the entry level positions due to lack of opportunity. It’s nice to think that only kids should be working these jobs temporarily until they move on, buts that’s just not how the nation is working right now. Folks who don’t grow up in the environments of poverty in America are seemingly unable to comprehend this fact.
If the price of a Big Mac rose 68 cents in 2013, that would be an 18% increase in the cost to the consumer. If we dislike 5% inflation, we're going to really hate 18%. All the talk of raising wages rarely takes into account things like wage-price spirals and the fact that the 'raised wages' will continue to have less and less purchasing power because of the spiral.
If labor cost rise, corporations figure out how to make a profit. In Denmark, a big Mac cost 20 cents more and workers are paid 3 times as much in many US states and they still make a profit. Compare that to the famous study by Forbes that found that the worst performing CEOs are the highest paid.
tey are so happy there. lol... 20 cents more than what? plus they put mayo on their fries and charge extra for condiments in Hungary I had to "pay extra" for a paper straw that sticks to your lips and dissolves before you finish your drink.. enjoy your Denmark
Teens in many places view fast food work as demeaning, unless it's more upscale fast food like Starbucks or Chipotle. I've even heard a teen say "that's immigrant work!" when her mom suggested she get a summer job at McDonald's.
The cost of a McDonald's combo meal is $11.50.....and they have far fewer locations bringing in revenue than in the U.S. The McDonald's Corporation made 24.194B last year.
I'd rather pay $65 for a happy meal than $65 into a government program for a student loan forgiveness program. At least the person who made the happy meal provided value. I see no problem at all with fast food workers unionizing.
Also, I wish my old company (software development/hi-tech) had some decent unions so employees could have pushed back against some anti-employee decisions the board made (specifically in 2020, but before that also). 5 people were more than willing to screw over several hundred because of personal beliefs and to make a bit more money for themselves. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to want to deny that to someone working in a different industry.
No, boyo, this an excellent piece of journalism. It is the perfect contrast to your middle-school-level commentary. The good news for you is that the next Trump administration will require your services for lack of grown-ups willing to serve. A union could only get in the way of that.
I think the crony capitalism is problematic, particularly, but not exclusively, at the federal level. The current "green energy" scam being illustrative. But as I understand it many associated unions are on board with that. I also think an abundance of taxes are collected now. At every level. The problem, IMO, is not the collection of taxes, rather it is the spending thereof and beyond.
"The problem, IMO, is not the collection of taxes, rather it is the spending thereof and beyond."
A thousand times yes, Lynne. I'm happy to pay taxes that support well-managed programs and projects. I hate wasting taxes on corruption, mismanagement, and theft. Why would anyone in their right mind support, for instance, a Pentagon that admits without embarrassment or blowback that it can't find billion-dollar skids of cash it sent to the Middle East?
Oh good heaven's yes! I think most of us - left, right, and center - are in accord on this. So how do we stay focused on this and hold the spenders accountable?
I would start with a wholesale rewrite of the tax code, reducing its current thousands of pages to a few dozen. Taxes collection should be strictly about revenue generation, not behavior alteration, and the Byzantine smokescreen of the current system lets too much money be directed to The Bigs via tax breaks snuck into the language so nobody notices.
I'd write a code that eliminates ALL tax deductions, business and personal, in exchange for ultra-low percentages. Basically, we'd tax gross earnings, not net, but instead of paying 20 or 30 percent, we'd pay 1, 2, or 5 percent.
This lets people and businesses keep most of their money and spend it on what THEY think important, not what the tax code wants to encourage us to do. Why should I get a tax break for efficient windows (personal) or meals out when traveling (business)? Eliminate all those deductions and let people and businesses decide what's important to THEM to spend their own money on. If travel is important to business, it should be an expense of business. If triple-pane windows are important to me, I should pay for them on my own dime.
One bonus of this is it kills the tax preparation business that sucks so many billions of dollars from almost every American because it's damn near impossible to do our own taxes any more. Another is that tax theft and fraud will virtually cease to exist, because most of that happens on the deduction side.
Another bonus is the IRS can rechannel its resources into fighting actual tax crime instead of deciding whether Joe and Harriet Homeowner's health insurance is eligible for the Health Care Tax Credit.
The tax code should be strictly about raising money most efficiently and transparently. Once we fix that problem, then we can train our guns on Congress, the root of all spending evil.
TL; DL I know, but this issue lights my fuse every time. This is such a marvelous country with so much potential locked up by our Byzantine and secretive ways of doing things, not just government, but all large institutions.
We can't have "no more taxes." It's not remotely possible. Weather satellites must be maintained, highways must be rebuilt, etc.
We CAN have a tax and spending system that is simple, efficient and iso transparent that any citizen can look up anything in the budget on the Internet. But no politician would ever vote for such a system---transparency makes it too hard to hide the payoffs to the Big Money that elected them.
As for cutting spending, I agree in theory, but in practice that's a whole higher level of pain. What sucks up most federal spending? The military, Medicare, and Medicaid. Drastic cuts in any of those areas will hurt real people, not just the Fat Cats.
I would love to overhaul the entire system, from taxes to spending to budgeting to how congresscritters are elected. But that would take a rewrite of the Constitution, and god help us if that ever occurs.
People will never give a good answer of where they’d like to actually cut the budget. When they do, you can be sure it’s not in any program that affects them. Although, sometimes they do, in fact, advocate for cuts that hurt them personally then usually scream about it. Ever go to a school board meeting with a bunch of people freaking out because the district is going to cut their kids’ busing or after school programs? I have. Those same people very often voted for tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s bananas.
Bananas. I know, right??? I've been a union leader and served on a synagogue board and an HOA board. Nobody who shows up to meetings will accept any answer other than "those other people will take the cuts, not you."
Also known as predatory capitalism or corrupted capitalism, it means capitalism that is no longer of the 'free market' type because it's been corrupted by special interests lobbying government to rig the game with laws, regulations, subsidies, etc that favor industry over consumers.
Your first and last paragraphs are ludicrous. The third one is just snark. BTW I used the term in replying to someone else's use. I did understand the definition though. It is real and it is a real problem. As for examples although the full details have not been revealed the suspicion is that Hunter Biden was engaging in crony capitalism. The Covid vaccine makers were advantaged as a result of crony capitalism. "Green energy" is replete with examples of crony capitalism. The oil and gas industries have benefited from crony capitalism. Education benefits from crony capitalism. The health business (I can't even refer to it as health care anymore) benefits from crony capitalism. The nascent DIE industry exists because of capitalism. These are just off the top of my head and I could go on, and on, and on. But I'll leave you with this, if there were no crony capitalism there would be no need for lobbyists. Research lobbyists for further insight.
"Crony capitalism" isn't a platitude, it's a real problem. It happens when businesses or governments steer contracts and funding not to the best and most efficient providers of a service or good, but to their friends, who won't do the work as well or efficiently but are rewarded nonetheless for being "cronies" of the funder---hence the name.
Example: Billions of dollars of war infrastructure contracts during the Bush II presidency were awarded primarily to Halliburton Industries, which by sheer, um, coincidence just happened to be owned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Crony Capitalism 101.
Example II: Smallville USA is home to nine tow truck operators willing to tow cars for the city. But the Smallville Police uses only one, Smallville Towing, because it's owned by the chief of police's brother in law. Crony Capitalism 102.
Oh, and calling teachers and government workers "stuck in meaningless jobs and angry at the world?" I'm sure your job contributes sooooo much more to our culture.
Examples: govt- engineered zero real interest rates that allow asset-rich entities to get free money, while retirees try to live on low risk savings that pay 0%.
Many billions of dollars thrown at industries to support the net-zero climate hoax.
Subsidized loans to college students that enable unaccountable colleges to raise their tuition to absurd levels, leaving the college grad with a huge credit encumbrance upon graduation.
Expanding make-work admin and consultancy hires in the private sector to police speech, behavior, personal investment and political donations under threat of regulatory action.
Suppressing the production of energy to push up the price of favored energy sources.
Using emergency powers to compel the use of pharmaceuticals while indemnifying the producers.
The property tax lawyers who are actually somewhat effective ( see the career of Michael Madigan).
The increase in compulsory licensing to ply a trade.
234 - why don't you exercise your knew understanding of crony capitalism by providing some examples of your own.
oh, for God's sake. We had homeless for DECADES without Ukraine. we has ALL our issues for decades without Ukraine. Stop with this dumb knee-jerk of Ukraine blaming. We would still have ALL our problems if there never WAS aid to Ukraine. This is about politics. Nothing we do or don't do for Ukraine will change that.
We didn't, genius. Ukraine got MAYBE $26B in OLD equipment. You have to be exquisitely stupid to pretend that we would solve the issues you mention if we didn't have to help Ukraine. My own city has MILLIONS in unspent money for the homeless. It's not the money!
What taxes are "fair" taxes for the rich? You sound like the Indian who isn't an Indian, Elisabeth Warren.
Unlike the Kennedys, most rich work hard to be rich. Why not say what it really means which is let's tax those who work hard and are successful. Although a CEO making 100 million dollars a year seems a bit excessive. But like football players companies are look for CEOs that will increase their bottom line and just like football players are willing to pay for it. I see nothing wrong in this,
The top 1% of earners pay over 50% of the taxes. Let's cut spending and balance the budget then every body's taxes can be lowered.
The top 1% pay more than 50% of the taxes because they have 70% of the money.
Hey, if I figure out a way to get rich from writing these smart-alecky comments, I'd be happy to pay a bigger percentage of my income in taxes. I'll still have a ton left over for guns, lawyers, and meth :-)
I don't disagree that they should proportionately pay more in income taxes, but to hear over and over that the rich need to pay their fair share has become an empty, overused, unfair, and inaccurate cliche.
I was thinking annual income rather than wealth, but yes, I was lazy and didn't look up the proper number. Thanks for the data point.
"I don't disagree that they should proportionately pay more in income taxes, but to hear over and over that the rich need to pay their fair share has become an empty, overused, unfair, and inaccurate cliche."
We agree completely. "Tax the rich till they scream" is just dumb, because they're Americans too and most made their money honestly. But a flax tax that spares them proportionally more taxation doesn't generate the money we need to run our society.
I'd like to switch to a graduated income tax with no deductions and ultra-low tax rates. It would apply universally, individuals and business alike, and all income would be taxed, no differentiation between earned and passive income.
That will do several cool things for society. First, the tax code will shrink to a few hundred pages from tens of thousands, which makes it harder for Congress to hide bribes to their buddies. Second, much of our tax fraud is on the deduction side, so eliminating deductions eliminates much fraud. Third, the rates would be so low that even criminals will just pay rather than scheme on how to hide income. Fourth, the IRS will spend all its time pursuing big-time income-dodgers rather than waste any on Ma and Pa Kettle's deduction for their spare bedroom used as an office. Fifth, no more paying a CPA or H&R Block to do your returns because the tax code is so Byzantine that you can't do them yourself any more.
"The top 1% of earners pay over 50% of the taxes." -- I don't think that's true (if you could provide citations, that would be helpful). It's my understanding that the "1%" has the means to game the system so they pay very little, if any, taxes. For instance, "hiding" their income in offshore accounts and/or being able to afford accountants who find ways to "hide" their money in other ways. The working & middle classes don't have the means to do this, so they pay more (relatively speaking) in taxes as a percentage of their income.
Part of the reason is that the person who "makes" 5 million a year can structure their compensation so that much of that is not subject to taxes. Or they don't invest; whether that's by trying to be more profitable or starting another business.
The pig that government has become, then has to go after those who really do work and the middle class ends up paying income tax (Federal, maybe State), any number of sales taxes (special levy/funding districts), excise taxes. Utility taxes etc. Don't even get me started on "fees" (Like RINO Romney said about his MA health care plan, "it's not a tax, it's a fee". POS
Exactly this. They pay themselves with "loans" from their own businesses which are set up to be tax free or low tax. Regular taxpayers don't have this option.
But Rueben that $3,000,000 is not just sitting around more than likely. Rather it is invested. If it is invested in other businesses that helps the economy. If it is invested in real estate, say apartment complexes, that spurs the economy and helps renters by increasing supply. Hell if they own a super yacht that helps the economy by employing captain and crew, spending on fuel consumption and spending at ports of call.
"Fair" taxes, I assume, are what YOU think they should be eh?
Unions are a buffer against bad management, but Amazon unionizing because they don't get free childcare, or can't all work from home, is NOT "worker protection".
I was a union president back in the '80s and '90s. Part of that job was negotiating contracts with management. My advice to members who wanted everything and the kitchen sink in a contract, from onsite child care to job sharing to work-from-home before it was fashionable, was this:
"Let's forget all that, go for a hell of a lot more in wages, health insurance, and worker protection, and everyone can spend their extra money on whatever they want. I don't need child care but you do. You don't need X but Joe does. Joe doesn't need Z but Martha does. So let's get the money, forget the rest, and everyone buys what they need with their extra income."
If management comes through on the cash end, problem solved. If it refuses to budge on other than minimal pay increases, then unions go for the cash equivalent in free childcare, working from home, and other "lifestyle" benefits.
So there IS a method to the madness in asking for things that aren't strictly "worker protection." One is that it's a pay-increase substitute. Two is that these items can be traded or jettisoned at the end in exchange for what you really want: higher pay, better medical, and stronger worker protection.
Thanks for the comment/feedback; my point re: Amazon was that they (corporate employees, the "momAzonian's" already make beaucoup cash - about $150K on average in Seattle. It seems like they thought their entire salary was supposed to go into savings rather than paying bills - bills that they had directly as a result of their own choices.
With regard to the other bennies, you're right, they get those in lieu of the cash wages but that's a big reason the actual wages have remained near stagnant....
You're welcome, Chris, thoughtful of you to thank me, much appreciated.
As an employee, I'd rather have cash than noncash so I can pay my bills and stuff my savings account as I choose. Most noncash benefits beyond health insurance are useful only for small slivers of any given employee group; cash lets everyone pay for what they need or find iimportant.
Did Amazonians work and get paid during Covid while also gettiing Paycheck Protection money? If so, that's not remotely right. It was supposed to be one or the other, not both. That said, where do I sign up for my protection money? :-)
I don't disagree there. My point being that unions make sense in some industries and not so much sense in others. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are skilled/educated in a way that allows you to seek employment in a field that is a step up from not wanting pickles on your quarter pounder. Just sayin....
"until fair taxes are paid by the top earners"? Have you any idea the amount of taxes the top earners already pay? The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of all income taxes.
What would you like it to be...50%? 75%? More? Maybe 100%?
The author lost me at saying unions promote meritocracy. They very much stand for the opposite. I also question the POV on the writer/actor strike. If anything, the public has apathy towards the whole thing. No one misses Hollywood.
As a former union member, shop steward, contract negotiator and dept manager I've seen both sides. Unions can help protect member from wanton idiotcy by company owners. They also protect the most shiftless, laziest and poisioning employee. I've seen unions that provide zero value to their members and I shake my head. I've seen plenty from both sides to know.
I think public school systems are a perfect example of unions that don’t work. Some of the worst teachers and principals are protected by unions! I can’t feel sorry for a young man playing professional football making millions! They need to prepare for a second act in life, after all its just a game!
And I taught among excellent teachers in a public school district where we as a union agreed to freeze wages for 5 years during the 2008 economic crisis to work with our school district to put our students’ education first. Collective bargaining works. And lousy teachers get away with remaining in the classroom not because of unions but because the administration isn’t doing their jobs!
Many people don’t realize it’s administrators who grant tenure. In NY it’s a 4 year process. In my district it was hard to earn tenure and many didn’t get rehired after the first year or 2.
It works to a degree. I taught 5 years, decided I could make double the money for half the headache with my degree. My wife has been teaching 13 years with MA+30 and does quite well. I think she’s making $80k this year with a 10-month contract. She could t get those benefits anywhere else, even if she made more money. She is very good at what she does, though, and let’s just say doesn’t exactly fit in politically.
On the other hand, my brother is also in year 13 with his MA. He moved schools this year because he was offered a $6k raise at a different district. When he told his principal, they offered to give him extra duty so they could match salaries, which of course isn’t a match. It was all they could do, though, because of the bargained salary schedule. That’s the downfall of the education bargaining system.
I cut the cord and haven’t been to a movie theater in years. Hollywood can strike in perpetuity and most people wouldn’t miss a thing. The writing talent on Substack is far superior.
Amen. Imagine a world in which there was no Hollywood. What would we do with ourselves? Maybe read books, talk to our families more, enjoy family game nights, enjoy the great outdoors? Oh, the horrors! ;-)
As a member of 2 unions- the Air Line Pilots Association and SAG/AFTRA- I know unions have value, but certainly NOT for promoting meritocracy! And they are ineffectual combating sexual harassment (a stalker in this case) if the harasser is also a union member. A closed shop is also anathema to me in a country where freedom is supposedly sacred.
I miss some of the actors but I sure don't miss those hacks they call writers. There are good ones who stand out (the Sheldon series, most Blue Bloods episodes) but the normal script is so boring, so predictable, so, so.... hackneyed. In addition, I've seen some very good actors and series sink and disappear because of those writers pushing their own political agendas. How often do I need to be told that it's men who do business who are bad and evil and then watch the lead character waltz off into the sunset with the mobster. That's a scenario I saw on television maybe 15 years ago. It's gotten entrenched in the scripts now. (no nazis, no commies, only those businessmen who seamlessly supply us with the goods we need) No, I don't miss those hacks they call writers.
Yeah -- first of all no one cares about an industry full of people who seem to think they are in a position to tell everyone else how they should think, feel and act. Second, they are trying to play King Canute here. AI is already democratizing the means of creative production (see, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y, anime entirely created by AI) and right now we are just at the “dancing baby” stage of AI. Hollywood itself is doomed, as their monopoly on the ability to create high quality content is about to disappear, so the unions are completely irrelevant -- when someone in Croatia or wherever can bang out entertainment on their own or with a small team that is as or more entertaining than what Hollywood puts out, it is game over for that entire industry.
Can we have it acknowledged somewhere that teachers unions kept American kids out of school for a year and forced toddlers to wear masks? Sorry if I’m skeptical that more unions are a societal net positive.
I was part of that union for 30 years. I had no choice - I wanted to teach. In my state, you could refuse union benefits, but still had to pay full union dues. I didn't believe in tenure for mediocre and poor teachers, but saw first-hand two examples of excellent anti-union teachers who lost their jobs for lack of union representation.
Every year, the teachers' union would run political adds calling for smaller classes and newer textbooks - never happened. Every year, our union supported more and more standardized testing, more government regulations and interference, higher teacher wages and better retirement benefits - and were, generally, successful in achieving those goals. In real life, the union never gave a damn about kids. Teachers who spoke up against the union were demonized and threatened.
And meritocracy? The first year I taught, I worked with a woman who should have NEVER been allowed to teach ANYONE - poorly educated in her subject, narcissistic, absolutely HATED kids. In my naivety, I went to the principal with my concerns. She told me she had been trying to remove that teacher from the classroom since her first year as principal, but the union was in the teacher's corner. The following year, that teacher physically pushed a student through a plate glass window. Finally, the union agreed it was time for her to go.
Over the ensuing years, it only got worse. Any teacher who made it past his/her first two years - easy to do with the state- later federally-mandated observation guidelines - was protected for life (as long as they chose to remain in the union). Also, particularly over the years since No Child Left Behind was enacted, good and excellent teachers have abandoned the profession in utter frustration. Newer teachers enter the field who have been trained to follow directions, teach to the test, and question less. Those who became teachers to actually help kids grow and learn, who can't adapt to the reality of the modern educational system, leave the profession within three to five years. What's left is mediocrity - or worse - and that is just fine with the union.
One of my brothers is a retired teacher, and he was (reluctantly) active for some time in his union. My brother wasn't really interested in or supportive of the union, but he was strongly encouraged by his colleagues because he was a really good teacher and was pretty popular with the school board and parents, and was a good public speaker.
After a few years in my brother's tenure as a union local leader, the school board fired a recently-tenured male gym teacher who had become WAY too friendly with the female students in the district. Many of the other teachers in the district had continually warned this guy that he was taking his sexual innuendo with his students too far, and most of the teachers at his school were happy that he was terminated.
That didn't matter to the teachers' union. At the urging of their district and national representatives, and against my brother's observations and beliefs, the union local spent 10's of thousands of dollars on attorneys and "experts" trying to defend the fired gym teacher. The situation became extra ugly when the young female students revealed (under oath) everything that this jerk had been doing to and with them.
The teachers union lost the case in court, and permanently lost my brother as a leader and active member. He reluctantly paid his dues for the rest of his long career, but never set foot in a union meeting again.
that's tragic. That's why I'm ambivalent on the Unions. There are many union bosses who are to powerful and craven. We've just swapped one villain for another.
My experience has been that the local associations are largely good - occasionally they get bad reps that think they are on a national stage - but the state and national associations are not.
Where do you live? I taught in Southern California, but have talked with many teachers across the country who had similar experiences to mine. If there are paces where children come first, I’d like to know.
My thoughts exactly! Also these unions are protecting all sorts of low hanging fruits with mental problems who got into teaching to indoctrinate kids into fringe ideologies.
Definitely agree with that sentiment, but... I think we sometimes forget the sole purpose of unions is to protect their members (ie workers/employees). Sadly, school children are not that.
This piece is ridiculous. There is no tie in between any of these groups, and unionization is not spreading like wildfire. Unions are going nowhere because there’s a shortage of people and good companies are taking care of their people, there’s no need for unions.
Nobody cares about the actors, and if they had a case, they would be back at work because the bosses would give in. UPS did the math and found that it worked. That’s all that’s happened. The math, for UPS was not based on some call for union wage, but rather technology would allow UPS to make the worker more productive, and the higher wage was acceptable.
Starbucks took very good care of their employees without a union - healthcare benefits for part-time workers, college tuition, flex schedules, good wages, and a lb of free coffee per week.
Apple, Google, Amazon, plenty of companies whose value creation depends on how well their employees are taken care of. In a competitive employment marketplace, the only way to be a successful business to is ensure your employees want to stay with you.
Speaking as someone who worked at a Big Tech firm, as well as several startups, I can tell you Big Tech (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta) are *not* the best places to work. They have incredibly high turnover rates -- you get recruited out of college because you're dumb and see big numbers, work there for 2-5 years building a resume, and then bounce between startup companies or fintech until you find a place to build a career. People don't go from Datadog to Google, they go from Google to Datadog.
And yet there are many examples of people getting tired of the startup "uncertainty" and opting for the "stability" of the Big Tech firms. (Not saying I agree with this view, I don't, but just saying I know of many cases that contradict your statement.)
Seriously? The hierarchies of wealth and their disparities are acceptable because they give employees free lunches and perhaps better 401ks? How is the wealth concentration at the top of Fortune 500s fair?
But everybody can participate in the hierarchy of wealth. Everybody. That is the beautiful thing about our system. The really beautiful thing. Janitors, trash collectors and maid can invest and increase their assets thereby. It does take some discipline but it can be done. Living below your means is a very valuable skill. And before you chime in that but, but, but people can't live below there means anymore be advised that my response is it is always possible although I acknowledge that Democrat policies and Republican fecklessness in the face thereof have made it more difficult at this point in time.
For-profit healthcare systems often have better pay and benefits than their non-profit counterparts too. Treating employees right = employees who treat customers right = more business.
There are a few companies. They are not the norm. And they still participate in the established hierarchical structure. They just flatten it out a bit. A good start. Long way to go.
No Wegmans where I live, but their website looks pretty good. It seems to be practical to run a business in this way. My opinion is that capitalism and free markets have been indispensable to significant human flourishing. Both of those companies seem to be a product of and successful in capitalism.
The myth that Big Unions seek a "meritocratic" landscape is false! They seek a "collective" that has nothing to do with a meritocratic landscape, nor a return to a system that rewards excellence. What they seek is an across the board guarantee for wages and benefits, DESPITE any single worker's performance. Why try for excellence when your efforts garner the same reward as the slacker you work with?
When you add to the equation that Big Unions, almost to a man (So to speak), support the Democratic Party, why WOULD I ever support unionization UNLESS it rewards excellence in performance?
I grew up in a Union town, and my father worked in a union job back in the 60s, I and I watched as that Union negotiated itself into job losses and business lost to the Japanese model for auto production. All Unions accomplish is to reduce employment and raise the costs to the consumer, with the side benefit of increased wages and benefits to a shrinking membership.
Next issue up? It is Big Union demands for guaranteed staffing levels! Not only will that help bolster the Big Unions' power base, but it will also force employers into deciding that their businesses are viable or not. Guaranteed job security AND guaranteed wages and benefits! The Soviet model, all over again.
That is merely one aspect of unionism under hierarchy. We absolutely must combine best practices of both systems. Merit and fair play. This constant duality that permeates every nook and cranny of our minds must stop before we can ever hope to solve our problems. Just same old same old same old by the same old.
I don't understand that word fairly. What do you mean by it? Is it fair that a top performing employee makes significantly more than a bottom performing employee? Is it fair that a more skilled worker gets paid the same as a less-skilled one?
Sorry if my 27 years of first-hand work experience disagree with your political views.
Many, many years ago my 6th grade science teacher said something to our class that has stayed with me. One day he said he was giving us a pop quiz, someone said, “That’s not fair.” And our teacher’s reply was, “Ladies and gentlemen, fair happens once a year and that’s in the summer.” Your question is spot on, what is “fair”?
It’s the great disparity between the earnings. Should a CEO and management team make 100s of millions and receive lucrative stock options? Should your boss also make that much more and share in options the rest can never hope to see unless they reach that level with little hope, as there are few slots filled by those politically acceptable?
Why do you care? You either get paid what you deserve or not. If you don't, you are free to improve your skills and earn what you think you are worth. I assume you don't live in a Communist country where are you are allocated to a particular job for the rest of your life. Everything else, is just you attempting social engineering by entangling yourself into business relationships of other fully functional adults, which you have no business doing.
Everyone gets paid what someone is willing to pay for them. If the CEO gets paid that much, thats his thing, and the shareholders. I assume you haven't met any shareholders who are suckers and willing to overpay to someone that they don't think is worth the money, right? Because usually those people don't exist.
There is no such thing as a "meritocracy society" - it has never existed anywhere on the planet and it never will. You can just do the best in the system you're in, and try not be taken in by the gaslighting.
There is no society free of racism. It has never existed anywhere on the planet and it never will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't agree that as a common goal and aim for one.
Trying to wrap my head around using running backs as an example in a pro-union piece. Running backs ARE in a union, the NFLPA. The salary structure their union agreed to screws them. They need to unionize against their own union.
Somehow my tear ducts stayed dry reading about a guy making $13 million in 4 years. Making half that over a 40-year career would put one in the top few percent of wage earners.
If he manages that at all well, he'll be just fine.
I thought the same thing @ NFLPA. Perhaps Najee Harris could get Joe Burrow represent him. :-D "Joe Burrow signs a 5 year, $275,000,000 contract with the Cincinnati Bengals......$219,010,000 guaranteed"
I don't have much sympathy for the running backs or youthful union activists—first, the young activists. I have kept a journal since 1992. As a young man, I was as dumb as a rock. One leans, grows, and matures. I am so sick of hearing about what young people demand. I want to change the name from young people to dumb people. Let us face it: These are young dumb leftists who expect the most and want to deliver the least. They live in a world of what should be rather than what is. They are primarily maleducated suburbanites raised with little faith and classical education. I often wonder why we never ask why all of these people are trying to get past our southern border. The answer is a group of dumb but idealistic people fall in love with a leftist promising them Nirvana and deliver hell. This battle against the leftist youth is the fight of the 20s and beyond, not having the US fall into that category.
As for the running backs, I am a fan of Colin Cowherd's take. These running backs were not crying about the Centers, Tackles, Linebackers, and Safeties. They get paid much more money than they do. Sadly, the game is evolving away from them, and creative destruction always happens. Harris's 13 million dollar first contract is more than most make in a lifetime. So, no sympathy from me. Also, performance falls off a cliff in the second contract with more injury. Sometimes, the world is cruel, and we need to evolve with it rather than be petulant children who will lean like the idealistic leftist children of the last century, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
No one misses Hollywood or the ridiculous salaries of high-end actors. The writers suck, as evidenced by the tired remakes constantly making the rounds. Bring on a fully develop AI Hollywood that makes entertainment actually affordable for the average fast food working family. No one cares about unions except those starting them, because despite the “dream” that the younger generation is on to something “new”, it’s still the same ol’ song and dance: Follow the money. The leaders of the current movements towards unionization will soon be rich and will then figure how they too can sell out their own followers, just like every union leader in the history of unions. And BTW, feel free to tear my ACL for $12 million. I’ve been working for 40 years and have yet to make even half of that.
Oh my… I laughed out loud at “Feel free to tear my ACL for $12 million dollars!” Had to read it again to my husband….maybe I’m heartless, but it struck home for me - (having actually torn my ACL for free years ago), and I love watching Najee run btw. Great player but ….just sayin!
And, here’s a good illustration of the useless fighting that occurs in our position on the ladder of hierarchy. There are countless workers in Hollywood not in the 1% dominion they are fighting for. They are the foundational people all those at the top stand on. They are just a very visible example of the rest of us because the industry they are in and represent is putridly rotting before our eyes. If Covid brought us anything good, it taught us the slaving by commute, the ridiculously long hours, the sacrifice of family, the loss of precious precious time was not worth it for them. Look up. The problem has always been there. Solving it will not come by looking down. We must look across. At each other. Into the eyes.
While I agree with your words in theory, this is a situation that is becoming visible because it’s Hollywood. It’s been happening to other professions for years if not decades. Is this a call to action after sitting back and doing nothing while healthcare and others have been destroyed? But now that it hits home we must band together? Anyone who has ever used Amazon or PetMeds or Any other mega platform is guilty of the same thing. We are already divided and have been for a long time. Unions are not going to solve that. I feel for the workers but AI is about to change a lot of things for a lot of people. They aren’t the first ones to be forced to reinvent themselves. It happens over and over as society progresses. History shows us that.
I’m not for or against unions. I’m against kicking everyone at the bottom without looking up to the root cause. Yes, we have always kicked our brethren. That’s the design. Yes, follow the money. That has always been the design. Yes, people then make do with the system they can’t break. That’s the design. I suggest we must break the design instead of each other.
sorry that really made me laugh. covid did NOTHING good. the "slaving " commute .. sorry most people dot "slave" buy driving to work. the "long hours" are now spent at home in your jammies staring at your computer. I doubt very much it is does anything for "family" to work from home.. how many hours are "ridiculous" to you.. it sounds like you have a very skewed version of what it means to actualy work and support a family as for looking at each other "in the eyes'. nope. staying at home waiting for the amazon guy to bring your groceries that is the preosn hyou can "look in the eye" as you sit on your duff
From yesterday’s Babylon Bee “Best Questions Wives Should Ask Husbands During a Football Game”: Why is that white man telling those black men what to do. Instead of a coach, whitey will be the union boss.
I sat through a school administrators’ bargaining session this summer. There’s no real accounting for merit in a union contract. It’s all years served and steps. Once a person has put in the required number of years and hits the top step, no more raises until the next contract, three years hence. Many of our principals have all the required degrees and have put in their time. Some outperform others. Too bad. The good ones get the same 2 percent as the not so good ones, and none is given the incentive to improve.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the high priced athletes or most of the SAG members. To the expectant (entitled?) 30 Something warehouse worker or barista, get over it. I fear the day is nigh where you’re going to see what true hardship — aka survival— is all about.
Yes. The “grass is greener on the other side” romanticism of unions is quickly dispelled once you are in one. There are downsides to unions. Being productive or effective is discouraged. Complaining is encouraged. You learn early on the lessons your parents taught you, to work hard, and earn an honest days pay, are not compatible with a fair number of your union colleagues who mock you for doing so. Merit is never taken into consideration in large nationwide unions like the one described. Diversity and seniority are the only criteria when promotions are ‘awarded’.
I know there are many professions that require strong unions (I was in one) which are usually ones that require physical labor where health and safety concerns are an issue. But too many Americans look to unions to achieve a significant bump in pay and a significant decrease in productivity in jobs that aren’t meant to be a career for the vast majority employed by the company. For example the barista at Starbucks working their way through college or in between jobs. The management vs. labor issue is a constant battle that few industries achieve a happy medium long term for both sides.
Expectations of what is a “fair wage” have changed dramatically in the last several decades. McDonald’s and its’ imitators thrived in the 1960s by paying minimum wage to workers who were fully-trained in a few shifts and expected to be there months, not years...certainly not decades or a full career. I flipped burgers for six months from 4pm until close while finishing my bachelor’s. I thought it was a fair deal.I got spending money plus a free dinner. Only the manager thought they would be there the following year.
Will unionization enable these employees to be paid $30 or $40 per hour? I suspect instead it will simply accelerate the transition of fast-food restaurants to robotic kitchens with multiple drive-through lanes and tiny dining rooms for the few oddballs who want to sit inside.
a few days ago I wanted to treat myself to a milkshake. went to Fosters Freeze ( they make nice think milkshakes). order a small chocolate shake. price $9.67 cents .. I was shocked. but I guess i shouldn't be when gas is 5.70 a gallon.. guess where i live
It’s only a matter of time. Yuval Noah Harari in his book Homo Deus says “humans will soon become redundant” its happening at an alarming rate for skilled and unskilled people, it makes no difference we will be killing each other soon.
Football is a GAME and they are making MILLIONS. It's a twist of fate these guys are making a career out of it at all. Get your MILLIONS and get out. The idea of a union is truly preposterous.
I am not anti-union, but the best way to make a great payday is to make yourself valuable. Starbucks is not a career...get real!
Interesting article to a degree.
I can get down with unions in certain industries but when you wrap up the story with “A fast-food worker gets up in the morning. If they have a union, they have one dignified job—not three. They can go to their kid’s soccer practice. They can be engaged as citizens and address what their parks, schools, and communities look like. They can be who they want to be and what they want to be for their families and communities.” is simply silly.
There is always going to be low wage workers and the above statement pretends that if fast food or any other low earning/low skilled job will just unionize, they will earn enough to have a dream life. If that's the case get ready for Happy Meals that cost ya about $65.00. Would you like fries with that?
That is such a great point. Fast food jobs are primarily for children getting their education in the real world, not something you raise a family by. The lack of basic understanding of economics is staggering by people who say that. A company needs profits to reinvest in new equipment or to pay off a loan to start the business. Now, in many corporations where there are people at the top who have nothing to do with building the company and are living large off of the work of others, you have the right to leave and find a new place of employment. Great post.
Yes. A fast food job should not be the end goal in life. It is what you are doing as you work up in the world. It's not what you stick with because you have a happy middle class life working at a low-end job. You will never aspire to greater or work hard to improve your life if you get everything you want without ever trying.
We used to have well-paid industrial jobs for low-skill workers. In the so-called “golden age of capitalism” a high-school dropout could support a family on a single wage, afford to buy a house, a car, take vacations, etc. Due to mechanization, globalization, and tech, most of those jobs don’t exist. Those people now work in the service sector where it is impossible to support a family on full-time work, much less own a home or take family vacations. How can they afford child-care, college, to save for retirement? Does it occur to you that hugely profitable corporations are offloading the full cost of maintaining a human being onto the taxpayer and keeping the change? Anyway, don’t know where you think these workers are going to go. I don’t know why you would want this to be the reality in the United States of America when it was not so in the era conservatives love to love.
Your sentiments are beautiful but how does this work in reality? Your system has failed in every place its been tried. Read about the Soviet Union for a light Saturday afternoon read. I love all your write about but its the same as talking about unicorns, faires and fantasy. It just won't work. You might be able to use the EITC but many should work to become a manager, learn a trade and get better. Thanks for sharing!
As I wrote, it worked in reality in this very bastion of capitalism, the United States. The Soviet Union was a cruel disaster. Please re-read my comment to find where I suggested the government should own the means of production. Workers used to do better here. I want that back. That does not make me a communist, or even a socialist.
I am sorry about calling you a communist. It was snarky and out of line. I see your point but the 50's were a historical anomoly on two counts. First, you had the US coming out of the depression and WW II. The world needed goods and services and the US produced that. But then after that ran out we now have a government out of control consuming trillions in tax dollars that could be invested in new businesses. You are right that would be wonderful but sadly will never happen again.
Working class and middle class wages peaked in 1972. Before that, as the poster said, a livable wage was earned by the top 80%. Since 72 wages have stalled for the vast middle and dropped for the working class. At the same time we have reduced poverty and increased amount of jobs. While working at McDonalds will never be able to produce a living wage for a family of four, there are many similar jobs that could.
That was roughly a 30-40 year time period in a pre-globalization world
Even then, your average worker in a car or shoe factory or a steel mill wasn't going on a beach vacation yearly or even FLYING anywhere yearly. They didn't have multiple TVs, computers, etc. They had A radio, A TV, drank and smoked and died before their pension had to pay for a decade of retirement.
You’re right that standards have changed. There are so many factors involved in this comparison, though, it’s nearly impossible to hash them all out. Here are some off the top of my head:
1) women’s unpaid labor
2) homes much less expensive (also smaller)
3) different level of “necessities” It’s hard to argue that computers, smart phones, appliances like refrigerators and laundry machines, even t.v.’s are luxuries today. Even having two cars is more or less a necessity for two-income families depending on where they live which is most often not near transit.
4) Consider other expenses today that people didn’t have then: child care (see unpaid labor), exorbitant healthcare (granted it was of a much lower standard, but that doesn’t account for why it’s so expensive now), housing, and of course college (not even considering all the expenses upper class folks today consider standard for their kids’ future success: sports, tutoring, test prep, specialty camps, music lessons, etc)
5) when I say “vacations” I mean road trips, motels, camping. I don’t mean flying to Disneyland or the beach (tho many did, actually, stay cheaply at the beach - a lot of places in Florida for example were cheap! And do lakes count? A ton of regular folks not only vacationed on lakes but owned cabins on lakes)
6) not included in this rosy picture are a majority of Black people who were shut out of the middle-class economy.
6) hard drugs and devastating levels of addiction were hardly a thing
7) umm… what else?
Very, very anecdotally, my best friend’s father was a garage door salesman. They had three kids, owned a house near us, mother didn’t work, they took vacations (see lakes :). They were not even close to poor. They were the very image of middle-class. That was the 70’s. No way would they be able to live like that in my parents’ neighborhood now. Probably not possible just about anywhere.
(This comment’s supposed to come after the next one :)
Golden hued nostalgia for a world that never really existed.
Agreed. A parent grew up on a farm in West Texas. Probably considered middle class economically. Getting more than one new pair of jeans at Christmas was a huge deal. His family purchased ONE new vehicle ( a early 1980s Chevy hatchback) in their whole time on Earth.
"Fast food jobs are primarily for children getting their education in the real world, not something you raise a family by."
Not so much that way anymore. Labor shortages pushed many fast food restaurants to offer $20/hr as a starting rate. Adults with fewer school, band, athletics, etc. commitments took a lot of those. Further, the number of HS age children who work has been declining for sometime. So has the rate of teenagers seeking their driver's license.
That said, it sure should work the way you described. I started working in hospitality at fourteen. Busboy, host, waiter, bar tender, etc.. I did them all. I even worked for about 6 months after grad school tending bar. Children today don't appear, in general, to have that same desire for work, driving, et al.
Maybe Naje getting a useful degree would help him avoid the burden of handling millions of dollars. As I wipe tears from my eyes over his burdens.
How about the Wounded Soldiers that the government says thanks, here is a few bucks, but the VA will help and thanks? Do any of those people want to trade with the military?
Hey now. Naj is the man. Or at least one of them. Henry played for 'Bama too BTW. But seriously I think Henry nailed it - RBs are on the way out. Few teams, college or professional (as if there is much of a dufference) rely on a running game anymore. It IS about the QBs and receivers. At the moment. Because to be, or stay, successful coaches have to adjust strategies to do so. Sports may be the only arena where winning is still the standard. At places like Alabama where Saban is very upfront about helping athletes "build value" for themselves you can see the change - 'Bama was never traditionally a QB school but man is that changing; I predict you will see less emphasis on RBs in the coming years. Why would a young man go for it? Lastly I am not sure that unionization would be fruitful here. Sports agents for this caliber of player are very savvy.
Running back is probably the easiest positon to play on a football team. Good RBs are a dime a dozen. Quality quarterbacks are hard to find and so they get the big bucks. The best teams, though, invest in their linemen.
How dare they pay me less than my team mates! Same as any position in corporate America.
Ha ha!
Yes and no about the RBs. RB is strictly a strength position so some dismiss it as simple but the really good ones have a talent at knowing where the defense is weak on any given play. Good RBs are rare It always changes though. Right now quarterbacks are the glory boys. Me, I like smash mouth, run it down their throat football. My beast against your beast. Which makes for great defensive football as well. Alas that is not the current trend.
Absolutely-and especially about there being little difference in college ball and pro. What happened to “for the love of the game”. Yeah, I know, I am old school. I’m fairly certain that you’re also correct about Saban helping players build value and that includes knowing what to do once they land the big contracts. Not all pay attention though (Ruben Foster) and that just mirrors real life. Most people could make 12 million last a lifetime.
RTR
Yes indeed. I live south of Austin so I have had to be careful this week. So indulge me - Roll Tide Roll!
Rammer Jammer, Yellow Hammer give em' hell Alabama!
Soldiers are a perfect example of what happens when you ban unions from a workplace, leaving all decisions on pay, benefits, and working conditions to cheap employers. Worker is required to perform impossibly dangerous and back-breaking work for pennies on the dollar of wages. Worker gets broken, worker is thrown away and replaced with a cheery, "thanks for your service, and hey, don't worry, a triple amputee can still flip burgers!"
But I'm guessing you were more interested in slapping around Naje than about the plight of nonunion military.
If that is to me no I am not more interested in football than the military. I am a red-blooded American so I love both but love those who have served more. IMO there are no bigger men (using that to include female participants) than those who serve. But I am not sure warfare or preparedness for warfare can be unionized. They have to do what is required and are called upon to make horrific sacrifices. What could a union do? Require x numbers of hours of sleep? Require gear to be trudged through the arena of war only weigh x number of pounds? In theory they have lifetime benefits of all sorts now. I do agree that the US government does not serve our vets well. But I also think that is because it has spread itself too thin trying to satisfy an increasingly spineless, needy and whining public. The Constitution explicitly charged the federal government with two things - a standing army and border security. It is, IMO, abysmally failing at both.
No, that wasn't to you, Lynne! You'd never say something that required a slapback like that. It was to the poster who made fun of Naje and then compared his salary complaints to those of wounded soldiers.
To address what you raised, though, the military cannot be unionized. Soldiers have to do whatever they're told, else an army could not function.
I used the military only as a good example of how employers can treat employees when employers KNOW a union is out of the question: Soldiers should be paid a hell of a lot more money. They should have guaranteed access to ongoing, first-class medical care when wounded and/or disabled. Yet they have no way to insist on these things, so pay remains low and the VA nearly Third World in operation.
I agree completely that the feds have spread themselves too thin.
Well since I served 28 years and then worked for DoD for another 17 I know firsthand unions would not work in the military. Experience and having been to war tells me that. Plus I was a UAW member when I was in high school. All they did was protect drunks and lazy workers.
Hi, Terry. I agree, and said specifically in a followup comment that the military cannot be unionized. Soldiers must do what they're told or the whole system falls apart. My only point was that this provides the perfect illustration of how an employer--in this case, the U.S. government--can treat employees when unions are banned from a workplace.
Mileage varies greatly in terms of unions being good or bad. I've been part of the Newspaper Guild--a local chairman for several years--since the 1980s and it's an excellent outfit. Part of the reason, I believe, is that everyone except the executive director (chief contract negotiator) and attorney have to be working members of the newspaper being represented in order to be on the board of directors. That cuts way down on featherbedding and bullshit.
Uhhhh in what universe is a military unionized?
You may have missed my other two comments, which said specifically that militaries cannot be unionized because soldiers must do what they’re told.
“Happy Meals that cost ya about $65.00”.
Curious that the article doesn’t mention the effect Biden’s Gubment induced inflation has had on workers standard of living. I’m sure the rise in Union affection is just coincidental with the decrease in purchasing power they’ve all experienced in the last three years.
The war on fossil fuels, ignoring infrastructure needs while lavishing billions on the “green” energy scammers, turning our currency into Monopoly money with deficit spending to benefit cronies that include corrupt “defenders” of democracy in countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map, allowing hordes of low skill workers to flood across our borders….
The workers of this country don’t need more unionization, they need a president and congress committed to less gubment.
These should be entry level jobs not careers.
Agree 100%, unfortunately the blue collar job market dried up in the 1990s thanks to offshoring, and those became jobs for adults. Some people just will not develop better skills than fast food, and aren’t clever enough to game the welfare system, and that’s who ends up working at Mickey D’s.
it didn't dry up though. It just changed. We have a massive shortage of people in skilled trades - jobs that can't be offshored because they are mostly performed on location, in the US. No sure why fewer people are entering skilled trades. On the other hands, the unions of these skilled trades serve as gatekeepers, artificially keeping the number of tradesmen down in order to keep salaries high for those already "in the club"
I’m not super smart on this, but i tend to believe certain people just can’t learn a skilled trade the way they could learn to stand in a factory (or amazon or walmart warehouse) and do a repetitive task. I certainly agree that “going to college” has been elevated above the trades, and many folks who aren’t well suited for college would be great mechanics or HVAC techs, as opposed to wasting four years and six figures getting Bs toward a criminal justice degree.
I’m a physician and I see a lot of patients, including in wealthy areas. I would argue that based on what I’m seeing, most people should not attend college. A lot of the wealthy parents pay for their kids to attend college for their own “prestige” and these kids graduate and become bartenders, waitresses. Many of the The middle class parents also want their kids to attend and the kids take on huge loans that they can never repay and have crap jobs or no jobs. The kids I see go into skilled trades are doing fantastic and they have wonderful lives. I think people just have no idea what’s out there and don’t realize that these are amazing jobs for their kids.
HVAC, mechanic, jeweler, carpenter, welding, shoe repair, blacksmith, plumber, electrician.....I can go on and on. I have 3 daughters and I already can tell you that one of them will definitely do a skilled trade and I will encourage her to do so because she would be great at it
In my area, and I suspect most, electricians/carpenters/plumbers, etc. are reaching retirement. The kids don't want those jobs, so we have a crisis of finding those trades people to do work. I keep thinking this will turn and the kids/counselors/parents will figure out that these jobs for many make more sense than putting yourself in debt for a college degree.
But the problem is, even if this is true, we cannot make a very low skill, safe job highly paid. Because that eliminates any incentive to those who can do better to do better. Yes, some people might be stuck in a low skill, safe job that doesn't pay well because of their innate ability level. But I don't think you can rectify that by forcing employers to pay them the same as workers who have more value to the company. That destroys incentive to those who are entering the work world.
I would rather have a no responsibility job that had not required me to pay for college or to study hard for years and that offers a safe work environment if it will pay me the same as the jobs that require more effort and skill or might be more dangerous or physically taxing.
Some members of the community are going to be lower class. The economy does not work if everybody makes the same amount no matter the value of the contribution to society.
What is unfair in the world is that some of us are born better equipped or are raised better equipped to navigate life. But you can't change that yet. You can't fix that by re-engineering the economy somehow.
Perhaps there's a way to help people be raised better equipped early in life. Perhaps there will be a way to medically help those who are innately inequipped. But you can't fix it by throwing money at adults.
My mentally disabled cousin worked for “Micky D’s” for two decades because it was a job he could do. He liked it, was good at it, and felt proud, but never got benefits due to the owners keeping his schedule just under full time. He was unable to advocate for himself. His income remained poverty-level and he was only able to live independently with financial help from his parents. I don’t think this is an inspiring American story.
Having a family member with mental illness who can also work, they struggle with working full time hours. The lower wage, part time jobs help young kids learn how to work and those who are always going to need additional financial support from others, be productive members of society. McDonalds does a lot for those who don't fit the traditional mold of employability. But even I’ve found McDonalds prices to be getting expensive on the rare occasion I eat there for what the food is…
This.
Exactly. People don't realize that the "Golden age of unions" existed before globalization and literally millions of workers globally gunning for your job.
Agree. Or maybe they just unionize themselves out of a job altogether. Fast food will be completely self serve as soon as it can.
I often think the response to increased wages and work-life stability for low income workers being , well expect to pay an obscene amount for that thing now, misses some of the point. Not that your wrong of it being a possibility, but that it’s part of the overall issue in American working class life that it is a possibility at all. Corporations are largely responsible for inflation due to unjustified price hikes, corporate owners and managers are seeing huge increases in salaries and bonuses these past few decades. Why shouldn’t a poor person who has to resort to low income labor be able to live a decent life? (It’s not like higher education is getting any cheaper making it harder and harder for people to get out of low wage existence) I read one stat that reported average corporate salary increases in the past 30 years was 65% while the workers that make there bonuses possible was only 12%. ‘Workers’ includes store managers who are required to work over 50 hours a week or more without qualifying for overtime compensation. Point is, McDonald’s corporate is using low wage labor to get extremely wealthy. It’s only fair that workers get represented better by our government to help level the playing field. Does it make sense that millions of McDonald’s employees struggle to pay bills month by month while a few fat cats own luxury yachts, planes, even there own islands? I don’t think so.
Yeah.....there is so much to push back on there its hard to know where to start. So I'll just go to the first one in your comment and also the one most taken up by the main stream media:
"Corporations are largely responsible for inflation due to...."
So lets list causes of inflation?
1. Demand-pull. The most common cause for a rise in prices is when more buyers want a product or service than the seller has available....
2. Cost-push. Sometimes prices rise because costs go up on the supply side of the equation....
3. Increased money supply....
4. Currency devaluation....
5. Rising wages....
If I'm a betting man the inflation we're all seeing right now would be behind curtain #3 & #4.
Krystal Ball with Breaking Points has a great episode about corporate profits and inflation. All I’m saying is it seems to be the wrong direction for our country. The working class make it possible so why not invest in them more?
Right, there are other factors. However many studies are showing that corporate price increases far out weight government spending in terms of their effect on inflation.
“A study in April finds corporate profits accounted for more than half of price increases between 2020 and 2021.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/record-corporate-profits-driving-inflation-experts/story?id=85593108
Not here to argue and not defending corporate greed but just to put things in perspective real quick, the current administration in 2020 increased the US money supply (printed money) by $3.5 Trillion US dollars. As if that wasn't completely insane enough, they printed $13 trillion in 2021. Is it any wonder we saw corporate profits skyrocket during those times? Just wait and watch what happens to corporate earnings in the next 18 - 24 months. Its going to be a sh*tshow IMO. Finally.....I'm not sure I'd list ABC news as a pillar of facts in any story they cover.....but I digress.
Please define greed.
Is there a problem with corporate profits skyrocketing?
Did ALL corporate profits skyrocket?
Who or what caused corporate profits to skyrocket?
YOU are going to predict corporate earning over the next 18-24 months?
Maybe you can share that prophesy with your sisters on The View.......
You beat me to asking the same question. Quality thought and analysis is impossible in this morass of ignorance, misinformation, cognitive dissonance, and self-reinforcing group think. Lynne seems to be one who "gets it".
As far as I can tell, the inflation spike was caused by (primarily) two things:
A. Trillions of dollars of Covid stimulus working its way through the system.
B. Businesses raising prices when inflation spiked but not reducing prices when inflation eased, which vastly increased their profits.
It's fair to call out B loud and strong. Businesses are entitled to profits without us screaming bloody murder. They are not entitled to gouge us without pushback.
But A? I wouldn't dream of criticizing that. Without the trillions Biden provided to replace the incomes of people and businesses who couldn't work or run their shops during Covid, tens of millions of Americans WOULD have become bankrupt and homeless. Those trillions of dollars literally kept them alive and off our welfare rolls.
Sure, when Covid ended, the paycheck protection plans should have ended too. But figuring out WHEN Covid ended was tricky, so Biden decided to let the program run a while longer to make sure nobody suffered.
Yes, that double-barrel of stimulus made inflation spike for a year. But it also kept people from starving. I'd rather we suffered a year of hard inflation than watch tens of millions of Americans be forced to move to tents under freeway overpasses, wouldn't you? That was the choice at the time, and Biden/government chose the right thing for the most people.
Corporations used that inflation spike to jack up prices--correctly so, they needed to cover their higher expenses just like people did--but did not reduce those prices when inflation cooled. That's price-gouging, and while it's not illegal, it should be called out by the screams of millions as immoral.
Maybe if we didn't have such an insane lockdown (a la Sweden) we wouldn't have needed to throw trillions at everyone (those who honestly needed support, and those who were just grifting (Cali cons, already being supported by the state!)??
The Covid money was not nearly closely enough monitored, and thus billions were given to fraudsters and--as you said--people working or incarcerated the entire time. Water under the bridge, unfortunately, but I truly hope we don't repeat the shutdown mistake next pandemic. It was a $%^^%% disaster on so many levels.
We really CAN'T!! Hopefully enough of us have woken up!
Inflation is cumulative. The rate of increase slowed, but prices did not drop back to previous levels. We had 9% inflation, now we have only 3%. Inflation is measured year over year. The previous 9% increase is still there, in addition to the new rate of “only” 3%. Prices and costs have not dropped, and there’s no reason to assume business would or should reduce prices back to pre-pandemic levels.
You might find this interesting: "Normally, Andrew says, profits contribute less than a third to inflation. He found that in 2021, corporate profits could account for about double that, nearly 60% of inflation, meaning it was not costs driving inflation. It was corporate profits."
I don't expect companies to drop prices to pre-pandemic levels, but they certainly should drop them by 6 percent. Why that number? As the story explains, businesses raised prices by 9 percent because they anticipated their costs rising by that amount. When costs only rose 3 percent, they kept the price hike at 9 percent, pocketing the difference. It's legal for them to do that, of course, but legal and "fuck consumers, they'll never figure it out, high fives" are two different things and the latter should be condemned loudly and strong.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/19/1177180972/economists-are-reconsidering-how-much-corporate-profits-drive-inflation#:~:text=He%20found%20that%20in%202021,an%20excuse%20to%20gouge%20customers.
The federal government and its cronies at the Federal Reserve are the sole cause of inflation. We have only been completely removed from the gold standard since the Nixon years. Since then we have experienced cycle after cycle of inflation, deflation, bubbles, and stagnation. A fiat currency with a federal government will not even attempt to pass and stick to a budget but rather just fires up the presses and prints some more is a fool's errand. As for poor people being guaranteed a good life, that too is pue in the sky if you require government fixes to assure it. There are many, many, many people, countless numbers in fact, who have lifted themselves out of poverty. There are many poor people who just make their puece with it. Your bitterness about CEOs is, IMO, misplaced. Many celebrities who arguably perform no valuable service other than entertainment have yachts, planes and outrageous estates. One of those reportedly hired private firefighters to protect her 1500 acres on Maui during the recent tragedy and then trotted down to shelter yto see what she could do to help. With a TV crew in tow. I read a couple of years ago that Taylor Swift had the most private plane rides of all, some for 19 minutes. Every time you watch a movie, attend a concert, etc. you support that. Now the CEO of Southwest Airlines I am right there with you but I do not know if he has a yacht or private plane. Next to last, all corporations (that is what it means to be a corporation) are owned by shareholders some of whom do indeed get rich, including mutual funds in which unions frequently invest. But corporations are governed by boards of directors; that board is accountable to the shareholders. Part of the board's duty is to choose the CEO. Because they are accountable to the shareholders they must puck someone likely to assure financial success. Twitter pre-Musk was an example of what a corporation cannot lawfully do - sacrifice the well-being of its shareholders to satisfy the wants of its executives and staffers. All of this tripe about altruistic corporate activity is just that. If it ain't making money, or at least designed to do so, it is not legitimate corporate activity. Period. So almost all of it is passed off on the corporate books as marketing. IOWs it is a marketing ploy. Right, wrong, or indifferent this nation is a capitalist society. We reward successful behavior at the workplace. We have a big pie and everyone who wants a piece and is willing to put forth some effort can remove themselves from poverty. On the other hand, the government cannot fix poverty. It had tried for a hundred years now. Seriously tried for over 50. BTW McDonald's had 200,000 employees as of 2022.
Keep in mind that many McDonald's are franchises, not corporate so the franchisee is on the hook, not the corporation. A friend of mine owned a Subway franchise, it was a disaster for him personally. Today, he has nothing good to say about Subway and their corporate offices.
Our government has done a great job exploiting one class against the other. Instead of asking why every level of government needs so much money, there are those among us who demonize "corporate" rather than the root of the problem, the unelected bureaucratic/administrative state.
LOL "McDonald’s corporate is using low wage labor to get extremely wealthy. It’s only fair that workers get represented better by our government to help level the playing field. Does it make sense that millions of McDonald’s employees struggle to pay bills month by month while a few fat cats own luxury yachts, planes, even there own islands?" I don’t think so." well you think wrong. a level playing field means no one gets anything. workers at Mc Donalds should be entry level jobs.. not a job where you can get a yacht or a plane. those jobs are reserved for people who RISE up in the job. or have the skills for management and beyond. dont hate the who said hey I bet a .15 burger would sell he was the smart one.. so yes it does make perfect sense in the world of free enterprise
You may have misread or misunderstood. My point was with wealth disparity not that owners have more money. McDonald’s was only an example to make a point of this as well. While not the best example, many low wage workers are forced to work the entry level positions due to lack of opportunity. It’s nice to think that only kids should be working these jobs temporarily until they move on, buts that’s just not how the nation is working right now. Folks who don’t grow up in the environments of poverty in America are seemingly unable to comprehend this fact.
There was a study done in 2013 that showed a Big Mac would cost 68 cents more if you doubled wages.
If the price of a Big Mac rose 68 cents in 2013, that would be an 18% increase in the cost to the consumer. If we dislike 5% inflation, we're going to really hate 18%. All the talk of raising wages rarely takes into account things like wage-price spirals and the fact that the 'raised wages' will continue to have less and less purchasing power because of the spiral.
Or things like using lab grown meat to offset costs of rising wages.
If labor cost rise, corporations figure out how to make a profit. In Denmark, a big Mac cost 20 cents more and workers are paid 3 times as much in many US states and they still make a profit. Compare that to the famous study by Forbes that found that the worst performing CEOs are the highest paid.
Sounds like there's a future in Denmark for you.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
tey are so happy there. lol... 20 cents more than what? plus they put mayo on their fries and charge extra for condiments in Hungary I had to "pay extra" for a paper straw that sticks to your lips and dissolves before you finish your drink.. enjoy your Denmark
Teens in many places view fast food work as demeaning, unless it's more upscale fast food like Starbucks or Chipotle. I've even heard a teen say "that's immigrant work!" when her mom suggested she get a summer job at McDonald's.
I was going to comment the same thing - spot on.
Do you need help?
In more ways than you know :-)
Agreed, it seems people want to believe that Zero skill low wage jobs should be able to provide a solid middle class lifestyle.
Not even in the most economically progressive parts of Northern and Western Europe do those jobs pay that much.
If you want that, enjoy paying a LOT more for everything.
In Denmark, McDonald's employees get:
$22/hr.
6 wks. vacation pay
Family leave
Healthcare
Retirement plan
College/education plans
The cost of a McDonald's combo meal is $11.50.....and they have far fewer locations bringing in revenue than in the U.S. The McDonald's Corporation made 24.194B last year.
I'd rather pay $65 for a happy meal than $65 into a government program for a student loan forgiveness program. At least the person who made the happy meal provided value. I see no problem at all with fast food workers unionizing.
Also, I wish my old company (software development/hi-tech) had some decent unions so employees could have pushed back against some anti-employee decisions the board made (specifically in 2020, but before that also). 5 people were more than willing to screw over several hundred because of personal beliefs and to make a bit more money for themselves. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to want to deny that to someone working in a different industry.
Fast food work is not meant to be a career, just like waitressing. It's a stepping stone job to get to where you are going.
No, boyo, this an excellent piece of journalism. It is the perfect contrast to your middle-school-level commentary. The good news for you is that the next Trump administration will require your services for lack of grown-ups willing to serve. A union could only get in the way of that.
I think the crony capitalism is problematic, particularly, but not exclusively, at the federal level. The current "green energy" scam being illustrative. But as I understand it many associated unions are on board with that. I also think an abundance of taxes are collected now. At every level. The problem, IMO, is not the collection of taxes, rather it is the spending thereof and beyond.
"The problem, IMO, is not the collection of taxes, rather it is the spending thereof and beyond."
A thousand times yes, Lynne. I'm happy to pay taxes that support well-managed programs and projects. I hate wasting taxes on corruption, mismanagement, and theft. Why would anyone in their right mind support, for instance, a Pentagon that admits without embarrassment or blowback that it can't find billion-dollar skids of cash it sent to the Middle East?
Oh good heaven's yes! I think most of us - left, right, and center - are in accord on this. So how do we stay focused on this and hold the spenders accountable?
I would start with a wholesale rewrite of the tax code, reducing its current thousands of pages to a few dozen. Taxes collection should be strictly about revenue generation, not behavior alteration, and the Byzantine smokescreen of the current system lets too much money be directed to The Bigs via tax breaks snuck into the language so nobody notices.
I'd write a code that eliminates ALL tax deductions, business and personal, in exchange for ultra-low percentages. Basically, we'd tax gross earnings, not net, but instead of paying 20 or 30 percent, we'd pay 1, 2, or 5 percent.
This lets people and businesses keep most of their money and spend it on what THEY think important, not what the tax code wants to encourage us to do. Why should I get a tax break for efficient windows (personal) or meals out when traveling (business)? Eliminate all those deductions and let people and businesses decide what's important to THEM to spend their own money on. If travel is important to business, it should be an expense of business. If triple-pane windows are important to me, I should pay for them on my own dime.
One bonus of this is it kills the tax preparation business that sucks so many billions of dollars from almost every American because it's damn near impossible to do our own taxes any more. Another is that tax theft and fraud will virtually cease to exist, because most of that happens on the deduction side.
Another bonus is the IRS can rechannel its resources into fighting actual tax crime instead of deciding whether Joe and Harriet Homeowner's health insurance is eligible for the Health Care Tax Credit.
The tax code should be strictly about raising money most efficiently and transparently. Once we fix that problem, then we can train our guns on Congress, the root of all spending evil.
TL; DL I know, but this issue lights my fuse every time. This is such a marvelous country with so much potential locked up by our Byzantine and secretive ways of doing things, not just government, but all large institutions.
You nailed it! No more taxes. Cut spending and balance the budget.
We can't have "no more taxes." It's not remotely possible. Weather satellites must be maintained, highways must be rebuilt, etc.
We CAN have a tax and spending system that is simple, efficient and iso transparent that any citizen can look up anything in the budget on the Internet. But no politician would ever vote for such a system---transparency makes it too hard to hide the payoffs to the Big Money that elected them.
As for cutting spending, I agree in theory, but in practice that's a whole higher level of pain. What sucks up most federal spending? The military, Medicare, and Medicaid. Drastic cuts in any of those areas will hurt real people, not just the Fat Cats.
I would love to overhaul the entire system, from taxes to spending to budgeting to how congresscritters are elected. But that would take a rewrite of the Constitution, and god help us if that ever occurs.
People will never give a good answer of where they’d like to actually cut the budget. When they do, you can be sure it’s not in any program that affects them. Although, sometimes they do, in fact, advocate for cuts that hurt them personally then usually scream about it. Ever go to a school board meeting with a bunch of people freaking out because the district is going to cut their kids’ busing or after school programs? I have. Those same people very often voted for tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s bananas.
Bananas. I know, right??? I've been a union leader and served on a synagogue board and an HOA board. Nobody who shows up to meetings will accept any answer other than "those other people will take the cuts, not you."
I should have said no more tax increases. JFK cut taxes and tax revenue increased. Same with that nut case The Donald. He cut taxes and revenue rose.
At this point, taxes are irrelevant. The govt is simply printing trillions of dollars and spending them.
It really is simple. And necessary. The national debt is already up over a trillion since the Republicans caved.
https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7
What on earth is 'crony capitalism'?
Also known as predatory capitalism or corrupted capitalism, it means capitalism that is no longer of the 'free market' type because it's been corrupted by special interests lobbying government to rig the game with laws, regulations, subsidies, etc that favor industry over consumers.
Thank you.
More empty words with neither meaning nor definition.
And of course you cannot offer an example.
My guess is you're a teacher or government worker. Maybe someone stuck in a meaningless job and is angry at the world...must be someone else's fault.
Try getting off your platitude train that got you nowhere in the real world.
Wrong on all accounts. That you've never heard of these phenomena, and think they're "meaningless" makes you seem quite young and naive about how the world really works. Here's one (of many) articles that discusses the common practice of offshoring income: https://www.businessinsider.com/rich-21-trillion-31-trillion-offshore-tax-havens-2012-7
For the other terms, a simple browser search should enlighten you.
Your first and last paragraphs are ludicrous. The third one is just snark. BTW I used the term in replying to someone else's use. I did understand the definition though. It is real and it is a real problem. As for examples although the full details have not been revealed the suspicion is that Hunter Biden was engaging in crony capitalism. The Covid vaccine makers were advantaged as a result of crony capitalism. "Green energy" is replete with examples of crony capitalism. The oil and gas industries have benefited from crony capitalism. Education benefits from crony capitalism. The health business (I can't even refer to it as health care anymore) benefits from crony capitalism. The nascent DIE industry exists because of capitalism. These are just off the top of my head and I could go on, and on, and on. But I'll leave you with this, if there were no crony capitalism there would be no need for lobbyists. Research lobbyists for further insight.
"Crony capitalism" isn't a platitude, it's a real problem. It happens when businesses or governments steer contracts and funding not to the best and most efficient providers of a service or good, but to their friends, who won't do the work as well or efficiently but are rewarded nonetheless for being "cronies" of the funder---hence the name.
Example: Billions of dollars of war infrastructure contracts during the Bush II presidency were awarded primarily to Halliburton Industries, which by sheer, um, coincidence just happened to be owned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Crony Capitalism 101.
Example II: Smallville USA is home to nine tow truck operators willing to tow cars for the city. But the Smallville Police uses only one, Smallville Towing, because it's owned by the chief of police's brother in law. Crony Capitalism 102.
Oh, and calling teachers and government workers "stuck in meaningless jobs and angry at the world?" I'm sure your job contributes sooooo much more to our culture.
Examples: govt- engineered zero real interest rates that allow asset-rich entities to get free money, while retirees try to live on low risk savings that pay 0%.
Many billions of dollars thrown at industries to support the net-zero climate hoax.
Subsidized loans to college students that enable unaccountable colleges to raise their tuition to absurd levels, leaving the college grad with a huge credit encumbrance upon graduation.
Expanding make-work admin and consultancy hires in the private sector to police speech, behavior, personal investment and political donations under threat of regulatory action.
Suppressing the production of energy to push up the price of favored energy sources.
Using emergency powers to compel the use of pharmaceuticals while indemnifying the producers.
The property tax lawyers who are actually somewhat effective ( see the career of Michael Madigan).
The increase in compulsory licensing to ply a trade.
234 - why don't you exercise your knew understanding of crony capitalism by providing some examples of your own.
Do you always insult people you disagree with?
So, you think teaching is a meaningless job? Wow.
My daugher is a high school math teacher in a poor urban city and she has to buy notebooks, pencils and snack for her kids.
oh, for God's sake. We had homeless for DECADES without Ukraine. we has ALL our issues for decades without Ukraine. Stop with this dumb knee-jerk of Ukraine blaming. We would still have ALL our problems if there never WAS aid to Ukraine. This is about politics. Nothing we do or don't do for Ukraine will change that.
We didn't, genius. Ukraine got MAYBE $26B in OLD equipment. You have to be exquisitely stupid to pretend that we would solve the issues you mention if we didn't have to help Ukraine. My own city has MILLIONS in unspent money for the homeless. It's not the money!
Amen.
What taxes are "fair" taxes for the rich? You sound like the Indian who isn't an Indian, Elisabeth Warren.
Unlike the Kennedys, most rich work hard to be rich. Why not say what it really means which is let's tax those who work hard and are successful. Although a CEO making 100 million dollars a year seems a bit excessive. But like football players companies are look for CEOs that will increase their bottom line and just like football players are willing to pay for it. I see nothing wrong in this,
The top 1% of earners pay over 50% of the taxes. Let's cut spending and balance the budget then every body's taxes can be lowered.
The top 1% pay more than 50% of the taxes because they have 70% of the money.
Hey, if I figure out a way to get rich from writing these smart-alecky comments, I'd be happy to pay a bigger percentage of my income in taxes. I'll still have a ton left over for guns, lawyers, and meth :-)
Sorry, Shane, but they do not have 70% of the nation's wealth.
https://fee.org/articles/the-top-1-hold-a-record-amount-of-wealth-in-the-us-here-s-how-much-and-why/
The top 1% have about 32% of the nation's wealth.
I don't disagree that they should proportionately pay more in income taxes, but to hear over and over that the rich need to pay their fair share has become an empty, overused, unfair, and inaccurate cliche.
"they do not have 70% of the nation's wealth"
I was thinking annual income rather than wealth, but yes, I was lazy and didn't look up the proper number. Thanks for the data point.
"I don't disagree that they should proportionately pay more in income taxes, but to hear over and over that the rich need to pay their fair share has become an empty, overused, unfair, and inaccurate cliche."
We agree completely. "Tax the rich till they scream" is just dumb, because they're Americans too and most made their money honestly. But a flax tax that spares them proportionally more taxation doesn't generate the money we need to run our society.
I'd like to switch to a graduated income tax with no deductions and ultra-low tax rates. It would apply universally, individuals and business alike, and all income would be taxed, no differentiation between earned and passive income.
That will do several cool things for society. First, the tax code will shrink to a few hundred pages from tens of thousands, which makes it harder for Congress to hide bribes to their buddies. Second, much of our tax fraud is on the deduction side, so eliminating deductions eliminates much fraud. Third, the rates would be so low that even criminals will just pay rather than scheme on how to hide income. Fourth, the IRS will spend all its time pursuing big-time income-dodgers rather than waste any on Ma and Pa Kettle's deduction for their spare bedroom used as an office. Fifth, no more paying a CPA or H&R Block to do your returns because the tax code is so Byzantine that you can't do them yourself any more.
Welcome back. Where have you been?
"The top 1% of earners pay over 50% of the taxes." -- I don't think that's true (if you could provide citations, that would be helpful). It's my understanding that the "1%" has the means to game the system so they pay very little, if any, taxes. For instance, "hiding" their income in offshore accounts and/or being able to afford accountants who find ways to "hide" their money in other ways. The working & middle classes don't have the means to do this, so they pay more (relatively speaking) in taxes as a percentage of their income.
Order me a ham on rye while you're out to lunch.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50%, which includes much of the middle income wage earners, pay about 5%.
You need citations? Uhh, try Google, genius.
If the top earners hide everything in offshore accounts (I've never had an offshore account), then from whom do all the federal tax receipts come?
Well we will have to agree to disagree. Smaller government, lower taxes.
Yip that’s the route to go
And replace it with what, exactly? Someone's got to pay for the highways and weather satellites.
Taxes are necessary. We do need government but not a gigantic one like the one we have.
Part of the reason is that the person who "makes" 5 million a year can structure their compensation so that much of that is not subject to taxes. Or they don't invest; whether that's by trying to be more profitable or starting another business.
The pig that government has become, then has to go after those who really do work and the middle class ends up paying income tax (Federal, maybe State), any number of sales taxes (special levy/funding districts), excise taxes. Utility taxes etc. Don't even get me started on "fees" (Like RINO Romney said about his MA health care plan, "it's not a tax, it's a fee". POS
Exactly this. They pay themselves with "loans" from their own businesses which are set up to be tax free or low tax. Regular taxpayers don't have this option.
But Rueben that $3,000,000 is not just sitting around more than likely. Rather it is invested. If it is invested in other businesses that helps the economy. If it is invested in real estate, say apartment complexes, that spurs the economy and helps renters by increasing supply. Hell if they own a super yacht that helps the economy by employing captain and crew, spending on fuel consumption and spending at ports of call.
Envy much?
"Fair" taxes, I assume, are what YOU think they should be eh?
Unions are a buffer against bad management, but Amazon unionizing because they don't get free childcare, or can't all work from home, is NOT "worker protection".
I was a union president back in the '80s and '90s. Part of that job was negotiating contracts with management. My advice to members who wanted everything and the kitchen sink in a contract, from onsite child care to job sharing to work-from-home before it was fashionable, was this:
"Let's forget all that, go for a hell of a lot more in wages, health insurance, and worker protection, and everyone can spend their extra money on whatever they want. I don't need child care but you do. You don't need X but Joe does. Joe doesn't need Z but Martha does. So let's get the money, forget the rest, and everyone buys what they need with their extra income."
If management comes through on the cash end, problem solved. If it refuses to budge on other than minimal pay increases, then unions go for the cash equivalent in free childcare, working from home, and other "lifestyle" benefits.
So there IS a method to the madness in asking for things that aren't strictly "worker protection." One is that it's a pay-increase substitute. Two is that these items can be traded or jettisoned at the end in exchange for what you really want: higher pay, better medical, and stronger worker protection.
Thanks for the comment/feedback; my point re: Amazon was that they (corporate employees, the "momAzonian's" already make beaucoup cash - about $150K on average in Seattle. It seems like they thought their entire salary was supposed to go into savings rather than paying bills - bills that they had directly as a result of their own choices.
With regard to the other bennies, you're right, they get those in lieu of the cash wages but that's a big reason the actual wages have remained near stagnant....
You're welcome, Chris, thoughtful of you to thank me, much appreciated.
As an employee, I'd rather have cash than noncash so I can pay my bills and stuff my savings account as I choose. Most noncash benefits beyond health insurance are useful only for small slivers of any given employee group; cash lets everyone pay for what they need or find iimportant.
Did Amazonians work and get paid during Covid while also gettiing Paycheck Protection money? If so, that's not remotely right. It was supposed to be one or the other, not both. That said, where do I sign up for my protection money? :-)
If you want everyone to be equal, there's a place for you in No. Korea.
Someone should have informed you long ago, life is far from fair.
And when 1% pays 38%, so are taxes.
Can you define "fair" so it has meaning beyond being an emotional manipulator?
There is never going to be that kind of fairness until the politicians feel the squeeze. Particularly those in Congress.
I don't disagree there. My point being that unions make sense in some industries and not so much sense in others. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are skilled/educated in a way that allows you to seek employment in a field that is a step up from not wanting pickles on your quarter pounder. Just sayin....
What the hell is crony capitalism?
------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a need for unions and workers to unite"? Excuse me, that's the entire foundation of a union. They're already united.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees already have protection through countless laws, and mostly for good reason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"until fair taxes are paid by the top earners"? Have you any idea the amount of taxes the top earners already pay? The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of all income taxes.
What would you like it to be...50%? 75%? More? Maybe 100%?
Unions ARE cronyism.
The author lost me at saying unions promote meritocracy. They very much stand for the opposite. I also question the POV on the writer/actor strike. If anything, the public has apathy towards the whole thing. No one misses Hollywood.
As a former union member, shop steward, contract negotiator and dept manager I've seen both sides. Unions can help protect member from wanton idiotcy by company owners. They also protect the most shiftless, laziest and poisioning employee. I've seen unions that provide zero value to their members and I shake my head. I've seen plenty from both sides to know.
I think public school systems are a perfect example of unions that don’t work. Some of the worst teachers and principals are protected by unions! I can’t feel sorry for a young man playing professional football making millions! They need to prepare for a second act in life, after all its just a game!
And I taught among excellent teachers in a public school district where we as a union agreed to freeze wages for 5 years during the 2008 economic crisis to work with our school district to put our students’ education first. Collective bargaining works. And lousy teachers get away with remaining in the classroom not because of unions but because the administration isn’t doing their jobs!
Many people don’t realize it’s administrators who grant tenure. In NY it’s a 4 year process. In my district it was hard to earn tenure and many didn’t get rehired after the first year or 2.
It works to a degree. I taught 5 years, decided I could make double the money for half the headache with my degree. My wife has been teaching 13 years with MA+30 and does quite well. I think she’s making $80k this year with a 10-month contract. She could t get those benefits anywhere else, even if she made more money. She is very good at what she does, though, and let’s just say doesn’t exactly fit in politically.
On the other hand, my brother is also in year 13 with his MA. He moved schools this year because he was offered a $6k raise at a different district. When he told his principal, they offered to give him extra duty so they could match salaries, which of course isn’t a match. It was all they could do, though, because of the bargained salary schedule. That’s the downfall of the education bargaining system.
I submit the AFGE as Exhibit "A" in the lazy, shiftless, poisoning category.
I cut the cord and haven’t been to a movie theater in years. Hollywood can strike in perpetuity and most people wouldn’t miss a thing. The writing talent on Substack is far superior.
Spot on. I didn't even know that strike was still ongoing. Not because I am woefully uninformed, but because I don't care enough to follow it.
Amen. Imagine a world in which there was no Hollywood. What would we do with ourselves? Maybe read books, talk to our families more, enjoy family game nights, enjoy the great outdoors? Oh, the horrors! ;-)
One can fantasize. Today, without Hollywood, people would just spend more time on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, gaming, and porn.
As a member of 2 unions- the Air Line Pilots Association and SAG/AFTRA- I know unions have value, but certainly NOT for promoting meritocracy! And they are ineffectual combating sexual harassment (a stalker in this case) if the harasser is also a union member. A closed shop is also anathema to me in a country where freedom is supposedly sacred.
are they still on strike. who knew. and who cares?
I miss some of the actors but I sure don't miss those hacks they call writers. There are good ones who stand out (the Sheldon series, most Blue Bloods episodes) but the normal script is so boring, so predictable, so, so.... hackneyed. In addition, I've seen some very good actors and series sink and disappear because of those writers pushing their own political agendas. How often do I need to be told that it's men who do business who are bad and evil and then watch the lead character waltz off into the sunset with the mobster. That's a scenario I saw on television maybe 15 years ago. It's gotten entrenched in the scripts now. (no nazis, no commies, only those businessmen who seamlessly supply us with the goods we need) No, I don't miss those hacks they call writers.
Yeah -- first of all no one cares about an industry full of people who seem to think they are in a position to tell everyone else how they should think, feel and act. Second, they are trying to play King Canute here. AI is already democratizing the means of creative production (see, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y, anime entirely created by AI) and right now we are just at the “dancing baby” stage of AI. Hollywood itself is doomed, as their monopoly on the ability to create high quality content is about to disappear, so the unions are completely irrelevant -- when someone in Croatia or wherever can bang out entertainment on their own or with a small team that is as or more entertaining than what Hollywood puts out, it is game over for that entire industry.
Can we have it acknowledged somewhere that teachers unions kept American kids out of school for a year and forced toddlers to wear masks? Sorry if I’m skeptical that more unions are a societal net positive.
I was part of that union for 30 years. I had no choice - I wanted to teach. In my state, you could refuse union benefits, but still had to pay full union dues. I didn't believe in tenure for mediocre and poor teachers, but saw first-hand two examples of excellent anti-union teachers who lost their jobs for lack of union representation.
Every year, the teachers' union would run political adds calling for smaller classes and newer textbooks - never happened. Every year, our union supported more and more standardized testing, more government regulations and interference, higher teacher wages and better retirement benefits - and were, generally, successful in achieving those goals. In real life, the union never gave a damn about kids. Teachers who spoke up against the union were demonized and threatened.
And meritocracy? The first year I taught, I worked with a woman who should have NEVER been allowed to teach ANYONE - poorly educated in her subject, narcissistic, absolutely HATED kids. In my naivety, I went to the principal with my concerns. She told me she had been trying to remove that teacher from the classroom since her first year as principal, but the union was in the teacher's corner. The following year, that teacher physically pushed a student through a plate glass window. Finally, the union agreed it was time for her to go.
Over the ensuing years, it only got worse. Any teacher who made it past his/her first two years - easy to do with the state- later federally-mandated observation guidelines - was protected for life (as long as they chose to remain in the union). Also, particularly over the years since No Child Left Behind was enacted, good and excellent teachers have abandoned the profession in utter frustration. Newer teachers enter the field who have been trained to follow directions, teach to the test, and question less. Those who became teachers to actually help kids grow and learn, who can't adapt to the reality of the modern educational system, leave the profession within three to five years. What's left is mediocrity - or worse - and that is just fine with the union.
One of my brothers is a retired teacher, and he was (reluctantly) active for some time in his union. My brother wasn't really interested in or supportive of the union, but he was strongly encouraged by his colleagues because he was a really good teacher and was pretty popular with the school board and parents, and was a good public speaker.
After a few years in my brother's tenure as a union local leader, the school board fired a recently-tenured male gym teacher who had become WAY too friendly with the female students in the district. Many of the other teachers in the district had continually warned this guy that he was taking his sexual innuendo with his students too far, and most of the teachers at his school were happy that he was terminated.
That didn't matter to the teachers' union. At the urging of their district and national representatives, and against my brother's observations and beliefs, the union local spent 10's of thousands of dollars on attorneys and "experts" trying to defend the fired gym teacher. The situation became extra ugly when the young female students revealed (under oath) everything that this jerk had been doing to and with them.
The teachers union lost the case in court, and permanently lost my brother as a leader and active member. He reluctantly paid his dues for the rest of his long career, but never set foot in a union meeting again.
And the easier the real teaching responsibilities get, the better the conditions for political activists who call themselves educators.
Multiple choice tests are a joke and always have been
You have my complete sympathy. Many of my friends were teachers. They echoes your sentiments to the person.
that's tragic. That's why I'm ambivalent on the Unions. There are many union bosses who are to powerful and craven. We've just swapped one villain for another.
My experience has been that the local associations are largely good - occasionally they get bad reps that think they are on a national stage - but the state and national associations are not.
Where do you live? I taught in Southern California, but have talked with many teachers across the country who had similar experiences to mine. If there are paces where children come first, I’d like to know.
My thoughts exactly! Also these unions are protecting all sorts of low hanging fruits with mental problems who got into teaching to indoctrinate kids into fringe ideologies.
Unions make some sense in the for-profit world, but non-profit and especially public sector unions are really, really terrible.
Even FDR opposed them!
Definitely agree with that sentiment, but... I think we sometimes forget the sole purpose of unions is to protect their members (ie workers/employees). Sadly, school children are not that.
This piece is ridiculous. There is no tie in between any of these groups, and unionization is not spreading like wildfire. Unions are going nowhere because there’s a shortage of people and good companies are taking care of their people, there’s no need for unions.
Nobody cares about the actors, and if they had a case, they would be back at work because the bosses would give in. UPS did the math and found that it worked. That’s all that’s happened. The math, for UPS was not based on some call for union wage, but rather technology would allow UPS to make the worker more productive, and the higher wage was acceptable.
As for the running backs, you’re kidding, right ?
Besides Wegman’s, what other companies “take care of” their employees? How many of these exist as the norm instead of the exception?
Starbucks took very good care of their employees without a union - healthcare benefits for part-time workers, college tuition, flex schedules, good wages, and a lb of free coffee per week.
Apple, Google, Amazon, plenty of companies whose value creation depends on how well their employees are taken care of. In a competitive employment marketplace, the only way to be a successful business to is ensure your employees want to stay with you.
Speaking as someone who worked at a Big Tech firm, as well as several startups, I can tell you Big Tech (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta) are *not* the best places to work. They have incredibly high turnover rates -- you get recruited out of college because you're dumb and see big numbers, work there for 2-5 years building a resume, and then bounce between startup companies or fintech until you find a place to build a career. People don't go from Datadog to Google, they go from Google to Datadog.
And yet there are many examples of people getting tired of the startup "uncertainty" and opting for the "stability" of the Big Tech firms. (Not saying I agree with this view, I don't, but just saying I know of many cases that contradict your statement.)
Seriously? The hierarchies of wealth and their disparities are acceptable because they give employees free lunches and perhaps better 401ks? How is the wealth concentration at the top of Fortune 500s fair?
But everybody can participate in the hierarchy of wealth. Everybody. That is the beautiful thing about our system. The really beautiful thing. Janitors, trash collectors and maid can invest and increase their assets thereby. It does take some discipline but it can be done. Living below your means is a very valuable skill. And before you chime in that but, but, but people can't live below there means anymore be advised that my response is it is always possible although I acknowledge that Democrat policies and Republican fecklessness in the face thereof have made it more difficult at this point in time.
Someone should have told you long ago, life is not fair, sister.
For-profit healthcare systems often have better pay and benefits than their non-profit counterparts too. Treating employees right = employees who treat customers right = more business.
Chick-fil-a
Not. And, even if they were, that’s only one.
really? you think there are no companies that treat their employees well? You must have a terrible job
There are a few companies. They are not the norm. And they still participate in the established hierarchical structure. They just flatten it out a bit. A good start. Long way to go.
I’m not sure what your vision of utopia is. Chick-fil-a does a great job of training and treating their employees (and customers) well.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cmE1Vdghz2Y&si=LF1gRPb9Isytorvw
No Wegmans where I live, but their website looks pretty good. It seems to be practical to run a business in this way. My opinion is that capitalism and free markets have been indispensable to significant human flourishing. Both of those companies seem to be a product of and successful in capitalism.
The myth that Big Unions seek a "meritocratic" landscape is false! They seek a "collective" that has nothing to do with a meritocratic landscape, nor a return to a system that rewards excellence. What they seek is an across the board guarantee for wages and benefits, DESPITE any single worker's performance. Why try for excellence when your efforts garner the same reward as the slacker you work with?
When you add to the equation that Big Unions, almost to a man (So to speak), support the Democratic Party, why WOULD I ever support unionization UNLESS it rewards excellence in performance?
I grew up in a Union town, and my father worked in a union job back in the 60s, I and I watched as that Union negotiated itself into job losses and business lost to the Japanese model for auto production. All Unions accomplish is to reduce employment and raise the costs to the consumer, with the side benefit of increased wages and benefits to a shrinking membership.
[Smack!!!! It's high, it's long, it's a Grand Slam Home Run!!!!!] Perfectly put Mr. Moore.
Next issue up? It is Big Union demands for guaranteed staffing levels! Not only will that help bolster the Big Unions' power base, but it will also force employers into deciding that their businesses are viable or not. Guaranteed job security AND guaranteed wages and benefits! The Soviet model, all over again.
That is merely one aspect of unionism under hierarchy. We absolutely must combine best practices of both systems. Merit and fair play. This constant duality that permeates every nook and cranny of our minds must stop before we can ever hope to solve our problems. Just same old same old same old by the same old.
That already exists. There is no duality. In a meritocracy, those who deserve, get paid. Those who don't don't.
Delusional. It doesn’t exist fairly.
I don't understand that word fairly. What do you mean by it? Is it fair that a top performing employee makes significantly more than a bottom performing employee? Is it fair that a more skilled worker gets paid the same as a less-skilled one?
Sorry if my 27 years of first-hand work experience disagree with your political views.
Many, many years ago my 6th grade science teacher said something to our class that has stayed with me. One day he said he was giving us a pop quiz, someone said, “That’s not fair.” And our teacher’s reply was, “Ladies and gentlemen, fair happens once a year and that’s in the summer.” Your question is spot on, what is “fair”?
It’s the great disparity between the earnings. Should a CEO and management team make 100s of millions and receive lucrative stock options? Should your boss also make that much more and share in options the rest can never hope to see unless they reach that level with little hope, as there are few slots filled by those politically acceptable?
Has someone denied anyone in America the same opportunity to become a CEO, or part of the management team, or a chance to share in stock options?
If you think management teams and CEO's all make 100 of millions of dollars, my guess is you've never held a successful job in the private sector.
Yes. On both counts, though I suspect your numbers are exaggerated for effect.
Why do you care? You either get paid what you deserve or not. If you don't, you are free to improve your skills and earn what you think you are worth. I assume you don't live in a Communist country where are you are allocated to a particular job for the rest of your life. Everything else, is just you attempting social engineering by entangling yourself into business relationships of other fully functional adults, which you have no business doing.
Everyone gets paid what someone is willing to pay for them. If the CEO gets paid that much, thats his thing, and the shareholders. I assume you haven't met any shareholders who are suckers and willing to overpay to someone that they don't think is worth the money, right? Because usually those people don't exist.
There is no such thing as a "meritocracy society" - it has never existed anywhere on the planet and it never will. You can just do the best in the system you're in, and try not be taken in by the gaslighting.
There is no society free of racism. It has never existed anywhere on the planet and it never will. Doesn't mean we shouldn't agree that as a common goal and aim for one.
My daddy used to say “fair” is where momma takes cakes and pies every year....other than that, there’ll be someone who disagrees in what is “fair”
That about sums it up.
The comments are more instructive than the article; that’s cool.
Trying to wrap my head around using running backs as an example in a pro-union piece. Running backs ARE in a union, the NFLPA. The salary structure their union agreed to screws them. They need to unionize against their own union.
Somehow my tear ducts stayed dry reading about a guy making $13 million in 4 years. Making half that over a 40-year career would put one in the top few percent of wage earners.
If he manages that at all well, he'll be just fine.
I thought the same thing @ NFLPA. Perhaps Najee Harris could get Joe Burrow represent him. :-D "Joe Burrow signs a 5 year, $275,000,000 contract with the Cincinnati Bengals......$219,010,000 guaranteed"
Then Burrow didn’t show up to play... he’s been paid so why bother
I don't have much sympathy for the running backs or youthful union activists—first, the young activists. I have kept a journal since 1992. As a young man, I was as dumb as a rock. One leans, grows, and matures. I am so sick of hearing about what young people demand. I want to change the name from young people to dumb people. Let us face it: These are young dumb leftists who expect the most and want to deliver the least. They live in a world of what should be rather than what is. They are primarily maleducated suburbanites raised with little faith and classical education. I often wonder why we never ask why all of these people are trying to get past our southern border. The answer is a group of dumb but idealistic people fall in love with a leftist promising them Nirvana and deliver hell. This battle against the leftist youth is the fight of the 20s and beyond, not having the US fall into that category.
As for the running backs, I am a fan of Colin Cowherd's take. These running backs were not crying about the Centers, Tackles, Linebackers, and Safeties. They get paid much more money than they do. Sadly, the game is evolving away from them, and creative destruction always happens. Harris's 13 million dollar first contract is more than most make in a lifetime. So, no sympathy from me. Also, performance falls off a cliff in the second contract with more injury. Sometimes, the world is cruel, and we need to evolve with it rather than be petulant children who will lean like the idealistic leftist children of the last century, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Well said. I would add that youth is wasted on the young thing. ;)
No one misses Hollywood or the ridiculous salaries of high-end actors. The writers suck, as evidenced by the tired remakes constantly making the rounds. Bring on a fully develop AI Hollywood that makes entertainment actually affordable for the average fast food working family. No one cares about unions except those starting them, because despite the “dream” that the younger generation is on to something “new”, it’s still the same ol’ song and dance: Follow the money. The leaders of the current movements towards unionization will soon be rich and will then figure how they too can sell out their own followers, just like every union leader in the history of unions. And BTW, feel free to tear my ACL for $12 million. I’ve been working for 40 years and have yet to make even half of that.
Oh my… I laughed out loud at “Feel free to tear my ACL for $12 million dollars!” Had to read it again to my husband….maybe I’m heartless, but it struck home for me - (having actually torn my ACL for free years ago), and I love watching Najee run btw. Great player but ….just sayin!
Obviously tongue in cheek but the point stands. LOL
Indeed!
And, here’s a good illustration of the useless fighting that occurs in our position on the ladder of hierarchy. There are countless workers in Hollywood not in the 1% dominion they are fighting for. They are the foundational people all those at the top stand on. They are just a very visible example of the rest of us because the industry they are in and represent is putridly rotting before our eyes. If Covid brought us anything good, it taught us the slaving by commute, the ridiculously long hours, the sacrifice of family, the loss of precious precious time was not worth it for them. Look up. The problem has always been there. Solving it will not come by looking down. We must look across. At each other. Into the eyes.
While I agree with your words in theory, this is a situation that is becoming visible because it’s Hollywood. It’s been happening to other professions for years if not decades. Is this a call to action after sitting back and doing nothing while healthcare and others have been destroyed? But now that it hits home we must band together? Anyone who has ever used Amazon or PetMeds or Any other mega platform is guilty of the same thing. We are already divided and have been for a long time. Unions are not going to solve that. I feel for the workers but AI is about to change a lot of things for a lot of people. They aren’t the first ones to be forced to reinvent themselves. It happens over and over as society progresses. History shows us that.
I’m not for or against unions. I’m against kicking everyone at the bottom without looking up to the root cause. Yes, we have always kicked our brethren. That’s the design. Yes, follow the money. That has always been the design. Yes, people then make do with the system they can’t break. That’s the design. I suggest we must break the design instead of each other.
sorry that really made me laugh. covid did NOTHING good. the "slaving " commute .. sorry most people dot "slave" buy driving to work. the "long hours" are now spent at home in your jammies staring at your computer. I doubt very much it is does anything for "family" to work from home.. how many hours are "ridiculous" to you.. it sounds like you have a very skewed version of what it means to actualy work and support a family as for looking at each other "in the eyes'. nope. staying at home waiting for the amazon guy to bring your groceries that is the preosn hyou can "look in the eye" as you sit on your duff
Ditto. 4specially on the tired remake comment.
How can you write this article and not discuss the absolute destruction of “our” children during Covid because of the teacher’s union.
He’s a history professor at Gannon, a college ranked in the bottom half of such schools. That’s how.
From yesterday’s Babylon Bee “Best Questions Wives Should Ask Husbands During a Football Game”: Why is that white man telling those black men what to do. Instead of a coach, whitey will be the union boss.
I sat through a school administrators’ bargaining session this summer. There’s no real accounting for merit in a union contract. It’s all years served and steps. Once a person has put in the required number of years and hits the top step, no more raises until the next contract, three years hence. Many of our principals have all the required degrees and have put in their time. Some outperform others. Too bad. The good ones get the same 2 percent as the not so good ones, and none is given the incentive to improve.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the high priced athletes or most of the SAG members. To the expectant (entitled?) 30 Something warehouse worker or barista, get over it. I fear the day is nigh where you’re going to see what true hardship — aka survival— is all about.
Yes. The “grass is greener on the other side” romanticism of unions is quickly dispelled once you are in one. There are downsides to unions. Being productive or effective is discouraged. Complaining is encouraged. You learn early on the lessons your parents taught you, to work hard, and earn an honest days pay, are not compatible with a fair number of your union colleagues who mock you for doing so. Merit is never taken into consideration in large nationwide unions like the one described. Diversity and seniority are the only criteria when promotions are ‘awarded’.
I know there are many professions that require strong unions (I was in one) which are usually ones that require physical labor where health and safety concerns are an issue. But too many Americans look to unions to achieve a significant bump in pay and a significant decrease in productivity in jobs that aren’t meant to be a career for the vast majority employed by the company. For example the barista at Starbucks working their way through college or in between jobs. The management vs. labor issue is a constant battle that few industries achieve a happy medium long term for both sides.
The capacity of The Left to destroy everything in its path should not be underestimated. But football? No way Jose.
Your first sentence is the understatement of the century
Running backs are in a union already. What does that say about the efficacy of unions?
Expectations of what is a “fair wage” have changed dramatically in the last several decades. McDonald’s and its’ imitators thrived in the 1960s by paying minimum wage to workers who were fully-trained in a few shifts and expected to be there months, not years...certainly not decades or a full career. I flipped burgers for six months from 4pm until close while finishing my bachelor’s. I thought it was a fair deal.I got spending money plus a free dinner. Only the manager thought they would be there the following year.
Will unionization enable these employees to be paid $30 or $40 per hour? I suspect instead it will simply accelerate the transition of fast-food restaurants to robotic kitchens with multiple drive-through lanes and tiny dining rooms for the few oddballs who want to sit inside.
a few days ago I wanted to treat myself to a milkshake. went to Fosters Freeze ( they make nice think milkshakes). order a small chocolate shake. price $9.67 cents .. I was shocked. but I guess i shouldn't be when gas is 5.70 a gallon.. guess where i live
It’s only a matter of time. Yuval Noah Harari in his book Homo Deus says “humans will soon become redundant” its happening at an alarming rate for skilled and unskilled people, it makes no difference we will be killing each other soon.
Football is a GAME and they are making MILLIONS. It's a twist of fate these guys are making a career out of it at all. Get your MILLIONS and get out. The idea of a union is truly preposterous.
I am not anti-union, but the best way to make a great payday is to make yourself valuable. Starbucks is not a career...get real!
Was this written by a highschooler?
Yes