What I like to tell my RW friends regarding their "working HARDER to EARN a better wage" chestnut -

[HughBeaumont]

I GOT off my ass. I "WORKED harder". I ATTAINED two college degrees. Many of you have probably done the same at this point.

6 years after that happened, in 2001, want to know where I was at 32? Want to know where all that "HARD WORK and BOOTSTRAPPING" got me? Unemployed, along with millions of others who also got college degrees; some that hold greater weight than what I have.

I don't know, did we all "not make the right choices in life"? Did we all just "not work hard enough"??

Five months after I got canned from the first job, I (LUCKILY) was able to get another, better job that paid more than the old one; that's Anomaly #1 in a recession.

I've been at this job ever since 2001. Anomaly #2.

In almost 12 years of employment, I make, in inflation-adjusted dollars, approximately $2000 more a year than when I started in 2001. THAT'S economic reality. THAT'S the problem.

In America, I'm considered "One Extremely Lucky Bastard". In 2008-2009, I had to continually watch degreed professional after degreed professional get laid off all around me through no fault of their own; grown men and women crying on my shoulder, wondering what the hell's going to happen to them, all in this giant competitive quest for profit and margin preservation.

That, kids, is the tragic result of 33 years of wage suppression. That, children, is the result of the handler's "divide and conquer" play regarding the hoi polloi, hoping you didn't notice that they sponged up the productivity and wage gains.

That, in itself, is why I don't even want to hear about how this grand "Laissez-Fail" Hayek/Strauss/Friedman religious bullshit that America has been foisting on its people is going to eventually bear fruits for everyone who "WERKS HARDER". That is why "Horatio Alger" is a rotting turn of the century fossil that bears no semblance to 2013 economic reality.

I've been employed through three, count 'em, THREE recessions; each one worse than it's predecessor. Some of you have made it through four or five. It's because of seeing the results of widespread wage suppression that I become more progressive each passing year and more stringent in my belief that a widespread labor movement is more patently necessary as time goes on.

We need to look at these fast food union workers and LEARN from them, not laugh at and demean their "$15/hr fer berger flippin" message. A few years back, when the Failure Fuhrer was president, I attended a "Million Worker March" in D.C. .. . where at best, about three to four thousand showed up. Why is that? Is it that we're all scared or is it that we just don't see it as that big a deal that wages haven't risen in real value since 1979? Is it not that big a deal that our overall savings rate is non-existent thanks to the use of credit in the face of wage stagnation?

Why not JOIN the "burger flippers", as some call them? Their wages get raised, then so will yours. It's baby steps, people. This is how movements start. Don't fall for "divide and conquer" on this issue.

[FreakinDJ]

1. I'm union and I made a good 6 figures last year

1 bad year out of the last 10 where I only made $75K - THATS the DIFFERENCE A UNION MAKES

Don't get me wrong, I'm no high school drop out union thug who can't read nor write as the Koch Bros would like you to believe. I have a degree in electronics, but when the OUTSOURCER IN-CHIEF RONNIE RAYGUNS open the doors to China, electronics was the first to go.

Since joining the Union I have achieved my journeyman card and several High Demand Technical Certifications that keep me employed and earning top wages

just remember 1 thing

Divided we Beg

[HughBeaumont]

5. Funny how everything bad in this country started around 1980-1982 . . .

. . . funny, how that works . . . . he would have never been elected had it not been for a swelling population that bought into the tried-and-true Southern Strategy.

One person a little bit younger than me recently got mad at one of my Facebook posts demeaning Reagan. "He was the right guy at the right time." Jesus CHRIST. Just ask the workers of this country if he was "the right guy". Reaganomics never LEFT, and we're paying the price every day we practice it. Let's not even go into the allowance of banker larcenists like Donald Regan in the White House or the large amount of scandal during his reign of corruption.

[B Calm]

60. The Reagan era started the war against labor. I remember

my union shop took 3 different wage and benefit freezes during that time frame. The company had the gall to post on the bulletin board how are wage freeze was making them more competitive in the market place. But, after the last wage freeze I remember the union found out the salary people got huge raises and more benefits.

[HughBeaumont]

71. How sad is it that literally one of his FIRST actions in his FIRST year . . .

. . . was the one that set the tone for labor's progress and corporate America's wholesale quashing of that progress for the next 33 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

Michael Moore said that Reagan's firing of the PATCO strikers was the beginning of "America's downward slide", and the end of comfortable union jobs, with a middle-class salary, raises, and pensions. Moore stated that wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. He also blamed the AFL-CIO for telling their members to cross the PATCO picket lines.

President Reagan's director of the United States Office of Personnel Management at the time, Donald J. Devine, argued that "when the president said no...American business leaders were given a lesson in managerial leadership that they could not and did not ignore. Many private sector executives have told me that they were able to cut the fat from their organizations and adopt more competitive work practices because of what the government did in those days. I would not be surprised if these unseen effects of this private sector shakeout under the inspiration of the president were as profound in influencing the recovery that occurred as the formal economic and fiscal programs."

In 2011, Oxford University Press published Joseph McCartin's book, "Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, The Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America". Reviewing the book in Review 31, Richard Sharpe claimed Reagan was "laying down a marker" for his presidency: "The strikers were often working class men and women who had achieved suburban middle class lives as air traffic controllers without having gone to college. Many were veterans of the US armed forces where they had learned their skills; their union had backed Reagan in his election campaign. Nevertheless, Reagan refused to back down. Several strikers were jailed; the union was fined and eventually made bankrupt. Only about 800 got their jobs back when Clinton lifted the ban on rehiring those who had struck. Many of the strikers were forced into poverty as a result of being blacklisted for employment."

Oh, and to top himself . . . the following year, he signed the Garn/St Germain bill, which relaxed FDR-era limits on thrifts and sent banksters and speculators on their 80s financial/real estate piracy, setting a precedent in the form of taking a big black axe to the savings and well being of seniors and workers. The S & L Crisis of the 80s happened in no small part due to this horrible piece of legislation. All part of the Reagan-fused "Great Risk Shift" which continues unabated to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn_-_St_Germain_Depository_Institutions_Act

[JDPriestly]

81. Actually, the ideas arose in the 1960s and 1970s.

I remember the John Birch Society's ominous beginnings in the 1960s.

In the early 1970s (about 1973), there was an oil crisis. I had a job in which I was required to read the Fin. Times and other similar newspapers everyday and summarize relevant articles for my bosses. Already, the chat was that the US would be the bread basket of the world and export food while the rest of the world would export goods to the US, especially oil.

That was, of course, not the way it worked out.

I have always wondered what kinds of discussions, maybe even deals Nixon had or began when he visited China. That visit and before it, our thwarting of the fledgling Iranian democracy were the beginning of the fall of the US. It's going to take a lot to pick our country up again, to revitalize us. I think we will have to shed a lot of old cliches about economics and many other things. It won't be easy.

[mountain grammy]

75. Bingo! Happy Labor Day!

[JDPriestly]

79. "Divided we Beg." That's a Keeper. i like that.

[Jmm313]

83. Nixon opened the doors to China

I believe it was Nixon who opened up the doors to China then our trade deficit started right after that in the 70's

[FreakinDJ]

86. Reagan sign the tax loopholes for corporations

[SunSeeker]

2. Righteous rant. Thanks.

Way too many Cato/Heritage trolls on this board bashing a raise in the minimum wage. Good to see a few posts like yours.

[n2doc]

3. People who say that tend to be the laziest SOB's around n/t

[JDPriestly]

82. Here is what I don't understand:

The well paid, whether they be college presidents or CEOs of major companies justify their high salaries with the argument that you have to pay people well if you want them to work hard.

But those same people, be they college presidents or CEOS of major companies or just Joe Blow who owns a hardware store somewhere, will argue that they just can't afford to pay their employees what they know their employees are worth.

If college presidents and CEOS of major companies and Joe Blow who owns a hardware store work harder when they get better pay, why wouldn't the same principle apply to their employees?

Don't the top guys want their employees to work hard? Maybe not. Maybe the top guys are afraid that if the employees work really hard, the employees will take over and the top guys will be out.

[HughBeaumont]

87. I asked this very question in the 2 for 1 special a while ago . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002541777

1. How are Republicans/Libertarians perfectly OK with tax-skirting CEOs getting lottery salaries, perks and exit packages (if they resign) no matter how good or how bad a job they do or how ethically/unethically they conducted business, while at the same time viewing every poor person receiving benefits such as food stamps or UI as a "lazy freeloading system-gamer sponging off my tax dollers!!"??

Which leads to the next question:

2. Why is it that Republicans/Libertarians assert that the working/unemployed poor will be "motivated by lower wages to work harder and harder and maybe get a second job so they can get out of their bad situation" while at the same time stating "if you raised taxes on the rich, why should they be motivated to reinvest in their businesses and create more jobs if the gubmint's just going to take their hard-earned wealth!"??

Maybe it's a matter of class?

[Populist_Prole]

99. It's absolutely a matter of class

There's no logical, let alone theoretical explanation of why they can contradict themselves in the same breath. All you have to do to smoke them out and show their bias is just what you and JDPriestly above did: Take their statements; the ones they use in isolation, and put them together.

Other profanely class-based double standards I've noticed in following issues like this:

-A mouthpiece for a big over-the-road trucking firm bemoaning their inability to have enough drivers. He openly stated that despite the demand for them they can't afford to increase rates of pay. "Competitiveness" and all that. Hell-lo!? What about supply/demand and all that they're always waving their fingers at us about?

-An airline labor negotiation about a dozen years ago. The ground crew really had the leverage and the company knew it. They, and the business press shills, pressured heavily to have the government intervene and prevent a strike because air travel was too important to interrupt. Suddenly a business becomes a social service. There was no strike, and no intervention and the ground crew got a good deal, which had the company fuming. Cheeky peasants and all that.

-Spend time around buttoned normally "it's just business" types when their tongues loosen after a few drinks and you'll see the utter contempt for the working class gush forth. Maybe it's MBA brainwashing but to hear them tell it, they're the relevant sorts that make it all happen: We're just objects walking about. The hired help.

[GreenEyedLefty]

132. "Meat with eyes," as Lewis Black put it.

The mouth breather types don't know what the fuck they're talking about. It's ignorance and fear, IMO.

[eilen]

103. I asked one of those Rt Wingers that and he said

"they provide jobs." Seriously, that was his justification....

[HughBeaumont]

106. HAH! And what's hilarious about it is that they actually BELIEVE it.

DEMAND provides jobs, not corporate noblesse oblige.

Silly WingDing, tricks are for kids . . .

[Mother Muckraker]

4. Divide and Conquer

"working harder" is one of those lies they promote to put the responsibility on your shoulders. The productivity increases show that we've all been working harder while employment figures and income are not showing a similar increase.

One way the pro-corporate goons use to divide and conquer is creating false distinctions like "skilled" vs "unskilled". They did that during the recent BART strike here in the SF Bay Area and do the same with fast food workers. People who don't know any better will choose sides based on false choices and we end up fighting each other.

[Beer Swiller]

111. Well said.

And just how hard do our self-proclaimed masters of the universe on Wall Street really work? Paying math geniuses to come up with formulas so they can glance at their computers and know when to sell stock to maximize their profits. Real hard, huh.

I'd love to see them flipping burgers or ringing up groceries on an 8 hour shift with a 30 minute lunch and two fifteen minute breaks, if that much. Maybe if they tried it they'd think they deserved a wee bit more than minimum wage.

[safeinOhio]

6. What, 15 bucks an hour?

Now where did I hear "a rising tide raises all the ships in the harbor" 10 years ago that was the right-wing mantra.

[daleanime]

29. ........

[obxhead]

7. We don't have the money to attend.

I have a fairly solid schedule and far too low rate of pay. I can't imagine how a 2/3rds of my wage worker with a rotating schedule attend a march on DC. I say that living just 80 miles away!

The poor and underpaid want to march, we just can't afford it.

[Yoruhime]

104. Thank You!

Someone had to say it eventually. I would love to march, but was only able to afford to go once, 6 years ago, to march on DC in January '07. And a kind soul paid for my way there. I only had to have food money because we stayed in a hostel-type thing.

[flying rabbit]

8. Preach it brother...

... THAT is what is killing our country.

[dem in texas]

9. Yes, we are supposed to wait for the money to "trickle down"

I hate what has happened to our country these last 25 years or so. We are in another Gilded Age. It was protests, riots and unions that finally brought attention to the plight of the poorest people who were being abused by the richest, just like it is now. I think we are going to see more unrest, strikes and protests. The minimum wage is an outrage. If it was adjusted for inflation, it would be $10.50 to $11.00. Raising the minimum wage is a win-win, the money would immediately be pumped back into the economy. The only ones to suffer will be the super rich.

Remember the "trickle Down" theory, let the rich make profits and the money will trickle down to the lowest paid. When I first heard that, I always thought of many people trying to get a drink from one dripping faucet. Never enough water to trickle down for everyone.

We see how well the "trickle down" theory worked. The rich got rich, the poor and the middle class got poorer.

[HughBeaumont]

14. Used to buy a lot more, too . . . .

Oh, and there was this article that recently came out . . . .

http://seeingtheforest.com/40-of-americans-now-make-less-than-1968-minimum-wage/

We're being HAD.

That rising tide only lifted the yachts.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. What gets me is when they say giving lower classes more money will raise prices for the poor.

[SunSeeker]

15. Yeah, like they give a shit about the poor. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. They know America has a heart. To them, that's anti-profit.

[gopiscrap]

12. Excellent

[glowing]

13. I've noticed many of those "work harder" types are

normally from an older generation that are retired... When they worked harder, they saw the results. Companies lasted longer, pensions were normal, benefits included as a norm, Dr prices and meds not extremely ridiculous as is now, and many didn't do it on a college degree. They worked there way up with training and compensation.

They have no clue. They still think working part time jobs at a burger joint during the summer can pay for one's tuition. They are so out of touch with the reality and the fact that many of them benefitted from labor unions pushing for workers rights.

And for many of them, they are greedy little pigs that don't care about others than themselves and their immediate families condition. I have literally heard idiots rail against Dems and then in the next breath say their daughter and son in law are making less money because the teacher and cop salary wage was cut, frozen, or furloughed... But we all pay "too much taxes". Delusional people with no clue who to blame.

[SunSeeker]

16. You just described my in-laws. Enjoying their pensions while voting Republican.

[obxhead]

20. On one hand you describe my family.

Worked their way up, no pension but they have saved.

However, they say $15/hr should be tomorrow with a $22.50/hr should be the 4 year plan.

Not all those that built a life with no college and from the bottom forget.

[lunasun]

42. They have no clue.....Delusional people with no clue who to blame.

[raccoon]

88. Great post! nt

[polichick]

96. Dead on - I know a few of these...

They'll bitch about the younger generation not working hard, and when you point out that the gov't rebuilt our economy after the great crash and that they went to school on the GI bill and that Eisenhower built all those roads for them to enjoy - they just ask you to pass the salt.

Delusional and selfish.

[Populist_Prole]

100. I even see this from some unionized coworkers who've since retired. "I got mine" selfish jerks

When they were still working they were solid union democrats. Hell, a dozen years ago I was to the right of them politically. Now they're grouchy nasty conservatives that bash everybody, especially low paid service workers and public employees. They weren't exactly balls of fire when they still worked here and they got out early enough to where they still got medical benefits and their full pensions. That's not the case now. Now everybody but them is lazy and greedy. Talk about gall. I can't stand to be around them now.

[golfguru]

17. Things have improved a lot since president Obama took over

No one is starving anymore, food stamps eligibility has been lowered. No one will go without health insurance. If they can't afford it, they will be subsidized. No one will be rejected health insurance. Gays can get legally married. I can go on, but you get my drift.

[HughBeaumont]

18. While health care and social issues are finally progressing (albeit glacially) . . .

. . . it's imperative that this movement, if there is going to be one, gets underway with a Democratic president, however economically center-right he remains to be. People still are starving, wages are still stagnant and the national wealth is still unequally distributed. Under a batshit insane president (i.e. one who makes Bewsh II look positively saintly in comparison), all of the problems we're experiencing now will become worse. Labor will go back to the multiple-recession Dark Ages and the EmployERs domination will be exacerbated, hard as that is to believe.

[Skeeter Barnes]

23. Economic disparity has gotten worse, not better, under Obama.

[FreakinDJ]

28. The Working Class has suffered emensly during the Obama Administration

and he is still willing to bargain away the Social Security we paid for out of our hard earned pay checks

[golfguru]

34. Immaterial! What difference does that make???

The poor are doing better, as I posted above.
What difference does it make if the rich are getting richer? How does that directly hurt the poor? More important is that the safety net is stronger, the poor are receiving better benefits, they now have a better chance of lifting themselves into middle class. When one is not hungry, one has a better climate to study and learn and improve.

I am past jealousy of my neighbor who might be doing 10 times better than me, so long as my living standard is improving albeit at a slower rate. We all are born with unequal brains and lady luck does not believe in strict equality either.

[tazkcmo]

43. Wtf?

"More important is that the safety net is stronger, the poor are receiving better benefits, they now have a better chance of lifting themselves into middle class." Really?

[yourout]

102. The problem is the middle class has dropped closer to the poor.

The lift from the poor to the middle is a much shorter trip than it used to be.

The trip from the middle to the top has become a trip to another galaxy.

[Skeeter Barnes]

47. The poor are still poor with Obamacare. An insurance mandate does not pay the light bill.

His main focus should have been jobs and a significant increase in the minimum wage, not an insurance mandate.

I don't know how anyone can look at the devastating effects of of inequality and pass off the anger over it as "jealousy".

[Cosmocat]

63. Health Care Reform had to happen

He was dead right to take that on first.

THE biggest drag on this country is our health care system.

NOW, it isn't the most common sense approach we both would have wanted - single payer.

But, he simply did not have the congress to get any more than what he got.

He tried REPEATEDLY to get jobs bills going, but the most entrenched congress I have seen in nearly 50 years has not allowed ANY movement on anything and HCR took an epic battle that only concluded with them being able to use reconciliation at the end.

I have my issues with his being too cozy with big banking.

But, what has happened is NOT his fault.

He isn't a dictator, he is one man dealing with 435 congressmen/senators.

He absolutely would have done better on HCR if he could have, but barely got what was passed passed.

And, he absolutely would have addressed A LOT of other issues, but he simply does not have the congress to do it.

[HughBeaumont]

72. Too bad we don't have a Swedish or Norwegian congress . . .

. . . there'd be NO argument getting Single Payer passed.

Yet, we don't even have a handful of honest-to-goodness progressives ANYwhere in Washington. We just have authoritarian fiscal conservatives who were schooled on Friedman/Strauss/Hayek and were taught wholeheartedly that there's far more profit in killing people than there is with helping them.

[juajen]

50. So true. Success no matter how small is still success.

[Enthusiast]

57. Pure fantasy............nt

[cui bono]

84. It makes a HUGE difference!

There's a finite amount of dollars coming into a corporation, so if the CEOs raise their pay, where do you think they take it from? They cut back on worker hours, saving them salary plus cost of benefits. They get rid of higher paid workers and hire people who are desperate for a job so will take lower pay. They rape the pension funds.

It makes a HUGE difference. Have you seen the charts about income disparity? The difference in the amount a CEO makes compared to the average worker in the same company is staggering now. I don't have the figures now, but I believe it used to be 8x as much back in the 40's or so, then it was about 400 a decade or two ago and now I believe it's in the thousands.

Yes, it makes a difference. They are taking most of the pie and leaving only the crumbs for the workers. The workers used to get slices too.

[golfguru]

94. CEO's belong to "private" corporations

"private" corporations are PRIVATE! They are owned by stockholders who risk their money to buy shares. Stockholders can sell their shares if they are not happy about CEO situation.

Having said all that, I do agree with you that CEO's are overpaid. Sadly it is a "private" matter and not controlled by general public.

And that brings me to my even more important point....
Eliminate corporate taxes and increase taxes on rich individuals. That way the small fry employees are spared along with the small fry stock holders. Large stock holders can have greater individual profits and can pay more tax. Ditto with highly paid CEO's.

[cui bono]

114. I'm not talking about stockholders, I'm talking about workers.

Why did you change the discussion from workers to stockholders?

And no, we should absolutely not eliminate corporate taxes. What are you thinking? They should be raised and loopholes should be closed so that we can have funds for public endeavors.

I do agree we should increase taxes on rich individuals. That is in addition to raising corporate taxes though, not instead of corporate taxes.

[golfguru]

115. because

corporate taxes hurt workers just as much as high CEO pay does.

[cui bono]

116. I don't think so.

When taxes are high, businesses are more likely to put their profits back into the company rather than pay the taxes, so workers benefit. That's why there used to be a 90% tax bracket, so that it would discourage people from wanting to make that extra million since they wouldn't see much of it anyway. It was a way to keep income disparity from growing as it has now that taxes are so low.

High CEO pay simply takes money away from workers.

[golfguru]

118. Looks like you have never been inside

any corporate executive office. Before working for the government, I had risen to corporate manager position. Every raise I could hand out was directly proportional to the net profit for the year. If taxes took 35% of profits reducing net profit, raises had to be trimmed by at least 35%.

One reason corporations award ridiculously high compensations to CEO's is because it is 100% tax deductible which reduces taxes. If there was no tax on corporate income, such need would be less productive.

[cui bono]

119. The taxes are on profit, as you say, so the incentive is to put the money back into the company.

There's no law that says raises are tied to net profits, that's just made up by the company. There's no reason that profits can't be shared as wages with the workers. That becomes operating costs and therefore is not profit and doesn't get taxed, that's the point. So rather than getting it on the books as profits and being taxed on it (and getting less in the CEO's pocket) the incentive is there to put it back into the company, as in better working conditions, expanded operations, raises etc...

Sounds to me like your company was fooling you and the workers. Salaries don't come out of profits, salaries are operating costs.

[golfguru]

120. stop pivoting

I thought the subject for discussion was why small fry employees get less money due to corporate taxes.

One thing everybody forgets is that every inch of every corporation is owned by individuals at the end of food chain. The richer owners & big shot employees should pay the taxes, not corporations which affects every small fry associated with it.

The incentive to put money back in the outfit is better served with 0 tax. Because there is more money left in their coffers to invest for more tools & labor. Not only that but with threat of taxes gone due to increased profits, the corporations will be more inclined to expand and make more profits. It is not complicated.

So many industries have left USA because they received better tax treatment elsewhere. May be why China has one million millionaires while they had almost none during Mao's rule.

[cui bono]

121. I absolutely am not pivoting. You changed the conversation from workers to stockholders.

I brought it back. Zero tax is ridiculous. Exxon Mobile pays zero taxes, how's that working out? They make 40bn in profits, you think that went to the workers??? Geez.

The argument you're making is proving itself false every day.

You don't understand my point, which I've made already, so I don't know what else to say.

[golfguru]

124. Who was the beneficiary of that $40 B profit?

Think man! That money went to INDIVIDUALS minus what was retained by the corporation. The employees received raises and bonuses, stockholders received dividends, those who sold shares received capital gains etc.

There is no such thing as corporation existing in vacuum. Every inch of every corporation is owned by INDIVIDUALS. The individuals who received the MOST benefit from the corporation should pay the MOST taxes. Total tax collection will be higher if individuals were required to pay taxes based on income.

Do not bother to reply since you are not catching on. You are mired in your false belief that corporations are not owned by individuals.

[cui bono]

126. Oh, I get it. You just don't care about workers or government having funds

to spend on the commons.

Believe me, I get it.

You are not even answering what I'm saying, you are talking about some alternate universe where corporations are good and everyone benefits when they make obscene profits. I get it.

You realize those corporations use the commons, they use our roadways, our airports, our docks etc... who pays for all that? People are taxed to pay for that and you want corporations to pay zero in taxes but reap all the benefits of using something that the average citizen paid for? I get it.

I get exactly who you are fighting for with your pro-corporation argument.

[wickerwoman]

123. The problem with "stockholders can just sell their shares if they're not happy about CEO pay"

is that it doesn't recognise the complexity of the current system, particularly where "private" corporations are publically listed.

A huge amount of money invested in the stock market and in shares is through large pension funds or other investment firms where the stockholder is at a distance from the company being invested in. The average person doesn't have the time or financial literacy to do due dilligence on every one of the potentialy thousands of companies that their retirement fund is invested in and even if they did, their pension fund or 401K or investment firm isn't going to not invest in a particular company because one person was unhappy about the CEO's pay package.

The kinds of corporations we're talking about (large enough that CEO pay can get really ridiculous) can have literally millions of stockholders. A few people boycotting that stock over executive pay isn't going to have an impact.

[golfguru]

125. You got one thing exactly right...

That large publicly held corporations are very complex. That is the exact reason for not trying to control how corporations operate via government dictate. Instaed of micro-managing CEO pay via laws, it is much more effective to install a progressive tax system which taxes higher income INDIVIDUALS. If the CEO gets $10 million in bonus, he should be in 50 or 60% tax bracket.

Every inch of every corporation is owned by INDIVIDUALS and every cent of benefit derived from the corporation is directed to INDIVIDUALS.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

128. I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you, but I'd like to point something out:

You're trying to sell Republican talking points. You seem like a smart enough person that this will not come as a surprise to you. That's it. Thanks.

[golfguru]

129. That is so typical of many who use that tactic

When they lose an argument, they call you a troll/republican talking points/whatever. Easy way out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

130. You might have a point, if I had lost an argument to you.

But I didn't argue with you. I made a declarative statement, and that's the extent of our short-lived relationship. Regarding you and me, there's no easy or hard way out. There's nothing at all, as a matter of fact. You're still using Republican talking points though.

[HughBeaumont]

89. Oh God, not the "jealousy" canard. You're smarter than this.

With all of the wealth that's annually being redistributed towards the top of the food chain and via corporate pork, that's less money being paid in wages, less monies going to the social safety net (one of the WEAKEST in the free world beyond a shadow of a doubt), less monies being sent for infrastructure spending/improvement and more consumer debt to be able to purchase services/products.

Luck really has nothing to do with wealth being unequally distributed. This is happening purely by CHOICE.

[golfguru]

95. What has stopped YOU from becoming fabulously wealthy?

[HughBeaumont]

107. Easy. My parents weren't wealthy and I'm not that supremely determined to step on anyone for wealth.

Not really seeing why it matters.

[golfguru]

127. majority of wealthy individuals in US did not

inherit their wealth. Google is your friend.

[HughBeaumont]

131. Nor were ANY of them "Self-made millionaires". Not ONE. Google is YOUR friend.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

[golfguru]

134. Me and you have all the same infrastructure available

to use. There is no discrimination in use of public facilities and infrastructure. We could also be filthy rich if we had the same brains and skills and luck.

By the way I am for more progressive tax rates on individuals. People earning 10 million or more should be in much higher tax brackets than current IRS code. That would result in more fair contributions by the rich. Instead we tax corporations which are 100% owned by individuals and benefits individuals. That is a regressive tax since small fry stock holders and employees on lower rungs share the same tax rate of corporate tax burden as the CEO's and rich stockholders. On top of that corporate taxes are also passed on to consumers.

[dana_b]

90. what difference does that make??

Did you really say that? SS is to prevent the elderly and those who are disabled (present company included) from living in poverty - something that you proclaim to care about! Go ahead and cut SS and see what it does to those of us who depend upon it. Our benefits are not getting stronger and are being threatened.

[golfguru]

97. DO not mis-quote me...puleez

I never said SS should be cut. Sadly Medicare is being cut. Talk to new Medicare patients and ask them how many doctors refuse to take them on as new patients. I have personally experienced that problem.

[obxhead]

109. What a load of bullshit.

Nobody is starving anymore.

That's a load of bullshit that you can't back up with any kind of blue link.

[MatthewStLouis]

19. Thank you and Amen!

[Llewlladdwr]

21. Just out of curiosity...

what were your degrees in?

[HughBeaumont]

37. AA in pre-professional Journalism, BA in English, minor in Business.

Talk about your huge sighs of relief . . . with each layoff/cutback/"reinvention" of major papers around the country, makes me SO glad I made the correct move, even back in 1991, to switch majors.

That's another 2013 tragedy . . . that creative/artistic people are some of the most vastly underpaid individuals on Earth.

[Skeeter Barnes]

22. I used to work in a factory with a woman who had been there for 23 years.

She could set up and run those machines with her eyes closed faster than I could on my best day. After all that time developing such a level of expertise, how much do you think she was making? $11.25 per hour... after twenty three freakin' years!

So it's not how well trained you are or how hard you work. It's "we are not going to pay you a decent wage because we don't have to".

People can shit on Unions and say they are bad because they didn't accept their brother for apprenticeship or whatever but they are all we have left. It's going to take organizing on a massive scale to make things better for the working class.

[HughBeaumont]

35. So what you're saying is that she pretty much LOST money over time.

That's gratitude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3528231

· Since 1979, hourly earnings for 80% of American workers have risen by just 1 percent (all stats factor inflation). The average wage was 17.71/hr in 2007, falling by 5 percent compared to 1979.

· If wages kept pace with productivity, the average full time worker would be earning 58,000/year. Instead, he/she earns 36,000/yr.

. . . and this was written in 2008, prior TO the Great Recession hitting. The Owners have made the lion's share of the income gains in 33 years.

Everyone, union and non union, needs to have monthly demonstrations to let the Owners know that this bullshit will no longer be tolerated or sold to us in pretty packages.

[Skeeter Barnes]

45. Exactly. Wages sank while the productivity of American workers has risen steadily.

[LittleGirl]

39. Yup

and she's thankful for what she earns. I know a few of those women and had the circumstances been different I might be that woman. I always took pride in whatever task I was assigned. That's what my parents taught me. And shame on that company for abusing that trust, that expertise and dedication to getting the job right the first time. Shame on that company for overlooking her. I was her. Damn it and I left, that's why. I don't suffer fools for long.

It's all about the money now, forget the people. They are replaceable. It's sickening.

[Skeeter Barnes]

46. No, she was aware she was making chump change and she didn't appreciate it.

She just couldn't find anything better because, with a few exceptions, that's what you make around here.

She didn't let it affect her work ethic but she was not thankful at all.

[Initech]

24. I have worked at the same job since 2002.

In that time my wages went from $9.00,/hr to their current level of $12.35/hr. But a few weeks ago, I had my hours slashed to the point where I can no longer support myself with one job, and I'm exploring my options for working a second job. This ecoonomy sucks ass if you're not a billionaire or the upper 1%. I've pretty much come to accept that I will never have money. And affording property is something I will never experience in my lifetime. Fuck the upper 1%!

[HughBeaumont]

40. These stories are playing out like this all over the country.

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Workers who put their lives and effort in their jobs are rewarded with wage losses over time.

Degreed professionals are earning wages that weren't adequate in 1997, now positively unacceptable in 2013.

Useful idiots abound believe things will work out for the better if you give capitalism more time and if capitalism takes more out of you in the form of time and money.

Shouldn't we be expecting more? Why do we never say "My life could be a whole lot BETTER."? "My life could be a whole lot worse", pounded into us since we hit puberty, is likely why we gradually accept less and less and less . . . "Because YOU could be THAT poor family. Be afraid. Be very, very AFRAID!!!"

[Initech]

52. Hey to quote an expression I first heard during the W administration:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"

But now to extrapolate this, we should be outraged at very different people for very different reasons. I'm talking about the robber barons that disguise themselves as CEOs promising us higher pay and advancement, then holding it in front of us like jockeys hold carrots in front of horses. They make 475 times what we make, we get to fight over what's left of the scraps. It's truly fucking disgusting. Our system is severely broken and badly needs to be fixed.

[matt in france]

69. grow n sell weed

Sad but when there is no legal way to eat illegal ways become necessary....

[Initech]

80. Or meth, a la Walter White.

[bearssoapbox]

25. My brother-in-law just got hit with a $9.00 pay cut

From $27.00 to $18.00/hr. and he said the companies attitude was "just be glad that you have a job and the $9.00 was all that his pay was cut. Others in the company were hit harder. They say it's because they "lost a contract".

He's retired army, been with them since retirement, about 10-11 years, and doing about the same work for them as he did in the army. He says he has to stay with them because he's been with them this long. They are also helping out their 2 kids.

They should be thinking about real retirement in a few years and not getting less and less money the longer he works.

My sister admits that they are used to living on the higher wage so she's going to cut back. But dammit, they shouldn't have to think about cutting back just because the company decides to cut pay and the employees that still have a job should line up and kiss their asses for the privilege of working for them.

They live in KY. The Ft. Knox, Radcliff, Etown area. Sis says the economy is shaky around there and that's another reason he doesn't say anything about the pay cut.

I don't blame him but it still isn't right.

Sure, they could change a few things but the overall thing to me is that it just isn't right. You don't put in years of work, then work harder, for less pay!

My brother-in-law, an R, says the owners are hardcore Tea Party. Sis is a Dem and boy is she PISSED!

She says that they'll get along though.

That's all the damn rethugs and teabaggers want! Everyone to just 'get along'. As long as the rich get richer, that's all that counts.

[yourmovemonkey]

44. I seen this sold to employees

I've seen wage cuts sold to employees as "an investment". Take a hit, but at least you'll still have a job. It's total bullshit, and they know it. True investment would give workers a stake in the outcome as an exchange.

Ask one of the managers if they would buy stock in a company that only promised to let them share in the losses.

[bearssoapbox]

48. Yeah, "the investment wage cut"

20 years ago I worked for a guy that made pizza crusts. There were 3 or 4 other employees and we made decent money. Wages+piece work. One day the owner decides that we were going to go to all piece work. He raised what we were paid per piece and told us that it was like we were "investing" in the company. The harder we worked the more money that both we(the chumps..er..employees) and the company would make and at a future date when the company made more money we would get more per piece.

I'm a natural cynic. The owner was a Raygun crapublican. I knew a couple of the costumers that bought the crusts so I asked them what they were now paying for a crust. The crapublican had raised the price of their crust by 30%.

We had gotten a 40% per crust increase but since he wasn't paying us by the hour he was making 50% more per crust than before the new pay scale. Plus, we could never reach our old pay rate because of time and equipment constraints. Not enough time in a shift(couldn't work over 9 hours because of the next shift) and the equipment(the ovens) didn't bake and move fast enough.

When we asked the owner what could be done he said that when he could afford it he would get better equipment and until then we were just going to have to live with it.

We all quit that day. He struggled for a couple of years doing a lot of the work by himself. He lost about half of his costumers when they found out what he did. I went on to something else but 2 guys went to work for one of his competitors. That's also where his business went.

Last I heard he was managing a Pizza Hut.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[yourmovemonkey]

49. That's a great story

I've never seen one of them get what they deserve. Folks like that think it's just a game to steal hope from others.

People I know who took a hit in '09 are still slogging along making 30% less than they did 5 years ago. They'll never see any return on that "investment". The companies are doing just fine now though.

[SheilaT]

26. The ONLY way trickle down can happen is if the

wages are all raised at the bottom end. Higher minimum wage, higher all up the ladder to some point, maybe about 150k, although many people making that will scream they're barely making ends meet. Someone smarter than I am can figure out where the cut-off for the raises should be.

I went to work as an airline ticket agent in 1969. While my employee group was not unionized, we reaped the benefits of the strong unions in other areas, mainly pilots, mechanics, and stewardesses. Best example is that any day in the week that we worked more than 8 hours we got time and a half for the overtime, even if at the end of the week you'd worked less than 40 hours total. Which was rarely the case, trust me.

I worked there for ten years, then left, did some other things and in 1982 went to work for a different airline in a different city, again as a ticket agent. This time I was a part time employee, which meant I didn't get benefits, but because at that airline the airport agents were all unionized, I got time and a half any time I went beyond my scheduled 20 hours in a week. Even better, a few months later I got a Sat-Sun shift, 8 hours each day. Again, anything past the 8 hours was time and a half. That job was only temporary for me, but it was nice while it lasted.

Those are the kinds of things that should be in effect for all the part time workers out there in retail or in fast food.

Plus, raise the cap for FICA, to fully fund Social Security.

[cantbeserious]

27. Kick And Recommend

eom

[Warpy]

31. When they so smugly talk about all those poor people and their bad decisions

I have one word to say to them: ENRON.

Yes, ENRON. People who worked there did all the right things. They fought their way through school, earning top grades while they ran up debt. They joined what was supposed to be a platinum plated company that hired only the best. They worked hard, paid their debts, settled down, had families, and put every spare dollar into company stock.

Then the Republicans who ran the company cleaned out the till and left the hard working employees with nothing but certificates for worthless stock. Since that company only ripped off labor, most got off Scot free, even Skilling's conviction now in jeopardy.

I ask them what bad decisions those folks made. Many of them have still not recovered, they lost everything after their jobs disappeared.

You want to talk about poor folks, talk to some of them first so you know what you're talking about. Their stories will amaze you because nobody woke up one day and thought "What do the simple folk do? I guess I'll get poor and find out!"

[niyad]

33. "what do the simple folk do?" from "camelot"

[niyad]

32. k and r-- it saddens me that even some people who are not rwnj's can fall for the bs coming from

koch and co.

[CTyankee]

66. they seem to want to blame the little guys beneath their rung in society for being somehow slackers

and free riders of the system. Only when they themselves have slipped down a rung or two and they experience the scorn of those above them, will they understand. Until they hit that bottom, they won't get it. by th en, it will be too late and we'll all see our boats sinking fast.

[pansypoo53219]

36. this is what happened to the idiots that bought reagan's voovoo doo doo.

1st. kill the unions. blame the poor. DIVIDE + CONQUER. the baby boomers were punked.

[HughBeaumont]

38. Even GHWB knew it was a buncha hooey.

Maybe some of these "Reagone Democrats" could conjure up a way that businesses would have been able to reward them any sort of piss-dusted fruit of labor with no new business coming in, their wages suppressed forever, almost all productivity gains flowing upward and the social safety net being destroyed. Anyone got a road map to that pot o' gold?

[TomClash]

41. Sisyphus

“When I devoted my life and what abilities I possess to the service of my fellow workmen; when I sought to teach them how to break their chains; when I tried to show them how they might save their children from poverty and shameful servitude, I did not want them to give me money. I did it for love. And they paid me with hatred and injury. But since I have been helping their masters to rob them, they have treated me with respect.”

This passage is well over 100 years old.

[BrotherIvan]

110. Entirely Apt

I shall go reread it now, thank you!

[awoke_in_2003]

51. I consistently received excellent performance reviews...

these end up equating to 3% raises- not even keeping up with the real inflation numbers. It is like treading water, and every year you sink a little lower.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

53. K&R

It makes me sick when people say "just be thankful to have a job". What are we thankful for? to whom? To insatiable corporate pigs who can never guzzle back enough of our labor, and productivity? Thankful to be one of the half thats hired to kill the other half? Fuck that.

We need a wage-slave revolt. But first we all must start talking the same language and its not the language of polite servitude that we've all been indoctrinated with. We must stop believing the economic fairytale of the great wisdom and benevolence of the plutocracy.

[King_Klonopin]

54. Economic blackmail, exploitation, manipulation

that's all it is, plain and simple. Evil.

The Bible says it's a "sin" to withhold wages from a worker.
Lot's of sinnin' goin' on around here.

[HughBeaumont]

56. It's like I said above . . .

. . . if they're not using the "Your life COULD be WORSE" canard to get us to keep lowering expectations, they're pulling Horatio Alger, a fairy tale that assumes that success is ALWAYS the reward/result for extra hard work.

When it comes down to it, the LAST thing they want is for any of us to become wealthy. Think about it: If truly ANYone can be wealthy, how does that make THEM special and entitled to no taxation?

[bhikkhu]

55. Some of the hardest workers around are making minimum wage

...its no secret to anybody that fast food, ag work, retail and so forth, are some of the hardest jobs around and the worst paid.

I just spent a weekend on vacation, shopping and out and about in the San Joaquin valley. Coming from a fairly quiet town, I still can't get over how busy the shops are and how hard everyone has to hustle. Not to mention, plenty of people out doing field work in 90+ temperatures, in terrible air quality conditions (the yosemite fire).

A decent minimum wage would do wonders, while telling people who are stressed out already that they need to work harder, when they are already at their limit trying to put food on the table...that's a trademark GOP thing that deserves to be front and center in the next election.

[rpannier]

58. But you have freedom

The freedom to make others richer while most people toil on wages that keep you just above poverty

[reformist2]

59. White-collar, salaried workers need to unionize as well.

[xchrom]

61. well said.

[TBF]

62. Excellent OP - K&R nt

[blondie58]

64. These are not good times

I retired a couple of years ago from the Postal Service and am still a member of NALC #47.

I was saddened to hear of the P.O. new class of carrier- I think they call them carrier associates or something equally lame.
$15 hour. No benefits. Nada. I wouldn't have done the job without protection or benefits.
It is hard work. The stress from management makes it worse. Go faster. But don't get in an accident. Can you carry a little of route #1513?

I don't believe they have a choice of joining the union either.

But what does it matter? The post office won't exist after what the right wing has done to it, requiring us to prepay out health benefits 75 years in advance?

[99Forever]

65. "Divided we beg."

No truer words were ever spoken.

[matt in france]

67. my parents taught me this shit

When i was a kid. I was born in 1979 and for the past 32 years i have waited for trickel dow to work. This summer i asked my parents why they taught us this bullshit and why didnt dad just pass his weed connection to me so i could deal because being a history teacher does not pay the bills. mom said she was sorry for teaching me to think hard work would mean i would be middle class but she and dad taught me that because it worked for their generation......

[Dustlawyer]

68. K&R! This is all so true, but the remedy is to take back our politicians.

We all know that most of them are bought off. We need to focus on preventing the campaign fund bribery that occurs. Publicly funded elections would be a step in the right direction. Then the things we need, like increasing the minimum wage can get passed!

[ctsnowman]

70. Much

the same here. Have held a good job all through the madness but always lost ground. 1-3% raises gobbled up by higher health care premiums and inflation. The bean counters have taken over and our customer base is becoming increasingly annoyed. We have lost more workers in the last year than we did in my first twelve. The people who are considered the best are the ones actually faking the work!!! But it looks very good on paper. Happy Labor Day and TFTP.

[Octafish]

73. Nixon: ''We're all Keynesians now.''

Next thing you know, Poppy's on the case and Nixon's gone in Watergate.

Apart from Carter in his first two years, we haven't had a Keynesian as much as sniff an omelette at a White House breakfast.

[theHandpuppet]

74. Excellent OP

I keep wondering just when the working classes will finally be fed up and rise up.

[mountain grammy]

76. Nice post and a real American story echoed often..

The American worker helped elect that beautiful actor. After all he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild and says he supports unions. What could possibly go wrong? 33 years later, here we are.

Blindsided.... One of the things in my life I'm most proud of is that I never bought into the Reagan bullshit and never voted for the man.

[nashville_brook]

77. k and r for Labor Day

[Nevernose]

78. And another kick from me

Nt

[Bradical79]

85. I'm still under $11/hour after 14 years in retail

The last 8 with the same company. Got halfway through a degree before circumstances wouldn't allow me to finish so I'm saddled with that debt too. It's infuriating. I've got a plan that might help me get out of this horrible low wage and debt feedback loop that might work. It's a long shot and will probably fall apart if I get saddled with more medical bills(or need new shoes/clothes anytime soon lol).

[reformist2]

92. Hang on, help is on the way! You'll get those new shoes, and have money to spare! lol

I have a good feeling the tide is finally turning...

[DonCoquixote]

91. Part of the reason Florida is such a cesspool

Is because we have a lot of people that got their lovely union pension up north, that got their retirement thanks to social security up north, got their education up north, and then came down here and said no one else should have those things. I love the "I paid school taxes up north" line.

Of course, the Dixie side of Florida rants about how they don't need no union, because the church told them they don't, and then they wonder why most Dixie types are either poor, or being ordered about by the same families that have held power since the "Antebellum" days.

In either case, both lay waste to the "hard work equals pay" crap. Especially as neither the Yankee transplant nor the Dixie good ole boy work as hard as the Latinos that pick their food.

[Royal777]

93. corporate welfair

Paying less than a living wage is corporate welfare. We the taxpayers make up the difference by paying for the social programs so these people can live.

[MisterP]

98. they're pretending it's the 50s or 70s, where the economy was managed and unionized

and you could work your way into a higher income

[DeSwiss]

101. K&R

- You're gettin' warm......

[LittleRock]

105. Ironworker in NYC

My 2 cents:
Almost all of the union construction workers in the New York area have taken a 20 percent pay cut to keep the non-union tide at bay. Developers claim they are losing money on their projects due to labor costs. However, rents are high and inventory is low. Their claims are ridiculous. They are not losing money, they feel entitled to every last dime. This is the corporate business model, and it has no socio-economic conscience.

[HughBeaumont]

108. Thanks for sharing. It's like 1981 Reagan all over again.

They're losing PROFIT and the only battle in 2013 that's relevant is Profit vs. Humanity.

[OrwellwasRight]

112. Blaming individuals for not working hard enough

keeps our focus away from communal solutions. They want us to forget we are all in this together and if we all focus on anecdotal evidence of Horatio Alger stories or personal hardships, either way, the system remains untouched.

You gotta give it to the GOP for strategy.

[HughBeaumont]

113. Oh, it's worked exactly as planned, and the useful idiots fall for it like they do Twinkies.

Like it was mentioned above, this agenda started in the 1960s before it became permanent starting in 1981, when the Oligarchal President got in.

[drgoodword]

122. Excellent OP - U.S. Needs To Borrow Scandanavian Model To Improve Economic Equity

However, over the next few decades, as has been already noted in a number of threads, wages and job availability will come under even more pressure with the rapid improvement of labour robotics. In twenty years, most driving jobs, from taxis to truckers, will be erased by the widespread use of autonomous vehicles. In thirty or forty or fifty years, who knows? There may be very, very few jobs left that require a human being. This could result in a paradise of leisure or a poverty-ridden hell. Much will depend on policy and the voting public.

[B Calm]

133. My son has a masters degree and makes about what I was

making driving a truck. It's a damn shame what they pay teachers now days!