LOL. Oh no you didn't just post that.
I knew a guy who worked tool and die for Daimler Chrysler ( back when Daimler owned them) who made something along the lines of $98 an hour when he worked on Sundays. He also told me since no management was at work on Sundays they would just sit around drinking beer and watching TV/football while on the clock.....making $98 an hour. I was still in school at the time and up to my eyeballs in debt so I remember thinking, "F*ck college! I want to learn tool and die!".

What she said!

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.

Again, so learn the trade and do it if life is so much better that way.

It's a bit like people who say it's nice to be poor, or easy. So do it then if it's so easy to live the high life off of food stamps. They're not volunteering to be broke for a reason.

I think some people "volunteer to be broke" and make less money due to their chosen career field but feel passionate about what they do and accept it, even if it isn't right. I'm thinking of those who are legal aid attorneys, social workers, teachers in schools with great kids but no money or parental support, and so on. Some of the smartest and best attorneys I know have beliefs for equal access int he justice system and work for Legal Aid or as public defenders and their debt is crippling and they are really really broke but the feelings of self worth from their work helps, and they have jobs unlike a lot of young lawyers who thought they could go BigLaw from a T3 school.

I've been really lucky that I found the job I did while in school and was able to save money for these times that are much leaner, but being single has helped that. I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1, but things could be a lot worse and I'm trying to be positive that it will get better and I'm going to leave Idaho in the next couple of years and it won't be my problem anymore. I also asked a roommate from college who is from Sweden if she could find me a husband so I can move there and enjoy some social democracy, but I'm not holding my breath ;)

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

LMAO, right. same look i gave.

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.

Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

Without kids, sure. You did leave out the part about taxes..which makes it harder. (that includes food taxes, building taxes, etc)

I lived on less an hour myself. Not too difficult. My parents don't coddle. My friends had no help either living on their own. Shoot, the people next door to me right now live on less and are doing fine.

Wait, you're talking about someone who made poor decisions (that being having kids while making minimum wage). If you make poor decisions, then I'm not sure I feel sorry that you're making 18,720 while making aforementioned poor decisions. Even if you have a high paying job and then was fired, while having two kids you took a calculated risk/gamble and failed. Still don't feel sorry.

I wonder why.

A "liveable" wage varies greatly by geographic region. In NYC or Southern California, $65K a year would put you on a pretty tight budget. If you're paying $20K a year in day care, it would also make your budget pretty tight.
Roofing is a really dangerous job and most roofers end up injuring themselves pretty badly or getting asbestosis or silicosis from inhaling all the crap they inhale. Tar burns are pretty awful too. Many jobs are paid better because they are hazardous.

I do admit that the UAW got ridiculously greedy and strayed from its original purpose. UAW leaders are as out of touch as high level executives are. However, there are many unions that have not been that way, which is why I mentioned grocery store employees and teachers.

During a management meeting in my corporation this week, after they announced both our raises and our benefit cost increases, one of the managers pointed out that the raises are less than the new cost of the benefits and the executive leadership said "Well, that's only true for the employees making less than $60,000 a year", as if that was a small number of people. In reality, that's about 85% of the employees. "Only the employees making less than $60,000 a year"... ONLY.. as in "only for the employees who are already struggling to make ends meet".

And you're an asshole. Thanks for calling, bye.

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

How am I an "asshole" for expecting responsibility?

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.


Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

While I wouldn't call you that personally, I would say that you are completely out of touch with reality if you think that everybody who faces a life challenge does so because they are irresponsible. I would also say that you are heartless, incapable of empathy or compassion. People like you scare me because you're one step away from wanting to just put people to death because they have had a life challenge that devastated them financially. It happens to people in all walks of life. It happens to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, to those who are well educated, to those who have worked and made a good income for longer than you've been alive, to those who bust their butts to contribute to our society, and to those who have never done anything irresponsible in their lives. It happens. It is life. As humans, we have a moral obligation to take care of each other for the betterment of society as a whole. People like you scare me because I think that, without compassion, evil prevails.

Woah woah woah...

Where did I say anything about compassion? I am very compassionate. I give heavily to several charities as well as volunteer often.

I care for the poor, which is where my economic ideologies come from. Unabated capitalism empowers and enriches the poor's life, giving them the greatest mobility possible and the best life possible. My economic considerations are far more beneficial to the poor than a statists.

I don't think you know why, so let me tell you. We have changed the types and numbers of plans offered in the past few years, with a huge push to a high deductible HSA plan and two PPO plans in the last offering. There was a lot of propaganda to put people on the high deductible plan and a lot of people didn't do their own research for their own health costs and ran with the numbers HR provided. I was on a plan I paid more for, but I used it and enjoyed my lower deductible and being covered at 90% with a $15 copay. So many people were blinded by paying less without realizing the true cost that my plan had less people and has been discontinued. The same midrange plan with twice the deductible, 80% coverage, and a $25 copay is still the being offered, and the only other option other than the high deductible, so those are my choices. Single people have never had a financial advantage on the high deductible plan, and most families lost out too if one person had a lot of care as the deductible was for the family and couldn't be met by one individual.

I did the math for what it cost me per pay check and what I would have to pay out of pocket for each plan and in one case it was obvious to go with the most expensive plan, and the other it was making an active choice that I rather would pay more for insurance and be covered than have some situation that would have cost more later. Insurance is something you buy and hope you don't have to use and often don't use in the case of my auto and home policies, but without fail I've had some medical issue that would have hurt me financially if I chose to pay $50 or so less a month. That $600 savings on the difference between 80% and 90% coverage, the $175 with the deductible being lower, and the $10 for every office visit ended up not being an issue and I made the right choice. I say it is FUBAR because I am going to potentially have less savings if something comes up, and the amount saved a month isn't going to cover it. The one thing that is nice is that adults now have orthodontia care, as I was really irritated I was paying the same amount to cover someone's kids and not allowed that same benefit. It was the one area where people paid the same and were not getting the same benefit and many people had issues with it and it finally changed. My teeth are visually straight but are slightly out of alignment jaw wise and with my sinus and allergy issues it causes a lot of pain so I'd like to get it fixed. I never had work done as a kid but I'm wisdom tooth free so there's some space to work with.

I wish people wouldn't have kids without planning and realizing everything that comes with being a parent, but unfortunately that isn't going to change because people are dumb.

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

They were kind of funny in a couple ways with the health insurance. Birth control was only covered with medical documentation, but that was because Viagra was also. I don't know any woman who was denied birth control with a letter from a doctor and this might have changed to no restrictions. It was quite common on a lot of health plans and I know of some that cover only certain pills and not others and those people go to Planned Parenthood and get what they need. I think the cost of bc monthly is a far better cost than a pregnancy and another dependent for an insurance plan, but like I said, no one was denied with their doctor saying it was medically needed. They also offered Plan B in our pharmacies (when it was still prescription only) and the health insurance covered it which is funny because they didn't cover birth control pills.

Still waiting on that budget that shows $18,000 being "comfortable" for someone who's not in high school or college.

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

Why would high school or college matter?

*sigh*

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

As long as it is possible for the two statements to co-exist there's not a logical problem with the argument, it just comes down to the data to back up the assertion. I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the answer, just the argument.

And srmom did miss the point of my post entirely which was that you can't claim to only care about the logic while making large logical errors. Or rather, you can, but you're being ridiculous. (As is using unionization in apartheid South Africa as an honest reflection of unionization in the US, that just doesn't work.)

I'm with you. Being 'college poor' isn't really relatable to being 'poor' for a lot of reasons.

/not that some people aren't 'poor' in college, but the resources available for students are vastly different than the resources available for pretty much everyone else.

Here, I'll break it down for the sake of argument...

9 * 40 = 360*4 = 1440$ per month pre tax.

This will be from my point of view in my area, since I talked about the 9$.

I live in probably the nicest apartment complex in town, but my apartment is 480 for two bedrooms.

so, 240$ with a roommate a month. (for the nicest place in town)
80 for energy, 30 for water. split two ways, 55$ a month.

For medical insurance, with a 500$ deductible it's 11 some dollars per check, so 44 dollars per month.

My car is a little bit nicer than someone on minimum wage but it's around 400 with full coverage every 6 months. We'll go with that, but that's probably quite a bit more coverage for a nicer car than someone on minimum wage...so, 66$ per month.

I think right now we're at 405 a month, if the math I did in my head is correct. That gives us about a thousand (or 250 a week) to play with, before Uncle Sam the dickface, food, and miscellaneous get involved. I'm sure I missed something, but I can't think of it right now. All this is for naught, as I could cut costs even more if I was minimum wage. For instance, the production plant is close to alot of lower range apartments that are 350 for two rooms. Because they're pretty close, it would be easy to trade in the car for a moped which would be easier on gas and obviously the needless insurance. If I were a healthy young adult, probably go for the thousand dollar deductible and pay 6 dollars a check, or 24 dollars a month.

Well, we finally know who our senator will be for Washington - Patty Murray, returning for her, I think, fourth term. With this result I'm hoping that Dino Rossi goes away. I'm tired of voting against him - it's been three times now. Since eastern Washington likes him so much, I think he should run for something like mayor of Spokane.

Meanwhile, almost all of our congressional incumbants won, Democrat and Republican.

I'm curious what the voter turnout results were everywhere? In King County (Seattle and suburbs), they were expecting 68% of absentee ballots to be returned (our state is all-absentee now), but they're still counting the ballots and we're at 71% return rate already.

Our state voted down an income tax (though 35% voted for it and I think the issue will continue to come up), voted down an increase to our sales tax, and voted DOWN two initiatives that would have closed state liquor stores and permitted booze to be sold in every grocery, drug and convenience store. Sometimes my state surprises me! We legalized medical marijuana years ago and permit Joe Neighbor with a permit to grow it at home, but we want ONLY the state to sell booze.

Wow, where do you live? You *might* be able to find a studio in a bad part of town or in the hick part of my state for that. But my new husband and I live (for now) in a 2-bedroom apartment - spacious and updated interior, but building from the 1980s - in the suburbs of Seattle and pay $1,245 per month just for rent. And that's actually a really good deal around here considering our place is about 1,100 square feet.

THIS.

In the Fort Smith area, which is the 2nd biggest city in the state.

I'm actually about to downgrade to a one bedroom for about 360 a month. I haven't figured out what to do with a whole extra bedroom. This complex has a pool, weight room, and lounge as well.

You forgot about the two kids. You're talking about a very young person, I'm talking about someone with a Master's or PhD who has worked for 25 years and has been laid off and now can't find a job for more than $9/hr. But it's their fault, because they were irresponsible. For a healthy young adult, you can live on practically nothing, I will agree but for how long?

The cost of living in Arkansas is among the lowest in the country. The year I bought my 1300 sq ft ranch fixer upper with no garage, on a small subdivision lot for $137,000 in one of the lower priced areas that is still safe, my brother bought a 2500 sq ft.newly remodeled colonial on 10 acres, lakefront with 5 camping/RV hookups that he could rent out if he chose for $110,000. My house on the east side or west side of the metro Detroit area would have been about $240K back then. With taxes and insurance, when I purchased my house, my house payment was $1500/month. Taxes and insurance alone are now $275/month. The LOWEST cost apartments, which are government subsidized, are $575 a month for a one bedroom, $900 for a three bedroom. Thankfully, interest rates have dropped so my mortgage is now only $950 a month.

Car insurance in Arkansas is clearly much cheaper too. My daughter's car has minimum coverage and if it was the only car in the family would be $728 every 6 months. More than $100 a month just for that and that's no car payment. The majority of jobs in this area are in the inner city with no livable housing nearby and no mass transportation. You have to have a car. Mopeds in 10 degree weather with 2 feet of snow are not an option either.

My heat/electric bill is $202 a month on the budget plan (equal payments throughout the year to avoid having a $400 bill in January and February and a $50 bill in April when no heat or A/C is needed). Water bill is $50 a month and I never water my lawn.

My health insurance is $75 per pay period plus deductibles and co-pays. Monthly prescriptions for my family = $200/month when I purchase them at the pharmacy in my building, which gives us a 40% discount on co-pays. 3 ER visits this year for my daughter= $375. Her MRI= $125. In the last month alone she's been to her doctor and two specialists at a total of $125 in co-pays.

Gas for me to get to work is $45 a week. I work 25 miles from my home because I don't want to live in a slum. My car payment is $245 a month and I put half down on one of the lower priced cars out there. Because I'm still paying on it, I have to pay for full coverage so I pay $1000 every 6 months.

I've blown your $9/hr budget just with my mortgage and utilities. I didn't include cable, internet or phone because I recognize that those are luxuries. Someone making $9/hr would never save enough to put half down on a car.

I know your answer is "move". The whole country can't live in Arkansas because there aren't enough jobs there. If we all moved to Arkansas, housing prices would skyrocket because demand would be so high.

You are living in a bubble.

I do agree on that point and I'm actually not as liberal fiscally as I sound in this thread. I'm not a "give everybody welfare" person.. I believe in a workfare type of system. I believe that affordable day care needs to be available. I understand that sometimes things happen to people who are very educated and previously made very good money that devastates them financially, be it a medical problem that prevents them from working or a layoff in a depressed economy. The number of factors that led to last year's bankruptcies for Chrysler and GM is huge. It became "the perfect storm" for the auto industry and there is no one person to blame.

Two kids are irrelevant.

If you're throwing in cost factors that have to do with irresponsibility, you mind as well throw in someone who racked up thousands of dollars of debt too in your little idea.

Not really.

I'm talking about a single person. The costs would be the same for any single person except for perhaps 50 to a hundred more in healthcare a month.

And you are living in a shitty state.

I'm not denying anything about other states. Costs are higher, I'm sure. But I showed how it 9$ can be done in Arkansas which was the state I was referring to when saying that 9$ can be easy to live on. That might not be the same elsewhere, but my experience shows that the government is usually the one who removes the cheap living from others.

For example zoning regulations in Cleveland, driving up the cost of rent/price of doing business. In places where the government is removed from daily life, you'll usually see cheaper rents and a greater ability to live on 9$ an hour. This is where the argument comes full circle. I want to remove the things that your leaders have put into place which unintentionally hurt the poor consistently. You seek to keep them in place. The Michigan government has consistently voted towards economic statism which generally makes it quite difficult to help the poor. Your government has made it impossible to live. Not industries offering 9$ an hour. Your government.

Most roofers in this day and age are getting picked up out on the corner in front of the local Home Depot.

My point is, is that when union wages are so high that a business owner has to hire illegal workers to stay competitive in the marketplace, which is what is happening nationwide, those union wages don't mean squat, and in fact are hurting roofers who would rather hire Americans at a fair market rate and American non union manual laborers. See one example in excerpt of article below:

Now, who's this helping? I guess the few lucky union members who get the jobs - forget the rest of the Americans who would take the work at the market rate, or the people who would benefit from the project.

Exactly...


See my earlier post (2 pages ago) where I linked table of actual union wages, that is not anecdotal.

I agree the assumptions are unnecessary. However, saying "people can just join the union" or "people can just learn the over-valued trade" isn't logical at all - there are reasonable (and startlingly low) limits to the ability to do this (which is the crux of my argument, and the part that's missing above).

Past a certain point, there isn't any more painting to be done. Yet those painting dollars have still drained the available cash (which is also finite, although admittedly in a much more complex fashion).

And I was never really saying that either. Although I do think that if people are so jealous of *trade* then they should actually go into it. The reason they're not going into it is probably why the pay rate is so high. Plumbers for example.

Of course. However, as I said, it comes down to the data rather than the assumptions we're making.

Who's jealous of a trade? We are just saying it's ridiculous that Bob the HS dropout makes more painting cars than some of us that are teachers or social workers, etc.

Some of us believe that a lot of the unions have outlived their purpose and are just too greedy (See UAW).

And you telling someone to "Just get a union job than" is no different than me telling a poor working class person to "Go find a better job".

So you want produced hard data to disprove the null re: microecon theory?

I mean . . .

Is it ridiculous if Bob the HS dropout does a better job than you could? You don't have to hire Bob the HS dropout to be your plumber if you don't want to. Generally you're hiring Bob because you think he's experienced enough to do the job right.

I think you think you're arguing against my opinion of unions, which I haven't actually put out here.

It's not "get a union job you lazy bum" it's "if you think that they're paid so much for doing so little why aren't you jumping on that gravy train?" When you say "Bob the HS Dropout" you're pretty much showing your disdain for the person or position despite the fact that most trades are fairly complex and/or have serious drawbacks such as physical labor or dealing with human feces.

It's the same attitude as that of people who talk about welfare queens living high on the hog off TANF, WIC and Food Stamps. They always have some anecdote of someone doing something 'extravagent' or having a nice car on public aid, make assumptions and extrapolate that to the whole. They'd never get rid of all their assets to be poor so they could live off the "government teat" but they talk like that's what the poor people already did.

I don't do econ. All I was doing was pointing out the flaws in the argument of someone who claimed to only care about the logic. The only way to move past the philosophical arguments or opinion-based anecdata is to actually support the argument with data. Until then, it is only an opinion, or even a well reasoned position, but without actual evidence to back it up you're not getting further.