2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[Drolefille]

^^ Yeah, it's looking like Kirk and Quinn right now but both are within the range of changing. Although Kirk is less likely to lose at this point w/o a recount.

[AGDee]

EW: You and I are philosophically on completely different ends of the spectrum so this debate is fruitless. Your life experiences and my life experiences are so completely opposite that our basic belief systems will never reach congruence. The statements you make are not in any way consistent with what I have experienced or what I see. Unions elevated the poor into the middle to upper middle class and increased salaries in every sector as a result because other industries/sectors had to compete.

If government is supposed to do nothing, then why do they exist? I don't want to pay all those legislators to do nothing or to maintain the status quo because, quite frankly, the status quo sucks.

Neither branch is more powerful. Both need to be on the same page to get anything done.

ETA: On the plus side, Dingell is now at 50% of the vote so he has a chance still.

ETA (again!): Dingell is ahead 53-47.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Unions elevated the poor into the middle to upper middle class and increased salaries in every sector as a result because other industries/sectors had to compete.

The unions intentionally price out the poor from gaining jobs.

Walter E. Williams explains:

Labor unions are the major supporters of increases in the minimum wage. Even though the overwhelming majority of their members earn multiples of the minimum wage, they spend millions upon millions lobbying for minimum wage increases. They do it because higher minimum wages protect their members from competition with low-skill, low-wage workers. Most other minimum wage supporters are decent people with a concern for low-wage workers, but their actions suffer from a misguided vision of how the world operates.

Unions also used these same methods to keep lower-wage oppressed minorities away from working in Apartheid South Africa and the United States. The unions have very little concern for the poor. Their only concern is with maintaining jobs. The problem is that because they inflate their compensations so greatly they end up financially endangering the very business that provides them with jobs (see Michigan's situation). Then, they no longer have their jobs nor do the poor.

If government is supposed to do nothing, then why do they exist?

To maintain order. (well, that's why they were created. I'm not sure that actually happens but to be fair I border on anarchism)

Once it got past that, it failed.

I don't want to pay all those legislators to do nothing or to maintain the status quo because, quite frankly, the status quo sucks.

The status quo was created because of those legislators.

Neither branch is more powerful. Both need to be on the same page to get anything done.

You did graduate high school, right?

Congress ultimately holds the most power of the branches. Some may argue the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that argument holds water.The least Constitutionally powerful is certainly the President. Guess which party has dominated Congress during this horrific downturn?

[Drolefille]

EW, your opinion and interpretation is not everyone's interpretation.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

EW, your opinion and interpretation is not everyone's interpretation.

Can you point out where I said that?

Again, I'm not terribly interested in Republican/Democrat.

I am interested in the logic, which has so far been a failure.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Can you point out where I said that?

Again, I'm not terribly interested in Republican/Democrat.

I am interested in the logic, which has so far been a failure.

When you make claims like "The unions intentionally price the poor out of work" you're the one failing at logic.

You can argue that this is a side effect, but the goal of unions is to ensure that their workers, many of whom are poor themselves, get paid a liveable wage and are treated fairly.

You might not think they live up to that, and you may find that the negatives outweigh the positives, but they do not intentionally keep poor people from working.

You cannot claim the logical high ground and commit such egregious errors.

Nor accuse someone of failing to graduate high school for not considering one branch to be more powerful than another when in fact what high school teaches is that all are checks and balances on each other. And that is true, YMMV on how that power is used.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

When you make claims like "The unions intentionally price the poor out of work" you're the one failing at logic.

You can argue that this is a side effect, but the goal of unions is to ensure that their workers, many of whom are poor themselves, get paid a liveable wage and are treated fairly.

Yes, it's okay that you think that.

But that has nothing to do with logical errors.

You might not think they live up to that, and you may find that the negatives outweigh the positives, but they do not intentionally keep poor people from working.

Yes, it's okay that you think that.

But there are still no logical errors.

Nor accuse someone of failing to graduate high school for not considering one branch to be more powerful than another when in fact what high school teaches is that all are checks and balances on each other. And that is true, YMMV on how that power is used.

High school teaches that the checks and balances are not equal. More properly said, "checks and imbalances". This is simple American Government teaching.

[srmom]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

When you make claims like "The unions intentionally price the poor out of work" you're the one failing at logic.

You can argue that this is a side effect, but the goal of unions is to ensure that their workers, many of whom are poor themselves, get paid a liveable wage and are treated fairly.

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

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!".

[carnation]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

What she said!

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

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".

[Drolefille]

Ascribing a motive to the perceived negative side effect is a logical error. (By misrepresenting the union's position you've created a strawman, you've also appealed to motive rather than addressed the issue.) As is insulting the person rather than addressing the argument. (Appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, etc.)

And no, high school doesn't necessarily teach that. Nor does one have to agree that the checks and balances are unequal, or that power is imbalanced. Power is wielded by the different branches in different manners and in a way that's not easily measured if you look beyond the basics. Different founding fathers wanted different amounts of power in the hands of each branch.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ascribing a motive to the perceived negative side effect is a logical error.

No, I'm ascribing a motive to something the unions have done and expressly do intentionally.(such as in South Africa, where many of their motives were expressed specifically to keep lower income blacks out of the workplace)

And no, high school doesn't necessarily teach that.

If your high school spent any time discussing the Constitution, it did.

Nor does one have to agree that the checks and balances are unequal, or that power is imbalanced.

Agreed.

But the person who would argue as such has deficient reading abilities. The Constitution isn't a terribly difficult read.

Power is wielded by the different branches in different manners and in a way that's not easily measured if you look beyond the basics.

Irrelevant.

Different founding fathers wanted different amounts of power in the hands of each branch.

Irrelevant.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

No, I'm ascribing a motive to something the unions have done and expressly do intentionally.(such as in South Africa, where many of their motives were expressed specifically to keep lower income blacks out of the workplace)

Logical fallacy.

But the person who would argue as such has deficient reading abilities. The Constitution isn't a terribly difficult read.

Logical fallacy.

[MysticCat]

I voted early -- took 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, the GOP will control the North Carolina Senate for the first time since 1868 (when they joined with the Populists to control that chamber). It will be the second time since Reconstruction that Republicans will control the North Carolina House of Representatives. The first was in 1994, with the "Republican Revolution," but the Democrats won it back in 1996.