• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

disneydude said:
If you really have lived in California, then you would know that the decline in all the things that you stated:

the best schools, roads, hospitals, airports, public safety, state parks and beaches, etc...all correlate to the passage of prop 13 which has reduced the amount of money collected by the state to pay for those things over the course of the last 4 decades. I know it is easy to try to say it is all due to "illegals", the reality is that it is related to a number of things, but prop 13 has played a key role in what the state is able to fund.
Click to expand...

I have really lived in California, and I don't know any such thing. Prop. 13 has been spit in the ocean compared to the wreckage caused by illegal immigration from Mexico. And one big reason the problem got so bad was that people with a bad case of white liberal guilt have all along been ready to rush to the SOB's defense, holding out the crying towel for them and shrieking "RACIST!!" at anyone who dared to call a spade a spade.
 
Misterveritis said:
Radical left wing kooks do not understand that one is paid based on one's value to the company. If a radical left wing kook wanted more pay that radical left wing kook would have to learn a skill that has some value. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting view, one that sounds wonderful in theory. In practice, however, it's clear that most companies pay you the least they feel they can get away with while still keeping you as an employee.
 
matchlight said:
I have really lived in California, and I don't know any such thing. Prop. 13 has been spit in the ocean compared to the wreckage caused by illegal immigration from Mexico. And one big reason the problem got so bad was that people with a bad case of white liberal guilt have all along been ready to rush to the SOB's defense, holding out the crying towel for them and shrieking "RACIST!!" at anyone who dared to call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

Thats not even close to reality. If you track the implementation of prop 13 with the decline in state revenue there is a direct correlation....and logically it makes complete sense that when property taxes are capped the state is going to be taking in less and less money which means the state can fund less and less projects. Roads, Schools, beaches, etc...don't operate for free.

I understand why prop 13 passed and I recognize that there were good parts of prop 13 (for instance, it helped elderly people on fixed incomes keep their homes by capping their property taxes)....I get it. The reality is though....programs don't fund themselves and if you are going to cut taxes/cap taxes....then you aren't going to have the same level of services that you enjoyed when more money was coming in. That is just basic common sense.
 
Misterveritis said:
Radical left wing kooks do not understand that one is paid based on one's value to the company. If a radical left wing kook wanted more pay that radical left wing kook would have to learn a skill that has some value. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

That is a rather idealoglic and naive view. Company's rarely pay based on value to the company. More often they pay as little as they can get away with paying. There is a reason why corporations love a hungry and large work pool. The reality that most company's don't appreciate, however, is that workers generally respond to company's who value their work. There is a reason why In N Out burger has a much lower turnover than the average fast food company and why workers at Costco are almost across the board better than employees at Sam's club. The workers at each of those companies are paid higher than their counterparts and so they value their job and want to keep it. The Burger King or Sam's club employee can always find another job paying them the low rate that they are paid.
 
Captain America said:
Many a rightwinger's jobs have been sent to China too. If you are cool with that, you are one of "them."
Click to expand...
Deflect all you want. Radical left kooks do not understand that they are responsible for the amount of value they have to a company. Radical left kooks disengage their failures to offer anything of value from what they believe they should be paid.

I do not know why radical left kooks never learn. I suppose if a radical left kook had any brains he would not be a radical left kook. What do you think?
 
Unrepresented said:
A) My position on the political compass is far from authoritarian. Empowering workers doesn't make you authoritarian.

B) You've posted nothing of substance so far, troll.
Click to expand...

Authoritarian statists might be unteachable. Do you believe the states should compel businesses to have unions? Should states intercede on behalf of unions to tip the scales against businesses? Or should the worthless, parasitic unions be allowed to die?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, facts? What facts does an op ed article post. Not exactly sure what your problem is with TX but the reality is I moved here 22 years ago and it was the best move I have ever made. I have been all over the country and there is no better area to raise a family, educate a family, and participate in great conservative values of personal responsibility than in TX. Sorry you don't agree but doubt you have experienced as much as I have in my 67 years.
Click to expand...

Well, I've experienced more of Texas. I was born here and have lived here for over 59 years.

It is obvious to me that you have no concept as to the role of the govt. and spending more, providing more only creates dependence and that destroys personal responsibility. There is a reason that people are flocking to TX. Maybe one of these days you will figure it out.
Click to expand...

What is "obvious" to you is no concern of mine. Feel free to be wrong, both about Texas and about politics.
 
"Radical left wing kooks do not understand that one is paid based on one's value to the company. If a radical left wing kook wanted more pay that radical left wing kook would have to learn a skill that has some value. Don't you agree?"
Scaybeez said:
That's an interesting view, one that sounds wonderful in theory. In practice, however, it's clear that most companies pay you the least they feel they can get away with while still keeping you as an employee.
Click to expand...
If you are worth more than go somewhere else.

Radical left wing kooks often believe they are worth far more to a business than they actually are worth. I believe it is a mental disorder.
 
"Radical left wing kooks do not understand that one is paid based on one's value to the company. If a radical left wing kook wanted more pay that radical left wing kook would have to learn a skill that has some value. Don't you agree?"
disneydude said:
That is a rather idealoglic and naive view. Company's rarely pay based on value to the company. More often they pay as little as they can get away with paying.
Click to expand...

If you are, in fact, worth more that you are being paid then someone will be willing to pay you based on your value. But you are not worth more. You are worth what you are being paid.

There is a reason why corporations love a hungry and large work pool.
Click to expand...
You are confusing businesses with radical left wing politicians. For them you are worth more when you are both miserable and not too bright. You will vote for the leftists who promise to take from me to give to you.

The reality that most company's don't appreciate, however, is that workers generally respond to company's who value their work. There is a reason why In N Out burger has a much lower turnover than the average fast food company and why workers at Costco are almost across the board better than employees at Sam's club. The workers at each of those companies are paid higher than their counterparts and so they value their job and want to keep it. The Burger King or Sam's club employee can always find another job paying them the low rate that they are paid.
Click to expand...
If you believe you can earn more elsewhere then vote with your feet. The competition for the best workers will work in your favor. If, in fact, you are worth more.
 
Misterveritis said:
If you believe you can earn more elsewhere then vote with your feet. The competition for the best workers will work in your favor. If, in fact, you are worth more.
Click to expand...

That statement only confirms what I said before. As long as corporations are able to influence politics such that there is a large pool of hungry workers that will work for peanuts, they need not pay what an employee is worth. They can pay as little as possible, knowing that there are not a lot of options for the worker to go elsewhere.

This is why free land giveaways by states like Texas, do not benefit the worker or the state. Corporate welfare rarely "trickles down" much beyond the pocketbook of the CEO or shareholder
 
Misterveritis said:
Authoritarian statists might be unteachable. Do you believe the states should compel businesses to have unions? Should states intercede on behalf of unions to tip the scales against businesses? Or should the worthless, parasitic unions be allowed to die?
Click to expand...
If they're worthless, why do you fear them? You can't fear something that is innocuous, so clearly you fear them for what they produce: better paid, safer employees.

Balancing the protection of workers with the interests of business should be a state function. Unions serve that function.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
If you really have lived in California, then you would know that the decline in all the things that you stated:

the best schools, roads, hospitals, airports, public safety, state parks and beaches, etc...all correlate to the passage of prop 13 which has reduced the amount of money collected by the state to pay for those things over the course of the last 4 decades. I know it is easy to try to say it is all due to "illegals", the reality is that it is related to a number of things, but prop 13 has played a key role in what the state is able to fund.
Click to expand...

What a load of BS. California experienced a boom in the 1980s following passage of Prop 13. Income in California grew at a 50% faster pace than the rest of the nation and jobs grew at twice the national rate.

As far as the budgets go, California's budget grew from $55 billion in 1980 to $97 billion in 1992, hardly draconian cuts. California went from the highest taxed state in the Union to slightly above average.

People were being forced out of their homes because they couldn't afford to pay the constantly increasing property taxes in the state. Prop 13 helped people stay in their homes. The people kept the money rather than sending it to Sacramento to waste on boondoggles like high speed rails that will never pay off.
 
Unrepresented said:
If they're worthless, why do you fear them? You can't fear something that is innocuous, do clearly you fear them for what they produce: better paid, safer employees.

Balancing the protection of workers with the interests of business should be a state function. Unions serve that function.
Click to expand...

No, unions serve the purpose of channeling campaign money to those that support them, i.e. liberal dems.
 
Gill said:
No, unions serve the purpose of channeling campaign money to those that support them, i.e. liberal dems.
Click to expand...

Then we agree in campaign finance reform.
 
Unrepresented said:
Then we agree in campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with campaign finance reform, as long as it is uniformly enforced. In the past, unions could give as much as they wanted, corporations could not. That obviously gave Dems a huge advantage.
 
Gill said:
I have no problem with campaign finance reform, as long as it is uniformly enforced. In the past, unions could give as much as they wanted, corporations could not. That obviously gave Dems a huge advantage.
Click to expand...


Yep, thats why the Libs are all bent out if shape over Citizens United.

They lost their monopoly
 
Gill said:
I have no problem with campaign finance reform, as long as it is uniformly enforced. In the past, unions could give as much as they wanted, corporations could not. That obviously gave Dems a huge advantage.
Click to expand...

kochspending.png
 
Gill said:
What a load of BS. California experienced a boom in the 1980s following passage of Prop 13. Income in California grew at a 50% faster pace than the rest of the nation and jobs grew at twice the national rate.

As far as the budgets go, California's budget grew from $55 billion in 1980 to $97 billion in 1992, hardly draconian cuts. California went from the highest taxed state in the Union to slightly above average.

People were being forced out of their homes because they couldn't afford to pay the constantly increasing property taxes in the state. Prop 13 helped people stay in their homes. The people kept the money rather than sending it to Sacramento to waste on boondoggles like high speed rails that will never pay off.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. Job growth has nothing to do with Prop 13. In fact, it was the job growth during the 80's that in large part slowed down the effects of prop 13 because there was more money in the economy. I agree with you in one part...and that is, the goal of prop 13 was certainly noble. There were a lot of people losing their homes because they could not keep up with the increasing property taxes that resulted from the skyrocketing home costs of California. I'm not trying to demonize prop 13 so much as point out that the decrease in revenue is in large part what has lead to a decline in our schools, road, beaches, etc. All those things cost money and they do not fuel themselves. In other words....you cannot have it both ways.
 
Unrepresented said:
kochspending.png
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let me see. Should I believe mainstream, middle of the road news sources like the Wall Street Journal, or a left wing group like Republic Report that is unabashedly pro-Democrat, pro-union???
 
Gill said:
Hmmm, let me see. Should I believe mainstream, middle of the road news sources like the Wall Street Journal, or a left wing group like Republic Report that is unabashedly pro-Democrat, pro-union???
Click to expand...
I find it telling that you consider a Murdock owned newspaper to fall under the umbrella of "middle of the road" while casting aspersions on other sources.
 
Unrepresented said:
I find it telling that you consider a Murdock owned newspaper to fall under the umbrella of "middle of the road" while casting aspersions on other sources.
Click to expand...

I find it telling that you DON'T consider the WSJ middle of the road.

I read through your source and it is so full of lies and holes, it was appalling.
 
Hard Truth said:
"What the union really wanted, according to Kinkisharyo officials, was clearance to organize the plant without any interference from the company."

Workers have a right to organize.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they don't have right to do so without resistance from the company and they don't have the right to chase businesses away if they don't get their way.
 
disneydude said:
That statement only confirms what I said before. As long as corporations are able to influence politics such that there is a large pool of hungry workers that will work for peanuts, they need not pay what an employee is worth. They can pay as little as possible, knowing that there are not a lot of options for the worker to go elsewhere.

This is why free land giveaways by states like Texas, do not benefit the worker or the state. Corporate welfare rarely "trickles down" much beyond the pocketbook of the CEO or shareholder
Click to expand...
This answer tells me that you realize you are already being paid what you are worth.
 
"Authoritarian statists might be unteachable. Do you believe the states should compel businesses to have unions? Should states intercede on behalf of unions to tip the scales against businesses? Or should the worthless, parasitic unions be allowed to die?"
Unrepresented said:
If they're worthless, why do you fear them?
Click to expand...
What gives you the impression that I fear unions?

You can't fear something that is innocuous, so clearly you fear them for what they produce: better paid, safer employees.
Click to expand...
I have few feelings for parasites.

Balancing the protection of workers with the interests of business should be a state function. Unions serve that function.
Click to expand...
See. You are an authoritarian statist. It was obvious from your first post.
 
Unrepresented said:
I realize that scab friendly states undercut fair paying and safe jobs.

I believe workers' rights should be strengthened nationally to prevent other states from allowing the race to the bottom that we've been seeing for decades now as middle class jobs disappear while corporate profits skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. Rather than admitting you support policies that make Atlas shrug and leave your union asses, you want to try to force them and stay and suffer the rest of your bad ideas...

Your lot will NEVER learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom