Is The GOP Doomed by Demographics

[Cubsrule]

Agree. This is why I shake my head when the republican have a knee jerk moment. Going after the auto-maker's union members (chance to kill the union) or the Obama the magic negro cd (they don't vote for us anyway so don't worry).

The big problem with the big three was they were willing to give the union just about whatever it wanted when times were good, but the union obviously won't return the favor when times are bad. Blame the union for taking advantage of the situation, blame the big three for not being smart about it.

[WES445]

The big problem with the big three was they were willing to give the union just about whatever it wanted when times were good, but the union obviously won't return the favor when times are bad. Blame the union for taking advantage of the situation, blame the big three for not being smart about it.

You miss my point. Republican are consider dead by union workers, working poor (outside southern white) as well as some middle class families. They have to rebuild their trust with the every day workers.[INDENT]Why don't we start with the top management team first before we mess with the peons money. Let's cut the wages of the top guys who drove their companies into the ground. Don't you think americans are noticing how the big boys are getting all the help while the little guys are losing their home.

[Cubsrule]

You miss my point. Republican are consider dead by union workers, working poor (outside southern white) as well as some middle class families.

My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs. I am not sure that Republicans are dead to Union members being as Mccain somehow garnished 30% of union members vote even though unions made all of their political donations and endorsements to Obama.

They have to rebuild their trust with the every day workers.[INDENT]Why don't we start with the top management team first before we mess with the peons money. Let's cut the wages of the top guys who drove their companies into the ground. Don't you think americans are noticing how the big boys are getting all the help while the little guys are losing their home.

I think everyone agrees that the Ceo of just about every major company that flops should not be paid for bad decisions and the flop of the company. That vision is shared by people by both sides of the aisle. As far as the peons I imagine your talking about union workers. As far as the auto union goes the last reports I saw was them making 65 bucks an hour. I have a hard time defending someone making twice as much as me who might have dropped out of college and possibly even high school. I don't know what the qualifications are so don't quote me on it, but that's pretty rediculous.

[DenButsu]

My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs.

Here's the problem with that argument:

Here's something to ponder over Labor Day weekend: Chief executives last year averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, more than 364 times the pay of the average US worker, according to a new study by two advocacy groups, one of them from Boston.

And the top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers pocketed an average $657.5 million, or 22,255 times the pay of the average worker, claims the study, titled "Executive Excess 2007," which cited estimates by Forbes magazine.

boston.com

I'm not planning on handing any CEOs a tissue for crocodile tears over their labor woes anytime soon.

[Cubsrule]

Here's the problem with that argument:

boston.com

I'm not planning on handing any CEOs a tissue for crocodile tears over their labor woes anytime soon.

You won't get any argument from me on CEO's, I believe in a pay for play type deal. A CEO's salary and perks should be based on production and sales. Should the company go under or file for bankruptcy, the CEO should be the first one hit hard. I am not defending CEO's so I have a hard time seeing how that link comes into play, but ok.

[DenButsu]

You won't get any argument from me on CEO's, I believe in a pay for play type deal. A CEO's salary and perks should be based on production and sales. Should the company go under or file for bankruptcy, the CEO should be the first one hit hard. I am not defending CEO's so I have a hard time seeing how that link comes into play, but ok.

Well it comes into play when companies were (until recently) generally making record profits and their CEOs were making record salaries at increased CEO-worker pay gaps - and then they'd still rail against, say, a law to increase the minimum wage to an actual livable wage. It goes beyond hypocrisy to just... disgusting. More simply put: When they said that they "couldn't afford" to hire more workers if they paid them better wages, they were lying.

[Cubsrule]

Well it comes into play when companies were (until recently) generally making record profits and their CEOs were making record salaries at increased CEO-worker pay gaps - and then they'd still rail against, say, a law to increase the minimum wage to an actual livable wage.

Well if the CEO was responsible for the profits then you can't deny them that salary cause technically they earned it, the sad thing is the companies did nothing but give them big buyouts when the company was going under, that's something that needs to be changed. As far as CEO worker pay gaps, it really depends on who you're talking about. I know the big automakers were more than willing to meet union demands when times for the company we're good.

As far as minimum wage that's really a debateable issue as of right now it's $6.55 and will move to $7.25 in 2009. Most companies, at least where I live other than convenient stores, all start at about 8-10 dollars an hour and the last time I read about it roughly 13 million americans make no more than minimum wage. So you're talking about roughly 10% of the work force. But a lot of these people likely make tips and one of my economic teachers whose, daughter made minimum wage, was against a raise because a lot of her income was from her tips and a likely increase an minimum wage meant in increase of taxes on her tips.

It goes beyond hypocrisy to just... disgusting. More simply put: When they said that they "couldn't afford" to hire more workers if they paid them better wages, they were lying.

I would like to know some of the companies because other than maybe Wal-mart I really can't think of any. Who particularly comes to mind?

[DenButsu]

Who particularly comes to mind?

Every company whose CEO didn't take a pay cut in order to be able to pay their workers. There's a lot of them.

[Cubsrule]

Every company whose CEO didn't take a pay cut in order to be able to pay their workers. There's a lot of them.

Technically it doesn't do too much good when you're talking millions of dollars in raises. I forget which one of the three automakers I heard but they were making huge cutbacks like the CEO taking a dollar salary and moving from mechanical pencils to #2 pencils which in turn is saving them millions of dollars, but it's miniscule when you're talking billions of dollars in debt. Taking a dollar salary might be a nice gesture but they still have huge bonuses that they can live on from the company and it won't make him or her hurt financially.

[ari1013]

My biggest problem with the union is that it drives up the cost of labor and thus results in fewer jobs. I am not sure that Republicans are dead to Union members being as Mccain somehow garnished 30% of union members vote even though unions made all of their political donations and endorsements to Obama.



I think everyone agrees that the Ceo of just about every major company that flops should not be paid for bad decisions and the flop of the company. That vision is shared by people by both sides of the aisle. As far as the peons I imagine your talking about union workers. As far as the auto union goes the last reports I saw was them making 65 bucks an hour. I have a hard time defending someone making twice as much as me who might have dropped out of college and possibly even high school. I don't know what the qualifications are so don't quote me on it, but that's pretty rediculous.

Union wages are not $65/hour.

The companies made piss poor decisions with regard to health care and thus their labor costs are that high -- because that includes the cost of providing 100% health care to retirees.

[Cubsrule]

Union wages are not $65/hour.

The companies made piss poor decisions with regard to health care and thus their labor costs are that high -- because that includes the cost of providing 100% health care to retirees.

So roughly it's at about 70 dollars an hour after factoring in all retiree benefits and current benefits. Like I said, blame the big three for giving the union what they wanted, blame the union for taking advantage of the situation.

[cabernetluver]

NO NO NO

UAW workers do not make anywhere near $70 per hour. It is a myth. It is not that much per hour in wages. That figure is derived by taking all commitments to retirees and current workers. It is not even close to what a current worker is making per hour including all obligations to that current union worker. It is a fraudulent statement to say that is what they are getting paid.

According to CNNMoney.com

Reality check: Hourly wages for comparable work at General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Toyota are nearly identical. According to various reports, each company pays experienced auto workers about $30 an hour.

The $70 per hour number is a number that has been presented primarily by anti union bloggers and right -wingnuts. I have never seen that number presented by any source that could reasonable be considered unbiased.

[Cubsrule]

NO NO NO

UAW workers do not make anywhere near $70 per hour. It is a myth. It is not that much per hour in wages. That figure is derived by taking all commitments to retirees and current workers. It is not even close to what a current worker is making per hour including all obligations to that current union worker. It is a fraudulent statement to say that is what they are getting paid.

According to CNNMoney.com



The $70 per hour number is a number that has been presented primarily by anti union bloggers and right -wingnuts. I have never seen that number presented by any source that could reasonable be considered unbiased.

It does cost the company about 70 dollars an hour per union member, as I said.

So roughly it's at about 70 dollars an hour after factoring in all retiree benefits and current benefits.

[cabernetluver]

But that is not the same as saying they are making $70 per hour, and when you bring up that figure out of context, you are giving a false impression. In fact, if I used your statement as to what they get paid, and you assumed they got zero dollars per hour in their paychecks, and got no benefits, you would say they are getting $40 per hour. Gee, a zero dollar paycheck and getting $40 per hour. It is on its face a false statement to say they are getting paid $70 per hour, when what you are really saying is the labor costs including all legacy costs are $70 per hour.

Now the funny thing about that logic, is, if they had fewer workers because of increased productivity, that number would be even higher. On the other hand if there were more workers, because of more demand or lower productivity the number would be lower.

The UAW did not put out the Hummer, or the Aztec, or the Pacer, or any of the failed ideas. Since in fact the current pay as documented in the CNNMoney.com article is right on par with the Toyota plant, it is not the UAW pay that is the problem at all. It is simply bad management.

However, this is not a thread about the automakers or the members of the unions, but instead is about the demographic trends looking bad for the GOP.

It seems to me that the attack on the autoworkers is indicative of the problems of the GOP. If you want someone to be your friend, do you attack them, or, do you try to at least couch things in the most inviting way for these people.

The funny thing is that this is the exact group that was McCain’s best group in the article. There is nothing like attacking your best direction to build from to make your day. I will grant that this is a shrinking group, that being as described non college white voters, a growth group, but the GOP did not do well among the other groups.

Who exactly do you think is going to join your party by attacking the culturally conservative union members and doing it with facts that they know, better than anyone, are actually false statements.

Here is a thought exercise, imagine you are an autoworker, you certainly know how much you make per hour. Now you read about GOP’ers attacking you and saying you are making more the double what you are really making (remember, you have a pay stub, so you know how much you are getting, plus you hear from your union about the value of your benefits) and are looking around saying to yourself, do I vote for those people who are lying about me or do I vote for those who are trying to help me keep my job?

Same thing if you are a Hispanic and all you hear is anti Hispanic rhetoric. Who do you vote for? People who say disparaging things about you or people who you perceive are trying to help you help yourself?

This is an insane way to run a party. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the right has some good ideas. I don’t in any way think the left is always correct. I am more than willing to take good ideas wherever I can find them, however, I would be less willing to listen if I felt I was being attacked.

[Cubsrule]

But that is not the same as saying they are making $70 per hour, and when you bring up that figure out of context, you are giving a false impression. In fact, if I used your statement as to what they get paid, and you assumed they got zero dollars per hour in their paychecks, and got no benefits, you would say they are getting $40 per hour. Gee, a zero dollar paycheck and getting $40 per hour. It is on its face a false statement to say they are getting paid $70 per hour, when what you are really saying is the labor costs including all legacy costs are $70 per hour.

I realize someone could get confused thus why I said after benefits to current and retired union workers, or as you call them legacy costs.

Now the funny thing about that logic, is, if they had fewer workers because of increased productivity, that number would be even higher. On the other hand if there were more workers, because of more demand or lower productivity the number would be lower.

Thus they would be forced to function like any other company, instead of being forced to pay workers that are of no use.

The UAW did not put out the Hummer, or the Aztec, or the Pacer, or any of the failed ideas. Since in fact the current pay as documented in the CNNMoney.com article is right on par with the Toyota plant, it is not the UAW pay that is the problem at all. It is simply bad management.

Bad management is part of it, as is the union, considering GM was losing roughly 1,200 dollars per car because of all the money it had to pay out for UAW's members.

However, this is not a thread about the automakers or the members of the unions, but instead is about the demographic trends looking bad for the GOP.

Then tell your fellow democrats to quit bringing it up.

It seems to me that the attack on the autoworkers is indicative of the problems of the GOP. If you want someone to be your friend, do you attack them, or, do you try to at least couch things in the most inviting way for these people.

Of course you would like to negotiate and make it inviting, but the UAW will likely be very reluctant to give up anything to make the situation work. I think union members are good loving people, but the people who run them are no better than greedy CEO's in my opinion.

The funny thing is that this is the exact group that was McCain’s best group in the article. There is nothing like attacking your best direction to build from to make your day. I will grant that this is a shrinking group, that being as described non college white voters, a growth group, but the GOP did not do well among the other groups.

Of course he didn't, I am still in shock that Obama didn't win by more after McCain's crappy campaign management. Still, 2012 is 4 years away, more than enough time for Republicans to reach out.

Who exactly do you think is going to join your party by attacking the culturally conservative union members and doing it with facts that they know, better than anyone, are actually false statements.

I worked for a union while being a conservative, Teamsters Local 691 here in Vegas. I have no problem with union members themselves, moreover the corrupt people who run it.

Here is a thought exercise, imagine you are an autoworker, you certainly know how much you make per hour. Now you read about GOP’ers attacking you and saying you are making more the double what you are really making (remember, you have a pay stub, so you know how much you are getting, plus you hear from your union about the value of your benefits) and are looking around saying to yourself, do I vote for those people who are lying about me or do I vote for those who are trying to help me keep my job?

I really haven't heard any prominent Republicans talking about them making 70 dollars an hour as a wage, then again I haven't heard anything about it for awhile so who said it?

Same thing if you are a Hispanic and all you hear is anti Hispanic rhetoric. Who do you vote for? People who say disparaging things about you or people who you perceive are trying to help you help yourself?

I don't think Republicans have anything against hispanics, so that's really false logic.

This is an insane way to run a party. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the right has some good ideas. I don’t in any way think the left is always correct. I am more than willing to take good ideas wherever I can find them, however, I would be less willing to listen if I felt I was being attacked.

Some may take it as an attack. But most of what I read into the situation was reality. Guys like Romney said them declaring bankruptcy to reorganize might be the best solution instead of throwing taxpayer money at the problem in hopes of it getting better.