Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    I realize someone could get confused
    People (ahem) "get confused" because the $70 dollar an hour lie is designed to obfuscate the truth that the workers actually make less, and confuse the people who hear it. It's deliberately misleading.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,311
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    People (ahem) "get confused" because the $70 dollar an hour lie is designed to obfuscate the truth that the workers actually make less, and confuse the people who hear it. It's deliberately misleading.
    Ya think?

    I get irritated by the deliberate obfuscation of the auto workers salary. It is nothing more nor less than a hidden desire by the right wing to destroy unions. It seems they don't even have the courage to take them on in an open manner.

    Bringing this back to the thread, no wonder they are losing party identification at a faster rate than the Democratic Party. The demographics are going to kill them if they don't get their house in order.

    The Republican Party was the first successful third party. I wonder if they are going to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another third party.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Ya think?

    I get irritated by the deliberate obfuscation of the auto workers salary. It is nothing more nor less than a hidden desire by the right wing to destroy unions. It seems they don't even have the courage to take them on in an open manner.

    Bringing this back to the thread, no wonder they are losing party identification at a faster rate than the Democratic Party. The demographics are going to kill them if they don't get their house in order.

    The Republican Party was the first successful third party. I wonder if they are going to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another third party.
    The whole point is that it is costing the big three 72 dollars an hour per worker to pay for everything that they agreed to give the union. And as for the second part, Republicans likely are not going anywhere, so keep dreaming




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    The whole point is that it is costing the big three 72 dollars an hour per worker to pay for everything that they agreed to give the union. And as for the second part, Republicans likely are not going anywhere, so keep dreaming
    No, it is not costing them 72 dollars per hour. Many of those dollars are paid to those workers after they've stopped working at the company. While they are actually working at the company, the amount they make per hour is NOT 72 DOLLARS. That is not their pay. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that it is. It's smoke and mirrors.

    And no, of course the Republican Party is not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean they're not at a crossroads right now with various possible futures, some of which may be much brighter than others. And in what essentially is a two party system, in order to win elections either party needs over 50% of the vote. And if the Republicans don't make moves to broaden their appeal beyond so-called "real America", they are going to be in for a long series of drubbings on election days. I don't think this is even really disputable very much. What is much more an open question is what is the best way to broaden that base? Do they need to undergo a philosophical shift that will make them more inclusive? Do they need to simply return to conservative fiscal policies and social policies? Do they need to do outreach to specific communities? Do they need to abandon or modify any long held traditional Republican platform tenets?

    My take on it is that something has to give. Something within the Republican agenda will need to undergo the same sort of transformation that Clinton took the Democrats through on welfare reform and more sound economic policies. What is that "something"? It could be one or any number of things, but I think it probably is going to need to happen on the more social issue side of things. In a minority white society, the sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge racism of the Magic Negro song strikes me as probably not being the answer, for example.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    No, it is not costing them 72 dollars per hour. Many of those dollars are paid to those workers after they've stopped working at the company. While they are actually working at the company, the amount they make per hour is NOT 72 DOLLARS. That is not their pay. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that it is. It's smoke and mirrors.

    And no, of course the Republican Party is not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean they're not at a crossroads right now with various possible futures, some of which may be much brighter than others. And in what essentially is a two party system, in order to win elections either party needs over 50% of the vote. And if the Republicans don't make moves to broaden their appeal beyond so-called "real America", they are going to be in for a long series of drubbings on election days. I don't think this is even really disputable very much. What is much more an open question is what is the best way to broaden that base? Do they need to undergo a philosophical shift that will make them more inclusive? Do they need to simply return to conservative fiscal policies and social policies? Do they need to do outreach to specific communities? Do they need to abandon or modify any long held traditional Republican platform tenets?

    My take on it is that something has to give. Something within the Republican agenda will need to undergo the same sort of transformation that Clinton took the Democrats through on welfare reform and more sound economic policies. What is that "something"? It could be one or any number of things, but I think it probably is going to need to happen on the more social issue side of things. In a minority white society, the sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge racism of the Magic Negro song strikes me as probably not being the answer, for example.
    http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com/2008/...more-than.html

    And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

    The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive Ė after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.
    The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.
    Thus it is costing them over 70 dollars a worker.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Okay, let me give you this real simple. Say you get hired for a job and they tell you that they'll be paying you $70/hour. So, you do your first two weeks of work (80 hours) and get your first paycheck. But wait a minute, you think, this paycheck is for $3200, not the $5600 I was expecting. So you check back with your boss and he tells you, "Oh, you see, $30 of that $70, we're not actually going to pay that to you, that's part of your retirement benefits."

    Are you really making quote unquote "$70 an hour"? Hell no! Money you "make per hour" is money you can actually put in the bank, use to pay for rent and gas and groceries and bills. I can't even believe I'm wasting time trying to explain this. It's absurd. It's absolutely insane.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Okay, let me give you this real simple. Say you get hired for a job and they tell you that they'll be paying you $70/hour. So, you do your first two weeks of work (80 hours) and get your first paycheck. But wait a minute, you think, this paycheck is for $3200, not the $5600 I was expecting. So you check back with your boss and he tells you, "Oh, you see, $30 of that $70, we're not actually going to pay that to you, that's part of your retirement benefits."

    Are you really making quote unquote "$70 an hour"? Hell no! Money you "make per hour" is money you can actually put in the bank, use to pay for rent and gas and groceries and bills. I can't even believe I'm wasting time trying to explain this. It's absurd. It's absolutely insane.
    Ok that's just a lot of ranting but whatever. So let me make it even simpler, my point is that it is costing the big three over 70 dollars an hour per worker, is that going all to wages, of course not, read what I quoted. My biggest grief is taxpayers should not be on the hook for this, but obviously that didn't happen even though I think in a couple years we'll be right back here again.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    Ok that's just a lot of ranting but whatever.
    Well, I guess one man's "ranting" is another man's "actually making some semblance of sense".

    So let me make it even simpler, my point is that it is costing the big three over 70 dollars an hour per worker
    Simpler yet: NO, IT'S NOT!

    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Well, I guess one man's "ranting" is another man's "actually making some semblance of sense".



    Simpler yet: NO, IT'S NOT!

    Considering I got that number from the New York Times I would like you to elaborate? My point is they are not making that much money, instead they make about 29 an hour for a wage, but after all costs are accrued, that's what the number comes too.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    Considering I got that number from the New York Times I would like you to elaborate? My point is they are not making that much money, instead they make about 29 an hour for a wage, but after all costs are accrued, that's what the number comes too.
    You got the number from the New York Times, who reported on how the auto companies fudged the numbers to arrive at that figure. I'm done with this one.

    If you think saying it's true makes it true, be my guest. But if I get my paycheck, and I've been paid $29 for each hour of work I've done, I'm thinking I'm gonna be saying I make $29 an hour, not $70. But maybe that's just me. Call me crazy. I know it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, what I'm saying.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    You got the number from the New York Times, who reported on how the auto companies fudged the numbers to arrive at that figure. I'm done with this one.

    If you think saying it's true makes it true, be my guest. But if I get my paycheck, and I've been paid $29 for each hour of work I've done, I'm thinking I'm gonna be saying I make $29 an hour, not $70. But maybe that's just me. Call me crazy. I know it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, what I'm saying.
    From Wikipedia

    Dan Ikenson of the Cato Institute argued that "total compensation is the cost of labor to the companies, and for GM it is about $73 per hour and for Toyota about $48. The average cost differential between the Big Three and all the foreign nameplate companies is about $30 per hour. That's huge." His computation includes all labor-related costs (e.g.., wages, healthcare, and pension--for both current workers and retirees.)

    Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times indicated that GM and Chrysler pay $10-20 more per hour than transplants; this was vigorously disputed by David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research.

    A NY Times article states that G.M. workers "are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
    I realize that every member is not making that much money, thats just the number it costs when everything is included. Either way we can just drop it and get back to the topic.
    Last edited by Cubsrule; 01-15-2009 at 04:35 AM.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    wiki quote ftl - sorry

    But yeah, let's drop it.

    But I'm right.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    a cardbroad box under the overpass
    Posts
    3,627
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post

    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.
    Thanks. You saw where I was going with my weak post. Even with my limited education, I know you don't alienate people when you are down. The republicans must connect with a more diverse voter base. Can they change their mindset, so they are able to do it? Do they feel they need to change or wait for people to stop "drinking Obama's Kool-Aid" to regain power? If it is the latter, then they didn't learn a dam thing from their downfall. Lets see if Obama's party benefited from their fall a decade ago, when we drunk Newt's Kool-Aid.
    Last edited by WES445; 01-15-2009 at 09:14 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,311
    vCash
    1500
    Having been a parent of a now 30 year old, I am recognizing some of the behavior from the Republican side on this topic. Just like the child who refuses to deal with issues directly, but instead has a tantrum, the talkers on the GOP side are not facing the issues that the demographics point out. You can scream and yell and hold your breath (all metaphors) but they will not change the trajectory.

    For instance, this thread was about demographics. The first comment was about the 2008 election, and then denial of the information. Ok, we are on a good start; at least it has something to do with demographics, although the response was to deny the fact. It was not addressing why the vote has historically been bad for the GOP in the Hispanic group, but rather the idea that they should be voting for Republicans. Whether they should or should not vote one way or another is not the issue, the issue is that they are not.

    That was followed by a rationalization that the study is wrong. No empirical data to back it up, just more denial. By the way, a self identification of Hispanic is not limited to any number of generations.

    About now we start veering from the question of demographics to autos. I am not quite sure how a simple throwaway line changed the discussion, but it is interesting to note that the next page is filled with auto union questions. Now just for drill, someone want to tell me exactly what that has to do with demographics and the GOP?

    It is during this discussion that I see the holding ones breath till they turn blue form of discussion. Deliberate taking quotes out of context, deliberate misleading statements, everything on earth, but actually facing the demographic fact that the Republicans have some very serious issues looking forward unless they face them, solve them, and move forward. Smug statements about the right way to do things does not change that issue. Not facing that issue does not change that issue.

    Strangely enough, this technique of not dealing with the issues seems to be the m. o. of the talking heads like Rushbo, Hannity the Manatee, Coulterface, etc. If these trends go unchanged, the GOP will fail just like the Whigs who they replaced. Maybe the Libertarians will take their place. I donít know. I do know that just as my son never got his way by having a tantrum, the GOP will not get its way until it faces this demographic trend.

    Now the good news is they can. The good news is that the Democrats did exactly the same thing in 1968. The Democrats are still here, but, they almost failed. The Democrats became a primarily northeastern party. They all but lost almost the entire self identified Caucasian vote outside of the northeast. Time marched on and now they come about even in the self identified Caucasian vote everywhere except the southeast, and dominate in the growing other groups. They did this by facing their problems. Look at Senator Jim Webb. Not exactly a flaming liberal.

    I will be intrigued to see what the real leadership of the GOP does in the upcoming elections. Do they hold fast to those right wing ideals that have put the Republican Party in such bad shape, the one whose roots were in the Nixon 1968 campaign with its Southern Strategy, or, does the leadership start actually trying to win these growing demographic groups. To date, all I have seen from the GOP is an attempt to try and peel some of the votes away from the Democrats, not actually win. Look to Virginia and see that things can change.

    Republicans, the choice is yours, change, or become extinct. Face your problems, or have your tantrums.

    I would suggest you might want to look at BMD, right here, as a model that will allow you to be who you are, but present an actual alternative.

    Now I for one, like having discussions with those I disagree with, when they act like adults. When on the other hand, they have tantrums, deliberately mislead, quote out of context, I have no need to discuss anything with them.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Ezra at TAP has a guest blogger in for him today (I think Ezra's on jury duty).

    Anyhoo -- the guest, Tom Schaller (U of Maryland), just linked into a fascinating article he co-authored concerning voting and voters, LBJ's Great Society, the South, and a new Democratic coalition.

    Really interesting stuff.

    LBJ's Revenge: The 2008 Election and the Rise of the Great Society Coalition

    Philip A. Klinkner, Hamilton College
    Thomas Schaller, University of Maryland, Baltimore County


    Abstract

    Four decades ago, at the height of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Congress passed and the president signed landmark legislation to ensure voting rights, liberalize and expand immigration, and make higher education more accessible. In 2008, a coalition of minorities and upscale whites formed a coalition to elect Barack Obama to the White House. Although many of the Great Society goals remain elusive, the new Democratic majority assembled by Obama represents the emergence of a Great Society electoral coalition.
    PDF

    There are a number of other interesting articles in the current issue of The Forum. Could be beneficial to take a gander.
    Last edited by SmthBluCitrus; 01-16-2009 at 01:45 PM.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •