Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

10 Jun 2011, 11:37 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
The right wing nuts are going to cringe about this.

Why would this piss me off? Corporatism creates wealth gaps, not free trade.

Also, did you happen to notice that countries like Mauritania have a higher rate of equality than America? Taking this into consideration, do you believe equality is a good measurement to use with regard to standards of living? Or do you believe in the old leftist mantra: "It doesn't matter how poor everyone is, as long as we close that damn wealth gap!"



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

10 Jun 2011, 11:47 pm

mcg wrote:
They are simply offering American people additional options. Additional options are never a bad thing, even though you personally may find them repulsive. Most people would prefer a lower paying job to none at all.


but the companies listed aren't low-wage companies.

The automotive ones with its bonuses and benefits land it easily within or over 50 dollars an hour depending on position and experience. These are jobs that provide upward mobility and sustain a middle-class to upper-middle class lifestyle. The average Unionized Ford employee makes 58 dollars an hour. If Ford did away with profit-share, it would be down to 56.

The fact that THEY ARE NON-UNION is the issue here. Forget that they put people to work in high-paying jobs. Forget that they empower existing OEM networks and helps create an export hub that diversifies our economy and brings manufacturing back to America. There may be truth to the article, but to claim that the examples it gives Slum-ify America is untrue. But noting that this is the LA Times, the ends justify the means.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.