Corporations owning our Goverment in full force! - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

raymr · #16 08-04-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Since unionized industries in countries like Germany, Sweden and Italy are resulting in industries that are beating our brains out, tell me how that's a bad thing? The decline of unions in the US seems to be mirroring the decline of the US middle class, and the decline of our international economic fortunes. IMO, this is because when unions are weak, wealth gets concentrated among the top 1%, something else we know is true, and they are just as likely to spend it on building factories or outsourcing jobs to China. Unions are a means of distributing more of the profits of a corporation among it's employees, who can then have a decent middle class life, and who spend the money here in the US, where it helps the US economy. The Europeans have learned that. We haven't.

I also find it an apples-to-oranges thing. Corporations are doing this because a right-wing majority of rich white guys and their one uncle tom have been slowly granting corporations the status of "personhood". I have yet to see this novel, and IMO, fascist, idea apply to unions, which are simply organizations of voters.

I agree that there needs to be some sort of balance. Without any kind of labor representation there will be a slow return to a serfdom where only the fortunate and entitled few call all the shots. And we are seeing that in play now. Some wages are being pushed below $10/hour. Combine that with across the board reductions or elimination of benefits, and you really can't live on that.

You don't want the working poor making up the majority of the population. They will only increasingly call on the government for help with their plight.

cmbdiesel · #17 08-04-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I agree that there needs to be some sort of balance. Without any kind of labor representation there will be a slow return to a serfdom where only the fortunate and entitled few call all the shots. And we are seeing that in play now. Some wages are being pushed below $10/hour. Combine that with across the board reductions or elimination of benefits, and you really can't live on that.

You don't want the working poor making up the majority of the population. They will only increasingly call on the government for help with their plight.

Or beat their plowshares into swords....

DeliveryValve · #18 08-04-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Besides the blather, what EXACTLY changed? IIRC, the last time it came up, the changes were about whether the corp can give money all the way to the end vs being able to give to a certain date. If that is all the change, what is the difference? Instead of giving you one lump sum, I can spread it out.

Corporations in the past have been restricted in giving money directly to political candidates. In 1990 the McCain-Feingold Act reined in independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. Main issue is for ads that the corporation or union buys on its own to advocate for or against a candidate.

The 1990 law requires corporations and unions to channel their campaign spending through Political Action Committees. These committees accept donations from employees, shareholders and other affiliates for election purposes. This basically ensures shareholders or union members are not forced to support political causes they oppose.

In January, the Supreme Court ruled that publicly-traded corporations have the same First Amendment protections as individuals in the Freedom of Speech. This put severe limitations on Congress’ ability to regulate their spending . Corporate treasury money; including the funds invested by individuals, mutual funds, pension funds and other institutional investors; can be spent on politics without alerting investors either before or after the fact. There are no laws today that requires corporations to disclose to shareholders whether funds are being used to fund politicians or ballot measures, or how the political money is being spent. Shareholders have no opportunity to consent to the political use of corporate funds.

.

#19 08-04-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Well, maybe it's time to level that playing field. Remove the benefit of cheap labor with tariffs and taxes.

That simply will not work, the cost of US labor is already too high. Taxing imports will raise the cost of consumer goods and drive labor costs even higher, making US exports even more difficult to sell. The US is not competitive in the world market for manufactured goods.

raymr · #20 08-04-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That simply will not work, the cost of US labor is already too high. Taxing imports will raise the cost of consumer goods and drive labor costs even higher, making US exports even more difficult to sell. The US is not competitive in the world market for manufactured goods.

Yes it is, especially with increased automation and streamlined production. Otherwise Hyundai, BMW, etc, would be building cars in China and shipping them here. Instead their business plans call for US production.

aklim · #21 08-04-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve

Corporations in the past have been restricted in giving money directly to political candidates. In 1990 the McCain-Feingold Act reined in independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. Main issue is for ads that the corporation or union buys on its own to advocate for or against a candidate.

The 1990 law requires corporations and unions to channel their campaign spending through Political Action Committees. These committees accept donations from employees, shareholders and other affiliates for election purposes. This basically ensures shareholders or union members are not forced to support political causes they oppose.

In January, the Supreme Court ruled that publicly-traded corporations have the same First Amendment protections as individuals in the Freedom of Speech. This put severe limitations on Congress’ ability to regulate their spending . Corporate treasury money; including the funds invested by individuals, mutual funds, pension funds and other institutional investors; can be spent on politics without alerting investors either before or after the fact. There are no laws today that requires corporations to disclose to shareholders whether funds are being used to fund politicians or ballot measures, or how the political money is being spent. Shareholders have no opportunity to consent to the political use of corporate funds.

.

Like doesn't work now but back in Jan,

Edit: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/21/3788215-supreme-courts-key-rulings-on-campaign-finance

The basics of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on campaign finance:
OVERTURNED
_A 63-year-old law, and two of its own decisions, that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries on ads that advocate electing or defeating candidates for president or Congress but are produced independently and not coordinated with the candidate's campaign.
_The prohibition in the McCain-Feingold Act that since 2002 had barred issue-oriented ads paid for by corporations or unions 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
LEFT IN PLACE
_The century-old ban on donations by corporations from their treasuries directly to candidates.
_The ability of corporations, unions or individuals to set up political action committees that can contribute directly to candidates but can only accept voluntary contributions from employees, members and others and cannot use money directly from corporate or union treasuries.
_The McCain-Feingold provision that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

aklim · #22 08-04-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Well, maybe it's time to level that playing field. Remove the benefit of cheap labor with tariffs and taxes.

And what will that accomplish? The rest of the world still won't buy your expensive crummy products when there are cheap crummy products to buy

#23 08-04-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Yes it is, especially with increased automation and streamlined production. Otherwise Hyundai, BMW, etc, would be building cars in China and shipping them here. Instead their business plans call for US production.

There are offsetting tax and transportation expenses for some goods, similar to GM building cars in china for sale there. A general tax on imports is not on the interest of US consumers.

MS Fowler · #24 08-04-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Since unionized industries in countries like Germany, Sweden and Italy are resulting in industries that are beating our brains out, tell me how that's a bad thing? The decline of unions in the US seems to be mirroring the decline of the US middle class, and the decline of our international economic fortunes. IMO, this is because when unions are weak, wealth gets concentrated among the top 1%, something else we know is true, and they are just as likely to spend it on building factories or outsourcing jobs to China. Unions are a means of distributing more of the profits of a corporation among it's employees, who can then have a decent middle class life, and who spend the money here in the US, where it helps the US economy. The Europeans have learned that. We haven't.

I also find it an apples-to-oranges thing. Corporations are doing this because a right-wing majority of rich white guys and their one uncle tom have been slowly granting corporations the status of "personhood". I have yet to see this novel, and IMO, fascist, idea apply to unions, which are simply organizations of voters.

I am of the opinion that you do not understand fascism and use the term simply to mean, " something I don't like".

toomany MBZ · #25 08-04-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I agree that there needs to be some sort of balance. Without any kind of labor representation there will be a slow return to a serfdom where only the fortunate and entitled few call all the shots. And we are seeing that in play now. Some wages are being pushed below $10/hour. Combine that with across the board reductions or elimination of benefits, and you really can't live on that.

You don't want the working poor making up the majority of the population. They will only increasingly call on the government for help with their plight.

Here, here.
When unions first came into being, there was a reason, safety and wages, basically. Typically however, human nature took control and greed set in. Now unions are just as bad as the companies they rallied against.
And yes, wages are dropping, as are benefits, what's to stop any corp. USA from paying half what they did during the union run?
Nothing, they can get away with it and the stock holders are happy.
Recently HP closed a number of US plants and shed workers, one plant I put an application in during February when they were hiring. Wall street went crazy praising HP and increasing the stock price. Yee Ha, the stock went up!
Fine, that's how it works until there aren't enough folks making enough money to invest in those companies because they are struggling to put food on the table.

aklim · #26 08-04-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

Here, here.
When unions first came into being, there was a reason, safety and wages, basically. Typically however, human nature took control and greed set in. Now unions are just as bad as the companies they rallied against.
And yes, wages are dropping, as are benefits, what's to stop any corp. USA from paying half what they did during the union run?
Nothing, they can get away with it and the stock holders are happy.

Right now, we have enough lawyers and regulation departments that I am not sure what function they do besides try to hit for more wages. In which case, the company will decide, at some point to ship it out. While they have done things in the past, the question is "What have you done for me LATELY?".

#27 08-04-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

...what's to stop any corp. USA from paying half what they did during the union run?
Nothing, they can get away with it and the stock holders are happy.

That is exactly what they should be doing if that is the actual market value of the labor. If they are overpaying by 100%, the stockholders should replace the management team.

toomany MBZ · #28 08-04-2010, 01:47 PM

^ That's about right.
Maybe I can become a barber.

JollyRoger · #29 08-04-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I agree that there needs to be some sort of balance. Without any kind of labor representation there will be a slow return to a serfdom where only the fortunate and entitled few call all the shots. And we are seeing that in play now. Some wages are being pushed below $10/hour. Combine that with across the board reductions or elimination of benefits, and you really can't live on that.

You don't want the working poor making up the majority of the population. They will only increasingly call on the government for help with their plight.

I think it can all be seen when I contrast the construction industries in two states I have lived in. In non-union Texas, one person can have a plumber's license, he signs all the papers, and a hundred illegal aliens do all the actual plumbing work, which he moderately supervises. In Massachusetts, the union requires all workers have a journeyman's license, and any "helper's" jobs are strictly defined. In Texas, their rules result in 100 Mexicans living on minimum wage, who use the local ER's for health care at taxpayer expense. In MA, these same hundred jobs are being performed by US citizens at licensed, skilled labor wages. In MA, a high school kid can walk on to a construction site, get a "helper's" job that is the entry to a middle class life. In Texas, he'd be walking into a dead-end job where he'll get to compete with illegals for wages. The difference ? No unions.

#30 08-04-2010, 01:58 PM

As a consumer who may need plumbing work done, I would prefer to live in the non-union state. It is not my responsibility to overpay for unskilled labor to subsidize some high school kid's "entry to the middle class." This kid needs to go learn a marketable skill that is worth more on the open market if he wants to be "middle class."