On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:00:07 -0400, LG wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:02:17 -0400, wrote:



and not being willing to budge.

The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.

also wrong.

Their unions aren't corrupt.

our corporations are. unions didn't destroy our economy. wall street
did

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:15:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Go to any store, pick up just about anything and see where it came
from.

So, you want us to compete to make plastic toys? Well, actually, what
gets
produced here doesn't usually have a lead problem.

Have you looked at anything other than plastic toys?
Look at things like tools, electronics or clothes. How many are US
made?
We send them scrap iron, they send us socket wrenches.

And, I pointed out that we also export lots of stuff. Your point? We used
to
be afraid of Japan. Now, we're "afraid" of China. I prefer not to be
"afraid."


We were afraid of Japan but we could compete with them. Their products
were more expensive than ours and their people made a good wage. We
don't have that with China.

And they were buying up property and companies in the US.

Your list of things we export also showed 8 of the 10 were in decline.
The trend went from virtually balanced trade between us an china in
1985 to a ratio of 4 times as much of our money going to China than
they buy back from us.

Yet, they're making money. Why would they want that to end? So they can
dominate the world I suppose.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:23:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:33:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:59:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:40 -0400, wrote:




You really can't blame the unions for screwed up, exploitive management
practices that caused the unions to be formed in the first place.


The question is what caused them to decline. You can blame it on
management but managers answer to stock holders, not unions.

Management has a judiciary obligation to stockholders to look at the
long-term view, even though stockholders might not appreciate that quarter
to quarter.


That was the complaint that I started hearing in the late 80s and
early 90s. Corporations were losing their long term vision and running
ther whole operation on a 90 day window.

In the late 80s and beyond we rated the economy based on how the stock
market was doing, not how the workers were doing. We still rate the
economy on how the major stock indexes are doing.

Ok. Not sure what that has to do with the Fed, the decline of unions, or
anything else, but ok.

It all has to do with the loss of equity in the US and the fed tries
to prop that up by printing money.

Except that the Fed hasn't been printing money (more than usual). Inflation
is not an issue.

Bob dances around it but that was particularly true during the Clinton
administration. The decline of his middle class went into high gear
during that time. That was when major corporations started shedding
their senior employees in massive downsizing actions, just to pump up
stock prices. That was where his "prosperity" came from.

Please define the "middle class."

That is an ongoing question here but I will use Bob's definition for
this discussion.
People with air conditioned jobs.

?? Bectel maybe? They're considered a small business by the Republicans,
apparently.

Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define "public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:00:07 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:02:17 -0400, wrote:



and not being willing to budge.


The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.


also wrong.


Their unions aren't corrupt.

our corporations are. unions didn't destroy our economy. wall street
did

Wall street is a street in NYC. Can you try to be more specific in your
silly rants?

In article ,
says...

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:00:07 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:02:17 -0400, wrote:



and not being willing to budge.


The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.


also wrong.


Their unions aren't corrupt.

our corporations are. unions didn't destroy our economy. wall street
did

Wall street is a street in NYC. Can you try to be more specific in your
silly rants?

Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group... The union is bought and paid for by the Company
to keep the workers "content" and in the dark, that's why so much
violence surrounded the teamsters Business agents during the time when
they were selling us to the SureFine Sugar corp

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...

Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the *sweating
members of the group*... The union is bought and paid for by the Company
to keep the workers "content" and in the dark, that's why so much
violence surrounded the teamsters Business agents during the time when
they were selling us to the SureFine Sugar corp


"sweating members of the group"???
I hope you don't include yourself in that designation.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:37:17 -0400, LG wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:00:07 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:02:17 -0400, wrote:



and not being willing to budge.


The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.


also wrong.


Their unions aren't corrupt.

our corporations are. unions didn't destroy our economy. wall street
did

Wall street is a street in NYC. Can you try to be more specific in your
silly rants?

you're so uneducated you dont know what 'wall street' is?

no wonder you're conservative

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote:


Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define
"public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?


Certainly USPS is in the public sector, as are teachers, firemen and
policemen (along with the huge bureaucracy that they drag around
behind them).

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?

On Oct 3, 2:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...