Labour is not a commodity. The market for gold is highly efficient, the market for labor much less so. Much of the value of Gold has nothing to do with its rarity relative to the demand created by its applications in technology and electronics. Gold is a store of wealth and that is where its value comes from. Labour on the other hand is a producer of wealth and for many people the only thing they have to trade for the income that will sustain them.
These differences are so profound that you simply cannot compare labour to a physical commodity.
#1) I mentioned that she’s a teacher because one who teaches life skills should presumably know how to add. Socking away 11% of one’s income and then expecting to retire at the age of 52, while enjoying a 70% of full-salary pension for the rest of one’s life is clearly a RIDICULOUS, UNSUSTAINABLE, PIE-IN-THE-SKY model. Even a third-grader could be made to understand how the math doesn’t work. My friend actually does understand that it doesn’t work. She just can’t accept it. Her reaction to SB5 is to call the governor a heartless bastard when she SHOULD be criticizing her union for promising shit they couldn’t possibly delivery.
#2) Retirement age for many civil servants is 25-30 years of service. That means that many retire in their 50’s. The average life span for an American is ~72, IIRC. Once again, no need to get emotional, just look at the numbers. You sock away 10-15% of your salary for 25 years…and then draw out 70% of your salary for 22 years? Gosh, that money manager had better kick some serious ass and grow the contributions exponentially in order to sustain that model!
By contrast, according to my most recent SS statement, we can expect to receive an amount equal to 15% of our current income if we retire at the age of 67, or 19% if we wait until 70.
Hmm, 19% beginning at the age of 70 vs. 70% beginning at the age of 52. Quite a difference. And even the former is admittedly running out of dough as there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of our SS statement that reads: “Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes in the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.”
#3) The only reason SS worked for so long is because our grandparents made a lot of babies. Now that we’ve quit making so many, we have had to face reality and admit that SS/Medicare is also unsustainable as it’s currently written. That is the major reason why the retirement age has been pushed back again and again. The unions, on the other hand, when faced with the same problem, have chosen to bury their head in the sand and say, “La La La.” Or better yet, “STRIKE!”
#4) The money that I sock away into my personal IRA will, indeed, be taxed when I withdraw it.
#5) Change my lot in life? We sock thousands of dollars away every year so that we can be self-reliant upon retirement instead of relying on the SS system. In fact, we fully expect to be ineligible for SS when we retire because we have been so diligent about saving on our own.
#6) Listen, the organized labor unions can have it one of two ways. They can either see the writing of the wall and renegotiate their contracts to AGGRESSIVELY and PERMANENTLY pare back these back-breaking benefit plans OR they can simply wait for the states to declare bankruptcy. Either way, they can wave goodbye to their kick-ass benefits as they will dissolve in the blink of an eye. Ask my neighbor, the Delta pilot, or a GM worker how much they’re enjoying their kick-ass pensions.
Ah, unions. Pricing Americans right of their own jobs for 40 years!
Well, the other side would argue that just means that if wages dropped to a market clearing price, then everyone who wanted a job at that price level would have a job. All we need is for these highly educated people to keep cutting their income expectations until someone hires them.
Welcome to the Pit, new member orientation is down the hall. It includes such topics as:
1.) Don’t play the sympathy card to a group of people who have no sympathy for you.
2.) Don’t be surprised if a group of strangers on an internet message board aren’t as polite as you’d like them to be.
3.) Rolleyes don’t strengthen your point.
4.) You’re a dick
Look, what you said is 100% true on the upswing. All employers and managers struggle with how to reward and retain staff.
So my question for your dad and his staff: when times are lean, and consumers aren’t spending, do his employees willingly take a pay cut?
They were happy to share in the profits, are they just as happy to share in the losses?
That point won’t seem to sink in to many in this thread. Employees lapped up the milk from 2002-2007, just as they did in the 1920s. Unemployment was low, salaries were high, everyone was happy.
Well, times are tough, and sales are down. Ask your dad how his annual sales figures compare from 2006 to 2009. Then ask if his employees willingly took a pay cut to match.
The auto workers union fought tooth and nail to get every penny they could from Ford/GM/Chrysler, as they should have while profits were high. When those three lost market share, and started running profits, the union held it’s ground, refused to see salary and benefits go down. Ditto for the airline industry.
So the only real recourse is mass layoffs and hiring freezer, then try to get the expensive people with seniority to retire early.
So, what happens then? Are the state negotiators awaiting at the table for the Teacher’s Union people, and then Luigi from the Union saunters in and says:
“Pretty nice state you’ve got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it!”
And yes, part of the market place. Just like when Walmart doesn’t want a union it closes the store. It can choose to open in butt-fuck-nowhere or some other shit-hole.
Again going back to the point that John Mace made that eventually there won’t be a job to negotiate over.
Okay, so let’s agree that unions represent a way to balance the power between management and labour.
Given that laws prevent multiple companies from colluding, why are unions allowed to represent workers at multiple companies? Auto workers and airline workers as two examples.
The various airlines aren’t allowed to ban together and control wages, but the unions/workers are.
Are you just determined to be stupid? Unions don’t control any such thing. It’s completely in the hands of management; if they don’t like the terms of the contract, including the wages, they are free to refrain from signing the contract.
What is it about “mutually agreed to” that you are unable to understand? Is it the big words or is it the ideas behind the big words that you need help with?
It was the part about ‘general strike’ that confused me. You know, when a group of people block access to facilities, shut down operations, sabotage production. Is that what makes someone “free to refrain from signing?”
Blocking access to facilities is illegal and would result in the police arresting and detaining the offenders, so that the employer can continue business activities.
Sabotaging a business is also illegal, and the police would apprehend and arrest any offenders.
Not sure how a union could make a business stop operations as it’s up to management/the employer to determine whether or not he has the personnel to continue business operations. No worker is obligated to work for an employer, you know.
So basically you got nothin’. You have bogeymen: fictions meant to cause fear; nothing more.