Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won’t notice
You’re talking about another recession where they can scoop up assets on the cheap and weather the storm while less fortunate people die. We’re talking about dismantling the system that makes that possible.
First of all, a lot of people argue in bad faith online and it’s not worth my time and effort to feed trolls, sealions and shills.
Second, the question without further context implies that only people who know exactly what to replace it with are allowed to advocate the end of a horrendously wrong system.
Second and a halfth, why are you talking me with being more specific when the question was far too vague to even know if that’s what they were asking for? Why demand specificity from me and not them?
Third, in this specific case I’m tired and thus have less energy left to spend on what might be another futile back and forth. If they’re not serious about discussing it in good faith, I’d much rather spend my remaining energy on something fun like Baldurs Gate 3 or something…
It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.
The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.
They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.
Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.
This Fain guy’s rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.
I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn’t asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.
No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they’re making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don’t know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
The problem with the stock market is something we could be debating for hours here (fails to deliver, repacked bonds getting rating upgrades, margin requirements getting waived for big firms, lack of any transparency within the equities swap market, most trades being made off market, 401ks being used for locates in predatory shorting, etc). So I’ll just touch on one thing here before it shoots into something completely morphed from the original discussion.
Even then, do keep in mind, when someone sells a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
I know which is why I specifically stated we bar those bigger investors from pulling out to con the middle class/poor worker thinking they can make it big off some investment advice from a paid wall street mouth piece like Jim Cramer or countless other ‘financial advisors’.
You’re talking about another recession where they can scoop up assets on the cheap and weather the storm while less fortunate people die. We’re talking about dismantling the system that makes that possible.
What does it mean to dismantle the system?
Asking for specifics, unable to grasp obvious concepts or being a sealion?
deleted by creator
Several reasons.
First of all, a lot of people argue in bad faith online and it’s not worth my time and effort to feed trolls, sealions and shills.
Second, the question without further context implies that only people who know exactly what to replace it with are allowed to advocate the end of a horrendously wrong system.
Second and a halfth, why are you talking me with being more specific when the question was far too vague to even know if that’s what they were asking for? Why demand specificity from me and not them?
Third, in this specific case I’m tired and thus have less energy left to spend on what might be another futile back and forth. If they’re not serious about discussing it in good faith, I’d much rather spend my remaining energy on something fun like Baldurs Gate 3 or something…
I dunno about him, but I’m asking for specifics.
It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.
The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.
They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.
Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.
This Fain guy’s rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.
How about if the three auto companies gave up 5% of their profits instead?
I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn’t asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.
No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they’re making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don’t know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
Edit: phrasing of italicized part.
The problem with the stock market is something we could be debating for hours here (fails to deliver, repacked bonds getting rating upgrades, margin requirements getting waived for big firms, lack of any transparency within the equities swap market, most trades being made off market, 401ks being used for locates in predatory shorting, etc). So I’ll just touch on one thing here before it shoots into something completely morphed from the original discussion.
I know which is why I specifically stated we bar those bigger investors from pulling out to con the middle class/poor worker thinking they can make it big off some investment advice from a paid wall street mouth piece like Jim Cramer or countless other ‘financial advisors’.
Ahhh ok, so you really are talking out of your ass.
The workers are not asking for much. Just their fair share
Fuck right off with the ‘low-skill’ shit.
Am I wrong? I was using it as a comparison to jobs that require a similar amount of education and training.
I tried to check and it seemed to be categorized as “unskilled”. Didn’t really seem like a completely fair assessment so I used “low-skill” instead.
What would you call jobs in this category?
We’re done here, bootlicker.