The 10 States With the Most Low Wage Jobs (They're all Red States LOL.)

[JayHawk]

Palemale that is all well and good. Try being a temporary employee where you have little "rights" to determine if you are to be retained and then deny the union. Say what ever you like I felt it acutely. One of the primary reasons I am not a union run contractor in ohio and instead I am in the United States Navy. I told them to go fuck themselves and their union as was my right. I was also more effective with less rework than ALL of those who hired with me. They went union I went home. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way. The law is wonderful if you have resources to employ it but if you are 19 and ignorant to your rights then it is just as easy to be steam rolled.

I am not against unions but I feel they should not have dominion over certain companies. It is a bit of a family thing. My father crossed picket lines after returning from Vietnam and being jobless (sound familiar). He had to use some of the skills he learned in Vietnam in those days because the union boys were out for blood. He wanted to feed his two kids and wife. I understand now that unions do good for workers. However it took many years before I got over turette's like outburst whenever a union is mentioned. The thuggery and skirting of the rules that those organizations employ are nothing less than criminal. That does not make corporations the answer either. However compulsory unionization is shit. Period.

 

[palemale]

Palemale that is all well and good. Try being a temporary employee where you have little "rights" to determine if you are to be retained and then deny the union. Say what ever you like I felt it acutely. One of the primary reasons I am not a union run contractor in ohio and instead I am in the United States Navy. I told them to go fuck themselves and their union as was my right. I was also more effective with less rework than ALL of those who hired with me. They went union I went home. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way. The law is wonderful if you have resources to employ it but if you are 19 and ignorant to your rights then it is just as easy to be steam rolled.

I am not against unions but I feel they should not have dominion over certain companies. It is a bit of a family thing. My father crossed picket lines after returning from Vietnam and being jobless (sound familiar). He had to use some of the skills he learned in Vietnam in those days because the union boys were out for blood. He wanted to feed his two kids and wife. I understand now that unions do good for workers. However it took many years before I got over turette's like outburst whenever a union is mentioned. The thuggery and skirting of the rules that those organizations employ are nothing less than criminal. That does not make corporations the answer either. However compulsory unionization is shit. Period.

I don't get your point of your story about being 19 and a temporary worker.

So, your father was a Vietnam vet trying to feed his wife and 2 kids. There may have been some Vietnam vets on the picket line trying to feed their wife and 2 kids, or 3 kids, or 4 kids. It takes a lot more guts to walk a picket line than cross one, particularly when you have mouths to feed at home. The striking workers were justifiably angry at your father because he was taking food out of the mouths of their children.

I'm not sure what skirting of rules you're talking about. There are always people in all organizations that skirt rules. Mostly corporations and companies skirt rules. Sometimes, it results in deaths, like the 25 people killed in a North Carolina fire in a chicken processing plant because the employer locked the fire doors. Hamlet chicken processing plant fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Accidents like that are less likely to happen in unionized plants because the union makes sure safety rules are followed.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Now you are blaming the Republicans for causing RURAL states to be RURAL? Have you then no shame.

Lostlover is talking about poor states, not rural states. In Europe, rural does not equal poor. In Japan, rural does not equal poor. In Australia, rural does not equal poor. Even in Canada, rural does not equal poor. Only in the USA. Oh wait. In western Massachusetts, rural does not equal poor. In northeastern California, rural does not equal poor. In southern Illinois, rural does not equal poor. In Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota... Moreover, Texas and Tennessee aren't rural states. Most of their populations are urban and suburban just like the rest of the USA.

 

[Benvolio]

You are still missing the point that [Lostlover]'s chart does not show poverty as you think it does. Most of the states on the chart also are among those with HIGH EMPLOYMENT and therefore have more people in jobs at all levels.
There is no chart comparing the Democrat states but many have many people out of work, and therefore fewer people in jobs at all levels, including low wage jobs.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually, the participation in the labor force is the lowest since 1981. People Not In Labor Force Soar By 522,000, Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981 | ZeroHedge

But you are actually taunting the Republican states for having more people working.

 

[JayHawk]

I don't get your point of your story about being 19 and a temporary worker.

So, your father was a Vietnam vet trying to feed his wife and 2 kids. There may have been some Vietnam vets on the picket line trying to feed their wife and 2 kids, or 3 kids, or 4 kids. It takes a lot more guts to walk a picket line than cross one, particularly when you have mouths to feed at home. The striking workers were justifiably angry at your father because he was taking food out of the mouths of their children.

SO what your saying is their trying to take his life was ok in your book? The company did not want the union workers offered skills and others were available to fill those jobs. HOW is that not ok? Companies are not required to strike labor deals. They do if the entire working population with those skills is in the same union. The reason they were angry is because my father took away their only bargaining chip..selling themselves. Yet I do not feel that trying to murder another human being is a means to a job. I have killed for my job but not to get the job.

I'm not sure what skirting of rules you're talking about. There are always people in all organizations that skirt rules. Mostly corporations and companies skirt rules. Sometimes, it results in deaths, like the 25 people killed in a North Carolina fire in a chicken processing plant because the employer locked the fire doors. Hamlet chicken processing plant fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Accidents like that are less likely to happen in unionized plants because the union makes sure safety rules are followed.

The rules I speak of and the connection with my work as a younger man is that you claimed a person is not required to join a union and pay their fees. Just for the cost of the labor agreement. I disagree that is an acceptable practice in reality. It may be how the law is written but since all the lawyers are on the company and the unions payroll nobody gives two fucks if I claim I don't want the union but then I am conveniently fired while lesser performing workers are retained. Every union employment opportunity has a probationary period and typically if you fail to join you are fired.

I suppose I owe unions a huge thanks though. If I had stayed in Southern Ohio working construction I would probably be surrounded by or actually be a racist, redneck like so many of my union buddies from back then. I also may have never left Ohio which would truly be a tragedy.

Union-ization is NOT the direction America is headed. Thank God.

 

[bankside]

I expect unionisation rates across North America to increase by 50% within five years. It's the obvious next step for people who have borne the brunt of market forces, and unlike the 99 percenters, this would be a focussed movement that would actually change the labour market.

 

[JayHawk]

Perhaps Bankside. As I said I am not really against the concept of unions or their power. I understand what solidarity does for a cause. that includes workers rights. I do not support and have not had good personal experiences.

 

[Benvolio]

I expect unionisation rates across North America to increase by 50% within five years. It's the obvious next step for people who have borne the brunt of market forces, and unlike the 99 percenters, this would be a focussed movement that would actually change the labour market.

Unionization is a thing of the past. Too many companies are faced with foreign competition, limiting the amounts employers can pay in labor costs and survive. Technology allows companies to replaced workers, and to send other jobs out of the country, or merely to outsource work to non- union employers. Continuing to submit to union demands is not an option.
Even cities, school board and other governmental units are fighting unions to avoid bankruptcy.

 

[Kulindahr]

If unions are going to go away, then we definitely need the amendment declaring that only actual human individuals, specifically citizens or legal residents, have any political rights whatsoever.

 

[bankside]

Perhaps Bankside. As I said I am not really against the concept of unions or their power. I understand what solidarity does for a cause. that includes workers rights. I do not support and have not had good personal experiences.

I can't say they seem all that useful either or that I have positive experiences to report. I think they will be reinvented and reinvigorated; they're the closest tool to meet the needs of theday.

Unionization is a thing of the past. Too many companies are faced with foreign competition, limiting the amounts employers can pay in labor costs and survive. Technology allows companies to replaced workers, and to send other jobs out of the country, or merely to outsource work to non- union employers. Continuing to submit to union demands is not an option.
Even cities, school board and other governmental units are fighting unions to avoid bankruptcy.

Foreign competition doesn't matter. Foreign competition is a choice; no population will accept competition that reduces its prosperity. Continuing to exclude everyday workers from the gains of trade is a non-starter. I don't want the kind of unions that can arise from that folly, yet I believe it is the inevitable response.

 

[Kulindahr]

Foreign competition doesn't matter. Foreign competition is a choice; no population will accept competition that reduces its prosperity. Continuing to exclude everyday workers from the gains of trade is a non-starter. I don't want the kind of unions that can arise from that folly, yet I believe it is the inevitable response.

It's the sort of situation which led to violence against factories and mines once before. Either the Republicans haven't learned from history, or they're purposely trying to foment violence.

 

[bankside]

It's the sort of situation which led to violence against factories and mines once before. Either the Republicans haven't learned from history, or they're purposely trying to foment violence.

The response to the unbridled greed of capital is the unbridled greed of labour. The market is supposed to harness greed (i.e. bridle it) to pull the economy forward and create prosperity for all. But when that mechanism fails, or is manipulated to distort the balance of power within the market, strange things happen.

I think the Republicans will soon be small potatoes compared to what is becoming entrenched first in Russia but now more significantly in China. I am not pleased. Over the past 2 centuries, North America has the best track record at balancing and rebalancing those forces. Hopefully it still has the memory, skill, and political wherewithal in its population to show the world how it's done peacefully. And I am certain that unions will be revived as part of the effort.

Hopefully it will be unions and not "protectionism" or "xenophobia" or "isolationism."

We need free trade, but trade on an even playing field that yields dividends at all levels of our domestic economies. There are some signs of hope; wages are rising rapidly in China and they too are experiencing outsourcing, for example.

 

[Kulindahr]

The response to the unbridled greed of capital is the unbridled greed of labour. The market is supposed to harness greed (i.e. bridle it) to pull the economy forward and create prosperity for all. But when that mechanism fails, or is manipulated to distort the balance of power within the market, strange things happen.

I think the Republicans will soon be small potatoes compared to what is becoming entrenched first in Russia but now more significantly in China. I am not pleased. Over the past 2 centuries, North America has the best track record at balancing and rebalancing those forces. Hopefully it still has the memory, skill, and political wherewithal in its population to show the world how it's done peacefully. And I am certain that unions will be revived as part of the effort.

Hopefully it will be unions and not "protectionism" or "xenophobia" or "isolationism."

We need free trade, but trade on an even playing field that yields dividends at all levels of our domestic economies. There are some signs of hope; wages are rising rapidly in China and they too are experiencing outsourcing, for example.

We can't do isolationism any more. No one can possibly work cheaply enough to make the myriad of things the overseas markets make so cheaply. The only way it could be done is with robotics, but no one's robotics are yet versatile enough to switch from making preschool toys one week to holiday decorations the next, and even if they were, those products are hardly what investors would buy such robots for.

The only way we're going to get out of this one is with the "Only Humans Have Rights" amendment I keep pushing. Corporations, unions, churches, clubs, associations all have to be locked out of the political process, so humans can be on top again.

 

[Benvolio]

We can't do isolationism any more. No one can possibly work cheaply enough to make the myriad of things the overseas markets make so cheaply. The only way it could be done is with robotics, but no one's robotics are yet versatile enough to switch from making preschool toys one week to holiday decorations the next, and even if they were, those products are hardly what investors would buy such robots for.

The only way we're going to get out of this one is with the "Only Humans Have Rights" amendment I keep pushing. Corporations, unions, churches, clubs, associations all have to be locked out of the political process, so humans can be on top again.

Please Kulindahr, take that the next step for us. The underlying assumption must be that if entities were out of the political process, the law would be even less friendly to employers and we would move toward some sort of socialism and mandatory economic equality. Is that not your assumption? Then what? I have frequently asked what kind of economy you think we should have.

 

[JayHawk]

Ben allowing for human beings to have rights and not corporations which are wholly unaccountable for their actions is not going to lead to socialism.

I would ask you one question that does not pertain to this discussion but does pertain to the rampant insistence that everything is socialism. Do you find the GI Bill where patriots who have served this country are offered educational benefits to be socialism or a fair payment for services rendered?

 

[Kulindahr]

Please Kulindahr, take that the next step for us. The underlying assumption must be that if entities were out of the political process, the law would be even less friendly to employers and we would move toward some sort of socialism and mandatory economic equality. Is that not your assumption? Then what? I have frequently asked what kind of economy you think we should have.

Boy, have you got an obsession!

No, the assumption is that then the shareholders in corporations would get their money through dividends instead of having an elite few decide to take it from them and spend it on things the shareholders had no say in, and that businesses could get about the task of being in business and not politics; that churches could spend money given for God's work on helping the poor and such, instead of throwing it in God's face by spending it on 'Caesar's' work; and that unions could put money into pension funds for the workers instead of using it to buy corrupt politicians, etc.

 

[Benvolio]

Boy, have you got an obsession!

No, the assumption is that then the shareholders in corporations would get their money through dividends instead of having an elite few decide to take it from them and spend it on things the shareholders had no say in, and that businesses could get about the task of being in business and not politics; that churches could spend money given for God's work on helping the poor and such, instead of throwing it in God's face by spending it on 'Caesar's' work; and that unions could put money into pension funds for the workers instead of using it to buy corrupt politicians, etc.

I think your assumptions are unjustified. Corporations primarily involve themselves in politics defensively ,I.e. to protect he economic freedom that they need to function. Without that involvement there would be no limits to the unreasonable rregulation and taxation. Even as it is we are losing our great economy to irrational regulation.
I don't think money directly from churches is very large. The usual complaint is that they they speak from the pulpit against liberal programs.
I am all for the GI Bill program.

 

[palemale]

SO what your saying is their trying to take his life was ok in your book? The company did not want the union workers offered skills and others were available to fill those jobs. HOW is that not ok? Companies are not required to strike labor deals. They do if the entire working population with those skills is in the same union. The reason they were angry is because my father took away their only bargaining chip..selling themselves. Yet I do not feel that trying to murder another human being is a means to a job. I have killed for my job but not to get the job.



The rules I speak of and the connection with my work as a younger man is that you claimed a person is not required to join a union and pay their fees. Just for the cost of the labor agreement. I disagree that is an acceptable practice in reality. It may be how the law is written but since all the lawyers are on the company and the unions payroll nobody gives two fucks if I claim I don't want the union but then I am conveniently fired while lesser performing workers are retained. Every union employment opportunity has a probationary period and typically if you fail to join you are fired.

I suppose I owe unions a huge thanks though. If I had stayed in Southern Ohio working construction I would probably be surrounded by or actually be a racist, redneck like so many of my union buddies from back then. I also may have never left Ohio which would truly be a tragedy.

Union-ization is NOT the direction America is headed. Thank God.

I never said it was ok to take anyone's life. It's also not ok to take someone's livelihood.

The labor laws in construction have different features than other industries because of the nature of the work, that it is often of fixed duration, and construction workers often work for multiple companies. It makes it possible for construction workers to have pensions and health benefits. Their benefit plans are structured so that, no matter how many different companies they work for, the benefit payments all go into one pension plan and one health plan. Otherwise, many workers wouldn't work long enough at a single company to earn benefits.

Also, the law may have changed since you were a young man. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988, in a case called Communication Workers of America v. Beck, that no one can be required to join a union, they may only be required to pay the costs associated with the administration and negotiation of the contract.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think your assumptions are unjustified. Corporations primarily involve themselves in politics defensively ,I.e. to protect he economic freedom that they need to function. Without that involvement there would be no limits to the unreasonable rregulation and taxation. Even as it is we are losing our great economy to irrational regulation.
I don't think money directly from churches is very large. The usual complaint is that they they speak from the pulpit against liberal programs.
I am all for the GI Bill program.

If what corporations do legislatively qualifies as defensive, then so was the annexation of the Sudetenland.