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

[Benvolio]

Lame, Kul, very lame.

 

[JayHawk]

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.

I didn't know the law had changed as such. I still may have a positive union experience but that it highly unlikely. I still predict they will decline.

Still if the system is fair then when a company can find other workers to fill it's labor pool who are willing to work under the conditions offered then the union should walk away or choose their demands more judiciously. Otherwise the unions simply have the same overwhelming power of choice that companies now enjoy.

I am all for the GI Bill program.

The opponents of the GI Bill fashioned their argument in that it was socialism and welfare. The same type of rhetoric is being used today to derail needed improvements to many things. Our infrastructure, fair health access for every America, jobs bills that would help to change the landscape of our current sluggish economy just to name quite a few.

Also just as a matter of point. The corporations are concerned with one thing. Their bottom line. An economy such as ours requires that they do so to their own benefit. That is also why it is equally important to have a government that levels the playing field. It has become imperative with the ruling in Citizen's United that corporations be limited in having the person's right of free speech. They can only do their own bidding and follow their golden rule which is of course the bottom line or profit. SO knowing that and understanding that corporation have essentially unlimited ability to apply capitol to a problem. You would have to be avoiding reality to think a corporation would do anything for the common good beyond a few trite PR programs. That must not stand.

 

[Kulindahr]

It has become imperative with the ruling in Citizen's United that corporations be limited in having the person's right of free speech. They can only do their own bidding and follow their golden rule which is of course the bottom line or profit. SO knowing that and understanding that corporation have essentially unlimited ability to apply capitol to a problem. You would have to be avoiding reality to think a corporation would do anything for the common good beyond a few trite PR programs. That must not stand.

The problem has always been there; it arose because the Founding Fathers and the Framers took it for granted that anyone with a brain would know that rights pertain to individuals, and nowhere else. But between language that didn't specify that, sloppy use of the term "rights", and deliberate efforts to change the meaning of the Constitution, we got to this bizarre place where paper entities can have "rights". Now it's up to us to return things to the way they were intended, by an amendment declaring that only individual human beings, either citizens or legal residents, have any political rights whatsoever.

 

[Benvolio]

What part of NO LAW do you not understand? You belief that the Drafters of the Constitution intended to limit rights to individuals is without foundation. Do you believe that they understood Congress would have the power to limit the freedom of speech, press and religion of the colleges, universities and churches? Did they understand that the property of corporations could be confiscated by the government without due process and without just compensation? These are mere fantasies on your part. If they did not intend NO LAW. they would have made exceptions.
Do you really think NYTimes and MSNBC should be deprived of freedom of speech and the press?

 

[JayHawk]

That is not even remotely the same thing or the same argument. FAIL.

 

[bankside]

Also just as a matter of point. The corporations are concerned with one thing. Their bottom line. An economy such as ours requires that they do so to their own benefit. That is also why it is equally important to have a government that levels the playing field. It has become imperative with the ruling in Citizen's United that corporations be limited in having the person's right of free speech. They can only do their own bidding and follow their golden rule which is of course the bottom line or profit. SO knowing that and understanding that corporation have essentially unlimited ability to apply capitol to a problem. You would have to be avoiding reality to think a corporation would do anything for the common good beyond a few trite PR programs. That must not stand.

This is exactly the kind of fair-minded economic realism (support for the free market but also awareness that government has a responsibility to at least consider regulating some aspects) that Canadians get from the centrist Liberal Party, which is often assumed to be most similar to the Democrats in the States. Do you not get that same kind of thinking from the Democrats?

 

[JayHawk]

We do. The democratic party has moved closer to my values which were at best moderately conservative. Mostly because the right moved so far from the middle.

The problem with the political system in America is that to have an opposing opinion means vilifying the opponent instead of leaning towards them to find common ground. Economic collapse --> Timed with Democratic assumption of Power --> introduction of regulations to prevent --> Republican's adverse to all regulations. SO now completely unfettered corporate power has become a party plank of the republicans. It is the mindless pursuit of power that is bought and paid for by corporations. That lack of ability to find middle ground is what is driving me and many others from considering the republican party.

 

[Benvolio]

We do. The democratic party has moved closer to my values which were at best moderately conservative. Mostly because the right moved so far from the middle.

The problem with the political system in America is that to have an opposing opinion means vilifying the opponent instead of leaning towards them to find common ground. Economic collapse --> Timed with Democratic assumption of Power --> introduction of regulations to prevent --> Republican's adverse to all regulations. SO now completely unfettered corporate power has become a party plank of the republicans. It is the mindless pursuit of power that is bought and paid for by corporations. That lack of ability to find middle ground is what is driving me and many others from considering the republican party.

No one has argued for no regulation. We already have massive regulation of corporations and all aspects of business. At some point you need to think about what economy you want. Should we allow any vestige of economic freedom to remain?

 

[EastMed]

No one has argued for no regulation. We already have massive regulation of corporations and all aspects of business. At some point you need to think about what economy you want. Should we allow any vestige of economic freedom to remain?

It would be lovely to have economic freedom - from the plutocracy of the rich and powerful. They're the masters of the universe, apparently.

 

[Benvolio]

It would be lovely to have economic freedom - from the plutocracy of the rich and powerful. They're the masters of the universe, apparently.

What kind of aconomy do you want?

 

[EastMed]

What kind of aconomy do you want?

An economy which serves the interests of its citizens.

 

[Benvolio]

An economy which serves the interests of its citizens.

That is no answer. The US economy has bee the greatest in the history of the world and for much of our history we have had the highest standard of living in the world. The alternative systems have been diasterous. So, please be specific.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

The US economy has been the greatest in the history of the world and for much of our history we have had the highest standard of living in the world.

Go say that in Scandinavia, Japan or quite a number of other countries ROTFLMAO. When I read how much the American so-called middle class have to pay for health, education and security, and how little they get in return for their sky-high taxes, I'm very happy to be Mediterranean. When I inherited real estate worth over 300,000 euros from my daddy it cost me 33,000 euros in taxes. When I inherited real estate worth over 700,000 euros from my mother it cost me 140,000 euros in taxes. I had to sell something to cover that, but that was the only time I ever paid taxes of more than a few hundred or a few thousand euros per year. It's because I don't make enough money from labour (as I choose to work only half-time) and most of my income is from rental apartments. Income from investments is not taxed, or at least those taxes are invisible to the naked eye.

My parents never paid more than a few hundred euros a year for my education, another few hundred for my health care and I grew up in an inner city where I could play outside after midnight in summer to avoid the midday heat, or go to a heated indoor swimming pool with sauna and steambath within walking distance, just like anyone else had one within walking distance as their were dozens in town. In my teens, many of the cheap, safe, clean buses were replaced by faster and cosier streetcars. I've never owned a car and travel on the train in first class.

All the friends and relatives I have in California, Utah, and Idah can only dream of this. They see their infrastructure crumbling, their prosperity diminishing, and their chance to become rich disappearing. And note that most of them live in places with GOP mayors and governors lol.

 

[Kulindahr]

What part of NO LAW do you not understand? You belief that the Drafters of the Constitution intended to limit rights to individuals is without foundation. Do you believe that they understood Congress would have the power to limit the freedom of speech, press and religion of the colleges, universities and churches? Did they understand that the property of corporations could be confiscated by the government without due process and without just compensation? These are mere fantasies on your part. If they did not intend NO LAW. they would have made exceptions.
Do you really think NYTimes and MSNBC should be deprived of freedom of speech and the press?

Those two words are not relevant -- one has to address the words "free speech", specifically, "speech". Franklin understood that speech is an attribute of human beings, that corporations, being nothing but paper entities, have none, and thus it cannot be free. Jefferson wrote against the power of corporations, and was familiar with the way giant corporations crushed or limited free speech. Summarizing the view of the Founders and Framers, Justice Stevens has written:

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.

Indeed, if you want to go into the Founders' views on the matter, they believes that corporations should have only temporary existence, that they should be restricted to a single narrow purpose, that they should be chartered only for the public good. For example, if a road were needed, a corporation might be chartered by the state(s) where it would run, and once the road was completed the corporation would be dissolved save for the matter of future liability, or perhaps the maintain that road. The looked on world-striding corporations, e.g. the East India Company, as threats to liberty.

So "no law" doesn't apply to free speech of corporations because corporations are not people, so they don't have free speech in the first place. What's actually at issue is not corporations having a right, it's whether a few elite and remote men may seize the money belonging to others and use it to expound positions the actual owners of that money have not had any say in and with which they may not agree. In other words, what you call free speech for corporations is actually extortion and fraud.

 

[Kulindahr]

SO now completely unfettered corporate power has become a party plank of the republicans. It is the mindless pursuit of power that is bought and paid for by corporations. That lack of ability to find middle ground is what is driving me and many others from considering the republican party.

And to those who wail against being "one issue voters", there's another good reason to not vote Republican: they favor tyranny. On this issue Jefferson may be rightly called father of the Democratic Party, because he distrusted corporations immensely and warned against their power -- and that power was but a fraction of what they have today!

About the only thing the Republicans have going for them today is support for the Second Amendment -- and they can't even get that right, as evidenced by the travesty of a law in Florida that can let murderers walk.

 

[Kulindahr]

What kind of aconomy do you want?

"A nation of shopkeepers."

 

[Kulindahr]

Go say that in Scandinavia, Japan or quite a number of other countries ROTFLMAO. When I read how much the American so-called middle class have to pay for health, education and security, and how little they get in return for their sky-high taxes, I'm very happy to be Mediterranean. When I inherited real estate worth over 300,000 euros from my daddy it cost me 33,000 euros in taxes. When I inherited real estate worth over 700,000 euros from my mother it cost me 140,000 euros in taxes. I had to sell something to cover that, but that was the only time I ever paid taxes of more than a few hundred or a few thousand euros per year. It's because I don't make enough money from labour (as I choose to work only half-time) and most of my income is from rental apartments. Income from investments is not taxed, or at least those taxes are invisible to the naked eye.

My parents never paid more than a few hundred euros a year for my education, another few hundred for my health care and I grew up in an inner city where I could play outside after midnight in summer to avoid the midday heat, or go to a heated indoor swimming pool with sauna and steambath within walking distance, just like anyone else had one within walking distance as their were dozens in town. In my teens, many of the cheap, safe, clean buses were replaced by faster and cosier streetcars. I've never owned a car and travel on the train in first class.

All the friends and relatives I have in California, Utah, and Idah can only dream of this. They see their infrastructure crumbling, their prosperity diminishing, and their chance to become rich disappearing. And note that most of them live in places with GOP mayors and governors lol.

Well said.

The whole drive in the U.S. is to get the taxpayers to pay for everything, and to get all taxpayers to pay the same amount. It's a drive to increase poverty and increase the conditions that feed poverty. My dream is in a few years to have a moderate-sized RV and just drift from place to place seeing the country and living quietly -- but if the Republicans get their way, there won't be any roads fit to travel on, and national parks and monuments will be cluttered with megacorporate crap.

BTW, the above essay illustrates what an economy that works for the citizens is: when corporations do something not favorable to the citizenry, whack them down, bridle them and rein them in (use a bit if necessary). So long as the small businessman has free play, it can be a healthy economy.

 

[palemale]

I didn't know the law had changed as such. I still may have a positive union experience but that it highly unlikely. I still predict they will decline.

Still if the system is fair then when a company can find other workers to fill it's labor pool who are willing to work under the conditions offered then the union should walk away or choose their demands more judiciously. Otherwise the unions simply have the same overwhelming power of choice that companies now enjoy.

It is only the existence of strong unions that forces company's to institute better pay, benefits and working conditions. A company will always find workers to fill it's labor pool. However, the existence of unions result in a system where there are only two ways a company can remain non-union, either not allow their compensation to fall too far behind unionized companies or create a climate of fear and terror among the workforce regarding unionization.

It was no accident that the period of greatest prosperity for the American working and middle-class coincided with the period of the greatest expansion of unions. Unions brought us the weekend, the eight-hour day, workplace safety programs, health and retirement benefits, etc.

It's also no accident that all democratic countries have free labor unions, and totalitarian governments seek to repress them.

 

[Benvolio]

Go say that in Scandinavia, Japan or quite a number of other countries ROTFLMAO. When I read how much the American so-called middle class have to pay for health, education and security, and how little they get in return for their sky-high taxes, I'm very happy to be Mediterranean. When I inherited real estate worth over 300,000 euros from my daddy it cost me 33,000 euros in taxes. When I inherited real estate worth over 700,000 euros from my mother it cost me 140,000 euros in taxes. I had to sell something to cover that, but that was the only time I ever paid taxes of more than a few hundred or a few thousand euros per year. It's because I don't make enough money from labour (as I choose to work only half-time) and most of my income is from rental apartments. Income from investments is not taxed, or at least those taxes are invisible to the naked eye.

My parents never paid more than a few hundred euros a year for my education, another few hundred for my health care and I grew up in an inner city where I could play outside after midnight in summer to avoid the midday heat, or go to a heated indoor swimming pool with sauna and steambath within walking distance, just like anyone else had one within walking distance as their were dozens in town. In my teens, many of the cheap, safe, clean buses were replaced by faster and cosier streetcars. I've never owned a car and travel on the train in first class.

All the friends and relatives I have in California, Utah, and Idah can only dream of this. They see their infrastructure crumbling, their prosperity diminishing, and their chance to become rich disappearing. And note that most of them live in places with GOP mayors and governors lol.

Which country? It seems odd that investment income is not taxed. So who does pay taxes? If your friends think their chance of getting rich is diminishing they should not blame Republicans. It is the Democrats who always work for higher taxes to prevent getting rich.

 

[Benvolio]

It is only the existence of strong unions that forces company's to institute better pay, benefits and working conditions. A company will always find workers to fill it's labor pool. However, the existence of unions result in a system where there are only two ways a company can remain non-union, either not allow their compensation to fall too far behind unionized companies or create a climate of fear and terror among the workforce regarding unionization.

It was no accident that the period of greatest prosperity for the American working and middle-class coincided with the period of the



greatest expansion of unions. Unions brought us the weekend, the eight-hour day, workplace safety programs, health and retirement benefits, etc.

It's also no accident that all democratic countries have free labor unions, and totalitarian governments seek to repress them.

You have failed to notice that we have Leo st a huge portion of our heavy industry to unionization. At the end of world war 2 our heavy industry dominated the world: shipbuilding, automobiles, steel, appliances, radios, etc. gradually the have been unionized out of existence. Many of the best paying jobs have bee destroyed. To keep the big dues rolling in, the bosses have to demand more and more. Also you forgot to mention that many jobs and countries have moved out of the country. The unions and their captive politicians have regarded employers as the enemy and they are defeating their enemy.