Quote:

FedEx drivers disagree. They get all those things. Without a union.

It's an old ism that it would be better for bottom line if the guys on their line, knew as little as possible other than how to operate the machinery. Knowing how to read just enough to cash a check and how spend it, is all that's really needed.

All that terrible education stirs things up. So does labor.

Things never work out, it seems.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Dec 20^th, 2010 at 7:29pm:


What the hell are you talking about Charlie?

Who's barb?

I guess I'd have to answer your question with a question. FedEx drivers have been and continue to be free to organize if they so choose. Why do they overwhelmingly, and time after time, choose not to?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer - because they feel as though they're treated fairly. I know for a fact that FedEx management sees the value in keeping a highly motivated work force, and I sort of wish other companies saw that, too.

Drivers with 20 years get a good paycheck, are home most every night, get a very good benefits package which includes health, dental, and vision insurance, and they get 4 weeks vacation plus two floating holidays and two personal days every year. Plus they can qualify for bonus pay. It ain't a bad deal at all.

-johnny- wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:


Hey Johhny, how have you been.
Yeah, Both you and Brew make good points. It is obvious where it is going and that it will not end until we are all flipping each others hamburgers.
I have looked at this issue so many times and have concluded that if you wish to "compete" in a "global-market" against other emerging countries that have a dirt-cheap work force and no environmental protections etc......you will simply lose.  Actually, it surprises me that we didn't go this way earlier. The Constitution allows for this type of trading & business, so off we go into the pit of lowering our standard of living.
It is  un-Constitutional, but if we could I would cut off from everyone else and keep everything here.  Unfortunately, that is not totally possible because we lack some resources and must import.
Tariffs are one thing, but usually don't solve the problem. Plus I'd keep our nose out of other countries affairs....but that'll never happen.

It's painfully obvious where this is leading and that, as of right now, there is no solution...except expecting lowered standards.

I personally have to get a second job now since I work at Caterpillar in the manufacturing plant and the pay isn't what it once was. My higher-paying skilled labor job in fabrication was eliminated because of a sick economy and other smaller companies taking the jobs for less. Their quality is terrible, but good enough to convince the customers to make a change.
I think most all of us are feeling the pinch.
Cheers, Dave

Groov wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 12:39am:




There lies an underlying expression of consumer demand that is a driving factor in investment.

Cal Coolidge believed it was corporate productivity that would trickle down to all.  His treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, third richest of the time, conceived a plan of cutting taxes for the rich, which became known as trickle down econonics for the Roaring 20's.  The windfall would spur production advances benefiting consumers.

However, this era was the rise of mass media and radio and ad men refined the craft of arousing new customer desires instead of just satisfying existing ones.  The swelling new middle class began to afford luxury buying eagerly, and on installment plans.  This was also an era of upswing after WWI, comparable to the flying 50's consumer demand for new products after WWII. 

Consumer demand has been an underlying driving force of corporate investment and credit lending.  A decrease in taxes for the rich and corporations has not coincided with low unemployment, jobs, as consumer demand has.  Countries with lower taxes in that area have usually higher individual taxes for persons living in that country.  Not mentioned in an article posted in this thread is what other taxes Japan will raise to make up for its decrease in corporate taxes, most likely a consumption tax, they are also heavily in debt. 

When lower corporate taxes don't coincide with strong consumer demand, jobs are not created so well.  Presently, lowering corp taxes would seem a gamble not well proven without consumer demand.

The Mellon Bill passed in 1926, when consumer demand was peaking. 

Also, in Cal's second term, he minimized the regulation of business and finance.  With his spiritual beliefs, hoping that competition would not degenerate into a mere selfish scramble for rewards, in the expectation they would serve society as a whole.  That didn't happen. Unfortunately human nature cannot be changed by an act of legislature.

Investment did actually overheat into speculation at that time, but it was the underlying consumer demand that actually cooled later, which made it not work.

Dave,

You have a valid point about putting excess taxes on the deficit, however, that would be showing an expectation of Congress not spending whatever comes in the door.  If you have noticed, that does not happen as long as they can attach this earmark for something they can tell their constituents they were able to get for them.  In the last two years look at the number of earmarks that have been attached to almost all bills passed by Congress by an administration that campaigned on NO earmarks.  The first bill passed by Congress and signed by the President had over 1900 earmarks attached to it with NO complaint from any of the administration.

If you think I am only picking on the Obama administration you are wrong.  I had a serious falling out with the Republican Party (and they received no donations from me) over the spending during the Bush administration.  The Obama administration and the Pelosi House and Reid Senate though have far outstripped them.

Go back and look at history when it comes to tax cuts and take a look at the actual revenues generated by the Treasury following the Kennedy tax cuts in the 60's, the Reagan tax cuts, and again when Bush cut taxes.  In each case revenues actually increased dramatically, however, spending increased at a faster rate than revenues.

Jerry