Betsy DeVos's statement about Michigan wages

[RRB]

-

[© tweed]

Do you have the actual quote?

[WalterMitty]

certainly the auto workers are getting paid too much, if you look at the quality and effeciency of their work.

[© tweed]

"Many, if not most, of the economic problems in Michigan are a result of high wages and a tax and regulatory structure that makes this state uncompetitive".  - Betsy DeVos

She uses big enough words that uneducated blue collar worker in MI won't understand it.

[Jake]

Nice lie in your opening post.

[Republican Michigander]

With your gal Granholm, it's no jobs.

(where's the eyeroll icon?)

[ag]

If the choice is working for a lower wage or not working for a still lower unemployment benefit, I'd choose the former. And what would you choose?

Of course, as a matter of policy, the unions are entirely sensible in fighting for keeping higher wages in their industry: most likely, unless the industry entirely disintegrates, a majority of the current members of the unions will be better off if the higher wages are preserved. Of course, the minority that will lose their jobs and the vast majority of the residents of the state who are not currently employed in the industry will be a lot worse off, but, I guess, the interests of non-members should be irrelevant for the decisions of the union leaders. Likewise, the state leaders, who are elected by all Michiganders, and not just the union members, are doing their job by fighting the union. C'est la vie in a democracy.

We all want to have higher wages - it is normal. Unfortunately, it is impossible for everybody to be employed at high wages. The same with other government regulations: if I am employed, I want the government to make it difficult to fire me, I want to get all sorts of benefits mandated by law, etc. However, the fact that these regulations exist and apply to everyone, might make me actually worse off. Thus, if I could ensure that I will keep my job and get all the benefits I would, naturally, want this to happen, but, given that  I might actually find myself out of work, I might be better off if these regulations did not exist.

Everybody agrees, that it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. Everybody would love the workers to get high wages, job security, etc. - the problem is, you can't get anything out of nothing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I wouldn't want to say that I want to make less $$ (although I can't--I'm STILL trying to get a job), but the Auto workers are so selfish--they are some of the best paid people and they go on strike b/c Ford won't give them rediculous benefits on top of all that.  They should make much less, shut up, and quit complaining when they don't get their way.  That's what's so DUMB about unions--I honestly would love to see the UAW go on strike, hurt the auto industry some, crash and burn, and then the auto industry recover w/o the unions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Likewise, the state leaders, who are elected by all Michiganders, and not just the union members

How do you figure--the only reason Granholm got in there is b/c of the strong UAW push to get her into office.  The unions (mainly UAW) brainwash their people to vote Democrat.  The state leaders supported by the unions, win by a big margin, while those who aren't supported get voted in mainly b/c of a weaker Union-voter turnout.

[minionofmidas]

With your gal Granholm, it's no jobs.

(where's the eyeroll icon?)

: + : + ) =

[Gustaf]

WOW!!!!!  Some of these coments are amazing to me from my perspective.  The fact that even one person marked the choice for lower wages boggles my mind.  I would not say that the unions "brainwash" anyone.  Please don't consider this insulting (you are a good thinker, and your posts proove it), but if you are falling for the idea that lower wages, including your own, are good for the economy, than maybe consevativism has "brainwashed" you!  IF YOU MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU BUY MORE STUFF!!!  A kind of Econ 101 concept here.

Also, multimillion dollar bonuses at the top kind of kill the thought that labor costs are too high. 

When Republicans have these kinds of attitudes about unions, would you vote Republican if you were a union member?  Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot!!!

I want more comments, this is interesting to me.

Lol, if you recieve more money from someone, overall demand in the economy does not increase. A kind of Econ 101 concept here. It's like of you have a bunch of plates on a table you can move around the plates anyway you want, stack them all on top of each other, or whatever, but the overall weight on the table does not increase.

[Beet]

What she is arguing is that Michigan should join the race to the bottom.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

WOW!!!!!  Some of these coments are amazing to me from my perspective.  The fact that even one person marked the choice for lower wages boggles my mind.  I would not say that the unions "brainwash" anyone.  Please don't consider this insulting (you are a good thinker, and your posts proove it), but if you are falling for the idea that lower wages, including your own, are good for the economy, than maybe consevativism has "brainwashed" you!  IF YOU MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU BUY MORE STUFF!!!  A kind of Econ 101 concept here.

Also, multimillion dollar bonuses at the top kind of kill the thought that labor costs are too high. 

When Republicans have these kinds of attitudes about unions, would you vote Republican if you were a union member?  Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot!!!

I want more comments, this is interesting to me.

No, I didn't say that these unions making big bucks are hurting the economy directly.  What I am saying is that when Joe UAW member gets his pay cut from $35 an hour down to $28 an hour, and his healthcare gets cut a little, he goes on strike.  Then, Ford suffers, b/c they can't afford to keep paying Joe $35 an hour, so they have to let him go on strike.  Let me use an analogy here:  the NHL standoff--the players (UAW workers) make too much money, and in turn are making the NHL (Delphi, GM, Ford, etc...) go bankrupt.  The NHL gave in once, but CAN'T do it again.  And how did we get hockey back?  The PLAYERS gave in.  This is what has to happen.

In my mind, unions served a great purpose back when they started--they kept conditions healthy, and made sure that people got well paid.  Now they are just a way for people to get everything they want in a job (even if it's a rediculous request).

[MaC]

WOW!!!!!  Some of these coments are amazing to me from my perspective.  The fact that even one person marked the choice for lower wages boggles my mind.  I would not say that the unions "brainwash" anyone.  Please don't consider this insulting (you are a good thinker, and your posts proove it), but if you are falling for the idea that lower wages, including your own, are good for the economy, than maybe consevativism has "brainwashed" you!  IF YOU MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU BUY MORE STUFF!!!  A kind of Econ 101 concept here.

Also, multimillion dollar bonuses at the top kind of kill the thought that labor costs are too high. 

When Republicans have these kinds of attitudes about unions, would you vote Republican if you were a union member?  Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot!!!

I want more comments, this is interesting to me.

Well, if I have a low wage labor job, it's better than not having a job at all-kind of an Economics 101 thing here.  Look, labor, like anything else is ruled by supply and demand. 

 It there's a price floor on hiring in somebody new, then it makes it less worth it for a company to find as many people laboring-thus less people get hired.  Also the price floor makes for aggregate prices of products to rise. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Hey out there.... for all of you folks who say you want to make less money....I'm taking applications!  Just kidding.

Actually, any economist will tell you that the more money circulating among the people, the better the economy.  I have taught Econ 101.  You flunk my class.  Just kidding.  For example, if you own a retail store, it is best if average Joe has money to burn.  Here in Michigan, Heaven help you if you own an RV dealership , gun shop, sell snowmobiles, etc and don't have Joe auto worker with  some extra bucks to spend.

Call me a limosine liberal or whatever you wish, but I don't see $70,000 a year as too much money for an auto worker.   I have a household income way above that and don't consider myself rich. 

I know that some of the people on this site are young people.  I work with young people daily, and have to admit that I can tell which ones of you are young by the way you answer the threads.  You are good thinkers and I admire you.

What saddens me is the number of yong people who live in a world that has benefited from unions, but take them for granted or scorn them.  Yes, unions are still needed.  I joke about them complaining about a dollar less an hour too sometimes, but the reality is that somebody always wants you to work for less. $35 and hour turns to $25 an hour, turns to $10 an hour, etc, unless the union puts up a fight.  Without a union, you just have to take it or move on.  Someday when you have a home and family, you will see that this is not easy to do.  I have a neighbor who just bought his home and had two children and is now being told by DelPhi that they want him to work for $9.50 an hour.  That amount of money will not even pay his house payment.  The problem is not the union.  The problem is a company that can't compete with foreign car companies that, frankly, market a better product.  They also avoid unions by treating their workers with more respect than US auto manufacturers.  The union will have to concede, but it is tough to swallow when the top people are getting huge bonuses.  Call it capitalism, call it the American way, but when you're being told to take consessions while the boss gets a raise worth 15 times your annual pay, you get mad.  Unions are the result of bad labor management.  They continue to exist because without them many of these problems will return.  The foreign companies have figured this out and treat their workers with good pay and benefits (usually).   The top brass is well paid (as they should be in our system), but not to the extent that the GM board is flaunting mega bonuses while the workers benefits and pay get cut.  In a perfect world, there would be no need for unions.  That day is not here yet.

I'm not saying that making more than $70,000 is bad.  What I am saying is that when you make $100,000 and GM tells you that you're only going to make $75,000--you can't go on strike.  Seeing as you already have health benefits, a lot of that $75,000 is actually yours to put toward other needs.  It becomes a problem when Union workers demand more and more, not the fact that they make more than 70 grand.

And it's not right for Joe CEO to be making $25 million a year either--if he's making that much, and the company still suffers, than there's a problem.  Stick some of that BACK into the company, get the company going again, so you don't have to cut the workers pay so much (even though they ARE overpaid), and you don't have a problem.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Speaking of overpaid CEOs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/14/19045/5188

[MaC]

Hey out there.... for all of you folks who say you want to make less money....I'm taking applications!  Just kidding.

Actually, any economist will tell you that the more money circulating among the people, the better the economy.  I have taught Econ 101.  You flunk my class.  Just kidding.  For example, if you own a retail store, it is best if average Joe has money to burn.  Here in Michigan, Heaven help you if you own an RV dealership , gun shop, sell snowmobiles, etc and don't have Joe auto worker with  some extra bucks to spend.

Call me a limosine liberal or whatever you wish, but I don't see $70,000 a year as too much money for an auto worker.   I have a household income way above that and don't consider myself rich. 

I know that some of the people on this site are young people.  I work with young people daily, and have to admit that I can tell which ones of you are young by the way you answer the threads.  You are good thinkers and I admire you.

What saddens me is the number of yong people who live in a world that has benefited from unions, but take them for granted or scorn them.  Yes, unions are still needed.  I joke about them complaining about a dollar less an hour too sometimes, but the reality is that somebody always wants you to work for less. $35 and hour turns to $25 an hour, turns to $10 an hour, etc, unless the union puts up a fight.  Without a union, you just have to take it or move on.  Someday when you have a home and family, you will see that this is not easy to do.  I have a neighbor who just bought his home and had two children and is now being told by DelPhi that they want him to work for $9.50 an hour.  That amount of money will not even pay his house payment.  The problem is not the union.  The problem is a company that can't compete with foreign car companies that, frankly, market a better product.  They also avoid unions by treating their workers with more respect than US auto manufacturers.  The union will have to concede, but it is tough to swallow when the top people are getting huge bonuses.  Call it capitalism, call it the American way, but when you're being told to take consessions while the boss gets a raise worth 15 times your annual pay, you get mad.  Unions are the result of bad labor management.  They continue to exist because without them many of these problems will return.  The foreign companies have figured this out and treat their workers with good pay and benefits (usually).   The top brass is well paid (as they should be in our system), but not to the extent that the GM board is flaunting mega bonuses while the workers benefits and pay get cut.  In a perfect world, there would be no need for unions.  That day is not here yet.

You're a limosine liberal.

I'm not saying that making more than $70,000 is bad.  What I am saying is that when you make $100,000 and GM tells you that you're only going to make $75,000--you can't go on strike. 

You can, but your employer should be able to ignore you or fire you.  Unions have their purposes, they can be useful.  But they can become to powerful if they override the businessman.  It is because of him they have a job in the first place.

(and before a pretentious, unintelligent opebo comment)
Yes, workers do have power in this situation.  If a signifcant amount of workers quit because of harsh conditions the employer looses his labor and can go out of business.  The proletariat does have fair control over the bougouise, dolt.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not saying that making more than $70,000 is bad.  What I am saying is that when you make $100,000 and GM tells you that you're only going to make $75,000--you can't go on strike. 

You can, but your employer should be able to ignore you or fire you.  Unions have their purposes, they can be useful.  But they can become to powerful if they override the businessman.  It is because of him they have a job in the first place.

(and before a pretentious, unintelligent opebo comment)
Yes, workers do have power in this situation.  If a signifcant amount of workers quit because of harsh conditions the employer looses his labor and can go out of business.  The proletariat does have fair control over the bougouise, dolt.

My use of the word "can't" referred to striking, and then keeping the company afloat.  I agree with you--Delphi should be able to fire/end their contract with the unions--but if they can't then the UAW will crahs and burn (oh how sad)
But you are right--unions have a purpose--although, I think with the amount of media, it is somewhat obsolute now--back when you couldn't see pictures of bad labor situations, and didn't have news with problem solvers, the unions WERE needed, but not really anymore.

[Nym90]

Yeah, that wasn't a very smart comment on her part.

I strongly disagree, as I feel that higher wages are good for the economy, all else being equal.