News marvels at jobs paying $25/hour

[opebo]

To what have we fallen when jobs paying $25/hour are considered noteworthy?   

1. Market analyst -- $27.18/hour
2. Chemist -- $25.16/hour
3. Civil engineer -- $25.29/hour
4. Social worker -- $25.06/hour
5. Human resources generalist -- $26.90/hour
6. Architect -- $26.41/hour
7. Speech pathologist -- $25.05/hour
8. Budget analyst -- $26.71/hour
9. Detective -- $27.02/hour
10. Physical therapist -- $25.68/hour

Back in the golden era union workers without any expensive college education made the equivalent of $35/hour.  Nowadays we marvel that the above jobs, most of which require enormous investments on the part of the worker in terms of money and time, because they pay a bare middle class living.

[??????????]

The liberal society you so much love and admire doesn't allow for one income homes anymore Opebo and that's to the detriment of the family (which btw, you admittedly hate).

[opebo]

The liberal society you so much love and admire doesn't allow for one income homes anymore Opebo and that's to the detriment of the family (which btw, you admittedly hate).

It was the liberal society which created one income homes for the working class, States, through the Union Wage.  The two income home is a creation of the right wing, who have dominated Government policy over the last 30-35 years.

A one income home is made by a high wage, States, not by misogynistic quasi-religious assertions.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The liberal society you so much love and admire doesn't allow for one income homes anymore Opebo and that's to the detriment of the family (which btw, you admittedly hate).

It was the liberal society which created one income homes for the working class, States, through the Union Wage.  The two income home is a creation of the right wing, who have dominated Goverment policy over the last 30-35 years.

A one income home is made by a high wage, States, not by misogynistic quasi-religious assertions.

[TheresNoMoney]

This thread is pretty depressing. Opebo is definitely correct in his assertions.

Neither of my parents had college degrees, and my mom didn't work until I was in middle school. My dad was able to support our family (me and a sister) on no college degree with a union job.

These days we'd be broke as a joke and probably not getting by. His job no longer exists.

[TheresNoMoney]

It was the liberal society which created one income homes for the working class, States, through the Union Wage.  The two income home is a creation of the right wing, who have dominated Government policy over the last 30-35 years.

The union-busting and free trade policies of the Republican party and the corporate wing of the Democratic party have done more to harm the American famly than anything else.

We work harder and longer for less money, and almost all families have both parents working full-time or close to full-time.

[opebo]

We work harder and longer for less money, and almost all families have both parents working full-time or close to full-time.

Correct.  And it just means an even greater share of society's production goes to people like this.

[Sam Spade]

The answer is simple:  Competition.

[Gustaf]

Why are Americans more entitled to money than other people?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To what have we fallen when jobs paying $25/hour are considered noteworthy?   

1. Market analyst -- $27.18/hour
2. Chemist -- $25.16/hour
3. Civil engineer -- $25.29/hour
4. Social worker -- $25.06/hour
5. Human resources generalist -- $26.90/hour
6. Architect -- $26.41/hour
7. Speech pathologist -- $25.05/hour
8. Budget analyst -- $26.71/hour
9. Detective -- $27.02/hour
10. Physical therapist -- $25.68/hour

Back in the golden era union workers without any expensive college education made the equivalent of $35/hour.  Nowadays we marvel that the above jobs, most of which require enormous investments on the part of the worker in terms of money and time, because they pay a bare middle class living.

which is why you have to go into business for yourself after you've built up some experience

[12th Doctor]

The liberal society you so much love and admire doesn't allow for one income homes anymore Opedo and that's to the detriment of the family (which btw, you admittedly hate).

It was the liberal society which created one income homes for the working class, States, through the Union Wage.  The two income home is a creation of the right wing, who have dominated Goverment policy over the last 30-35 years.

A one income home is made by a high wage, States, not by misogynistic quasi-religious assertions.

Ummmm... no... what happened was that the Unions started demanding saleries that were so outrageous that it was cheaper for companies to simply pack up and take their business elsewhere.  It was "high union wages" that screwed everyone over to begin with.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The liberal society you so much love and admire doesn't allow for one income homes anymore Opedo and that's to the detriment of the family (which btw, you admittedly hate).

It was the liberal society which created one income homes for the working class, States, through the Union Wage.  The two income home is a creation of the right wing, who have dominated Goverment policy over the last 30-35 years.

A one income home is made by a high wage, States, not by misogynistic quasi-religious assertions.

Ummmm... no... what happened was that the Unions started demanding saleries that were so outrageous that it was cheaper for companies to simply pack up and take their business elsewhere.  It was "high union wages" that screwed everyone over to begin with.

Oh, how convenient.  It was surely the unions that did it.  They hate jobs and want them driven off to China or wherever else.

Let's look at it this way:  We sign free trade agreements that actively benefit others more than us.

Look at the Iron ore business.  Minnesota has a huge stake in the global ore business and we've been losing big time for the past 25 years.

Why?  Is it all down to greedy unions purging the region of jobs in order to keep "unreasonably high wages" compared to what people were making before?  No.

In today's world, people want to expand their capital assets.  It's necessary to keep up on the competition.  Expand or fade away.  And the most important thing to business now days as ever is the bottom line.  It's all about that profit margin.  How much money can we squeeze out of people and how much can we get away with without pissing off the general public is the question on ever CEO's mind.

So, you want to build a new sky scraper.  You have the option of buying high quality steel made from iron ore that came from well paid workers in Minnesota OR you can get it much cheaper from, say, China.  Of course you're going to get it from China.

But here's the thing:

We call it free trade, but it's stacked against the U.S.

We have strict environmental standards.  We can't just leach the sh**t out of our ore and pump the fumes into the surrounding area.  We have to scrub it, separate it, and do all sorts of complicated things with the crap before we send it up the smoke stack lest we denude the landscape of all life and stain the granite black.  If you've looked at China's pollution in the past decade, they obviously don't have these environmental regulations.  And while you could argue being more lax on our own regulations to compete, it would have devastating consequences in the short AND long run.  Remember the Cuyahoga River starting on fire?  Or Lake Erie being pretty much dead?  Shall we turn Pennsylvania back into a festering sludge pit?

Also, Americans demand a very high quality of life.  We expect good health coverage, vacation time, a retirement at 65, all sorts of government services, good roads to drive on, and places to go and recreate on top of a wage that pays the bills.  It simply costs more to live here than it does in China and on top of that, our real wages are much higher.  We can argue dropping our wages to China's level to compete which would shove mine workers into poverty.  Nobody in their right mind would work at a mine for Chinese wages and our vast sources of iron ore would go untapped as less productive, dirtier ore was purchased from elsewhere.

So, you save a bundle of money by buying Chinese steel and Americans lose their job and their way of life at the hands of "free" trade.  And what is the real cost of all this?  A dirtier environment, lower wages and poverty and the exploitation of workers in developing countries by the greedy "it's all about the bottom line" corporatists of the 1st world.

So, again, it is convenient and rather short-sighted for you to blame unions for it all, because that simply is not true. 

When we TRULY level the playing field, then free trade will be fine.  But when these agreements are signed, the countries on the other end shouldn't be able to have an advantage just because htey're willing to shoot up clouds of noxious gases into the sky that float across the ocean and make LA even smoggier than it already is. (Which scientists think have had drastic effects on the Pacific ocean anyway, but that's a different story)

[Nym90]

I was going to post here, but Snowguy said pretty much everything I could've said and more. Well done.

Being in an area of Michigan that is heavily dependent on the iron mining industry, I definitely understand the real world implications of what he is saying (I think his part of Minnesota is similar economically).

[opebo]

The answer is simple:  Competition.

You have no idea what you are talking about SS.  The decision was a political one, made by those with power.  Of course the serviles always have to 'compete' for favour, and to avoid being eliminated.

Why are Americans more entitled to money than other people?

This is not an issue of nationality, but one of class, Gustaf.  Please don't try to play off one worker against others who have a different skin tone or speak a different language.  The enemy of all workers is the owner.

[Storebought]

I don't see what snowguy is complaining about. It was Democrats in Congress who, over the years, insisted on enacting all of those regulations you cite as reasons American heavy extraction is simply uneconomic compared to China or Russia, or for that matter, even Australia.

And why stop with iron mining? Restrictionists make every manner of excuse not to consider oil exploration in the deep Gulf, off California, and in Alaska. And unlike iron ore, which is a scant $25 a ton, with oil at $80+ a barrel, it is actually cheaper to explore our own sources of oil than to continue importing it from basket-case countries like Venezuela and Nigeria.

You have chosen to pay for a marginally cleaner environment with the expense of the loss of entire sectors of primary manufacturing. That's economics for you.

[opebo]

Thank you Storebought, for demonstrating one of the common red herrings used by the right wing to distract attention from the fact that is their intention to lower american wages.  Blame the 'environmentalists'.. that's hilarious.  As if they have ever had any power!

[Storebought]

Thank you Storebought, for demonstrating one of the common red herrings used by the right wing to distract attention from the fact that is their intention to lower american wages.  Blame the 'environmentalists'.. that's hilarious.  As if they have ever had any power!

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't argue that environmental policies lead to lower wages ... I argued that American regulations make it unprofitable to consider opening new domestic iron or copper mines (since the spot value of the metals themselves is so low), or even consider exploring new sources of American oil.

And I strongly support the revival of American manufacturing, but not some federally subsidized make-work that aims to replicate the labor environment of the 1970s

[opebo]

Thank you Storebought, for demonstrating one of the common red herrings used by the right wing to distract attention from the fact that is their intention to lower american wages.  Blame the 'environmentalists'.. that's hilarious.  As if they have ever had any power!

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't argue that environmental policies lead to lower wages ... I argued that American regulations make it unprofitable to consider opening new domestic iron or copper mines (since the spot value of the metals themselves is so low), or even consider exploring new sources of American oil.

Nor did I put the words in your mouth you think I did.  It is the conservative propaganda to always bring up supposedly 'industry killing' regulations whenever the subject of their project to reduce wages is brought up.  Thus commoners get upset about that minor detail instead of the plot against them.

[David S]

Let's look at it this way:  We sign free trade agreements that actively benefit others more than us.

Snowguy I actually agree with you on that. (I must be one of the only Libertarians in the country who is not a fan of free trade with backward countries). We tax our own manufacturers out of their shorts. They pay payroll taxes, income taxes to federal and state government and property taxes to local governments, but foreign made goods get a free ride. Why does that make sense? That's like reverse protectionism. Why not take some of the tax burden off our domestic manufacturers and put it on the imports?

Beyond that trade deals which put American workers in competition with buck an hour foreign labor can only result in the destruction of US industry and US jobs. Sure its nice to have an abundance of low cost products but if the ultimate cost of it is that we cease to be a manufacturing nation then I'd say its definitely a bad idea.

One last thing, don't forget that some of these deals were signed into law by Bill Clinton. And Al Gore was a big supporter of NAFTA. You can't blame this just on Republicans.

[Storebought]

Thank you Storebought, for demonstrating one of the common red herrings used by the right wing to distract attention from the fact that is their intention to lower american wages.  Blame the 'environmentalists'.. that's hilarious.  As if they have ever had any power!

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't argue that environmental policies lead to lower wages ... I argued that American regulations make it unprofitable to consider opening new domestic iron or copper mines (since the spot value of the metals themselves is so low), or even consider exploring new sources of American oil.

It is the conservative propaganda to always bring up supposedly 'industry killing' regulations whenever the subject of their project to reduce wages is brought up. 

Some environmental regulations are designed solely to be of a punitive nature. From the San
Francisco Chronicle:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed environmental agreements with two Canadian provinces that could slow down the biggest oil boom in North American history -- the tar sands of Alberta.

Last week's agreements commit Ontario and British Columbia to adhere to California's low-carbon fuel standard, which will cut the use of petroleum sources such as Alberta's that cause high levels of global-warming emissions. Other provinces and U.S. states are expected to join the standard, thus shrinking the market for the fast-growing Alberta oil industry, which U.S. officials hope will overtake the Middle East as America's main source of imported petroleum.


What matters here is not the development of "alternative sources of energy" or even a reduction in air pollution, but simply the regulatory suppression of a nascent industry, and all possible jobs that may have arisen from it.

[Storebought]

Let's look at it this way:  We sign free trade agreements that actively benefit others more than us.

Snowguy I actually agree with you on that. (I must be one of the only Libertarians in the country who is not a fan of free trade with backward countries). We tax our own manufacturers out of their shorts. They pay payroll taxes, income taxes to federal and state government and property taxes to local governments, but foreign made goods get a free ride. Why does that make sense? That's like reverse protectionism. Why not take some of the tax burden off our domestic manufacturers and put it on the imports?

Beyond that trade deals which put American workers in competition with buck an hour foreign labor can only result in the destruction of US industry and US jobs. Sure its nice to have an abundance of low cost products but if the ultimate cost of it is that we cease to be a manufacturing nation then I'd say its definitely a bad idea.

One last thing, don't forget that some of these deals were signed into law by Bill Clinton. And Al Gore was a big supporter of NAFTA. You can't blame this just on Republicans.

One solution to that is to develop an American manufacturing base that requires a level of ingenuity and technical competence from its workers that is unavailable in sweatshop Asia.

Germany already has such a manufacturing base. There, they don't assemble Taiwan-manufactured machine parts, like they do here in the South. German engineers design complex scientific and engineering instruments (such as the spectrometers and gas chromatograms we used in our chemistry labs) and export entire factories.

[John Dibble]

Clearly the need for two income households is the fault of women. After WWII if they would've just been content to going back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then things would be just fine. CLEARLY it's all the fault of those feminist whores who just didn't know their place in society.

Am I serious? Of course not, but I'd say women wanting to work was a factor. Current economic conditions are the result of a multitude of economic, political, and social factors. Blaming liberals, conservatives, libertarians, populists, or whoever is rather pointless - they've all had a hand in it in one way or another. But frankly I don't care all that much about all that. I live here right now and frankly I think I'm be better off here than I would be in the "good ol' days" that opebo constantly brings up.

[opebo]

Germany already has such a manufacturing base.

This is somewhat true..  it is also worth noting that their State imposes a somewhat different form of capitalism than ours does:  one which is more redistributionist and with a high degree of security built-in.  I think it is referred to as the 'assurational model' of social control rather than the  'penal model' in the US.

As for Dibble's comments - I know you think you're better off now because you have a computer-machine, but really the standard of living in the late 1960's-early 1970's puts the present to shame.

[Ebowed]

Why are Americans more entitled to money than other people?

I really fail to see how that was even a remotely relevant point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why are Americans more entitled to money than other people?

I really fail to see how that was even a remotely relevant point.

Gustaf just wanted to make it clear that he hates the working class.