• @Nahvi
    link
    English
    -171 year ago

    It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.

    The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.

    They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.

    Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.

    This Fain guy’s rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      141 year ago

      How about if the three auto companies gave up 5% of their profits instead?

      • @Nahvi
        link
        English
        -21 year ago

        I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn’t asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          61 year ago

          No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they’re making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?

          • @Nahvi
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            not what profit margin they’re making.

            True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.

            do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?

            From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don’t know if it makes up the difference or not.

            Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren’t seeing returns.

              So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.

              I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse

              So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.

              • @Nahvi
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.

                Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.

                Edit: phrasing of italicized part.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  The problem with the stock market is something we could be debating for hours here (fails to deliver, repacked bonds getting rating upgrades, margin requirements getting waived for big firms, lack of any transparency within the equities swap market, most trades being made off market, 401ks being used for locates in predatory shorting, etc). So I’ll just touch on one thing here before it shoots into something completely morphed from the original discussion.

                  Even then, do keep in mind, when someone sells a company it isn’t just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn’t understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.

                  I know which is why I specifically stated we bar those bigger investors from pulling out to con the middle class/poor worker thinking they can make it big off some investment advice from a paid wall street mouth piece like Jim Cramer or countless other ‘financial advisors’.

                  • @Nahvi
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    stated we bar those bigger investors

                    Oops, somehow missed that you were referring to the original bigger investors.

                    It seems like it should be easy enough to get those financial advisors for market manipulation. If a large firm says a stock will do better than otherwise expected and then sells their clients’ stocks as soon as the price rises, how is it anything except simple market manipulation? Not going after them makes the SEC look like a captured organization, though I easily found articles stating that it isn’t captured with a web-search.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Ahhh ok, so you really are talking out of your ass.

          The workers are not asking for much. Just their fair share

      • @Nahvi
        link
        English
        -41 year ago

        Am I wrong? I was using it as a comparison to jobs that require a similar amount of education and training.

        I tried to check and it seemed to be categorized as “unskilled”. Didn’t really seem like a completely fair assessment so I used “low-skill” instead.

        What would you call jobs in this category?

    • @Viking_Hippie
      link
      91 year ago

      nothing but a bunch of pro-establishment and anti-union gaslighting nonsense

      We’re done here, bootlicker.