In Europe, not only do they have strong, effective and dominant labor unions, but the workers even have their own Labor parties. Here, both parties are owned by the owners-- they have no incentive or need to cater to worker's interests in working place conditions, and quality of life issues.

Fucking duh.

What will it take before laboring Americans get a fair share of the profits being generated from their labor? First, you fucking dumbshits that work for a living but vote for GOPigs need to die or stop voting or wake the fuck up.

Second, anti-labor legislation like Taft Hartley and Open Shop laws have to be repealed and unionization has to take over the service industries.

Then, workers will be in a position to negotiate.

And yes, we will hear a bunch of scab ass morons shouting about how they don't want to be exploited by unions while they and their overworked wives spend 80-100 hours a week at work while their kids flunk out of school, run wild, and fight for the extra peanut butter left on the butter knife.

Meanwhile, we've had thirty years of virtually uninterrupted economic growth, all of which ended up in the pockets of less than 5% of the population, while those very same people own all the shares in all the companies like the health insurance companies, the oil companies, the privatized utilities and the private educational institutions push prices up to the point where the only thing left in a worker's pocket at the end of the month is lint. Oh, and in the meantime, the dollars paid in wages have become virtually worthless due to the deficit spending of our gov't.

Where did all that money go? Better roads, bridges, schools and such? Fuck no. Went to a virtual handful of connected insider gov't contractors who provided what could only be termed SHIT in exchange for all that money. Money that we borrowed and must pay interest on.

And from whom did we borrow that money? The same rich connected motherfuckers who got all those gov't contracts. They used that money to buy up gov't securities (as well as their foreign subsidiaries and suppliers who were also paid in borrowed cash) which we must now pay them back for.

So, we went broke and ruined the currency handing over our financial future to the politically connected, and now we have to hock our asses to pay those very same people back for the money they lent us to pay them for the nothing they provided us in the first place.

Well, let's see how much longer this is going to last. Because the end of this road ain't hard to imagine.

You lesson your argument by the use of profanity. While I'm not offended by it, it doesn't help your cause. The unemployment rate in Francei s 7.5 % 8% in Germany and 8% in Spain. The newsmedia is railing our economy because the unemployment rate is 5.5%. IF you don't like your job in the US you have a better chance of finding a newer, better one than you do in Europe.

Unions are most definitely NOT the answer to our problems. Just look at GM and Ford. Those companies are bleeding money, in large part, because they gave the union workers such ridiculous benefits. I recall reading that $1500 of the price of every GM vehicle goes to pensions and retiree benefits, whereas with Toyota, it's only $500 of every vehicle. And people wonder why the Big Three can't compete in today's market. It's because they gave away the store to the unions in the 70's and 80's.

Canexican:

You lesson your argument by the use of profanity. While I'm not offended by it, it doesn't help your cause. The unemployment rate in Francei s 7.5 % 8% in Germany and 8% in Spain. The newsmedia is railing our economy because the unemployment rate is 5.5%. IF you don't like your job in the US you have a better chance of finding a newer, better one than you do in Europe.

Not offended? Hmmm. I'll try harder: If you want to lecture someone on their language, have a child.

Second, while Euro unemployment figures are higher, this is because the US does not count approximately 14 million Americans who have dropped out of the job market. Our actual figure, if you did equivalents, would be closer to 10-12% unemployment. Third, unemployment in Europe is far less of a disaster because they have both a decent social safety net, free education/job training, and active, effective job placement.

The difference lies in the percentage of economic production that is diverted to the social sphere, which (though subject to abuse and mismanagement) elevates the median and allows the average person in talent and ambition to still lead a decent life with the necessities provided. Here, the disparity between the owning class and almost everybody else is so great that people are constantly dragged down and effectively thrown out of the running for social advancement and economic mobility due to bad luck or a few bad choices. This ultimately is a recipe for social chaos and economic collapse because it poisons the twin foundations of the economy-- labor and consumers. In the meantime, all that productive value goes into the hands of fewer and fewer people who then, seeking higher and higher returns, waste the capital on speculative, emerging market investments that simply drain more capital away from the social or public sector.

And that, my friend, is how workers who create the wealth and pay the taxes get fucked in the ass.

AllThatJazz:

Unions are most definitely NOT the answer to our problems. Just look at GM and Ford. Those companies are bleeding money, in large part, because they gave the union workers such ridiculous benefits. I recall reading that $1500 of the price of every GM vehicle goes to pensions and retiree benefits, whereas with Toyota, it's only $500 of every vehicle. And people wonder why the Big Three can't compete in today's market. It's because they gave away the store to the unions in the 70's and 80's.

Oh bullshit, Apparently, what you know comes from post-1980 revisionist propaganda. Having grown up in the steel region in a management family, the problem is not what the unions demanded. It was that the companies and the unions both pursued a strategy whereby wage increases were traded for health benefits and limited job security. Both sides made rationale decisions based on calculations that failed to predict the massive increase in health costs.

As a result, companies go under not because they are paying labor too much, but because they have a backlog of health expenses for retired workers that have increased expotentially-- all that money isn't going into labor or retiree's pockets, it's going to the medical care industry. The Big Three can't compete because they have to pay health benefits that foreign companies dont because health care is a public expense.

Incidentally, the expert in this field on the Fray is Run, I'd suggest checking out his stuff-- he's made a lifelong study of it.

So instead of having health care be a public expense, as in other countries, you would rather overpay workers so that everyone else pays for it through higher prices. What's the difference? In any case, I think it's absurd to pay high salaries and benefits for factory workers who do jobs that almost anyone can do.

He's not saying that. He's saying that the reason U.S. companies can't compete is b/c they are required to pay for ever-rising healthcare costs. Universal healthcare would put us on a footing equal to other countries...lowering the costs to employers and increasing the quality of life for everyone.

AllThatJazz:

So instead of having health care be a public expense, as in other countries, you would rather overpay workers so that everyone else pays for it through higher prices. What's the difference? In any case, I think it's absurd to pay high salaries and benefits for factory workers who do jobs that almost anyone can do.

Overpay workers? And how does that happen, exactly? Here's how it ought to work-- health becomes socialized so that the expenses are taken off the backs of employers and spread around on a broader, more progressive basis through tax/fiscal policy. Yes, that means rich people pay more (rich being defined as people who make their living off of incomes and which incomes exceed the poverty rate by several fold). Second, workers organize so that their services and time are bargained for collectively. That maximizes the share that labor can reasonably gain from their economic production.

Collective bargaining has its own natural limits, one of which now is the free transfer of capital and technology across borders, so unionization has to become a world wide phenomenon in order to fully maximize labor's position, but you have to start somewhere.

If you are so concerned about overpay, then I suggest that you concentrate more on the CEO's and other overpaid corporate officers who now take home a higher ratio of rumuneration to worker pay than has been seen since before the Depression and who do not produce anything close to the amount of value which they extract from their companies.

I tend to believe that If Americans weren't so damn selfish we'd all have more. God forbid you pay higher taxes so that every American can have healthcare. The same individualistic spirit that has made the U.S. so successful in the past is screwing us now...b/c we're stuck with a bunch of selfish ppl who think universal healthcare is some kind of socialist propaganda.

Somehow I think I already am speaking with a child. Perhaps Obama can reinforce his arguments in the next debate by dropping the F-bomb.

With regards to unemployment statistics, if the US doesn't include those in the last 3 mos. that doesn't artificially lower our unemployment rates it delays the data by 3 months. It tells me what the unemployment rate was 3 months ago. By your argument (since the current rate of unemployment doesn't include those who have lost there jobs in the last 3 months.) the unempolyment rate in Aug will be 10-12%. That won't happen because either your statistics are wrong (most likely) or those people find a new job (meaning they weren't really unemployed.)

While I disagree with your unemployment statistics, you are correct about the problem with GM/Ford. It was a negotiated deal that would not have been an issue if our healthcare was a public expense.

'Here's how it ought to work-- health becomes socialized so that the expenses are taken off the backs of employers and spread around on a broader, more progressive basis through tax/fiscal policy.'

translation: comrade doofus here is going to tax the shit out of the producers to subsidize the lazy and stupid again. oh boy!

what are you gonna call this gem? something catchy like 'the great society'? or something forceful like 'the war on poverty'?

whatever the fuck you call it comrade, it's sure to breed another permanent underclass of intragenerational recipients like the unintended consequences of the above mentioned programs. decimated the black family and all that.

those stupid fucks in the senate had to privatize their cafeteria because it was bleeding money.

you can snort socialist rainbows and pound collectivism up your own ass, but stay away from me or you might go on a one way helicopter ride.

Hey chang you saw that article about how Congress privatised it's cafeteria 20 years ago I take it.

No wonder the Senate is so ineffectual they were suffering from malnutrition.

the house privatize 20 years ago and it seems to be running smoothly. the senate has yet to privatize and DiFi was lamenting that they are bleeding taxpayers money and need to privatize. this was earlier this week.