# Study Of the Last Hundred Years



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Where are we in North America in the last hundred years compared to the rest of the world? Secondly was capitalism successful or was it a combination of Liberalism and Unions and such that made it great?

First off the US made the dollar the reserve currency first through a gold fix, then an oil connection and finally a military backing. These things have distorted the data on capitalism. Unions have made the middle class and their curtailment has taken place through trade deals.

This is all very complex but where do you see capitalism, hybrid capitalism, Liberalism, Dictatorship and Communism as far as success over the last hundred years.

Another thought is we haven't paid for the policies of the so called capitalists yet and that could mean a enormous setback for the west going forward.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think if you compare the historical records of accomplishments by unionism and capitalism with each other, you will find the answer.

Unions have always sought to improve the lives of average folks and capitalists have fought them at every step.

Minimum wages, universal health care, vacation time, maternal leave, sick leave, jury duty, statutory holidays, workplace safety, CPP expansion, EI benefits, workers compensation, right to bargain for a contract, severance pay, unjust dismissal............and on and on down the list were all opposed by capitalists when they were introduced.

Is there anything of benefit to workers.............that wouldn't be opposed by capitalists ?

Capitalism was a fine system, before it was usurped by a grotesque form of greedy capitalism created by vast pools of money demanding higher profits every quarter or they would replace the CEO. It was a fine system before the money from corporations and the wealthy corrupted politicians into doing their bidding, instead of representing the average people who elected them.

Fortunately, there has risen a group of capitalists who are at the pinnacle of success and they are warning that the current situation cannot continue or the entire system and democracy will fail.

Billionaires like Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, Bill Gross, Mark Cuban, Jim Rogers, Carl Icahn have begun speaking out.

They recognize the danger the widening wealth and income gaps present, and lobby for a more fair system of wealth distribution.

Hillary Clinton admitted today that free trade deals were "sold" to the American public and have never provided the benefit promised.

Politicians are starting to understand the problem. The question is do they still have enough freedom to address it.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Capitalism in a free society brings in the existence of unions to regulate it. Voters naturally vote for free stuff, easier lives bringing on the Democratic party for example. These voters can be exploited as we see today in the US in their quest for stuff without working for it. So many votes are formed that you can no longer ignore this block and policy evolves along with them and unions go along for this ride.

Trade deals are formed to fool this block and push this tide back. This is where we are today and of course there are the extremely rich at the top swaying it all to their favour I would think.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

But you are taking the position that workers shouldn't expect better than they already have.

Why not ? Do they not contribute to increased productivity and profits with their labor ?

People who supply the capital expect more as profits rise. Shouldn't those who supply the labor have the same consideration ?

While wages have stagnated for decades, stock markets have risen on higher corporate earnings. Companies are buying back shares, acquiring other companies, wondering what to do with all that money. Give a little to employees...........pfft.........no.

Auto workers in Canada gave back a lot of concessions 10 years ago. They gave up money, vacation time, cost of living, pension improvements, seniority rights............and this year is another contract year.

What are the auto companies saying now they are very profitable.........thanks for sharing the burden and helping us out ?

Nope.......they say if you don't accept more concessions, we are moving to Mexico.

Me............I say the government should play hardball with them and set an example.

Tell them.......you can go produce cars in Mexico, but we are going to slap a 100% duty on anything you want to sell here.

See how they like that idea. They might all leave........except the very last one. 

That one would be grinning and saying "we can open up new manufacturing plants and supply all of Canada with vehicles."

That is the way capitalism works. If there is a market to make profits.........there will always be a capitalist willing to take them.

Somebody has to stand up to this free trade s**t before Canada turns into a wasteland of fast food servers and real estate agents.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I am not disagreeing with you at all just saying what naturally occurs as we move along. I do believe workers deserve a piece of the pie and these workers then spend more creating more jobs not only in the stuff they need, but in the stuff they want, like TV's, recreation, tourism, restaurants and so on. 

It is the want stuff for nothing crowd that command voting power that also rises as I stated above that cause government debt to balloon higher and cause the bigger problem. This is where capitalism starts to go off the rails as these voters start to undermine it. Union leaders mistakenly go blindly along with this crowd but union workers eventually see through this and are forced to vote to the right to keep their jobs. Many union workers won't vote NDP even though the NDP are friendly to unions because the NDP chases out business and bring in policies for example that side with environmentalists like against all pipelines killing many potential jobs.

Workers can see the need for balance but the get something for nothing voters will blindly follow one path. The US is filling up with those voters but at the same time creating more of them through trade deals.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I like Bernie Sanders's web page describing wealth inequality: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

He points out a big factor here, which is that the ultra-wealthy have "rigged the rules" to hog the wealth. This happens in Canada too. Very wealthy people use corporate structures to dodge taxes without breaking the law. Large corporations routinely use tricks as explained in countless articles. Executives of public corporations are paid obscenely high compensation, never before done in history. Additionally corporations engage in tremendous lobbying efforts to change laws in their favour.

Wall Street and Bay Street both heavily influence government -- including putting their own guys into government and regulators. Like ex Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson who ran the US Treasury during the financial crisis! Or ex Goldman Sachs executive Mark Carney who first ran the Bank of Canada, and now Bank of England. It's no accident that the government then bends over backwards to make sure banks stay intact even when they lose billions of $.

In a way, you have to applaud investment bankers for having the balls to take multi million $ compensation after they nearly destroyed countries just 8 years ago and were kept alive by government. And how generous we are to allow all of this!

My point is that these wealthy parasites have strategically influenced systems, especially government. In the US, they've probably gone too far with it, which is why there's now such a popular backlash. My guess is that when the next financial crisis hits, and the banksters come to drain the public treasury again, peoples' patience will have run out.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

In the US you need huge amounts of money to run for office so naturally you are bought out. This is what has brought on the problems with the banks and allowed them to escape the consequences of the capitalist system. It is so bad now that they are even escaping the justice system where everyone else will go to jail. These ultra rich have gone to far and voters are waking up but the big danger here is that these guys will bring on major wars to distract and escape the voters wrath when all else fails.

Another problem in society as unions naturally come about and improve things is public sector unions. These workers should not be allowed to strike but in exchange should get better job security but should be paid more in line with the overall private sector unions.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

I look at the past to present a little differently in that there was the rich, the government and the worker. You had what you needed, did what you could, and had your place in the world. Today I believe we have the ultra rich, the social government, and the employee. The ultra rich can do whatever they want, the government officials want to play with the rich and be admired or adored by the public, and the average employee wants to do the least but have the most.

I agree with some of the above posts, you can only take so much from the people, either they become slaves or they revolt. It is also getting extremely difficult to find your own space as we are all connected digitally and our population increases. I know of several people who left other countries for Canada just to find some peace and quiet. Employers are wanting their employees digitally connected 24/7, the service and production workers are only a schedule change from being full time on-call/demand. While you watch CEO's fly around the world for meetings one week and "away from office" another. Management has gone completely off track. Soon we will be just a group of people being lead down the road and fed by robots it seems. A loss of self reliance, independence and sufficiency.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Robots will be the x factor down the road and could throw out older models of how we moved from a stricter capitalism a hundred years ago to what we have today. How we evolve with them will be interesting and make going back to the older form of capitalism obsolete. Also their intelligence will increase greatly as robots start to build robots.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Communist countries have to build walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries have to build walls to keep people out

What more do you need to know?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Over the last 100 years human nature has remained the same. But due to capitalism, and science and technology, our meaningless lives (Vanity, vanity, all is vanity) have become increasingly more comfortable, enjoyable, and longer. 

If I am not mistaken it was Warren Buffett who observed something along the lines that if one made about 70,000 a year, your daily life was not that much different than a multi billionaire.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I_t is the lash of hunger which compels the poor man to submit. 

In order to live he must sell - 'voluntarily' sell - himself every day and hour to the 'beast of property.' 

Johann Most_

Do we presume that in the auto plants in Mexico, the decrepit factories in India, and workplace slums throughout the third world, people toil there because they are climbing the ladder of success ?

Nah..........workers in North America lose their jobs and everything that attaches with that.

Workers in those countries lose their limbs and their lives. Children lose their childhood. They work to eat because that is all the wages allow.

Free trade has done immense damage in the third world. Those who benefit own the factories.

It isn't factory workers in China who are buying million dollar properties in Vancouver.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe what is needed is a national day of protest, such as there was in the 1970s.

Pierre Trudeau introduced wage and price controls to stem the tide of inflation.

The legislation controlled wages effectively, but prices continued to rise.

When people had enough they put down their tools and walked off their jobs.

I was a union President and led people out the door. I was immediately terminated by the company.

The people refused to go back to work until the termination was reversed.

Strikes, sit downs, locking themselves inside a plant slated for closure..........were fairly common.

Sometimes in life you have to make a choice.

Stand up for yourself and others or be prepared to accept being pushed around.

I don't know if people are up for it these days though. They seem too indoctrinated and beaten down to fight back.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^^

Human beings have always worked to eat. In our country you can voluntarily go north and become a pre-industrial age hunter gatherer if you think that is better.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^^
Again you exhibit socialist union type rhetoric. Volker took care of price inflation via very high interest rates. 

Putting down tools and walking off jobs does not support the idea of the lash of hunger making them submit. 

I made less than union workers in manufacturing and my life has been better/easier than that of my grand parents.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Pluto said:


> ^^
> 
> Human beings have always worked to eat. In our country you can voluntarily go north and become a pre-industrial age hunter gatherer if you think that is better.


I don't understand your comment.

We southerners would have a very hard time moving north and trying to trap lynx for a living; those few who do this successfully for a living use snowmobiles and sometimes have a You-Tube channel as a side income, hardly pre-industrial; we're all in the 21st century now.

Or are you suggesting that we working stiffs should either just eff off or give up standing up for ourselves and accept being pushed around?

Not gonna happen. imho


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
What part do you not understand? Humans have always worked to eat. Sags is talking as if that part of the human condition is unjust. Being a hunter gatherer is like being you own boss, where you don't have to put up with management pushing you around. What's to understand? 

I recall a strike where the owner/management released his books and proved that if their demands were met, the company would go broke. The union did not budge. So the owner terminated the business. Go figure. Whose pushing who around? Too many unions have an irrational kamikaze anti business attitude. And they could care less about the elderly trying to survive on tea, biscuits and dog food.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And yet...........more than a million Canadian workers, walked off their jobs together in protest.

Alas, it was a fine day to be a socialist unionist type.

_Wage and price controls angered the labour movement. Workers felt unfairly targeted, especially because price controls were weak. Anger and frustration grew when provincial governments, including three New Democratic Party (NDP) administrations, passed similar legislation. While the Canadian Labour Congress's (CLC) leadership debated tactics to protest the situation, pressure grew in the labour movement to call a national strike. Consequently, on October 14, 1976, the CLC marked the first anniversary of the wage and price controls legislation with a *national Day of Protest*. Estimates indicate that *over a million workers joined in demonstrations across the country*. Union leaders used the event as leverage in negotiations to curtail the impact of the legislation with governments. But for the most part governments appeared increasingly unreceptive to labour and its concerns._


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Many jobs outside of unions which include management and owners depend on workers being able to afford more then just eating and paying for a roof over their head. The problems we face is the unsettled ever increasing debt, the banks and the 1 percent sucking away our countries. Trade deals the way they are negotiated badly hurt the US for example which is part of its trade imbalance.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm not union, never have been in one, but lets not deny that essentally all of the gains that the working class have made are due to workers standing together.

I'm just one guy, I charge what I charge, and if they don't want to pay, I walk.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> And yet...........more than a million Canadian workers, walked off their jobs together in protest.
> 
> Alas, it was a fine day to be a socialist unionist type.
> 
> _Wage and price controls angered the labour movement. Workers felt unfairly targeted, especially because price controls were weak. Anger and frustration grew when provincial governments, including three New Democratic Party (NDP) administrations, passed similar legislation. While the Canadian Labour Congress's (CLC) leadership debated tactics to protest the situation, pressure grew in the labour movement to call a national strike. Consequently, on October 14, 1976, the CLC marked the first anniversary of the wage and price controls legislation with a *national Day of Protest*. Estimates indicate that *over a million workers joined in demonstrations across the country*. Union leaders used the event as leverage in negotiations to curtail the impact of the legislation with governments. But for the most part governments appeared increasingly unreceptive to labour and its concerns._


there you go again. When you use the word "labour" you mean union labour. You don't mean all labour. In 1976 union labour made 2 to 3x's what I made. Unions typically accuse owners/management of greed thereby grabbing what they think is moral superiority. Stealthily, unions adopted the same attitude of greed but in order to hide it, they don't call it greed.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mrPPincer said:


> I'm not union, never have been in one, but lets not deny that essentally all of the gains that the working class have made are due to workers standing together.
> 
> I'm just one guy, I charge what I charge, and if they don't want to pay, I walk.


Sounds like you are self employed or something. That means you are owner/management and therefore, according to lots of union rhetoric, inherently evil and the cause of all the economic and financial problems. 

there is nothing inherently wrong with walking if people can't or don't don't pay. But presumably, you don't prevent them from going elsewhere to do business. Unions on the other hand prevent managements from hiring people who are willing to work for less thereby artificially interfering with the supply and demand of labour.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Pluto said:


> But presumably, you don't prevent them from going elsewhere to do business. Unions on the other hand prevent managements from hiring people who are willing to work for less thereby artificially interfering with the supply and demand of labour.


That's true. Being in the private sector & non-union I have no job security what-so-ever, they could go elsewhere at any point. 
But they know I can be counted on, which for them is worth paying for, no headaches, they know the job will get done.
I could never strike though, either I want to work or I don't want the work, no in between.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Business helps us by creating wealth and jobs. Unions help us by ensuring that workers are treated fairly. 

It's greed that creates problems and greed can be found in both businesses and unions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I think unions have been very valuable in making sure workers are treated fairly.

There are many rights that workers have today that we take as granted (and think obvious that one should have), that were only gained through the struggles of labour unions.

I don't fool myself. As a worker _who needs a wage_, I am an under-class to the elites: the wealthy business owners. There is nothing symmetric about this power. This is why I am thankful to the labour unions who have worked hard, for a long time, to help make sure that I'm not treated like a slave.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I think unions have been very valuable in making sure workers are treated fairly.
> 
> There are many rights that workers have today that we take as granted (and think obvious that one should have), that were only gained through the struggles of labour unions.
> 
> I don't fool myself. As a worker _who needs a wage_, I am an under-class to the elites: the wealthy business owners. There is nothing symmetric about this power. This is why I am thankful to the labour unions who have worked hard, for a long time, to help make sure that I'm not treated like a slave.


Are you in a union? if not they could care less about you. In the '70's when there were major strikes, most of them were making 3x's what I made. When the dispute was settled, my expenses went up to support their wage increases, but my wages never went up. no union worker ever walked off the job to protect me. If you are not in a union your protection is labour relations type legislation which are minimum standards. 

I don't get the conclusion that unions protected people who were not in a union.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> I don't get the conclusion that unions protected people who were not in a union.


Unions are primarily responsible to their members but they have a history of lobbying for legislative changes which benefitted all workers. They also created market pressure on non-union shops to improve wages and benefits. 

The backlash against the unions in the 80s so weakened them that corporations now wield too much power. Lately, there's a backlash against corporations.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Are you in a union? if not they could care less about you. In the '70's when there were major strikes, most of them were making 3x's what I made. When the dispute was settled, my expenses went up to support their wage increases, but my wages never went up. no union worker ever walked off the job to protect me. If you are not in a union your protection is labour relations type legislation which are minimum standards.
> 
> I don't get the conclusion that unions protected people who were not in a union.


I agree the standard of living is much better than it ever has been, but maintaining the standard of living is the point of the discussion.

To maintain the current standard of living requires massive government deficit spending, historic low interest rates, record levels of consumer debt and rising taxes.

This scenario can't continue unabated forever.

Some will call for reduced government spending on social programs as the solution.

The Europeans discovered implementing austerity has it's own unique set of problems.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

*Oil Supply*

Over the last hundred years, the supply of crude oil (the world's most useful energy source yet discovered over 130 years ago) has increased dramatically-you all know the numbers. The supply of global conventional crude oil peaked around 2005-2006-the increases in total oil supply since has been totally due to non-conventional (shale and tar sands)-which is far more expensive to bring to market and thus less useful. My point is that we can look at the last hundred years, but 10 or 11 years ago the paradigm shifted permanently.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

olivaw said:


> Unions are primarily responsible to their members but they have a history of lobbying for legislative changes which benefitted all workers. They also created market pressure on non-union shops to improve wages and benefits.


Right. I am not in a union, but I benefit from the laws & regulations that came about due to the hard work of labour unions and labour activists in general.

Everyone here benefits from this, especially the women among us.

The only ones in the CMF forum who might possibly have seen no benefit from labour unions are the ones who are incredibly wealthy and whose families own large industries ... families in the zone of 20M+ wealth. I think that everyone else should appreciate that unions have done something beneficial for them and their family.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Closed shop type unions are a disaster. One trip to Detroit should be enough to demonstrate that, the population is several times smaller than it used to be and looks like it had a war. Forcing people into unions against their will is just wrong.

And freedom to join is also important. Unions did a lot of good for relatively unqualified labour. Having government workers, engineers, students joining unions seems a tad crazy though.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Detroit was crushed by auto imports, as were many other industrial bases.

Textiles, furniture, appliances, electronics, footwear, computers, and many other industries all gone to countries with cheap labor and no rules.

People are finally realizing that the cheap stuff from China has a hidden cost........first their neighbors job and then their own job.

Free trade is "trickle out" unemployment.

The damage starts in one plant and only affects those workers for a short time, but the concentric waves of unemployment will soon be lapping at a lot of doors.

Unions......many unionized workplaces managed for 50 or more years to operate within a profitable business. GM was the most valued company in the world. The US steel industry was a huge industry. Truck drivers earned decent wages under the Teamster union.

And then the politicians sold the public a bill of goods called free trade.

We will create millions of jobs building products to sell the rising middle class in China............they said.

Decades later and there is no middle class in China or Mexico and never will be on slave wages. 

We have record deficits in trade...........where are the millions of jobs ?

One of the most severe miscalculations about the creation of millions of jobs, was the supposed millions of truck and rail employees, and dock workers who would hand load trailers and deliver them all over North America.

But one idea eliminated the need for most of those jobs. 

The intermodal unit, which is hand loaded in China and a crane puts it on the ship. At the receiving dock a crane lifts it off the ship and onto a flat rail car or transport truck. A few employees to unload a whole container ship in a couple of hours and millions of prospective jobs vanished into thin air. All we were left with then was cheap goods and the loss of our jobs.

In our warehouse we handled intermodal units all day long. Open up the door and all the boxes are pre-labeled and ready to go.
A handful of people putting them into the right dealer boxes or regional warehouses and off they go.....no fuss, no muss, few jobs.

Free trade was not just a miscalculation. It was also a lie..........a fabrication that enabled corporations not only to manufacture cheaply, but also to keep their profits offshore and refuse to repatriate them. 

What is Apple saying recently ?

"We aren't going to repatriate our profits"......says Apple. "We don't like the US tax rates."

They don't like the tax rates, but they sure do like taking US consumer's money to buy their products made in China.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Oil has played a major role in Canada helping our export surplus. In the US it has helped by providing a link to the dollar after the gold peg was stopped. With the change as mentioned to very expensive oil extraction methods,oil is either going to be very costly or we have a surplus with falling economies and low prices killing oil producing countries. High debt to produce this oil also kills companies and countries as oil rises in price.

The next century will be marked with the solution to our oil woes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One thing that I think is worse that it was before, is the trend towards privatization including the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The CWB sold the wheat, made advance payments to farmers, provided all the logistics on sales and delivery, and did a good job of it all.

After they were dismantled, private buyers of wheat started playing farmers against each other for price. The private companies would tell farmers they could only accept X amount of wheat and would only buy it at a discount from those willing to sell for that price. Everyone else had no market for their wheat. Some farmers convinced themselves they were more skilled negotiators than the executives at the private wheat pools. They learned the business people were sharks and already had their game plan set. 

The CWB organized the rail transport and after they were dismantled, the railroads made wheat farmers a last priority because they could earn more profit hauling oil.

The rail transport was so screwed up, the government had to step in and order CP rail to provide more trains, or the government would levy big fines against them. Privatize the CWB and then for the government to direct CP rail how to run their business was an ironic twist.

A bumper crop created a overwhelming situation where farmers couldn't move their wheat out of their storage silos.

Land prices started falling. Farmers became desperate and went to the US seeking buyers, but American farmers weren't happy to compete with them and there were lots of stories of slashed tires on the grain hauling trucks and other confrontations.

This year is predicted to be another bumper crop around the world. I hope things work out a lot better this time around.

My brother in law said that the farmers in his area wish the CWB was still there. 

Those who were in favor of dismantling the CWB now view it as a big mistake.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ontario privatized a brand new maximum security prison.

There were so many problems at the prison that the government had to take control back.

Overall, I think it is difficult to find an example where privatization had a good outcome.

In Ontario, people are still angry about privatizing Highway 407.

The driver offices were privatized and are always understaffed with long lineups all day.

I wouldn't be sad to see the privatization concept tossed into the refuse pile.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...lains-gms-problems-with-the-uaw/#3783e72362ce

That article gives some examples of how a union can destroy a company, in this case, GM. 

Over the last 100 years, things are better in general but unions get way too much credit from some people. 

Toyota and Honda never have had unions as far as I know, and their plants in North America put the lie to cheap over seas labour theory.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...lains-gms-problems-with-the-uaw/#3783e72362ce
> 
> That article gives some examples of how a union can destroy a company, in this case, GM.
> 
> ...


Toyota have announced they are closing their Cambridge, Ontario plant and moving it to Mexico.

Being non union and accepting lower wages and less benefits isn't saving their jobs.

The jobs might be saved if Canadians are willing to work for Mexican auto wages...........$5 an hour.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...lains-gms-problems-with-the-uaw/#3783e72362ce
> 
> That article gives some examples of how a union can destroy a company, in this case, GM.
> 
> ...


GM went bankrupt when they strayed away from auto manufacturing and into finances, after they replaced "car guys" with "bean counters".

They suffered massive losses in the mortgage business with GMAC. To raise cash they sold their profitable channel suppliers like AC Delco.

Further complicating their problems were poor auto designs and customer service demanded by the accountants to save costs.

Anyone remember the Aztec? The "bubble" Malibu? 

GM and the UAW operated very profitable businesses together for decades. The collapse of GM wasn't the UAW's fault.

It is irrelevant anyways. Union or non union can't compete with Mexico on wages.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

The problem is that we have huge sectors of the economy totally insulated from any sort of competition, much less strong foreign competition such as GM has faced-you think this absurd public school system would survive if it was faced with actual cost/quality foreign competition? Or the "healthcare" industry? Not a chance. So the sectors thrown to the wolves perish and fewer workers are left to pay for the unproductive sectors.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Toyota have announced they are closing their Cambridge, Ontario plant and moving it to Mexico.
> 
> Being non union and accepting lower wages and less benefits isn't saving their jobs.
> 
> The jobs might be saved if Canadians are willing to work for Mexican auto wages...........$5 an hour.


1. I'm glad Toyota is moving to Mexico. I should look into buying some Toyota stock. I bet you'd be happy if Mexican workers were making 10 cents an hour picking lettuce and cry if they made 5 an hour in a factory. 
2. Most, maybe all, unions don't have a clue about entrepreneurial matters. They have the same destructive greed as the worst capitalists.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That would be a pretty bleak forecast.

Jobs continuing to move to low wage countries, while companies expect to sell their goods in North America ?

That circle doesn't connect. If consumers don't have jobs, they can't buy the goods.

The glut of oil and slump in prices has devastated Alberta. The employment impact is felt far beyond jobs in the direct oil industry.

Auto manufacturing is a leading industry for Canadian GDP. If the auto industry leaves, the negative impact will be bigger than the oil slump.

We can't keep giving our jobs away and calling it inevitable progress.

Defend the jobs or lose them in a competitive world.

We need a return to the Auto Pact. Produce here if you want access to our markets.

It was a highly successful strategy for many decades, until "free traders" presumed they had a better system.

The results of the "better system" have revealed that it was a fatally flawed concept.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/kyoto/the-auto-pact-forerunner-of-free-trade-book-excerpt/

According to that book excerpt the auto pact was free trade. So it looks like you are against what you are in favour of.

Apparently Canada has about 14% of auto production, but we do not have 14% of the population of North America. 

It just seems like you want Mexico to buy autos but not have any auto manufacturing.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Firstly, "free" trade is a misnomer-nothing free about it-Canada and Ontario possess an incredibly bloated, expensive government at different levels that must be paid for-for the last 40 years the trick has been to simply kick the can down the road (borrow)-and let the next generation inherit the problem. It just seems like you want Mexican cars but you don't want the cheap Mexican school system or healthcare system-how does this work mathematically?


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Free trade has helped to import deflation which is great but it also exported jobs. So as nelley points out you borrow to maintain your lifestyle which does not seem to be a very good trade off along with the lost jobs. Worse yet you cut services to service the debt in the future. Of course companies are happy to move to lower cost places at least in the short term.

Other then short term benifits and opening up some new markets to some of our natural resources it does not seem to be a very good thing. The TPP will be much much worse as companies will be able to exploit countries they move into besides leaving the jobs behind of the country they left.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nelley said:


> Firstly, "free" trade is a misnomer-nothing free about it-Canada and Ontario possess an incredibly bloated, expensive government at different levels that must be paid for-for the last 40 years the trick has been to simply kick the can down the road (borrow)-and let the next generation inherit the problem. It just seems like you want Mexican cars but you don't want the cheap Mexican school system or healthcare system-how does this work mathematically?


Actually I want a cheaper school system too. I'm sure there is lots of dead wood in the school system. 

Free trade is the way to go. 

From Bob Rae onward, Ontario gov't has been basically a spendthrift government. Absolutely crazy.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

My point is that the only way you are getting cheaper education or healthcare through "free trade" is when the whole thing collapses because of the debt-not an ideal or rational approach.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Government spending is going to get a lot higher if they have to support more Canadians without jobs.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

new dog said:


> Where are we in North America in the last hundred years compared to the rest of the world? Secondly was capitalism successful or was it a combination of Liberalism and Unions and such that made it great?


Capitalism is the only system in the history of the world that has a proven record of making people's lives better. Virtually every single modern convenience that we take for granted came as a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism gave us quality of life.

On the other hand, liberalism and unions invented nothing...they only provide tweaks to an already great system. To compare them to capitalism as if they are "equals" is like suggesting that a seat belt or air bag is just the same as a well running automobile.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

bass player said:


> Capitalism is the only system in the history of the world that has a proven record of making people's lives better. Virtually every single modern convenience that we take for granted came as a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism gave us quality of life.
> 
> On the other hand, liberalism and unions invented nothing...they only provide tweaks to an already great system. To compare them to capitalism as if they are "equals" is like suggesting that a seat belt or air bag is just the same as a well running automobile.


Very true, I believe. When the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR blew apart, we got a good look at the failure of communism. East Germany was poverty stricken and utterly filthy with industrial waste. The thought processes of many unions mirrors the anti business and anti capitalist thought processes of communism which is the path to economic destruction. 

That doesn't mean, however, that unfettered capitalist greed is needed. I fear unfettered greed as much as I fear extreme socialism.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

^^

I agree that capitalism needs checks and balances. However, the problem with extreme socialism or communism is that the people are silenced and have very little opportunity to change things. In a capitalist society, unchecked greed can be exposed and people still have rights.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I think more so then capitalism is the rights and freedoms given to the people. Without a right to vote and a founding of values to go with our freedoms in a constitution, capitalism would probably be no better then any other system. However we probably wouldn't have a lot of debt in such a system just the super rich and the ultra poor.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

new dog said:


> I think more so then capitalism is the rights and freedoms given to the people. Without a right to vote and a founding of values to go with our freedoms in a constitution, capitalism would probably be no better then any other system. However we probably wouldn't have a lot of debt in such a system just the super rich and the ultra poor.


Capitalism can't exist without freedom...they both require each other to exist. You can't have one without having the other.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Today is Labor day and this article suggests that scabs are not bad.

Personally I don't think it is good to be a scab. Unions have gone too far in a lot of instances but so has companies and management and people had to fight hard in the past to get some rights for workers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-03/scabs-are-true-labor-day-heroes


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, you're suggesting that because companies went too far in the past, that justifies unions going to far in the present? That seems a bit ridiculous. People should be aiming for balance, not extremes. If someone wants to work for less, why should a union be able to block their employment? If a company can't hire people at a certain rate, the salary will be increased. If you have an incompetent employee, who endangers others with poor quality of work, why does a union protect them?

The debate is obviously complicated, but a little common sense would probably go a long way in solving 90% of the problems...it also helps to try and see the other side of the issue. Not every company is a greedy, rich, group built on the exploitation of the poor and not every employee is a lazy, stealing *******.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Anyone who thinks unrestrained capitalism would be better than having unions should read some books on what working conditions were like in the 19th century.

I have reservations too sometimes about the current state of union-management relations; and that too many union leaders seem to be intent on re-fighting battles they won 50-100 years ago. But then I read about obscenely rich, virulently anti-union American Corporations like Walmart, whose employees form the single largest employee group on Medicaid in many states, because Walmart doesn't pay them a living wage. Or about the foreign owners of Timmie's threatening to reduce employee benefits to compensate themselves for complying with new minimum wages laws. And then I think maybe the 19th century isn't that far behind us.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Consider how multinationals treat workers in India and foreign countries, when they are hidden from public view, and you get a good idea of the despicable behavior they are capable of.

Some of them even use children to perform the work.

Of course when they get publicly shamed, they claim they knew nothing about the working conditions. Sure...........


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Last I checked, no one is forced to work for Walmart. No one is forced to shop there either. Despite all that, I see the extremists completely miss the point of meeting in the middle as was the suggestion and jump right to their extremist dogma when that was never the point. 

No wonder we can't solve the problems.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I think public sector unions go too far but other then that it is still good to have unions. We need balance as suggested but I still believe as Guru and Sags suggested that management will go as far as they can to save money. 

Another point would be to maybe introduce basic dental care for all workers and maybe put minimum wage at 14 instead of 15 to accomplish this.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I've known many people who were strong union supporters...radical ones even, until they were promoted to management. Once they saw the other side of things, their attitudes soon changed.

I suppose, for those who only see one side, their opinion will always seem correct. I'm not saying all businesses are perfect, nor all unions evil, the reality is most people have no clue as to the issues faced by the other side. Same as employees don't understand what it takes to own and run a business, the poor know what it'll take to change their fortunes, etc.

It's easier to complain than change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Our company had a policy of promoting from within, but people had to leave the union to join management.

In pretty well all cases those who chose to leave the union and join management, were reminded of their decision as they watched their fellow union employees accept hefty "buyout" packages and early retirement packages, while they were not offered the same. Management didn't fare well at all, and in fact the company tried to eliminate all long promised health benefits and life insurance for non union management retirees, but lost in a public court battle with their retirees. 

Suffice to say that morale among former and current management was about as low as it could get.

After years of observation from both sides, I see the differences as stark reality.

Join a union and negotiate with the company as a group, as best as you can..........or go in begging with cap in hand as an individual.

Which is most likely to provide a better outcome for the worker ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> I've known many people who were strong union supporters...radical ones even, until they were promoted to management. Once they saw the other side of things, their attitudes soon changed.
> 
> I suppose, for those who only see one side, their opinion will always seem correct. I'm not saying all businesses are perfect, nor all unions evil, the reality is most people have no clue as to the issues faced by the other side. Same as employees don't understand what it takes to own and run a business, the poor know what it'll take to change their fortunes, etc.
> 
> It's easier to complain than change.


UNIFOR is currently working with the Canadian government developing trade policies for autos and other manufacturing. 

Your statements that employees/unions don't know anything about business or their employers is patently false.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

sags said:


> UNIFOR is currently working with the Canadian government developing trade policies for autos and other manufacturing.
> 
> Your statements that employees/unions don't know anything about business or their employers is patently false.


You never took the second year philosophy course "symbolic logic" did you? Your first statement says nothing about the truth or falsehood of your second statement. There are all sorts of reasons why UNIFOR might have been invited to participate, say Trudeau wanting curry the union vote for one possible explanation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Or...........

Unifor represents auto workers. US/Canada trade talks are about auto production.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There’s a big difference between attending a meeting or two and working in the trenches daily. Sags, once again, proves they have no clue about reality (never willingly going outside of the comfort zone) but lives by assumptions and bound by their own fears. It’s really a shame to see such potential held back to the point where handouts are the only solution in people’s mind. 

Of course, your attitude is probably a great reflection of the insight from unifor. “I once worked as an employee, so I’m an expert on business, management, the rich, the poor, how to run the world, etc. Don’t listen to all those people who’ve actually worked in those areas for real, they know nothing John snow.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Jeez..........you really think UNIFOR and other large unions are a couple of guys sitting around a table in a small room ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

No, I’m sure each and every member is heavily involved and not just sitting around, collecting a paycheque, while complaining about how hard they have things. Each negotiating session probably rents the sky dome just to accommodate negotiations. And all the union representatives are fully aware of the daily issues surrounding running a company and the particular issues facing the specific company.

It’s obvious you’ve never been in a union negotiation. With too many people, nothing would ever get settled, even with government union negotiations.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Our company had a policy of promoting from within, but people had to leave the union to join management.
> 
> In pretty well all cases those who chose to leave the union and join management, were reminded of their decision as they watched their fellow union employees accept hefty "buyout" packages and early retirement packages, while they were not offered the same. Management didn't fare well at all, and in fact the company tried to eliminate all long promised health benefits and life insurance for non union management retirees, but lost in a public court battle with their retirees.
> 
> ...


this is an arguement that tends to suggets the union was more greedy than management, and you say that's good. With all your complaining concerning management having all the money, and the workers starving, all of a sudden you claim the opposite - union workers were beter off than management. 

Some unions are reasonable and can do math - like if they demand more than the company makes, the company will go broke - while others are right out of touch with reality. Reportedly, GM got so bad all the money it recieved for car sales went to pay for wages and pensions. the only way they could make $ was through their finance operations. Eventually it went bankrupt due to better outcomes for workers, which of course, is convoluted double talk.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think that unions have been a decent solution to the problem of cronyism, corruption and government squashing of small industry in favour of big business, which has prevented workers from having the employment choices that they wanted. It hasn't been the solution to "greedy capitalism".

It's a bandaid, a coverup if you will, to fix and prevent the notice of the bigger issues that prevent an economy from thriving.

It's quite easy to say that unions have fought for and won so that the working/middle class is now better off than without them, in a time of big business hoarding the profits and extracting underpriced labour from workers who have no other choice... It's not at all easy to say how many magnitudes more well off we'd all be if the government had spent the past 100 years doing _their actual job_ of enforcing a framework of laws that were fair; and had overcome cronyism, lobbying, and giving big business a stranglehold on the marketplace.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> this is an arguement that tends to suggets the union was more greedy than management, and you say that's good. With all your complaining concerning management having all the money, and the workers starving, all of a sudden you claim the opposite - union workers were beter off than management.
> 
> Some unions are reasonable and can do math - like if they demand more than the company makes, the company will go broke - while others are right out of touch with reality. Reportedly, GM got so bad all the money it recieved for car sales went to pay for wages and pensions. the only way they could make $ was through their finance operations. Eventually it went bankrupt due to better outcomes for workers, which of course, is convoluted double talk.


GM became heavily involved in mortgages leading up to the housing crisis and lost a fortune. To stem losses, they sold Delphi, AC Delco, GM Finance and other subsidiaries to raise cash.

At the same time, consumers were losing their homes and jobs and weren't buying new vehicles.

A corporation the size of GM must find capital long before it actually runs out of cash. It must keep suppliers paid and doors open.

GM eventually ran too low on cash and the government had to bail them out to avoid a financial crisis.

As to union members "having it better" than middle managers, that is very often the case. 

Middle managers have no ownership rights, aren't protected by the union, and are easily replaceable. Companies see no need to reward them.

People who leave the union to join management, soon find out how little the company values them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> No, I’m sure each and every member is heavily involved and not just sitting around, collecting a paycheque, while complaining about how hard they have things. Each negotiating session probably rents the sky dome just to accommodate negotiations. And all the union representatives are fully aware of the daily issues surrounding running a company and the particular issues facing the specific company.
> 
> It’s obvious you’ve never been in a union negotiation. With too many people, nothing would ever get settled, even with government union negotiations.


Actually the national union will be well represented with the President of each local, pension experts, lawyers, accountants and other experts in attendance.

They are negotiating for contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and actually they DO know a lot about the business of auto manufacturing.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> GM became heavily involved in mortgages leading up to the housing crisis and lost a fortune. To stem losses, they sold Delphi, AC Delco, GM Finance and other subsidiaries to raise cash.
> 
> At the same time, consumers were losing their homes and jobs and weren't buying new vehicles.
> 
> ...


I still don't buy into your values. You are too greedy, and when you call management greedy, its just the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

There are too many people these days who don't realize how fortunate they are, particularly in the Western world. In fact, if I had to guess I suspect that people in poorer countries are generally far more grateful then we are. Think about it. We live in one of the most peaceful, prosperous times in history. We live in a country that people are literally dying to get into. Even people below the poverty line are often richer than kings were a few hundred years ago - most people below the poverty line have televisions, entertainment systems, a computer, access to a variety of food from all over the planet, health care and many have a car. A king could never dream of such luxuries. I read a story, which I suspect is true, about a king in the middle ages who couldn't get 2 pounds of sugar that he wanted for desserts for his party. 

So obviously we've been doing somethings right, particularly in the west. I believe our good fortune is largely due to individual freedoms including free enterprise. That's why we should be careful of those who want to diminish individual rights.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> GM became heavily involved in mortgages leading up to the housing crisis and lost a fortune. To stem losses, they sold Delphi, AC Delco, GM Finance and other subsidiaries to raise cash.
> 
> At the same time, consumers were losing their homes and jobs and weren't buying new vehicles.
> 
> ...


It's funny that you forget to mention all the quality control issues GM faced. The cars coming off the line, being built by union members were garbage because of manufacturing issues...highly paid people doing a crummy job, but protected by job security..

Also interesting that no one ever talks about Henry Ford who willingly paid his employees an unheard of wage for the day. No, it's always greedy companies and poor workers...when in reality there are always good and bad employees and good and bad companies. Of course, you probably support those "bad" companies like Walmart because you want cheap stuff. Cheap stuff means lower profits, which means lower wages all around. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't shop at Walmart, support the good companies, vote with your wallet...oh wait, you already are and you're getting exactly what you're asking for.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> Actually the national union will be well represented with the President of each local, pension experts, lawyers, accountants and other experts in attendance.
> 
> They are negotiating for contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and actually they DO know a lot about the business of auto manufacturing.


Oh yes, every pension expert, accountant and lawyer, not to mention a union president has run an international car manufacturing company...

It's like you saying you're a master of international finance because you have a bank account. 

Most of those "professions" are employees to begin with, certainly most have never run or created a business and, even if they had, certainly not on the same scale.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Naturally management and owners will want to cut costs. They will pollute the environment if they are allowed to and pay workers next to nothing if there were enough replacement workers around and so on.

Unions will naturally get the best deal they can for their workers even to the point of breaking a company. If a union leader doesn't get whatever they can out of a company then workers may demand new leadership or a new union who will get what they can from a company.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, now let common sense prevail and let's get something called compromise where everyone can win.

My employees aren't union, don't want to be and don't feel hard done by. I'm also not exploiting the environment, in fact I willingly make my company more efficient by choice. I also make my rentals nicer and with features like all appliances and led lighting. There is no requirement, I could save money by not doing it (especially when a tenant trashes the place), but I choose not to. I'm not alone in these ideas either. 

Not every company is out to get the most they can for nothing...unlike the "tax the rich to give to me attitude" while pretending to be the victim.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Spidey said:


> Even people below the poverty line are often richer than kings were a few hundred years ago - most people below the poverty line have televisions, entertainment systems, a computer, access to a variety of food from all over the planet, health care and many have a car. A king could never dream of such luxuries.


True, but irrelevant. 

People don't compare themselves to kings of 200 years ago. They compare themselves to their neighbours and the people they see on Facebook and Instagram.

That same dissatisfaction with their lives is as gnawing as not having food on the table.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

In Canada, there is no reason for not having food on the table other than mismanagement of the funds the poor are given. Many of the poor I work with all have cell phones, my kids don't have cell phones, but the poor all do. Many of the poor are buying fast food instead of cooking from scratch, many of the poor are buying cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc. All with the "free" money they could be using for food or other things they often complain they don't have.

Education in money management would probably go farther in helping the poor than giving them more cash to waste.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL............union envy or what ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> LOL............union envy or what ?


It's disgust at abuse of power to the opposite extreme, but some people obviously feel it's better to destroy something out of spite than keep it going for long term benefits. No wonder they are relatively poor and always demanding money from others. They soiled their own nest, destroyed it even because sometime in the past some company abused someone else, and now want someone else to clean it up and give them a new place to destroy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I see...........it is union benefits envy.

Higher wages, pensions, vacations, severance, safety rules, annual increases, seniority protections.......why in the world would people want any of those things when they can slog through life without them ?

The best advice you can give your kids.............get a job in a unionized setting.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Best advice I’d give my kids is to build a passive income, have financial freedom, do whatever you want and enjoy and keep your hands in your own pocket. 

I know a lot of unemployed union memebers who successful shut down their employer and their jobs. No union envy in my life, I shake my head at their stupidity.

I guess the idea of personal responsibility is an unimaginable concept to some.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Spidey said:


> There are too many people these days who don't realize how fortunate they are, particularly in the Western world. In fact, if I had to guess I suspect that people in poorer countries are generally far more grateful then we are ...


Agree on the fortunate part ... I'm not so sure on the grateful part. 
I have heard some from poor countries wonder why Westerners were so stressed and what this depression thing was.




Spidey said:


> ... Even people below the poverty line are often richer than kings were a few hundred years ago - most people below the poverty line have televisions, entertainment systems, a computer, access to a variety of food from all over the planet, health care and many have a car ...


Maybe ... maybe not. 

Recently invented items such as TVs and computers that the king from a few hundred years ago could not own IMO are irrelevant when gauging wealth. 
Or would a court jester be considered an equivalent to an entertainment system?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

lightcycle said:


> Spidey said:
> 
> 
> > ... Even people below the poverty line are often richer than kings were a few hundred years ago - most people below the poverty line have televisions, entertainment systems, a computer, access to a variety of food from all over the planet, health care and many have a car. A king could never dream of such luxuries ...
> ...


Is there some evidence it is true?

Most of what has been listed so far are new inventions and foods that have become commodities.
I would guess that someone below the poverty line would often happily trade any of these for one hundred acres of land or a gold tiara from the "poor king".




lightcycle said:


> ... People don't compare themselves to kings of 200 years ago. They compare themselves to their neighbours and the people they see on Facebook and Instagram.
> That same dissatisfaction with their lives is as gnawing as not having food on the table.


True.


Cheers


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

Here is the thing-there is credible evidence that the MEDIAN standard of living in both Canada and the USA was higher 40 years ago (especially Canada). In 1978 the median standard was light years ahead of 1938 (40 years prior) so people felt pretty good generally-the last 40 years have been very different-we don't see the poverty but it exists.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe some CMFers should take a little trip down to the US and visit some inner city areas. They could start with Detroit, and work their way through the "rust belt".

Why do you think people voted for Trump in Flint, Michigan............or West Virginia ?

I think the CMFers would lose their "things aren't so bad for you" attitudes pretty quickly.

I would bet they would be afraid to get out of the car.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe some CMFers should wake up to the fact that they live in Canada and not the USA. Not like Canada can fix the problems of another country. Canada also doesn't have the same wealth disparity, international corporations and other things that some CMFers keep using as examples of why things are so bad.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

lightcycle said:


> True, but irrelevant.
> 
> People don't compare themselves to kings of 200 years ago. They compare themselves to their neighbours and the people they see on Facebook and Instagram.
> 
> That same dissatisfaction with their lives is as gnawing as not having food on the table.


You hit the nail on the head with discontentment coming from comparing ourselves to our neighbors. We are each entitled to our opinions but I believe it is extremely relevant. For example, I read the true account of a very successful branch manager in middle America who was making perhaps $200,000 per year. When his company proposed a promotion to Florida he happily accepted. However, while was one of the most successful citizens of small town America, he found that his Florida neighborhood had many millionaires. Suddenly he started comparing himself to them and trying to keep up with their lifestyles by joining fancy country clubs, etc. Long story short, while he lived a very happy lifestyle in middle America he ended up miserable and bankrupt in Florida. 

In my view, success starts with a sense of gratitude and misery leading to failure starts by allowing dissatisfaction with someone else's success to gnaw at us as much as not having food on the table.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Maybe some CMFers should wake up to the fact that they live in Canada and not the USA. Not like Canada can fix the problems of another country. Canada also doesn't have the same wealth disparity, international corporations and other things that some CMFers keep using as examples of why things are so bad.


You don't like unions. You don't want to belong to unions. Unions would encourage you to join for the benefits because they are inclusive, but it is up to you.

The best thing my wife and I ever did financially was to join our unions. 

Yup......decades of job security, good wages, cost of living increases, vacations, seniority rights, healthcare benefits and a DB pensions for life.

I would highly recommend it to those starting out. It isn't difficult to find employment careers that are unionized.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One of the worst things that has happened in the past 100 years is the decline in union membership.

The decline follows charts exactly with the decline in wages for workers. Without union membership, workers have no leverage at all.

There are several documentaries on Netflix and Youtube that show the relationship between declining unions and the declining welfare of workers.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> Fortunately, there has risen a group of capitalists who are at the pinnacle of success and they are warning that the current situation cannot continue or the entire system and democracy will fail.
> 
> Billionaires like Warren Buffet, Charlie Munger, Bill Gross, Mark Cuban, Jim Rogers, Carl Icahn have begun speaking out.
> 
> They recognize the danger the widening wealth and income gaps present, and lobby for a more fair system of wealth distribution.


 What is Buffet talking about he is one of the biggest crooks around with his involvement in rating agencies & Government Sachs. Buys Goldman because of insider information just before major bailout & his involvement with rating agencies giving good credit ratings before melt down in 08


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

sags said:


> You don't like unions. You don't want to belong to unions. Unions would encourage you to join for the benefits because they are inclusive, but it is up to you.
> 
> The best thing my wife and I ever did financially was to join our unions.
> 
> ...


Actually, I've never said I don't like unions, I don't like extreme unions...there is a difference. 

I wouldn't join a union because I'm not an employee, never really have been. I've never gotten a handout, I've never been protected, I made a life on my own, not on the backs of others. Personal responsibility thing again. 

As for your financial "success", why do you keep asking the government to give you more money then? Doesn't sound too successful to me. You don't hear successful people campaigning for UBI. 

I didn't have union protection, I had passive income...decades of financial freedom. No worries about any of your issues. Haven't even had to work for a living for a long time. 

I would highly recommend no one follow the advice of an extreme socialist when it comes to finding financial success, since their basic premise it to take money from those who are actually successful.


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> What is Buffet talking about he is one of the biggest crooks around with his involvement in rating agencies & Government Sachs. Buys Goldman because of insider information just before major bailout & his involvement with rating agencies giving good credit ratings before melt down in 08


True, but I will give Buffet credit for never having tried to screw over BRK shareholders-which I guess makes him kind of a saint.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> You don't hear successful people campaigning for UBI.


Actually, you do:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-universal-basic-income-in-2017.html


----------

