My Personal Credit Crisis

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66][quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

What strikes me as being conspicuously absent as of late, is the desire of many Americans to work at all. That’s where this magical thinking comes in. Invest in the internet and make millions! Buy a house and make millions! Stuff envelopes part time in your den and make millions!

And when these folks don’t make millions, or lose their ass on a really bad RE (or tech) investment, they turn into victims and expect someone to bail them out. We’re all victims and we live in a culture of entitlement.

[/quote]

That’s probably because we’ve spent the past few decades denigrating working people (down with the “lazy” union workers…how dare those worthless bums ask for a higher minimum wage, etc.) while putting “dealmakers” (CEOs, politicians, financiers, etc.) on a pedestal — note how wealth has been transferred over this time. When the working masses see the wealth divide grow like it has, they figure they either have to jump into whatever is making the rich people rich, or doom themselves and their families to poverty. The “middle-class” lifestyle has slipped further and further away from most people’s reach, and they are panicking.

It’s much more difficult these days for people to work their way up via real work. Very few workers can support their families in the same way their counterparts could thirty years ago.

So…we get what we reward. A bunch of scammers trying to find new ways of separating other people from their money. You can’t blame Joe Sixpack for trying.[/quote]

Well said CA Renter. This is a glaring problem in the US. In my view corporate masters and the elite have somehow managed a mass brainwashing. Most Americans look at good union jobs as a negative. CEOs love this and perpetuate it; believe it. I have never been in a union, however its as plain to me as the nose on my face that us “workers” benefit from collective bargaining and also that non-union jobs benefit as well.

Workers will always need to unite to fight for fairnes with the elite. They do not put a human face on workers, you are just numbers, dollars, output.

The US is in a phase where all the hard work done by unions in the 50’s and 60’s is forgotten. Most today think corpoarations simply decided to start providing fair wages and benefits on their own.

[/quote]

Scarlet: Unfortunately, your comment leaves a lot out regarding the history of unions and the auto industry. Much of the problem springs from paying someone $70,000 a year to perform a job a trained monkey could do. You mention CBAs (collective bargaining agreements). Have you looked at some of those CBAs? Both the AFL-CIO and UAW have effectively “priced themselves” out of the competitive labor market as a result of self-destructive bargaining postures and nearly insane demands regarding wages, pensions and benefits.

The so-called legacy costs that accompany most American vehicles are a result of management caving in to demands that they couldn’t afford. The problem was, the work stoppages that would have resulted from strikes would have hurt more.

I don’t disagree that unions have changed the landscape for workers and, on balance, for the positive. However, from the mid-1970s onward, this has not been the case.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
For a local story and about journalists…. I remember Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, while quoting Lew Breeze (a local Realtor), disclosing that Mr. Breeze was his Realtor; so I’m assuming that Scott Lewis bought downtown. And we all know how the peak buyers Downtown are doing.
[/quote]

This is how rumors get started… you are making some pretty big leaps there.

Here are the facts: Scott and his wife owned a place in Little Italy and he sold (for which one might also use a realtor) more or less at the peak.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
For a local story and about journalists…. I remember Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, while quoting Lew Breeze (a local Realtor), disclosing that Mr. Breeze was his Realtor; so I’m assuming that Scott Lewis bought downtown. And we all know how the peak buyers Downtown are doing.
[/quote]

This is how rumors get started… you are making some pretty big leaps there.

Here are the facts: Scott and his wife owned a place in Little Italy and he sold (for which one might also use a realtor) more or less at the peak.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
For a local story and about journalists…. I remember Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, while quoting Lew Breeze (a local Realtor), disclosing that Mr. Breeze was his Realtor; so I’m assuming that Scott Lewis bought downtown. And we all know how the peak buyers Downtown are doing.
[/quote]

This is how rumors get started… you are making some pretty big leaps there.

Here are the facts: Scott and his wife owned a place in Little Italy and he sold (for which one might also use a realtor) more or less at the peak.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
For a local story and about journalists…. I remember Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, while quoting Lew Breeze (a local Realtor), disclosing that Mr. Breeze was his Realtor; so I’m assuming that Scott Lewis bought downtown. And we all know how the peak buyers Downtown are doing.
[/quote]

This is how rumors get started… you are making some pretty big leaps there.

Here are the facts: Scott and his wife owned a place in Little Italy and he sold (for which one might also use a realtor) more or less at the peak.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
For a local story and about journalists…. I remember Scott Lewis of Voice of San Diego, while quoting Lew Breeze (a local Realtor), disclosing that Mr. Breeze was his Realtor; so I’m assuming that Scott Lewis bought downtown. And we all know how the peak buyers Downtown are doing.
[/quote]

This is how rumors get started… you are making some pretty big leaps there.

Here are the facts: Scott and his wife owned a place in Little Italy and he sold (for which one might also use a realtor) more or less at the peak.

Rich

[Borat]

Comment deleted…

[Borat]

Comment deleted…

[Borat]

Comment deleted…

[Borat]

Comment deleted…

[Borat]

Comment deleted…

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

Well said CA Renter. This is a glaring problem in the US. In my view corporate masters and the elite have somehow managed a mass brainwashing. Most Americans look at good union jobs as a negative. CEOs love this and perpetuate it; believe it. I have never been in a union, however its as plain to me as the nose on my face that us “workers” benefit from collective bargaining and also that non-union jobs benefit as well.

Workers will always need to unite to fight for fairnes with the elite. They do not put a human face on workers, you are just numbers, dollars, output.

The US is in a phase where all the hard work done by unions in the 50’s and 60’s is forgotten. Most today think corpoarations simply decided to start providing fair wages and benefits on their own.

[/quote]

In addition to what Allan said…

I have no problem with unions whatsoever, although I’ve never been in one, but…

If a union is trying to protect jobs that can be shipped to another country (where there are lower wages), by definition most of the gains will be short-term in nature. Because once the disparity between domestic wages (and benefits) and foreign wages gets large enough (and adjusted for differences in productivity), the jobs will start moving and the jig is up.

Look at the US auto industry. Absent an organized, effective global union, almost any job that can be shipped to another country where the task can be performed for less money, and adjusted for productivity and quality, that job will eventually move. That is reality. And if the jobs DON’T move… then the companies that continue to pay the higher-than-market wages will eventually go bust. Again, see the US auto industry. The UAW is reaping what it’s sowed over the last few decades. (File under: Be careful what you wish for.)

That’s the really disturbing part regarding the auto companies. Even if the unions agree to sharp cuts in wages and benefits, the auto companies will still barely survive. And the Japanese auto makers aren’t making any money either. The business is just brutally competitive.

And who’s to blame for that? Consumers are. We are. We want the best car we can buy at the best price. And there’s no room for any wage inflation in that game when you’re dealing with a global market.

So, yes, unions will fight for fairness – as they should – and they’ll get it for a while. Until they price themselves out of the labor market altogether.

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

Well said CA Renter. This is a glaring problem in the US. In my view corporate masters and the elite have somehow managed a mass brainwashing. Most Americans look at good union jobs as a negative. CEOs love this and perpetuate it; believe it. I have never been in a union, however its as plain to me as the nose on my face that us “workers” benefit from collective bargaining and also that non-union jobs benefit as well.

Workers will always need to unite to fight for fairnes with the elite. They do not put a human face on workers, you are just numbers, dollars, output.

The US is in a phase where all the hard work done by unions in the 50’s and 60’s is forgotten. Most today think corpoarations simply decided to start providing fair wages and benefits on their own.

[/quote]

In addition to what Allan said…

I have no problem with unions whatsoever, although I’ve never been in one, but…

If a union is trying to protect jobs that can be shipped to another country (where there are lower wages), by definition most of the gains will be short-term in nature. Because once the disparity between domestic wages (and benefits) and foreign wages gets large enough (and adjusted for differences in productivity), the jobs will start moving and the jig is up.

Look at the US auto industry. Absent an organized, effective global union, almost any job that can be shipped to another country where the task can be performed for less money, and adjusted for productivity and quality, that job will eventually move. That is reality. And if the jobs DON’T move… then the companies that continue to pay the higher-than-market wages will eventually go bust. Again, see the US auto industry. The UAW is reaping what it’s sowed over the last few decades. (File under: Be careful what you wish for.)

That’s the really disturbing part regarding the auto companies. Even if the unions agree to sharp cuts in wages and benefits, the auto companies will still barely survive. And the Japanese auto makers aren’t making any money either. The business is just brutally competitive.

And who’s to blame for that? Consumers are. We are. We want the best car we can buy at the best price. And there’s no room for any wage inflation in that game when you’re dealing with a global market.

So, yes, unions will fight for fairness – as they should – and they’ll get it for a while. Until they price themselves out of the labor market altogether.

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

Well said CA Renter. This is a glaring problem in the US. In my view corporate masters and the elite have somehow managed a mass brainwashing. Most Americans look at good union jobs as a negative. CEOs love this and perpetuate it; believe it. I have never been in a union, however its as plain to me as the nose on my face that us “workers” benefit from collective bargaining and also that non-union jobs benefit as well.

Workers will always need to unite to fight for fairnes with the elite. They do not put a human face on workers, you are just numbers, dollars, output.

The US is in a phase where all the hard work done by unions in the 50’s and 60’s is forgotten. Most today think corpoarations simply decided to start providing fair wages and benefits on their own.

[/quote]

In addition to what Allan said…

I have no problem with unions whatsoever, although I’ve never been in one, but…

If a union is trying to protect jobs that can be shipped to another country (where there are lower wages), by definition most of the gains will be short-term in nature. Because once the disparity between domestic wages (and benefits) and foreign wages gets large enough (and adjusted for differences in productivity), the jobs will start moving and the jig is up.

Look at the US auto industry. Absent an organized, effective global union, almost any job that can be shipped to another country where the task can be performed for less money, and adjusted for productivity and quality, that job will eventually move. That is reality. And if the jobs DON’T move… then the companies that continue to pay the higher-than-market wages will eventually go bust. Again, see the US auto industry. The UAW is reaping what it’s sowed over the last few decades. (File under: Be careful what you wish for.)

That’s the really disturbing part regarding the auto companies. Even if the unions agree to sharp cuts in wages and benefits, the auto companies will still barely survive. And the Japanese auto makers aren’t making any money either. The business is just brutally competitive.

And who’s to blame for that? Consumers are. We are. We want the best car we can buy at the best price. And there’s no room for any wage inflation in that game when you’re dealing with a global market.

So, yes, unions will fight for fairness – as they should – and they’ll get it for a while. Until they price themselves out of the labor market altogether.

[davelj]

[quote=Rt.66]

Well said CA Renter. This is a glaring problem in the US. In my view corporate masters and the elite have somehow managed a mass brainwashing. Most Americans look at good union jobs as a negative. CEOs love this and perpetuate it; believe it. I have never been in a union, however its as plain to me as the nose on my face that us “workers” benefit from collective bargaining and also that non-union jobs benefit as well.

Workers will always need to unite to fight for fairnes with the elite. They do not put a human face on workers, you are just numbers, dollars, output.

The US is in a phase where all the hard work done by unions in the 50’s and 60’s is forgotten. Most today think corpoarations simply decided to start providing fair wages and benefits on their own.

[/quote]

In addition to what Allan said…

I have no problem with unions whatsoever, although I’ve never been in one, but…

If a union is trying to protect jobs that can be shipped to another country (where there are lower wages), by definition most of the gains will be short-term in nature. Because once the disparity between domestic wages (and benefits) and foreign wages gets large enough (and adjusted for differences in productivity), the jobs will start moving and the jig is up.

Look at the US auto industry. Absent an organized, effective global union, almost any job that can be shipped to another country where the task can be performed for less money, and adjusted for productivity and quality, that job will eventually move. That is reality. And if the jobs DON’T move… then the companies that continue to pay the higher-than-market wages will eventually go bust. Again, see the US auto industry. The UAW is reaping what it’s sowed over the last few decades. (File under: Be careful what you wish for.)

That’s the really disturbing part regarding the auto companies. Even if the unions agree to sharp cuts in wages and benefits, the auto companies will still barely survive. And the Japanese auto makers aren’t making any money either. The business is just brutally competitive.

And who’s to blame for that? Consumers are. We are. We want the best car we can buy at the best price. And there’s no room for any wage inflation in that game when you’re dealing with a global market.

So, yes, unions will fight for fairness – as they should – and they’ll get it for a while. Until they price themselves out of the labor market altogether.

[Author]

Posts