Burden of Safety Law Hurts Small Toymakers and Consumers

**rb336** · November-11-09, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Where is it etched in stone, that a company owner must hand over everything to their employees and live like a pauper? Company owner = person. Employee=person. The employee has every right to start their own company if they don't like what is available. The company owner takes the risk, puts forth the drive, hangs it all out on the line in the delicate balance of life and death daily, if they lose their job they go down hard. He offers a situation to another, come work for me for this much, the employee doesn't have to accept it. All my life no matter where I have worked I have kept in mind what I agreed to when I hired in. Makes for much more peaceful days.

some people seem to confuse entrepreneurs with the CEOs of manufacturing companies. HUGE difference. they are getting paid huge sums with virtually no risk -- they screw up, the board fires them, they jump out with multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Meanwhile, the people who actually make the company function get more and more screwed so these fat asses who never created or started anything can pad their wallets even more

Rb, You never did address my assertion that with everyone in a union, purchasing power would be diminished, are you for everyone belonging to organized labor? Or just you and a few others to sustain your increased purchasing power over everyone else? Careful, this is exactly what you are accusing the "greedy shitbags" of...

Your assertion is without foundation, as purchasing power increased greatly during the era when unions were strongest, and has been declining steadily [[to be replaced by increased access to credit) since workers' rights have been ransacked over the last 35 years.

**Sstashmoo** · November-11-09, 12:36 PM

Quote: "they are getting paid huge"

Because they are probably worth that. Some of you on here were whining when Mullaly was hired about the exorbitant price. How much is he worth now?

Quote: "Your assertion is without foundation,"

Huh? That if everyone made union wage that it would not drive consumer prices up? You can't be serious. You may have misunderstood the question, and that was, are you for unions, for everybody? I know purchasing power increased for those in Unions, I'm not arguing that. Are you for everyone being in a union? Even though it would diminish mean purchasing power?

**rb336** · November-11-09, 01:56 PM

[quote=Sstashmoo;88460]Quote: "they are getting paid huge"

Because they are probably worth that. Some of you on here were whining when Mullaly was hired about the exorbitant price. How much is he worth now?[quote]

some are -- Mullaly is one of them [[and I was a chearleader for him) most aren't. Hell, the best companies in europe and japan have ceos that get a tiny fraction of what a US ceo gets. CEOs and such are for the most part vastly overpaid

: "Your assertion is without foundation,"

Huh? That if everyone made union wage that it would not drive consumer prices up? You can't be serious. You may have misunderstood the question, and that was, are you for unions, for everybody? I know purchasing power increased for those in Unions, I'm not arguing that. Are you for everyone being in a union? Even though it would diminish mean purchasing power?

actually, you said that purchasing power would decrease. as I stated, purchasing power undeniably was HIGHER for the vast majority of Americans during the height of unionization, and has also undeniably gone way down during their demise. these are facts, check them out for yourself. You have done nothing to validate your proposition, nothing at all except to reitterate it -- which isn't proof. facts are against you, plain and simple. The more people make more money, the more they will be able to purchase, and no, inflation need not ensue as there will also be increased productivity

**Sstashmoo** · November-11-09, 02:06 PM

Quote: "The more people make more money, the more they will be able to purchase,"

Translated: the more a select few of us make, the better we can exploit those of lesser income, who in fact by their cheaper labor costs, keep mean prices down for us higher paid workers. You're hop-scotching around the question: Do you think every worker in the US should be in a labor union?

**elganned** · November-11-09, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Sorry, I was focusing on tariffs which is more of a historic, than current topic. The current problem is largely organized labor with the anti free market conditions making the competition [[for labor) overseas much more attractive.

You mean like the Doctors Union [[aka the AMA) maintains an anti-free market condition by maintaining an artificial shortage of physicians to boost the income of their members? Like that kind of anti-free market?

**rb336** · November-11-09, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "The more people make more money, the more they will be able to purchase,"

Translated: the more a select few of us make, the better we can exploit those of lesser income, who in fact by their cheaper labor costs, keep mean prices down for us higher paid workers. You're hop-scotching around the question: Do you think every worker in the US should be in a labor union?

yes. it is the only way to stop the spiral of brazilification

**Sstashmoo** · November-11-09, 04:05 PM

Since the US Government via trade policies has kicked the American worker to the curb and onto the global stage, competing with penny's on the hour wages. And manufacturing businesses are in the same boat, mind you, How can that work? High wages here will fix our economy? Every one working for the same wage level, will be a better way for some? How so? If everyone makes an average of 20 an hour, where's the cheap labor and resultant prices to make that such an advantage? Don't you realize, Union workers with high wages have been exploiting cheap labor in the south and west? Your claims of increased purchasing power was a result of fellow Americans making lower wages. You think it would be better if all US workers belonged to a union?

**rb336** · November-11-09, 04:19 PM

now you're just being goofy. even at the height of their strength, not all union jobs paid the same. and i say it is high time the government reverse those policies Reagan's advisors explicitly stated were designed to cause the "brazilification" of the US

ccbatson · November-11-09, 05:32 PM

The AMA has exactly nothing to do with Physician supply. It is an organization or society, not a union as there is no bargaining and no authority whatsoever. That said, by endorsing Obamacare, they have cost themselves a lot of members.

**Sstashmoo** · November-13-09, 10:16 AM

Quote: "You think it would be better if all US workers belonged to a union?"

Your reply: "now you're just being goofy. even at the height of their strength, not all union jobs paid the same. and i say it is high time the government reverse those policies Reagan's advisors explicitly stated were designed to cause the "brazilification" of the US"

I'll take that as a "nay".

ccbatson · November-13-09, 08:50 PM

Unions limiting themselves to club like support for members are just fine. Beyond that? A menace.

Stosh · November-13-09, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

The AMA has exactly nothing to do with Physician supply. It is an organization or society, not a union as there is no bargaining and no authority whatsoever. That said, by endorsing Obamacare, they have cost themselves a lot of members.

Bah. Most doctors aren't idiots. Those that are, quit, then a stronger, saner organization.