A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Offshore energy

  1. #61
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    So your answer is to do away with wages and taxes... how surprising.
    Not what I wrote at all.

    FairTax replaces our current system with a flat sales tax. That isn't to "do away" with taxes.

    Making illegal the coercion that unions have engaged in would not "do away" with wages. It would be a major benefit to every American who is not in a union, since they would no longer have to pay for union members above average luxury.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    Major corporations already pay $0 in taxes and the average Union wage is about $50k which is the median in this country, and has actually been declining in real wage value since the 70's so I don't see how that's overinflated.
    Corporate tax rates are very high. It is unremarkable that a corporation that doesn't make a profit would not pay any taxes in that year. It's also misleading to suggest that corporate business is not generating taxes by not having taxable profit. Income tax is paid for every person taking income from the corporation. If a corporation makes a billion in sales, but makes no profit because the cost to pay their employees exceeds a billion dollars, there would still be a billion dollars being taxed.

    Average union wage versus the median of the entire country is not a useful comparison. The measure of whether or not union wages are inflated is to compare them to their non-union counterpart. And union workers wages are clearly inflated:

    Following the report, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said in a statement, "The data also show the median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary union members were $908 per week, compared to $710 for workers not represented by unions. Union members earn 28 percent more than their non-union counterparts. When coupled with data showing that union members have access to better health care, retirement and leave benefits, these numbers make it clear that union jobs are good jobs."
    http://www.financeglobe.com/Finance/...ter/Page1.html

    So, union members take home 28 percent more than non-union workers before we even start to include their health care packages which are far more expensive than what others are afforded. That affects everyone else negatively via inflated prices for goods, fewer jobs and lower tax revenues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue View Post
    Of course, during that same period while average middle class worker wages have been declining, CEO wages have increased by 1500%, so if you want to talk about overinflated wages your aim seems to be a little off the mark.
    The idea that people are accurately represented by snap-shots of "middle class worker wages" is just as antiquated as tariffs.

    You have to factor in economic mobility. At one point in time, those CEOs were in the middle-class (or lower) snap-shot. Most people move from lower paying jobs in college or starting out in their profession to higher paying positions during their life.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  2. #62
    N' then I might just
    Jump back on
    An' ride
    Like a cowboy
    Into the dawn
    ........To Montana.
    david petley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    not in Montana ™
    Posts
    10,192
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey View Post
    So, union members take home 28 percent more than non-union workers before we even start to include their health care packages which are far more expensive than what others are afforded. That affects everyone else negatively via inflated prices for goods, fewer jobs and lower tax revenues.
    ...and if it wasn't for unions fighting for better conditions, which helped to raise living standards overall, non-union wages would be lower now and things would be very different for all workers.

    Unions fought hard for 40 hour working weeks, overtime pay, sick days, workers compensation, no chiild labor.

    It is common to blame unions for jobs going overseas, but in my mind it is greedy bosses seeking to gain more profits and then looking for scapegoats when anyone complains.

    People accusing unions of causing social problems reminds me of Monty Python - What have the Romans ever done for us?

    david
    No longer a Flashkit mod, not even by stealth

    Insanity is just a point of view. After all, the world looks pretty normal through your own underpants.

  3. #63
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    The reason unions have become abusive is the same reason that we once had worker abuses: monopoly.

    At one point in history, fewer companies controlled more jobs. A worker didn't have the option to leave a job on the basis that they didn't like the conditions because there was nowhere else for them to work. Information about employers wasn't as easily available and it was more costly to travel and relocate. That is no longer the case in a modernized country like the United States. The unions are no more responsible for the 40 hour work week, over-time, sick days or worker compensation than Charlie Brown. Competition is.

    A company in our modern economy can't afford to be an undesirable place to work because workers can take their business somewhere else.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  4. #64
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey View Post
    The unions are no more responsible for the 40 hour work week, over-time, sick days or worker compensation than Charlie Brown. Competition is.

    A company in our modern economy can't afford to be an undesirable place to work because workers can take their business somewhere else.
    I'm not sure what economy you are living in... it certainly isn't this one... or what history you've been taught... certainly not one based in reality... but now that this particular tangent has devolved into the equivalent of evolution versus creationism maybe we can let it die and allow the thread to go back on track.

    -------------



    What I want to know is where are all the "Drill, Baby, Drill", "Drill Here, Drill Now" types that were so vocal during the last election?

    Does any of this change their minds?

    Does anyone still think that drilling for oil is either harmless or the answer to our energy problems?

    By the time this particular disaster is over, how many windfarms could have been built with all the private/public money spent on clean-up and fines, not to mention the billions/trillions in dollars of damage caused to our economy, coastal industries, and ecological systems in the long run?
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  5. #65
    Flashkit historian Frets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    flashkit
    Posts
    8,797
    It's funny that she expressed sadness not in the actual tragedy that occured during the sinking of the Valdez but in the settlement. And in the same statement she claimed that oil companies were the state of Alaska's partners.

  6. #66
    N' then I might just
    Jump back on
    An' ride
    Like a cowboy
    Into the dawn
    ........To Montana.
    david petley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    not in Montana ™
    Posts
    10,192
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey View Post
    The unions are no more responsible for the 40 hour work week, over-time, sick days or worker compensation than Charlie Brown. Competition is.
    What rubbish you glibly throw around in here sometimes...

    The 40 hour working week came about through court decisions, not company decisions to be competitive.

    Stonemasons were the first workers in Australia to strike for a 8 hour day/40 hour week. That happened on 18 August 1855 (nothing to do with competition, simply a demand by workers united in their goals to improve life)

    By 1858 the 8 hour day was well established in building industries after strikes and agitation, and by 1916 was law in New South Wales.

    It finally became law nationwide after a decision by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in January 1948.

    The 40-hour week was enacted in France by the 1936 Matignon agreements. (WIKI)

    In Portugal a vast wave of strikes occurred in 1919. The workers achieved important objectives, including the historic victory of an eight-hour day. (WIKI)

    One thing you will notice about the 40 hour week/eight hour day(if you research the history) is that competition had nothing to do with the decisions to move to an eight hour day in any country, not one of them (as far as I can find).

    So how about you stop spouting nonsense and find some proof of your claim that competition was the driving force for a 40 hour week.

    david

    <edit> here is a timeline on the history of working time regulation - http://www.fedee.com/histwt.html
    ...What you won't find is any mention of employers fixing a 40 hour working week and 8 hour day to be competitive.</edit>
    Last edited by david petley; 05-03-2010 at 05:55 PM. Reason: more
    No longer a Flashkit mod, not even by stealth

    Insanity is just a point of view. After all, the world looks pretty normal through your own underpants.

  7. #67
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    You misunderstood my statement. I am aware of the legislation related to work time and unions. A lot of that legislation is moot in our modern economy.

    (I don't know about all countries) People work longer than 40 hours per week by choice, all over the US. The notion that people don't work over 40 hours or that they choose to or not to because of anything unions did is a laugh. As I wrote, it's a matter of competition. If a person doesn't like the long hours they put in at a job, they find a different one. That's labor competition. Not union favors.
    Last edited by FlashLackey; 05-04-2010 at 05:01 AM.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hanratty21 View Post
    You can't drive a car with wind energy.

    psst - they're putting a wind farm off of the shore of the Massachusetts coast...
    psst - T Boone Pickens wants to put wind farms all throughout the center corridor of the US...

    Cancer - many of your posts seems to have the same Anti-American/Pro-Euro tone to them. There is nothing wrong with that from an opinion standpoint, but you should probably have a clue what you're talking about before spouting off your endless non sequiturs.
    Still believe solar power is far more effective than wind and inexpensive too..

  9. #69
    Flashkit historian Frets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    flashkit
    Posts
    8,797
    Not always enough sun or wind. Some places have more then others. Rather then simply choosing one we can choose both. As humans we'll figure out a way to use energy regardless of how it's generated. I have an android phone and a windows computer. I've had a car and a bicycle.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    0
    I think nowadays, it is a manifestation of power among countries. Look at what is happening in Asia. All trouble to the South China Sea disputes boils down to one, the off shore energy that they will be able to get.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center