I dont care if they have a mansion.....I could to if I chose/choose that path....I have what I have because I have what I have.....no one person takes anything from me and I chose to give what I want.....what I totally disagree with is the government taking from me and giving to someone else or the union speaking for me....
Quoted Text
The Origin of Employment Based Health Insurance in America By Capitalist in Chief .1digg digg I recently got into a discussion with a liberal guy, who among other things, was complaining that it’s not good that health insurance is tied to a job. And if he looses his job, then he looses his health insurance as well, and that shouldn’t be so.
This brings up two important points. One specific and one more general. The general point is that it is so typical of liberals to invoke the necessity of government intervention to fix things that were caused by government intervention to begin with. And this brings me to the second more specific point:
Government intervention with the free markets is the reason why we have this distortion where health insurance is dependent on one’s job.
The beginning of employment based health insurance dates back to World War II. Back then it was thought unfair that so many soldiers risked their lives overseas for low government controlled wages, while those who stayed at home enjoyed high wages. Therefore those not fighting the war should also share the burden of war by having their wages controlled. In addition, shortages in labor due to increased wartime production and so many workers shipped to war, drove the cost of labor up, and wage controls were deemed necessary to keep production up. And therefore the U.S. government set wage limits in numerous private industries.
Consequently, to attract good workers, employers got around wage restrictions by offering various benefits, such as health insurance, pension plans, paid holidays, etc., that were not subject to the government mandated wage ceilings. And this is how the employment based health insurance we have today was born.
U.S. tax laws then further skewed the market in favor of an employment based health insurance system by allowing employers to get tax deductions for the expense of paying for such a benefit, yet not taxing employees for receiving it, and not allowing taxpayers to deduct the cost of insurance if they get it on their own. This effectively means that health insurance obtained through employment is not taxed, while health insurance obtained independently is.
Therefore, market distortions that emerged as a result of government intervention in the free markets is the reason why we have employment dependent health now. What’s the typical socialist solution then? More government intervention! Just swell
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The union I was in when working put restrictions on how much money the CEO, while working and their golden parachutes, when they retire by using all the proxy votes that our retirees organization could gather to put an amendment to a vote at the stock holders meeting. Unions in the private sector are fighting just to keep the benefits they have and you can forget about increasing them. When the company you work for is facing hard times you can't force them to spend money they don't have unlike the public sector that thinks the taxpayers pockets are bottomless.
But the CEO's can continue to live like royals while they put people out of work. Remember Jack Welch of GE, how much did he get in retirement while he wouldn't give the GE retirees a raise
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
The retirees have to put amendments to a vote at the stock holders meetings and secure proxy votes from the shareholders and trim the large salaries, golden parachutes, and stock options that the CEOs think they're entitled to. That's the real crime where the CEOs can retire with millions in pension benefits and stock options while the retirees can barely exist from month to month.
No, you're not. If a union laborer can manage a multi-national corporation, I say more power to him/her, live in the mansion. Labor is a commodity just like anything else. CEO's are a commodity like anything else. Unions force businesses to inflate labor costs, and with a global labor market unions can't expect to twist the arm of a company to pay rates 10 to 15 percent above what the labor market demands. Companies cannot compete. That is why they leave. If I'm a unskilled laborer, I wouldn't expect to get paid as much as a skilled carpenter. Why...Because there is a higher supply of unskilled laborers than skilled laborers on the market.
I'm not suggesting that some unkilled person should make $60 an hour, but is it equally just for a CEO to pay workers so little that they can't live from pay check to pay check while the CEO lives like a royal? And putting people in this country out of work, a corportation getting tax breaks, and what do we get in return? Products that fall apart after 6 months, toys full of lead, etc. Oh, I know some of it is laws. Unions aren't going to solve the lead toys unless toys produced in this country were subject laws which aren't necessarily union initiated.
Wasn't our country the greatest when unions were strong?
Everyone can work hard in hopes of becoming a CEO, but if a company has 100,000 employees, should 99,999 be treated like dirt with low pay and no future as their reward for working hard but they just weren't chosen to be the CEO. Many people even get college degrees and wind up working in assembly lines, working as cashiers, and working as clerks because there are no jobs. And then lose any protections too?
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
I understand that...there was a time when unionization was necessary to prevent exploiting labor...and it had it's legitimate purposes...but they have grown into a devastating financial monster that is now more of a political constituency flexing their muscles at spineless politicians at the expense of taxpayers who fund their salaries and benefits...they have lost sight of their original purpose, IMO. Unions complain about jobs going overseas but they are a big part of the reason why that's happened because of their increasingly unaffordable demands.
Is wanting $15 an hour with health insurance (insurance jointly paid by employer and employee), and some retirement too much to ask? Is wanting a $15 or $20 an hour job too much to ask? I mean, you can't even by a house on pay like that. My grandfather was a blue collar worker at GE with 9 children, grandmother did not work, and he was able to buy a house on his pay the union negotiated for, and he never had to take a dime of public assistance in any form.
Aren't the CEO's exploiting labor now but having work done in places like China where the workers get paid only pennies a day? And unfortunately the government won't really allow unions there in order to protect the employees there. But the CEO's are taking advantage of it.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
I dont care if they have a mansion.....I could to if I chose/choose that path....I have what I have because I have what I have.....no one person takes anything from me and I chose to give what I want.....what I totally disagree with is the government taking from me and giving to someone else or the union speaking for me....
Oh, shucks, senders quote thing didn't come up.
If health insurance is a greedy union demand that drives up costs, and if CEO's live like royals but take away health insurance, and then we dont' want government health insurance either. At $15 to $20 an hour pay, how should people pay their medical bills?
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
But the CEO's can continue to live like royals while they put people out of work. Remember Jack Welch of GE, how much did he get in retirement while he wouldn't give the GE retirees a raise
BECAUSE the CEO's DO pit themselves against the unions.....that's their job....get it? As for the unions they are negative the amount everyone thinks the CEO should give THEM......get it.....even with a union it sucks....they just provide a way for you to jerk off all day.......JMHO......each person should stand on their own 2 feet....the standards are now established and there is no going back and if there is a leaning back, we have history to hold us up....along with the need to strive, survive and thrive.......we've been in this universe this long...what do we think is stopping us now?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
