Believe it or not. Today, believe it

Bestworking posted:
giftedamateur posted:

Best, companies and businesses have taken a hit and are under attack by the Democrats and their lousy economy. What they were once able to do for workers has been curtailed by Democrats and blamed on Republicans. I would love to find an honest Democrat that would actually answer a question.

You and me both. Ask them a question and they go 10 miles out of their way to avoid answering, or, answer with another question, or answer in a way that has nothing to do with the subject.

The very nature of solidly (stolidly?) Democrats may not let them answer in what we would consider a truthful nature.  Progressives/leftists base their beliefs on theory, experienced out come. Feelings and the idea that one is doing "the correct thing" is the all that is necessary.  That the end resembles Venezuela is of no matter.  They did the right things for the right reasons. Progressive academics, go a slightly different route.  When shown the abject failures of past experiments, they state, the reason for the failure is that they weren't the ones running it. From the ancient Greeks to Shakespeare, literature warns of such hubris.

Experience, logic, facts and miserable outcome are minor things of no consideration.

Dire, I'm going to disagree, surprise, that they think they are doing the right thing. I honestly believe they don't care about the right thing. They only care about what they think is going to benefit them, and to **** with the rest of the country and what's right. Add to that they are incredibly ignorant and there you have it. They honestly believe "the rich" should be made to support them and have no rights to their own money. That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Bestworking posted:

Dire, I'm going to disagree, surprise, that they think they are doing the right thing. I honestly believe they don't care about the right thing. They only care about what they think is going to benefit them, and to **** with the rest of the country and what's right. Add to that they are incredibly ignorant and there you have it. They honestly believe "the rich" should be made to support them and have no rights to their own money. That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, of course, they wish to feather their own nests. After all, they are the best and the brightest aren't they.  The upper tier of the Soviet apparat lived well.  Field Marshals lived like millionaires, with small harems.  Hugo Chavez's daughter is one of the richest in Venezuela.  That's part of the mentality.  They've done the right thing -- too bad the results are what their doctrine predicted.  Meanwhile, they need to live in comfort, while they make big plans about how to improve the lives of the serfs poor downtrodden.

Let me ask a different way.  JT, your fellow blue collar workers, the ones you knew, the ones in the same boat as you . . . they were all union members.  The guy who works on your car . . . you don't know his situation.

Bud, I worked with and around union members. Our situation was the same. In the small town I live in, if you go to a garage, the rate is $50 per hour. How much of that does the mechanic get?

From talking with them, they aren't crossing over to Trump in droves. On the start, several was, but they came back.

The democrat party is gonna have to reassess the amount of support going to blue collar middle class. When the republicans introduce and pass a law beneficial to the working class, I'll reconsider my support.

That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, those are your words, I have no problem with someone being honest filthy rich. As for CEOs, a good CEO is a valuable thing and should be well paid. Justify the CEO of Yahoo. She's been CEO for four years, I think. Revenue went from 4 billion per year to losing 4 billion per year. Her compensation stayed at the 50 million range and she's gonna get a 50 million buy out when they fire her. Can you justify this?  In the small town I live in, if you take a car to a garage, the labor charge is $50 per hour. Sometimes it is actual time, sometimes it is the book rate for hours. The mechanic is in the owners building, sometimes the owner furnishes tools, sometimes the mechanic furnishes them. How much of that $50 per hour should the mechanic get? You got some kind of business, you should be able to answer. What's a fair percentage?

jtdavis posted:

That's why I'd ask them why they have no problem with the demoslops being filthy rich and doing less to get that money than the CEOs they b**** about.

Best, those are your words, I have no problem with someone being honest filthy rich. As for CEOs, a good CEO is a valuable thing and should be well paid. Justify the CEO of Yahoo. She's been CEO for four years, I think. Revenue went from 4 billion per year to losing 4 billion per year. Her compensation stayed at the 50 million range and she's gonna get a 50 million buy out when they fire her. Can you justify this?  In the small town I live in, if you take a car to a garage, the labor charge is $50 per hour. Sometimes it is actual time, sometimes it is the book rate for hours. The mechanic is in the owners building, sometimes the owner furnishes tools, sometimes the mechanic furnishes them. How much of that $50 per hour should the mechanic get? You got some kind of business, you should be able to answer. What's a fair percentage?

 You have no idea what it costs to run and maintain a business and you don't care. It's useless to talk to you about a "fair share" because you have no understanding of fair and right and wrong. You've got that greed mentality that says owners shouldn't profit anymore than workers, even though it's the owners money and a**** on the line, and they usually work as hard or harder, and longer hours, than their employees.

JT,

I thought you were retired and if you are that is the only reason your insurance has not gone up.  Also, if you are working under a contract then your insurance will not go up until your contract is up for renewal but it will go up.   Yes as a union member my insurance premiums did not initially go up but we had many increases in our new contract due to Obamacare such as the Cadillac tax etc.

jtdavis posted:

You have no idea what it costs to run and maintain a business and you don't care. It's useless to talk to you about a "fair share" 

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

Yes I can answer, but as I said in my post above, you don't know or care what's "fair", and have NO idea of how a business runs and you don't care. First of all, an employee is entitled to their paycheck for hours worked, and benefits IF a company offers them. What a mechanic, or any other workers gets, is the salary the owner thinks the job and the mechanic is worth and what the owner offers to pay, and the worker, he or she, agrees to work for. That's their "share". They are not entitled to an equal "share" as you call it. If they want an equal "share" let them put their money, time, hard work, long hours, health and welfare, and take on all the liabilities in their own business. No one in their right mind would do all it takes to start up a business and then "share" half their income. And jt, when do you think they should share? After all the bills are paid? When? When do you think an owner should peel off a "share"? What if that "share" is a lot less than what the mechanic would make an hour not "sharing"?  The better they are, the more they will be paid. If they think they are worth more, they can go further. Usually all companies offering the same services, also have the same pay rates and benefits.

Bestworking posted:

BTW jt, when will YOU answer? Why can't blue collar workers afford insurance? What happened to that "everyone will have affordable insurance" bull crap the demslops spouted? Sounds to me you are saying you got yours and you don't care about the rest.

I believe jt believes in the Democratic party of 50 years ago and hasn't noticed that while most of the people who supported Dems haven't changed their beliefs and left the party, the party changed its beliefs and left them.

As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07...Qkw2SG5JaVNncEhFPSJ9

I also learned how people gamed the welfare system. They’d buy two dozen packs of soda with food stamps and then sell them at a discount for cash. They’d ring up their orders separately, buying food with food stamps, and beer, wine, and cigarettes with cash. They’d regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones. I could never understand why our lives felt like a struggle while those living off of government largesse enjoyed trinkets that I only dreamed about.

Mamaw listened intently to my experiences at Dillman’s. We began to view much of our fellow working class with mistrust. Most of us were struggling to get by, but we made do, worked hard, and hoped for a better life. But a large minority was content to live off the dole.

Every two weeks, I’d get a small paycheck and notice the line where federal and state income taxes were deducted from my wages. At least as often, our drug-addict neighbor would buy T-bone steaks, which I was too poor to buy for myself but was forced by Uncle Sam to buy for someone else. This was my mindset when I was seventeen, and though I’m far less angry today than I was then, it was my first indication that the policies of Mamaw’s “party of the working man”—the Democrats—weren’t all they were cracked up to be.

Political scientists have spent millions of words trying to explain how Appalachia and the South went from staunchly Democratic to staunchly Republican in less than a generation.

 

I believe jt believes in the Democratic party of 50 years ago and hasn't noticed that while most of the people who supported Dems haven't changed their beliefs and left the party, the party changed its beliefs and left them.

The Dems of 50 years ago that left the party probably did it because of the civil rights act that LBJ got passed. If most of the Dems left the party, the presidential elections would prove that to be true. During the last 24 years, the Dems have been in office 16 years and the Repubs in 8 years. That is in elections that gerrymandering is not a factor.

Jt, most folks that I know didn't switch after the civil rights act was passed because a greater percentage of Republicans in congress voted for passage of that bill:  http://www.theblaze.com/storie...he-civil-rights-act/

Most working people that I know had experiences like me where people wearing finer clothes and lots of bling than I could afford arrived at the grocery store in a newer classier car and bought groceries that I could not afford with food stamps. No one likes being treated like a fool and a patsy.

jtdavis posted:

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

The owner has a building and business expense. After that is paid, what is a fair split of the remainder of the hourly wage?

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

jtdavis posted:

BTW jt, when will YOU answer? Why can't blue collar workers afford insurance?

I haven't talked to blue collar workers who can't afford insurance. If you have, tell us where they work and how much they are paid.

Then you need to shut up about what you think is best for blue collar workers because you don't know squat about them.

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Does that mean you won't answer it or you can't answer it?

The owner has a building and business expense. After that is paid, what is a fair split of the remainder of the hourly wage?

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

jtdavis posted:

Yes, an owner has a building and business expenses. Expenses, plural. Try to keep up. There is no "split". There is an hourly WAGE.

That's what I've been asking you for, what should the hourly wage be

And I have said, whatever the owner offers and the mechanic agrees to take. If he doesn't like the offer he can move on. I can't set a mechanic's wage, that is up to someone that uses mechanics and decides what they are worth to THEM. In our business they would be useless. Useless meaning I personally have no reason to hire mechanics. You can't set it either because you don't know the business and what YOU think they should be paid would most likely be unrealistic.

jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

River Runner posted:
direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

River Runner posted:
direstraits posted:
River Runner posted:
jtdavis posted:

Unless they agree to a comission type pay, and they'd still have to agree to what each felt was fair, and doubtful any owner would agree to an even split.

One guy I know uses the book rate, if the book says a job will take 3 hours and the mechanic gets done in one hour, he gets 3 hours pay. If it takes 6 hours, it's still 3 hours pay.

Don't think I will be using your mechanic.. I Don't know who made or determined the Rule of "Book Rate". Seems like an Archaic way to doing business... After diagnosis of issue, we determine the cost to fix.. We agree or not to agree... part as friends either way... If  the mechanic is of any worth, then its a mute point pertaining to book rate.

Most of the auto dealerships use book rates.

Thanks for setting me straight on Dealership labor rates. That must be the reason I haven't taken a vehicle in to a Dealership for general repairs outside of Warranty work. I'll stick with the fellow who has a Shop/garage behind his house as his business. He may had quoted me a book rate, but if I think it's too high, I shop around for someone else.. Last repair was my old 1998 knock-around truck needed new clutch. I bought the parts & he installed clutch & fluids for 150 bucks... vs Dealer wanted 600 bucks, 5 years ago. 

The similarity between union and non-union blue collar workers ends with their skills.

 

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

After all the business expense is deducted from that $50, what's a fair wage for the one doing the work? You have a business, you should be able to answer.

jtdavis posted:

There are to many places to have your car repaired to take it to a dealership and let them soak you, and I would bet anything jt, even with all his talk, would be the first to avoid paying more.

After all the business expense is deducted from that $50, what's a fair wage for the one doing the work? You have a business, you should be able to answer.

Jt, my business is nothing like a business that has mechanics, and I have NO idea what part of that $50 has to be earmarked for expenses. Are you that dense/stupid? I have answered, numerous times. What is FAIR is what the owner offers and the mechanic agrees to take. Fair is NOT splitting it 50/50. They couldn't tell you about my finances, how would I know theirs? How in the world you managed to hold a job is a mystery to me. If a person has surgery, how much of the cost of that surgery  is "fair" for the doctor to take? Come on, you've had surgery, tell us.

jtdavis posted:

Then why the need to curry political favors?

?????

I'm asking you, JT.  Should be an elementary question for a union insider such as yourself.  Kinda surprised you feigned ignorance rather than rise in defense.  Union men I know would not have hesitated.  So lets have another go at it. 

Why is it a group, with the skill set you claim is no comparison to your brother non-union blue collar workers, feels the need to curry political favor?  What advantage, protection, or favoritism are they seeking?

Or do you deny that is the case ?????

Well jt, what have they done for you? You were kinda "crying poor" a few months ago when you talked about what you had made and the car you drove. So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

Best, I looked up some numbers.                                                                                          unemployment    Jan. 2009=7.8%      June 2016= 4.9%                                                       stock market        2009=  7,000          2016=   18,000                                                          Deficit 2001= 172 plus,    2009=  1,578 billion deficit,  2015=  438 billion deficit

Would you mind telling me what part of the economy Obama screwed up. It appears that he saved the economy.

jtdavis posted:

So just what did the union and demoslops do for you since it seems others were doing better then you until obama slithered onto the scene and screwed the economy?

Best, I looked up some numbers.                                                                                          unemployment    Jan. 2009=7.8%      June 2016= 4.9%                                                       stock market        2009=  7,000          2016=   18,000                                                          Deficit 2001= 172 plus,    2009=  1,578 billion deficit,  2015=  438 billion deficit

Would you mind telling me what part of the economy Obama screwed up. It appears that he saved the economy.

Good example of leftists playing with numbers which they no more understand than phlogiston theory of combustion.  National debt 2008 – about $10 trillion.  National debt 2016 -- $19.4 trillion. By the end of 2016, the administration will have added as much as every other administration in history.  Average GDP growth for the last 7.5 years – 1.3 percent.  That is the worst in over 100 years. Probably the worst in history.  The extreme increase in the value of the stock market is the equivalent of the increased cost of housing by 2008.  For 150 years, homes were depreciating assets.  By government injecting $1 trillion thru Freddie/Fannie, homes rose in value, rather than depreciating.  Now, the Fed caused interest rates to drop to almost zero for small and middle savers – savings accounts, money market accounts, CDs, etc.  Even federal treasury bond yields are at a historic low.  Companies that must invest funds to produce revenue for fortune expenses are forced into the stock markets.  Investors are bidding up the stock values well above the actual value, similar to 1929.  BTW, such companies include companies responsible for insurance companies and pensions.  Obama has set up the nation for another recession, with the government stuck with an inability to borrow when interests rates increase.

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Dire, you keep bringing up those gloom and doom numbers about Obama's time in office, why don't you bring up some numbers to show what Bush did to a robust economy? After all, Obama inherited a train wreck and faced republican opposition at every twist and turn.

Bush had a robust economy. Obama ruined it.

Bush inherited a time bomb from Clinton. If it wasn't for the money from the rest of the world flowing in to fund an overheated housing market, the next president would have had to contend with the problem. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×