Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "John Deere Scrambles As Workers Go On MASSIVE Strike" video.
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
@chrisj984 The unions do not have more power than the crooks in both parties that sold out the country. Which only have that power because voter give them the power. Unions too only have as much leverage as the citizens give them - and that would start with citizens being informed and not falling for propaganda and think tank created thought stopping clichés. If you truly believed the Walmart claim, that is propaganda, they do not even bother to make up better fairy tales.
Unions could not hinder Clinton, Bush or Obama (pushing TPP, one thing that Trump got right).
Public support for unions, solidarity and organizing in the workforce was abyssmal in the last 40 years, there was a very strategic campaign to villify unions, to tell workers they don't need them AND also lies about what companies can do if you step on their toes. Do not even try. If people believe that Walmart is going to close and no one replaces them as shop or employer ....
In TN a Republican politician told VW workers the plant would not get subsidies if they would unionize. That was few years ago, maybe still under Obama. You have no idea how that would go down if any politician (left, center, right, far right) dared to say something like that in Europe - shitstorm does not even begin to describe it: reelection questionable, a liability for the party, a running gag for comediens, and citizens would remember that someone had said that for decades ..... and trodded out by the political opponents for many years.
I am sure that the right politicians also dislike unions, but they would never, ever dare to show it so openly and threaten workers. (Needless to say VW in Germany and Europe is unionized, of course they are).
Another lie:
A higher minimum wage will ruin, RUIN biz (never happens, no matter how often it is announced)
True: Unions play nice with the D elites and are scared shitless of the R elites. They would need some good kicks by an engaged base to step up.
"trade deals" have following function: they grant lower import tariffs (and do away with other PROTECTIONIST measures). That means the industries can produce cheaply - in developing or emerging countries.
And U.S farmers benefitted from the trade deals that cost U.S. manufacturing workers dearly - they could dump their subsidized surplus into Mexico (and ruin small farmers there, one driver of migration !) and they could export to China.
BUT the manufacturers only turn their back on the domestic workforce - not on domestic biz / consumers as buyers. The underpaid Chinese and Mexicans cannot (could not) afford to buy what they helped produce so the goods had to be brought back to the U.S. and other rich countries.
If the lower tariffs are only a matter of temporary arrangements (China during the Clinton admin) the unwashed masses could elect a labor friendly president and Congress and undo it - asking for higher import tariffs, which makes the product more expensive and harder to sell (or with less profit).
Then they would have had all the hassle of outsourcing the investments need some years to be paid off - just to find that their profits melt away - because the import tariffs eat it up.
The tariffs are like a tax. that is not necessarily negative, if it is this tax they do not have to raise taxes from other sources. Import tariffs were never the huge sources of tax revenue BUT they had a strong capacity to shape markets and steer where things are produced. Or sold.
In 1992 Ross Perot ran as Independent, he was strongly against NAFTA, stirred up discussion, and got almost 19 % of the popular vote. Bush 1 had signed NAFTA with the other heads of states but could not get it through Congress. Clinton got elected (also with help of unions, black people. partially Perot might have helped) - and HE was able to sideline the unions and screw the Democratic base. But no doubt big biz, finance were spooked by Perot, what if another type like him came around and this time also could leverage the support of grassroots (incl. unions !) Perot was a billionaire, working with the unions and asking for a membership drive was not his thing.
The elites (unlike voters) learn. Clinton prepared the China agreement, Bush 2 inherited it and signed it Jan. or Feb. 2002, just a few months after 9/11 and start of the Afghanistan war. NO fierce debate this time.
So it needs to be an internationally binding agreement like NAFTA, China's WTO membership or TPP that enshrines ! the rights of coproations above anyone else - incl. elected governments.
The U.S. is so powerful that it could demand renegotiation of NAFTA (and the essentials remained untouched, Trump could do it, he did not offend big biz, it was window dressing). But if Canada or Mexico had wanted renegotiations - they would not have gotten that.
So for big biz it is: their rights are enshrined and no democratically elected government can step on their toes LATER when it turns out the wonderful things that were promised did not happend and the trade deal cost a lot of money and undermined wages and job security IN the country.
In TPP and TTIP (the drafts) they asked for arbitration (big biz suing governments for forgone profits. NOT for stranded investments which sometimes could be a legitimate demand, but for the profits they expected to make if they would not have been bothered by any new laws.
The public non-profit justice system is for everyone else, if big biz sues governments (not the other way round !) under trade deals it is a private for-profit system.
If they have to deal with new regulations regarding safety, minimum wage, pollution
... NGO's or governments cannot sue biz. And the arbitrators are large law firms, highly specialized. From what we know (such processes have already been going on, taking advantage of existing deals, that do not cover so many nations however) out of 3 cases 2 are decided in favor of big biz. The process is very costly.
The "judges" are a very small group of law firms so not hard to capture them. The costs have to be paid for by each party, no matter who wins - smaller nations might even abstain from trying to pass legislation that would protect their workers or the environment.
Democratic governments can try to protect the population - but they have to buy off biz for that. And biz does not even have to bother to sell and produce, they just claim what they expected to make in revenue and profits and demand their handout. The U.S. / European elites were cool with that in TPP and TTIP, and the Asian leaders as well (or they felt they had to agree because they need the deals). Africa is also screwed with trade deals imposed on them by the EU. Leaders that do not agree might find themselves regime changed.
Newer trade deals usually apply 20 - 30 years after a country quits - so it is de facto impossible to undo them if a former government sold out the country.
Protectionist effect of tariffs
Not a free market, import tariffs are also protectionist. and if an industry is protected they can get complacent or the fleece the domestic buyers.
that said: if the product is not (much) overpriced consumers are getting something for their extra spending. Jobs. low unemployment also in rural areas. Good funding for Mediare, SS. Social stability for families. A positive mood. Less diseases of despair (alcoholism, addiction. which is spreading among white middle aged males, they see no perspective in certain regions the mood is not optimistic, that explains to a degree the drug abuse in communities that did not abuse drugs before (rural, white).
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
7:20 "4.3 million people quit their job in August ... looking for better jobs as inflation is on the rise." ABC could not help themselves, could they ? the rich HATE inflation and they had to do a little fear mongering (unlike people that work for a living or produce for the real economy the holder of fortunes denominated in USD cannot cope with inflation. People and productive biz in the post war era could cope just fine with somewhat higher inflation. They negotiated for higher wages, asked for more SS, and added a few percent on the sales prices. But it ate away at fortunes, it was like a tax on money sitting idly around).
And there is only so much solid investment into the stock exchange possible.
While people that got SS, disability or a wage just got their rise and were done with it.
People invested in ahome or in equipment to poduce something were not subject to inflation.
I have yet to see someone quitting over "inflation". Better pay sure - in any economy. And people would not quit if they are content overal, even if they feel inflation. (it is a difference if you have a good wage overal, or if you are squeezed with rent, healthcare, education costs AND lousy pay in many cases.
With nurses it is the burden of CoVid19. And the profession has a high turnover rate overall.
John Deere cut pay in the past (maybe when the going was rough), but now things are going swimmingly and they still do not want to share (what else is new ?). The 6 % are also part for what they gave up in the past.
1
-
1