Biden says he's glad to see this

[dryheat]

-It comes against the backdrop of a growing wave of unionization. Employees at New York City Reserve Roastery voted to form a union on Saturday. Workers at 140 stores in 27 states have filed petitions for union elections, according to Starbucks Workers United.-

In addition, Amazon workers are unionizing too. Co. are not doing stock buybacks so they have more funds for workers who are demanding higher wages.

Seems like a tectonic shift. Inflation is here to stay. There will be a whole new Gen X (or something) that can say someday, yeah, I remember when you could get a cup of coffee for $5.

[togor]

In the chart below, 1980 is the dividing line between the two curves since that is when union-busting really kicked into overdrive.

What is important is the shape of the curves. The black line is post WW2 to 1980, mostly flat, with the people at the very top seeing the least amount of growth. Well I guess they didn't like this because in the 34 years that followed, they changed the rules and saw to it that most of the new income went to the tippy top.

My own attitudes towards unions are jaded by my father's impressions as a factory floor supervisor in a union shop. But, let us not argue on the question of where new wealth is going.

[togor]

Then there is the recent email sent by a (now former) Applebee's Executive. You read it right....with higher prices, people will need second jobs, and Applebee's can reduce wages.

This is what is different now....if not sufficiently profitable, cut wages.

[lyman]

he makes valid points in that email, until he mentions lower wages,, (morale will tank with guy hired last week at $xx finds out the guy hired the day before was hired in at $xx much higher)

[togor]

This thread gets at that question, which has no universally-agreed answer:

Who should get the fruits of labor?

[lyman]

This thread gets at that question, which has no universally-agreed answer:

Who should get the fruits of labor?

exactly,

do the owners get rich, or do they live in some conceived pay rate that makes everyone happy, (as in not a lot of return for their risk and investment?)

[RED]

There has always been successful people that were rich and powerful and there have always been people that were abject failures and failed regardless of opportunities. No matter what form of government exists there will always be winners and losers. The Progressives simply do not understand that. They think that a janitor with no education, and no skills should be able to sweep floors 40 hours a week, raise a family, buy a $300k house and a $56k EV and have 30 days paid vacation.

I had 2 sons. One did nothing in school, he did not pay attention at any level, he barely graduated from high school and flunked out of college the first semester and refused to join the military. He died broke, at 48 riding a four wheeler drunk and illegally on a busy city street.

His brother studied in school, did his homework, joined the US Army right out of high school, and then to college on the GI Bill. He graduated, and today he is 54, has a job that pays 6 figures, a daughter that was valedictorian of her 6th grade class, and a member of the National Honor Society. His son is also a 4.0 student plays quarterback on the Jr. football team, has a black belt in Taekwondo and plays the bugle in his Boy Scout troop.

My oldest son is the model for what the Progressives thank is the perfect citizen while his brother has lived the American dream and is hated by the National Socialist Democratic Party.

JMHO

[Roadkingtrax]

You should forgive yourself.

[lyman]

sorry to hear about your Son,

[togor]

sorry to hear about your Son,

+1 to that.

Another question....since everyone can't be on top, should those at the bottom not have a political party that represents them? Are they supposed to be wage slaves? Paid enough to
just get by but otherwise have no voice in how the country is run?

That don't seem right does it?

Now it's true that some choose that life, working just enough to get by, and having no interest in politics. But them choosing that is different than the country saying they get no voice.

[Vern Humphrey]

exactly,

do the owners get rich, or do they live in some conceived pay rate that makes everyone happy, (as in not a lot of return for their risk and investment?)

A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer, and a willing seller accept -- and that includes labor.

Note there are only TWO people in that equation, the buyer and the seller. There is no room for a third party to make their decisions for them.

[dryheat]

A lot of times it's Cane and Abel. Or there-abouts. My old girlfriend has to boys. One was akin to her and partied from the eighth grade on. Drug deals, you name it. Went to prison twice. Might be there now. The other was kind of a nut too but managed to survive somehow. My smart friends wife had the same two kids. One is a millionaire (so far) and the other shot himself when the police had him surrounded.
All this is in response to Red's post. But it pertains to; some succeed and some don't.

Their voice is often nonsense. It's whiny; we need this. We need that. What have they contributed to achieve that? They are lucky to get what they get from the kindness of strangers. Stupid people have stupid children and now abortion is more banned than it has been. But random abortion doesn't solve any of it. Targeted abortion is what is needed. I never said any of this.

[RED]

Another question....since everyone can't be on top, should those at the bottom not have a political party that represents them? Are they supposed to be wage slaves? Paid enough to
just get by but otherwise have no voice in how the country is run?

Hell no!!!! No political party represents somebody else. Ever single political party that has ever existed represented their members and their financial supporters. Every pretense they represent the unfortunate and downtrodden is actually a scam and they are using the scam to entice voters. End of story.

[togor]

Another question....since everyone can't be on top, should those at the bottom not have a political party that represents them? Are they supposed to be wage slaves? Paid enough to
just get by but otherwise have no voice in how the country is run?

Hell no!!!! No political party represents somebody else. Ever single political party that has ever existed represented their members and their financial supporters. Every pretense they represent the unfortunate and downtrodden is actually a scam and they are using the scam to entice voters. End of story.

If you want to cynically split hairs....

Which party panders to you to get your votes?

Can can't the working poor have a party that panders to them? Is that so wrong?

[RED]

Panders

So pandering is the key word you use for the portion of politics you like and encourage?

pan?der
/ˈpandər/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: pandering
gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).
"newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts"

Also:

Pander, legal definition:
1) To solicit customers for a prostitute. 2) A pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution for the pimp's own profit. 3) To cater to special interests without principle.

Immoral, distasteful is in my opinion is your logic.