If you're a union worker:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/uaws-king-says-14-entry-level-hourly-wages-not-livable.html

Quote :

"The $14 hourly wage currently paid to entry-level UAW workers is “not a livable wage,” King said in an interview with Automotive News. "

~29000 / year isn't a livable wage. I suppose if you live in NYC that might be true, but in Detroit?

8/20/2011 2:37:59 PM

Lots of people on the "starting salary" thread in the lounge making less than that.

8/20/2011 2:38:43 PM

Depends on what you call livable. Anything under 35,000 is not really practical because its nearly impossible to support a child or save.

8/20/2011 2:45:15 PM

If $14/hr isn't liveable then there are many other options:

1) Get a better paying job

2) Get another job

3) Find ways to cut expenses


99% of the world doesn't make $14/hr. Get the fuck out of here.

8/20/2011 3:17:07 PM

99% of the world doesn't make cars that are worth tens of thousands of dollars. The people making these machines deserve a fair share for what they are producing. This is a basic right and 99% of the world isn't making things this valuable. Also, this isn't supposed to be some third world country where workers are just happy to be alive and privileged to perform slave labor.

1. this is an industry-wide union so there are no other jobs.
3. shutup with that until they are living at or above the standard for this country.

8/20/2011 4:05:22 PM

Let's be realistic. If they're in a union then basic economics tells us they are most likely overpaid because unions like to create a barrier to entry to keep supply of labor too low so they can keep wages higher than the market clearing prices.

So maybe they should be happy with the fact they are being paid more than they otherwise would and either figure out a way to live on $14/hr or choose another profession.


They are already being subsidized to death by the government and running the company into the ground for the second time. Why do we want to destroy the industry even more by paying some little entry level shits who are bitching about how unfortunate they are to not be overpaid more?

8/20/2011 4:50:46 PM

Quote :

"Anything under 35,000 is not really practical because its nearly impossible to support a child or save."

Then don't have a child...

Quote :

"99% of the world doesn't make cars that are worth tens of thousands of dollars. The people making these machines deserve a fair share for what they are producing. "

So, when the company they work for loses money, should they give some of it back? Or if the company records a loss, will they take a pay cut? If they do, then you have a point. However, year in and year out, I see the UAW threatening a strike if they don't get more money.

And it's not just $14/hr, it's also full health insurance, paid for by the employer and a pension. $14/hr in a union is not the same as $14/hr in a non-union job.

Quote :

"Also, this isn't supposed to be some third world country where workers are just happy to be alive and privileged to perform slave labor. "

LOL. They are not performing slave labor. The place I work at has people doing shit that's more closer to slave labor at $9/hr...

Quote :

"3. shutup with that until they are living at or above the standard for this country. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Quote :

"The overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $25,149[4] ($32,140 for those age 25 or above) in the year 2005.[5]"

That's $14/hr entry level. It only goes up from there...

8/20/2011 4:54:41 PM

Quote :

"So, when the company they work for loses money, should they give some of it back? Or if the company records a loss, will they take a pay cut? If they do, then you have a point. However, year in and year out, I see the UAW threatening a strike if they don't get more money."

Um, there's a reason why people are paid "salaries." They don't have a share in the company, so they don't take on the risk when it comes to profits and losses. They still, however, have a right to negotiate their salaries.

But this thread is about Southerners blindly hating unions, so I'll bow out and allow you to carry on.

8/20/2011 5:20:43 PM

Every entry level worker in the country thinks they are underpaid.

The main difference is that only the Unions have the power to try to demand more. Everyone else has to earn it by proving they are worth it.


I mean we have a 16.1% U-6 unemployment rate in this country. That's freaking terrible. We should be actively searching for ways to create jobs and then you have people like E-man saying we have too many jobs and we should raise wages instead. It's ludicrous.


Tell the people who can't find jobs that $14/hr isn't liveable. Detroit is one of the least expensive cities in America for god's sake. Perhaps they should cancel their I-phone service plans, cable tv, and drive a ten year old truck instead of financing a brand new one. That alone would save them $500-$1,000 a month.

8/20/2011 5:22:05 PM

So basically, accept your lot.

8/20/2011 5:29:11 PM

Quote :

"Um, there's a reason why people are paid "salaries." They don't have a share in the company, so they don't take on the risk when it comes to profits and losses. They still, however, have a right to negotiate their salaries."

Actually, they're being paid a "wage."

And did you not read what he said? He said "The people making these machines deserve a fair share for what they are producing."

It's not really "fair" to demand a higher wage when the company is losing money, now is it? It's not "fair" to make money on a machine you are making when the company loses money on it.

He wants to talk about "fair," when a union is anything but "fair." It's sad when unions leave companies with the option of either closing down a plant, reducing non-labor union workers or cheapening the product while leaving the product unable to compete against higher quality products at a better or equal price.

There's a reason why foreign manufacturers are locating their plants in non-unionized areas of the US, and it's not to fuck over the workers (they are still making great wages), but rather if they need to cut expenses, they can do it quickly and efficiently without having to dick around with a labor union. They can also get rid of shitty workers much easier.

Quote :

"But this thread is about Southerners blindly hating unions, so I'll bow out and allow you to carry on."

Unions have their time and place. Most of the labor unions around now are unnecessary.

8/20/2011 5:36:31 PM

Quote :

"If they're in a union then basic economics tells us they are most likely overpaid"

define "overpaid" because i guarandamtee you most union workers are living paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet.

Quote :

"Then don't have a child..."

Sounds like liberty and freedom to me. Sounds like a great life. ONLY THE RICH CAN HAVE CHILDREN!

Quote :

"So, when the company they work for loses money, should they give some of it back? Or if the company records a loss, will they take a pay cut? If they do, then you have a point. However, year in and year out, I see the UAW threatening a strike if they don't get more money."

No and they don't make more when the profits are huge either. They make a constant salary because they are the little people. The company itself can afford violent fluctuations of profit.

Quote :

"And it's not just $14/hr, it's also full health insurance, paid for by the employer and a pension."

As every career should be

Quote :

"LOL. They are not performing slave labor. The place I work at has people doing shit that's more closer to slave labor at $9/hr..."

just because it isn't the worst doesn't justify poor conditions.

Quote :

"I mean we have a 16.1% U-6 unemployment rate in this country. That's freaking terrible. We should be actively searching for ways to create jobs and then you have people like E-man saying we have too many jobs and we should raise wages instead. It's ludicrous."

We can NEVER let the supply of workers dilute working conditions and send people into slave labor. Thats the point where we become China. No matter how much supply of workers we have, we have to keep conditions adequate and simply take care of those who can't find work.

Quote :

" Perhaps they should cancel their I-phone service plans, cable tv, and drive a ten year old truck instead of financing a brand new one. That alone would save them $500-$1,000 a month."

Every union worker owns a brand new truck. Also, workers should not be allowed to watch tv or talk on the phone. Sounds like slavery to me.

8/20/2011 5:46:43 PM

Not everyone worked hard enough to prepare themselves for a career where they can afford a brand new truck, an Iphone, 750+ channels, kids, and enough discretionary income to go out on the town every night.

That's reality.

ITT, $14/hr with a full benefits package is equivalent to slave labor.

The company is failing despite all the subsidies Obama has given them for the 2nd time in three years.

If the workers aren't willing to work for a market clearing wage, then the jobs will go away and they'll back on the dole with food stamps sitting at home idly watching Judge Judy while they smoke weed. But that's the liberal Utopia, right?

8/20/2011 5:51:42 PM

Quote :

"But this thread is about Southerners blindly hating unions, so I'll bow out and allow you to carry on."

Actually, my general dislike of unions comes from growing up in the north and listening to both my parents bitch about the union screwing them over as much as the people they worked for. Turns out, after a while, a union, like any other money generating organization becomes self interested and loses sight of it's original purpose. But carry on assuming things, it makes you look smart.

Quote :

"define "overpaid" because i guarandamtee you most union workers are living paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet. "

If you are living pay check to pay check making 3/5ths the median US household income on a single persons wages, you're living beyond your means.

Quote :

"Sounds like liberty and freedom to me. Sounds like a great life. ONLY THE RICH CAN HAVE CHILDREN!"

The poor can have them too, if they can support them. You're the one that seems to think you can't support a family with two 29k / year incomes.

Quote :

"just because it isn't the worst doesn't justify poor conditions. "

Define poor conditions, because I guarantee you anyone bringing home 29k / year individually can live a nice life.

Quote :

"Also, workers should not be allowed to watch tv or talk on the phone. Sounds like slavery to me."

They should be (and are) allowed anything they can afford.

8/20/2011 6:01:12 PM

I make grad student pay, which is less than 29k a year, and I don't have any problem.

8/20/2011 6:03:06 PM

Quote :

"Not everyone worked hard enough to prepare themselves for a career where they can afford a brand new truck, an Iphone, 750+ channels, kids, and enough discretionary income to go out on the town every night."

every career should pay enough for leisure. Society couldn't function without garbage men so really every career is important.

Quote :

"ITT, $14/hr with a full benefits package is equivalent to slave labor"

It is. Slaves were given 0/hr with a benefits package, transportation, room and board, meals and healthcare. I'm not quite sure today's workers can afford all of that.

Quote :

" If the workers aren't willing to work for a market clearing wage"

the market you speak of would screw workers anytime you have more workers than jobs until wages are next to nothing. See China.

Quote :

" If you are living pay check to pay check making 3/5ths the median US household income on a single persons wages, you're living beyond your means."

Exactly, a basic life is beyond their means so they obviously need to increase their means.

Quote :

"You're the one that seems to think you can't support a family with two 29k / year incomes."

Yeah but how many couples are in this same union? Your notion would mean they need to make 58k/year to support a family.

Quote :

" They should be (and are) allowed anything they can afford."

And by saying they shouldnt try to increase their wage so that they can afford more basic luxuries you are advocating slave like labor. Anytime someone can only afford a place to sleep, eat and then go back to work, that is essentially slave labor. Even the slaves had a little entertainment.

Quote :

"I make grad student pay, which is less than 29k a year, and I don't have any problem."

how many kids do you have? don't they give you a place to stay? you are in school and getting paid instead of working

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 6:16 PM. Reason : shift]

8/20/2011 6:15:36 PM

The E Man:

Jesus fuck. I started to reply, but it would be an entire page.

8/20/2011 7:20:47 PM

I promise to read its entirety.

8/20/2011 8:48:42 PM

this is fucking pathetic.

and fuck these piles of shit they build.

8/20/2011 9:02:00 PM

Quote :

"And by saying they shouldnt try to increase their wage so that they can afford more basic luxuries you are advocating slave like labor. Anytime someone can only afford a place to sleep, eat and then go back to work, that is essentially slave labor. Even the slaves had a little entertainment."

I basically eat, sleep, read some, go out and eat on occasion for less than 29K a year. And I do not at all feel inconvenienced. I also have High speed internet, but no cable TV, SLAVES HAD IT SO MUCH BETTER. Slaves didn't have to go to RedBox for movies when they got bored. Lucky Lucky slaves.

And I'm not even making as much this month, which is why I'm not spending as much, it's called balanced budgeting. Just because I balance my budget doesn't mean "the Man" is enslaving me.

8/20/2011 9:15:23 PM

Quote :

""I make grad student pay, which is less than 29k a year, and I don't have any problem." how many kids do you have? don't they give you a place to stay? you are in school and getting paid instead of working"

lol, they give grad students a place to stay? And 29k a year for a grad stipend I want to know what his major is, because it obviously must be in really high demand.

Overall the bigotry in this thread is deafening.

8/20/2011 9:55:23 PM

It's TA/RA major is chemistry, my benefits are: payed healthcare, which comes out of a 25K yearly TA stipend. I have my own apartment, which I have to pay for. So I handle all costs except for an extremely good health care program. Ra might be a larger stipend, but for the first year of TA, I should be fine.

Does anyone know how grad school works? Because if you think grad school for chemistry is just going to class, you're incorrect. I know how the system works, stop pretending to know what you're talking about, it's aggravating.

TA involves 3 undergraduate lab teaching courses, as well as proctoring/TAing for an undergraduate course. Not to mention in the free time we have we are supposed to work with a research professor. Which is what I currently do, so it is a 9-5 job. Now if anyone has a more precise understanding of the graduate chemistry program. If you ask the other chem grad students on here they will tell you the same thing.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2011 9:59:09 PM

Quote :

"Overall the bigotry in this thread is deafening."

I also don't understand this, am I just making things up when I say what I do or how I live? I live, comfortably with under <25k a year, with no external support. You can rabble rabble all you want and say how much bullshit it is to live off of <29K, but I am doing it, it is possible, unless you think I'm lying.

8/20/2011 10:06:23 PM

Liberals have so many similar qualities to women. They never let facts get in the way of overriding their emotions.

It's why liberals always make points that start with "I feel"


Grow up. Our generation is the one who is going to get SCREWED hardcore when America's social programs go bankrupt. The ones of us who have "fringe" jobs will be unemployed. The ones of us who have "great" jobs will get taxed to death. And the safety net will not be there, or at least not be adequate to support us.

$14/hr looks like nirvana to ~30% of Americans today and will look like nirvana to 50-70%* of Americans in a few years when we enter the depths of the depression.


*Actually, $14/hr will be terrible once the currency collapse if you are talking about nominal wages. I am referring to "real" wages accounting for the massive inflation we are about to experience when they devalue the currency.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM. Reason : a]

8/20/2011 10:14:11 PM

I know people in grad school who have kids. My general observation is that they are drawing down savings, even when they have a spouse who does some form of part time work.

This stuff about 750+ channels is stupidity. Let's limit the discussion to the most basic of the basic:

Housing:
$500 / mo --> $ 6k / yr
$750 / mo --> $ 9k / yr
$1000 / mo --> $ 12k / yr

Electricity:
$100 / mo --> $ 1.2k / yr

Food:
$300 / mo --> $ 3.6k / yr
$500 / mo --> $ 6k / yr

I happen to know from personal experience and Mint.com that I'll run $500 / mo on food without alcohol related purchases included. This is perfectly consistent with expectations if you just look at one grocery store bill.

Rent costs can be $250 / mo, but that's going to be a single person place that sucks. If I see a couple or a small family running $600 / mo around Raleigh I think they're either getting a good deal or living very frugally.

We're discussing $ 25k and $ 29k kinds of pay here. It doesn't take much to see the costs of the basics exceed half of that.

A friend of mine with a child recently had to take that child to the hospital. Some kind of asthma thing that they didn't know about before. Scary, I'm sure, but nothing highly unusual in the grad scheme of things. Not knowing any better they stayed the night, not ICU, just a night in a hospital bed at Rex. The bill was $ 8k.

Now they had health insurance, but only because of the connection to the university. Something like that could blow any ideas about budgeting out of the water.

8/20/2011 10:41:03 PM

Quote :

"Depends on what you call livable. Anything under 35,000 is not really practical because its nearly impossible to support a child or save."

This is so wrong i don't even know where to begin with this one. You can save and support a child if you are not stupid and have self-discipline.

8/20/2011 10:43:00 PM

I'm in the educational industrial complex man, that's the second to last thing to fail. It fails right before the military industrial complex.

8/20/2011 10:52:25 PM

you people have expensive tastes and shitty jobs.

yup sounds like liberals to me.

gg

8/20/2011 10:53:15 PM

Well yeah, if you're trying to support a family on 29k a year you're going to have problems.

8/20/2011 10:54:03 PM

Quote :

""Depends on what you call livable. Anything under 35,000 is not really practical because its nearly impossible to support a child or save." This is so wrong i don't even know where to begin with this one. You can save and support a child if you are not stupid and have self-discipline more insurance than what you can afford."

8/20/2011 11:00:58 PM

^^and you are a student comparing yourself to career people. Every career job should pay at minimum enough to support a family. Bottom line.

8/20/2011 11:20:22 PM

Also, there is nearly always a free, or very low costing alternative to anything you can pay for. You gotta use your resources for living just like anything else. This is obvious to most people, but people who can't raise a child and save on 35k apparently don't understand this. More than likely if you have a job paying 35K you got pre-tax benefits like flex spending, insurance, 401k, etc..., and you got to anticipate career advancement to get paid more money at some point.

^ I am speaking from a career oriented mindset, you're are trolling or need personal finance skills counseling.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 11:21 PM. Reason : /]

8/20/2011 11:20:27 PM

Quote :

"or need personal finance skills counseling. "

Where did this line come from? You must be confusing survival with enough to live up to standards. There is no way in hell someone making 29k can support a child and give them a good life.

Sure they can survive with low quality nutrition, childcare and lack of entertainment. But this creates an environment that is likely to fail the child just like it has failed millions of american youth.

Also, if they are making the amount they need to live off of then they have no savings. Everyone has car trouble and bullshit that requires them to come up with 4 figures out of pocket every now and then and these people are back broken by these type of things.

You are talking about people that bring in ~2k/month

rent and utilities: 1k
food and gas: 1k

Thats it. No entertainment, no savings and no way out. That, by definition is slavery. They only have enough money to eat/sleep so they can have energy to work and buy gas so they can drive to work.

Quote :

"35K"

35k is enough. at min. These people aren't making 35k. They are making less than 30k maybe 25k.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 11:40 PM. Reason : k]

8/20/2011 11:36:54 PM

Wow.

8/20/2011 11:37:53 PM

I think a lot of the libertarian idea on this issue is predicated on the thinking that someone taking in a small amount of income would downgrade in the quantity and quality of consumption and that everything else would be equal.

Vanilla economics does not work in this case. Honestly, a way for the poor to get out of poverty would be to create a community-based living arrangement where they get by with half of the floor space than they would otherwise rent if they made twice as much. In reality poor people are a liability and those with capital to use to create products (like living space) shy away from that market and it creates a definable effect in terms of bending the costs of living. We haven't engineered society to be comfortable for people living below the poverty line, and if you think about it, there is not the economic motivation to do so. That's not where the money is and that's not where the higher margins are. You need more sales volume to create the same revenue and each unit of sales volume create exorbitant risk in comparison to the middle and upper classes.

There is no motivation for anyone to do anything other than stick it to the poor. Except for government.

8/21/2011 12:18:41 AM

Quote :

"The poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Union workers would earn ~$7,000 above the poverty line (not including taxes deducted from paychecks)

Quote :

"A 2007 Social Compact report showed the city of Detroit's median household income at $34,512"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit


$14/hour would still put the average union worker below the median income of Detroit residents from 4 years ago.




Anyway, those are hard numbers, so you can start from there, and you can leave out the less concrete figures like cable tv, iphones, cars, and Judge Judy. Although I suppose they could always get on their iphones and youtube old clips of Allen Iverson stepping over Tyronne Lue, right rally? You used to be such a good sports talk rube.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 12:41 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 12:24:45 AM

You are confusing starting and average wage.

We all agree jobs should pay enough to meet our expectations. But they never do. As productive a society as we are, the resources just do not exist. There is nothing we can do to relieve the need to balance our budgets with hard choices.

8/21/2011 1:25:39 AM

Quote :

" Sounds like liberty and freedom to me. Sounds like a great life. ONLY THE RICH CAN HAVE CHILDREN!"

everyone should be allowed to have everything they want!

8/21/2011 8:25:12 AM

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

8/21/2011 8:38:24 AM

Quote :

"everyone should be allowed to have everything they want!"

Few leftists think this.

However, I do see many on the right avidly arguing that established wealth should be able to do whatever it fucking wants, fuck every last consequence.

Too bad you weren't called to books.

8/21/2011 9:07:24 AM

I probably read about 200 pages a day. Not much but it's all I have time for at the moment between working and studying.

Anyway, I was obviously exaggerating in responding to a specific troll post that seemed to imply liberty and freedom means everyone deserves whatever they want. I wasn't trying to imply anything about leftists in general. Saying that only the rich can have children is silly. Also saying that $14/hr isn't a livable wage is silly. It is certainly enough for one person, and if you have a family, then maybe both heads of the household should work. Yes it may not be livable in the way you would like to live, but it is definitely livable. We're talking entry-level here. I have a couple friends who both work for BMW doing entry-level manual labor jobs for about the same wage. One is single and does fine and the other is married and his wife doesn't work. They don't live lavish lives and rent apartments instead of owning a house but I've never gotten the impression they feel impoverished.

I definitely do not think that established wealth should be able to do anything it wants.

I do think everyone deserves the chance to earn what they want, it just takes a lot of work.

If they want to argue they deserve more, then ok that is their fight and their company's problem, but saying it is not livable is just an exaggeration.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 10:00:48 AM

I'm just tired of people pretending the hyperbole extends in all directions and is uniform along the spectrum.

Many people here are totally cool with capital banding together and bargaining in essentially mean ways; god forbid labor behave in precisely the same fashion when selling itself.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2011 10:07:47 AM

Who here is totally cool with one group of people using the government to violate the rights of others while against another group doing the same, other than you?

I seriously doubt there is anyone here in favor of the government intervening in a labor dispute on behalf of the corporation to force workers to keep working in the same fashion you want the government to intervene on behalf of the union to force the corporation to keep employing them.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2011 11:25:13 AM

That's a bit unfair. I think McDanger is only trying to point out how market power is a problem. I think if you asked him, he'd consider both less than perfect. I know I don't like unions ability to bid wages above market value any more than I like companys power to bid wages below market value. But it is extremely unfair for one side to have the power and the other not.

8/21/2011 11:53:22 AM

You guys are looking at this all wrong. If it weren't for unions demanding more for the same work, there would be no jobs for people with knowledge to create robots to replace the union workers.

8/21/2011 11:55:46 AM

Quote :

"I know I don't like unions ability to bid wages above market value any more than I like companys power to bid wages below market value. But it is extremely unfair for one side to have the power and the other not."

No one knows what market value is. It's not some thing you can plug into a formula and say, "yep, this guy is getting paid exactly what his market value is." There is competition for labor. Firms have to compete to the get workers, and workers have to compete to get a job.

That's the price mechanism in a free market. If a potential hire thinks he's being offered below his market value, he can weigh his options, and tell the employer that he can get a better wage elsewhere. It's a process of constantly over-bidding and under-bidding to discover prices.

I propose a better plan, though. Let's have Lord Kris set prices. Then, finally, we can have fairness.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 1:18:22 PM

I think it might be better to have lord Kris setting prices than to suffer the legally enforced monopoly that is unionization.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2011 1:22:16 PM

Quote :

"That's a bit unfair. I think McDanger is only trying to point out how market power is a problem. I think if you asked him, he'd consider both less than perfect. I know I don't like unions ability to bid wages above market value any more than I like companys power to bid wages below market value. But it is extremely unfair for one side to have the power and the other not."

I'm really glad to see somebody's capable of reading charitably on this website

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2011 1:49:49 PM

How can anyone say that $14 bucks an hour, for an [b]entry[i] level job is not a livable wage? That is almost laughable.

8/21/2011 2:09:48 PM

Quote :

"Union workers would earn ~$7,000 above the poverty line (not including taxes deducted from paychecks) ... $14/hour would still put the average union worker below the median income of Detroit residents from 4 years ago."

Yes, a single, individual union worker makes ~$7,000 / year more than the poverty line for a family of 4 and below the median household income for detroit. Which means a family of 4 with both parents working their "non livable" union wage jobs, said family of 4 would be making ~58,000 / year, or for their household ~24,000 more than the median household income in detroit, and ~34,000 over the poverty line for their family size.

It would also mean that they make ~12,000 more than the median household income in the US (46k), about 9k less than the median dual income household (67k). It also puts them into the fourth 5th of all households (lower limit of 55k) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_US, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

Again, it's a livable wage.

8/21/2011 2:38:13 PM