Dimensions Forums  
Home Register Premium Membership Stories Ye Olde Library Health Issues Market Place Big Fashion

Go Back   Dimensions Forums > Archives > Hyde Park (Archive Only)



 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-16-2012, 11:03 AM   #1
mediaboy
 
mediaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The corner of Hell & Holarity - pinky out, Mother Fucker
Posts: 995
mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default Blue Dogs & Rockefellians

Rockefellians - officially a word NOW.

My dear colleagues of the illustrious and blusterous Hyde Park I pose before you a question of modest means and earnest sobriety.



Which topics do you "vote the other way on"?

That is to say, if your are conservative what are some "liberal" ideas or opinions you have maybe considered to be "eh really not awful"

The same goes for you liberal scum out there. Which conservative ideas or opinions do you consider to be "not class warfare and maybe ok"


I promise I will hold your answers in the strictest of public confidence & only reveal your filthy independent thoughts to approved party reeducation officers.






I'll start.

I consider myself to be quite liberal, pro union, pro dead baby, pro tax the rich, pro blow jobs & cigars in the oval office but I am also pro gun.

My stance on gun control has set me apart from many of my liberal scum brothers and also gotten me into some very touch and go "discussions" with gentlemen & ladies in the snack room at the gun range.



Ok, now you go.
__________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
Oscar Wilde
mediaboy is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:43 AM   #2
Diana_Prince245
Wise as Athena
 
Diana_Prince245's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Our grass is blue
Posts: 1,391
Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Diana_Prince245 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Are you out West? Lots of Western liberals are gun people too. I am.
__________________
All women can do wonders if they’re put to the test -- Wonder Woman
Diana_Prince245 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:46 AM   #3
cinnamitch
nope
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,004
cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!cinnamitch keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Liberal here, pro gun , pro death penalty
cinnamitch is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 01:38 PM   #4
Mack27
AΔΦΆΓΙΑ
 
Mack27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,975
Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Mack27 has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Vermont is very liberal and very pro gun too.

Anyway, my views are pretty libertarian, which wasn't mentioned in the original post. I'm an individualist, I believe in individual rights and individual responsibility.

Guns: Whatever small arms a soldier can carry should be legal for any adult citizen to carry until such time an individual citizen proves he shouldn't be able to carry it. I don't have a problem with reasonable training and licensing requirements.

Abortion: It is none of the government's business if a person past the age of majority decides to abort a fetus that they are pregnant with before viability. I do believe that parents or guardians of minors have the right to know about all medical procedures for minors they are accountable for.

Parental rights: I believe that once the child is actually born both biological parents should have an equal say in what happens to that child. I also believe that parental DNA testing should be mandatory at birth, it would save expense in the long run from avoidable court proceedings and prevent injustice.

Death Penalty: I don't believe the government has the right of life and death over its citizens, I'm against it. I have an exception for military members because they orally and in writing consented to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And yes, if it was my family member that was killed I would want the perpetrator killed, I'm obviously biased in that instance though, and I hope I'd get a light sentence if I killed the perpetrator myself.

Social Safety Net: I believe its best left to charity when feasible, when it's not feasible I don't think anyone should starve or not have someplace livable to sleep, there needs to be a net, but it should be left entirely to the states and not the federal government.

Affirmative Action: It's got some different definitions but I'll use the one that's probably most commonly understood, giving preference in admissions or points on tests to people based entirely on race or gender in the interests of leveling the playing field. I don't like it, I believe every individual should be just that, and judged on their own individual merits. I still wouldn't like a system that looked at zip codes or family income as a determinant to who gets preferential treatment but that would be preferable. At least then the dirt poor white kid living next door to a dirt poor black kid wouldn't be treated differently in an official capacity.

Definition of marriage: If it were up to me you could marry a dozen people of any sex or mix of sexes you wanted and all live together in a group marriage. The state definition of marriage shouldn't have anything to do with Church definitions. I think I should be able to marry in a church and have it not be a civil marriage just like I can get a civil marriage without involving a church. They probably shouldn't have been conflated to begin with. I think I should be able to write up a legal contract to be identical in marriage in virtually every way and just call it bleezlesnorp. "Yes I'm her bleezle and she's my snorp, it's a lot like marriage except it isn't." Just to be clear, I have nothing against same-sex marriage.
__________________
The more you try to convince me of what a big deal you are, the less I'll think of you.

Last edited by Mack27; 08-16-2012 at 01:41 PM.
Mack27 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 01:51 PM   #5
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I'm liberal but I don't support unions.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 02:35 PM   #6
Tad
mostly harmless
 
Tad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,428
Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I'm up in Canada, and am more or less Liberal....as in the middle-of-the-road political party. In its last pass around as government it was somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but not too far off the middle on either of those (by Canadian standards). So it is kind of hard to be on the wrong side of it, I guess?

I guess the one area I'd be off from it by much is agricultural protection. If it was up to me we'd bring in a lot more thorough standards in various areas, but then dismantle the various food marketing boards that really distort the price and availability of certain foods up here. I think that they massively suppress innovation and productivity.
__________________
Criticism is so often nothing more than the eye garrulously denouncing the shape of the peephole that gives access to hidden treasure.
-Djuna Barnes, writer and artist
Tad is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 02:55 PM   #7
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

I am liberal as all getup, but I am also pro-technology (including pro-nuclear power and pro-bioengineering (but anti-Monsanto)), pro-Israel, pro-environmental conservation (which is a liberal issue in practice but philosophically a conservative one), pro-individualist (don't mistake that as anti-welfare, though), pro-defense, and pro-assimilation (i.e., anti-multiculturalist), and pro-capital-punishment (e.g., human traffickers), to name a few things. Also, honestly, I'd be just fine if pot remained illegal (though technically I'm neutral on that).

I don't identify with the Blue Dogs; they sicken me. Actually I'm more liberal than most liberals, and where we part ways is usually because they're the ones who are interpreting liberalism wrong. =)

Conservatives seem to have the impression that all liberals are "Marxists," "socialists," or "communists," usually with no understanding of what those words mean. I'm what you might call a democratic socialist, although that term is not a perfect fit. Basically it means I support capitalistic free enterprise in all non-essential areas of the economy, and government control in the essential areas (e.g., healthcare, defense, telecommunications, education, transportation, etc.). So I would argue that, for instance, video games and Dimensions and book publishers should all be private, whereas the post office, the power grid, and airlines should all be either state run or heavily regulated--because in those instances, access is more important than efficiency, and for-profit systems price out the poor. That's fine with potato chips, but not so much with drinking water.

None of that is necessarily "against liberal orthodoxy"; rather, conservatives seem to believe (wrongly) that every liberal is a flaming hater of the free market. I'm not, and neither are most American liberals for that matter.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 09:11 PM   #8
kilo riley
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California
Posts: 883
kilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging inkilo riley makes people happy simply by logging in
Default

guns- i don't like guns. I think the 2nd amendment is too vague. I'm for strict gun control and a ban on all assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.

abortion- i personally find it to be immoral in almost every case other than rape/incest or the health of the mother.

death penalty - against it in all cases. If the evidence showed it was a deterrent then i may be able to be convinced. But the evidence doesn't show that.

health care - single payer (preferably similar to the UK). A privatized health care system has never worked and never will. Private insurance companies have been responsible for too many American citizens dieing because they have been denied care.
kilo riley is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 12:17 AM   #9
bigmac
 
bigmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Redwood Coast
Posts: 10,364
bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

I'm for limited but effective government. We need feds keeping tabs on Goldman Sachs not poking around young women's private parts.

Also, public services should be paid for by general tax dollars and provided directly by the most appropriate level of government. We do this already with police, fire, and public schools. We really need to add healthcare to the list. The private sector is great at providing consumer goods but the public sector is the way to go for public goods (there's a reason police and fire are almost universally public).

Last edited by bigmac; 08-17-2012 at 12:23 AM.
bigmac is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:04 AM   #10
bigmac
 
bigmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Redwood Coast
Posts: 10,364
bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
I'm liberal but I don't support unions.

What no unions? I'm going to have to have my brother send some of his people over for a "chat."
bigmac is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 07:35 AM   #11
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmac View Post
What no unions? I'm going to have to have my brother send some of his people over for a "chat."
Haha. Well, most of the unions up here seem to be bitching about a lot of nothing. Guess what, most people don't make even close to what you make and you probably do half the work. Unions were brought in to protect employees and while they served their purpose and changed a lot of laws, they don't seem all that necessary in Canada anymore. We have laws that protect workers. Why should Joe Longshoreman be fighting for his $58 lunch hour when people are barely making a living. Plus, these union jobs seem to mostly pass from generation to generation, it's not like you have a hope in hell of getting into one of them unless your Uncle Joe is in one and he puts in a good word for you. *wink wink*.

I think their time has come and gone, IN CANADA. I don't know how things work in the States.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:37 AM   #12
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
Why should Joe Longshoreman be fighting for his $58 lunch hour when people are barely making a living.
The fact that people are still "barely making a living" in Canada is all the proof you need that Canada and all developed nations still need strong labor unions to act as a counterbalance to strong corporations. Unions represent human labor, which corporations would otherwise consider as just another economic input. No unions means no recognition of the dignity, needs, and vulnerability of workers. Worker protection laws are a good buffer, but, unless you want the court system to be overrun with litigation between workers and their employers, labor unions have to be the option of first resort for oppressed and disenfranchised workers.

It's hard sometimes to see the things that don't happen because we prevent them from happening. It's hard to see the good that labor unions do, because the good they do is to greatly reduce worker abuses. Fewer worker abuses leads to the fallacy among many, including you, that worker abuse is a thing of the past and unions have since become anachronistic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, just look at the plight of workers in your own country who can barely get by. It's not other companies' unions keeping them down. It's their own employer, getting away with underpayment and poor benefits because there's no union to stop them and the existing worker protection laws don't go far enough.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:47 AM   #13
Yakatori
Hard to say, really...
 
Yakatori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: "Empire State of Mind"
Posts: 2,349
Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!Yakatori keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default Which Side Are You On?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
"Haha. Well, most of the unions up here seem to be bitching about a lot of nothing...most people don't make even close to what you make and you probably do half the work."
Yeah, but isn't that favorable as compared to how it was before unions? Or what it would be like without them? It's precisely because the unions will "bitch" (read: "agitate, generate awareness") of what companies are up to, that they have to be a little more careful. For great-big mammoth-things, powerful things like companies, to have to exercise some care, more care then they'd like to, is probably a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
"Unions were brought in to protect employees and while they served their purpose and changed a lot of laws, they don't seem all that necessary in Canada anymore. We have laws that protect workers...their time has come and gone.."
Without unions, that could & necessarily would-change in an instant. After-all, once laws have changed, what's to say they can't change right-back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
"Why should Joe Longshoreman be fighting for his $58 lunch hour when people are barely making a living...these union jobs seem to mostly pass from generation to generation, it's not like you have a hope in hell of getting into one of them unless your Uncle Joe is in one.."
For a country like the Unites States (and I would leave it to you to decide as to whether or not this fairly applies to Canada or to what extent) it's just too impractical to not-be engaged in certain industries.

For example, cars: Lots of folks are are annoyed (and fairly-so) with the very idea of the government jumping in to rescue any company from the the mistakes of its management. But what are we gonna do? Not have an auto-industry? The same for things like Steel, Agriculture, Energy, & Arms production. And so, as long as there's a kind of national priority, or a national-interest, in maintaining a certain industry or even a certain position within that particular industry, it will require protections specific to its workers & just in order to attract, domestically, the workers it needs to continue in its current capacity.

Eg. teachers, in this economic climate, people love to grouse about how much (some of) the teachers make and that they have summers off and their generous (?!) health benefits, etc... Especially people who've been out of work for a while; they'd, of course, be salivating at the prospect of landing something as secure as teaching. After-all, it's not dangerous work, right? Not like working in a coal mine, right? But, back when times were good, when there was office-temp work to be had @ 15-22$/hour, where were all these folks? They were working in the private-sector, of course!

And so, just as there are certain types of jobs (and only a certain number of those jobs) for which the unions are a necessary counter-weight; there are also certain jobs (and; especially in a good economic climate; many, many more of those jobs and sometimes more money to be made at them) for which a union is not practical (e.g. fast-food work, or anything for which the work force is largely transient). But, recognize this: the scale of pay/benefits that the unions negotiate for on behalf of their own workers necessarily helps to set the same for workers in general; because, obviously, the best workers will ultimately migrate to wherever's the best pay & conditions. And, in that way, the unions (all unions, really) benefit everyone.
Yakatori is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 11:48 AM   #14
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord J Esq View Post
The fact that people are still "barely making a living" in Canada is all the proof you need that Canada and all developed nations still need strong labor unions to act as a counterbalance to strong corporations.
I don't agree. Many people just aren't educated enough to get 'better' jobs. and the economy isn't on fire either. Paying a portion of the population much more for work than the average joe is just stupid in my opinion and makes the gap between the rich and the poor get bigger. More jobs, less union wages.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 12:00 PM   #15
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
I don't agree. Many people just aren't educated enough to get 'better' jobs. and the economy isn't on fire either. Paying a portion of the population much more for work than the average joe is just stupid in my opinion and makes the gap between the rich and the poor get bigger. More jobs, less union wages.
That rhetoric is counterfactual. You won't find a rich union worker. The best they can aim for is upper middle class, and few make it that far. Only investors, executives, celebrities, and successful entrepreneurs can enter the upper class.

Does Canada not have a bureau of statistics like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics? You should be able to research your assumptions yourself, rather than having to take anyone's word for it. Union labor might be well-paid, but it is not overpaid (except in cases of explicit corruption), and the distinction is very important.

In short, you've got it backward. Union folks don't get too much. It's the workforce in general who don't get paid enough. Do you really begrudge someone for being able to send their kids to college and pay their bills and go on a vacation every now and then and still have money left over for nice food to eat? Because that's gonna take about $50 an hour if not more.

The pinnacle of the heist perpetrated upon us by corporate excess in the present-day global business climate is that most of us have been cheated out of a large part of our wages and the financial moguls have succeeded in diverting our attention from this robbery in favor of tricking us into resenting the folks who still make an honest wage. $10 is not an honest wage, not even for flipping burgers. (And in the U.S. the minimum wage is quite a bit lower than $10!)

Labor unions don't even give union people a little more than they have earned, let alone a lot. They just help workers to get screwed less than those who don't have a union to help them out.

Labor unions and corporations are two ends of the same spectrum. If either one gets out of control, society suffers, and nowadays unions are under such vigilant attack by the right-wing propaganda machine (backed, of course, by rich business interests) that even many otherwise-liberal citizens such as yourself have come to honestly believe that it's unions who are causing the problem. I can't begin to express how sad and frustrating this is to me.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:05 PM   #16
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Haha. I'm not an economist. I don't believe they are as necessary as they once were and PERSONALLY everyone I know that is in a union or works for a union is constantly whining. I think it's crap.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord J Esq View Post
That rhetoric is counterfactual. You won't find a rich union worker. The best they can aim for is upper middle class, and few make it that far. Only investors, executives, celebrities, and successful entrepreneurs can enter the upper class.

Does Canada not have a bureau of statistics like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics? You should be able to research your assumptions yourself, rather than having to take anyone's word for it. Union labor might be well-paid, but it is not overpaid (except in cases of explicit corruption), and the distinction is very important.

In short, you've got it backward. Union folks don't get too much. It's the workforce in general who don't get paid enough. Do you really begrudge someone for being able to send their kids to college and pay their bills and go on a vacation every now and then and still have money left over for nice food to eat? Because that's gonna take about $50 an hour if not more.

The pinnacle of the heist perpetrated upon us by corporate excess in the present-day global business climate is that most of us have been cheated out of a large part of our wages and the financial moguls have succeeded in diverting our attention from this robbery in favor of tricking us into resenting the folks who still make an honest wage. $10 is not an honest wage, not even for flipping burgers. (And in the U.S. the minimum wage is quite a bit lower than $10!)

Labor unions don't even give union people a little more than they have earned, let alone a lot. They just help workers to get screwed less than those who don't have a union to help them out.

Labor unions and corporations are two ends of the same spectrum. If either one gets out of control, society suffers, and nowadays unions are under such vigilant attack by the right-wing propaganda machine (backed, of course, by rich business interests) that even many otherwise-liberal citizens such as yourself have come to honestly believe that it's unions who are causing the problem. I can't begin to express how sad and frustrating this is to me.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:12 PM   #17
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
Haha. I'm not an economist. I don't believe they are as necessary as they once were and PERSONALLY everyone I know that is in a union or works for a union is constantly whining. I think it's crap.
As you have probably heard before, anecdotal accounts are not scientific. Don't let them color your personal perceptions. This is Dimensions, right? A fat-acceptance and fat-admiration website. People's views about fat here are very positive. Does this reflect overall public opinion? We certainly have the anecdotal evidence to conclude that it does!

By letting your own anecdotal evidence lead you to draw conclusions about broader statistical trends, you do a disservice to yourself and those who depend upon your good judgment and sense. Your profile says you have a low BS tolerance, yet BS is effectively what you are promoting here. I can't correct you; you have to be the one to correct yourself. I can only say that I am trying as hard as I can not to sound snarky or mean-spirited. I only want people to give scientific thinking the credit it deserves.

I think you may also be biased to see the things you want to see. Maybe you know non-union workers who "whine" a lot too, but you choose not to notice it, or choose not to interpret it the way you do with union workers, simply because your bias against unions causes you to make prejudicial interpretations wherever the concept of a union arises. Similarly, maybe the accusation that the union workers you know are "constantly" whining is an overstatement. This would not be the first time that someone has committed these kinds of errors in their reasoning.

Scientific thinking requires that we all be wrong sometimes (except those lucky dogs who never made a mistake in their views). There is no shame in it.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:16 PM   #18
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I don't believe i'm wrong at all. This is my experience and my opinion. I have no problem with you disagreeing with it.

You don't live where I live. You don't have my life experience or colleages, friends and family, so don't be so quick to judge.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord J Esq View Post
As you have probably heard before, anecdotal accounts are not scientific. Don't let them color your personal perceptions. This is Dimensions, right? A fat-acceptance and fat-admiration website. People's views about fat here are very positive. Does this reflect overall public opinion? We certainly have the anecdotal evidence to conclude that it does!

By letting your own anecdotal evidence lead you to draw conclusions about broader statistical trends, you do a disservice to yourself and those who depend upon your good judgment and sense. Your profile says you have a low BS tolerance, yet BS is effectively what you are promoting here. I can't correct you; you have to be the one to correct yourself. I can only say that I am trying as hard as I can not to sound snarky or mean-spirited. I only want people to give scientific thinking the credit it deserves.

I think you may also be biased to see the things you want to see. Maybe you know non-union workers who "whine" a lot too, but you choose not to notice it, or choose not to interpret it the way you do with union workers, simply because your bias against unions causes you to make prejudicial interpretations wherever the concept of a union arises. Similarly, maybe the accusation that the union workers you know are "constantly" whining is an overstatement. This would not be the first time that someone has committed these kinds of errors in their reasoning.

Scientific thinking requires that we all be wrong sometimes (except those lucky dogs who never made a mistake in their views). There is no shame in it.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:28 PM   #19
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

None of what I said requires that I know your life experience, your colleagues, or any of the rest of it. Your characterization of unions is incorrect, a judgment that depends only on your statement of that view, and nothing else.

People should be wary of treating their opinions as factual interpretations of how the world works. An opinion is properly something like "I like purple ice cream better than green ice cream." Opinions based upon personal preference are fine. It is only by going beyond your preferences and making claims about the way things really are (in this case with regard to unions) that you get yourself in trouble. When you do this, your opinions cease to be opinions and become assertions of fact. These assertions are then subject to critical scrutiny, and you cannot hide them behind the shield of "they are my personal views." You can't judge the world and then get upset when someone shows your judgments to be wrong.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 01:32 PM   #20
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

You're taking this way too seriously. I don't support unions, end of story.


My tolerance for your bullshit has just run out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord J Esq View Post
None of what I said requires that I know your life experience, your colleagues, or any of the rest of it. Your characterization of unions is incorrect, a judgment that depends only on your statement of that view, and nothing else.

People should be wary of treating their opinions as factual interpretations of how the world works. An opinion is properly something like "I like purple ice cream better than green ice cream." Opinions based upon personal preference are fine. It is only by going beyond your preferences and making claims about the way things really are (in this case with regard to unions) that you get yourself in trouble. When you do this, your opinions cease to be opinions and become assertions of fact. These assertions are then subject to critical scrutiny, and you cannot hide them behind the shield of "they are my personal views." You can't judge the world and then get upset when someone shows your judgments to be wrong.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 02:18 PM   #21
Jim Miller
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: On Top of a Mountain
Posts: 128
Jim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticedJim Miller never has a post go unnoticed
Default

I believe the word for that kind of outburst is petulance. It advances the discussion not at all, flies in the face of fact, and gives another inch to the right wing in their war against a decent standard of living--something few humans have ever enjoyed.

I think we need a new word, one that discerns people who live in adult-sized bodies but still have the minds of children.
Jim Miller is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:01 PM   #22
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I didn't state my distaste for unions to get into some kind of pissing contest with you. The fact that you keep telling me how wrong I was really didn't help your cause. People have differing views, get over it.

You're the one that quoted my own profile page so I thought it was fair-play to use it in retaliaton.

I live in Canada. I don't live in the third world. When I voice my opinion it's relative to my situation. Fight your own battles.

And you need to get over yourself and act less pompous, this is a forum about fat people. Trying to bully or intimidate someone here is pretty sad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord J Esq View Post
I believe the word for that kind of outburst is petulance. It advances the discussion not at all, flies in the face of fact, and gives another inch to the right wing in their war against a decent standard of living--something few humans have ever enjoyed.

I think we need a new word, one that discerns people who live in adult-sized bodies but still have the minds of children.
Surlysomething is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 04:58 PM   #23
bigmac
 
bigmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Redwood Coast
Posts: 10,364
bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!bigmac keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surlysomething View Post
I don't agree. Many people just aren't educated enough to get 'better' jobs. and the economy isn't on fire either. Paying a portion of the population much more for work than the average joe is just stupid in my opinion and makes the gap between the rich and the poor get bigger. More jobs, less union wages.
This is the conclusion management, corporations, and big business want. They want a race to the bottom. I don't understand why -- instead of trying to tear down the hard earned and fought for wages and benefits of unionized workers -- people don't ask themselves why can't I have that too?

Also, union members don't make as much as you think. As a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employee's Local 30 (City of Edmonton Public Works) I never made more than $17/hr and I don't believe anyone in our local made more than $24/hr. If I worked all year (I didn't) I would have made 35K.

My wife's a union shop steward, most of her union sisters make less than 40k per year -- many make less than 30k (and that's in California).

My brother is a Canadian labor leader (Canadians have probably seen him on TV). A good chunk of the people he represents do make relatively good money (over 50k per year) but they are in positions that require college education (often masters degrees) and years of training and experience.

Union members are not responsible for the gap between the rich and poor. Indeed unions are one of the only forces actually fighting to close the gap. When unions were strong (in the 1950s and 60s) gains in productivity and earnings were shared roughly equally -- 50/50 -- between workers and their employers. Today we see most of the gains going the corporations and Wall Street (Bay Street in Canada).

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art3full.pdf

The the gap between the rich and poor is increasing because, even though the pie continues to expand, corporations and the financial industry are not sharing the spoils of productivity growth with works as they previously had. The lack of union power lets them get away with this.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...e-is-shrinking

Last edited by bigmac; 08-17-2012 at 05:13 PM.
bigmac is offline  
Old 08-18-2012, 10:14 PM   #24
mediaboy
 
mediaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The corner of Hell & Holarity - pinky out, Mother Fucker
Posts: 995
mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!mediaboy has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Wow there kids.

I like organized labor just as much as the next guy on the picket line but this thread is supposed to be a place where you come to TALK ABOUT YOURSELF.

If an discussion arrises not pertaining to the original subject matter (which it has) please make a new thread.

Thanks & always remember for every left there must be a right otherwise we;re just going in circles!

RESPECT.
__________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
Oscar Wilde
mediaboy is offline  
Old 08-19-2012, 12:11 AM   #25
Surlysomething
2017
 
Surlysomething's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 11,728
Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.Surlysomething has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Sorry. I didn't mean to let my views run away with your thread. Apparently i'm wrong so i'm going to leave it at that. Haha.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mediaboy View Post
Wow there kids.

I like organized labor just as much as the next guy on the picket line but this thread is supposed to be a place where you come to TALK ABOUT YOURSELF.

If an discussion arrises not pertaining to the original subject matter (which it has) please make a new thread.

Thanks & always remember for every left there must be a right otherwise we;re just going in circles!

RESPECT.
Surlysomething is offline  
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright Dimensions Magazine. All rights reserved worldwide.