Social Darwinism is IN FACT A CLICHE' used by more liberals for decades than just You.
'Social Darwinism’
Obama this month denounced the Republican House budget as nothing more than “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Liberals have been trotting out this Medusa’s head to petrify the public for generations. It does sound scary. (After all, didn’t Hitler believe in something called “social Darwinism”? Maybe he did.) But no matter how popular the line, these liberal attacks have little relation to the ideas that the “robber barons” and such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer — the “father” of social Darwinism — actually followed.
Odd, I would have thought you'd prefer the seemingly current emphasis in building roads and bridges (judging by all the road construction out there) from the 2009 stimulus act over pretty buildings.
Yes our infrastructure in the USA as a whole is a mess. Due to wasting gas tax on other projects in many cases. The Stimulus was sold to the American people as a "get er done" kind of stimulus. You know put people to work building S*** and fixing S***. Well it is a flop. We got very little actual work done and most of the money is P***** away.
The Bridges and buildings built over 70 years ago are monuments to the ability of the American people to get things built without being paid outrageous Union wages. What we get today is bridges built by the Chinese who are willing to work. Reminiscent of the first cross country railroads. We are becoming a nation of losers that could not build a building like this WPA monument that houses the Audubon museum in Henderson KY. One of my favorite stops about 4 miles from where my son lives.
Right, they built it in 1940 and it's been pristine ever since. Take a look at the Wiki article on it. Restoration started in '48 (that was fast!), major renovation funded in '90.
That doesn't look like the original roof, I bet the stone and brickwork has been repointed, and knowing stone, there's likely mold all over the basement that's expensive to control, what with it being a museum and all.
And what's with the iron leak on the front retaining wall?
A couple of years ago, the History Channel did a show on the Golden Gate Bridge construction project, interviewing some of the surviving men that worked on the project.
One segment that I thought was interesting discussed how a group of unemployed, wanna-be employed men stood watch daily on a high bluff overlooking the construction, keeping a watch with binoculars waiting for someone to fall (and, most likely die as a result) so that they could all run down to the bridge and attempt to get the dead man's job.
I don't really think many people want to return to that type of employment model.
It's a historical fact. The term was adapted by industrialists to justify courses of action during exploitation of natural resources (and labor resources) at the end of the 19th century. It's no more a cliche than "slavery" or "eugenics" or "fascism" or "organized crime" . All of those are also 21st century realities. These social forces are not cliches to those who endure them. They are powerful destructive urges.
The rise of unions was in direct response to a prevailing attitude of social darwinism. Ironically, unions made workers "fitter" to survive.
Of course, the real Darwin claimed no such thing. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
Right, they built it in 1940 and it's been pristine ever since.
I have not come across any place built in the 1930s or 40s or 50s that did not need renovating. Point being most are not as aesthetically pleasing as many of the buildings and bridges built by the WPA.
And the stimulus was pushed onto the tax payers as a JOBS Creating bill. When in fact it became one HUGE WELFARE giveaway. Which would you rather have a nice park and museum or a bunch of obese do nothings forever on the welfare roles?
The mentality that promotes laziness has a lot of basis in the UAW. They pushed the D3 for the Rubber Rooms where workers that were not needed sat around all day on full pay. Most chose to sit and read or watch TV all day. That is exactly the case with our current welfare system.
Detroit's Symbol of Dysfunction: Paying Employees Not to Work Cost Tops $1.4 Billion a Year As Layoffs Fill 'Jobs Bank'; A Dismal Facility in Flint
By Jeffrey McCracken Updated March 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. ET
FLINT, Mich. -- In his 34 years working for General Motors Corp. gm +0.70% , one of Jerry Mellon's toughest assignments came this January. He spent a week in what workers call the "rubber room."
The room is a windowless old storage shed for engine parts. It is filled with long tables, Mr. Mellon says, and has space for about 400 employees. They must arrive at 6 a.m. each day and stay until 2:30 p.m., with 45 minutes off for lunch. A supervisor roams the aisles, signing people out when they want to use the bathroom.
Their job: to do nothing.
This is the "Jobs Bank," a two-decade-old program under which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity. Many do volunteer jobs or go back to school. The rest must clock time in the rubber room or something like it.
The rise of unions was in direct response to a prevailing attitude of social darwinism. Ironically, unions made workers "fitter" to survive.
Of course, the real Darwin claimed no such thing. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
Social Darwinism is a term that came about from Spencer's "Survival of the Fittest" and Darwin's "Natural Selection". Spencer wrote his theory of evolution prior to Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Call it what you will, you still used it to avoid the real issue. How do we get out of the Welfare mess we have created? We now have millions Americans on disability and a burden to the tax payers forever. Most of the recent applicants just cannot find a job. Even though our infrastructure is falling down around US.
Congress has dramatically expanded the definition of who gets called “disabled.” As a result, many able-bodied Americans have been granted government paychecks for life, crowding out our ability to direct needed resources to the genuinely infirm.
I am not anti Union. I understand that many of the safety rules pushed by Unions have made the workplace safer. I think the Union need has peaked and the Feds have made rules that make the Unions less needed. The real problem is we just have too many people for the jobs at the bottom of the food chain and too few educated workers for the high paying jobs. So good CEOs make millions or billions while the clerk at WalMart is living in poverty. I blame it on the Federal and state governments, you probably disagree.
It's not easy to get unemployment, SSI and Food Stamps. It is restrictive, tedious and humiliating in most cases.
It needs to be harder and more humiliating. It is stealing from the working tax payers to support non workers. For those that feel it should be easier, go give all you have to the poor on the streets.
Where's the comments about how corporations are stealing from all the working (and non-working) poor (and middle class)?
When the Corporate leaders own the President and Congress you get what we have now. Don't think for a second the Union Leaders are not part of the problem. Bob King UAW President jumped on Obama's KORUS trade agreement. Which cost US jobs before the ink was dry. The Union leaders are many times just as corrupt and greedy as the Wall Street bunch. Now the working class is facing TPP being pushed by Obama and the big Corps. They won't even let Congress look at the trade agreement. If the voters had the brains to vote out the incumbents we could once again have a government by the people for the people.
"If the voters had the brains to vote out the incumbents we could once again have a government by the people for the people."
Hardly. You just have the same thing in another variation---perhaps worse. You cannot run a government, or a union, based on a zero sum game of a winner and a loser. Adversarial relationships lead to ruination.
But I am optimistic, since I think the "culture wars" are just about over in the next few years, and thus governance will not be cluttered up by all that nonsense.
What is requried is governance, whether political or union, that seeks equilibrium, and by cause and effect, a mutual benefit.
Progress does not occur when one side 'changes its mind'. They rarely do. Progress occurs when people holding bad ideas die off and a new generation brings fresh ideas.
"Progress occurs when people holding bad ideas die off and a new generation brings fresh ideas."
I would say progress occurs when people holding bad ideas are removed from the capability of implementing them, thereby forcing a "re-freshing" of leadership that brings along with it new ideas.
A fancy way of saying we should have term limits, and a return to the "citizen-legislator" that many see envisioned by the Constitution.
"Historically speaking, the populist movement (if that's what you are referring to) has produced the worst possible politicians.
Good leaders need to be trained, well educated, rewarded and supported."
Agreed. Problem is, we have a system that encourages the entrenchment of the current leadership, regardless of its ability to function. Last I heard, over 90% of federal politicians re-running for office get re-elected.
That makes for an extremely limited political "gene pool", one that is so limited that outsiders with the background and education fully capable of governing can't break through the electoral "glass ceiling" to get into office.
That's where term limits would be useful.
Of course, if it were up to me, I'd also add a battery of examinations any candidate must pass before being able to have his/her name put on a ballot.
As an example...A war hero may or may not make a suitable legislator, but he shouldn't be elected simply because he/she was incredibly efficient at killing the enemy.
Too many factional parties in any organization is problematic, but on the other hand any two-candidate election whether union, school board, etc., tends to get into a rut.
I like the British system best myself for governance but I can't say their labor unions have a great reputation.
I think if we had followed the Swiss system we initially patterned after we would be better off today. Maybe not as big and prosperous. Less chance of a BIG fall in our standard of living. Our problem is TOO much central control.
The Swiss trade union model gives every worker the right to join a union or not. Most labor disputes in Switzerland are apparently resolved through arbitration and strikes are very rare---there might be short work stoppages though to make a point. About 25% of Swiss workers are in unions of one sort or another.
I am more interested in the Swiss system of government. I like the way the states are separately controlled and meet to discuss Central issues. We took their 3 distinct branches of government. But over the years eroded the states rights to govern through amendments and judicial.
So what do the Swiss workers in the Unions get that the other 75% do not get? Does it create the same class warfare we see here between the haves in the Unions and the have nots at McDonald's and WalMart?
Boeing launched a significant new version of the 777 over the weekend, with over 250 orders to start - the largest wide-body launch in history. The aircraft is due to enter service in 2020.
With plenty of money and 7 years, Boeing has the time and money to site production anywhere they want to. The Seattle-area IAM vote last week means Boeing is almost certainly going to move those jobs out of Washington. That's a lot of local economy and observers suspect Boeing has already started their last new aircraft program in WA. In 10-20 years or so, Boeing may not be making any aircraft in the Seattle area.
Japan may very well end up making the composite wings now, as they already do for the 787.
Final assembly candidates are CA (unlikely), UT, AL, and SC.
Unlike the UAW, Boeing is likely to fight by moving. They don't want a repeat of the D3 situation.
Boeing has fought with the Unions in WA for decades. I would look for final assembly to be more to do with who buys the planes. I think it is safe to say the Machinists in WA screwed up. CA corporate tax is enough reason to avoid the state.
In corporate activity, Boeing (NYSE:BA) was front and centre in the headlines, after launching deals for the 777X worth $95 billion at the Dubai Air Show, in what is the largest product launch by dollar value in commercial jetliner history. The bookings and commitments are for 259 jets from four airlines. Separately, the company said that it had no plans to reopen talks with its machinists union after a contract proposal to produce the 777X jet in the Seattle area was rejected. Boeing is reportedly considering locations in the U.S., Japan and even in the Persian Gulf.
The news of the deals is also a boost to General Electric (NYSE:GE), which has received $26 billion in bookings for the engines that will be supplying the 777X jets.
I'm just posting the facts. Spin them anyway you like you are a host.
If I am Boeing I would rather pay 5% corporate tax in SC with labor that is friendly than 8.84% in CA where everything including labor is higher. Could be they have stayed a long time in WA due to 0% corporate tax. In spite of the union problems there.
But you aren't Boeing, You are a California resident who needs to benefit from a tax base that supports the infrastructure and environment that corporations would just use up at no charge in a tax free state.
Are you saying 0% corporate tax has no consequences for locals? I think that's a bit short-sighted.
To my way of thinking, giving multi-billion dollar corporations further tax breaks so as to lure their business to a non-union state is...well...obscene....
If I am Boeing I would rather pay 5% corporate tax in SC with labor that is friendly than 8.84% in CA where everything including labor is higher. Could be they have stayed a long time in WA due to 0% corporate tax. In spite of the union problems there.
I agree that CA is not a viable choice, and saying this as a CA resident.
IMHO the reason Boeing will not likely start the 777x in WA, but will go through the pain and cost of siting that production elsewhere, is risk mitigation. The IAM union pulls this sort of thing every 5-10 years even though they are paid very well and have outstanding benefits (sound familiar?). Previous strikes have cost Boeing $billions in lost production. They would rather invest up front than continue to run that risk on programs that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Sort of like how the UAW struck GM in the late 90's when they (GM) were already in fragile shape. Boeing I suspect has had enough. If I were the CEO I would definitely be looking for a better production environment.
But you aren't Boeing, You are a California resident who needs to benefit from a tax base that supports the infrastructure and environment that corporations would just use up at no charge in a tax free state. ... To my way of thinking, giving multi-billion dollar corporations further tax breaks so as to lure their business to a non-union state is...well...obscene....
There is obviously a varying point of view in these matters. IMHO the point of view above is too simplistic.
It's great that states can set their own rules for taxes and fiscal responsibility or irresponsibility. Corporations are free to move around (just like people) if they wish. States that can come up with rules, programs, and infrastructure that somehow takes less money will attract businesses. Heaven knows there aren't many processes in this country that effectively pressure governments to be efficient, unlike in business.
The fact that CA is expensive means it serves them right if companies move or don't want to locate here. As a CA resident, I've strongly considered leaving for exactly the same reasons.
Corporations don't use infrastructure for no charge in a tax free state. That infrastructure is paid for somehow, by some sort of fees or taxes. If the corporations don't have an income tax in the state, then the residents pay somehow. But the residents also benefit from the presence of all those jobs, and all those residents working at that company spend enough money to collect sales taxes, etc., to fund the infrastructure. If the residents felt that it was a raw deal then they could leave the state. The money still comes from somewhere and when the corporation pays the workers a bit more (like in WA where salaries are higher), they are effectively buying the infrastructure anyway. It's just accounting gimmicks as in the end there's so much economic activity in the state and all the state's revenues come from that economic activity, either directly or indirectly.
Competition is good. Too bad we don't have a few more federal governments to compete with each other for efficiency. The US government just prints money and kicks the can down road.
Well I think your assessment of my view as simplistic is also simplistic
What I mean is, seriously, this: many of those states which support non-union laws and which offer enormous tax breaks to corporations are the SAME STATES that take in more Federal revenue than they give out!
In other words, when Boeing moves to X state, I, in California, am being sucked on by that state.
Very simplistic. Corporations are leaving CA at an alarming rate. Nice weather only goes so far. What else does the state of CA have to offer? Among the highest taxes some of the worst infrastructure Highest utility costs. Water shortages Worst state in the Union to do business. So much for the idea of West is best. In an annual survey, executives ranked California as the worst place to do business for the eighth year in a row.
As far as unions only the public employee unions are prospering here. Private trade unions have been decimated by the states encouraging illegal immigration.
As a CA resident, I've strongly considered leaving for exactly the same reasons.
I am aggressively looking elsewhere. I could make the payment on a $250k home loan for just the amount I am paying in taxes here in CA. That does not count the high tax on gas & purchases. I don't mind paying my fair share. I just want to feel it is not being P***** away on stupid projects, agencies and programs. If you have a high paying job with regular increases, you are in the upper classes here. If you are like me on a fixed income, don't wait until it is too late to get out. Housing prices are back close to Bubble heights. No time like the present to unload a home in CA.
California leads the nation with 54 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 24 of Fortune's 100 Fastest Growing companies. California's GDP in 2012 was the 5th highest in the country.
So perhaps it's more about "the old leaves and the new comes in".
Progress is not about easy living. Some of the toughest places to live (New York, London) are also the areas of greatest opportunity.
In other words, when Boeing moves to X state, I, in California, am being sucked on by that state.
Ok, I understand your point better now. Still not sure I agree.
Is the "lower tax" state's ability to attract Boeing somehow related to it's federal receipts? And don't get me started about why the Feds are handing OUR money back tot he states in the first place. Redistribution only serves to propagate an inefficient federal bureaucracy.
Doesn't CA suck more money from the Feds than it takes in? I haven't looked it up. It's hard to believe CA could be efficient in just about anything.
Nope, California, at least as of 2007, gives back more than it takes in.
Of course, like all statistics, one has to be wary. This claim of "red state socialism" includes ALL types of Federal spending, not merely welfare--it might include infrastructure or military bases, for instance.
also to be fair, one should view Federal spending in any given state as a per capita number as well, and also as a % of GDP.
So it's not so cut and dry, but there is definitely a pattern to it:
ALERT! This data is not current! Dates back to 2005.
NOTE: The states we were discussing, Tenn. Ky. SC, are also on the first list, taking in more Fed money than they give back.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84) 5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62) 2. Connecticut ($0.64) 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) 4. Nevada ($0.73) 5. Illinois ($0.77) 6. Minnesota ($0.77) 7. Colorado ($0.79) 8. Massachusetts ($0.79) 9. California ($0.81) 10. New York ($0.81)
I've lived almost 40 years in two of the top ten states and New Mexico is high on the "next" list. Seeing all the tax dollars flow into Alaska, especially during the Ted Stevens decades, was enjoyable in view of the no sales or income taxes I paid (just average property taxes and car fees). Meanwhile the state gave me a check from the Permanent Fund Dividend every year (from $300 to over a $1,000 depending on the investment returns).
And the state that most wants to kick the feds out? You guessed it.
Besides the Teamsters, the electrical workers had a strong union up there. When the tap flows freely, no one worries too much about over-reaching executive or union salaries. (Tap here being the TransAlaska Pipeline, lol).
Of those Fortune 500 companies how many are like Apple and have figured out how to bypass the CA tax system? CA is ok for big business that can keep their real HQ in Ireland or the Caymans. It is hell on small businesses which are the ones leaving for greener pastures. Are you are a State employee pushing their flight to the bottom agenda? I don't know anyone else that shares your view of this state. Even retired state employees that fear their CALPers will go broke before they die. I guess we know what part of CA is getting all the perks.
Apple's tax dodge is so genius there should be an app for that
If Apple execs are so adept at avoiding taxes, shouldn't they at least offer an app so the rest of us can get in on the deal?
Well unfortunately some people are going to have to come to grips with the fact that they signed up long ago to be part of the UNITED states of america.
But this divisiveness will end soon, once people realize that a mutual equilibrium is the only way to survive.
Alaska did get a lot of money from the Feds. Most went to subsidize the 100s of native villages in the state. The Feds also took out $billions in oil revenues along with the state. Not to mention the gold worth $20 billion the Feds took out of the state after they purchased it for $7 million from the Russians. That gold which is hopefully sitting in Ft Knox has a current value of about $750 billion. Part of the problem is the state and Feds fight over the oil revenue all the time. The state of Alaska could do fine on their own. As could TX and probably several others. Even Hawaii that now gets the most back for the amount put in was raped by the Feds when it was flush with Sugar profits. I'm with Tlong, why do we filter so much money through the Federal government?
Doesn't CA suck more money from the Feds than it takes in?
Why yes it does but only because it has the biggest population and pays the most in federal taxes. The reality is that federal monies spent in CA is less than $1 for every dollar the citizens of CA pay in federal taxes.
And don't get me started about why the Feds are handing OUR money back tot he states in the first place. Redistribution only serves to propagate an inefficient federal bureaucracy.
out of 22 "red" states, 19 of them get more in federal spending than they contributed. Texas, Nebraska and Arkansas are the only net contributors. Of the 28 "blue" states, only 16 were got back more. States like NY, MA, IL, CA and CO - in addition to the mentioned 3 - support the rest of the country.
The flip side to state's rights is why do we have to duplicate so many services state by state (not to mention cities, towns and states)? At least Alaska got a lot of that right and places like Anchorage offer regional governmental services - otherwise Eagle River would be the 5th biggest city in AK, complete with their own set of bureaucrats.
Regionalism is probably something the UAW wouldn't like though. Under the current setup, all the local bosses can put their thumbprints on who gets hired first eh?
There are some important advantages for companies having locations in CA. It has a large population, but more importantly it has a number of top flight Engineering, IT and Business schools. Also, the state is an attractive relocation for many top notch new college graduates. You've also got to remember that not everyone is a conservative. Liberals exist too among those grads. The reason America has been strong for so many years is tolerance of other points of view. Compromise often leads to synergy because most any position on an issue has strong and weak elements. Lose that and we become just another mediocre location on the globe. At least, that's how I see it and why I think Washington DC is failing.
I doubt that any state could exist on its own--perhaps California and New York but other than that, total and complete economic collapse for just about anyone else.
It kind of cracks me up how so many red states like Alabama have Congressional members that are fiercely conservative while they run a surplus of Federal funds. Yet, the idiots don't seem to understand that if they keep sequestering in larger amounts, their states will accordingly be affected harder. The military is already talking major layoffs and RIF's if it keeps up. That excess federal cash starts drying up and they won't have us much money to give the big incentives to incoming companies. Not sure why the rest of America and their Congressional members keep allowing these regional disparities in federal spending.
Compromise often leads to synergy because most any position on an issue has strong and weak elements. Lose that and we become just another mediocre location on the globe. At least, that's how I see it and why I think Washington DC is failing.
This is exactly correct, and is a good example of why the UAW and GM/C failed - they were both so busy trying to fight each other that the ball was dropped on the actual business of the company. Unfortunately now the same is happening with the government and party divisiveness. Total dysfunction is never good, and radical views on both sides need to be moderated. The government worked better when compromises actually could occur.
Comments
'Social Darwinism’
Obama this month denounced the Republican House budget as nothing more than “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Liberals have been trotting out this Medusa’s head to petrify the public for generations. It does sound scary. (After all, didn’t Hitler believe in something called “social Darwinism”? Maybe he did.) But no matter how popular the line, these liberal attacks have little relation to the ideas that the “robber barons” and such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer — the “father” of social Darwinism — actually followed.
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/top-five-cliches-that-lib- erals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/
Yes our infrastructure in the USA as a whole is a mess. Due to wasting gas tax on other projects in many cases. The Stimulus was sold to the American people as a "get er done" kind of stimulus. You know put people to work building S*** and fixing S***. Well it is a flop. We got very little actual work done and most of the money is P***** away.
The Bridges and buildings built over 70 years ago are monuments to the ability of the American people to get things built without being paid outrageous Union wages. What we get today is bridges built by the Chinese who are willing to work. Reminiscent of the first cross country railroads. We are becoming a nation of losers that could not build a building like this WPA monument that houses the Audubon museum in Henderson KY. One of my favorite stops about 4 miles from where my son lives.
That doesn't look like the original roof, I bet the stone and brickwork has been repointed, and knowing stone, there's likely mold all over the basement that's expensive to control, what with it being a museum and all.
And what's with the iron leak on the front retaining wall?
Obviously not built with union workers.
One segment that I thought was interesting discussed how a group of unemployed, wanna-be employed men stood watch daily on a high bluff overlooking the construction, keeping a watch with binoculars waiting for someone to fall (and, most likely die as a result) so that they could all run down to the bridge and attempt to get the dead man's job.
I don't really think many people want to return to that type of employment model.
The rise of unions was in direct response to a prevailing attitude of social darwinism. Ironically, unions made workers "fitter" to survive.
Of course, the real Darwin claimed no such thing. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
I have not come across any place built in the 1930s or 40s or 50s that did not need renovating. Point being most are not as aesthetically pleasing as many of the buildings and bridges built by the WPA.
And the stimulus was pushed onto the tax payers as a JOBS Creating bill. When in fact it became one HUGE WELFARE giveaway. Which would you rather have a nice park and museum or a bunch of obese do nothings forever on the welfare roles?
The mentality that promotes laziness has a lot of basis in the UAW. They pushed the D3 for the Rubber Rooms where workers that were not needed sat around all day on full pay. Most chose to sit and read or watch TV all day. That is exactly the case with our current welfare system.
Detroit's Symbol of Dysfunction: Paying Employees Not to Work
Cost Tops $1.4 Billion a Year As Layoffs Fill 'Jobs Bank'; A Dismal Facility in Flint
By
Jeffrey McCracken
Updated March 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. ET
FLINT, Mich. -- In his 34 years working for General Motors Corp. gm +0.70% , one of Jerry Mellon's toughest assignments came this January. He spent a week in what workers call the "rubber room."
The room is a windowless old storage shed for engine parts. It is filled with long tables, Mr. Mellon says, and has space for about 400 employees. They must arrive at 6 a.m. each day and stay until 2:30 p.m., with 45 minutes off for lunch. A supervisor roams the aisles, signing people out when they want to use the bathroom.
Their job: to do nothing.
This is the "Jobs Bank," a two-decade-old program under which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity. Many do volunteer jobs or go back to school. The rest must clock time in the rubber room or something like it.
Much easier to just get Unemployment, SSI and Food Stamps. No need to work when you can surf on the tax payers money.
Of course, the real Darwin claimed no such thing. Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
Social Darwinism is a term that came about from Spencer's "Survival of the Fittest" and Darwin's "Natural Selection". Spencer wrote his theory of evolution prior to Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Call it what you will, you still used it to avoid the real issue. How do we get out of the Welfare mess we have created? We now have millions Americans on disability and a burden to the tax payers forever. Most of the recent applicants just cannot find a job. Even though our infrastructure is falling down around US.
Congress has dramatically expanded the definition of who gets called “disabled.” As a result, many able-bodied Americans have been granted government paychecks for life, crowding out our ability to direct needed resources to the genuinely infirm.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-- - billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/
I am not anti Union. I understand that many of the safety rules pushed by Unions have made the workplace safer. I think the Union need has peaked and the Feds have made rules that make the Unions less needed. The real problem is we just have too many people for the jobs at the bottom of the food chain and too few educated workers for the high paying jobs. So good CEOs make millions or billions while the clerk at WalMart is living in poverty. I blame it on the Federal and state governments, you probably disagree.
It needs to be harder and more humiliating. It is stealing from the working tax payers to support non workers. For those that feel it should be easier, go give all you have to the poor on the streets.
Where's the comments about how corporations are stealing from all the working (and non-working) poor (and middle class)?
Oh yeah, Fintail is cruising around LA this week.
To "get out of the welfare mess" we obviously need a more equitable economic system. No one gleefully chooses to live like that.
When the Corporate leaders own the President and Congress you get what we have now. Don't think for a second the Union Leaders are not part of the problem. Bob King UAW President jumped on Obama's KORUS trade agreement. Which cost US jobs before the ink was dry. The Union leaders are many times just as corrupt and greedy as the Wall Street bunch. Now the working class is facing TPP being pushed by Obama and the big Corps. They won't even let Congress look at the trade agreement. If the voters had the brains to vote out the incumbents we could once again have a government by the people for the people.
????
:grin
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Hardly. You just have the same thing in another variation---perhaps worse. You cannot run a government, or a union, based on a zero sum game of a winner and a loser. Adversarial relationships lead to ruination.
But I am optimistic, since I think the "culture wars" are just about over in the next few years, and thus governance will not be cluttered up by all that nonsense.
What is requried is governance, whether political or union, that seeks equilibrium, and by cause and effect, a mutual benefit.
Progress does not occur when one side 'changes its mind'. They rarely do. Progress occurs when people holding bad ideas die off and a new generation brings fresh ideas.
I would say progress occurs when people holding bad ideas are removed from the capability of implementing them, thereby forcing a "re-freshing" of leadership that brings along with it new ideas.
A fancy way of saying we should have term limits, and a return to the "citizen-legislator" that many see envisioned by the Constitution.
Good leaders need to be trained, well educated, rewarded and supported.
Good leaders need to be trained, well educated, rewarded and supported."
Agreed. Problem is, we have a system that encourages the entrenchment of the current leadership, regardless of its ability to function. Last I heard, over 90% of federal politicians re-running for office get re-elected.
That makes for an extremely limited political "gene pool", one that is so limited that outsiders with the background and education fully capable of governing can't break through the electoral "glass ceiling" to get into office.
That's where term limits would be useful.
Of course, if it were up to me, I'd also add a battery of examinations any candidate must pass before being able to have his/her name put on a ballot.
As an example...A war hero may or may not make a suitable legislator, but he shouldn't be elected simply because he/she was incredibly efficient at killing the enemy.
I like the British system best myself for governance but I can't say their labor unions have a great reputation.
USA is about 13%, UK 29%, EU 26%.
So what do the Swiss workers in the Unions get that the other 75% do not get? Does it create the same class warfare we see here between the haves in the Unions and the have nots at McDonald's and WalMart?
With plenty of money and 7 years, Boeing has the time and money to site production anywhere they want to. The Seattle-area IAM vote last week means Boeing is almost certainly going to move those jobs out of Washington. That's a lot of local economy and observers suspect Boeing has already started their last new aircraft program in WA. In 10-20 years or so, Boeing may not be making any aircraft in the Seattle area.
Japan may very well end up making the composite wings now, as they already do for the 787.
Final assembly candidates are CA (unlikely), UT, AL, and SC.
Unlike the UAW, Boeing is likely to fight by moving. They don't want a repeat of the D3 situation.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
(Yeah, I know about the bad logistics trucking stuff around their plants in Seattle - I bet that played a part in expanding to SC in the first place).
In corporate activity, Boeing (NYSE:BA) was front and centre in the headlines, after launching deals for the 777X worth $95 billion at the Dubai Air Show, in what is the largest product launch by dollar value in commercial jetliner history. The bookings and commitments are for 259 jets from four airlines. Separately, the company said that it had no plans to reopen talks with its machinists union after a contract proposal to produce the 777X jet in the Seattle area was rejected. Boeing is reportedly considering locations in the U.S., Japan and even in the Persian Gulf.
The news of the deals is also a boost to General Electric (NYSE:GE), which has received $26 billion in bookings for the engines that will be supplying the 777X jets.
http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/49933/wall-street-set-for-more-- records-lifted-by-fed-china-boeing-49933.html
Boeing just landed a huge contract with Qatar, so I don't think they're going anywhere...(Boeing 777-9X, 50 of 'em, valued as a $19 billion deal).
If I am Boeing I would rather pay 5% corporate tax in SC with labor that is friendly than 8.84% in CA where everything including labor is higher. Could be they have stayed a long time in WA due to 0% corporate tax. In spite of the union problems there.
Are you saying 0% corporate tax has no consequences for locals? I think that's a bit short-sighted.
To my way of thinking, giving multi-billion dollar corporations further tax breaks so as to lure their business to a non-union state is...well...obscene....
I call it "reverse Robin Hood".
I agree that CA is not a viable choice, and saying this as a CA resident.
IMHO the reason Boeing will not likely start the 777x in WA, but will go through the pain and cost of siting that production elsewhere, is risk mitigation. The IAM union pulls this sort of thing every 5-10 years even though they are paid very well and have outstanding benefits (sound familiar?). Previous strikes have cost Boeing $billions in lost production. They would rather invest up front than continue to run that risk on programs that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Sort of like how the UAW struck GM in the late 90's when they (GM) were already in fragile shape. Boeing I suspect has had enough. If I were the CEO I would definitely be looking for a better production environment.
...
To my way of thinking, giving multi-billion dollar corporations further tax breaks so as to lure their business to a non-union state is...well...obscene....
There is obviously a varying point of view in these matters. IMHO the point of view above is too simplistic.
It's great that states can set their own rules for taxes and fiscal responsibility or irresponsibility. Corporations are free to move around (just like people) if they wish. States that can come up with rules, programs, and infrastructure that somehow takes less money will attract businesses. Heaven knows there aren't many processes in this country that effectively pressure governments to be efficient, unlike in business.
The fact that CA is expensive means it serves them right if companies move or don't want to locate here. As a CA resident, I've strongly considered leaving for exactly the same reasons.
Corporations don't use infrastructure for no charge in a tax free state. That infrastructure is paid for somehow, by some sort of fees or taxes. If the corporations don't have an income tax in the state, then the residents pay somehow. But the residents also benefit from the presence of all those jobs, and all those residents working at that company spend enough money to collect sales taxes, etc., to fund the infrastructure. If the residents felt that it was a raw deal then they could leave the state. The money still comes from somewhere and when the corporation pays the workers a bit more (like in WA where salaries are higher), they are effectively buying the infrastructure anyway. It's just accounting gimmicks as in the end there's so much economic activity in the state and all the state's revenues come from that economic activity, either directly or indirectly.
Competition is good. Too bad we don't have a few more federal governments to compete with each other for efficiency. The US government just prints money and kicks the can down road.
I doubt we will ever find out.
What I mean is, seriously, this: many of those states which support non-union laws and which offer enormous tax breaks to corporations are the SAME STATES that take in more Federal revenue than they give out!
In other words, when Boeing moves to X state, I, in California, am being sucked on by that state.
Very simplistic.
Corporations are leaving CA at an alarming rate. Nice weather only goes so far. What else does the state of CA have to offer?
Among the highest taxes
some of the worst infrastructure
Highest utility costs.
Water shortages
Worst state in the Union to do business.
So much for the idea of West is best. In an annual survey, executives ranked California as the worst place to do business for the eighth year in a row.
As far as unions only the public employee unions are prospering here. Private trade unions have been decimated by the states encouraging illegal immigration.
As a CA resident, I've strongly considered leaving for exactly the same reasons.
I am aggressively looking elsewhere. I could make the payment on a $250k home loan for just the amount I am paying in taxes here in CA. That does not count the high tax on gas & purchases. I don't mind paying my fair share. I just want to feel it is not being P***** away on stupid projects, agencies and programs. If you have a high paying job with regular increases, you are in the upper classes here. If you are like me on a fixed income, don't wait until it is too late to get out. Housing prices are back close to Bubble heights. No time like the present to unload a home in CA.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/02/business/la-fi-mo-california-worst-state- -20120502
California leads the nation with 54 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 24 of Fortune's 100 Fastest Growing companies. California's GDP in 2012 was the 5th highest in the country.
So perhaps it's more about "the old leaves and the new comes in".
Progress is not about easy living. Some of the toughest places to live (New York, London) are also the areas of greatest opportunity.
Ok, I understand your point better now. Still not sure I agree.
Is the "lower tax" state's ability to attract Boeing somehow related to it's federal receipts? And don't get me started about why the Feds are handing OUR money back tot he states in the first place. Redistribution only serves to propagate an inefficient federal bureaucracy.
Doesn't CA suck more money from the Feds than it takes in? I haven't looked it up. It's hard to believe CA could be efficient in just about anything.
Of course, like all statistics, one has to be wary. This claim of "red state socialism" includes ALL types of Federal spending, not merely welfare--it might include infrastructure or military bases, for instance.
also to be fair, one should view Federal spending in any given state as a per capita number as well, and also as a % of GDP.
So it's not so cut and dry, but there is definitely a pattern to it:
ALERT! This data is not current! Dates back to 2005.
NOTE: The states we were discussing, Tenn. Ky. SC, are also on the first list, taking in more Fed money than they give back.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
And the state that most wants to kick the feds out? You guessed it.
Besides the Teamsters, the electrical workers had a strong union up there. When the tap flows freely, no one worries too much about over-reaching executive or union salaries. (Tap here being the TransAlaska Pipeline, lol).
Apple's tax dodge is so genius there should be an app for that
If Apple execs are so adept at avoiding taxes, shouldn't they at least offer an app so the rest of us can get in on the deal?
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/21/local/la-me-ln-apple-taxes-20130521
But this divisiveness will end soon, once people realize that a mutual equilibrium is the only way to survive.
Why yes it does but only because it has the biggest population and pays the most in federal taxes. The reality is that federal monies spent in CA is less than $1 for every dollar the citizens of CA pay in federal taxes.
And don't get me started about why the Feds are handing OUR money back tot he states in the first place. Redistribution only serves to propagate an inefficient federal bureaucracy.
Based on a map from early 2012
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-chart- s-maps),
out of 22 "red" states, 19 of them get more in federal spending than they contributed. Texas, Nebraska and Arkansas are the only net contributors. Of the 28 "blue" states, only 16 were got back more. States like NY, MA, IL, CA and CO - in addition to the mentioned 3 - support the rest of the country.
Another article from late 2012
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_wh- o_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
show that of the top 10 receiver states, only NM was blue. Of the top 10 donor states, all were blue.
What Does $7.6 Billion in Federal Money Mean to Alaska? (UofA pdf file)
The flip side to state's rights is why do we have to duplicate so many services state by state (not to mention cities, towns and states)? At least Alaska got a lot of that right and places like Anchorage offer regional governmental services - otherwise Eagle River would be the 5th biggest city in AK, complete with their own set of bureaucrats.
Regionalism is probably something the UAW wouldn't like though. Under the current setup, all the local bosses can put their thumbprints on who gets hired first eh?
I doubt that any state could exist on its own--perhaps California and New York but other than that, total and complete economic collapse for just about anyone else.
Do you really want a country filled with Cubas?
This is exactly correct, and is a good example of why the UAW and GM/C failed - they were both so busy trying to fight each other that the ball was dropped on the actual business of the company. Unfortunately now the same is happening with the government and party divisiveness. Total dysfunction is never good, and radical views on both sides need to be moderated. The government worked better when compromises actually could occur.