Handguns
Subscribe
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.
To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.
Replies
Why does someone that thinks a real living wage, adjusted to Inflation from the 50-s - 1980 have to be considered or labeled to liberal, too socialist, or even as far as Communist ? We seen what was a really great time in America, and now isnt that bad either... But it isnt socialist to want a good wage that allows one to afford the decent things in Life when the owner of a said company has increased his wage 50 fold and shut off his connection to his workers. Some where inbetween does not make socialism. It is controlled democracy...
Easy to call it Socialism from the top of the food chain when it doesnt fit your agenda... Or to blame the Union when they want a raise. What the owner meant to say was screw all the workers, I want more more more...
He then convinces those that will follow his lead into blaming the workers... Funny how one guy will do good or even great in life, he then becomes the Example of what (everyone else could have done)...
True story
Are you crazy greggl, making 40 to 50k is good coin in South Florida, even send kids to some private school if desired. Wife can work part time too, pull in a extra 20k or so. Life is good here, go to South America and witness the difference, mostly they got dirt floors, way different middle class.
No, 40-50k in south florida is not really that great and is one of the reasons I left in the 90's. The cost of living there is ludicrous.
there was a h4 visa change last spring that helped...
http://www.firstpost.com/world/spouses-of-h-1b-visa-holders-can-work-in-us-from-26-may-why-this-is-a-human-rights-victory-2120657.html
What stopped you from going further north? I know 77,000 others that would have givin you whatever you needed!
syndicalyst
got a point?
Capitalists who lack capital is somewhat oxy-moronic.
I didn't make that much fresh out of college, but got married and raised two girls. It was fun, normally only made around 50k, wife worked part time as an instructor, pulled in an extra 20k or so. We got along fine, bought an intracoastal townhouse with a garage and boat slip, way fun, taught my wife and daughters to dive and surf way fun, and I luv my sailboat.
It crushed your ability to 'single income' into that range - so you dual income'd to keep up.
It's also a ton of drag on those into the 120s, where # of 'jobs' really thin out.
so it all worked out perfect?
:huh how far north do you think I should have gone?
get each of those 77,000 others to give me $20 :grin
Are any of you working under a W2 'citizen work visa' contract?
Good for you. In 92 we were paying 450 a month for a 1 bedroom apt in north miami. We did what was best for us
:grin
Drunk today?
pure ignorance
http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/
Union decline and rising inequality in two charts
One hallmark of the first 30 years after World War II was the “countervailing power” of labor unions (not just at the bargaining table but in local, state, and national politics) and their ability to raise wages and working standards for members and non-members alike. There were stark limits to union power—which was concentrated in some sectors of the economy and in some regions of the country—but the basic logic of the postwar accord was clear: Into the early 1970s, both median compensation and labor productivity roughly doubled. Labor unions both sustained prosperity, and ensured that it was shared. The impact of all of this on wage or income inequality is a complex question (shaped by skill, occupation, education, and demographics) but the bottom line is clear: There is a demonstrable wage premium for union workers. In addition, this wage premium is more pronounced for lesser skilled workers, and even spills over and benefits non-union workers. The wage effect alone underestimates the union contribution to shared prosperity. Unions at midcentury also exerted considerable political clout, sustaining other political and economic choices (minimum wage, job-based health benefits, Social Security, high marginal tax rates, etc.) that dampened inequality. And unions not only raise the wage floor but can also lower the ceiling; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.
Over the second 30 years post-WWII—an era highlighted by an impasse over labor law reform in 1978, the Chrysler bailout in 1979 (which set the template for “too big to fail” corporate rescues built around deep concessions by workers), and the Reagan administration’s determination to “zap labor” into submission—labor’s bargaining power collapsed. The consequences are driven home by the two graphs below. Figure 1 simply juxtaposes the historical trajectory of union density and the income share claimed by the richest 10 percent of Americans. Early in the century, the share of the American workforce which belonged to a union was meager, barely 10 percent. At the same time, inequality was stark—the share of national income going to the richest 10 percent of Americans stood at nearly 40 percent. This gap widened in the 1920s. But in 1935, the New Deal granted workers basic collective bargaining rights; over the next decade, union membership grew dramatically, followed by an equally dramatic decline in income inequality. This yielded an era of broadly shared prosperity, running from the 1940s into the 1970s. After that, however, unions came under attack—in the workplace, in the courts, and in public policy. As a result, union membership has fallen and income inequality has worsened—reaching levels not seen since the 1920s.
By most estimates, declining unionization accounted for about a third of the increase in inequality in the 1980s and 1990s. This is underscored by Figure 2, which plots income inequality (Gini coefficient) against union coverage (the share of the workforce covered by union contracts) by state, for 1979, 1989, 1999, and 2009. The relationship between union coverage and inequality varies widely by state. In 1979, union stalwarts in the northeast and Rust Belt combined high rates of union coverage and relatively low rates of inequality, while just the opposite held true for the southern “right to work” states. A large swath of states—including the upper Midwest, the mountain west, and the less urban industrialized states of the northeast—showed lower-than-national rates of inequality at union coverage rates a bit above or a bit below that of the nation. More importantly, as we plot the same relationship in 1989, 1999, and 2009, those states move as a group towards the less-union coverage, higher-inequality corner of the graph. The relationship between declining union coverage and rising inequality is starkest in the earlier years (between 1979 and 1989). After 1999, union coverage has bottomed out in most states and changes in the Gini coefficient at the state level are clearly driven by other factors, such as financialization and the real estate bubble.
Watched the union (UTRW) protect marginally skilled/minority and drug addicted workers to the point the plant (young plant too, only 18 years old) was shut down for profit loss issues.
Affirmative Action was also a factor though it tied right in with the unions as they preyed upon the ignorant minorities and welcomed them into their ranks.
Numbers = $$$ to the union elite and they don't care if the worker only has 3-6 months of gainful employment.
are you overpaid?
That's not been my experience. Most of the folks I work with are highly skilled.
. Went back to school on the GI bill and got a BS in business administration. Got a job managing a fair size printing co till I fired the owners brother and he didn't stay fired. Quit and got a job selling cars and made more money in one year than in the previous five. Invested in real estate and rode that pony to the top of the hill in 2005 and the pony said "you should get off now", I did. Please pass the sushi!
paying 890 for a studio back in 92 was just stupid, hell I was still in college. When I graduated never paid more than 600 and I got a boat slip. Always saved 25% of my income, at first I made much less than 50k when I got older made much more. But most folks can live just fine on 50k, it is quite a lot if you are smart about it.