Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The ATSB Trap
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
[blockquote]
----------------
"On 12/3/2002 10:52:56 PM synchronicity wrote:
Yes, Bob, you've unearthed the real truth! The ATSB is just part of the fiendish plot by the evil bourgeoisie capitalist holders of wealth to reap their rewards off the sweat of the hard working proletariat masses. You must resist them at all costs! Vive la Revolution!!
Eh, but what do I know? I'm a tax guy, and I hobnob with evil corporate BK attorneys."
Whoa a big shot! The fact is you could claim that you were Greenspan himself but I guess that you figured that might be stretching it a bit too far, Tax guy.
Retro pay, give me a break, they were never going to see a dime of that any way. As soon a round II of concessions came around that would have been the first to go.
Sure plans to defraud regular working people dont exist. Enron's execs didnt prevent their employees from unloading their stock while they unloaded theirs. They did not fix the numbers, it was an accounting mistake. Only pure ethical business practices are are used in our perfect, transparent, fair free market economy. Greenspan has not repeatedly preached to Congress promoting the suppression of wage growth because wage growth and the inflation that can accompany it lowers returns on investments. Bush did not prevent the United mechanics from striking. Bush did not say that the Longshoremen would not be allowed to strike because it would harm the economy yet then allow the owners to do the same damage by locking out the workers- no double standard there right? Come on Mr "big shot I hob nob with other big shots Tax guy" you dont really expect anyone to beleive that the government does not help big business further their interests at the expense of the common man do you?
----------------
"On 12/3/2002 10:52:56 PM synchronicity wrote:
Yes, Bob, you've unearthed the real truth! The ATSB is just part of the fiendish plot by the evil bourgeoisie capitalist holders of wealth to reap their rewards off the sweat of the hard working proletariat masses. You must resist them at all costs! Vive la Revolution!!
Eh, but what do I know? I'm a tax guy, and I hobnob with evil corporate BK attorneys."
Whoa a big shot! The fact is you could claim that you were Greenspan himself but I guess that you figured that might be stretching it a bit too far, Tax guy.
Retro pay, give me a break, they were never going to see a dime of that any way. As soon a round II of concessions came around that would have been the first to go.
Sure plans to defraud regular working people dont exist. Enron's execs didnt prevent their employees from unloading their stock while they unloaded theirs. They did not fix the numbers, it was an accounting mistake. Only pure ethical business practices are are used in our perfect, transparent, fair free market economy. Greenspan has not repeatedly preached to Congress promoting the suppression of wage growth because wage growth and the inflation that can accompany it lowers returns on investments. Bush did not prevent the United mechanics from striking. Bush did not say that the Longshoremen would not be allowed to strike because it would harm the economy yet then allow the owners to do the same damage by locking out the workers- no double standard there right? Come on Mr "big shot I hob nob with other big shots Tax guy" you dont really expect anyone to beleive that the government does not help big business further their interests at the expense of the common man do you?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #18
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:03:09 PM ForkTime2002 wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:01:01 PM Segue wrote:
Its all a moot point now.
[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[STRONG][/STRONG][/P][STRONG][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]let the amt and owens bashiing begin.
owens has no sway with the atsb.as odious as his posts may be,wasnt his fault the govt said no.[/FONT][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote]
odious?
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:03:09 PM ForkTime2002 wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:01:01 PM Segue wrote:
Its all a moot point now.
[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[STRONG][/STRONG][/P][STRONG][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]let the amt and owens bashiing begin.
owens has no sway with the atsb.as odious as his posts may be,wasnt his fault the govt said no.[/FONT][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote]
odious?
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:40:07 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
"On 12/3/2002 10:52:56 PM synchronicity wrote:
Yes, Bob, you've unearthed the real truth! The ATSB is just part of the fiendish plot by the evil bourgeoisie capitalist holders of wealth to reap their rewards off the sweat of the hard working proletariat masses. You must resist them at all costs! Vive la Revolution!!
Eh, but what do I know? I'm a tax guy, and I hobnob with evil corporate BK attorneys."
Whoa a big shot! The fact is you could claim that you were Greenspan himself but I guess that you figured that might be stretching it a bit too far, Tax guy.
Retro pay, give me a break, they were never going to see a dime of that any way. As soon a round II of concessions came around that would have been the first to go.
Sure plans to defraud regular working people dont exist. Enron's execs didnt prevent their employees from unloading their stock while they unloaded theirs. They did not fix the numbers, it was an accounting mistake. Only pure ethical business practices are are used in our perfect, transparent, fair free market economy. Greenspan has not repeatedly preached to Congress promoting the suppression of wage growth because wage growth and the inflation that can accompany it lowers returns on investments. Bush did not prevent the United mechanics from striking. Bush did not say that the Longshoremen would not be allowed to strike because it would harm the economy yet then allow the owners to do the same damage by locking out the workers- no double standard there right? Come on Mr "big shot I hob nob with other big shots Tax guy" you dont really expect anyone to beleive that the government does not help big business further their interests at the expense of the common man do you?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney", or more specifically "International Tax Attorney". I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like.
I don't think of myself as a "big shot" or "little shot" or anything of the kind. I'm just me, and I have knowledge on some areas that I'm willing to share with people if it will be of use to them. But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed. You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert. (Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least).
As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame.
For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately ,now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe.
As for Enron, that was accounting fraud, pure and simple. The main story of Enron was that of conflicts of interest and the failure of outside accountants, who are supposed to be watchdogs against this kind of behavior, to prevent it from happening. In fact, as we know Andersen's Houston office was complicit in Enron's fraud. If you had spent any time in the accounting field you'd know that the conflict of interest issues had been around for awhile, and have been exacerbated by the growth of lucrative consulting businesses in the major accounting firms. BTW- do you understand exactly what Enron did, or are you just using it as a rallying cry for "the wealthy screw over the poor"? There were a lot of fairly wealthy people (like "many other AA partners who had no involvement at all with Enron") who got screwed over, too.
Oh, as for the stock, it was only a ten day period in which people couldn't sell the Enron stock in their 401(k)'s. The real criminal action, IMHO, was the fact that the company had encouraged their employees to buy Enron stock previously, and continued claiming that Enron stock was a good investment up until the end.
As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is inflation! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off. High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors). But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion).
As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier.
Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think.
God what a long post. To anyone who had to wade through this, sorry to take up so much of your time. To all UAL employees and their families, let's hope for the best as BK looms, but I fear it will get much worse before it gets better.
-synchronicity
----------------
On 12/4/2002 5:40:07 PM Bob Owens wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
"On 12/3/2002 10:52:56 PM synchronicity wrote:
Yes, Bob, you've unearthed the real truth! The ATSB is just part of the fiendish plot by the evil bourgeoisie capitalist holders of wealth to reap their rewards off the sweat of the hard working proletariat masses. You must resist them at all costs! Vive la Revolution!!
Eh, but what do I know? I'm a tax guy, and I hobnob with evil corporate BK attorneys."
Whoa a big shot! The fact is you could claim that you were Greenspan himself but I guess that you figured that might be stretching it a bit too far, Tax guy.
Retro pay, give me a break, they were never going to see a dime of that any way. As soon a round II of concessions came around that would have been the first to go.
Sure plans to defraud regular working people dont exist. Enron's execs didnt prevent their employees from unloading their stock while they unloaded theirs. They did not fix the numbers, it was an accounting mistake. Only pure ethical business practices are are used in our perfect, transparent, fair free market economy. Greenspan has not repeatedly preached to Congress promoting the suppression of wage growth because wage growth and the inflation that can accompany it lowers returns on investments. Bush did not prevent the United mechanics from striking. Bush did not say that the Longshoremen would not be allowed to strike because it would harm the economy yet then allow the owners to do the same damage by locking out the workers- no double standard there right? Come on Mr "big shot I hob nob with other big shots Tax guy" you dont really expect anyone to beleive that the government does not help big business further their interests at the expense of the common man do you?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney", or more specifically "International Tax Attorney". I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like.
I don't think of myself as a "big shot" or "little shot" or anything of the kind. I'm just me, and I have knowledge on some areas that I'm willing to share with people if it will be of use to them. But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed. You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert. (Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least).
As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame.
For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately ,now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe.
As for Enron, that was accounting fraud, pure and simple. The main story of Enron was that of conflicts of interest and the failure of outside accountants, who are supposed to be watchdogs against this kind of behavior, to prevent it from happening. In fact, as we know Andersen's Houston office was complicit in Enron's fraud. If you had spent any time in the accounting field you'd know that the conflict of interest issues had been around for awhile, and have been exacerbated by the growth of lucrative consulting businesses in the major accounting firms. BTW- do you understand exactly what Enron did, or are you just using it as a rallying cry for "the wealthy screw over the poor"? There were a lot of fairly wealthy people (like "many other AA partners who had no involvement at all with Enron") who got screwed over, too.
Oh, as for the stock, it was only a ten day period in which people couldn't sell the Enron stock in their 401(k)'s. The real criminal action, IMHO, was the fact that the company had encouraged their employees to buy Enron stock previously, and continued claiming that Enron stock was a good investment up until the end.
As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is inflation! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off. High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors). But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion).
As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier.
Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think.
God what a long post. To anyone who had to wade through this, sorry to take up so much of your time. To all UAL employees and their families, let's hope for the best as BK looms, but I fear it will get much worse before it gets better.
-synchronicity
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #20
Synchronicity wrote;
"Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then (than- obviously not an English major) the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney" (whoa), or more specifically "International Tax Attorney"(WHOAH). I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation, which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like.
Ok,sounds impressive. Sounds like you have a lot in common with the sort of people who got UAL into this mess. I would think that you were a busy guy. What is your motive for being here encouraging mechanics to accept pay cuts? But then again being that you post under an alias it would not be unreasonable to still think that your job in the accounting office is to empty the pails.
"But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed."
So are far as your concerned the common working man does not have to be worried that his interests could be severely compromised by those who posses huge amounts of wealth?
"You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert."
I don’t know anything about Black Helicopters but the rise of unelected governing bodies that gain the power to dictate economic and trade policies upon various populations does cause concern.
"(Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least)."
Oh really? And how did you come across that?
"As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame."
And the mechanic voting yes would have changed all of this?
"For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately, now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe."
Obviously being a secured creditor in a bankrupt company is not a great deal but isn’t that what the game of investing is all about- risk? What your advocating is that employees accept lower wages to lower investor risk. While UALs ESOP may appear to blur the lines a bit, the current income of the United Airlines worker is in no way improved by the ESOP. In fact the UAL worker cannot even recover their investment unless they sever themselves from the company. So until they sever themselves from the company, the ESOP is a liability, which they hope will become an asset. I think the primary concern of the mechanics is their current income, not the value of a liability that many have dismissed already as a loss. The fact is they learned a lesson, ESOPS are a bad deal, if you can’t sell it, you don’t own it. Something that costs you money that you cant sell is not an asset.
"As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is inflation! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off."
Well, I’ve seen where working class people actually benefited from inflation. My parents bought their first home in 1964. The mortgage was their biggest expense. As wages kept pace with inflation, their mortgage stayed the same. The mortgage became a smaller and smaller burden until it was insignificant. In their case because they were able to increase their wages along with inflation their disposable income was increased. I don’t think the Bank made out that well on the deal though.
"High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors)."
I would agree, but a moderate inflation rate, coupled with strong unions and a tight labor market could actually lead to improved living standards for homeowners. Greenspan advocates maintaining a certain level of unemployment in order to soften the labor market and drive down wages. I feel this is immoral and that a just government should seek to insure that full employment, not Greenspans definition, but actually a job for every potential worker is available.It should support policies that support job, and wage rate, growth.
"But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (Of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion)."
Perhaps, but I'm still a worker and nearly all of my income is derived from the sale of my labor.
"As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier."
Well SS is for all, not just the poor. The economy provides advantages to the rich, that is an accepted fact but a "Democratic" government is supposed to be the equalizer where all stand as equals. The degree to which any system has ever succeeded at this has been a source of debate since Aristotle but what we see today in what we call our Democracy almost seems to be a complete abandonment of those ideals.
The progressive tax and SS have both been under attack from monied interests since their inception. The progressive tax is no longer that progressive and the SS tax, which is regressive, has been deliberately abused to try and cause middle class acceptance of its elimination.
"Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think."
So what your saying is that since working people also own stocks that they benefit from reducing their wages because the increased performance of the company could be reflected in the stock price. So it makes sense to give up say $10,000 per year in wages in exchange for stock because the value of their stock could go up. But how likely is it that they will recover what they invested? Ok we can hear about early Microsoft employees and the killing they made but on the other end we have ENRON, and UAL. As far as the ESOP I still say that if you cant sell it you don’t own it.
"Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then (than- obviously not an English major) the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney" (whoa), or more specifically "International Tax Attorney"(WHOAH). I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation, which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like.
Ok,sounds impressive. Sounds like you have a lot in common with the sort of people who got UAL into this mess. I would think that you were a busy guy. What is your motive for being here encouraging mechanics to accept pay cuts? But then again being that you post under an alias it would not be unreasonable to still think that your job in the accounting office is to empty the pails.
"But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed."
So are far as your concerned the common working man does not have to be worried that his interests could be severely compromised by those who posses huge amounts of wealth?
"You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert."
I don’t know anything about Black Helicopters but the rise of unelected governing bodies that gain the power to dictate economic and trade policies upon various populations does cause concern.
"(Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least)."
Oh really? And how did you come across that?
"As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame."
And the mechanic voting yes would have changed all of this?
"For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately, now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe."
Obviously being a secured creditor in a bankrupt company is not a great deal but isn’t that what the game of investing is all about- risk? What your advocating is that employees accept lower wages to lower investor risk. While UALs ESOP may appear to blur the lines a bit, the current income of the United Airlines worker is in no way improved by the ESOP. In fact the UAL worker cannot even recover their investment unless they sever themselves from the company. So until they sever themselves from the company, the ESOP is a liability, which they hope will become an asset. I think the primary concern of the mechanics is their current income, not the value of a liability that many have dismissed already as a loss. The fact is they learned a lesson, ESOPS are a bad deal, if you can’t sell it, you don’t own it. Something that costs you money that you cant sell is not an asset.
"As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is inflation! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off."
Well, I’ve seen where working class people actually benefited from inflation. My parents bought their first home in 1964. The mortgage was their biggest expense. As wages kept pace with inflation, their mortgage stayed the same. The mortgage became a smaller and smaller burden until it was insignificant. In their case because they were able to increase their wages along with inflation their disposable income was increased. I don’t think the Bank made out that well on the deal though.
"High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors)."
I would agree, but a moderate inflation rate, coupled with strong unions and a tight labor market could actually lead to improved living standards for homeowners. Greenspan advocates maintaining a certain level of unemployment in order to soften the labor market and drive down wages. I feel this is immoral and that a just government should seek to insure that full employment, not Greenspans definition, but actually a job for every potential worker is available.It should support policies that support job, and wage rate, growth.
"But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (Of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion)."
Perhaps, but I'm still a worker and nearly all of my income is derived from the sale of my labor.
"As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier."
Well SS is for all, not just the poor. The economy provides advantages to the rich, that is an accepted fact but a "Democratic" government is supposed to be the equalizer where all stand as equals. The degree to which any system has ever succeeded at this has been a source of debate since Aristotle but what we see today in what we call our Democracy almost seems to be a complete abandonment of those ideals.
The progressive tax and SS have both been under attack from monied interests since their inception. The progressive tax is no longer that progressive and the SS tax, which is regressive, has been deliberately abused to try and cause middle class acceptance of its elimination.
"Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think."
So what your saying is that since working people also own stocks that they benefit from reducing their wages because the increased performance of the company could be reflected in the stock price. So it makes sense to give up say $10,000 per year in wages in exchange for stock because the value of their stock could go up. But how likely is it that they will recover what they invested? Ok we can hear about early Microsoft employees and the killing they made but on the other end we have ENRON, and UAL. As far as the ESOP I still say that if you cant sell it you don’t own it.
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
Bob, we're probably the only two people reading this topic at this point. Anyway:
On 12/6/2002 4:59:15 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Synchronicity wrote;
"Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then (than- obviously not an English major)
Yeah, my bad, but c'mon, it's a long post. You don't want me to start dissecting your grammar now, do you?
[< the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney" (whoa), or more specifically "International Tax Attorney"(WHOAH). I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation, which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like. ]>
Ok,sounds impressive. Sounds like you have a lot in common with the sort of people who got UAL into this mess. I would think that you were a busy guy. What is your motive for being here encouraging mechanics to accept pay cuts? But then again being that you post under an alias it would not be unreasonable to still think that your job in the accounting office is to empty the pails.
My reason for being here? My wife works for United, more specifically as one of those "Personal Contact Employees" represented by IAM 141. I'm sure I mentioned this in an earlier message.
As for my schedule, actually, this is a fairly quiet time. Like I said, I work in compliance. We're a calendar year filer and we take the automatic 6 month extension, so returns are due September 15. My busy season is the summer.
I was "encouraging" mechanics to accept pay cuts (actually, just saying that voting no to the agreement was a bad idea) because the alternative was to take even steeper pay cuts and/or lose their jobs, AND it would remove any chance of UAL staying out of bankruptcy (thus negatively impacting my wife's job). Unfortunately that is now academic, as UAL is about to file. And besides, anyone who thinks that posting on a random internet message board is going to have a significant impact on world events is kidding themselves. It's a place to vent and pick up a bit of information.
What will likely happen now is that UAL (at the behest of their creditors) will request much steeper cuts in both wages and headcount. Should the mechanics vote no on such an agreement, UAL will petition the BK judge to abrogate the contract, at which point life will really suck. I know that you will argue that A) UAL's requests will be "unreasonable", and B) the mechanics can always strike. As to (A), we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? As to (B), I still don't see the purpose of striking a bankrupt company. What, you think the company will cave and keep the mechanics at the same wages and in the same numbers? You probably do. Either that, or it sets a "precedent" for when American wants to cut wages for their mechanics. So what if the UAL mechs wind up out of a job?
As for me being what I claim to be: hey, during tax season we get jealous of the lady who comes around to water the plants! Actually, it's not that bad. Yes, I work 7 days a week for over two months, but at least it's indoors in an air-conditioned office. There are worse fates in the world. Also, if you have some questions about specific corp. int'l tax issues (like if you were wondering how companies can get a tax break by "expatriating" to Bermuda), I could explain that in some detail. Doesn't prove a darn thing about me, but it's information if you're interested.
[< "But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed." ]>
So are far as your concerned the common working man does not have to be worried that his interests could be severely compromised by those who posses huge amounts of wealth?
The "common working man" can have his interest compromised by any group that has power and influence. There are groups I'd worry about much more than Alan Greenspan.
[< "You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert." ]>
I don’t know anything about Black Helicopters but the rise of unelected governing bodies that gain the power to dictate economic and trade policies upon various populations does cause concern.
The Fed can directly impact interest rates! They can't directly steer much else in the economy! Tax policy, trade policy, lots of other groups have much more input into those items. Of course, the Fed chairman can give his opinion, but the administration won't necessarily listen. And of course, other unelected groups lobby politicians to act in their interest. Last I checked, Organized Labor was one of those groups. Republicans always like to rave about the "huge" contributions the Democrats receive from unions.
[< "(Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least)." ]>
Oh really? And how did you come across that?
Answered above. They delivered it to our home. Nice glossy format, haven't seen one like that recently. Normally we get the "newspaper" things that are just for District 141.
[< "As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame." ]>
And the mechanic voting yes would have changed all of this?
The mechanics voting no would have guaranteed no ATSB approval. As it turns out, the ATSB wasn't going to approve the loan with the current cuts and revenue projections anyway. Because UAL couldn't get sufficient cost cuts, they had to wildly overestimate revenue.
[< "For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately, now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe." ]>
Obviously being a secured creditor in a bankrupt company is not a great deal but isn’t that what the game of investing is all about- risk? What your advocating is that employees accept lower wages to lower investor risk.
By the way, that's "you're", not "your". Guess you weren't an English major, either.
I don't have a problem with employees trying to get the best wages they can, but in the current situation they're stuck with a bad choice (accept a smaller wage cut) and a worse choice (accept a much larger wage cut as well as reductions in headcount). The better choice here is to take the smaller wage cut. If there are other employers out there willing to pay more, then look for those jobs and go to them. If enough other companies are willing to pay UAL mechanics considerably more (in terms of salary and benefits and better working conditions and such) then UAL will be forced to raise their wages. The mechanics on this board have stated countless times that their skill set is easily transferable to many other fields. This makes it very difficult (I'd say "impossible", but you'd probably disagree) for the airlines to cooperate to keep airline mechanic wages "artificially low". To use your terms, you've got myriad potential parties interested in buying your labor.
As for the ESOP, I agree that it sucked. My point about improving "investor returns" is that, for better or worse, UAL employees were the majority investors in the company. This will cease to be the case in BK.
My last comment is aimed at your constant statements that are straight out of a Socailist Workers group diatribe about the evils of the holders of capital. Life ain't perfect for "holders of capital". If you have money and lend it out or invest it, no guarantee you'll get it back, even in BK.
[i] [< "As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is [b]inflation[/b]! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off." ]>
Well, I’ve seen where working class people actually benefited from inflation. My parents bought their first home in 1964. The mortgage was their biggest expense. As wages kept pace with inflation, their mortgage stayed the same. The mortgage became a smaller and smaller burden until it was insignificant. In their case because they were able to increase their wages along with inflation their disposable income was increased. I don’t think the Bank made out that well on the deal though.[/i]
Your parents also benefited from the fact that inflation didn't really kick in until after they bought their home. Had they been looking to buy a house in 1980, they would have been staring at a 30 year fixed mortgage at 18% interest. Can't buy much home at those rates.
Also, your parents must not have had much other debt.
[i] [< "High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors)." ]>
I would agree, but a moderate inflation rate, coupled with strong unions and a tight labor market could actually lead to improved living standards for homeowners. Greenspan advocates maintaining a certain level of unemployment in order to soften the labor market and drive down wages. I feel this is immoral and that a just government should seek to insure that full employment, not Greenspans definition, but actually a job for every potential worker is available.It should support policies that support job, and wage rate, growth. [/i]
Fine. I won't argue with you on Greenspan, as you'll likely trot out a dozen quotes to back up your assertions, in or out of context. I do generally agree that aiming for "full employment" is a good thing, although I believe that inflation must be kept under control. Of course, the strict monetarists would argue that all inflation is driven solely by the money supply.
I do believe that in a tight labor market "strong unions' are largely superfluous, although they could help in improving working conditions. Where is IAM when it comes to working conditions for ramp workers? Everyone my wife knows who used to work on the ramp for a number of years has assorted physical ailments from the work, like they're ex-football players. There are some things more important than an extra ten cents an hour.
[i] [< "But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (Of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion)." ]>
Perhaps, but I'm still a worker and nearly all of my income is derived from the sale of my labor. [/i]
Hey, workers can also be investors, now more than ever. The barriers separating people from putting their capital in other companies as either lenders or equity holders have been falling. You can buy stocks in odd lots with commissions under $10, and more importantly, decimalization has greatly reduced the "spreads" to only a few pennies for most listed companies. Bond purchases are a little more difficult, but you can buy government bonds from Treasury Direct for no fee, and bond commissions have generally dropped. And last, even people with small amounts of savings can put money in diversified low expense bond funds such as Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index fund.
The great divide between a "worker" who "sells their labor" and "holders of capital" who "buy" that labor is diminishing rapidly.
[i][< "As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier." ]>
Well SS is for all, not just the poor.[/i]
But SS benefits are considerably weighted towards the poor in terms of benefits relative to contributions made. Also, people who receive income in addition to the income received from social security can get taxed on those benefits. SS benefits all, but benefits "the poor" to a greater extent. And of course SS is a payroll tax, so you have to earn wages or salary (as opposed to cap gain and dividends) in order to accrue SS benefits.
[i] The economy provides advantages to the rich, that is an accepted fact but a "Democratic" government is supposed to be the equalizer where all stand as equals. The degree to which any system has ever succeeded at this has been a source of debate since Aristotle but what we see today in what we call our Democracy almost seems to be a complete abandonment of those ideals.
The progressive tax and SS have both been under attack from monied interests since their inception. The progressive tax is no longer that progressive and the SS tax, which is regressive, has been deliberately abused to try and cause middle class acceptance of its elimination. [/i]
The progressive tax is still fairly progressive, but in general I agree with you here, although probably not to the extent you would take the positions. Surprised? But so what? Lots of people don't like getting taxed regardless of their socioeconomic status.
[i][< "Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think." ]>
So what your saying is that since working people also own stocks that they benefit from reducing their wages because the increased performance of the company could be reflected in the stock price. So it makes sense to give up say $10,000 per year in wages in exchange for stock because the value of their stock could go up. But how likely is it that they will recover what they invested? Ok we can hear about early Microsoft employees and the killing they made but on the other end we have ENRON, and UAL. As far as the ESOP I still say that if you cant sell it you don’t own it.[/i]
You did the your/you're thing again. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif']
Again, if you're talking about "favoring investors", for better or worse, UAL employees are the primary "investors" in UAL. If the ATSB's goal is solely to favor "investors", then the predominant group that would benefit in UAL's case is UAL employees.
As for options/profit share vs. straight wages, that's just another example of the blurring of the lines between "sellers of labor" and "holders of capital/buyers of labor". A laborer with stock options or a profit share plan becomes a part owner in the means of production.
I doubt anyone else has read to the bottom of this long message, and if there's any more replies on this I'll snip this drastically. Bob, you're an American Airlines mechanic. You have a direct vested interest in anything that impacts your wages. If the UAL mechs decide to accept no pay cuts, even if this means striking a bankrupt company, this would lead to UAL being dissolved which obviously helps American Airlines. Of course, this means UAL mechs would be out of a job, but that doesn't hurt you. I have a vested interest in UAL continuing, as my wife works there and we enjoy the flight benefits. She voted in favor of her 7.5% pay cut (6% plus vacation), because it's better than a 100% pay cut. Of course, she always has the option of looking for employment elsewhere, and the way things are going she'll probably be forced to go that route.
-synchronicity
On 12/6/2002 4:59:15 PM Bob Owens wrote:
Synchronicity wrote;
"Oh god, Bob, you're a riot. I don't even know where to begin. Well, let's start at the top. I used the term "tax guy" because it's less formal then (than- obviously not an English major)
Yeah, my bad, but c'mon, it's a long post. You don't want me to start dissecting your grammar now, do you?
[< the actual title I could claim, which would be "Tax Attorney" (whoa), or more specifically "International Tax Attorney"(WHOAH). I have a B.A. in Econ, a J.D., and an LL.M. in Tax, and am a member of a state bar, although not of the state I presently reside in. I currently work for a large corporation, which has operations in about 40 countries. I work on the compliance side, gathering information and putting together the US tax returns related to those international operations (most of my-co-workers are not attorneys, but accountants, another reason I use "tax guy" instead of "tax attorney"). I am generally familiar with research and planning issues but have less involvement in that aspect than I would like. ]>
Ok,sounds impressive. Sounds like you have a lot in common with the sort of people who got UAL into this mess. I would think that you were a busy guy. What is your motive for being here encouraging mechanics to accept pay cuts? But then again being that you post under an alias it would not be unreasonable to still think that your job in the accounting office is to empty the pails.
My reason for being here? My wife works for United, more specifically as one of those "Personal Contact Employees" represented by IAM 141. I'm sure I mentioned this in an earlier message.
As for my schedule, actually, this is a fairly quiet time. Like I said, I work in compliance. We're a calendar year filer and we take the automatic 6 month extension, so returns are due September 15. My busy season is the summer.
I was "encouraging" mechanics to accept pay cuts (actually, just saying that voting no to the agreement was a bad idea) because the alternative was to take even steeper pay cuts and/or lose their jobs, AND it would remove any chance of UAL staying out of bankruptcy (thus negatively impacting my wife's job). Unfortunately that is now academic, as UAL is about to file. And besides, anyone who thinks that posting on a random internet message board is going to have a significant impact on world events is kidding themselves. It's a place to vent and pick up a bit of information.
What will likely happen now is that UAL (at the behest of their creditors) will request much steeper cuts in both wages and headcount. Should the mechanics vote no on such an agreement, UAL will petition the BK judge to abrogate the contract, at which point life will really suck. I know that you will argue that A) UAL's requests will be "unreasonable", and B) the mechanics can always strike. As to (A), we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? As to (B), I still don't see the purpose of striking a bankrupt company. What, you think the company will cave and keep the mechanics at the same wages and in the same numbers? You probably do. Either that, or it sets a "precedent" for when American wants to cut wages for their mechanics. So what if the UAL mechs wind up out of a job?
As for me being what I claim to be: hey, during tax season we get jealous of the lady who comes around to water the plants! Actually, it's not that bad. Yes, I work 7 days a week for over two months, but at least it's indoors in an air-conditioned office. There are worse fates in the world. Also, if you have some questions about specific corp. int'l tax issues (like if you were wondering how companies can get a tax break by "expatriating" to Bermuda), I could explain that in some detail. Doesn't prove a darn thing about me, but it's information if you're interested.
[< "But if, in your narrow little world of "poor, hard working masses taken advantage of by wealthy investors", this makes me a "big shot", then you can think whatever you want. Mainly I'm poking fun at your continued characterization of Alan Greenspan and the Fed." ]>
So are far as your concerned the common working man does not have to be worried that his interests could be severely compromised by those who posses huge amounts of wealth?
The "common working man" can have his interest compromised by any group that has power and influence. There are groups I'd worry about much more than Alan Greenspan.
[< "You speak of them in much the same way that certain hard-core conservatives used to rail about One World Government and Black Helicopters landing in the desert." ]>
I don’t know anything about Black Helicopters but the rise of unelected governing bodies that gain the power to dictate economic and trade policies upon various populations does cause concern.
The Fed can directly impact interest rates! They can't directly steer much else in the economy! Tax policy, trade policy, lots of other groups have much more input into those items. Of course, the Fed chairman can give his opinion, but the administration won't necessarily listen. And of course, other unelected groups lobby politicians to act in their interest. Last I checked, Organized Labor was one of those groups. Republicans always like to rave about the "huge" contributions the Democrats receive from unions.
[< "(Oh yeah, and I read the "Dreamstealer" article that IAM put out, thought it was amusing, to say the least)." ]>
Oh really? And how did you come across that?
Answered above. They delivered it to our home. Nice glossy format, haven't seen one like that recently. Normally we get the "newspaper" things that are just for District 141.
[< "As for your next comment about retro pay, that's an unsupported supposition on your part with NOTHING to back it up. The first payment was to be made on December 15 (I assume actually the 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). Since UAL is about to file BK (best guess is this weekend, although they might surprise us and file tomorrow) that payment won't be made. Had UAL stayed out of bankruptcy, it's a whole different ballgame." ]>
And the mechanic voting yes would have changed all of this?
The mechanics voting no would have guaranteed no ATSB approval. As it turns out, the ATSB wasn't going to approve the loan with the current cuts and revenue projections anyway. Because UAL couldn't get sufficient cost cuts, they had to wildly overestimate revenue.
[< "For what it's worth, as I've said before, IAM is about to become a secured creditor with regards to that 500 million. You might note that United was asking ALL of their other creditors to restructure the terms of leases and other debts, but did not touch the retro pay obligation. Unfortunately, now that we're headed for BK, IAM is about to learn that life on the other side as a secured creditor is not as rosy as you seem to believe." ]>
Obviously being a secured creditor in a bankrupt company is not a great deal but isn’t that what the game of investing is all about- risk? What your advocating is that employees accept lower wages to lower investor risk.
By the way, that's "you're", not "your". Guess you weren't an English major, either.
I don't have a problem with employees trying to get the best wages they can, but in the current situation they're stuck with a bad choice (accept a smaller wage cut) and a worse choice (accept a much larger wage cut as well as reductions in headcount). The better choice here is to take the smaller wage cut. If there are other employers out there willing to pay more, then look for those jobs and go to them. If enough other companies are willing to pay UAL mechanics considerably more (in terms of salary and benefits and better working conditions and such) then UAL will be forced to raise their wages. The mechanics on this board have stated countless times that their skill set is easily transferable to many other fields. This makes it very difficult (I'd say "impossible", but you'd probably disagree) for the airlines to cooperate to keep airline mechanic wages "artificially low". To use your terms, you've got myriad potential parties interested in buying your labor.
As for the ESOP, I agree that it sucked. My point about improving "investor returns" is that, for better or worse, UAL employees were the majority investors in the company. This will cease to be the case in BK.
My last comment is aimed at your constant statements that are straight out of a Socailist Workers group diatribe about the evils of the holders of capital. Life ain't perfect for "holders of capital". If you have money and lend it out or invest it, no guarantee you'll get it back, even in BK.
[i] [< "As for Greenspan preaching "low wage growth", what Greenspan does fight is [b]inflation[/b]! If your wages go up 10% and prices go up 10%, you're no better off." ]>
Well, I’ve seen where working class people actually benefited from inflation. My parents bought their first home in 1964. The mortgage was their biggest expense. As wages kept pace with inflation, their mortgage stayed the same. The mortgage became a smaller and smaller burden until it was insignificant. In their case because they were able to increase their wages along with inflation their disposable income was increased. I don’t think the Bank made out that well on the deal though.[/i]
Your parents also benefited from the fact that inflation didn't really kick in until after they bought their home. Had they been looking to buy a house in 1980, they would have been staring at a 30 year fixed mortgage at 18% interest. Can't buy much home at those rates.
Also, your parents must not have had much other debt.
[i] [< "High inflation and the high interest rates that accompany it can be devastating (I'd argue that high interest rates are worse on the "poor", who are often debtors, compared to the "rich", who are often creditors)." ]>
I would agree, but a moderate inflation rate, coupled with strong unions and a tight labor market could actually lead to improved living standards for homeowners. Greenspan advocates maintaining a certain level of unemployment in order to soften the labor market and drive down wages. I feel this is immoral and that a just government should seek to insure that full employment, not Greenspans definition, but actually a job for every potential worker is available.It should support policies that support job, and wage rate, growth. [/i]
Fine. I won't argue with you on Greenspan, as you'll likely trot out a dozen quotes to back up your assertions, in or out of context. I do generally agree that aiming for "full employment" is a good thing, although I believe that inflation must be kept under control. Of course, the strict monetarists would argue that all inflation is driven solely by the money supply.
I do believe that in a tight labor market "strong unions' are largely superfluous, although they could help in improving working conditions. Where is IAM when it comes to working conditions for ramp workers? Everyone my wife knows who used to work on the ramp for a number of years has assorted physical ailments from the work, like they're ex-football players. There are some things more important than an extra ten cents an hour.
[i] [< "But if you want to keep thinking that the Fed, (which sets short term interest rates), is a malign institution bent on oppressing the masses, be my guest. I'd also comment that as a mechanic with over 20+ years in the industry, your earnings push you well out of "poor" status. (Of course, one can argue that mechanics "should" make more than they do, but that's a different discussion)." ]>
Perhaps, but I'm still a worker and nearly all of my income is derived from the sale of my labor. [/i]
Hey, workers can also be investors, now more than ever. The barriers separating people from putting their capital in other companies as either lenders or equity holders have been falling. You can buy stocks in odd lots with commissions under $10, and more importantly, decimalization has greatly reduced the "spreads" to only a few pennies for most listed companies. Bond purchases are a little more difficult, but you can buy government bonds from Treasury Direct for no fee, and bond commissions have generally dropped. And last, even people with small amounts of savings can put money in diversified low expense bond funds such as Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index fund.
The great divide between a "worker" who "sells their labor" and "holders of capital" who "buy" that labor is diminishing rapidly.
[i][< "As for the Bush Administration not being friends of organized labor…duh. I agree completely that the current administration has no love for unions and will generally favor "big business". I also agree that the very rich and powerful have considerable influence in government and are awarded significant advantages over the poor, although that revelation is about as insightful as saying "fire is hot. However, one might point to things such as the SEC acts of '33 and '34, the creation of Social Security and a progressive income tax system (not to mention government aid programs to the poor) as at least some examples of government helping "the common man" ostensibly at the expense of those who are wealthier." ]>
Well SS is for all, not just the poor.[/i]
But SS benefits are considerably weighted towards the poor in terms of benefits relative to contributions made. Also, people who receive income in addition to the income received from social security can get taxed on those benefits. SS benefits all, but benefits "the poor" to a greater extent. And of course SS is a payroll tax, so you have to earn wages or salary (as opposed to cap gain and dividends) in order to accrue SS benefits.
[i] The economy provides advantages to the rich, that is an accepted fact but a "Democratic" government is supposed to be the equalizer where all stand as equals. The degree to which any system has ever succeeded at this has been a source of debate since Aristotle but what we see today in what we call our Democracy almost seems to be a complete abandonment of those ideals.
The progressive tax and SS have both been under attack from monied interests since their inception. The progressive tax is no longer that progressive and the SS tax, which is regressive, has been deliberately abused to try and cause middle class acceptance of its elimination. [/i]
The progressive tax is still fairly progressive, but in general I agree with you here, although probably not to the extent you would take the positions. Surprised? But so what? Lots of people don't like getting taxed regardless of their socioeconomic status.
[i][< "Last, regarding your comments about "favoring investors": You HAVE noticed that many "common working people" also hold stocks, either thru 401(k)'s or directly, right? And of course United employees own a majority of United stock, albeit in the ESOP plan. If United had avoided bankruptcy (I've been assuming throughout that BK is inevitable for UAL now), then the subsequent increase in the share price would have benefited UAL employees. (Yes, I know State Street sold some of the shares. No, I don't like that either). The line between "investor", and "working man" is much thinner than you would like to think." ]>
So what your saying is that since working people also own stocks that they benefit from reducing their wages because the increased performance of the company could be reflected in the stock price. So it makes sense to give up say $10,000 per year in wages in exchange for stock because the value of their stock could go up. But how likely is it that they will recover what they invested? Ok we can hear about early Microsoft employees and the killing they made but on the other end we have ENRON, and UAL. As far as the ESOP I still say that if you cant sell it you don’t own it.[/i]
You did the your/you're thing again. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif']
Again, if you're talking about "favoring investors", for better or worse, UAL employees are the primary "investors" in UAL. If the ATSB's goal is solely to favor "investors", then the predominant group that would benefit in UAL's case is UAL employees.
As for options/profit share vs. straight wages, that's just another example of the blurring of the lines between "sellers of labor" and "holders of capital/buyers of labor". A laborer with stock options or a profit share plan becomes a part owner in the means of production.
I doubt anyone else has read to the bottom of this long message, and if there's any more replies on this I'll snip this drastically. Bob, you're an American Airlines mechanic. You have a direct vested interest in anything that impacts your wages. If the UAL mechs decide to accept no pay cuts, even if this means striking a bankrupt company, this would lead to UAL being dissolved which obviously helps American Airlines. Of course, this means UAL mechs would be out of a job, but that doesn't hurt you. I have a vested interest in UAL continuing, as my wife works there and we enjoy the flight benefits. She voted in favor of her 7.5% pay cut (6% plus vacation), because it's better than a 100% pay cut. Of course, she always has the option of looking for employment elsewhere, and the way things are going she'll probably be forced to go that route.
-synchronicity
