Very interesting video clip on a city ran by socialists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=popt00us01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=popt00us01
Detroit in RUINS!
- Thread starter bobback
- Start date
Good one. Thanks for posting!
That was hard to watch....
Interesting see what some of this once great country has turned into.....
Stop buying in China and Japan people! Every little bit of domestic investment will only help us in the long run..... But I digress......
Good vid, Thanks for sharing.
Stop buying in China and Japan people! Every little bit of domestic investment will only help us in the long run..... But I digress......
Good vid, Thanks for sharing.
markgyver...this sw member gave me a "bad" rating for this post. Of course I went to this post to see what comments they had to make, and of course not seeing any.
I'm a very open person to others views, would be great if he/she could expand on why they don't like this clip. I looked at the clip again, and sounds like they are simply telling the truth.
I'm a very open person to others views, would be great if he/she could expand on why they don't like this clip. I looked at the clip again, and sounds like they are simply telling the truth.
Last edited:
I don't agree with the cause of the city's demise but gave you a "positive" rating to counter that given by the ***-wipe.
this video is a joke.... bs numbers, bs conclusions....
Good propaganda tool though!
I am wonder when they will show a big conservative city that has collapsed.. oh yah, that is right, there aren't any big republican cities. I wonder why that is?
As to the UAW argument, if their costs are so high that it increases the costs of their cars, then why don't the other manufactures sell cars that are soo much cheaper? Don't think about that one too much...
Detroit is a good example of the need for diversification of jobs. Everything was tied to the auto's, and when they went down, they took the city with them.
Good propaganda tool though!
I am wonder when they will show a big conservative city that has collapsed.. oh yah, that is right, there aren't any big republican cities. I wonder why that is?
As to the UAW argument, if their costs are so high that it increases the costs of their cars, then why don't the other manufactures sell cars that are soo much cheaper? Don't think about that one too much...
Detroit is a good example of the need for diversification of jobs. Everything was tied to the auto's, and when they went down, they took the city with them.
Last edited:
While the UAW still has good pay and benefits, the numbers used are interpreted loosely.
The 74 an hour figure is the total cost for all personnel (employed and retired) / divided by the number of workers currently employed. The number of workers has been reducing for a long time. With a lot of people retired, the costs for retired employees on a current employee basis increases by a large amount. Watch the denominator.
The teachers union is an interesting one. How does increasing student to teacher ratio's going to help? I thought it was supposed to work the opposite. So, the costs are a dramatic 22% higher then the AVERAGE cost per child. How is it compared to the rest of the major cities? I would think costs in urban areas are much more expensive then costs in more rural areas. Also, I would think most urban schools are older and have more costly upgrades / maintenance. Since cities are more expensive to live in, salaries are generally higher also.
I love the premise as to the thinking of the UAW and liberals in general. So they want to take down companies and change cities to ruins (which decreases tax money coming in, you know, government revenues) for the purpose of what? What is the point of doing that? Never given, and I have yet to hear one, but it seems to the conclusion / point of every conservative with respect to liberal ideology.
Blah
J
JSCC
Well-known member
I agree.
J
JSCC
Well-known member
Savvy?
republicans are mostly from rural areas because they are uneducated inbreds....
nah, It is because it is easier to be more self sufficient in rural areas. They are also closer knit communities as well. All of this is easier to do with "less" government.
Big cities on the other hand, people have a much smaller opportunity to be self sufficient. Not saying it is right or wrong, just the nature of the beast. Since people are not as self sufficient individually and are more reliant upon other people for their well being (reliant in the means of stores to buy things, places to repair things, city people normally lead vary specialized lives) they people need a representative of their needs / wants (government) in the social structure.
As to your comment about auto prices, you say that they are different, then you say that they are the same because of..... So which is it?
What about market share? Increasing your piece of the pie. I would think that if the other manufacturers would be able to sell a car for a significantly lower price, and take away sales from other manufacturers, that they would do it quickly. Also, in your example about profit, why is there a problem if US auto manufacturers are still able to compete on a global scale? Does it really matter if the profit margins aren't as high as the next guy? Shouldn't we be more concerned if they are loosing money, not making a profit at all?
Though, the American consumer is a finicky one, and there is probably a point were if you priced it too low, they would think the car is "cheap" and "poor quality" and they would actually sell more of them if they increased the price.
nah, It is because it is easier to be more self sufficient in rural areas. They are also closer knit communities as well. All of this is easier to do with "less" government.
Big cities on the other hand, people have a much smaller opportunity to be self sufficient. Not saying it is right or wrong, just the nature of the beast. Since people are not as self sufficient individually and are more reliant upon other people for their well being (reliant in the means of stores to buy things, places to repair things, city people normally lead vary specialized lives) they people need a representative of their needs / wants (government) in the social structure.
As to your comment about auto prices, you say that they are different, then you say that they are the same because of..... So which is it?
What about market share? Increasing your piece of the pie. I would think that if the other manufacturers would be able to sell a car for a significantly lower price, and take away sales from other manufacturers, that they would do it quickly. Also, in your example about profit, why is there a problem if US auto manufacturers are still able to compete on a global scale? Does it really matter if the profit margins aren't as high as the next guy? Shouldn't we be more concerned if they are loosing money, not making a profit at all?
Though, the American consumer is a finicky one, and there is probably a point were if you priced it too low, they would think the car is "cheap" and "poor quality" and they would actually sell more of them if they increased the price.
Negative,
It DOES matter how many employees you have when you through out the per current employee cost number and people see it and think that is the cost of "only" that one current employee.
If I have a company of 100, and eventually they all retire, and through down sizing I have only 50 employees left. There are the benefits of 150 people divided by only 50 people. There are salaries (current and retirement) of 150 people divided by the 50 current people.
I am not making an argument against the number, just how the number is used and how people use that number to justify the large burden on the companies. In the above example, if you only had 1 current employee, but you had 100 retired people, the cost of the company per current employee would be a huge number. That does not mean that the one current employee is getting that money in salary and benefits.
So your argument is that they should cut benefits that the company promised it would provide to retirees? I wonder how you or your dad / mother / wife would feel about that if it was their company?
You know, if a lot of that cost is health care coverage, why aren't the companies for a single payer option for health care? Wouldn't that ease their burden?
The basis of numbers if very important, but people would rather look at the sticker shock, not what it means or what it is really telling you.
As to the teacher argument, yah some of it was assumptions. Salaries ARE generally higher in the city due to cost of living though. If they are not then you end up getting sub-standard employees.
So the argument in the video was that the student costs are higher and the test results from the students are lower, compared to average, and the way to make it better is to reduce the number of teachers? I would think the emphasis should be on the test results. Remember, these kids are going to be voters some day...
So the policies take down the companies, and yet they still want them and are pushing for them.... So therefore they are for the taking down of companies. Again, why? If that is the result of all the laws they are passing, why?
J
JSCC
Well-known member
To be honest with you, most of this is just jibberish.... I am going to take it you do not, or have not ran a business before?
I never said a thing about auto prices. What I did say is if I can sell an item for the same as my competitors, and make a profit, even though they are not, I am still going to do so. I dont drop my prices so I make the same or no profit to match the profit margins of my competitor.
Market share only matters if you are profitable. Who cares if you are number one in sales, yet are in the black year after year.....
J
JSCC
Well-known member
I doubt the companies want the policies of the Left. Most companies support policies from the right.....
Dropping your prices would decrease your profit on you individual cars, but would increase the profits due to increased sales of the cars.
My company charges a lot less then some of their competitors do. (Engineering firm, with hourly billable rate). Is this so they can make less money? No, it is because they want to make more money, and are trying to get more business.
Your argument works if you are trying to keep the status quo, not trying to grow.
Last edited:
you make some good points.
It worries me though, the fact of taking someones retirement away, cutting retirement benefits away....
It doesn't seem right to me, that people have worked at a company for most of their lives, and then 10 years after they are retired, they loose all their benefits.
This is part of the reason why I would be for single payer health care and single payer retirement (yes there are many many many reasons why I am against it too). It would keep the companies from promising everything and leaving many with nothing. It is sickening that when large companies fail, the people that get hurt the most are at the bottom.
Please link us up with the real numbers then. Should be easy to do since you claim the video is BS.
