You sir, are a jackass. I'm in it for myself? Can't begin to tell you all the people I've helped on the job over the years. One thing is for certain, if it'll benefit you, and I suspect getting the Teamsters in will, then I want no part of it. You can keep your better pay. Oh wait, we're still in the hypothetical because it's not going to happen, it's just about you getting people agitated. Interesting that you used the word collective. I guess that makes you a communist jackass.
Doomsday Clock
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
You sir, are a jackass. I'm in it for myself? Can't begin to tell you all the people I've helped on the job over the years. One thing is for certain, if it'll benefit you, and I suspect getting the Teamsters in will, then I want no part of it. You can keep your better pay. Oh wait, we're still in the hypothetical because it's not going to happen, it's just about you getting people agitated. Interesting that you used the word collective. I guess that makes you a communist jackass.
overflowed
Well-Known Member
R1a- I don't know if this has been said. I do not always agree with what you post even from way back. However, suit or not, you are not at this company anymore, thank god. You don't have to post here. Thank you for your concern when you have no reason to be here anymore. Just my 2 cents on you.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
And it VERY clearly at the top of the document dated January 9, 2012 states:
FY 12 FedEx Express Pay Actions.
Half way through the text on the first page, "Our FY 12 hourly pay actions will be a greater challenge that usual to communicate because different increases are targeted to different job categories."
NO WHERE within that document, did it state that the percentages given were part of a 'system' that would apply to ANY OTHER PERIOD other than the FY 12 pay actions.
Our hero has a plate of crow to chow down upon.
Still laughing my butt off at the assertion about this 'pay system that exists'.
FY 12 FedEx Express Pay Actions.
Half way through the text on the first page, "Our FY 12 hourly pay actions will be a greater challenge that usual to communicate because different increases are targeted to different job categories."
NO WHERE within that document, did it state that the percentages given were part of a 'system' that would apply to ANY OTHER PERIOD other than the FY 12 pay actions.
Our hero has a plate of crow to chow down upon.
Still laughing my butt off at the assertion about this 'pay system that exists'.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
If you are still of the mistaken opinion that I'm somehow associated with the Teamsters, then distribute as many cards from the IAM as you can.
I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHICH UNION ORGANIZES EXPRESS. Just organize or bendover.
Don't kid yourself, R1a. All the talk in the world isn't getting anything accomplished. I doubt my skepticism or van's or even your's is what keeps most on the sidelines. Nor is it clear that rallying cries from MFE, you, TDHE, or overflowed, or broke have had any impact either. Fedex isn't the only company that has scared it's people into compliance. This is an epidemic that has been plaguing the American worker for decades.
Unless I am greatly mistaken, we are still at the very beginning of the Ground "cash cow" for Fred. I am well past the halfway point in my career. I think I have a reasonable expectation to be able to ride this out to a secure retirement by age 60.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Just got my daughter's slumber party to actually go to sleep....
Here's why I post...
http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg
and
What Happened to the Wage and Productivity Link?
To summarize the graphs, productivity has more than DOUBLED in the past 40 years, while wages have remained FLAT.
There are a lot of contributing factors, but an undeniable fact is that in the period between 1945 and 1970, growth in productivity was MATCHED by a growth in real income. EVERYONE prospered, shareholders and employees alike, and they did so EQUALLY.
That has changed and shows no signs of reversing. If the growth in employee productivity was MATCHED by a growth in wages, the average US worker would be taking home DOUBLE what they are now.
Something happened back around 1970 and has continued...
Out of the second link:
1. Increasing use of robotics in manufacturing (less need for skilled human labor)
2. Nixon's ending of the gold standard (had to be done in my opinion)
3. Globalization (H. Ross Perot's "Giant sucking sound")
4. The collapse of Labor Unions
5. Rise of dual income households (a consequence of the previous 4 items).
There is nothing really that can be done about the first item (robotics and computerization). These had dramatic increases in productivity which didn't require similar increases in worker skill.
The Couriers of Express are about to be hit by this whammy - use of computerization that makes their skill set obsolete. And there are still doubters out there...
Gold standard had to end - there just isn't enough gold in the world to match up with the growth of economic output. If gold was being 'found' at the same rate as worldwide economies were growing, then the gold standard could've been maintained. It wasn't, so it couldn't be maintained.
Globalization has aided developing countries, but has devastated the manufacturing base of developed countries. Manufacturing was sent overseas, goods were imported along with unemployment, thus causing a decline in the equilibrium wage rate in developed countries (wage stagnation while productivity continues to increase).
The collapse of labor unions is obvious, and a restoration of balance between corporations and labor unions is part of the solution to the problem.
#'s 1, 2 and 5, there is nothing that can change that.
For globalization, a realization that 'free trade' is a misnomer, and that trade much like other things in macroeconomics, needs to be regulated to protect the employment markets of the citizens within developed nations - EVEN IF it results in price rises in certain goods. The resulting increase in prices of certain manufactured goods would more than be made up by the increase in average wage rate, increase in tax revenue, decrease in unemployment, decline in population needing government assistance, increasing investment WITHIN developed nations to 'get around' high tariffs on certain goods, thus providing more jobs within developed nations, thus providing more tax revenue, narrowing the deficit, and on and on.
To put it bluntly, buying cheap goods from China is KILLING us and we are paying the price for it. In addition, a welfare state CANNOT exist with 'free trade'. One or the other has to go, or the economy eventually collapses (Europe is in the early stages of this).
Finally, the need for labor unions to reestablish balance between the interests of shareholders and employees is part of the solution to the mismatch between productivity and wages.
Somewhere, somehow, those that work for a wage are going to need to do something about their compensation not keeping pace with their increasing productivity. They only have one real, direct option - to ORGANIZE.
Outside that, the electorate will need to come to a 'collective realization' (despite what the hero thinks, collective action DOESN'T equate to communism) that either free trade or the welfare state will have to go - they both can't exist side by side. Since there is no sign that people want the welfare state to go away, that leaves 'free trade'. In addition, open borders can't co-exist with a welfare state and not have what is happening in Europe happen here. One or the other has to go. Eventually, the borders will have to be secured - the collective electorate will eventually realize that and vote accordingly.
Some take up the cause of trying to save the whales, some try to free Tibet. I'm just trying to get the Couriers of Express to get off their butts and organize. That is my 'lost cause'.
Here's why I post...
http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg
and
What Happened to the Wage and Productivity Link?
To summarize the graphs, productivity has more than DOUBLED in the past 40 years, while wages have remained FLAT.
There are a lot of contributing factors, but an undeniable fact is that in the period between 1945 and 1970, growth in productivity was MATCHED by a growth in real income. EVERYONE prospered, shareholders and employees alike, and they did so EQUALLY.
That has changed and shows no signs of reversing. If the growth in employee productivity was MATCHED by a growth in wages, the average US worker would be taking home DOUBLE what they are now.
Something happened back around 1970 and has continued...
Out of the second link:
1. Increasing use of robotics in manufacturing (less need for skilled human labor)
2. Nixon's ending of the gold standard (had to be done in my opinion)
3. Globalization (H. Ross Perot's "Giant sucking sound")
4. The collapse of Labor Unions
5. Rise of dual income households (a consequence of the previous 4 items).
There is nothing really that can be done about the first item (robotics and computerization). These had dramatic increases in productivity which didn't require similar increases in worker skill.
The Couriers of Express are about to be hit by this whammy - use of computerization that makes their skill set obsolete. And there are still doubters out there...
Gold standard had to end - there just isn't enough gold in the world to match up with the growth of economic output. If gold was being 'found' at the same rate as worldwide economies were growing, then the gold standard could've been maintained. It wasn't, so it couldn't be maintained.
Globalization has aided developing countries, but has devastated the manufacturing base of developed countries. Manufacturing was sent overseas, goods were imported along with unemployment, thus causing a decline in the equilibrium wage rate in developed countries (wage stagnation while productivity continues to increase).
The collapse of labor unions is obvious, and a restoration of balance between corporations and labor unions is part of the solution to the problem.
#'s 1, 2 and 5, there is nothing that can change that.
For globalization, a realization that 'free trade' is a misnomer, and that trade much like other things in macroeconomics, needs to be regulated to protect the employment markets of the citizens within developed nations - EVEN IF it results in price rises in certain goods. The resulting increase in prices of certain manufactured goods would more than be made up by the increase in average wage rate, increase in tax revenue, decrease in unemployment, decline in population needing government assistance, increasing investment WITHIN developed nations to 'get around' high tariffs on certain goods, thus providing more jobs within developed nations, thus providing more tax revenue, narrowing the deficit, and on and on.
To put it bluntly, buying cheap goods from China is KILLING us and we are paying the price for it. In addition, a welfare state CANNOT exist with 'free trade'. One or the other has to go, or the economy eventually collapses (Europe is in the early stages of this).
Finally, the need for labor unions to reestablish balance between the interests of shareholders and employees is part of the solution to the mismatch between productivity and wages.
Somewhere, somehow, those that work for a wage are going to need to do something about their compensation not keeping pace with their increasing productivity. They only have one real, direct option - to ORGANIZE.
Outside that, the electorate will need to come to a 'collective realization' (despite what the hero thinks, collective action DOESN'T equate to communism) that either free trade or the welfare state will have to go - they both can't exist side by side. Since there is no sign that people want the welfare state to go away, that leaves 'free trade'. In addition, open borders can't co-exist with a welfare state and not have what is happening in Europe happen here. One or the other has to go. Eventually, the borders will have to be secured - the collective electorate will eventually realize that and vote accordingly.
Some take up the cause of trying to save the whales, some try to free Tibet. I'm just trying to get the Couriers of Express to get off their butts and organize. That is my 'lost cause'.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I would think it would have been fairly easy----just have them read his post.
bbsam, you are right when you say that Ground is still in it's infancy.
Notice that your stat starts in 1945. We were the only industrial power standing at the end of WWII. Everything that was great about America was due to having a decades long advantage over others while they rebuilt. Because they have caught up, resulting in a race to the bottom with manufacturing shifting to offshore sites, we simply have too much capacity to produce and not enough markets to consume. The real action today is in developing nations. The single best thing we can do in the U.S. today to become competitive and bring back much needed manufacturing is to become energy independent. Otherwise unionization is just fighting over scraps. I hate to say it, won't make me popular, but at this point, what the hell, the Ground contractor model is the most efficient model in this environment to insure survival of the company. The money is no longer there to support an overnight express company on it's own merits. Couple that with the growth of the socialist nanny state and the huge debt load that's being managed by printing money and we are very near to financial disaster. No one wants to hear it, we all want America's glory days, but between capitalists seeking to maximize profit, a huge, willing workforce in China and elsewhere willing to work for much less, and public and private unions seeking to maximize income here, it's highly unlikely we'll see in our lifetimes a return to American dominance.
thedownhillEXPRESS
Well-Known Member
We also had tax rates on the wealthy that were much higher than we have today.(above 90 percent for many years)
This allowed for investment in our infrastructure, education, and law enforcement and kept the pressure off the middle and lower class.It also kept their political clout under control.
Now we have the opposite in that the rich live in their private enclaves with their own security(and tiny tax rates) and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves while Rome crumbles down around us.
The rich can afford to pay more but fact is they are already paying the majority of income taxes. What's not said about that 90% rate was it was only on income above a certain amount and the rich avoided it with legal loopholes. What's also not said is we have a much larger population with a much greater % receiving both earned and unearned entitlements. There's just not enough income out there to pay for all the programs we have now. And if you took it all, or even most of it, you take away the incentive to continue to produce. Then where do you get the taxes to pay for the entitlements? It's simply untrue that the rich have "tiny tax rates".
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
It's not only the wealthy who take advantage of the tax code.
thedownhillEXPRESS
Well-Known Member
The incentive to produce argument is hogwash.
Do you stop working in march after you make your first $8925?(10% tax rate)
If you earn above that you have to pay 15%(an additional 5%) on income between $8926 and $36250 (you still pay 10% below that $8925), any incentive lost?
Would you quit work if they said you were getting a huge raise and going to be making $200,000 a year(33% on income ABOVE 183,251))? Where is the incentive?
Its a ridiculous argument....
You should be happy you are not a at top rate and all that additional tax you would have to pay.
Do you stop working in march after you make your first $8925?(10% tax rate)
If you earn above that you have to pay 15%(an additional 5%) on income between $8926 and $36250 (you still pay 10% below that $8925), any incentive lost?
Would you quit work if they said you were getting a huge raise and going to be making $200,000 a year(33% on income ABOVE 183,251))? Where is the incentive?
Its a ridiculous argument....
You should be happy you are not a at top rate and all that additional tax you would have to pay.
Last edited:
thedownhillEXPRESS
Well-Known Member
And what the heck are they producing anyway?
We are the productive ones.
We are the productive ones.
Okay, start a company. Hire 10,000 people. Have an $800,000 salary that the total tax burden takes away 80%. Your stock isn't performing well so you aren't making money that way. Your employees want more. Gov't regulations make paperwork compliance a nightmare. You decide that the $160k you have left over after paying federal, state, and local taxes isn't worth it. You shut down the company. 10,000 out of work and you are living on your assets in Costa Rica. Just one scenario out of millions out there. If starting a company doesn't matter, if what they do is no big deal, it's the workers who do everything afterall, then why don't you guys get together and start your own company? It's a piece of cake and you can show the world how to do it properly. And no, not defending FedEx because they are a shining example of taking advantage of their workforce to enrich themselves. Just trying to illustrate it isn't as cut and dried as you make it sound with all companies, all the wealthy. My only concern is that I'm paid fairly for what I do. I could care less how much the guy has in the bank, how wonderful his lifestyle is compared to mine. He should pay his fair share in taxes, but what I see here is wanting to confiscate his wealth because he has and you don't. If you take away the incentive to take risks, to produce, and yes by risking their capital and organizing an enterprise they are producing, then our system completely unravels. A system where everyone has equal outcomes has been proven to not work, and we won't get it right somehow if we keep trying. Flame away....
thedownhillEXPRESS
Well-Known Member
No one is taking 80% of anything.
Its a graduated tax rate.
If we want to use 80% as a starter, ok.
The person making the 800,000 dollars still pays 10% on his first x amount, then 15% ,then 25% then 33% and finally 37.5 % the 37.5(never mind 80) is never applied to his/her entire earnings no matter how many bazzillions of dollars one makes.
If there was an 80% top tax rate on income above 800,000 dollars are you saying no one would ever try to make more than 800,000 dollars?
People did it back then when it was higher (with great economic expansion)and people do it now, no one ever tries to stop earning more money, because it doesnt work that way.The government does not go apply that higher tax rate to money under neath the higher tax bracket.It is only applied on the higher amount and that earned above.
Bottom line is there is still more money to be made, not more taken away.
More would be taken away only in a situation of applying the highest rate retroactively once you hit a certain income, that is not what happens.
As for moving and living off your assets in a third world country, how did that work out for John Mcaffee in Belize?(neighbor of Costa Rica)
That is a huge risk as one quickly realizes they have no protections as they did in America, and the corruption in government and the legal systems are insane as compared to ours.
If you think the mexican border with us is porous, can you imagine what it is in the central american countries?
I know alot about Costa Rica.I have seen your posts about it but have refrained from comment.But please do a ton of research if you do decide to make the move.Read the tico times(San Jose's main newspaper) Read some blogs about crime.One area that sounded like heaven a few years ago is turning into a war zone,Puerto Viejo.
Read what is happening because of the drug trade.
Sorry I went off topic of taxes......
Gotta go to church now, Happy Easter...
Its a graduated tax rate.
If we want to use 80% as a starter, ok.
The person making the 800,000 dollars still pays 10% on his first x amount, then 15% ,then 25% then 33% and finally 37.5 % the 37.5(never mind 80) is never applied to his/her entire earnings no matter how many bazzillions of dollars one makes.
If there was an 80% top tax rate on income above 800,000 dollars are you saying no one would ever try to make more than 800,000 dollars?
People did it back then when it was higher (with great economic expansion)and people do it now, no one ever tries to stop earning more money, because it doesnt work that way.The government does not go apply that higher tax rate to money under neath the higher tax bracket.It is only applied on the higher amount and that earned above.
Bottom line is there is still more money to be made, not more taken away.
More would be taken away only in a situation of applying the highest rate retroactively once you hit a certain income, that is not what happens.
As for moving and living off your assets in a third world country, how did that work out for John Mcaffee in Belize?(neighbor of Costa Rica)
That is a huge risk as one quickly realizes they have no protections as they did in America, and the corruption in government and the legal systems are insane as compared to ours.
If you think the mexican border with us is porous, can you imagine what it is in the central american countries?
I know alot about Costa Rica.I have seen your posts about it but have refrained from comment.But please do a ton of research if you do decide to make the move.Read the tico times(San Jose's main newspaper) Read some blogs about crime.One area that sounded like heaven a few years ago is turning into a war zone,Puerto Viejo.
Read what is happening because of the drug trade.
Sorry I went off topic of taxes......
Gotta go to church now, Happy Easter...
