UAW and Ford reach tentative agreement

[Timothyd]

In the case of housing, if a person has the means to purchase a second house or cabin, that is their business. I remember recently the gubmint proposing that single family housing is a bad thing. I guess if a single man can chooses to live in a large home he is a hopeless sinner? Give his home away, move a homeless family in, and stuff him in a studio.

Since when has equity been a guaran-damn-tee? If equity is the dream, it is a pipe dream.

If the only solution proposed to find "equity" in society is socialism, we're in trouble. There are lots of homeless, addicted, and unemployed who want what others have earned. Some simply take what they can't get. Millions of new migrants will soon be jumping on the equity bandwagon. That's a lot of housing folks would need to relinquish! Maybe if we have a spare car we can give them one of ours as well. People have needs, ya know?

There has never been true equality except where everyone is equally miserable.

Sponsored

 

[MMaverick]

Good on Ford for paying up, we need to quit punishing working Americans with lower wages and crap benefits at all levels if we want to encourage working. People whine about taxes, but that's our collective American fund. Our main problem is we worship the grifters of America who exploit and make money from other people's work or money and take a lion's share doing it. Of course people at the higher positions deserve more, that's fine, but not the obscene amounts they currently take and at the expense of the people that got them there. They promote the false notion of making as much as possible while working as little as possible, and that's unsustainable and puts their work work on us as well as our own work. They also over inflate their importance or role and gatekeep to hide their incompetence, and a lot of their "risk" is mitigated today. Push back on the grifters, push back on the CC companies, push back on monthly fees, push back on digging your own grave to make salespeople wealthy. Yes it takes hard work and saving and pushing yourself to achieve things, DUH that's a given, we know, we have been doing that since our first Lemonade stand. The problem is never us working folk, or the poor or disabled who can't work, the problem is always people taking too much for doing too little at the top. They don't care about you, so quit worshiping them.

This post should be required reading for every worker in this country.

My father taught me, that to get ahead, you need to first understand the system you are in. Then use every advantage within the system, under the law, to help you get to where you want to be. As someone who started on the bottom and was on a first name basis with the CEO at the end - while still being a worker - I learned that they all put their pants on the same way as us. The good ones surround themselves with as much talent as they can and share the rewards. The grifters keep most of it for themselves.

 

[turinswift]

Okay, we're strongly off-topic territory.

But I wanted to clarify some of what I was saying when it came to housing being post-scarcity.

It's not (or at least SIGNIFICANTLY LESS) about someone with a second house. It's about units and houses being intentionally left un-leased to artificially increase scarcity to justify higher rent prices. It's about empty, unsold, houses. You mentioned seeing the damage renters/squatters can do. I believe you. I had a part-time job many years ago working for the complex I lived in. I saw the state some leaving renters and/or evictees left apartments in. But that doesn't change the fact of empty units.

There is available, empty, unoccupied, not-personally-held housing. The "scarcity" is artificial. There are lots of arguable reasons, good and bad, for that "scarcity" but it doesn't change the fact that it's artificial, it's not caused by there not being places homeless people could, regardless of context or consequence, be put. Without forcing anyone to left someone live in your spare room, beach house, mountain cabin, whatever.

 

[TrailMaster]

Okay, we're strongly off-topic territory.

But I wanted to clarify some of what I was saying when it came to housing being post-scarcity.

It's not (or at least SIGNIFICANTLY LESS) about someone with a second house. It's about units and houses being intentionally left un-leased to artificially increase scarcity to justify higher rent prices. It's about empty, unsold, houses. You mentioned seeing the damage renters/squatters can do. I believe you. I had a part-time job many years ago working for the complex I lived in. I saw the state some leaving renters and/or evictees left apartments in. But that doesn't change the fact of empty units.

There is available, empty, unoccupied, not-personally-held housing. The "scarcity" is artificial. There are lots of arguable reasons, good and bad, for that "scarcity" but it doesn't change the fact that it's artificial, it's not caused by there not being places homeless people could, regardless of context or consequence, be put. Without forcing anyone to left someone live in your spare room, beach house, mountain cabin, whatever.

It may be off topic but it's an interesting discussion, and so far cordial which is wonderful. Sometimes topics do drift.

So, the government snatches up these "unoccupied" homes, I'm guessing on the taxpayer dollar. I presume they had owners who accepted a fair price. If they are abandoned, there are property and renovation considerations.

They move in a bunch of homeless people, some of them with addictions, mental health and medical issues and criminal histories. Then these upstanding unemployed people will their need utilities turned on, bills regularly paid, building maintenance, etc.. I guess again on Uncle Sam's dollar. Since drug abuse and resulting crime are introduced to the neighborhood, property values consequently drop. This could give the taxpayer an "opportunity" to purchase even more homeless shelters in the area, and pay even more tenant bills. And the cycle continues.

I don't know the answers, but it seems like the taxpayer will always pay.

Nothing is free. I would think if such a concept were to work, only potential "tenants" willing to work a steady job, and pay at least a minimal rent and utility fee that covers the sustainability of the housing unit should be considered. They would have to agree to seek and successfully follow through with mental health and drug abuse counseling if it is deemed necessary.

Only if these conditions are met would I agree to this idea, and then maybe only on an experimental basis. I foresee many of these homeless "victims of society" will hear those conditions and decide they would rather keep living in the streets. And that is the problem...

 

[turinswift]

It may be off topic but it's an interesting discussion, and so far cordial which is wonderful. Sometimes topics do drift.

So, the government snatches up these "unoccupied" homes, I'm guessing on the taxpayer dollar. I presume they had owners who accepted a fair price. If they are abandoned, there are property and renovation considerations.

They move in a bunch of homeless people, some of them with addictions, mental health and medical issues and criminal histories. Then these upstanding unemployed people will their need utilities turned on, bills regularly paid, building maintenance, etc.. I guess again on Uncle Sam's dollar. Since drug abuse and resulting crime are introduced to the neighborhood, property values consequently drop. This could give the taxpayer an "opportunity" to purchase even more homeless shelters in the area, and pay even more tenant bills. And the cycle continues.

I don't know the answers, but it seems like the taxpayer will always pay.

Nothing is free. I would think if such a concept were to work, only potential "tenants" willing to work a steady job, pay at least a minimal rent and utility fee that covers the sustainability of the housing unit. They would have to agree to seek and successfully follow through with mental health and drug abuse counseling if it is deemed necessary.

Only if these conditions are met would I agree to this idea, and then maybe only on an experimental basis.

So first, objectively, I want to try and stay in the bounds of the forum and try not to get TOO explicit with my personal views, etc. Just trying to define what I mean by "post-scarcity" in economic terms.

Secondly, I appreciate the civility in return. I'm also glad that at least one person isn't reading adversarial intent or hostility in what I'm saying. (I also can guess that my personal politics might not be in the majority in this forum. But I was excited about a hybrid small truck and I deep dive into things and this forum has been great for learning about the Maverick. I heart muh trukk.)

But with regards to housing issues. There have been several communities and large cities that have run essentially trials and experiments with providing (yes, at governmental/municipal expense) some basic housing for the homeless. Now, it should be noted that while SOME of the homeless population DO have addiction and mental health issues, they are a "vocal majority". A lot are just very unfortunate people and families. And a lot of us are one real bad emergency from being in the same shoes. But the end result of a lot of these policies ended up saving the government money. It was less expensive to put a roof over these people's heads than it was to police/jail/hospitalize/etc the same. With a house come security and stability. Those are great for mental health and help treat a lot of secondary causes for addiction seeking behaviors. A mailing address and a closet means people can more easily apply for jobs, bathe regularly, put Interview Clothes in a clean space, store perishables for better nutrition. All of that. It gave people a leg up and helped a lot of them get solid employment, mental health treatment, beat addiction. I don't believe for a second that they were ever 100% effective, but it came out to a net positive for those communities. And there were some regulations involved in the housing. People had to be looking for work and/or using placement services for employment, they had to be/get/stay sober, there were criminal history considerations.

But it did require governmental costs. That's true. The State did do that, not private organizations or citizens. And one can argue whether or not it's better or worse for government versus private citizens should be doing that. But even if we remove ANY discussion of whether there were benefits or not, the scarcity of the housing is still, technically, artificial instead of natural. People aren't homeless because there's a literal lack of empty apartments or houses to put them in.

 

[TrailMaster]

So first, objectively, I want to try and stay in the bounds of the forum and try not to get TOO explicit with my personal views, etc. Just trying to define what I mean by "post-scarcity" in economic terms.

Secondly, I appreciate the civility in return. I'm also glad that at least one person isn't reading adversarial intent or hostility in what I'm saying. (I also can guess that my personal politics might not be in the majority in this forum. But I was excited about a hybrid small truck and I deep dive into things and this forum has been great for learning about the Maverick. I heart muh trukk.)

But with regards to housing issues. There have been several communities and large cities that have run essentially trials and experiments with providing (yes, at governmental/municipal expense) some basic housing for the homeless. Now, it should be noted that while SOME of the homeless population DO have addiction and mental health issues, they are a "vocal majority". A lot are just very unfortunate people and families. And a lot of us are one real bad emergency from being in the same shoes. But the end result of a lot of these policies ended up saving the government money. It was less expensive to put a roof over these people's heads than it was to police/jail/hospitalize/etc the same. With a house come security and stability. Those are great for mental health and help treat a lot of secondary causes for addiction seeking behaviors. A mailing address and a closet means people can more easily apply for jobs, bathe regularly, put Interview Clothes in a clean space, store perishables for better nutrition. All of that. It gave people a leg up and helped a lot of them get solid employment, mental health treatment, beat addiction. I don't believe for a second that they were ever 100% effective, but it came out to a net positive for those communities. And there were some regulations involved in the housing. People had to be looking for work and/or using placement services for employment, they had to be/get/stay sober, there were criminal history considerations.

But it did require governmental costs. That's true. The State did do that, not private organizations or citizens. And one can argue whether or not it's better or worse for government versus private citizens should be doing that. But even if we remove ANY discussion of whether there were benefits or not, the scarcity of the housing is still, technically, artificial instead of natural. People aren't homeless because there's a literal lack of empty apartments or houses to put them in.

There are truths in both of our perspectives and statements. I think potential solutions allowing for economic feasibility and tenant accountability lie somewhere in between.

 

[Barracuda340]

There has never been true equality except where everyone is equally miserable.

That is typical of communist countries that is unless you are a party "apparatchik" (Trotskyite, or gubmint ass kisser). Then you get your own one family dacha, various perks, and a nicer car than a Lada Nivea. Maybe a nice Volga. You may even be able to pick out its color. You wont get a Zil though. Those are reserved for the higher ranking communist party members, and come with their own chauffeur.

 

[Barracuda340]

So first, objectively, I want to try and stay in the bounds of the forum and try not to get TOO explicit with my personal views, etc. Just trying to define what I mean by "post-scarcity" in economic terms.

Secondly, I appreciate the civility in return. I'm also glad that at least one person isn't reading adversarial intent or hostility in what I'm saying. (I also can guess that my personal politics might not be in the majority in this forum. But I was excited about a hybrid small truck and I deep dive into things and this forum has been great for learning about the Maverick. I heart muh trukk.)

But with regards to housing issues. There have been several communities and large cities that have run essentially trials and experiments with providing (yes, at governmental/municipal expense) some basic housing for the homeless. Now, it should be noted that while SOME of the homeless population DO have addiction and mental health issues, they are a "vocal majority". A lot are just very unfortunate people and families. And a lot of us are one real bad emergency from being in the same shoes. But the end result of a lot of these policies ended up saving the government money. It was less expensive to put a roof over these people's heads than it was to police/jail/hospitalize/etc the same. With a house come security and stability. Those are great for mental health and help treat a lot of secondary causes for addiction seeking behaviors. A mailing address and a closet means people can more easily apply for jobs, bathe regularly, put Interview Clothes in a clean space, store perishables for better nutrition. All of that. It gave people a leg up and helped a lot of them get solid employment, mental health treatment, beat addiction. I don't believe for a second that they were ever 100% effective, but it came out to a net positive for those communities. And there were some regulations involved in the housing. People had to be looking for work and/or using placement services for employment, they had to be/get/stay sober, there were criminal history considerations.

But it did require governmental costs. That's true. The State did do that, not private organizations or citizens. And one can argue whether or not it's better or worse for government versus private citizens should be doing that. But even if we remove ANY discussion of whether there were benefits or not, the scarcity of the housing is still, technically, artificial instead of natural. People aren't homeless because there's a literal lack of empty apartments or houses to put them in.

I appreciate what you are saying, however when you are saying govermental/municipal expense, that is actually coming from the property tax the homeowner pays, and or state income tax if your state confiscates a state income tax to pay for this.

My wife works with addicts at Serenity House drug and alcohol rehab. The place she works at is a non for profit, and works solely on donations. A large donor was actor Larry Hagman "JR Ewing of Dallas fame" who went there for Alcoholism when he was alive. When he passed away, he left a large portion of his money to them. Of course that was a long time ago since he died in 2012. Those funds dried up a long time ago.

So she works in the detox department. Some of em do get cleaned up, go through the coping with addiction programs after detox and never come back. Others are "frequent flyers" as she calls them. They get sobered up, play the game with the coping with addiction program, then go right back to the drugs or alcohol because they can get back that original high they used to get. She sees plenty of em in the obituaries, or police blotter afterwards.

We have had issues with builders building homes, and buyers backing out. Then sitting 6 months to several years before people buying them. That's not artificial empty housing.

While I agree theres good people that hit rock bottom every day, and God I hope it never happens to me, it's extremely hard to pick n choose who to help. This is why I understand why most folks dont. There are non for profit organizations and places like the salvation army that try to help, and honestly it's better to never let the Gubmint get involved in any of this. Everything they do, they do badly, with lots of waste, and fraud. Except for the military. The gubmint is really good at that. Our military is pretty damn good at killing people and blowing stuff up.

 

[Barracuda340]

I am glad they worked out an agreement. I feel like this will accelerate the demise of the big 3 unless they automate more, and offshore more of their operations.

 

[Blue1005]

Interesting how Detroit was thought to be the city of the future, them UAW came in. How did that go...

 

[ejgroth2620]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...tive-deal-with-union-sources-say/71318908007/

Happy workers do a better job and are more productive.

EDIT: I see this news has already been posted but can't figure out how to delete this thread.

These Mofo's demands are outrageous and simply a matter of greed. They're putting their companies out of business and ultimately their jobs will disappear or go to Canada or Mexico. Legacy costs of their prior contracts adds over $3,000 to the cost of each vehicle manufactured. The CEO's of Ford and GM should declare bankruptcy and rid themselves of unions as part of the reorganization.

 

[SLINGSHOT]

Yes, let's get rid of the unions. Being a peon or a serf is a lot better.

 

[Timothyd]

Yes, let's get rid of the unions. Being a peon or a serf is a lot better.

Keep the unions, get rid of union management and officers. Flush the toilet.
They are still peons, they just have another layer of parasites above them.

 

[mitchwkr]

Next Stop.....................Government Bailout with our tax money. SCAM from the beginning.

 

[fossil]

Toyota steps up immediately a rising tide floats all boats

"We value our employees and their contributions, and we show it by offering robust compensation packages that we continually review to ensure that we remain competitive within the automotive industry," Chris Reynolds, executive vice president of corporate resources for Toyota Motor North America, said in a statement.

Details: Pro-union publication Labor Notes reported Tuesday that Toyota workers got pay increases of $2.94 to a maximum of $34.80 per hour for production workers and $3.70 to a maximum of $43.20 per hour for skilled trades employees.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/toyota-raises-uaw-strike-ford-gm

Sponsored