Just wondering if everybody should just accept pay and health insurance cuts due to the economy

i guess the argument goes like this:

auto workers are lucky to even have jobs, pay and benefit cuts are the least they can expect.

government workers across the board are weathering the recession better than many so cuts and reductions are the right thing to do(except tens of thousands of low-seniority teachers who weren't making much anyway and have been laid-off, and CA and other state employees who thanks to pay cuts or furloughs have been hit with as much as 15% pay cuts.

private sector employees who haven't experienced bad times really should feel some pain too...if you are middle class and have been spared, your pay should be cut, you should lose some benefits --it's only fair.

all this is needed to restore profitability to the economy...or is profitability already occurring without all these changes? well, okay, granted, these things aren't necessary to restore profitability and productivity --it's just that if you all take these reductions (private sector) those in management will be able to report this to stockholders and they will get bonuses when the stock goes up a buck or whatever. and this will benefit all of us --eventually. i mean, this is how the economy works.

you that help the country produce this and that for your employer, but at a modest cost --you are lucky to be employed.

you that are at the top and paid hundreds of times more, your company is lucky to have you --accept no reductions.

that's the way it works.

let's see where this leads us.

suck it up America. :crazy:




(do i need this -----------> :sarcasm: )

My company did an across the board 5% reduction two years ago, which resulted in me paying less in taxes (as my income was lower). Had my company (and others like it) not decreased wages, the government might have made more, not less, and might not require cuts to government employees. If you want more tax revenues, the government should encourage the private sector to pay their employees more.

they cause inflation.

reports of rising wages and lower unemployment scare the Fed, so they leap into action to "fix" things.

reports of falling wages and high unemployment, that also scares the Fed, and in that case, they deliberate over "tweaks", they trial balloon them, they toy with doing nothing, they say they're going to do something, maybe they do a little something.

if only median wage earners owned banks or something. :think:

If private sector employees were making more, they'd pay more in income tax, and maybe the government wouldn't need to screw it's workers too... Oh, who am I kidding, they'd still find other things to piss the money away on and screw federal workers anyway.

in reality, it doesn't help fund that many tax cuts for those above $250k...so obviously more cuts will be needed.

thus, the great compromise will enable the middle class to keep their tax cuts of perhaps, a couple grand per year and more of the wealthy to keep at least some of their tax cuts...(let me do some back of the envelope math here...if tax cuts are extended to 1 million rather than 250k, then continuing the 4% break will cost maybe 30k per earner.

but together, if poor people and middle income people kick in a few hundred in the way of cuts or reduced aid that increases the end cost to them...we can close that gap and everybody can celebrate (including the lowly rich --non millionaires)!

it just takes teamwork.

but if poor and middle income people take (sometimes additional) pay cuts, how does that help government workers?

On the other hand, it it weren't for all of us greedy little people (government and non-government alike) screwing up the system, the government and corporations could get back to what's really important (screwing up the system and ensuring large executive bonuses for under performance).

the middle and working classes need to be growing and they won't do that with less money.

these groups of people sacrifice through their labors and through lower rewards for a day's work than those in the upper incomes.

for those who aren't asked to sacrifice pay, they can contribute more in taxes.

everybody contributes in a way that reflects what they get out of their current spot in society.

think you see what their mindset is and where they want us to go.

It's hard to say it's not a plan.

NJ. The choice was between Corzine who avoided layoffs by making some property tax rebates a casualty and freezing wages and Christie, who was selling a special brand of it's all good bullshit. The result: NJ is stuck with this albatross, who practically killed the rebates and laid off more than 18,000 public employees.

Choices.


Salaries, benefits and even hours have been cut by private employers. When it comes to the middle class workers in the private and public sectors, there is no us versus them.

the company I work for I received a .5 raise and my supervisor was damn proud to give me that raise.

Who wants to take away their sixth yacht?

:D

cuts to the wages and benefits of working and middle class people.

obviously my post was summarizing a basic argument that's been presented time and time again, almost as gospel --and largely by people who will not have to live by it (the highly paid are not the intended targets of such cuts).

the corporations that have made record profits need to pay more taxes.

Both of these groups are experiencing the lowest tax rates and hand outs then they have in history. This is the big joke. The way the right tells it is that both of these groups are soley responsible for creating jobs, well if that is the case why do we have record unemployment rates?