...   
      
    DD>> If you enjoy an annual vacation, a base 40 hour week, a   
    DD>> less-than-seven-day work week, etc. then you owe the union movement a   
    DD>> debt of gratitude even if you don't directly owe it any dues.   
      
    JM> Then I don't owe them nothing. A 40 hr five days a week is   
    JM> for someone that will settle for the mediocre. If you want   
    JM> the nicer toys you have to work more.   
      
    And that is the problem. If you want nicer toys you should work   
    smarter, not longer. You have to trade family time for toys, a   
    very bad deal.   
      
    JM>>> I have no problem paying for my supper.   
      
    DD>> Probably because a union some where/when negotiated a living wage.   
      
    JM> What is a living wage? Is it the same in New York City as   
    JM> in Live Oak FL.? "Living wage," is a worth less phrase, it   
    JM> means nothing.   
      
    It means a very great deal. The "is it the same" arguement is   
    what means nothing. Just like a living wage in 1900 would not be   
    the same in 2000. A living wage is one that allows you to live   
    at a decent standard.   
      
    Long ago I decided a 'living wage' is one that allows you to   
    raise a family at a middle class standard of living on 40 hours   
    a week. Right now that would be about $50K-$60 yr around here.   
    In Chicago or NYC or LA it would be higher, but the standard is   
    still valid.   
      
    If you earn $40K/yr you may make it ok, but that's the low end   
    of middle class. Somewhere above $70K becomes upper middle   
    class. At $300K you are clearly upper class. Maybe lower upper   
    class today, but still doing very well indeed.   
      
    Nobody says the limits are exact, but they can be reasonably   
    determined.   
      
    JM>>> You talk of going back. Dumping the union is a step forward for the   
    JM>>> individual.   
      
    DD>> And there, my fine right-winger we have a basic disconnect. Keeping and   
    DD>> strengthening the unions (yes, and getting them off their arses to do   
    DD>> what their original purpose was) is the basis of an improving economy   
    DD>> and a growing and healthy middle class.   
      
    JM> I'm sure you believe that.  I'm not sure anyone that truly   
    JM> thinks about it would agree. I certainly don't.   
      
    I don't think anyone who truly thought about it would disagree.   
      
    DD>> Dumping the unions only works if you're already a member of the 1%. Are   
    DD>> you?   
      
    JM> Sorry I don't agree withe premise of your question. IF a   
    JM> person has a marketable job skill and the talent to promote   
    JM> themselves  they will always do better to dump the union   
    JM> and represent themselves as an individual. IMO. That is the   
    JM> only way they stand a chance in hell of getting to be the   
    JM> 1%.   
      
    And you are wrong about that. A lawyer or doctor can make the 1%   
    based on something stronger than a union, they have laws   
    limiting who can practice their profession. I believe doctor is   
    the largest group in the 1%.   
      
    And a marketable job skill is not all that uncommon, so you   
    depend on self promotion talent as the standard for deserving a   
    decent living it would seem. Every mechanic or carpenter or   
    electrician or any skilled worker has a marketable job skill.   
    That didn't stop them from living poor before the unions came   
    along.   
      
    Education has been recognized as a government responsibility in   
    this country since before there was this country. In 1635, by   
    the records, it was recognized. That has been how it was   
    throughout the growth of this country. We have reached a point   
    where a much higher level of education is necessary to   
    participate in the growth and support of the country. Therefor I   
    say education through college should be a government   
    responsibility.   
      
    Which education would make law or medicine accessible to even   
    the poor, where ability would be the standard, not family   
    background or wealth. I do believe the JD degree was created to   
    keep people out of the profession. It used to be the case that   
    you could become a lawyer with a LLB, bachelor of law degree. I   
    know some countries used to have a bachelor of medicine degree.   
    After all, law school or med school are not 4 years, and neither   
    have a real BA that actually leads to knowledge of the subject.   
      
    In Switzerland medicine costs about 1/3rd less of the economy   
    than here, doctors make a lot less money than they do here, but   
    they leave med school with zero debt. BTW, that 1/3rd less, in   
    our economy, would save this country $1 Trillion a year. That's   
    not the $500 billion over ten years the right wing complains   
    about in Obamacare, but $1Trillion each and ever year.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 And Still Here. Join Us: www.DocsPl (1:123/140)