Skip to comments.Not exactly the 99%: Top union leaders’ salaries
Posted on 08/25/2012 8:16:00 PM PDT by Libloather
Not exactly the 99%: Top union leaders salaries
August 23, 2012 | 11:51 am
Advocating for the working man doesnt pay too poorly, it seems. Heres a list of the annual salaries and benefits earned by the nations top labor officials, according to the Labor Department. This data is based on 2011 filings:
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka $293,750.
National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel $460,060
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Now, now, Trumka — envy is a sin!
yeah, but how much of the dues goes to support communists to support legislation favorable to the unions?
there should be absolutely no unionization of public employees. even fdr was against that.
When I taunt my teacher niece with the theory that educators really don’t care about the poor because they pay their Union president in NJ something like $500k a year, all that evil 1% business goes out the window and she snaps “he’s worth it”......
Actually, to be in the top 1% in trms of income, you need to have needed to have an adjusted gross income of more than $424,000.
The real jump is in terms of net wealth, where you need $8.4 million to be in the top 1%.
Less than half of the top 1% in income qualify under the top 1% net wealth matrix.
The US also has the highest income inequality of any industrialised country, and dozens of less developed countries. Even Iran is lower. This started taking off in th mid-80’s nd has continued under both parties.
Finally, in terms of upward social mobilty in the top 50 industrialised nations, only Britian is worse than the US, again since the 80’s this has been the case.
I don’t believe that these union stats, are anywhere on the same plane as the SEC requirements for private co. execs.
Like, what is your deferred salary?? What is your pension benefit?? What is the Ferrari lease cost? How many hours did you fly in the union jet that was charged to you?? Country Club dues?? Lifetime medical benefits?? Your Spouse?? Yacht usage?? Free trips to Las Vegas?, and free chips?....
Data is total horseshit!
The dumb and blind 99 percenters think anyone making over $250,000 a year rich. However, show them these stats and they’ll most likely give you a blank stare. You’ll be able to look into their eyes and see there’s nothing there. If you can stomach being that close to one.
The US kind of capitalism has always been unashamed to confess that it offers dramatically unequal shares — of a far bigger pie.
To all of you drones who love and respect your union bosses: If you haven’t figured out by now that you are a chump, you are probably too stupid to KNOW that you are stupid. Bob
When you deride income inequality, you are really advocating that the poor should be poorer, so long as the rich are less rich!
.......and that’s not counting what they steal.
It was Jack Kennedy who signed the bill permitting the
Unionization of Govt. Employees.
thanks for that. i didn’t know.
70% of the US economy is based on internal consumption, and the entire economic scheme will come crashing down as you remove purchasing power from a huge swath of the populace.
A main fundamental driver downward for the US comes from the ‘comparative advantage’ vs ‘absolute advantage’ free trade models.
In the comparative advantage model (Germany is a great example), there is a public/private consensus to not hollow out the inherent industrial production base of the nation-state.
Over 80% of all industrial and technological innovations that drive the engine of a firm’s success occur during the ‘scaling-up’ production process. When the production factories and their supporting infrastructures are shipped out of the home country, you lose tremendous human capital in terms of innovation and also a culture of craftsmanship and knowledge.
The US, for the last 40 plus years has increasingly went to the ‘absolute advantage’ model, wherein there is a never-ending chase to find cheaper and cheaper labour cost, regardless of the effects the resulting job and production migration has on the home populace. Not only has this had a devastating effect on the number of well-paying manufacturing jobs, but America has now lost an extraordinary amount of human capital in terms of highly-complex production knowledge and ethos.
The school systems of America are also ill-suited to produce such a workforce, as now there are precious few jobs of this type to train for. To reverse this would take decades, as there have been at least 2 full generations lost to the outflow of the industrial base.
Bottom line, you know have a future to look forward to of lower and pay and purchasing power for an ever-increasing percentage of the populace, who will in turn be in need of more and more largesse in the form of public aid tossed out from the state simply to survive.
Combine this with the utterly corrosive effects of dollar devaluation in terms of purchasing power (breathed into life by the IMF, Federal Reserve, BIS and the international web of private systemic banks in order to simply service their $100 trillion plus of debt with this debased currency), and it spells a wide-spread unraveling of the American social fabric and its hegemonical monetary system.
You seem to be stating that the root cause of income inequality is Free Trade. That is not true at all. Globally, we have a couple of scenarios that create income inequality.
First, you have income inequality that is the result of an active and growing economy. This type if inequality is brought to us by capitalism. In this case, we do have an inequality between the very rich and the poor, however the poor in this system are much richer than the poor in the other systems.
Second, you have income inequality that is the result of a stagnant or shrinking economy. This type of inequality is brought to us by centrally commanded economies that go by many nomenclatures. In this case, our inequality is even more stark between the very rich and the poor. However, the poor in this scenario are extremely poor, even to the point of starving to death.
I prefer a free market capitalist system that creates an active economy, resulting in income inequality that in reality offers a much better quality of life to the poor. I’ll defer to Margaret Thatcher on this one:
Now, you complain of the exiting of manufacturing from our industrial base, yet you provide no solutions. Personally, I am supportive of free trade, so long as it is truly free. It does allow for the most efficient cost model for any specific product being produced, RM being mined, etc.
My solution to bringing manufacturing jobs back to America is to make us the most competitive market for manufacturers. How do we do this? We QUIT adding to the burden of manufactures with the myriad of regulations that continually evolve to ever more burdening regulations and we remove all corporate taxes. I’d much prefer the FairTax to our current style of punishing producers.
When we tax and regulate manufacturers with the INTENT of punishing them, then we should not be surprised when they leave. It is no different than beating ones wife and then being surprised when she leaves....