Could Trump expose another UAW disconnect?

[HeavyGunner]

The only way I see that I might be able to semi-retire early is by putting more money into my 401k. The only way I can do that is living slightly leaner than your average American. I don't have any vehicle payments because I drive older vehicles. My wife and I have been on one vacation where we actually left the state the rest of them are usually under 200 miles. We don't have a large expensive house and we don't live beyond our means. We try to do as much as we can ourselves rather than hire things out. I'm not trying to sound overly smart or arrogant because I am neither but I have observed that most people are in quite a bit of debt and are not thinking of the future. My hope is maybe I will have everything paid for and have enough money that I can start traveling more with out sacrificing savings for retirement. But who knows only time will tell. 

[kscarbel2]

16 minutes ago, HeavyGunner said:

The only way I see that I might be able to semi-retire early is by putting more money into my 401k. The only way I can do that is living slightly leaner than your average American. I don't have any vehicle payments because I drive older vehicles. My wife and I have been on one vacation where we actually left the state the rest of them are usually under 200 miles. We don't have a large expensive house and we don't live beyond our means. We try to do as much as we can ourselves rather than hire things out. I'm not trying to sound overly smart or arrogant because I am neither but I have observed that most people are in quite a bit of debt and are not thinking of the future. My hope is maybe I will have everything paid for and have enough money that I can start traveling more with out sacrificing savings for retirement. But who knows only time will tell. 

Your typical 401K scenario is a scam. The mutual funds you are limited to choose from are generally underachievers. The mutual funds provide various forms of kickbacks to the 401K program provider, and sometimes to the company.

Whether or not you should even waste your time with a 401K that grows slow as molasses......if it in fact does grow, depends on your company's contribution.

Land remains a good investment, in the right place and at the right time.

As for mutual funds, the US and European markets (companies) have long ago peaked. And, the major financial institutions there are, frankly speaking, corrupt. Latin America is too volatile.

The only global region that is still immature, with many years of profitable growth ahead for investors, is Asia (that includes India).

 

[41chevy]

I joined the Teamsters in 1973 working for Horan Sand and Gravel and still keep my dues up to date until I retired this May. I opened my own salvage hauling business and an other doing sea walls and break waters. I would not ever hire any union people in the 25 years I had the business. I wanted to chose my jobs ,workers and suppliers and actually make money and not be forced pay union "fees" and work on their schedules. My guys worked year round. . . no lay offs, slow downs or other crap. Almost 44 years in 282 and piss on them, all they had was a hand in my pocket all those years.   

[HeavyGunner]

Yeah but the problem with land is it takes a pile of money upfront. The last five years according to my vanguard statement says I've averaged 17% growth. I'll take that, I am by no means any kind of investment savant but I know that's better than putting it in a savings account and making virtually nothing on it while the banks use my money to profit. My company contributes a reasonable amount and I invest above and beyond their match. I figure if the economy fails to the point that I can't retire the whole country/world is in big trouble and any investment would be tanking as well. Just the opinion of an average joe. 

[41chevy]

21 minutes ago, HeavyGunner said:

Yeah but the problem with land is it takes a pile of money upfront. The last five years according to my vanguard statement says I've averaged 17% growth. I'll take that, I am by no means any kind of investment savant but I know that's better than putting it in a savings account and making virtually nothing on it while the banks use my money to profit. My company contributes a reasonable amount and I invest above and beyond their match. I figure if the economy fails to the point that I can't retire the whole country/world is in big trouble and any investment would be tanking as well. Just the opinion of an average joe. 

We bought houses , bought into businesses and 300 acres of forest / farm land in VA. and add as much to the group  every time we could, not stocks or other investments.First house helped by the second and so on. We bought bank short sales and such. The land in Va my self and two good friends bought a 750 acre parcel and we took the 300 acre section with close to 1000 car and truck carcasses from the 1920's to the mid 1960s in the fields and woods.       Paul

Edited August 2, 2016 by 41chevy

[Underdog]

Better off doing as much for yourself as possible. That way, you aren't indebted to anyone, and when your benefactor fails, you won't be too disappointed. As far as social security goes, the only reform I would like to see is a waiver to opt out. I don't want to contribute, and I expect nothing at retirement. Let me keep my money and invest it myself. A bank savings account gives a better return.

But, alas, that's not how socialism works. They need my money to support all the slacks living off the system.

[HeavyGunner]

3 hours ago, 41chevy said:

We bought houses , bought into businesses and 300 acres of forest / farm land in VA. and add as much to the group  every time we could, not stocks or other investments.First house helped by the second and so on. We bought bank short sales and such. The land in Va my self and two good friends bought a 750 acre parcel and we took the 300 acre section with close to 1000 car and truck carcasses from the 1920's to the mid 1960s in the fields and woods.       Paul

That's the problem I have with land, I have to extend myself (credit) and expose myself to more risk. If I got laid off tomorrow, I could pay my bills off of unemployment or a much lesser paying job. If I bought this ridiculously expensive land in Montana and got laid off I'd be in real trouble since I'd be in debt so far. I think the ability to be able to buy land, houses etc. as an investment is a thing of the past for all but the wealthy. No disrespect to anyone who can afford it but the only ones I see buying lots of land for investments or even enjoyment around here is the wealthy. $16-$40k an acre anywhere in the mountains isn't uncommon and $700-$2000 an acre on the east side (which is usually sold in big chunks) for farm or ranch land is way too far out of reach for most like myself. If land were reasonably affordable I'd have 1000 acres for myself. 

[grayhair]

4 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

So true grayhair.  Like it was said above unions started out as a very noble thing that gave underpaid over worked labor workers a fair wage. But like so many other things that started out with good intentions the pendulum swung waaaay to far the other way and now it's not a good thing. In my opinion the vast majority of unions do the very bare minimum as far as work goes but want the highest possible wage and bennies. Sorry but that business model doesn't work. When workers plan their day by their breaks and not around their work there is a problem. 

And above all you gotta watch out for yourself.  My advise, no matter how difficult, try to stash some funds in case hard times fall upon us.  Social Security will probably change and not for the better.  None of these pensions and annuities are really guaranteed.  Read the fine print (including Social Security) and you will be shocked.  

     http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-teamsters-pension-disappeared-more-quickly-under-wall-street-than-the-mob-2016-04-04

Edited August 2, 2016 by grayhair

[m16ty]

2 hours ago, 41chevy said:

I joined the Teamsters in 1973 working for Horan Sand and Gravel and still keep my dues up to date until I retired this May. I opened my own salvage hauling business and an other doing sea walls and break waters. I would not ever hire any union people in the 25 years I had the business. I wanted to chose my jobs ,workers and suppliers and actually make money and not be forced pay union "fees" and work on their schedules. My guys worked year round. . . no lay offs, slow downs or other crap. Almost 44 years in 282 and piss on them, all they had was a hand in my pocket all those years.   

I'm just curious, why did you keep paying union dues all those years when you weren't doing union work? You don't seem overly fond of unions, just trying to understand why you kept paying them. Was it to get some sort of pension when you retire? 

 

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, HeavyGunner said:

That's the problem I have with land, I have to extend myself (credit) and expose myself to more risk. If I got laid off tomorrow, I could pay my bills off of unemployment or a much lesser paying job. If I bought this ridiculously expensive land in Montana and got laid off I'd be in real trouble since I'd be in debt so far. I think the ability to be able to buy land, houses etc. as an investment is a thing of the past for all but the wealthy. No disrespect to anyone who can afford it but the only ones I see buying lots of land for investments or even enjoyment around here is the wealthy. $16-$40k an acre anywhere in the mountains isn't uncommon and $700-$2000 an acre on the east side (which is usually sold in big chunks) for farm or ranch land is way too far out of reach for most like myself. If land were reasonably affordable I'd have 1000 acres for myself. 

Paul bought his land in the right way, at the right time, and in the right place. I was never in a position to do that. But I was in a position to invest in Asia, the world's last growth region (again, Latin America is too dangerous).

The stock market is a scam, pure and simple. But there are moments when even the common man can partake in opportunities. You have to be unafraid to get in at the market bottom, rather than wait until its rising again. BMT Investors voted to get into Navistar (NAV) in January at $6 (it bottomed at $5.78), and look where it is today. 

I like the idea of Americans being able to "opt out" of social security. As you said, I don't want to finance (support) the ocean of "slacks" living off the system.

[grayhair]

Except we will still have to pay for the "slacks."  If we allow people to opt out of Social Security then some fraction of the population will fail to put away anything for retirement, will end up broke, and the government will end up picking up the tab for their support anyway.   I imagine anything one saves by not having to pay social security taxes will be lost to increased income taxes.  

I've paid Social Security taxes for 50 years.  Now, I expect the program to continue along to help support me for the next 20 years just the way I supported those that have gone before.

The real issue is the slackers who are a huge drain on the system and also the Democrats insistence on paying benefits to illegals.   Oh, and by the way, I pay income tax on my Social Security benefit. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by grayhair

[Underdog]

Except we will still have to pay for the "slacks."  If we allow people to opt out of Social Security then some fraction of the population will fail to put away anything for retirement, will end up broke, and the government will end up picking up the tab for their support anyway.   I imagine anything one saves by not having to pay social security taxes will be lost to increased income taxes.  

I've paid Social Security taxes for 50 years.  Now, I expect the program to continue along to help support me for the next 20 years just the way I supported those that have gone before.

The real issue is the slackers who are a huge drain on the system and also the Democrats insistence on paying benefits to illegals.   Oh, and by the way, I pay income tax on my Social Security benefit. 

Don't forget a big issue with social security is the "slacker" politicians who have no spine to do their jobs, and " borrow" funds from the social security trust.

[41chevy]

15 hours ago, m16ty said:

I'm just curious, why did you keep paying union dues all those years when you weren't doing union work? You don't seem overly fond of unions, just trying to understand why you kept paying them. Was it to get some sort of pension when you retire? 

 

Partly for the pension but mainly because for some material pick ups or site access I needed my teamsters card.

I had a lasting experience with the local union rep and his "help" in the late 70's on the Marcus Ave job site that really soured my impression of them at least in Nassau County for a long time. A kid about 19 or 20 was dropping off paychecks for the drivers working on the site. The 2 "aides" beat the crap out of the kid and tossed him off the site. He wasn't union and apparently didn't understand what they wanted of him. Changed my out look pretty quick.    Paul 

[HeavyGunner]

15 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Paul bought his land in the right way, at the right time, and in the right place. I was never in a position to do that. But I was in a position to invest in Asia, the world's last growth region (again, Latin America is too dangerous).

The stock market is a scam, pure and simple. But there are moments when even the common man can partake in opportunities. You have to be unafraid to get in at the market bottom, rather than wait until its rising again. BMT Investors voted to get into Navistar (NAV) in January at $6 (it bottomed at $5.78), and look where it is today. 

I like the idea of Americans being able to "opt out" of social security. As you said, I don't want to finance (support) the ocean of "slacks" living off the system.

Ok, dumb question. How do you know when something has bottomed out?  If it has bottomed out how do you invest? I know zero about the stock market. 

[kscarbel2]

4 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Ok, dumb question. How do you know when something has bottomed out?  If it has bottomed out how do you invest? I know zero about the stock market. 

Not a dumb question at all. Only the aristocracy of the rigged Wall Street system know the answer to that.

However, the common person can, at rare moments, follow them in the door and buy a good company at a ridiculously cheap price. With Navistar, one could well justify to start accumulating from $7, and on down to $6. I thought it might hit $5 before recovering, but it bottomed at $5.78

The aristocracy has for decades enhanced their wealth by luring the masses to buy stocks at ridiculous prices. They made a killing with Enron. Don't allow them to play you. Why should you finance their multi-million dollar homes at Sea Island and the Ocean Reef Club?

The 2008 stock market crash was a common man's bonanza. Since we're truck people, look at Oshkosh. A perfectly sound company whose stock went down solely because of the market. The stock had been in the $50s, and market crash sent it down to $3.85. If you had bought 5,000 to 10,000 share (it was soooo cheap), you'd have a great investment. It's in the $50 range again.

[m16ty]

It always puzzled me that when the stock market takes a dump, everybody sells out. When the market is high people buy. 

That seems completely backwards to me. When the stock market falls, that's the time to buy in my book. I prefer to buy low and sell high.

[kscarbel2]

On 7/28/2016 at 9:14 PM, kscarbel2 said:

John Irwin, Automotive News  /  July 27, 2016

UAW President Dennis Williams faces another potential headache less than a year after a contentious contract ratification process with the Detroit 3: Donald Trump.

Blue-collar support for Trump, who won the Republican presidential nomination in part by appealing to workers like those represented by the UAW, could threaten to expose another potential rift between union leadership and some rank-and-file members.

One rift was exposed last year when Fiat Chrysler workers soundly rejected an initial deal cut between union leadership and the automaker, when General Motors skilled-trades workers rejected and delayed ratification of a new contract and when leadership narrowly escaped another embarrassing rejection at the hands of Ford workers.

Although the UAW was able to secure significant gains with the Detroit 3 -- including an agreement to end the dreaded two-tier wage system -- the contentious ratification process exposed a significant gap between the priorities of union leadership and a large share of workers.

Now, Trump could expose another gap, and Williams says he and union leaders are doing everything in their power to keep that from happening.

Recent polls show blue-collar workers, especially white workers, supporting Trump by large margins. That could give Trump an advantage in the UAW’s home in the Rust Belt, where blue-collar voters typically lean Democratic but can be persuaded to vote Republican if a message resonates. (See: Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.)

Trump has tapped into blue-collar workers’ often legitimate fears about globalization and free-trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Many voters, especially those without college degrees and those who work in manufacturing, feel as though Washington has left them behind over the last few decades as jobs moved out of the country and wages stagnated.

Trump, who, to be sure, has also built his campaign on inflammatory rhetoric, racial resentment and xenophobia, has largely avoided specifics about how he would craft better trade deals. And, as Williams has pointed out, Trump has said things that could be unflattering to the average worker, suggesting that wages are too high and saying automakers should move production toward lower-wage states.

But that doesn’t seem to matter to many blue-collar voters. When presented with an option between Trump and Hillary Clinton -- an establishment politician who previously supported TPP before backtracking and whose husband signed NAFTA into law -- many of these workers are siding with the former reality TV star.

Williams, speaking with reporters Tuesday on a conference call from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, said the UAW would do everything it could to ensure Clinton becomes president and gets the support of as many union members as possible.

Williams said Clinton “made every indication” during a sit-down with her that she would renegotiate NAFTA as president, which Williams said would help win over UAW members reluctant to support her.

Williams also said the union has begun “engaging” workers on the election and has promised to knock on doors in each of the states the UAW is located.

“We believe that … the more we educate our members, the more they will support Hillary Clinton,” he said.

That engagement appears to be showing signs of working, if what Williams said is any indication. Williams said he estimates between 18 and 19 percent of UAW members support Trump today, down from the 28 percent of workers an internal poll found several months ago.

If those numbers are accurate, it is an encouraging sign that the UAW leadership is more effectively communicating with its members than it was last year, when Williams admitted the union was caught off guard by anti-ratification workers on social media.

But as last year showed, UAW leadership cannot afford to get complacent on messaging. Otherwise, if Trump rides on the support of enough blue-collar workers into office, that gap between leadership and some members could shut the union out of the White House for four or eight years.

Labor union anger fueled Trump in Midwest

Automotive News  /  November 9, 2016

Union members helped Republican Donald Trump win surprising victories in the industrial Midwest. In Ohio, Trump won a majority of votes from union members, according to exit polling, which also showed added strength for Trump in union households nationally and in other auto-producing states.

The reason, says labor expert Harley Shaiken: “Trump’s message resonated, and Clinton’s did not.”

Shaiken said Clinton may have underestimated “how much damage had been done to communities in the Midwest” as she talked about trade and the loss of manufacturing jobs. He said the UAW’s election efforts, as well as those from other unions, were swamped by the anger of Trump supporters.

“It was far more than any single union could address, and even the labor movement generally,” said Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

On social media, a number of UAW members said they supported Trump in the election and chided their union for its earlier support of Hillary Clinton over her Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

In a written statement, UAW President Dennis Williams thanked his members and retirees for their efforts during the campaign, and called for unity. “It’s obvious there is work to be done. We have high hopes that elected officials heard the American people loud and clear about trade, jobs, education and the inequality in this country.”

Williams is scheduled to speak to the media Thursday afternoon.

Shaiken said the election’s outcome will likely cause the UAW to “redouble” its ongoing organizing efforts under the current labor-friendly administration.

Though he didn’t get a vote, Jerry Dias, president of Unifor — the union representing tens of thousands of Canadian auto workers — was more blunt.

“The politics of hate are not part of my beliefs and move us [backward],” Dias wrote. “My resolve to fight for progressive change is renewed.”