Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TechMan on May 02, 2011, 02:37:53 PM
-
http://blogs.forbes.com/garyshapiro/2011/04/27/federal-government-attacks-on-boeing-fuel-our-national-economic-suicide/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/garyshapiro/2011/04/27/federal-government-attacks-on-boeing-fuel-our-national-economic-suicide/)
Boeing spends $2 billion and 3 years building a new plant in SC to build Dreamliners. NRLB orders Boeing to shutter the plant, because "Boeing's decision to locate it in South Carolina was in part based on a desire to avoid work stoppages and strikes, and this rationale was harmful to unions and thus an illegal act." This would have been an additional facility to manufacture the Dreamliners.
Read blog for more information. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
It doesn't matter if that company works at a profit, the members of those Unions need those jobs, and so deserve them. Besides, those greedy industrialists at Boeing can afford to hire them, they'll find a way to make it work.
[barf]
Two guesses as to what book I just finished reading.
-
It doesn't matter if that company works at a profit, the members of those Unions need those jobs, and so deserve them. Besides, those greedy industrialists at Boeing can afford to hire them, they'll find a way to make it work.
[barf]
Two guesses as to what book I just finished reading.
Rules for radicals?
http://blogs.forbes.com/garyshapiro/2011/04/27/federal-government-attacks-on-boeing-fuel-our-national-economic-suicide/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/garyshapiro/2011/04/27/federal-government-attacks-on-boeing-fuel-our-national-economic-suicide/)
Boeing spends $2 billion and 3 years building a new plant in SC to build Dreamliners. NRLB orders Boeing to shutter the plant, because "Boeing's decision to locate it in South Carolina was in part based on a desire to avoid work stoppages and strikes, and this rationale was harmful to unions and thus an illegal act." This would have been an additional facility to manufacture the Dreamliners.
Read blog for more information. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
How long before the entire country is ordered unionized......
-
Wait wait wait wait.
It is now the official position of the U.S. government that taking any action that is harmful to unions is illegal for employers? Is that actually what they said or is it the reporter's interpretation of a more complex ruling?
-
It doesn't matter if that company works at a profit, the members of those Unions need those jobs, and so deserve them. Besides, those greedy industrialists at Boeing can afford to hire them, they'll find a way to make it work.
[barf]
Two guesses as to what book I just finished reading.
2 words
1st word begins with an "A"
2nd word ends with a "d". ;)
-
Wait wait wait wait.
It is now the official position of the U.S. government that taking any action that is harmful to unions is illegal for employers? Is that actually what they said or is it the reporter's interpretation of a more complex ruling?
Considering that during the Bush and Clinton years, all the new car plants went into right to work states....I think the writer is paraphrasing a much more complex Obama administration policy....Welcome to the new Amerika, Comrade!
-
Adively wins a cigar!
-
More concise article: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_c5e37616-033a-5702-8429-3b8bc62c9d3b.html (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_c5e37616-033a-5702-8429-3b8bc62c9d3b.html)
-
From second article:
"Boeing's decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," said Rich Michalski, the union's vice president.
Well........Yeah.
If you use those collective bargaining rights to price yourself out of a job, you might very well suffer financial harm.
-
Boeing will win in the courts, eventually...
However, not in time for the 2012 election cycle, and maybe even the 2014 mid-terms. The Left sees it's union base circling the drain, and a LOT of what's happened in the U.S. over the past two years (GM buyout, the big fight here in WI over .gov unions) is all about propping them up.
-
SC won't go down without a fight. Boeing's plant was bought with good SC taxpayer money and the good citizens expect prompt delivery of their purchase.
-
At the cost of pissing off how many non-union folks?
Political support is all well and good, but what will happen if/when the rest of America get's sick of this crap and actively stops buying union?
I told an electrician acquaintance of mine the other day that I would hire an able body from Home Depot's parking lot and take a day off work to do my electrical project before I hired a union electrician, even if it cost more, because I'd rather let an illegal in my house than a union worker. I told him the illegal took less of my tax dollars. I thought we were going to fight. Seriously never seen someone go so red in the face so quickly.
This last ditch political propping up of the unions is going to end up doing them more harm than good IMO.
-
Considering that during the Bush and Clinton years, all the new car plants went into right to work states....I think the writer is paraphrasing a much more complex Obama administration policy....Welcome to the new Amerika, Comrade!
I was thinking this was not uncommon.
I gotta wonder if this won't take near as long to get action in the courts as people think. It might take a while to get the SC, but that doesn't mean a lower level court can't reverse the decision.
-
Actually, this hasn't even seen a court yet. This "ruling" was from a labor attorney at the NLRB. More correctly, it was an opinion on the NLRB's part that Boeing violated the law. The next step is for them to go before an Administrative Law Judge who will actually rule on whether Boeing is right or the NLRB is right.
-
Actually, this hasn't even seen a court yet. This "ruling" was from a labor attorney at the NLRB. More correctly, it was an opinion on the NLRB's part that Boeing violated the law.
I was wondering what kind of "teeth" some unelected bureaucrat's ruling had . . . sounds like "not much." Boeing - and EVERY business - has a right to build a factory where ever local laws allow, and I don't see how some bureaucrat can stop them, without a ruling by a court with jurisdiction. (Wesley Mouch - pay attention!)
-
This "ruling" was from a labor attorney at the NLRB.
Another one of the many hundreds of alphabet agencies that we'd be much better for after disbanding.
-
Another one of the many hundreds tens of thousands of alphabet agencies that we'd be much better for after disbanding.
FTFY
-
It is now the official position of the U.S. government that taking any action that is harmful to unions is illegal for employers? Is that actually what they said or is it the reporter's interpretation of a more complex ruling?
Ironically, it's not the 'taking of action' that is the issue here, it's the 'threatening to take action' during labor negotiations part that possibly violates current law. Pretty bizarre. Sounds like a cluster that will keep numerous lawyers busy for many years...imagine that.
-
Hey dogmush, Boeing executives get many time more tax dollars than any union memeber.
Unions are definitely losing the battle in America. Maybe someday labor prices will be comparable with china, so we can be competitive manufacturers again.
Won't America be so much better off when people are making $20 a day on average, with no medical benefits? Because that is going to be the inevitable consequence of this policy.
I suggest APSers start taking vacations to third world countries, in order to prep for the post-union, "free market" lifestyle we're starting to build in America.
-
In forty years of working, I've never had a union job =)
Heck, part of the time I was one of those evil employers :P
-
Won't America be so much better off when people are making $20 a day on average, with no medical benefits? Because that is going to be the inevitable consequence of this policy.
How is it going to be an inevitable consequence of this policy? Have you never heard of the NCF?
I suggest APSers start taking vacations to third world countries, in order to prep for the post-union, "free market" lifestyle we're starting to build in America.
China is not a free market country by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Tallpine, that's fine - but unions have played a role in keeping wages up.
Can someone please explain to me how America is going to be more prosperous without these evil unions? All I see happening is wages and benefits go down. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of a single country in the world with a decent standard of living and weak or no unions.
Micro, America isn't either - racing to get rid of market protections for wage earners just makes people poor. You need to start with the welfare queens on wall street if you want America to become anything other than a third world country with millions of wretched poor.
-
Tallpine, that's fine - but unions have played a role in keeping wages up.
Can someone please explain to me how America is going to be more prosperous without these evil unions? All I see happening is wages and benefits go down.
That's because no one taught you to look beyond the seen, obvious effects and to the harder to see effects.
What happens is UNION wages go down. As a result, industries that are subject to union demands will have more incentive to keep jobs in this country and bring them back. A US worker is generally paid more than a Chinese worker because he is more productive. If his wages are not artificially increased by monopoly (i.e. the unions), there will be more workers hired. Should his wages be artificially increased in this country his industry has more incentive to replace skilled American labor with unskilled Chinese (or Vietnamese or Indonesian or...) labor.
Also, correlation =/= causation.
-
I grew up and remain in a right to work state. Now, for the first time in my life I have a non gov't job, making a good starting wage in a free shop. I hope that if someone mentions a union that I take no immediate action to put me in jail. Organized labor has systematically gutted American industry. I can find countless towns that don't exist because the factory closed. Labor agitators are the enemy as far as I'm concerned, we're just in an awkward stage.
-
Why would you want anyone to have a monopoly, including unions ???
What's so terrible about people choosing to work at a job without being forced to join a union...?
-
Mak, ok, so explain to me how union wages going down makes the rest of us more rich. Jobs staying here at wages that compete with china isn't going to do it. Money is still free to go overseas, where labor cant follow.
Why would a company pay higher wages for productivity if workers don't have any options, and all the competing jobs also have low pay and no benefits?
All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are. I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are).
-
All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are. I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are).
Not backing up with government force =/= busting.
-
Mak, ok, so explain to me how union wages going down makes the rest of us more rich.
All I see here is people saying how unfair unions are. I do not see a compelling explanation for how we get richer by busting the only counter balance workers have against government backed corporations(which all the large ones, like Boeing, are).
More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?
-
Tallpine, that's fine - but unions have played a role in keeping wages up.
Can someone please explain to me how America is going to be more prosperous without these evil unions? All I see happening is wages and benefits go down. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of a single country in the world with a decent standard of living and weak or no unions.
Micro, America isn't either - racing to get rid of market protections for wage earners just makes people poor. You need to start with the welfare queens on wall street if you want America to become anything other than a third world country with millions of wretched poor.
I was working as a motorcycle messenger in SF,CA the unions declared that only cars/trucks can be commercial vehicles, then the unions fined me hundreds of dollars a day, then the unions towed my motorcycle THEN i LIVED IN A FREAKING CAR
The unions also taxed the multinationals so much they stopped doing business in San Francisco.
The messenger union in SF also got three goons in the company I had been in for 15 yrs and decided to strike - they were rotten snotty kids of 19/20 who had never been in a union & had no idea about rules and regs- they told me I was a freaking SCAB! the nerve of those dirtbags! I had been at the job when they were in the 3rd grade.
I tried explaining that a scab was a replacement worker not someone who liked his job, his employer , the CLIENTS and got hired to replace them when they strike.
The three dirtbags only got 3 or 4 other jerks to join them, the rest of the 25 workers were guys older than thirty with kids to feed, NO LIE!! the freaking "union" put up posters that we were "GAY SCABS"... they never ever tried to have any meetings with the overwhelming majority of employees just a few of their dumb pothead friends, they got their union organizing tactics from a COMIC BOOK! ...
Unions & their ilk have become nothing but a scheme for lazy wannabe commies and little hitlers.
the real goal of unions today is to end capitalism, end the Republic of the USA and usher in some strange fantasy about a workers paradise that would end up with them living in mansions while most of the rest of the world ends up in genocide.
-
More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?
Ok, how? Wages go down to be competiice with china. What realistic price drop is going to account for the decline in wages and benefits? Non union labor is not going to reduce energy, food, or medicine prices. It will reduce pay though.
I cant see how this is of general benefit. It looks exactly like a recipe for most of the population having third world income status.
Micro, it is when the government helps companies move money around, and active prohibits workers from following the money. The government also provides incredible financial support to corporations that let's them ride out hard times; workers get no such level of protection. That's a huge bargaining advantage.
-
Why would a company pay higher wages for productivity if workers don't have any options, and all the competing jobs also have low pay and no benefits?
If workers "don't have any options" it's only because they're too lazy and/or stupid to find or make those options. I have no problem with those people going hungry.
Or do you deny that people are able to make good lives for themselves in non-union jobs?
-
KdN, uh, no - workers cannot flee from country to country seeking out the most favorable conditions. Companies do that all the time, with government assistance. That's a significant imbalance in bargaining power. Either companies should face the same travel rules as workers, or workers should be able to move on the same terms.
Most people in the united states will not benefit from the demise of unions. The economy will not offer enough well paying jobs for most people. Lots of professionals and tradesmen are finding this out the hard way. The situation is getting worse.
What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions. So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?
-
So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?
They can either starve or take it as encouragement to not be lazy and stupid. You have yet to address how Texans are able to live well without unions.
-
They can either starve or take it as encouragement to not be lazy and stupid. You have yet to address how Texans are able to live well without unions.
Well, if you don't mind millions of people starving around you, youll be entirely happy with the course America is on. Myself, I'd rather not see it become a third world country.
It's easy to say "everyone who doesn't have a job is lazy and dumb", but guess what - a crap economy that offers no jobs and pay isn't up to you. You don't get to determine that individually.
On Texas http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi?year=2009&type=county&state=48&areas=48000&variables=SA11N+SA11P&variables=SA31N+SA31P&variables=SA51N+SA51P&variables=SA71N+SA71P&variables=SA91N&display_data=Display+Data (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi?year=2009&type=county&state=48&areas=48000&variables=SA11N+SA11P&variables=SA31N+SA31P&variables=SA51N+SA51P&variables=SA71N+SA71P&variables=SA91N&display_data=Display+Data)
17 percent of the population living below the poverty line and that's your economic success story?
-
Micro, it is when the government helps companies move money around, and active prohibits workers from following the money. The government also provides incredible financial support to corporations that let's them ride out hard times; workers get no such level of protection. That's a huge bargaining advantage.
This is an entire thread about how the government shut down a plant because it was opened in a right to work state. Does that sound to you like a free market solution, or like a government intervention on behalf of unions?
-
Well, if you don't mind millions of people starving around you, youll be entirely happy with the course America is on. Myself, I'd rather not see it become a third world country.
It will be a third world country if the welfare leeches and unions get their way.
It's easy to say "everyone who doesn't have a job is lazy and dumb", but guess what - a crap economy that offers no jobs and pay isn't up to you. You don't get to determine that individually.
It offers plenty of jobs and pay. I've turned down two jobs and left one in the past year. I guess my high school diploma makes me unfairly qualified or something.
17 percent of the population living below the poverty line and that's your economic success story?
The jobs are there. It's a success for those who will work that those who won't work don't get to live at the same standards.
-
What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions. So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?
What kind of fantasy land do you live in, SS? For workers wages to increase requires a union? Good grief, kid, where do you get this nonsense?
The best paying jobs with the best chances for advancement that I have had over my career have all been non-union jobs. Were they doing something wrong? Were they not supposed to have given me the raises I earned?
-
What kind of fantasy land do you live in, SS? For workers wages to increase requires a union? Good grief, kid, where do you get this nonsense?
The best paying jobs with the best chances for advancement that I have had over my career have all been non-union jobs. Were they doing something wrong? Were they not supposed to have given me the raises I earned?
That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too. But having lots of CEO jobs isn't a viable strategy for preventing mass impoverishment and declining standards of livings. For jobs that in theory can employ most of the population, unions keep upward pressure on wages and benefits. If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't. It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how union busting improves standards of living. Declining wages are rarely matched with commensurate price decreases - and then there's the issue of benefits and security.
KD5, how do you explain the massive uptick in unemployment over the past five years? Is that just lots of people deciding they're lazy when they weren't before? The idea is ridiculous.
This is of course in contrast to socialist paradises like Australia, where trade unionism means that welders and brick layers can demand wages that are up there with any of the best paying jobs. How come this place isn't being destroyed by its high wages and competition from China, but the US is at lower pay rates, with fewer benefits, and higher unemployment?
-
Australia has some other advantages in terms of free markets.
Australia outranks the United States on the Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking), scoring 3rd out of 179 nations ranked, whereas the United States ranks 9th.
-
Ok, how? Wages go down to be competiice with china
You keep bringing this up as (I hope) hyperbole. Why? The rest of us are talking about bringing wages down to be competitive with South Carolina. There's significant economic reasons that American workers make, and will continue to make, more money then workers in China.
It should be telling that most of us with actual experience with unions find them to be less then helpful in today's job market, whereas folks that likely never met a union steward think they're necessary for our way of life.
If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't.
You can offer higher pay/benefits for the best workers without overpaying the worst/least skilled. Unless it's a union shop.
It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.
Not for those willing to work at a job. Possibly the real problem is more of the population seems to think they shouldn't have to work.
-
More efficient use of funds, and more equitable prices (for labor in this case) are good for the economy, perhaps?
Ok, how?
I buy a lot of Boeing products.
-
Australia has some other advantages in terms of free markets.
Australia outranks the United States on the Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking), scoring 3rd out of 179 nations ranked, whereas the United States ranks 9th.
Right, so trade unionism can be used to counterbalance the advantages corporations get from state welfare a) without ruining overall economic freedom and b) effectively.
The problem with dismantling regulations that protect poor people and workers is that it leaves corporations, still backed by the state, with a HUGE market advantage. The vast majority of the population has zero bargaining power against a corporation that will, no matter how bad things get, be bailed out with public funds.
I suspect that in the future, analysts will see the systematic failure of free market capitalists to attack corporate welfare as one of the main impediments to a free economy. Starting out with unions and public welfare (which is what we did) only impoverishes large numbers of people; it does not make an economy free.
-
That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too. But having lots of CEO jobs isn't a viable strategy for preventing mass impoverishment and declining standards of livings. For jobs that in theory can employ most of the population, unions keep upward pressure on wages and benefits. If companies don't have to offer higher wages or benefits to get the best workers, they won't. It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how union busting improves standards of living. Declining wages are rarely matched with commensurate price decreases - and then there's the issue of benefits and security.
Sorry, I had to sleep. Allow me to explain.
As union wages go down (and union monopoly disappears through competition) jobs subject to union demands would return to the US. As I said before, a worker in China is not doing the same job as a worker in the United States. US workers command a higher pay because they are more productive. They are SKILLED labor versus unskilled, but cheap, Chinese labor.
As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor. (If you had two possible methods of building something and one of the methods became cheaper, what would you do?) As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.
Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.
-
mak, here's the problem:
As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor.
How exactly do we all end up better off if a few more of us are working, but we're all working for lower pay? That was exactly my point. The average income is going to decline as a result of this process. It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.
Lower pay does not make the country a better place to live, even if it puts marginally more people to work.
-
It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.
Yeah, it's union thugs that are keeping us from that dreadful situation. ;/
-
mak, here's the problem:
How exactly do we all end up better off if a few more of us are working, but we're all working for lower pay? That was exactly my point. The average income is going to decline as a result of this process. It's entirely conceivable that we'll end up with societies that function like Thailand or Colombia, with millions of impoverished poor whose income from work doesn't yield much more than a malnourishing diet and ramshackle group housing.
Lower pay does not make the country a better place to live, even if it puts marginally more people to work.
Reading is fundamental. As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.
Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.
-
Yeah, it's union thugs that are keeping us from that dreadful situation. ;/
Imperfectly, yes. The political process that administers labor laws also goes some way to preventing it.
mak, do you have any evidence of wages rising as union membership declined? We have pretty significant declines over the past 30 years to go on.
-
Imperfectly, yes. The political process that administers labor laws also goes some way to preventing it.
mak, do you have any evidence of wages rising as union membership declined? We have pretty significant declines over the past 30 years to go on.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
US Average Wages by year
1981 13,773.10
1982 14,531.34
1983 15,239.24
1984 16,135.07
1985 16,822.51
1986 17,321.82
1987 18,426.51
1988 19,334.04
1989 20,099.55
1990 21,027.98
1991 21,811.60
1992 22,935.42
1993 23,132.67
1994 23,753.53
1995 24,705.66
1996 25,913.90
1997 27,426.00
1998 28,861.44
1999 30,469.84
2000 32,154.82
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
2009 40,711.61
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_labor_union_participation_rate_dips_to_12_13482.aspx
The union membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1% in 1983, the first year for which comparable data are available, the agency said.
Now, of course correlation =/= causation but we've had a steady decline in union participation and a steady increase in the average wages in the U.S. One would need to control for other factors to see the effect of declining union membership on the average wage across the economy, but ceteris paribus, I'm betting there's a correlation. Let me see if anyone else has run those numbers.
-
Wait a second there - you're using straight dollar amounts. How do those work out adjusted for inflation as a percentage increase? Those numbers look fairly dismal in that light, off hand
-
Wait a second there - you're using straight dollar amounts. How do those work out adjusted for inflation as a percentage increase? Those numbers look fairly dismal in that light, off hand
Adjusting them is going to be hard as the formula for CPI has changed and I think it is far underestimating inflation right now. Likely already been done using CPI, though.
-
(http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/1999/Nov/wk1/art01.gif)
Small growth, but steady. (At least until 1998. Obviously the current recession will have lowered it.)
-
deselby? have you any experience with unions? i mean of a non academic sort? i was in a great union and it sucked. it raped the workers and convinced them they liked it. it mandated mediocrity for all. no merit increase and it stifled advancement based on merit. strangled would be a better word. we won't even address the institutionalized corruption. all these costs end up passed on to the consumer
-
(http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/1999/Nov/wk1/art01.gif)
Small growth, but steady. (At least until 1998. Obviously the current recession will have lowered it.)
That's pretty meagre if you ask me. Worse when you factor in the large increases in top pay compared to others; that has to throw off the average.
CS&D - no one's arguing that a union can't be bad. It's better than throwing yourself at the mercy of Government-backed corporations and their Government-funded financiers though.
Getting rid of government interference that actually benefits the majority of the population first will ruin any attempt at a free economy, because corporations will not quit taking government money, and their advantage will only grow as a result. Impoverishing people does not encourage them to vote for free market principles and individual liberty.
-
De Selby- I am very much against corporate welfare. It is, however, the necessary result of a government that is too large.
I'm also against an arcane tax system that is willfully complex so that it can be used to rewards politicians' preferred businesses/activities. It is also the result of a government that is too large.
I also don't like how everything in this country has become politically tinged. People's politics shouldn't matter in who I patronize for business or fraternize with as friends. The polarization is a result of a government that is too large.
When the government is involved in every part of your life, you cannot avoid these problems. When liberals win, my freedom and my preferences will suffer.
The greatest genius of the founding fathers was a central government that did a few, specifically defined actions.
Everything else was left to the states and localities. People's lives were not greatly effected (usually, there are exceptions like the Trail of Tears or the late unpleasantness) by the Federal government.
We could have states that follow your preferences for socialism and states that try more free markets. Instead, we have states and localities whose decisions have much less bearing on my daily life and a federal government whose regulations effect even the toothpaste I use every day. We've inverted the system and are suffering for it.
-
I'm not sure why the states' rights issue figures into this so heavily - states have all sorts of their own regulations, and the reason for Federal regulations reaching your toothpaste is to avoid the states making it a nightmare for businesses to operate across all fifty, which they otherwise would. A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.
And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it. They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money. Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero. The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses. The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.
That situation is not the fault of government that is too large. It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.
-
And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it. They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money. Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero. The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses. The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.
That situation is not the fault of government that is too large. It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.
Of course businesses like it. Or rather, large businesses like it. Big business LOVES big government and vice versa. Small business (those responsible for most of the job creation in the US) not so much.
Businesses wouldn't waste their money if the federal government was properly constrained. Instead, we decided that "interstate commerce" means the government can do whatever they want and now businesses see return on investment with the federal government.
-
I'm not sure why the states' rights issue figures into this so heavily - states have all sorts of their own regulations, and the reason for Federal regulations reaching your toothpaste is to avoid the states making it a nightmare for businesses to operate across all fifty, which they otherwise would. A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.
And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it. They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money. Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero. The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses. The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.
That situation is not the fault of government that is too large. It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.
Do you really think businesses like spending money on politicians and government? ??? You don't think they have anything better they'd prefer to be spending that $$$ on?
Businesses "buy" influence because they have to. When government gets too big -- and that's exactly what's happened since FDR and ESPECIALLY since LBJ and thus it's become the only way they can do things. Both democrats and republicans receive big money from big business. Obama is in bed with the same people he preaches against to his base. He's "the same old thing," forget the "hopy changy" stuff.
It would be nice if no one could "buy" influence (outside the voting booth that is) but government has become such a Godzilla that it has become impossible to function otherwise. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and the regulatory structure is asphyxiating the country.
This is one reason why jobs are leaving America and moving over to China. It's not just the cost of labor, it's the costs of doing business in America. It's actually less expensive to open a business in China or another nearby country there than it is here.
-
The biggest problem I see with unions is that workers get the idea they work for the union and not the company. They start seeing the "company" as some monolithic thing that has unlimited amounts of money. They start getting the idea that they can do crap work and sit on their butt all day long and still get paid since they have seniority and after all, that "company" has unlimited money. IMO, that is partly the "attitude" of people in unions and also part of the seniority rules that unions usually have. It is also a problem of union leadership not training workers and not getting rid of the crappy workers who do bad quality work and/or are not pulling their weight. There is no pride in a job well done. My Dad was in a journeyman union and ran into that attitude a lot. Guys would sit on a job and feel that it was best for them if they milked the job for all it was worth and ran up the labor costs. They didn't seem to understand that if they help the company make money, the company is then much happier to stick with union labor and bring them in for the next job. Before my Dad retired, there were non-union companies popping up to do the same work with cheaper labor.
There was also the benefit that foreman who need work done as opposed to just warm bodies usually knew who the good workers were to call. But was a journeyman union, not a closed union shop.
-
A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.
The two are joined at the hip. Again I ask, look at the NCF - the corporate-union-socialist-intellectual group that stood at the roots of the modern Progressive movement.
-
What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions. So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?
What you refuse to do is acknowledge it more like it. When I was in the SEIU it was more like a cult than anything else, I was an armed guard in the SEIU, a union that always backed anti gun politicians, union meetings were nothing but orwellian theater -all we ever did was listen to what the union bosses told us to do then we chanted weird military types chants "we are the union mighty mighty union" it reminded me of animal farm more then anything else, they never asked or wanted my opinion on anything, like why does my union support politicians that made my life as an armed security officer more difficult & expensive? The slightly higher wage was eaten up by union dues, the union made life more difficult and expensive, and we didn't get paid for attending the really cultish meetings either. SEIU is a drain on time, energy, and is just ripping off tax payers while doing zip for anyone but union bosses.
-
That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too.
Hey, thanks for the promotion. I'm a CEO! Woohoo!
That was a silly argument, ShootinStudent. Try again.
It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.
You're going to have to back up this assertion of the patently obvious, as I doubt it is for most of us on this board. Real facts would be useful, not hyperbole based on your opinion.
-
Yeah, engineering pay has gone up as far as I can see. Good engineers are still not common place I guess. Glad I can keep them thinking I am one. =D That said, companies will raise pay if they need to do so to find quality employees. My company has done that in a couple areas that I am aware. That said, expectations rise with pay. If an employee wants and demands more money, it is natural for the company to want more/better results. What the unions want most of the time is more pay for the same results or often worse results since they want to take away all negative consequences.
The simple fact is that unions are an attempt at a monopoly on labor. IMO, that is just as bad for a free economy as a monopoly from the company side.
-
The simple fact is that unions are an attempt at a monopoly on labor. IMO, that is just as bad for a free economy as a monopoly from the company side.
This. It's also worth noting that, without government intervention, (generally in the form of ridiculous licensing requirements) it's virtually impossible for any employer to have a monopoly on jobs, even within a single field. Anyone else can simply start their own business, and if they offer enough to corner the market on that specialty, contract back to the original company at whatever rate they can get away with.
-
It is good that the incident was given attention by the company. Test flights are done to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its features.May they come up with air planes that are in good condition and are ready for the passengers to use.There are also other issues taht Boeing is facing.Boeing and a new center opened by the business are at the center of a fantastic political drama that has begun. The new facility will be where the Boeing 787, or the “Dreamliner” will be built Organized labor, with which Boeing has a somewhat tense history, is interpreting the new center to be a slap in the face. I found this here: Boeing and unions, newstype.com (http://www.newsytype.com/7191-boeing-plant-south-carolina/)
-
It is good that the incident was given attention by the company. Test flights are done to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its features.May they come up with air planes that are in good condition and are ready for the passengers to use.There are also other issues taht Boeing is facing.Boeing and a new center opened by the business are at the center of a fantastic political drama that has begun. The new facility will be where the Boeing 787, or the “Dreamliner” will be built Organized labor, with which Boeing has a somewhat tense history, is interpreting the new center to be a slap in the face. I found this here: ]
Die spambot, die!
-
Die spambot, die!
What caliber for spambot, or do we use fire?
-
What caliber for spambot, or do we use fire?
Detcord (APS Standard) and Napalm.
-
Detcord (APS Standard) and Napalm.
*rubs chin* Do I have to use genuine napthalene palmate, or will jellied gasoline suffice?
I've got it, a bolo using detcord for the rope and napalm filled containers for the weights. Where do I get this new device anti-spambot certified?
-
*rubs chin* Do I have to use genuine napthalene palmate, or will jellied gasoline suffice?
I've got it, a bolo using detcord for the rope and napalm filled containers for the weights. Where do I get this new device anti-spambot certified?
Anything that will make the spammers wither in fires of hell for a while. I am not picky, I trust your judgment. ;)
-
2 words
1st word begins with an "A"
2nd word ends with a "d". ;)
If you're still reading it, I would consider that English may be a second language for you. Even if it's your only language.
Outside of the Watchtower Magazine and the Left Behind series there is no more simplistic and badly written English prose than Atlas Shrugged.
I think it could be read in it's entirety at the checkout line in the grocery store without skipping a single word.
-
Sorry, I had to sleep. Allow me to explain.
As union wages go down (and union monopoly disappears through competition) jobs subject to union demands would return to the US. As I said before, a worker in China is not doing the same job as a worker in the United States. US workers command a higher pay because they are more productive. They are SKILLED labor versus unskilled, but cheap, Chinese labor.
As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor. (If you had two possible methods of building something and one of the methods became cheaper, what would you do?) As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.
Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.
Chinese workers are not particularly unskilled (they make Toyotas) nor unproductive, and the level of productivity is increasing in China all the time.
Indian workers (even cheaper) are quite skilled. Many times more skilled than Americans. Your x-rays are read in India. Is that unskilled? The Java programs the run your e-commerce business or transactions, also done in India.
In Beijing where I've been living for the last year the subway is 10 cents per trip. It's obviously subsidized. There's a global market in commodities after all.
-
Chinese workers are not particularly unskilled (they make Toyotas) nor unproductive, and the level of productivity is increasing in China all the time.
Indian workers (even cheaper) are quite skilled. Many times more skilled than Americans. Your x-rays are read in India. Is that unskilled? The Java programs the run your e-commerce business or transactions, also done in India.
In Beijing where I've been living for the last year the subway is 10 cents per trip. It's obviously subsidized. There's a global market in commodities after all.
ON AVERAGE, though, the workers in China and India are less skilled. The skill level in a particular country is not really the point of the argument as China was used as an example. If you think Chinese workers are as skilled as American workers (I don't), then replace China with Indonesia, or Vietnam, or Burma, or...
-
I've seen some of that outsourced code. NOT pretty. I often have issues with the Process Police, but it does have its uses, one of them being to ensure the code is not outsourced to poorly trained hacks in Asia.
There is a reason why many contracts call for CMMI level 3 or 4 or 5.