|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 10, 2009 12:51:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 10, 2009 13:03:37 GMT -6
Agreed.
The entire public school system needs an overhaul and taking it to the teacher's unions isn't a bad place to start.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 10, 2009 13:26:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 10, 2009 15:29:40 GMT -6
He's right on with this issue.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 10, 2009 20:20:34 GMT -6
If Wal-Mart is against card check, then card check must be good for working folks, which means that I will support it. Unions exist due to the rancid exploitation of labor in the past. They exist out of necessity. Yes, they have their shortcomings, but they have helped to build the middle class. I don't understand the hatred for unions around here. What the f**k do you people care if workers are paid a decent wage and treated well? Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that shortchanging labor will result in lower prices and a better economy? Have you been paying any fucking attention the past 30 years? And when are you fuckers gonna start kvetching about CEO compensation? You think those guys "earn" those outrageous pay packages? Here's a clue: They all sit on each others' boards. Do the fucking math. BTW I concur that the teacher's union has way too much pull. It's almost impossible to fire a shitty teacher. That doesn't change my position on card check.
|
|
leonbt
Prostate Massager
Posts: 132
|
Post by leonbt on Mar 10, 2009 20:29:03 GMT -6
I whole heartedly agree that reforming our education system is of the utmost importance. Longer days-great. Longer year-great-hell year round school isn't a bad idea either. Unfortunately, tying pay to production seems almost impossible. Now, I must admit I haven't seen if there is an outline of this plan or not but will teachers in the inner city (Chicago for example) have different standards than those who teach in areas with more affluent families? What are the standards going to be anyway? Test scores? Attendance? Grades?
The thing is no matter what reforms take place in the education system if parents and families don't "reform" as well it will all be for naught.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 10, 2009 20:55:09 GMT -6
I whole heartedly agree that reforming our education system is of the utmost importance. Longer days-great. Longer year-great-hell year round school isn't a bad idea either. Unfortunately, tying pay to production seems almost impossible. Now, I must admit I haven't seen if there is an outline of this plan or not but will teachers in the inner city (Chicago for example) have different standards than those who teach in areas with more affluent families? What are the standards going to be anyway? Test scores? Attendance? Grades? The thing is no matter what reforms take place in the education system if parents and families don't "reform" as well it will all be for naught. They will have to grade teachers on a curve. Valley is way different than North. You're right. It comes down to parents and families in the end with few exceptions. Cycles are rarely broken, be they good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 10, 2009 21:06:25 GMT -6
1) I don't understand the hatred for unions around here. What the f**k do you people care if workers are paid a decent wage and treated well? Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that shortchanging labor will result in lower prices and a better economy? Have you been paying any fucking attention the past 30 years? 2) And when are you fuckers gonna start kvetching about CEO compensation? You think those guys "earn" those outrageous pay packages? Here's a clue: They all sit on each others' boards. Do the fucking math. 1) I do care. My argument is a law and economics argument and is beyond your understanding. It is that I am against monopolies. Whether the monopoly is a Ford/GM/Chrysler agreement to fix output and prices or a UAW agreement to fix output and prices, I find both equally despicable in a free society. Whereas the Big 3 could use high barriers to entry as a means to keep competitors out of their space, the UAW uses force in the form of intimidation against "scabs" and property damage to keep competitors out of their space. Monopolies increase cost and decrease the quantity consumed. In the labor market, the increased cost is passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services, thereby decreasing the real income of any person who is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement. I do not see how this is an economically desirable outcome. The decrease in quantity consumed in the labor market means more people go without jobs. Unlike the so-called "liberals" I care about the poor and think that policies that have the tendency to decrease the quantity of unskilled labor demanded are not in the best interest of the poor. I have been paying plenty of attention the last 30 years. What has happened has not been some miraculous collective screwing of unskilled labor by the capitalist class, but rather the unskilled labor pricing itself out of the market. For 20+ years after WWII, the United States had a virtual manufacturing monopoly, as the economies of Japan and Europe were in infrastructure rebuilding mode. What then happened is the Japanese smoked the Americans at our own game when their infrastructure was rebuilt and they had brand new factories. They exported their manufacturing prowess to China. American labor cannot compete in manufacturing when the Chinese are so much cheaper and have substantially newer factories. Short of blowing the shit out of all of the factories and infrastructure in Germany, France, Japan, China and the UK, I highly doubt we will see some miraculous resurgence in American manufacturing or the standard of living of unskilled workers. But if you want to delude yourself into believing that allowing the SEIU to destroy Wal-Mart in the same manner the UAW has destroyed GM is the panacea for America's economic ills, by all means, keep thinking that. This is America and you are entitled to your opinion. 2) I have bitched. I commended the SEC for the exec comp rules they passed in 2006 when they were, according to the latest "liberal" talking point, too busy deregulating everything to do anything else. I vote my proxies against directors who serve on more than 2 boards. I have railed against the gross misallocation of incentives in public corporations, where directors and officers have zero downside and massive upside for taking grossly negligent risks. But at the same time, I feel that destruction of capital as a result of executive compensation at a Big 3 auto company over the past 30 years is a grain of sand on the beach compared to the destruction of capital caused by the destruction of capital as a result of union workers using force and monopoly power to command salaries and benefits that are so far above what the free market would dictate.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 10, 2009 21:54:59 GMT -6
BTW I concur that the teacher's union has way too much pull. It's almost impossible to fire a shitty teacher. That doesn't change my position on card check. It'd be nice if more people would come around to this point of view and the Democrats would stop being shills of the teachers unions and protecting lazy/incompetent teachers. I can understand unions protecting lazy/incompetent teachers (that's their job), but there's no reason anyone else should put up with it. Hopefully we can all agree that tenure is totally out of place in the primary school setting and should be eliminated as soon as possible. If teachers need to be paid more to compensate them for its elimination (which I doubt), then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 11, 2009 1:25:01 GMT -6
1) I don't understand the hatred for unions around here. What the f**k do you people care if workers are paid a decent wage and treated well? Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that shortchanging labor will result in lower prices and a better economy? Have you been paying any fucking attention the past 30 years? 2) And when are you fuckers gonna start kvetching about CEO compensation? You think those guys "earn" those outrageous pay packages? Here's a clue: They all sit on each others' boards. Do the fucking math. 1) I do care. My argument is a law and economics argument and is beyond your understanding. It is that I am against monopolies. Whether the monopoly is a Ford/GM/Chrysler agreement to fix output and prices or a UAW agreement to fix output and prices, I find both equally despicable in a free society. Whereas the Big 3 could use high barriers to entry as a means to keep competitors out of their space, the UAW uses force in the form of intimidation against "scabs" and property damage to keep competitors out of their space. Monopolies increase cost and decrease the quantity consumed. In the labor market, the increased cost is passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services, thereby decreasing the real income of any person who is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement. I do not see how this is an economically desirable outcome. The decrease in quantity consumed in the labor market means more people go without jobs. Unlike the so-called "liberals" I care about the poor and think that policies that have the tendency to decrease the quantity of unskilled labor demanded are not in the best interest of the poor. I have been paying plenty of attention the last 30 years. What has happened has not been some miraculous collective screwing of unskilled labor by the capitalist class, but rather the unskilled labor pricing itself out of the market. For 20+ years after WWII, the United States had a virtual manufacturing monopoly, as the economies of Japan and Europe were in infrastructure rebuilding mode. What then happened is the Japanese smoked the Americans at our own game when their infrastructure was rebuilt and they had brand new factories. They exported their manufacturing prowess to China. American labor cannot compete in manufacturing when the Chinese are so much cheaper and have substantially newer factories. Short of blowing the shit out of all of the factories and infrastructure in Germany, France, Japan, China and the UK, I highly doubt we will see some miraculous resurgence in American manufacturing or the standard of living of unskilled workers. But if you want to delude yourself into believing that allowing the SEIU to destroy Wal-Mart in the same manner the UAW has destroyed GM is the panacea for America's economic ills, by all means, keep thinking that. This is America and you are entitled to your opinion. 2) I have bitched. I commended the SEC for the exec comp rules they passed in 2006 when they were, according to the latest "liberal" talking point, too busy deregulating everything to do anything else. I vote my proxies against directors who serve on more than 2 boards. I have railed against the gross misallocation of incentives in public corporations, where directors and officers have zero downside and massive upside for taking grossly negligent risks. But at the same time, I feel that destruction of capital as a result of executive compensation at a Big 3 auto company over the past 30 years is a grain of sand on the beach compared to the destruction of capital caused by the destruction of capital as a result of union workers using force and monopoly power to command salaries and benefits that are so far above what the free market would dictate. Great job on that. I would add that pay based on merit / positive results is far more reputable than pay based on membership to a union club. 93% of private sector employees are of the same mindset. The simple fact that unions and union supporters have to resort to the intimidation tactics in eliminating privacy should say everything that needs to be said about unions surviving on their own merits. The fact of the matter is they have no merits to survive on. I would also highlight the point of proxy votes. I would whole heartedly support making that process more understandable and user friendly to the masses. The proxy statements are incredible difficult for the average citizen to absorb, let alone make a educated decision on votes. Financial literacy is something that is sorely lacking in the American educational system and needs to be addressed in the near future. The American Education in general needs to be overhauled with the emphasis placed on core and practical subjects. Want to engage in basket weaving, diversity conversations, physical education or the positive effects of marijuana? That's what hobby clubs, friends and family, the YMCA and bong shops are for.
|
|
Earl
Prostate Massager
Posts: 173
|
Post by Earl on Mar 11, 2009 7:25:24 GMT -6
As I sit here with my kids taking ITBS this week, I've been pondering a way to base merit in teaching. While I think there are many teachers that are not competent, I also think there are many great teachers that could be portrayed poorly if the evaluation system for teachers is based on test scores. There is plenty of blame to go around, yes teachers are partly to blame, but what about the administration? I haven't seen anything that would hold principals and superintendents responsible. They are the ones that need the stones to take out shitty teachers and take on parents. Some allow "loopholes" for getting kids around tests like ITBS.....think Bobby in SpEd on King of the Hill. There are a lot of administrators out there that have no idea how to be a good boss. I'm not part of any union so maybe my take on this is a little different than other teachers; I'm not against merit-based pay, I just want an idea of how to base it. If you want to see what sort of teacher I am, come in and watch my classes for more than 10 minutes once every 3 years. Don't look at a bunch of papers crammed into a binder that is a "professional portfolio." I'm not good at arts and crafts; there are plenty of shitty teachers that can out scrap-book me any day of the week. See what we're doing, don't solely look at a test score and then tell me what sort of a difference I'm making in my students' learning and lives. I'm not trying to be defensive, teachers are obviously the front-line and hold the most responsibility, I just hope that the new mandates will be attainable and funded.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 11, 2009 9:10:42 GMT -6
As I sit here with my kids taking ITBS this week, I've been pondering a way to base merit in teaching. While I think there are many teachers that are not competent, I also think there are many great teachers that could be portrayed poorly if the evaluation system for teachers is based on test scores. There is plenty of blame to go around, yes teachers are partly to blame, but what about the administration? I haven't seen anything that would hold principals and superintendents responsible. They are the ones that need the stones to take out shitty teachers and take on parents. Some allow "loopholes" for getting kids around tests like ITBS.....think Bobby in SpEd on King of the Hill. There are a lot of administrators out there that have no idea how to be a good boss. I'm not part of any union so maybe my take on this is a little different than other teachers; I'm not against merit-based pay, I just want an idea of how to base it. If you want to see what sort of teacher I am, come in and watch my classes for more than 10 minutes once every 3 years. Don't look at a bunch of papers crammed into a binder that is a "professional portfolio." I'm not good at arts and crafts; there are plenty of shitty teachers that can out scrap-book me any day of the week. See what we're doing, don't solely look at a test score and then tell me what sort of a difference I'm making in my students' learning and lives. I'm not trying to be defensive, teachers are obviously the front-line and hold the most responsibility, I just hope that the new mandates will be attainable and funded. Earl, you make great points. Let me ask your honest opinion on something. What if we were to take the American public school system, take it completely away from the Government and do something similar to what McDonald's did with McDonald's University?....that being turn it 100% over to commercial enterprises. Coca-Cola Middle School......FedEx High School......the University of Lowe's, etc. It would be in the best interests pf the corporate sponsors to provide the education that would best prepare students for the real world after school. The students would obviously benefit from receiving only core subjects and subjects that the corporate sponsor deems practical for life after school. Both the corporate sponsors and students would have a personal stake in the process. Do you see any down side in this idea?
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 11, 2009 10:13:33 GMT -6
1) I don't understand the hatred for unions around here. What the f**k do you people care if workers are paid a decent wage and treated well? Are you really so fucking stupid as to believe that shortchanging labor will result in lower prices and a better economy? Have you been paying any fucking attention the past 30 years? 2) And when are you fuckers gonna start kvetching about CEO compensation? You think those guys "earn" those outrageous pay packages? Here's a clue: They all sit on each others' boards. Do the fucking math. 1) I do care. My argument is a law and economics argument and is beyond your understanding. It is that I am against monopolies. Whether the monopoly is a Ford/GM/Chrysler agreement to fix output and prices or a UAW agreement to fix output and prices, I find both equally despicable in a free society. Whereas the Big 3 could use high barriers to entry as a means to keep competitors out of their space, the UAW uses force in the form of intimidation against "scabs" and property damage to keep competitors out of their space. Monopolies increase cost and decrease the quantity consumed. In the labor market, the increased cost is passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services, thereby decreasing the real income of any person who is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement. I do not see how this is an economically desirable outcome. The decrease in quantity consumed in the labor market means more people go without jobs. Unlike the so-called "liberals" I care about the poor and think that policies that have the tendency to decrease the quantity of unskilled labor demanded are not in the best interest of the poor. I have been paying plenty of attention the last 30 years. What has happened has not been some miraculous collective screwing of unskilled labor by the capitalist class, but rather the unskilled labor pricing itself out of the market. For 20+ years after WWII, the United States had a virtual manufacturing monopoly, as the economies of Japan and Europe were in infrastructure rebuilding mode. What then happened is the Japanese smoked the Americans at our own game when their infrastructure was rebuilt and they had brand new factories. They exported their manufacturing prowess to China. American labor cannot compete in manufacturing when the Chinese are so much cheaper and have substantially newer factories. Short of blowing the shit out of all of the factories and infrastructure in Germany, France, Japan, China and the UK, I highly doubt we will see some miraculous resurgence in American manufacturing or the standard of living of unskilled workers. But if you want to delude yourself into believing that allowing the SEIU to destroy Wal-Mart in the same manner the UAW has destroyed GM is the panacea for America's economic ills, by all means, keep thinking that. This is America and you are entitled to your opinion. 2) I have bitched. I commended the SEC for the exec comp rules they passed in 2006 when they were, according to the latest "liberal" talking point, too busy deregulating everything to do anything else. I vote my proxies against directors who serve on more than 2 boards. I have railed against the gross misallocation of incentives in public corporations, where directors and officers have zero downside and massive upside for taking grossly negligent risks. But at the same time, I feel that destruction of capital as a result of executive compensation at a Big 3 auto company over the past 30 years is a grain of sand on the beach compared to the destruction of capital caused by the destruction of capital as a result of union workers using force and monopoly power to command salaries and benefits that are so far above what the free market would dictate. You're full of shit. You're a management shill. Your "argument," and I use the word tenuously, is one of bias devoid of evidence. Furthermore, most of those countries who are "kicking our ass" in manufacturing, save China, have strong labor laws, and their "socialist" governments invested in infrastructure and healthcare to the the benefit of their fucking companies, who now have big advantages over us in both areas. Fucking socialists propping up their capitalists! Heads exploding!
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 11, 2009 10:18:25 GMT -6
As I sit here with my kids taking ITBS this week, I've been pondering a way to base merit in teaching. While I think there are many teachers that are not competent, I also think there are many great teachers that could be portrayed poorly if the evaluation system for teachers is based on test scores. There is plenty of blame to go around, yes teachers are partly to blame, but what about the administration? I haven't seen anything that would hold principals and superintendents responsible. They are the ones that need the stones to take out shitty teachers and take on parents. Some allow "loopholes" for getting kids around tests like ITBS.....think Bobby in SpEd on King of the Hill. There are a lot of administrators out there that have no idea how to be a good boss. I'm not part of any union so maybe my take on this is a little different than other teachers; I'm not against merit-based pay, I just want an idea of how to base it. If you want to see what sort of teacher I am, come in and watch my classes for more than 10 minutes once every 3 years. Don't look at a bunch of papers crammed into a binder that is a "professional portfolio." I'm not good at arts and crafts; there are plenty of shitty teachers that can out scrap-book me any day of the week. See what we're doing, don't solely look at a test score and then tell me what sort of a difference I'm making in my students' learning and lives. I'm not trying to be defensive, teachers are obviously the front-line and hold the most responsibility, I just hope that the new mandates will be attainable and funded. Earl, you make great points. Let me ask your honest opinion on something. What if we were to take the American public school system, take it completely away from the Government and do something similar to what McDonald's did with McDonald's University?....that being turn it 100% over to commercial enterprises. Coca-Cola Middle School......FedEx High School......the University of Lowe's, etc. It would be in the best interests pf the corporate sponsors to provide the education that would best prepare students for the real world after school. The students would obviously benefit from receiving only core subjects and subjects that the corporate sponsor deems practical for life after school. Both the corporate sponsors and students would have a personal stake in the process. Do you see any down side in this idea? So you want to turn schools into corporate training centers? HA! Unfuckingbelieveable. Now I know you're clearly not interested in critical thinking, civic involvement, scientific knowledge or quaint things like "history," but most rational, patriotic Americans are. Hey, maybe the "free market" could do for education what it has done for banking. Awesome! You reveal more stupidity with every post. Your extremism is pretty fucking hilarious though. If people like you were, God forbid, in charge of America, this nation would be a third-world country within a generation.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 11, 2009 13:33:14 GMT -6
You're full of shit. You're a management shill. Your "argument," and I use the word tenuously, is one of bias devoid of evidence. Furthermore, most of those countries who are "kicking our ass" in manufacturing, save China, have strong labor laws, and their "socialist" governments invested in infrastructure and healthcare to the the benefit of their fucking companies, who now have big advantages over us in both areas. Fucking socialists propping up their capitalists! Heads exploding! Well that sure is a cogent and well thought out response. Which assertion of mine is incorrect? That labor unions form monopolies? That monopolies increase prices? That increased prices lead to lower quantity demanded? Do you not understand how a collective bargaining agreement is a windfall only to those who are a party to it and that it diminishes real income of those who are not a party to it? If you think about it, I'm actually a shill not for management, but rather for anyone who is not and will not be a party to a collective bargaining agreement. And if everybody is a party to a collective bargaining agreement and everybody gets a 10% raise, guess what - prices for everything will go up and there will still be a bottom 10% of society that will be no better of in 3 years with a 10% raise than they are today. The reason "liberals" love unions so much is because they destroy the middle class and make most people poorer in real terms. A middle class accountant who is fresh out of college making $40k a year will very likely never be represented by the SEIU or any other union. Let's say he spends $10,000 a year at Wal-Mart. Then, the SEIU comes in to Wal-Mart, extracts a 30% raise in the form of higher salaries and benefits. Wal-Mart passes some of the cost on to customers. Let's say the union causes a 10% increase in costs. Now, in order to have the same level of consumption, our middle class accountant has to pay $11,000 for an identical basket of goods. How is that a good deal for him? That is the fundamental problem with the union. It does not increase the size of the pie, it merely reallocates who gets to eat it. Sure, Joe Wal-Mart goes from making $15k per year to $19k, but that extra $4k isn't just created out of thin air, it is coming out of the pocket of our middle class accountant above. The marginal additional $4k in income the Wal-Mart worker has is not "new consumption" or whatever the "liberals" want to call it, it is a reallocation of consumption away from someone else. The middle class accountant is made poorer so that the Wal-Mart worker is made richer. The billionaire isn't the one bearing the higher expense or diminished consumption, it's the middle class white collar worker who will not be represented by a union who is bearing the brunt of this anti-poor, anti-middle class policy. The other guy who gets shut out is the 18 year old who is looking for a job. Wal-Mart had new jobs to offer at $15k, but at $19k, forget about it. The policy is simply a shift of income away from the middle class and upper middle class skilled laborers down to poor and lower middle class unskilled laborers. It pulls the whole top of the middle class down and the bottom up slightly. It is a necessary pre-condition for the 100 wealthy family, 100 million poor family egalitarian, anti-freedom society the "liberals" want to see. That cannot happen until the middle class is destroyed through higher taxation, both through government confiscation and price inflation taxation caused by unions.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 11, 2009 13:57:34 GMT -6
That's a great argument, BTR, except for the inconvenient fact that real wages have been falling as union membership has declined whilst executive compensation has grown exponentially.
Pesky fucking facts. Nice hypothetical, though. It's an interesting theory, kind of like supply side economics. Too bad it's total bullshit.
You've clearly thought it through and convinced yourself though, complete with unfounded gratuitous potshots at "liberals" and how they want to impoverish the masses. That's some pretty impressive self-delusion. A veritable case study, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 11, 2009 14:14:54 GMT -6
That's a great argument, BTR, except for the inconvenient fact that real wages have been falling as union membership has declined whilst executive compensation has grown exponentially. Pesky fucking facts. Nice hypothetical, though. It's an interesting theory, kind of like supply side economics. Too bad it's total bullshit. You've clearly thought it through and convinced yourself though, complete with unfounded gratuitous potshots at "liberals" and how they want to impoverish the masses. That's some pretty impressive self-delusion. A veritable case study, in fact. Executive compensation is a red herring. Real wages have already fallen so why not take them down further? Is that what you're saying? And are you attributing falling wages to declining union membership? Is that your model, a two variable model with wages on one access and union membership on the other? No factor other than maybe executive compensation has had any bearing on wages? I have set forth my anti-monoply analysis. What is your analysis? Do you have any? Do you have a hypothetical as to where the higher wages will come from?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 11, 2009 14:16:15 GMT -6
You're full of shit. You're a management shill. Your "argument," and I use the word tenuously, is one of bias devoid of evidence. Furthermore, most of those countries who are "kicking our ass" in manufacturing, save China, have strong labor laws, and their "socialist" governments invested in infrastructure and healthcare to the the benefit of their fucking companies, who now have big advantages over us in both areas. Fucking socialists propping up their capitalists! Heads exploding! Well that sure is a cogent and well thought out response. Which assertion of mine is incorrect? That labor unions form monopolies? That monopolies increase prices? That increased prices lead to lower quantity demanded? Do you not understand how a collective bargaining agreement is a windfall only to those who are a party to it and that it diminishes real income of those who are not a party to it? If you think about it, I'm actually a shill not for management, but rather for anyone who is not and will not be a party to a collective bargaining agreement. And if everybody is a party to a collective bargaining agreement and everybody gets a 10% raise, guess what - prices for everything will go up and there will still be a bottom 10% of society that will be no better of in 3 years with a 10% raise than they are today. The reason "liberals" love unions so much is because they destroy the middle class and make most people poorer in real terms. A middle class accountant who is fresh out of college making $40k a year will very likely never be represented by the SEIU or any other union. Let's say he spends $10,000 a year at Wal-Mart. Then, the SEIU comes in to Wal-Mart, extracts a 30% raise in the form of higher salaries and benefits. Wal-Mart passes some of the cost on to customers. Let's say the union causes a 10% increase in costs. Now, in order to have the same level of consumption, our middle class accountant has to pay $11,000 for an identical basket of goods. How is that a good deal for him? That is the fundamental problem with the union. It does not increase the size of the pie, it merely reallocates who gets to eat it. Sure, Joe Wal-Mart goes from making $15k per year to $19k, but that extra $4k isn't just created out of thin air, it is coming out of the pocket of our middle class accountant above. The marginal additional $4k in income the Wal-Mart worker has is not "new consumption" or whatever the "liberals" want to call it, it is a reallocation of consumption away from someone else. The middle class accountant is made poorer so that the Wal-Mart worker is made richer. The billionaire isn't the one bearing the higher expense or diminished consumption, it's the middle class white collar worker who will not be represented by a union who is bearing the brunt of this anti-poor, anti-middle class policy. The other guy who gets shut out is the 18 year old who is looking for a job. Wal-Mart had new jobs to offer at $15k, but at $19k, forget about it. The policy is simply a shift of income away from the middle class and upper middle class skilled laborers down to poor and lower middle class unskilled laborers. It pulls the whole top of the middle class down and the bottom up slightly. It is a necessary pre-condition for the 100 wealthy family, 100 million poor family egalitarian, anti-freedom society the "liberals" want to see. That cannot happen until the middle class is destroyed through higher taxation, both through government confiscation and price inflation taxation caused by unions. Your ideal situation kind of sucks for that middle class accountant though... Having all those Walmart employees suddenly able to afford his services would have been a boon to the business he works at. Instead he'll get laid off and have to get a job at the same Walmart he shopped at.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 11, 2009 14:26:08 GMT -6
Well that sure is a cogent and well thought out response. Which assertion of mine is incorrect? That labor unions form monopolies? That monopolies increase prices? That increased prices lead to lower quantity demanded? Do you not understand how a collective bargaining agreement is a windfall only to those who are a party to it and that it diminishes real income of those who are not a party to it? If you think about it, I'm actually a shill not for management, but rather for anyone who is not and will not be a party to a collective bargaining agreement. And if everybody is a party to a collective bargaining agreement and everybody gets a 10% raise, guess what - prices for everything will go up and there will still be a bottom 10% of society that will be no better of in 3 years with a 10% raise than they are today. The reason "liberals" love unions so much is because they destroy the middle class and make most people poorer in real terms. A middle class accountant who is fresh out of college making $40k a year will very likely never be represented by the SEIU or any other union. Let's say he spends $10,000 a year at Wal-Mart. Then, the SEIU comes in to Wal-Mart, extracts a 30% raise in the form of higher salaries and benefits. Wal-Mart passes some of the cost on to customers. Let's say the union causes a 10% increase in costs. Now, in order to have the same level of consumption, our middle class accountant has to pay $11,000 for an identical basket of goods. How is that a good deal for him? That is the fundamental problem with the union. It does not increase the size of the pie, it merely reallocates who gets to eat it. Sure, Joe Wal-Mart goes from making $15k per year to $19k, but that extra $4k isn't just created out of thin air, it is coming out of the pocket of our middle class accountant above. The marginal additional $4k in income the Wal-Mart worker has is not "new consumption" or whatever the "liberals" want to call it, it is a reallocation of consumption away from someone else. The middle class accountant is made poorer so that the Wal-Mart worker is made richer. The billionaire isn't the one bearing the higher expense or diminished consumption, it's the middle class white collar worker who will not be represented by a union who is bearing the brunt of this anti-poor, anti-middle class policy. The other guy who gets shut out is the 18 year old who is looking for a job. Wal-Mart had new jobs to offer at $15k, but at $19k, forget about it. The policy is simply a shift of income away from the middle class and upper middle class skilled laborers down to poor and lower middle class unskilled laborers. It pulls the whole top of the middle class down and the bottom up slightly. It is a necessary pre-condition for the 100 wealthy family, 100 million poor family egalitarian, anti-freedom society the "liberals" want to see. That cannot happen until the middle class is destroyed through higher taxation, both through government confiscation and price inflation taxation caused by unions. Your ideal situation kind of sucks for that middle class accountant though... Having all those Walmart employees suddenly able to afford his services would have been a boon to the business he works at. Instead he'll get laid off and have to get a job at the same Walmart he shopped at. They'll go to him either way if he buys the software that allows him to turn around earned income credit "tax refunds" in less than an hour. Do you believe that those who are not a party to a specific collective bargaining agreement are better or worse off as a result of the bargaining agreement?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 11, 2009 14:42:36 GMT -6
That's a great argument, BTR, except for the inconvenient fact that real wages have been falling as union membership has declined whilst executive compensation has grown exponentially. Pesky fucking facts. Nice hypothetical, though. It's an interesting theory, kind of like supply side economics. Too bad it's total bullshit. You've clearly thought it through and convinced yourself though, complete with unfounded gratuitous potshots at "liberals" and how they want to impoverish the masses. That's some pretty impressive self-delusion. A veritable case study, in fact. Real wages have fallen and union membership has declined because of unions, not despite them. It's amazing how much the hypocrite liberals support unions, but when the time comes to vote with their pocketbooks, they will gleefully throw the union workers under the bus and run as fast as they can to the Toyota dealership (where they can buy a car made with non-union labor in Kentucky), all the while blaming the downfall of the US unionized auto industry not on their ridiculously higher union labor cost structure and the fact consumers won't pay a premium for union labor, but alleged differences in quality or some tripe about how the world's best selling automaker "doesn't make cars people want to buy." American consumers have shown repeatedly that they won't pay a premium for products made with union labor, because union labor doesn't make the products better, just more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 11, 2009 14:47:20 GMT -6
That's a great argument, BTR, except for the inconvenient fact that real wages have been falling as union membership has declined whilst executive compensation has grown exponentially. Pesky fucking facts. Nice hypothetical, though. It's an interesting theory, kind of like supply side economics. Too bad it's total bullshit. You've clearly thought it through and convinced yourself though, complete with unfounded gratuitous potshots at "liberals" and how they want to impoverish the masses. That's some pretty impressive self-delusion. A veritable case study, in fact. Real wages have fallen and union membership has declined because of unions, not despite them. It's amazing how much the hypocrite liberals support unions, but when the time comes to vote with their pocketbooks, they will gleefully throw the union workers under the bus and run as fast as they can to the Toyota dealership (where they can buy a car made with non-union labor in Kentucky), all the while blaming the downfall of the US unionized auto industry not on their ridiculously higher union labor cost structure and the fact consumers won't pay a premium for union labor, but alleged differences in quality or some tripe about how the world's best selling automaker "doesn't make cars people want to buy." American consumers have shown repeatedly that they won't pay a premium for products made with union labor, because union labor doesn't make the products better, just more expensive. Go hire a non-union electrician. I'd recommend you purchase a lot of smoke detectors as well. Logic clearly isn't one of your strong points. Your imagined causative relationship between falling wages and declining union membership is fucking hilarious. An epic logical fail. Regarding the automobiles, get back to me when the evil union laborers start designing them.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 11, 2009 15:04:40 GMT -6
Real wages have fallen and union membership has declined because of unions, not despite them. It's amazing how much the hypocrite liberals support unions, but when the time comes to vote with their pocketbooks, they will gleefully throw the union workers under the bus and run as fast as they can to the Toyota dealership (where they can buy a car made with non-union labor in Kentucky), all the while blaming the downfall of the US unionized auto industry not on their ridiculously higher union labor cost structure and the fact consumers won't pay a premium for union labor, but alleged differences in quality or some tripe about how the world's best selling automaker "doesn't make cars people want to buy." American consumers have shown repeatedly that they won't pay a premium for products made with union labor, because union labor doesn't make the products better, just more expensive. Go hire a non-union electrician. I'd recommend you purchase a lot of smoke detectors as well. Logic clearly isn't one of your strong points. Your imagined causative relationship between falling wages and declining union membership is fucking hilarious. An epic logical fail. Regarding the automobiles, get back to me when the evil union laborers start designing them. The electrician's union, pipefitter's union, and other unions where admission in the union requires some apprenticeship and/or proof of some minimum level of competence to perform a task is not what I speak out against and I suspect Mr. Storm doesn't care about those, either. Just as I want to go to a doctor who has passed the boards, an accountant who has attained his CPA status or a lawyer who has passed the bar exam, I think these types of specialized unions are desirable to the extent they cure informational imbalances (the admission into such a profession shows a standardized level of competence that I as a consumer cannot find out about easily without the presence of the union, bar association, medical assoication, etc.). Those people have invested time, money and effort into gaining marketable skills and should be compensated accordingly (to the extent they are not overly anticompetitive about not letting new people in). They are very different than the SEIU who has a fundamental belief that unskilled labor scanning items at Wal-Mart or making beds at the Holiday Inn Express are entitled to some giant raise just for merely existing. The entitlement "I deserve something for doing nothing out of the ordinary or exerting any additional amount of effort" mindset is not accretive to our economy. Are there any variables other than union membership that might drive wages? Anything?
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 11, 2009 18:01:16 GMT -6
Go hire a non-union electrician. I'd recommend you purchase a lot of smoke detectors as well. Bullshit. Union labor doesn't neccessarily equate to competence. Most of the contractors in my area are non-union. I won't hire any union subs. Fuck them. A shitty electrician/plumber/carpenter etc... will be out of business soon enough whether he's a union hack or not.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 12, 2009 8:08:08 GMT -6
Real wages have fallen and union membership has declined because of unions, not despite them. It's amazing how much the hypocrite liberals support unions, but when the time comes to vote with their pocketbooks, they will gleefully throw the union workers under the bus and run as fast as they can to the Toyota dealership (where they can buy a car made with non-union labor in Kentucky), all the while blaming the downfall of the US unionized auto industry not on their ridiculously higher union labor cost structure and the fact consumers won't pay a premium for union labor, but alleged differences in quality or some tripe about how the world's best selling automaker "doesn't make cars people want to buy." American consumers have shown repeatedly that they won't pay a premium for products made with union labor, because union labor doesn't make the products better, just more expensive. Go hire a non-union electrician. I'd recommend you purchase a lot of smoke detectors as well. Logic clearly isn't one of your strong points. Your imagined causative relationship between falling wages and declining union membership is fucking hilarious. An epic logical fail. Regarding the automobiles, get back to me when the evil union laborers start designing them. I must not have been clear before, so I'll type slower this time. Declining union memberships has caused lower wages. As all of the high paying jobs that could be sent offshore were sent offshore (or to non-union plants in the South) wages fell. Do you dispute that union slugs make more than non-union workers? That just about every highly unionized American industry that could be offshored was? And as for the autos, if you don't think having to pay some union slug $80/hour to put them together (or heck, even to sit on his ass when there's not enough demand) has an effect on content and price, you don't know the first thing about the auto industry. Like most hypocrite liberals, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that foreign cars are better (it's all management's fault, man, even though we're talking about dozens of different management teams - including a foreign owner and p/e fund) and that the non-union labor (which is supposedly inferior for electricians, but ok for autos, right?) has no effect.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 12, 2009 8:22:30 GMT -6
OT
Chuck,
Love the avatar, one of the funniest clips on Youtube. The noise that chicks makes is great.
It's also pretty funny because she clearly has never had the wind knocked out of her before. ;D
|
|