patrick.net

FortWayne says

Now I know this is pointless to discuss since liberals will cling on to anything, true or false

It's gems like this that keep me coming back here.

Peter P says

So consumers will have to pay less for stuff because of lower labor costs.

And consumers will be able to buy less stuff because their primary source of income pays less.

Shit's really cheap in Sierra Leone and Laos though.

thunderlips11 says

And consumers will be able to buy less stuff because their primary source of income pays less.

Shit's really cheap in Sierra Leone and Laos though.

It is a feedback loop. But Market will provide the balance.

Peter P says

It is a feedback loop. But Market will provide the balance.

Yeah, and the balance will be at at an equilibrium point that is bad for EVERYONE.

marcus says

It's so incredibly stupid. How far does the pendulum have to swing toward economic inequality before you get it? Do we have to become basically a third world fascist police state before you finally wake up.

Says the guy who supports government redistributing income.

Irony much?

kentm says

The average full-time worker in a “Right To Work” state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

I'm also guessing that on average, unemployment is lower in a RTW state. Just saying.

Peter P says

So consumers will have to pay less for stuff because of lower labor costs.

It is a two way street.

No it isnt. All costs are passed along to the consumer. Any savings are generally kept. Not much of the microeconomic stuff applies anyways because all the major throughput of goods are pan-national and oligarchical.

How about this: higher costs of living (mainly high rent/ expensive houses) means less disposable income in a consumer economy.

We are in a slow motion national suicide by stagflation. Costs go up, salaries stay the same or go down, and the housing freaks keep pressing for higher prices.

zzyzzx says

kentm says

The average full-time worker in a “Right To Work” state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.

I'm also guessing that on average, unemployment is lower in a RTW state. Just saying.

You are probly right. RTW is like minimum wage. It increases the average and decreases the size. Both are bad.

Peter P says

You are probly right. RTW is like minimum wage. It increases the average and decreases the size. Both are bad.

But it doesn't work that way. I should be free to not be represented by a union. Yet the union in the Non-RTW states will force me into the union. And if a man does not want to be racketed into the union, he should not have to.

Mick Russom says

Peter P says

So consumers will have to pay less for stuff because of lower labor costs.

It is a two way street.

No it isnt. All costs are passed along to the consumer. Any savings are generally kept. Not much of the microeconomic stuff applies anyways because all the major throughput of goods are pan-national and oligarchical.

Generally savings are reinvested in order to grow a business, because if you are not growing your competition is. You can't invest or hire more people if you don't have the money to do it.

I'm not advocating minimum wage for everyone, but what we have now is unions killing this country. A firefighter making 90,000k a year... might be all right. But the same firefighter retiring at 65 with 195,000 annual pension is a cost society cannot bear at current market conditions.

At the end unions are only about unions and union greed, they don't care if we struggle or die in poverty, as long as they get what they want. They pass tremendous costs onto rest of us that we cannot sustain and end up losing services that are needed by our citizens.

Problem is, everyone benefits from a union. High wages paid to union members drive up the average wages, so even people in non-union jobs benefit.

I remember back in college, my Econ Prof tried this bullshit:

"Wages rise faster for non-union members."

That's true, but it's better to make $18/hr today with 2% raises going forward, than to make $9/hr today and get 5% pay increases for several years until it reaches equilibrium with the unionize workers years down the line. You lost money in the gap period, and the time value of money and all that.

thunderlips11 says

Problem is, everyone benefits from a union. High wages paid to union members drive up the average wages, so even people in non-union jobs benefit.

No, the only beneficiaries here are those well connected in the union. A non union member forced to pay union dues is economically burdened. A society that can no longer afford proper services because of exorbitant union pay is economically burdened.

And with the union structure of seniority and collective decisions, motivation to try hard and be the best is filtered out by creating apathy. And apathy is the most common trait among union workers.

Unions sre rent seekers.

FortWayne says

thunderlips11 says

Problem is, everyone benefits from a union. High wages paid to union members drive up the average wages, so even people in non-union jobs benefit.

No, the only beneficiaries here are those well connected in the union. A non union member forced to pay union dues is economically burdened. A society that can no longer afford proper services because of exorbitant union pay is economically burdened.

And with the union structure of seniority and collective decisions, motivation to try hard and be the best is filtered out by creating apathy. And apathy is the most common trait among union workers.

Even if this were true, it sill beats ass kissing and office politics that you are likely to encounter in a non union shop.

Peter P says

Unions sre rent seekers.

No, because they produce things for their wages.

Workers produce things. Unions is just a collective controlled by a few.

Peter P says

Workers produce things. Unions is just a collective controlled by a few.

Union Members aren't workers? Pilots in a union don't fly planes? Longshoremen don't actually unload ships?

PS Corporations are also collectives controlled by a few.

Then why can't corporations legally collude against consumers?

A firefighter making 90,000k a year... might be all right. But the same firefighter retiring at 65 with 195,000 annual pension is a cost society cannot bear at current market conditions.
FW, that is not a can do attitude. In my municipality we fill pools with mud, take the library budget out of the general fund and instead create a parcel tax to fund the libraries. What's not sustainable with a strategy like that?
From Forbes: Then ask yourself: What is the net present value of an $80,000 annual pension payout with additional full health benefits? ...Based on this small but unfortunately realistic 4% return, an $80,000 annual pension payout implies a rather large pot of money behind it–$2 million, to be precise.

Peter P says

Then why can't corporations legally collude against consumers?

Because democracy, that's why

Bellingham Bill says

Peter P says

Then why can't corporations legally collude against consumers?

Because democracy, that's why

What J. S. Mill had said about tyranny.

Well, to me personhood begins at birth or incorporation.

I support women's right to choose.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Our only hope is for unions to be reclassified as terrorists like they are in China and for all Americans to work for half the Chinese wage and offer billionaires blow-jobs for the chance to work for a dollar a week. This is the way of the Free market and if you can't see that, maybe you're a Freedom-hating terrorist, too.

What the hell do you mean, maybe?

I know you'll never know how little you know or how wrong headed your view is.

FortWayne says

I should be free to not be represented by a union.

In my union you don't have to be a member, but you do have to accept the benefits that they get you.

FortWayne says

At the end unions are only about unions and union greed

This is only about 95% off the mark.

I guess what bothers me is that you truly don't understand what the union is or what it does. You insist on framing it in such a laughable way. How can a human be so gullible.

Yes, unions negotiate on behalf of workers. It's called collective bargaining, and yes their sole function is to try to negotiate the best deal possible for the workers.

Now you could argue that they back politicians and possibly indirectly benefit themselves much like a corporation or industry can lobby government.

If that happens and government workers were to get too good a deal, say for example the fireman with the huge pension that's too high, then why not put pressure on pension reform or adjusting in a fair way things in the other direction ?

Instead you want do away with unions all together, and you see them as evil.

Unions exist for a reason, and in most cases, the collective bargaining they have done have not gotten them a deal that's too good. In some cases pretty good though.

You get what you pay for. My optional ~$50/month I pay goes toward representing the collective best interests of teachers in my district. Yes, that's all they want. IT is what's best for the kids too. Smaller classes and good pay for teachers keeps good people coming in to the profession, and it raises the quality of instruction.

I believe that you have no idea what you are arguing for(unless your real name is Koch - in which case you know).

EBGuy says

Then ask yourself: What is the net present value of an $80,000 annual pension payout with additional full health benefits? ...Based on this small but unfortunately realistic 4% return, an $80,000 annual pension payout implies a rather large pot of money behind it–$2 million, to be precise.

I don't know about fireman, there's a risk premium with them and with police, but teachers have money taken out of their monthly pay for 40 year if they're going to get that kind of pension. At the rates that pension funds have gotten in the last few decades, if the the govt added a little each year (a few thousand more) to what the teachers payed in for that 40 years, it would be worth $2 million.

FortWayne says

should be free to not be represented by a union. Yet the union in the Non-RTW states will force me into the union.

So the union members can't vote to have a closed shop so your leach ass scum sucking non dues paying members can get all the benefits with no costs. How very democratic of you!

FortWayne says

No, the only beneficiaries here are those well connected in the union. A non union member forced to pay union dues is economically burdened. A society that can no longer afford proper services because of exorbitant union pay is economically burdened.

And with the union structure of seniority and collective decisions, motivation to try hard and be the best is filtered out by creating apathy. And apathy is the most common trait among union workers.

Nonsense and bullshit.

Can you find apathetic incompetent union members ? Sure. But you can find incredibly driven hard woking union members too, who push for success for themselves and their team's. And there are constant reforms pushing for greater accountability, and efficiency, and success.

The very fact that there are idiots that spout the kind of nonsense we hear from you, and the big billionaire money behind eliminating unions,
makes clear the fact that we damn well better be successful if we want to continue existing.

FortWayne says

Generally savings are reinvested in order to grow a business

Not really. My company puts savings into the pocket of the CEO.

FortWayne says

But it doesn't work that way. I should be free to not be represented by a union. Yet the union in the Non-RTW states will force me into the union. And if a man does not want to be racketed into the union, he should not have to.

Yeah, liberals claim to be pro-choice, when the only issue they are really ever pro-choice on is abortion.