patrick.net

So unions are killing the middle class.

I love how the two data sets have vertical scales are scaled differently so that it appears there is a high degree of correlation between the two data sets. One has increments of 5, the other has increments of 2. Notice how one starts at zero and the other starts at 42 so that the data sets appear to be "hugging" each other. It's too bad people will look at that picture and initially jump to the conclusion the author of it would like them to. The slopes aren't the same. Not even close.

You have an underwhelming understanding of the concept of correlation.

One is the rate at which membership is dropping over the period, which is close to a constant rate of decrease. The other is the rate at which the middle class is losing it's share of total wealth of the country, also a constant rateof change (decrease).

By the way, I didn't say that causation is proven. It would be no more proven if by some bizzarre coincidence these two entirely different units were decreasing with the same slope.

I don't even know what the "same slope" would mean, since one starts at about 28% and the other starts at 53%. Maybe approximately 2:1 would be the same slope (2:1 the other way that is). But who would possibly expect that ?

Right, union membership goes to zero, means middle class goes to zero. Did you think that I thought that ?

(Noteworthy that women entered the workforce in a big way over this period, just in case anyone doesn't understand how severe the trend is for the middle class)

(a review for you)

The Correlation coefficient would be extremely close 1.

We could show this with a graph, with percentage of wealth along the X axis, and the percentage union member ship on the Y axis (time would not represented in the graph).

I'm not going to draw it for you, but all the data points would be very snug around a line that has a slope of about 15/6 (2.5). The slope of this line is unimportant to the correlation. What's important is that all the points are close to the line.

better graphic.

I think someone in statistics would lose their mind looking at that graph. A complete manipulation.

Who needs unions anyways? They just get in the way of profit. Companies need to make more profit to satisfy the thirst of their shareholders. Profits increase share price and raise the stock market. That is the fix! Get rid of the unions, get rid of all taxes for corporations, and the free market will set the wages and save us.

Just kidding. I wish we could go back to the single income family.

Truthplease says

I think someone in statistics would lose their mind looking at that graph. A complete manipulation.

I know statistics, and while its true that the scale is manipulated to line them up, the changes are very highly correlated.

marcus says

I know statistics, and while its true that the scale is manipulated to line them up, the changes are very highly correlated.

Fisk says

Could one conclude all those are reasons for vanishing US middle class? Such correlations have meaning only for highly nonlinear functions, where many raises and drops coincide.

Most of those probably drop in a pattern more like exponential decay, rather than a straight line. Or if not exponential decay, less linear than these graphs.

By the way, I never said I see causation, in fact I specifically said this doesn't prove that.

What we are seeing recently would seem to imply the reverse.

Intuitively, I believe one could argue the following 2 points. At one time, increases in union membership raised the middle class. At present, the reverse would seem to be true. That is, that the dismantling of the middle class may be making the decrease of unions more possible.

It's clear to me the two are intertwined. Does anyone doubt that if our local trolls were busy making money, instead of trolling this forum, they would be less envious of, and concerned with unions ?

Today, Unions only serve to keep people out of the free enterprise process period. They were needed in a time, when people had to work for table scraps under grueling inhumane conditions.

Somewhere around the 80's they served to take a menial job that takes minimal experience and convert those into high paying jobs, to make affirmative action viable.

One other comment about causation. The connection between manufacturing and construction and the middle class wealth would be stronger than that of union membership to middle class wealth. The latter would be more of an indirect relationship.

No surprise there. Both declines have the same root. More people, fewer jobs in traditionally unionized industries.

It's a little hard to believe nowadays, but there used to be a labor shortage. I knew an oldtimer who worked semi/unskilled factory work. He said he had a job shoveling scrap into a furnace for over $10/hr. He got into some stupid argument with his foreman and, since there was no union, he was immediately fired. Same week, he got a similar job for better pay.

I suspect a graph comparing average length of unemployment with middle class share of aggregate income would also have a high degree of correlation.

Cook County resident says

I knew an oldtimer

Just to be clear, he said this happened in the late 60s.

shrekgrinch says

Tenouncetrout says

Somewhere around the 80's they served to take a menial job that takes minimal experience and convert those into high paying jobs, to make affirmative action viable.
The ugly truth, exposed at last.

When you start quoting TOT to back your opinions, you've officially jumped the shark.

Cook County resident says

I suspect a graph comparing average length of unemployment with middle class share of aggregate income would also have a high degree of correlation.

No, that's related to recessions. For example a recession in 1974, would have a higher avg length of unemployment than say 1999 when the economy was humming along. And yet the average duration for being unemployed is going to be higher in a recession in 1974 than it would be in 1999.

This recession is the all time worst one since the depression, and may be another depression, hence many are unemployed for a long period of time.

But you're right, it's super related, in the short term, because it causes people to lose their middle class "wealth" and drop in to poverty if they are unemployed for too long.

They despise every thing I say, but this my friend is evident.
They will listen to every Damn thing I have to say. They can't turn away otherwise, less they tie them selves to the paddock. But hey they just remembered they've got G4 and their iPhone is still in their pocket.

Tenouncetrout says

Somewhere around the 80's they served to take a menial job that takes minimal experience and convert those into high paying jobs, to make affirmative action viable.

Wow.

Tenouncetrout says

They will listen to every Damn thing I have to say

Wrong.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

Who said anything about being popular??

Clearly, TT's comment is not popular with you..regardless as to whether it is true or not.

And how is that relevant?

marcus says

No, that's related to recessions. For example a recession in 1974, would have a higher avg length of unemployment than say 1999 when the economy was humming along. And yet the average duration for being unemployed is going to be higher in a recession in 1974 than it would be in 1999.

OK, the long term unemployment curve certainly has far deeper peaks and valleys than the other curves. Smooth out this curve, starting in 67:

The offshoring of high paying jobs was the primary cause of middle class decline.

The decline of unions is a secondary cause. Private sector unions were marginalized long ago. Public sector unions are being marginalized now.

bobcat says

The offshoring of high paying jobs was the primary cause of middle class decline.

That's only been the last 15 years or so. The middle class has been in decline since the 70s. I guess if "by off shoring of high paying jobs" you mean manufacturing, which includes competing companies such as Toyota,
the I agree.

Wow. Interesting discourse. To summarize, though, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, and therein lay the problem. Non-thoughtful minds immediately assume correlation = causation. Lazy minds don't bother to ask, "is this relationship coincidental, or causal?". Venal minds ask, "how can I use this information to support my agenda?". And perhaps the truly thoughtful say to themselves again, "oh dear, more 'information' to misdirect from the real issues".

I would bet big money that BS (Bill Smith), even if he needs to bring out a new identity just for this profound comment, sees himself as in the " truly thoughtful." (translation: "I have an enormous ego")

Killing public unions would be an end of all unions. If you think this is a non issue, or if you think the middle class will be better off without any unions, you should assemble your argument and share it with us.

But now you have to keep track of which identity you made this profound observation under.

Maybe you're right. Maybe a lot of people that used to be in the middle class, simply don't deserve to be anymore. It's tough out there, right ?

The American new way: Unions aren't helping ME,... directly,...RIGHT NOW,...Fuck em.

marcus says

bobcat says

The offshoring of high paying jobs was the primary cause of middle class decline.

That's only been the last 15 years or so. The middle class has been in decline since the 70s. I guess if "by off shoring of high paying jobs" you mean manufacturing, which includes competing companies such as Toyota,

the I agree.

Actually, it's been going on since the mid 80s. The pace of offshoring picked up dramatically in the mid 90s.

I do not just mean manufacturing jobs. I mean engineering jobs too. Those disappeared faster than the manufacturing jobs which preceded them.

For example, consumer electronics manufacturing completely vanished more than a decade ago.

marcus says

I would bet big money that BS (Bill Smith), even if he needs to bring out a new identity just for this profound comment, sees himself as in the " truly thoughtful." (translation: "I have an enormous ego")

Killing public unions would be an end of all unions. If you think this is a non issue, or if you think the middle class will be better off without any unions, you should assemble your argument and share it with us.

But now you have to keep track of which identity you made this profound observation under.

Maybe you're right. Maybe a lot of people that used to be in the middle class, simply don't deserve to be anymore. It's tough out there, right ?

The American new way: Unions aren't helping ME,... directly,...RIGHT NOW,...Fuck em.

Yes, killing public unions will be the end for all unions. Private sector unions were marginalized long ago. Public unions are all that's left. Once those go, the union movement will be a flatliner.

I agree with deficit hawks that states and cities do not currently have the fund to meet their obligations to the unions. But I part company with the deficit hawks who claim the unions caused the bankruptcies of states and cities. Revenues fell off a cliff while costs stayed the same. Until the economy tanked, nobody cared about public unions. The deficit hawks are using the financial meltdown as pretext for union busting, some of Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism in action.

Right now in California if a school district wants to save money because it is getting less revenue from the state then it must per union rules lay-off lower senority union teachers and increase class sizes for students unless the teacher's union approves accross the board cuts for its members. Does this improve our public schools or hurt them?

Public school teachers because of union rules are very difficult and expensive to fire for cause. So it is very rare that teachers are fired. So many bad teachers are kept in our public schools. Does this help our public schools or hurt them?

In Sacramento, every single member on our local school board has been elected with the financial support of teacher's unions. There is no difference of opinion on our school boards. Does this help or hurt our public schools?

Teacher's unions have virtually controlled school districts for at least 30 years in California. Why does California rank near the bottom in education results in spite of spending more money per student than most states? Because teacher's unions and other public sector unions represent the union memberships interests not the public's interest.

If you want to make more money then become more valuable to society. How does having corupt, self-serving public sector unions bring more value to our society?

Cook County resident says

Just to be clear, he said this happened in the late 60s.

We haven't had it that good since:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATENSA

There were ~2M males turning 18 each year in the 1960s, and we were drafting a big chunk of them, too.

Baby boom was aged 6 to 21 in 1968. Massive demand generation. Credit was only started getting rolling:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1xQ

cdw7503 says

Why does California rank near the bottom in education results in spite of spending more money per student than most states?

The immigrants suck at taking tests, obviously. The white-bread school I went to in the late 1970s:

http://www.redfin.com/school/24653/CA/Salinas/Monterey-Park-Elementary-School

has a rating of *3* now (it was totally awesome when I was there -- my parents chose our house to get into that school's catchment -- and probably still is regardless of the standardized testing results). The Mexican kids are 75% of the peeps but only passed the tests at 35%, which is not surprising since half of them are ESL, and the ESL group passes the test at 15%.

California also ranks in the 30s (out of 50) in revenue per student ($10,000). This is between NE and KY.

The states under CA have a much lower cost of living.

CA also has the highest per-capita expenditure for corrections, after Wyoming.

CA has the 2nd-highest student-teacher ratio, at 21. The national average is 15.

CA has the 3rd-highest average salary, at $67,000, but not much above the national average of $54,000, considering the cost of living.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

And how is that relevant?

Because YOU made it relevant when you asked:

tatupu70 says

Who said anything about being popular??

Wow--you are taking trolling to a new level. Bravo.

cdw7503 says

Right now in California if a school district wants to save money because it is getting less revenue from the state then it must per union rules lay-off lower senority union teachers and increase class sizes for students unless the teacher's union approves accross the board cuts for its members. Does this improve our public schools or hurt them?

Public school teachers because of union rules are very difficult and expensive to fire for cause. So it is very rare that teachers are fired. So many bad teachers are kept in our public schools. Does this help our public schools or hurt them?

In Sacramento, every single member on our local school board has been elected with the financial support of teacher's unions. There is no difference of opinion on our school boards. Does this help or hurt our public schools?

Teacher's unions have virtually controlled school districts for at least 30 years in California. Why does California rank near the bottom in education results in spite of spending more money per student than most states? Because teacher's unions and other public sector unions represent the union memberships interests not the public's interest.

If you want to make more money then become more valuable to society. How does having corupt, self-serving public sector unions bring more value to our society?

cdw7503 says

Why does California rank near the bottom in education results in spite of spending more money per student than most states?

California is 47th in spending per student if you adjust for cost of living.

Adjusted for cost of living, California spends $7,571 per student, compared to $9,963 per student nationally. With our state's students shortchanged by an average of nearly $2,400 per pupil, the survey gave California an "F" in the category of school spending.

The mid-year cuts imposed upon our state's schools, which were not included in the study's results, have further compounded the problems resulting from California's abysmal school funding rankings.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2009/01/08/index.html

Not adjusted for cost of living, California was 31st in 2008 - 2009.
http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf

It's lower now.

marcus can you post edweek stuff please, it's subscriber only.

Maybe I'm not reading the government graph correctly. It shows CA spends more than any other state on education, almost twice as much as the next closes one NY, and yet spends about 30th/31st on spending per student. There is something fundamentally wrong with this system.

I wonder how much liberal policies of educating illegals have to do with this.

cdw7503 says

Because teacher's unions and other public sector unions represent the union memberships interests not the public's interest.

Teacher's interests are the public's interests. How many great teachers would be replaced by young teachers (the revolving door) for much lower pay if not for unions ?

How many people get in to teaching because they want to give back, but without the prospect of decent pay and benefits that is there because of unions, they wouldn't be able to ?

The idea that unions "control schools" is an outright lie propagated by evil scumbags on talk radio.

Unions negotiate collectively for teachers in their union. They have a contract, yes that gives some slight edge to senior teachers. And their contract makes it difficult to get rid of teachers, unless for example they repeatedly don't follow the directives of their administrators.

This union pay and contract ATTRACTS QUALITY TEACHERS !

I don't see how this is "controlling schools."

IF you feel that education is something that we as a country or state can't afford, then just say so. But honest and fact based discussion would be nice.

marcus says

Teacher's interests are the public's interests. How many great teachers would be replaced by young teachers (the revolving door) for much lower pay if not for unions ?

so why not change the union rules to make it based on quality of education provided and to not allow salary be part of the reason? Why seniority, why not quality?

FortWayne says

so why not change the union rules to make it based on quality of education provided and to not allow salary be part of the reason? Why seniority, why not quality?

How do you propose to judge "quality" of education?

combined with the chart posted by marcus earlier. does not paint a good picture of our education system.

Regarding seniority, I'm not that senior, but I'll tell you one of the things that happens under the seniority system, which isn't perfect, but it's how it works. People pay dues in their early years. They teach classes that maybe wouldn't be their choice. They get less honors classes etc.

In elementary school, it might mean teaching 2nd grade, when they really want to teach 6th grade. After many years, the senior teachers get to choose the grade they want to teach over the brand new teacher, who may be given an assignment that isn't their first choice.

That, and knowing that you can continue teaching after paying your dues, rather than being put out to pasture at 55, are the primary things that the union contracts gives teachers for seniority. Although I'm sure it varies somewhat.

It's putting something that is fairly common sense about dues paying in writing, so that it is standardized and everyone feels they are being treated the same (over time).

Is it any surprise that most of the states at the bottom of the school spending per pupil chart are all RED states?