A GREAT primer on the problem with gov't unions...

[carpro]

There is validity in criticism of Bush.

Now, why is it that many of the problems that began during the Bush years are blamed on Obama by conservatives? :tear:

Bush deserves criticism for his own runaway spending.

Obama deserves criticism for making it worse and prolonging the recession.

Obama deserves special criticism for his blatant economy damaging pro-union policies. They own him and it shows.

 

[glfredrick]

That is an excellent chart so I have reprinted it again here. It is a well known and established fact that President Obama had to save the economy from Bush's mishandling. This chart shows for the most part how much Obama had to spend to bail out the Bush bankrupt economy. This is getting embarassing. It would be best to stop applying the persistence that is appropriate to your faith to your political ideology. The mix is a bad brew as you are unwittingly displaying.

You have been drinking the kool-aid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

One additional not so simple but essential statement:

Had it not been for unions you probably would not be setting behind a computer to enjoy, nor enjoying all the things that allow you to, as you say, join in the fun because there was no pre-union precedent that corporations would have ever voluntarily raised wages for you as they have.
You more than likely would not have been able to afford those things and in fact most of those things would not even exist because of the lack of a middle class to consume them. A middle class that consumes things, that make it possible to pay for things and create jobs that make things.
You would be living in a world of things only the very rich could afford and the menial products the rest of the nation could afford but I seriously doubt the nation would have survived without the wisdom of unions or a means to extract fairer wages from the rich. You have no idea how unions, the essential vehicle for upward mobilization of the people, have changed this nation for the better. The truth is America would look demographically more like Soviet russia 30 years ago than it does now.
The reason this incredible experiment called America exists today as it does is because we learned balance.

To keep faith and political ideology apart is probably wise especially when you begin to equate the two. The former is perfect and deserving of unwavering support but the later is unperfect and periously in danger of being treated the same way.

Actually, the reason America looks like it does today is largely because, for those 80 or so years I cited above, our government TRIED to make us just like the Soviet Union. They are still trying, harder and more successfully (their attempt, not how well it will eventually be for America) than ever.

It is only the resolve of Mom and Pop America, who do not wish to become a socialized nation, that have held us back from already being what the "former" Soviet Union was.

Unions do not "produce" anything. They, instead, act to hinder that production, siphon off funds that would better serve the families who have to pay out those funds in the form of dues, and they have not demonstrated that their "collective bargaining" has won the day, in fact, they are on the wane in America, save for government workers. That, in and of itself, ought to say something, i.e., that the rights of workers no longer hinges on union bosses.

 

[rbell]

The debt went out of sight under Bush ... tax cuts and increased spending.

The first bail-our was under Bush.

Obama inherited two wars Bush started.

There is validity in criticism of Bush.

Now, why is it that many of the problems that began during the Bush years are blamed on Obama by conservatives? :tear:

Umm...most folks here wouldn't consider Bush's fiscal policy conservative. I know I wouldn't.

Therefore, I'm not defending it.

In fact, Obama has continued Bush's mistakes.

Furthermore, he's compounded it by being a lapdog of union interests--which (in the public sector realm) are bankrupting our states at lightning speed.

Note the seamless re-direct back on topic...

 

[carpro]

Furthermore, he's compounded it by being a lapdog of union interests--which (in the public sector realm) are bankrupting our states at lightning speed.

Note the seamless re-direct back on topic...

Great effort!!!:applause:

Three in a row. We'll see if it works.

 

[billwald]

>And if not for today's unions, more of us would be working.

You confuse unions and "free trade." If not for free trade, more of us would be working with a better standard of living.

Someone please explain how US production workers can compete with people who make ten dollars a day.

 

[billwald]

>Actually, the reason America looks like it does today is largely because, for those 80 or so years I cited above, our government TRIED to make us just like the Soviet Union. They are still trying, harder and more successfully (their attempt, not how well it will eventually be for America) than ever.

Not exactly. Our owners want America to economically function like 1870 Great Britain sans the coal smoke.

 

[Havensdad]

Our owners ...

Oh, you mean our owners, the Union bosses...No, I am pretty sure they want socialism.

 

[Havensdad]

Someone please explain how US production workers can compete with people who make ten dollars a day.

I will grant you that "free trade" with other countries is stupid. Everything coming into this country needs to be charged a hefty tariff.

However, America has BEEN competing with people around the world, that make "10 dollars a day" until the last couple of decades, and it has not been through the unions. It has been by American ingenuity, and hard work, and lower taxes.

First> People in other countries making 10 dollars a day, can afford to live on that. Why? Because they have no taxes, no regulations, and little to no government interference. You do realize that tax burdens compound, don't you?

Second> A company can afford to pay a worker 200 dollars a day, and still compete with the overseas company that pays their worker 10 dollars a day, through deregulation, hard work, and ingenuity. If that 10 dollar a day person is only pumping out 10 units, while the 200 dollar a day guy is putting out 500, (through technology and, wait for it, INCENTIVE to work harder), then they can easily compete. Not only that, the quality will tend to be much higher.

Unions, however, are strangling this, by not allowing merit based pay scales. A person who works harder, should be paid more. A lazy person who is not doing their job, should be fired. Unions prohibit these things...therefore, we cannot compete.

 

[carpro]

>And if not for today's unions, more of us would be working.

You confuse unions and "free trade." If not for free trade, more of us would be working with a better standard of living.

You're delusional.

 

[Melanie]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYup.

Umm, that might be so, but would you be receiving a living wage, any hard fought conditions would be lost and you the worker would be right royally ripped off by an employer who had no legislation to prevent the use and abuse of his employees. Be careful what you wish for!!

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed! [Apparently I need to lengthen my message.]

 

[Havensdad]

Umm, that might be so, but would you be receiving a living wage, any hard fought conditions would be lost and you the worker would be right royally ripped off by an employer who had no legislation to prevent the use and abuse of his employees. Be careful what you wish for!!

Um, what? I am sorry, but I can fight my own battles. I do not need the government telling me where I can work, how I can work, etc. Nor do I need the government negotiating my salary. That is WAY overstepping their bounds!

People were making MUCH higher wages, before the government decided to stick their nose in things. Government interference does not help anything, it just makes everything more expensive and less efficient.

 

[Bob Alkire]

...Government interference does not help anything, it just makes everything more expensive and less efficient.

So true my friend.

 

[billwald]

>Um, what? I am sorry, but I can fight my own battles. I do not need the government telling me where I can work, how I can work, etc. Nor do I need the government negotiating my salary. That is WAY overstepping their bounds!

Forget the government. Please explain how you would personally negotiate for a raise with Honda or Toyota.


>People were making MUCH higher wages, before the government decided to stick their nose in things. Government interference does not help anything, it just makes everything more expensive and less efficient.

In which decade or century were the workers making much higher wages in terms of hours worked for food, clothing, and shelter?

 

[Havensdad]

>Um, what? I am sorry, but I can fight my own battles. I do not need the government telling me where I can work, how I can work, etc. Nor do I need the government negotiating my salary. That is WAY overstepping their bounds!

Forget the government. Please explain how you would personally negotiate for a raise with Honda or Toyota.

#1 Work harder than anyone else.

#2 Be reliable and available, when no one else is.

#3 Have an upbeat attitude, and influence others positively; be a leader.

#4 Walk in and say "Hey, look at the kind of work I do. I deserve a raise."

I have been doing this my whole life, and you know what? I have NEVER had an employer turn me down for a raise. Meanwhile, others, who only did enough to get by, were turned down. And they should be.

>People were making MUCH higher wages, before the government decided to stick their nose in things. Government interference does not help anything, it just makes everything more expensive and less efficient.

In which decade or century were the workers making much higher wages in terms of hours worked for food, clothing, and shelter?

The 50's through 70's. My father was a foreman in the 60's, making the same thing he was making as a superintendent just a couple of years ago (before retirement). All due to government take over and regulations.

The link between inflation (meaning less buying power for workers) and increased government interference, is a well documented one.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1174072

 

[rbell]

In which decade or century were the workers making much higher wages in terms of hours worked for food, clothing, and shelter?

Thanks to union greediness and the government's collusion with them, LOTS of people make LOTS less. They're unemployed.

Of course, you have those ridiculously overpaid folks that keep their jobs...mostly thanks to unions. Thus, other folks have to either be let go or never hired to support them...

 

[carpro]

Umm, that might be so, but would you be receiving a living wage, any hard fought conditions would be lost and you the worker would be right royally ripped off by an employer who had no legislation to prevent the use and abuse of his employees. Be careful what you wish for!!

Absolutely. Made a good living most of my life. No union help...thank you very much.

I wish all states were right to work states. Then people could join a union if they want to ...or not.

Unions destroy personal initiative and suck the life out of the economy.

 

[Sonjeo]

The 50's through 70's. My father was a foreman in the 60's, making the same thing he was making as a superintendent just a couple of years ago (before retirement). All due to government take over and regulations.

Sorry, havensdad, but you have it all wrong. The 50's to 70's are the

primary years when government regulation was widely supported and

unions were bearing the fruit of their labor, a very prosperous time for

workers. It was only when Reagan and the conservative movement took

over in the 80's, making war on unions and gov't regulations that these

government regulations and unions you demoan began to be scaled back

until finally yes, and no coincidence, two years ago your father without

the kind of leverage previously enjoyed in the government regulating,

union dominating 50's & 70's probably was making less, just like so many

more Americans today. And isn't that outrageous during a time of record

corporate profits and multi-billion dollar tax cuts.

The link between inflation (meaning less buying power for workers) and increased government interference, is a well documented one.

But not in this link. Of course there are correlations between government
regulation and inflation but nothing that fully offsets the level of wages. There are no numbers here to back up anything
The paper begins to explain this but then is convieniently cut off. You have to subscribe to see the rest. Typical ploys of unaccessible abstracts, papers and such from the right that cannot be shown but to only the previleged.


The link between relative falling wages, middleclass decline and union

decline is an obvious one indeed and thankfully the clear majority of

American people after seeing the result of declining union influence are

now returning to increased support for unions and government unions(see

first page).

 

[billwald]

Agree with Sonjeo. The 50's thru 70's were the years the unions were strongest and most every year the working people did a little bit better and parents had confidence that their kids would do better than they did. Young working people these days have no confidence that they will do as well as their parents.

In the 50's thru 70's most everything we bought was made in USA. Every medium to large city had at least one large industry where a working person could get a job right out of high school and work till he hit 65 and get a pension. NONE of that is now true. There are NO household appliances made in USA. 90% of our clothing comes from China.

 

[carpro]

And then union workers priced themselves right out of the market. They didn't have enough sense to know when enough was enough.

But greed is like that.