[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Certainly it isn’t the stuff of high-minded debate, which you seem to think is a good thing, and it is much more personal than based in idealism.[/quote]
We must speak different languages then, because I could’ve sworn that singling out “conservatives” rather than “thunderbolt23” or “academics” is attacking an ideology (conservatism) rather than specific people (you) or a specific work class (academics).
Also, if you wanted to prove me wrong, why did you make sure you fulfilled the prophecy? If you wanted to prove me wrong, the way to do it would be to take the high road. You did not, and with that you actually proved me right…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The bulk of my original post addressed why I thought unions were harmful than good in this day and age - again, not a particularly controversial stance.[/quote]
No, but you – and everybody else on that side of the discussion – presented anecdotal evidence to support those thoughts. I have yet to see somebody come out and a) show me scientific facts – like the numbers I present above – that prove the point that unions are “more harmful than good” – or b) just admit they have an ideological problem with unions.
[quote]hspder wrote:
deanec wrote:
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic. Your illustration was counterintuitive to your argument, as others have tried to point out. Please don’t explain it again, you have made your position quite clear.
Good. Unless you want to debate if it was Comic Irony or Sarcasm, of course, since so many people seem to confuse them these days…
Maybe I’ve read one too many Jane Austen novels.
(read the first few pages of Pride and Prejudice and you’ll know what I mean)
deanec wrote:
Do I think that many companies executive salaries are out of line? Yes I do. But who am I (or you) to say what is out of line? I don’t own the company. If they want to pay stupid salaries that is their business, and to me that is the bottom line.
hspder wrote:
That is very naive of you. The actions of these companies have an effect on society. If companies pay a disproportionably high amount of money to their execs, and hence a disproportionably low amount to their workers, that has severe social consequences, and I’m not talking only about wealth distribution. We don’t each live in a bubble, contrary to what Libertarians and some Conservatives like to think.[/quote]
On the contrary, it is naive of you to think that it will ever change to the significance you would deem acceptable. Who gets to decide what is “proportional”?
So you think that government subsidies are required for success in business? My worldview dictates that we keep government out of the way as much as possible. I’d like to see that start with the education system, by the way.
The fact that innovation also requires capitalization seems to be lost somewhere in the argument. The big three’s problems are not as cut and dried as you seem to think. When cash flow is being sucked up disproportionately into places other than R&D, that kills the ability to innovate.
[quote]hspder wrote:
American workers produce a lot because they work long hours. Simple as that. Germans, for example, still produce more per hour worked.[/quote]
But it would seem that we have the appropriate amount of both labor force, and “force multipliers” in use. Despite there being many many more populous countries, they aren’t more productive. Equally, despite there being much more connected and providential nations they aren’t more productive.
I’m not measuring the productivity of management, I’m measuring the productivity of the management/labor group. And to boil it down to your terms, you need only divide GDP by 8760. You might say that that’s 24 hrs. a day, but a good manager can’t restrain his benefit to 8 hrs. a day. A good laborer MUST restrain his benefit to 8 hrs. a day whether he likes it or not. And yes, if I couldn’t do this job professionally, I’d do it recreationally.
What do the unions have to do with pollution and crime rates. If anything universal unionization would cause higher crime rates. As far as universal healthcare, you could make the case that the unions don’t/shouldn’t want this as well. Only universal healthcare for the employed.
You’re getting off topic, the union doesn’t give a shit how many kids you have or how intelligent you are, they only care about labor, it’s the only bargaining chip they have. As far as wealth being the judge of a man’s worth, it’s used the world over, and no union can change it.
Like I said, you’re getting off point, almost existential. The unions don’t care about your intelligence or creativity (certainly not mine, my co-workers or anyone I’ve ever met in my field), generosity, freedom, or democracy. Just because they employ democratic processes doesn’t mean they stand for democracy or freedom. And some of the most well educated and intellectual communities around shun unions for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is love of their work. I agree with the rights of people to organize and I equally agree with the rights of employers to eschew that organization.
This IMO, is why the unions are so depressed and becoming obselete. As we move(d) from a goods-based economy to a service-based economy (in the information age no less) we find more people being able to do things that they like to do for a living or people who were born to do the work they do. Every union rep I’ve personally interacted with (which, admittedly, is all of two) gets irritated when you say that you’d do this job without pay.
I sympathisize with the question “Where did our other values go?” but I know for a fact that the answer to that question isn’t “The unions.”
True. But have you noticed how your brain is actually the part of the body that consumes the LEAST energy and resources?
Wrong.
Although the brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization.
You were so eager to disagree you missed the point. We were comparing brain vs REST OF BODY. Not to the liver or any other organ specifically. The stats above say the brain consumes less than 50% of the output – much less, in fact. Hence, I was correct.
[/quote]
Someone creates a new industry, creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, makes millionaires out of those who gambled their savings and trusted him to produce…and YOU LIBS RIP HIM. “He’s overpaid! He’s a fat cat! How dare he make so much while we sweat here making our $65,000/year, in the business he created and literally gave his heart and soul for!!”
If you libs weren’t so GD laughable, it’d be tragic.
I love capitalism. I love a system which has made my country the richest country on earth. I’m glad I don’t live in a ‘People’s Paradise’ like North Korea, where people eat the bark off of trees. I’m sorry there are sweatshops, that someone who is starving is given a terrible job in some hellhole country. Like I said before, if I could push that magic button…
No other system has produced as much happiness in the world as capitalism. Does this mean that some execs are overpaid? Sure, so what? The company that does that will soon fire the guy or go broke. God bless capitalism. If the same incompetent was in a Pulitburo, he’d simply order everyone killed. I’d rather overpay, then fire him.
Its bad enough that the capitalists have to feed those that spit on them, but…sheesh, guys, give 'em a break!!
Watch out, they might ‘Shrug’.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You were doing good until you declared yourself a retard with…
Watch out, they might ‘Shrug’.[/quote]
So, you agree with everything I said, declaring it ‘good’, until I quote from Ayn Rand? Suddenly, I’m a retard? Hmmm…there must be some logic there somewhere.
Let me apply this logic to my students, maybe that’ll help me figure it out: Johnny answers 100 questions and I agree that 99 of the answers are correct. I disagree, however, with the last answer. “Johnny, I think your last answer is wrong. You fail and are a retard. You only got 99/100.”
Damn! Maybe I am a retard! Vroom, explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old.
[quote]vroom wrote:
For instance, think of all the various protections in place today that protect all workers (sexual harassment, safety regulations, etc.) With all of that in place, why must there still be unions? To protect against what? I think it’s more than a little problematic that unions can force in artificially high wages that then make companies uncompetitive.
Personally, I’m still not convinced that this is as simple as you claim it is.
While unions may be somewhat synonymous with high wages, unionized companies have been able to roll back wages at times in order to survive during tough times.
It is the job of management to create a successful company. I don’t know how many people have worked for a large company, but it isn’t always the workers, the lower level people, that are unmotivated, unproductive and wasteful.
Finally, not all companies should succeed. They make poor decisions. They make poor products. They compete poorly in the marketplace. They maintain poor relations with their own workers.
These are roads to failure. However, there always has to be something to blame, and the wages of the working employee are an awfully simple scapegoat to point at.
I’ve been involved in some startups. They didn’t fail because we were overpaid. They failed because top management didn’t know how to create products that could translate to value in the eyes of customers.
[/quote]
Agee with VRoom,being in the construction trades i have worked around all kinds of companies,very seldom do you run into an exexcutive thats really on the ball and know their business,the majority of the people you see dont have much common sense when you listen and watch how they operate .then when your working around and talk to their employees you’ll find out most got their job from being a relative or friend etc.
And the reason most of these companies have problems is these guys have to big of an ego to listen to anyone that they think is beneath them ,that may have a better idea on how to do something that would save time and money.most places if someone has a better way it seems like the execs try to fuck things up to make it harder on everyone.
When in actuality it would put a feather in their cap and make them look better ,but they cant put 2+2 together and figure it out.I have also seen companies where a certain exec seemed like they were trying to screw up the company then it was bought out by another outfit and that exec was miraculosly hired by the new outfit and the other execs were letgo,HHMMM?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Like I said, you’re getting off point, almost existential. The unions don’t care about your intelligence or creativity (certainly not mine, my co-workers or anyone I’ve ever met in my field), generosity, freedom, or democracy.[/quote]
They don’t, directly. But by doing their part defending the worker’s quality of life – by keeping working hours, retirement and salaries in check – they allow people to focus on what’s important, rather than working 80 hours a week for minimum wage with no benefits (which is what we would have pretty soon in many industries if unions disappeared).
[quote]PantyPeePunch wrote:
If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor.
– Frank Lloyd Wright
Very true : My employees have a right to start a union and I have a right to fire all of them.
[/quote]
Right on! But now we see the real problem. It’s not the union per se, which have inherent limitations, but the government forcing the union demands on the company at the point of a gun even if it destroys the company and all of the jobs.
[quote]deanec wrote:
When cash flow is being sucked up disproportionately into places other than R&D, that kills the ability to innovate. [/quote]
I agree 100%. But it’s not the workers or the unions that are sucking up the cash flow. In fact, as shown in one of the links I provided, unionized workers make LESS money than nonunionized ones. It is the Execs that are sucking up all the cash, NOT the unions or the workers.
And don’t try to deny it. This is not anecdotal evidence. The numbers are clear and there for everybody to see.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nah, he owns you, dude.
[/quote]
Get with the program, man. I’ve shown, through real numbers, that Execs actually get much more than they would in that analogy. In fact, if they “only” got what they would in that analogy, I wouldn’t be a 1/20th as upset.
Greedy Execs are leeches who are sucking Corporate America dry. There’s no way to deny it.
[quote]hspder wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Like I said, you’re getting off point, almost existential. The unions don’t care about your intelligence or creativity (certainly not mine, my co-workers or anyone I’ve ever met in my field), generosity, freedom, or democracy.
They don’t, directly. But by doing their part defending the worker’s quality of life – by keeping working hours, retirement and salaries in check – they allow people to focus on what’s important, rather than working 80 hours a week for minimum wage with no benefits (which is what we would have pretty soon in many industries if unions disappeared).
[/quote]
Hmm. I am wondering on that last assertion. How in the world would that actually happen? In the U.S. at least? There’s no way it would roll back to that state of affairs sans unions. There are overtime laws in place as well.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I love capitalism. I love a system which has made my country the richest country on earth.
No other system has produced as much happiness in the world as capitalism. [/quote]
Where on Earth did I attack capitalism? Look up Social-Democracy, the ideology I subscribe to. It says in several places we love Capitalism too. We believe in it.
That doesn’t, however, mean that we believe in YOUR brand of capitalism, called “Laissez-faire Capitalism”, an ideology that only FASCIST regimes have adopted. Have you ever wondered why is that?
In fact, countries that have capitalist systems that are more controlled (as described by social-democratic ideals) have the highest happiness levels and the highest quality of life indicators.
The US might be the richest, but it is neither the “happiest” nor the one with the highest quality of life.
Don’t get me wrong: I love my country. In particular, I love California. I quickly found out I couldn’t live anywhere else, however much money anybody offered me.
And it is because I love it that I want it to be, in fact, the best country for ANYBODY that works hard – rich or poor – to live in.
Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the way to achieve that. Anyone that has a minimal understanding of economy gets that.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nah, he owns you, dude.
Get with the program, man. I’ve shown, through real numbers, that Execs actually get much more than they would in that analogy. In fact, if they “only” got what they would in that analogy, I wouldn’t be a 1/20th as upset.
Greedy Execs are leeches who are sucking Corporate America dry. There’s no way to deny it.
People lie. Numbers don’t.
[/quote]
Don’t forget about controlling all of politics and lawmakers. That’s a big one too.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Hmm. I am wondering on that last assertion. How in the world would that actually happen? In the U.S. at least? There’s no way it would roll back to that state of affairs sans unions. There are overtime laws in place as well.[/quote]
How quickly do you think those laws would disappear if there were no unions to lobby and finance campaigns?
