[quote]deanec wrote:
hspder wrote:
In fact, as shown in one of the links I provided, unionized workers make LESS money than nonunionized ones.
Why would I want to be in a union then?[/quote]
To support the union leaders.
[quote]hspder wrote:
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.
How quickly do you think those laws would disappear if there were no unions to lobby and finance campaigns?
[/quote]
Not at all. I would be stunned to see those kinds of changes, even absent unions. It’s pretty much part of established practice at this point, so if you tried to ditch off on any of that, you would have a revolt. I mean, keep in mind, those laws apply to both unions and non-unions and I would hazard a guess that there are a heck of a lot fewer non-union workers than those part of organized labor.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Unions support the Republicans? Really? I think you better check that one out. Organized labor is directly against the Republican agenda. And the AFL-CIO knows this. Watch yourself…[/quote]
Heh.
I better “watch myself?” What a clown…
Spare me the self-righteous bombast. Matewan’s a hell of a flick, but it’s 2006.
That’s the problem here. One side of this “debate” is talking about the real world that we actually live in, and the other is rapt in a quixotic fantasy that they’re part of a fight that ended before any of us were born.
So far, nobody has addressed my first point: it’s illegal for any one corporate entity to be the monopoly provider of oil, or steel or operating systems. Monopolies are also generally considered not to be in the public interest, and some would even say that monopolies are immoral. So why should a single corporate entity be allowed to monopolize the labor market in, say, the auto industry? Why shouldn’t that be illegal? How is it in the public interest? Do you think it’s immoral?
Also, to the guy who thinks that labor, and labor alone creates wealth: you’ve got a lot of nerve, telling anybody else to take an econ class. Capital is also ESSENTIAL to the creation of wealth. Somebody needs to put up the money, to assume the RISK, or the factory never gets built.
The role of management is also critical: ask the guy on the floor how many cars he ought to build over the next three years – you think you’ll get an answer that takes into account the laws of supply and demand, trends in the price of steel, and the latest market research? In well-managed companies, the efforts of labor aren’t WASTED building things that people don’t want to buy.
This stuff is really not that complicated, but you do have to think about it A LITTLE.
[quote]deanec wrote:
hspder wrote:
In fact, as shown in one of the links I provided, unionized workers make LESS money than nonunionized ones.
Why would I want to be in a union then?[/quote]
Good question, and that might explain the look of this graph:
So:
-
Unionized workers get paid less, despite paying dues
-
Much of their agenda has been pre-empted by statute
-
Industry is retreating in areas that are union heavy and relocating to areas that have less membership density
I am not convinced the future of unions is very bright.
Furthermore, I think an important distinction is that the working class bloke does not automatically equal union partisan. And, while I don’t think union voters are in danger of defecting wholesale to the GOP, the Democrats are losing union guys on social issues by becoming the party of libertinism. Working class folks don’t appreciate the coastal party elites sneering down their nose at their social values.
[quote]hspder wrote:
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?
[/quote]
hspder-
I don’t mean to derail this thread but I’m wondering if you will do me a favor an expound on the statement quoted above?
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
hspder wrote:
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?
hspder-
I don’t mean to derail this thread but I’m wondering if you will do me a favor an expound on the statement quoted above? [/quote]
Fascism does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy.
In a fascist state, the state comes first and harnesses some of the power of a market economy to strengthen the state (i.e., the industrialized Nazi war machine). But laissez-faire? Nope.
Taking Hitler as an example, let’s see what was written about his policies in 1938 when Time Magazine declared him Man of the Year:
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
And of course Mussolini made no bones about it:
“Laissez faire is out of date”
Doesn’t sound like Mussolini’s “Fascist Manifesto” advocates laissez-faire economics:
"In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:
- an 8-hour day and a minimum wage
- involvement of workers’ representatives in industry
- reorganisation of the transport sector
- revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, and
reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:
- creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities
- armaments factories are to be nationalised, and
a peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:
- a heavy progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth)
- expropriation of the property of religious congregations
- revision of all contracts for military provisions and
sequestration of 85% of all war profits by the state. "
Fascists are many things - proponents of laissez-faire capitalism they are not.
Good question. I’d be curious too. How does what you are describing relate to the concept of neoliberalism?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t mean to derail this thread but I’m wondering if you will do me a favor an expound on the statement quoted above?
Good question. I’d be curious too. How does what you are describing relate to the concept of neoliberalism?[/quote]
Note that I specifically singled out laissez-faire capitalism, which is just a part of the objectivism that Headhunter so much loves.
Neoliberalism is a completely different animal. First, neoliberalism is not just economics: it is a social and moral philosophy. Second, although neoliberalism favors laissez-faire capitalism in some cases, it doesn’t go full throttle on it.
Reagan and Thatcher were neoliberals and neither of them supported 100% laissez-faire capitalism.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[/quote]
Good link. 
It says:
"
From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini’s regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani.
"
Any questions?
Read what I wrote again: I said laissez-faire has been adopted by fascist regimes. Which is exactly what the article you so kindly linked to says.
I never said that the fascism, as an economic philosophy, is synonymous with laissez-faire capitalism. I know it’s not.
Fascism advocates an economic system known as corporatism.
I do believe, however, that corporatism will always be the natural result of laissez-faire capitalism, like what happened with Mussolini.
More on corporatism:
[quote]hspder wrote:
Read what I wrote again: I said laissez-faire has been adopted by fascist regimes. Which is exactly what the article you so kindly linked to says.[/quote]
Actually, you said:
Seems odd that you want to create this guilt-by-association between fascism and laissez-faire economics with a five year stretch of this policy in Italy (which I suspect you had no idea about until I posted that link), even though, if you read Mussolini’s “Fascist Manifesto”, which was written around 1919, it was clear the Italian dictator had no attachment to the policy. And, in light of the most famous fascist of all - Hitler - no laissez-faire advocacy could be found - yet you still want the stigma to stick.
That is untenable. Sorry. I know you desperately want to raise the specter that a brand of economics you don’t like has ties to “fascism!” for obvious rhetorical reasons, but don’t be intellectually dishonest in trying to make the connection you want so badly to be there.
Well, your qualifying aside - since the clear inference is that you wanted guilt by association between laissez-faire economics and fascism to a larger extent than the recently discovered (by you) stretch of five years under Mussolini - you said “only fascist regimes”, which is also erroneous. Laissez-faire economics was the policy of quite a few nations in the late 19th and early 20th century, the US included.
And you should know, I am not a defender of laissez-faire economics - I don’t advocate that line of thinking, so don’t leap to that conclusion.
You sure?
[quote]Fascism advocates an economic system known as corporatism.
I do believe, however, that corporatism will always be the natural result of laissez-faire capitalism, like what happened with Mussolini.
More on corporatism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism[/quote]
That is a curious view, in that several industrialized countries that once had a laissez-faire type approach did not morph into corporatist states, unless you consider the New Deal a step into a corporatist direction.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
hspder wrote:
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?
hspder-
I don’t mean to derail this thread but I’m wondering if you will do me a favor an expound on the statement quoted above? [/quote]
He can’t. A fascist country is, by definition, totalitarian. This is akin to ordering someone to be free. How’s that possible? A fascist government might back off, as Lenin did when the Russians were starving. Is that LF capitalism? LOL!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter,
No matter how much you happen to have a fondness for Rand, there is no shortage of people willing to take a high paying executive job.
The type of shrug you mention is a complete fantasy concocted through your current love affair with a ideology that won’t cut it in the real world.
Before that, you sounded like you had an opinion and could talk about it… but that all went out the window with the shrug.
Sorry I couldn’t put that in five year old terminology for you.[/quote]
Thanks for trying. You came close.
Look, the destruction of capitalism is a long-term event. If you make it immoral for men to pursue wealth, then they will not. The loafers and rotters will then take those executive jobs and you see the rise of the parasite, the man who doesn’t want to grow a business, just suck it dry (as is happening in some industries). You guys are blaming the victims, the men who produce. You vote for politicians who are immoral and willing to pass immoral laws that bleed producers dry. You then wonder by bums and vermin take over those jobs.
Why are jobs moving overseas? To GET AWAY FROM YOU! You vote into power men who know nothing, produce nothing (but chaos), and are greedy for power.
You guys who voted for this are getting precisely what you deserve. You wanted ‘social democracy’? Why then do you shrink in horror from the results of your votes? Why do you shake your head, saying “Its an evil world!” ? You voted for it, you desired it, you traded your freedom for government ‘benefits’. Enjoy!
“Senor D’Anconia, what do think is going to happen to the world?”
“Just exactly what it deserves!”
“Oh, how cruel!!”
— Atlas Shrugged
[quote]deanec wrote:
hspder wrote:
In fact, as shown in one of the links I provided, unionized workers make LESS money than nonunionized ones.
Why would I want to be in a union then?[/quote]
A relative of mine,retired from P&G about 15-20 yrs. ago,they are non union and used to pay their employee’s well and give them great deals on stock, health benefits etc. when unions were strong,they did this so their employee’s wouldnt unionize.Now that unions are weak in this country,the people that are doing the same job he did make half the hourly salary he did and they dont get the stock benefits or good medical program like they used to.
But the products they make keep going up in price even though salaries are drastically reduced to the workers that make the products.this relative retired with a little over a million dollars in stock and since then it has split several times.also the company used to give him full health benefits when he retired now they cut back and he has to pay for them.In fact they try to get a lot of their employees thru temp services etc. so they dont have to pay any benefits.Even if you arent in a union the fighting unions do for workers rights helps you to.WITHOUT UNIONS ANY WORKING people areFUCKED!!!
Headhunter,
That is all nice sounding, but it is bullshit. Jobs are going overseas because of free trade and the ability to find cheaper labor.
Jobs are going overseas because companies are indeed run for profit, and that is how the system is supposed to work.
What you are describing, in that little diatribe against politicians, is basic truths about humanity. You can’t escape the dark sides of humanity, ever, no matter who’s philosophies you ascribe to.
To ignore that they exist or to assume they only exist in a certain group or class of people is dangerous hubris at best.
However, keep spouting off some old ideas like they have the ability to solve the worlds problems. It will get you very far I’m sure.
Shrug.
[quote]ron33 wrote:
deanec wrote:
hspder wrote:
In fact, as shown in one of the links I provided, unionized workers make LESS money than nonunionized ones.
Why would I want to be in a union then?
A relative of mine,retired from P&G about 15-20 yrs. ago,they are non union and used to pay their employee’s well and give them great deals on stock, health benefits etc. when unions were strong,they did this so their employee’s wouldnt unionize.Now that unions are weak in this country,the people that are doing the same job he did make half the hourly salary he did and they dont get the stock benefits or good medical program like they used to.
But the products they make keep going up in price even though salaries are drastically reduced to the workers that make the products.this relative retired with a little over a million dollars in stock and since then it has split several times.also the company used to give him full health benefits when he retired now they cut back and he has to pay for them.In fact they try to get a lot of their employees thru temp services etc. so they dont have to pay any benefits.Even if you arent in a union the fighting unions do for workers rights helps you to.WITHOUT UNIONS ANY WORKING people areFUCKED!!![/quote]
P&G is a good example.
Benefits are a component of total compensation. Total compensation over the 15-20 yr period you referenced most likely rose substantially.
Unfortunately, without knowing the complete details, I’ll guess that the cost of those benefits rose far faster then the rate of inflation. In reality the costs associated with the employees compensation package went up a lot, it just didn’t all go towards salary.
I own a company that has a union workforce. NYC local unions are hardcore. The political infighting between the various factions of any union take up far more of the time then any concern about the membership. Unions are also getting rid of traditional union functions like health care, pensions, hiring halls etc. They are pushing them on to the employer because they are…unprofitable for them to manage.
You guys arguing the alturistic nature of unions are a little dated. Unions are a business. Once you realize that you manage your union relationship like a vendor and your negotiations run a lot smoother. That’s the way the union wants it also.
My labor costs can be a certain percentage of my costs, anymore and I am not competitive. The union wants to take that right up to the limit. My suppliers want to get the most for their product and not a penny less. I want the same for my services. It’s all a delicate balance. If your good at it you survive and grow. If you are not you don’t last.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Why are jobs moving overseas? To GET AWAY FROM YOU! You vote into power men who know nothing, produce nothing (but chaos), and are greedy for power.
Headhunter,
That is all nice sounding, but it is bullshit. Jobs are going overseas because of free trade and the ability to find cheaper labor.
Jobs are going overseas because companies are indeed run for profit, and that is how the system is supposed to work.
What you are describing, in that little diatribe against politicians, is basic truths about humanity. You can’t escape the dark sides of humanity, ever, no matter who’s philosophies you ascribe to.
To ignore that they exist or to assume they only exist in a certain group or class of people is dangerous hubris at best.
However, keep spouting off some old ideas like they have the ability to solve the worlds problems. It will get you very far I’m sure.
Shrug.[/quote]
Moral principles don’t have expiration dates. Right and wrong are not served by refusing to recognize same.
The system we have now is the one that you desired and voted for – live with it. You wanted low-life politicians who’d rob the productive for the benefit of the non-productive. Your wish has been fulfilled. Why complain?
You thought you could escape from reality. You thought that by robbing the capitalists, you could create a paradise. Nope. This is it. Enjoy!
[quote]Moral principles don’t have expiration dates. Right and wrong are not served by refusing to recognize same.
The system we have now is the one that you desired and voted for – live with it. You wanted low-life politicians who’d rob the productive for the benefit of the non-productive. Your wish has been fulfilled. Why complain?
You thought you could escape from reality. You thought that by robbing the capitalists, you could create a paradise. Nope. This is it. Enjoy![/quote]
Ahahahaha. You are funny.
There is a flip side to your argument. The people that influence the politicians the most are those with the money. These are in fact the capitalists.
How does that fit into your theory? Are you suggesting that the bribery taking place in Washington today, by the rich, is in fact being done on behalf of the poor?
Too bad your little ideology doesn’t actually describe the realities of the world today. It’s time has past. The world has continued to evolve.
If you seek a grand ideology, you will have to look further or deeper than this.
[quote]GeorgeMontyIV wrote:
Unions no longer needed? Its a useless arguement. If they aren’t needed they will disapear. If they are needed then we will have more people in them in the future. So this labor movement is self regulating.[/quote]
Even if you are right with one of your premises, this is a circular argument.
I try my best to avoid any of the political dick swinging that goes on here (unless it involves our Guvnah, Kathleen “Blank Stare” Baaaabineaux Blanco.)
I’m curious about two particular things…
-
How do a group of people that scoff heartily at jockeyed statistics and numbers put out by mainstream exercise and nutrition entities lose all sense and eat whatever twisted crap (for the most part) that apparently validates their theory?
-
As self-described avid practitioners of a sport that produces results only with individual effort, how do the loudest socialist voices on this board reconcile the schism between what they practice as fact and what they preach as political gospel?
Consider these rhetorical!
[quote]vroom wrote:
There is a flip side to your argument. The people that influence the politicians the most are those with the money. These are in fact the capitalists.
[/quote]
Where does Jesse Jackson fit in?