• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

I think that the last 3+ years have shown that compromize means taking on R's concepts & having the R's condem the concept as being inspired by the Devil Herself i.e. Government Mandate.
If compromize is to mean adopting R's princibles, I say lets (D's) start sticking to our position for a change. That would be a change, D's supporting Democratic positions.
In other words effe compromise with the R's while we live under minority rule. :peace [/FONT]
Boo Radley said:
I certainly agree that both sides, at every level of government need to sit down and do the work. This will require hard stands at times, but also compromise. In fact, I would like to see more compromise. Much more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The high court had to ask for a new brief, as the original case couldn't seriously reach the conclution for which they were paid. :peace
AdamT said:
I would place the blame on the Supreme Court for issuing an idiotic decision. The unions simply don't have enough money to go toe-to-toe with corporate America.
Click to expand...
 
Right to work states have a lower average wage. :lamo:peace

Conservative said:
Right to work states have better economic conditions than states where union membership is required as terms of employment. That is reality. What I posted is the projected problems with union pension funds and those public unions are funded by the taxpayers and therein lies the problem and why public unions have no place in this country.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:
Right to work states have a lower average wage. :lamo:peace
Click to expand...

Don't laugh your ass off just yet. Please show us factually why right-to-work laws have anything to do with some states having a lower average wage than others.

Why are you using stupid-sized fonts and all bold? We'll read your posts without signal flares.
 
The Fox (small n) news also had Governor Walker almost daily leading up to the recall. :peace
rocket88 said:
Sure, but the TP rallies got plenty of coverage on Fox (this isn't about Fox, but their lean is as clear as MSNBC's), and that probably helped Republicans in the 2010 election, and maybe this year too. Big political demonstrations get news coverage. So sure, it didn't hurt to have the rallies that the unions had, but that's not a bad thing.

And I don't care about how much was spent on Walker's behalf. Unions and Democrats were just as able to spend an equal amount in support of the recall. They didn't, but whose fault is that, right?
Click to expand...
 

It's a long story, dateing back to comcast forums & my computer illitericy. I may share it sometime. :peace
MaggieD said:
Don't laugh your ass off just yet. Please show us factually why right-to-work laws have anything to do with some states having a lower average wage than others.

Why are you using stupid-sized fonts and all bold? We'll read your posts without signal flares.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:
Right to work states have a lower average wage. :lamo:peace
Click to expand...

How do you know that's not a coincidence? Have you considered workforce structure (age and education) and industry structure, etc. How have those states fared since adopting "right to work laws" vs. those without such laws as would have been predicted by changes in their workforce and industry structure? Moreover, is the average wage (I'm assuming you mean full compensation that includes benefits) the only or best metric for assessing the value or lack thereof of right to work laws? Is the major impact of such laws economic nor non-economic (e.g., shifting the political funding landscape by creating barriers to labor union growth)?
 
Walker won. Nuff said. :boohoo:
 
donsutherland1 said:
How do you know that's not a coincidence? [...]
Click to expand...
Rational thought is all that is needed to determine that it's not a coincidence. An argument that unions are not the reason that union wages are higher than non-union wages, overall, would be an example of a lack of rational thought.

If rational thought is lacking, then any argument or debate on the matter would be pointless.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Rational thought is all that is needed to determine that it's not a coincidence. An argument that unions are not the reason that union wages are higher than non-union wages, overall, would be an example of a lack of rational thought.

If rational thought is lacking, then any argument or debate on the matter would be pointless.
Click to expand...

What might appear to be "rational" is not necessarily the same thing as something that is supported by empirical evidence. FWIW, the economic literature on Right-to-Work is mixed. Some data suggests a modest adverse impact on salaries and wages and per capita income and a modest benefit to proprietors' incomes. Other data suggests that income patterns are largely a product of enduring structural economic conditions. Two examples.

One might expect that right-to-work legislation would help “revive” a state’s economy because businesses would be more amenable to moving to those states with right-to-work laws. While the results of this study empirically support that right-to-work states are likely to have more self-employment and less bankruptcies on average relative to non-right-to-work states, there is certainly no more business capital formation as measured by the number of businesses and the ratio of firm “births” to total firms in right-to-work states. Moreover, from a state’s economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth. Wages and personal income are both lower in right-to-work states, yet proprietors’ income is higher, ceteris paribus. As a result, while right-to-work states may maintain a somewhat better business environment relative to non-right-to-work states, these benefits do not necessarily translate into increased economic verve for the right-to-work states as a whole—there appears to be little “trickle-down” tothe largely non-unionized workforce in these states.
Click to expand...

Source: Lonnie K. Stevans, “The Effect of Endogenous Right-to-Work Laws on Business and Economic Conditions in the United States: A Multivariate Approach,” Review of Law and Economics, 2009.

For those looking for the differences in per capital personal income, salaries and wages, and proprietors' income, per capital personal income was 0.4% lower in right-to-work states and average wages and salaries were 2.3% lower in right-to-work states. In contrast, properietors’ income was 1.9% higher in right-to-work states. All three variables were statistically significant at a 99% level of confidence.

I find that after accounting for the influence of economic conditions that were present when states adopted Right-to-Work laws, RTW states have significantly higher wages than would otherwise be expected. This finding is robust across a wide variety of model specifications. Perhaps surprisingly, past economic conditions “explain” a large amount of the variation in current state wages.
Click to expand...

Source: W. Robert Reed, “How Right-To-Work Laws Affect Wages,” Journal of Labor Research, Fall 2003.

The bottom line is that the economic literature is mixed. Where there seems to be agreement is that the impact of right-to-work laws on major economic variables is probably small. It's not an economic panacea or recipe for economic destruction as exaggerated popular commentary might seem to suggest.
 
Seems awfully close to be pure coincidence....

unionincome.jpg
 
donsutherland1 said:
What might appear to be "rational" is not necessarily the same thing as something that is supported by empirical evidence. [...]
Click to expand...
Empirical evidence is not going to solve the chicken or the egg question, which is what I addressed; namely, union wages are higher than non-union wages not because of any external factors (such as cost of living), but because the union negotiates from a superior position (in fact, the non-union doesn't negotiate at all).

High wages did not come before the union (the jury is still out on the chicken and the egg). That's overly simplistic, and if one dug one might find contrarian examples, but that is what my comment about rational thought is based upon.

Go hire a non-union electrician in Town A, then go to the union hall and hire a union electrician in Town A. Any mountain of empirical evidence is not going to hide the surely inescapable fact that the union man will make more than the non-union man (barring a prevailing wage clause).

In certain industries just the specter of unionization keeps non-union wages higher than they would be otherwise; this is another example of rational thought.
 
Karl said:
...(in fact, the non-union doesn't negotiate at all).
Click to expand...

Bull. I'm not in a labor union, and I absolutely negotiate my own pay and benefits with my employer. I wouldn't have it any other way. Why would anyone who is a hard worker be interested in having their pay and benefits negotiated for them by a union? I would be pissed if another worker, who wasn't as good at their job as I am, made the same or more pay and benefits simply because they had more seniority. I can't believe that there are people who actually think that's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Bull. I'm not in a labor union, and I absolutely negotiate my own pay and benefits with my employer. I wouldn't have it any other way. [...]
Click to expand...
Your (or my) situation is irrelevant in this comparison, which is traditionally related to manufacturing and other large scale employers that require a large unified labor pool (mining, interstate transportation, skilled trades, etc).

If you hire on at a Toyota plant in the U.S., you'll be taking what they offer. Period.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Your (or my) situation is irrelevant in this comparison, which is traditionally related to manufacturing and other large scale employers that require a large unified labor pool (mining, interstate transportation, skilled trades, etc).
Click to expand...

But why would you not want to negotiate your own pay even if you did work in mining, or manufacturing, etc.? Why would you be ok with the guy working next to you, who could be a total slacker, or just naturally not as good of a worker, getting the same or more pay, raises, benefits, etc., simply because they're in the union too? That makes no sense to me, and frankly I don't see why that makes sense to anyone.
 
Karl said:
If you hire on at a Toyota plant in the U.S., you'll be taking what they offer. Period.
Click to expand...

That may be true when you start, same as with a union job. But, there's always room for negotiation based on merit if you're not in a union, always.
 
The Man said:
[...] Why would you be ok with the guy working next to you, who could be a total slacker, or just naturally not as good of a worker, getting the same or more pay, raises, benefits, etc., simply because they're in the union too? [...]
Click to expand...
Because I am not a jealous, petty, or narcissistic person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom