View Poll Results: Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

Voters
73. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    44 60.27%
  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    14 19.18%
  • It depends on November.

    15 20.55%
Page 120 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122 ... LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1237

Thread: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

  1. #1191
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I am not discussing the topic. Cpwill cited a source talking about the negative unintended consquences of the bill. You never responded to that, hence I asked you what is the point of punishing outsourcing if it hurts the economy more than it helps?

    I am just criticizing your black and white view of outsourcing.
    You have failed to explain the benefits of the US encouraging outsourcing of US jobs by providing tax breaks for doing so. You keep making that claim and every time I call you on it, you then say you have no interest in the topic.

    I don't know who you think you are fooling.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #1192
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes and I keep answering you? apparently you have reading comprehension issues?



    Sure it does. Crappy jobs leave, better jobs come over. The only place where your critique has actual structural support is in the unionized labor fields, where companies fled artificially high labor costs. That' why GM expanded into Mexico, but Toyota expanded into the US.



    no need - I'm an E-5 in the military. My income hasn't exactly been that of the 1% .



    NAFTA went into effect in 1994. According to the BLS, unemployment from 1960 through 1994 averaged a little over 6.15%. Unemployment from 1995 through 2007 (before the current crash) averaged 4.99%.



    That is incorrect on two fronts - 1. Democrats crossed ranks to stand with the GOP in defeating this idiotic measure and 2. You aren't talking about "ending tax breaks for outsourcing", there is no "congratulations, you outsourced" tax break. This was a measure designed to increase taxes upon businesses that do business overseas. Because foreigners are icky.
    "The GOP Record on Shipping American Jobs Overseas

    * Over the last four years, Republicans have voted eleven times to protect:
    o Tax breaks for corporations that ship American jobs overseas
    o Off-shore tax havens for corporations and the wealthiest Americans
    o Tax loopholes for CEOs deferred compensation paid by off-shore companies, foreign tax haven corporations dodging U.S. taxes, and Americans who renounce their citizenship

    These tax breaks cost American taxpayers over $60 billion

    * Under President Bush, Republicans voted 8 times to expand tax breaks for outsourcing and protect offshore tax havens. The Republicans:
    o Enacted legislation to provide $42 billion in tax breaks for offshore operations of U.S. corporations, encouraging the shipping of U.S. jobs overseas.
    o Voted to protect tax shelters for corporations relocating overseas to avoid paying taxes.
    o Voted to protect government contracts for these corporate expatriates.
    o Voted against help for workers whose jobs were outsourced and against even a study on outsourcing of U.S. jobs."

    Reports // News Room // Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #1193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You have failed to explain the benefits of the US encouraging outsourcing of US jobs by providing tax breaks for doing so. You keep making that claim and every time I call you on it, you then say you have no interest in the topic.

    I don't know who you think you are fooling.
    Maybe because you are making a fool of yourself and he is a nice guy. You have been corrected on your claim and now its time to admit you were wrong and back away from it.

  4. #1194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You have failed to explain the benefits of the US encouraging outsourcing of US jobs by providing tax breaks for doing so. You keep making that claim and every time I call you on it, you then say you have no interest in the topic.

    I don't know who you think you are fooling.
    See post 1176.

    Last time you chose to not answer, and now you claim I never said it.

  5. #1195
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    See post 1176.

    Last time you chose to not answer, and now you claim I never said it.
    Can you answer this, or not?

    What are the benefits of the US encouraging outsourcing of US jobs by providing tax breaks for doing so?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #1196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Can you answer this, or not?

    What are the benefits of the US encouraging outsourcing of US jobs by providing tax breaks for doing so?
    Cpwill corrected you, it's over. What you are talking about does not exist.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-18-12 at 04:30 AM.

  7. #1197
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Cpwill corrected you, it's over. What you are talking about does not exist.
    CP didn't correct anything.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #1198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    CP didn't correct anything.
    I'm pretty sure he did and the fact remains that what you are talking about is rhetoric.

  9. #1199
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well hell. If we were to confiscate all of their property and put it in states education funds, it would ease state budgets as well. We could do even better if we were to have an overnight movement to steal (say) everything owned by Asians for the Needs Of The State.
    You're not going to escape your losing argument by way of vicious abstraction.

    What you are speaking of is built upon a false assumption that the owners of stock can control prices. Supply and Demand (generally) set prices - the government can shift them higher (as can increases in the cost of production), but to put on an artificial price ceiling (as you suggest) is to create an artificial shortage.
    The owners of supply can certainly set prices, and they do. When they have a monopoly, or engaged in price fixing with their competitors, they can set them at whatever they want, especially if what they have to sell is a basic life necessity, such as housing, utilities, healthcare, food, etc..

    I purchase from their competitors who sell at lower prices.
    And what do you do when there are no competitors, or when the competitors engage in price fixing and the government lets them get away with it.?

    That is incorrect, and is demonstrated little better by the fact that Right to Work states have enjoyed nearly double the job growth of the union states since 1977. Lots of major businesses won't even consider setting up in Union states because they don't want the higher costs and higher hassles of dealing with a hostile workforce. Haymarket cited "small manufacturers" for a reason - because those have the least ability to cross state lines.
    If what you say is true, then that is something we will have to change, and will in fullness of time. The same corporate greed and inconsideration that were the motivation for unionization and collective bargaining will make it happen. Guaranteed.

    apparently union members disagree. You will notice that the private sector union membership has been on decline for over half a century now, and public sector union membership drops dramatically as soon as its' members are given the option.
    You seem to be forgetting that the fear of unionization is what keeps many employers conscientious of their employees salary demands. What is more, union membership has only declined because union jobs were outsourced to areas of the world where labor laws are lax and workers can be exploited to the same degree that they were in 19th century America.

    No one "sets" the price of housing. Housing skyrocketed because demand did, because alot of factors (government and private side) made it easier to borrow money for that purpose, which A) effectively lowering it's cost-on-impact, and B) encouraging people to see house-flipping as a means of trustworthy income.
    What is that, a joke? Clearly, the people who build the homes and sell them on the market set the price for their product---usually at whatever they feel they can get for it, which is ultimately determined by the salaries earned by their potential buyers. Thus, (to put it very simply) if their potential buyers are union workers, and these union workers have just negotiated a substantial raise in salary, the cost of housing will, not coincidentally, go up.

    Besides which, your proposal works at cross purposes to itself. Sticky wages in a deflationary environment increase in value.
    To what deflationary environment are you referring? The present economy would best be described as schizophrenic, with the cost of housing declining (in the wake of an artificially created housing bubble) while the cost of just about everything else is going up, much higher than indicated by the CPI which does not appear to take into account product downsizing wherein the consumer pays the same price for less product. (What we all see happening every time we go to the supermarket.)
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  10. #1200
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,122

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    You're not going to escape your losing argument by way of vicious abstraction.
    like it's my fault you made a stupid point.

    The owners of supply can certainly set prices, and they do
    actually they can't unless they have a monopoly.

    When they have a monopoly
    when they have a monopoly, it is because they are being protected by, or are government. The area's you mentioned (food, housing, etc) are not that, with the exception of utilities, which are protected by government and therefore can get away with fixing prices.

    especially if what they have to sell is a basic life necessity, such as housing, utilities, healthcare, food, etc..
    then perhaps you can explain things like this?



    or just generally



    don't theories involving secretive cabals of super rich power brokers secretly controlling the levers of the world belong (for good reason) in the conspiracy forum?

    And what do you do when there are no competitors, or when the competitors engage in price fixing and the government lets them get away with it.?
    I demand a new set of government. You won't find me doing things like supporting agricultural subsidies.

    If what you say is true, then that is something we will have to change, and will in fullness of time. The same corporate greed and inconsideration that were the motivation for unionization and collective bargaining will make it happen. Guaranteed.
    the greed of people in corporations is no greater or less than the greed of people in unions. The difference being, in order to succeed, corporations have to create something. Unions just have to take something.

    You seem to be forgetting that the fear of unionization is what keeps many employers conscientious of their employees salary demands.
    I would tend to suspect that with unions making up a vanishingly small percentage of the private workforce, that this is for most employers a relatively small worry. What I've seen thus far has generally centered around an unwillingness to lose workers that one has trained, or that produce effectively, when others will require extra time and effort and lost productivity to get up to speed.

    What is more, union membership has only declined because union jobs were outsourced to areas of the world where labor laws are lax and workers can be exploited to the same degree that they were in 19th century America.
    Really? I'll be sure to ask my brother who works in auto manufacturing about that. I'll write an email perhaps, or maybe just ask him next time I'm visiting him at the Toyota plant in Kentucky.

    You ever wonder why it's unionized companies that have to seek elsewhere? You raise the cost of something beyond what the market will bear... and it won't bear it for long.

    What is that, a joke?
    no, it is reality. Housing prices aren't set by some kind of "Cabal Of Nabobs".

    Clearly, the people who build the homes and sell them on the market set the price for their product---usually at whatever they feel they can get for it, which is ultimately determined by the salaries earned by their potential buyers.
    supply and demand. housing prices fall and rise by supply and demand. however, you are right to point out that generally below the cost of production there is no supply.

    Thus, (to put it very simply) if their potential buyers are union workers, and these union workers have just negotiated a substantial raise in salary, the cost of housing will, not coincidentally, go up.
    if the demand for money v housing decreases, then the demand for housing increases and so does the price. what you are describing is inflation, where that occurs.

    To what deflationary environment are you referring?
    the one you referenced, wherein the price of everything but labor decreases.

    The present economy would best be described as schizophrenic, with the cost of housing declining (in the wake of an artificially created housing bubble) while the cost of just about everything else is going up, much higher than indicated by the CPI which does not appear to take into account product downsizing wherein the consumer pays the same price for less product. (What we all see happening every time we go to the supermarket.)
    why must housing be special? we had a bubble, it popped. The government is trying to reinflate the bubble because that's a feel-good policy, and so it continues to suffer. In the meantime, the nominal price of food does indeed increase, along with a smaller increase in the real price due to artificial energy shortages. You are right that inflation is reported lower than it actually is due to the fact that they don't count food and energy, though. What did we think was going to happen when we started to monetize the debt?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •