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 123 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124 LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 1237

Thread: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

  1. #1221
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.
    Nope. The selling price is still established by what the market will bear.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #1222
    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

    except that time and time again when they do that they find... they aren't the only game in town. And, so long as government does not conspire with business to artificially raise the price of entry beyond the ability of start-ups; they never will be.
    Unfortunately, we are getting further and further away from that prescription.


    Indeed, there is no such thing as too big to fail. That's like saying something is too heavy to fall. But you don't need a new socioeconomic system for that - you simply need to remove the parasites and barnacles that have encrusted this one.
    Methinks "Too Big to Fail" is the ultimate goal of every business enterprise, which is why we are where we are now, and why Capitalism, as we presently understand it, is ultimately a doomed socioeconomic paradigm.

    actually it's the capital that keeps the whole damn enterprise in production. Without it, there is no corporation in the first place. (see how stupid that game is?)
    No, capital is merely the grease that keeps the wheels a spinnin'. Believe it or not, it really is the workers who create the product, not the capital. The capital is just numbers on a ledger. It's a man-made illusion, an abstraction, invented as a tool for organizing the distribution of a society's total human energy capacity.

    Labor is an input. It is a portion of the cost of production.
    No, labor is production. Indeed, that is what is taking place: the energy of labor is being transformed into product. Capital has no direct role in the process.


    Indeed. Just as, for example, if you had the ability to use force to stop a newspaper from being able to purchase ink. Or if you had the ability to stop a grocer from being able to purchase food. Or if you had the ability to stop a mechanic from using his hands. If you can coercively interfere with the market to keep someone from purchasing an available product or service... yeah, you can reduce their abilities to produce and provide.
    ...or if you had the ability to compel people to work for subsistence wages because you owned the factory, and the mayor, and the police.

    But we have been through this chapter of human history already, haven't we?


    .... I am educated enough to realize that the 21st century economy thus far does not appear made up entirely of 19th century mining camps?
    And why is that?

    What happened between 1850 and 1950 that changed all that?

    we talk about working conditions in the 19th century through 21st century lenses and are shocked. Apparently they were better than the farms so many people were leaving.
    Do you mean to say that labor was being exploited in both the arenas of industry and agriculture? Now, that is shocking. SHOCKING, I SAY!!


    it's an interesting thought experiment. If the American auto companies had never unionized, their products probably would have been higher quality and their prices lower, which would mean that the Japanese companies never would have been able to invade and take over so much of their market share. Very likely, he wouldn't be working for Toyota because Toyota never would have had such an excellent opportunity to sell a better product at a lower price to Americans.
    WRONG!!!

    If the American auto companies had never unionized there would have never been any such thing as the American Middle Class, nor that milestone achievement in human experience which we call the "consumer based economy." There would not likely have been a Toyota car company, and there would definitely never been a Toyota car company at which you brother is supposedly employed here in America.

    Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of human economic history is the fact that is the unions, YES, THE LABOR UNIONS, which were the catalyst for the epic socioeconomic transformations that occurred in the West during the 20th century, and which ultimately defeated communism.

    Why?

    Because the labor unions kept the capital in circulation. The labor unions empowered the proles with the economic wherewithal to buy stuff, lots of stuff, so much stuff that the upper class nabobs were soon falling over themselves in competition for the emerging middle class market.

    Checks and balances. Industrialists and Labor Unions. This is what truly made America great. When we lose that, we lose America.


    But I'm pretty sure he would still be doing fine. Thanks partially to our low quality (unionized) public educational system, there is a shortage of science and technology workers in this country.
    Now, you are just being an ass. There is a shortage of sci-tech skills in America because too much of America's cerebral talent has been funneled into business studies. You know this.


    I am saying that the same thing that you said above. The minimum price that real estate developers can sell housing and survive is slightly above the price of production. When you raise the price of production by unionizing the workforce, therefore, you raise that minimum amount that they can sell at and survive. You have increased the costs that the developer has to recoup.
    And when you lower the salary base, you lower the purchasing power of the consumer. Don't you get it, man? Capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, does not work in the absence of free will, and that includes the free will to insure a wage that is commensurate with the prevailing economy.

    Who can sell product when there is no one who can afford to buy it?


    Nope. Generally speaking (government interference aside), nobody "sets" prices. Unions simply force them higher than they otherwise would have been.
    That is nonsense. If I whittle me a widget and decide to sell it on the free market, I, and no one but I, will set a price for the product. If I am wise, I will set a price just low enough (and no more lower) to make my product a realistic buy for my target consumer base. Nevertheless, I set the price. I don't suppose I need to explain to you how many businesses have come and gone based almost entirely upon their acumen for setting prices.


    that is incorrect. Demand as it is economically expressed is a function of Supply. You have to have something before you can trade it for something else.
    What did you just say? Did you just say something about "having to have something before you can trade it for something?"

    I am sure you would agree, that in a society where money is the primary means of trade, the less money one has, the less one is able to engage in trade. Isn't that right?



    is this the "nuh-uh!!!" defense, of elementary school yard fame?
    No, this is the "See above comment and think about it" decree.


    indeed you did.
    No, I did not. Next time, come back with some proof. It should not be too difficult to obtain.


    what a fascinating theory. how do you account for the fact that that is precisely what we have generally seen over the last century? The price of labor has consistently increased, while the portion of labors' income that it must spend on the necessities has decreased.
    Still won't cut the crap, I see. What has changed; indeed, what has made all the difference between the 20th century and every era in human history which came before it, is gigantic leaps in technological advancement and labor unions.

    Unfortunately, due to the intrinsic flaws of the prevailing economic system, inflation has been a constant the entire time. Thus, you are completely full of shate on this point, and you know it. Prices on everything have increased dramatically between 1900 and 2000, and you know it. The only way for labor to keep pace with inflation is by demanding a higher salary. You know this much also, and yet you play the fool; or perhaps, you think I am the fool.

    The question that needs to be asked now is: "Are you an honorable man, or just a two-bit "conservative" bullish*tter?"
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  3. #1223
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Nope. The selling price is still established by what the market will bear.
    Not really. See: Price Supports.

    When you raise the price of production, you raise the minimum price the product can be sold at for supply to occur.

  4. #1224
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    Unfortunately, we are getting further and further away from that prescription.
    True enough.

    Methinks "Too Big to Fail" is the ultimate goal of every business enterprise, which is why we are where we are now, and why Capitalism, as we presently understand it, is ultimately a doomed socioeconomic paradigm.
    No, you are confusing "capitalism" with "corporatism". Too Big To Fail isn't a Capitalist dogma, it's a Corporatist one.

    No, capital is merely the grease that keeps the wheels a spinnin'. Believe it or not, it really is the workers who create the product, not the capital. The capital is just numbers on a ledger. It's a man-made illusion, an abstraction, invented as a tool for organizing the distribution of a society's total human energy capacity.

    No, labor is production. Indeed, that is what is taking place: the energy of labor is being transformed into product. Capital has no direct role in the process.
    the labor theory of value?!? this would be the one that even Lenin eventually had to abandon as not taking into effect the necessary value added of capital?

    But okay, I'll bite. If a robot builds a car, and an overseer makes sure the Robot doesn't break down, which entity is building the car?

    ...or if you had the ability to compel people to work for subsistence wages because you owned the factory, and the mayor, and the police.

    But we have been through this chapter of human history already, haven't we?
    yup. we called it "feudalism".

    And why is that?

    What happened between 1850 and 1950 that changed all that?
    the Industrial Revolution.

    Do you mean to say that labor was being exploited in both the arenas of industry and agriculture? Now, that is shocking. SHOCKING, I SAY!!
    Fascinating. Are you suggesting that people on the farms were exploiting themselves? Or is it just that you see "labor" and think "exploitation!".

    WRONG!
    actually the assumptions in that thought model are pretty basic. the Japanese auto makers were able to enter into and take massive swathes of the American market share because they were producing a superior product which they were able to make for less than their UAW American Competitors.

    If the American auto companies had never unionized there would have never been any such thing as the American Middle Class


    If the American auto companies hadn't unionized there would have been no American Middle Class.

    The rise of the American Middle Class really began with the independent tradesmen and farmers of the 18th century. The rise of the modern industrial-age middle class really began in the 1920's. The UAW was founded in 1935.

    nor that milestone achievement in human experience which we call the "consumer based economy."
    started in the 1920's. See above.

    There would not likely have been a Toyota car company
    Toyota began making cars in 1934 (before the UAW), and split off to become an independent car company in 1937 (after the UAW). If you can find any evidence suggesting that they only did so because American car companies had unionized, I would be very interested in seeing it.

    Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of human economic history is the fact that is the unions, YES, THE LABOR UNIONS, which were the catalyst for the epic socioeconomic transformations that occurred in the West during the 20th century, and which ultimately defeated communism.
    That is unfortunately incorrect. Unions are not responsible for the defeat of Communism; containment was.

    Now, you are just being an ass. There is a shortage of sci-tech skills in America because too much of America's cerebral talent has been funneled into business studies.
    Sadly not so much. Thanks to our unionized educational system, costs have skyrocketed while quality has - at best - flatlined.



    Little Johnny can't do math any more, but he get's all A's in Self - Esteem.

    And when you lower the salary base, you lower the purchasing power of the consumer. Don't you get it, man? Capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, does not work in the absence of free will, and that includes the free will to insure a wage that is commensurate with the prevailing economy.
    Well hell, let's raise the minimum wage to $1 bn a year, and we can all be rich!

    When you artificially increase the price of a product or service, you lower the demand. This works the same for labor as it does with anything else - which means that when you artificially increase the cost of hiring workers, you ensure that fewer workers will be hired. What is the purchasing power of the unemployed?

    That is nonsense. If I whittle me a widget and decide to sell it on the free market, I, and no one but I, will set a price for the product. If I am wise, I will set a price just low enough (and no more lower) to make my product a realistic buy for my target consumer base. Nevertheless, I set the price. I don't suppose I need to explain to you how many businesses have come and gone based almost entirely upon their acumen for setting prices.
    fewer than have failed to to insufficient capital '-).

    But you are describing precisely what I did. If you try to sell your widget for too much, no one will buy it. If you try to sell it for too little, everyone will buy it, but you will be making a loss on each widget sold (gosh, what does that remind me of?), and you will cease to exist. In either example, the market will be willing to purchase a certain amount of widgets at a certain price. If you had decided (for example) to use a more expensive set of whittling knives, your cost of production would have gone up, what you would have had to charge for widgets would have gone up, demand for your widgets would have gone down.

    What did you just say? Did you just say something about "having to have something before you can trade it for something?"

    I am sure you would agree, that in a society where money is the primary means of trade, the less money one has, the less one is able to engage in trade. Isn't that right?
    Yup. How much money is someone with no job bringing in? How much income does someone bring in who had a job, but whose union drove the business into the dirt bring in? If the government hadn't stepped in and saved Too-Big-To-Fail GM, and then given it to UAW, how much would the laid-off workers have been making?

    No, this is the "See above comment and think about it" decree.
    Ah. well. Rubber. Glue. Bouncing. Etc.

    Still won't cut the crap, I see. What has changed; indeed, what has made all the difference between the 20th century and every era in human history which came before it, is gigantic leaps in technological advancement and labor unions.
    not really. we had guilds for centuries, which performed basically the same functions.

    Unfortunately, due to the intrinsic flaws of the prevailing economic system, inflation has been a constant the entire time. Thus, you are completely full of shate on this point, and you know it.
    you're going nominal? whatever - fine. Nominally, increases in compensation have far outstripped increases in the price of consumer goods.

    Prices on everything have increased dramatically between 1900 and 2000, and you know it.
    including and especially for labor. In fact, so much so for labor that if you put prices into real terms, the price of consumer goods has gone down while the price of labor has gone up. Your average worker now can buy much more higher quality stuff than his 1908 counterpart.

    The question that needs to be asked now is: "Are you an honorable man, or just a two-bit "conservative" bullish*tter?"
    actually I would say the question that needs to be asked now is "Do you have the intellectual honesty to realize that others of good faith can come to conclusions different than your own?".

  5. #1225
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Not really. See: Price Supports.

    When you raise the price of production, you raise the minimum price the product can be sold at for supply to occur.
    Never said otherwise. I referred to this earlier as "cost" and noted that few things are sold at cost. I also noted that this price wasn't really "cost" in the strictest sense.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #1226
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sadly not so much. Thanks to our unionized educational system, costs have skyrocketed while quality has - at best - flatlined.
    Since you couldn't find a better source than the CATO institute I have to believe that's just so much bullcrap.

    Department of Education
    Spending Cuts Summary
    Here are proposed spending cuts to the department, which should be closed down.

    Downsizing the Federal Government | Department of Education | The CATO Institute
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-20-12 at 10:54 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #1227
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    When you artificially increase the price of a product or service, you lower the demand. This works the same for labor as it does with anything else - which means that when you artificially increase the cost of hiring workers, you ensure that fewer workers will be hired. What is the purchasing power of the unemployed?
    Artificially increase the price?!? LOL!

    Sellers set the price at whatever the market will bear. Very, very few things in the market place sell at what businesses call "cost", which is the actual cost of production, including labor, plus some artificial profit margin. If you're going to call anything artificial it's these profit margins businesses set for themselves.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #1228
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    06-21-12 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    As I would have to agree with your disdain for unions, it would be very liberal to take away state rights in that manner. If liberal states desire to submit to the ridiculous regulations and overreaching power of unions then they have the right to run their states into the ground...probably for the best anyways...

  9. #1229
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Since you couldn't find a better source than the CATO institute I have to believe that's just so much bullcrap.
    ad sourcinem fallacy? correct the numbers with citation.

  10. #1230
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Artificially increase the price?!? LOL!
    yes. When you increase the cost of production (whether through unionization of the labor force, increased burden of governance, or whatever), you increase the price, thereby lowering demand. "what the market will bear" is a wide range. At 8 dollars, it will simply want more than at 16. There is a price at which demand becomes effectively nil (or low enough that you are unable to sell enough to stay in business), at which point you have moved "beyond what it will bear". But it's not as if the market will purchase 1 million blueberry muffins at 50 cents a piece, and zero at 75.

    Sellers set the price at whatever the market will bear. Very, very few things in the market place sell at what businesses call "cost", which is the actual cost of production, including labor, plus some artificial profit margin. If you're going to call anything artificial it's these profit margins businesses set for themselves.
    Competition generally forces all profit margins within a relatively tight range within the same good or service; when you increase the cost of production, you simply move the top and bottom price/margin up in dollars.
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-21-12 at 07:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

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