• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
Forget about you and forget about me. The facts are simple and undeniable:

1- Workers in unionized states earn more money than workers in non union RTW states.

2- Workers in unionized states have better insurance benefit coverage that workers in non RTW union states.

3- Workers in unionized states have better pension coverage levels that workers in non union RTW states.
1. Not if you adjust for costs, then RTW states earns more, which is my point.

2 and 3. True, but it doesn't surprise me really. I mean Mississippi would have been broken no matter if they had right to work or not. However, non-RTW sates are mostly historically successful states, such as California, and states in New England.

Call me all the silly names you feel you need to. It makes no difference to me as none of that grade school nonsense changes those three facts.
Except I never denied those facts. If you want to discuss if RTW benefits a state or not, I have no problem with that.

But we did not discuss that. We were discussing my point, that RTW states earn more adjusted for costs. Then you posted a study that you were unable to defend, but still demanded me to accept all its findings. When I said no, you need to defend it. Then you got mad, and even start lying about what you did, like in the last post.
 
Forget about you and forget about me. The facts are simple and undeniable:

1- Workers in unionized states earn more money than workers in non union RTW states.

2- Workers in unionized states have better insurance benefit coverage that workers in non RTW union states.

3- Workers in unionized states have better pension coverage levels that workers in non union RTW states.

Call me all the silly names you feel you need to. It makes no difference to me as none of that grade school nonsense changes those three facts.

You do NOT need the Dr. Lafer study to be informed about reality. The information is available from the official US government figures as well:

You are associating wealth and financial well-being with income when wealth is really more closely associated with what things cost than what you earn. The minimum wage, for example has more than doubled since when I first earned it back in the late '70s. I could afford more with the $2.65 per hour I earned back then than a person could today making $7.25. Inflation is what has destroyed buying power and weakened the middle class. And inflation is the result of government policy, not evil industry.
 
1. Not if you adjust for costs, then RTW states earns more, which is my point.

WAIT A DING DONG MINUTE!!!!!

You - you - not me - you are the one who does not want to make any adjustments or considerations for any variables. You get all bent out of shape and start calling names when a study does indeed attempt to make adjustments for real world differences.

It seems you both want your cake and eat it to.
 
WAIT A DING DONG MINUTE!!!!!

You - you - not me - you are the one who does not want to make any adjustments or considerations for any variables. You get all bent out of shape and start calling names when a study does indeed attempt to make adjustments for real world differences.

It seems you both want your cake and eat it to.
No, that is just your dumb misunderstanding of what I want.

What I do is to specify an aim, and do what is required to reach that aim. I want to compare what the average wage is adjusted for costs. That means, living standards. I am not interested in checking what an equivalent worker would earn in each state.

How many times do I have to tell you this before it penetrates your thick skull.
 
Yeah your right the entire federal deficit and all the states woes are ALL the fault of public sector unions....CPwill heres the TRUTH the rich have raped public sector workers and put it all right in their pocket....the rich literally HATE that they cant control public worker unions and steal from them...so they started this class warfare between public and private sector workers...and in the end the private sector workers are going to get even Less then they are now...MORONS...they will wake up but it will be too late for them, they will have been stripped of everything especially their dignity.
All the proof of that is right in front of t heir eyes...they'd just rather believe koch Brother super pac attack ads...


Actually, the upper class nabobs have been raiding the treasuries of federal, state, and local government by way of graft for decades, overcharging government for whatever goods or services their company provides, often to obscene levels of greed and inconsideration.

This is the real cause of government deficits from New Jersey to California, and since the press (also owned by upper class nabobs) pays little or no attention to it, the middle class public employee and public employee unions will continue to be made the scapegoat of government deficit, and gullible "conservative" fools will continue to parrot the narrative which has been preached to them by the very same nabobs who have been looting the public treasury all along.
 
Actually, the upper class nabobs have been raiding the treasuries of federal, state, and local government by way of graft for decades, overcharging government for whatever goods or services their company provides, often to obscene levels of greed and inconsideration.

This is the real cause of government deficits from New Jersey to California, and since the press (also owned by upper class nabobs) pays little or no attention to it, the middle class public employee and public employee unions will continue to be made the scapegoat of government deficit, and gullible "conservative" fools will continue to parrot the narrative which has been preached to them by the very same nabobs who have been looting the public treasury all along.

I see we have another liberal democrat who engages in class warfare.
 
I see we have another liberal democrat who engages in class warfare.
What the Sig has to say is closer to the truth than any words from conservatives..
Why is this ?
I believe that the wealthy are well represented by the conservatives, not the liberals.
Check out their numbers.
But all this "warfare" does no man any good.
We need a balance.....between the cons and the libs...
Thus far, IMO, the cons have been much better in selling their agenda to John Q Public than have the libs.
 
Sig a liberal democrat! hahaha I thought I'd never see the day...

I am neither a Liberal nor a Democrat, just as I am neither a Conservative nor a Republican. I refuse to pigeon-hole my political perspective.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
I see we have another liberal democrat who engages in class warfare.

I see we have another fool who likes to play "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Pretending that things are not the way they are because it makes you feel more secure in your self-applied political label, does not make them so.


Incidentally, this is class warfare and it is the upper class nabobs who started it.
 
Last edited:
No, that is just your dumb misunderstanding of what I want.

What I do is to specify an aim, and do what is required to reach that aim. I want to compare what the average wage is adjusted for costs. That means, living standards. I am not interested in checking what an equivalent worker would earn in each state.

How many times do I have to tell you this before it penetrates your thick skull.

We get it. We get the calling of names. We get the insults. We get that you want to manipulate what you want to get what you want how you want it.

We get it.

Always have from the start.
 
I would just like to hear what you think the answer is. When price increases, what happens to demand?

Will kids not need to be educated if you raise cost?

Will people ill not need treatment if you raise cost?

You tell me, what ahppens to demand.
 
Will kids not need to be educated if you raise cost?

Will people ill not need treatment if you raise cost?

You tell me, what ahppens to demand.

I saw that you crafty devil! The counter to your SPECIFIC questions are just as poignant.

Will lowering the cost reduce the same education need?

Will lowering the cost reduce the same treatment need?

Their arguement evolved around RTW/non-RTW incomes...nice try...:mrgreen:
 
I saw that you crafty devil! The counter to your SPECIFIC questions are just as poignant.

Will lowering the cost reduce the same education need?

Will lowering the cost reduce the same treatment need?

Their arguement evolved around RTW/non-RTW incomes...nice try...:mrgreen:

I'm not sure why you think you countered me. The need for both is there regardless of cost. Don't we agree on that? So what does RTW have to do with it at all (my point).
 
So what you saying is that you continue to decide that the rules of the clan and their reality of survival in their environment meant that personal property did not exist. To do this you must forget all the little things they did not share and did individually. You continue to deny that people have always decided things as theirs and there is no society that didn't.

Second, you said there was no property at all. Collective property is STILL property. In your last post you said individual property and admitted collective property existed changing your position.

You original position is stated in this part here:
Ah, yes, the Great Capitalist Assumption that EVERYTHING, every single little particle in the Universe, is property. Sure some of it's still not owned because no one is using it or has claimed it but that's just a technicality.


matter/energy = property


We're done - thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
:shrug: apparently small businesses are only morally acceptable so long as they aren't... you know, too successful.
Morality has no ledger entry. Did you sleep during your business classes or something???
 
Ah, yes, the Great Capitalist Assumption that EVERYTHING, every single little particle in the Universe, is property. Sure some of it's still not owned because no one is using it or has claimed it but that's just a technicality.


matter/energy = property


We're done - thanks for playing.

We're done? You said that already and you kept on talking to me. I will believe it when I see it, thanks.

I would still like an answer to why the tribe members had individual property and the tribe itself had rules for the members to assist the tribe with the use of collective property if property didn't exist at all.


And energy/matter is property depending on where it is. It really can't be any other way.
 
We're done? You said that already and you kept on talking to me. I will believe it when I see it, thanks.
I would still like an answer to why the tribe members had individual property and the tribe itself had rules for the members to assist the tribe with the use of collective property if property didn't exist at all.
And energy/matter is property depending on where it is. It really can't be any other way.
Whatever you say, sport ... :roll:
 
I would just like to hear what you think the answer is. When price increases, what happens to demand?

Odd... Haymarket, did you answer this question, and I missed it? All else being equal, what happens to demand when price increases?
 
Will kids not need to be educated if you raise cost?

no, but there is a point at which it is no longer worth the cost to have a teacher for every 15 students vice a teacher for every 25. That point comes long after you realize that it is no longer worth the cost to have nearly as many administrators as teachers.

Will people ill not need treatment if you raise cost?

And sometimes they won't get it, either. That, after all, is the purpose of the N.I.C.E. and the Independent Panel Advisory Board; to decide when you are no longer "cost effective". Raise the cost of plastic surgery by 100,000,00% and see


But you are trying to make this about very specific services, when the subject was broad unionization. Take a look at businesses moving from Union to RTW states and ask yourself "why".

It's not because they're evil. It's because they want to succeed, and a unionized workforce makes that harder.

You tell me, what ahppens to demand.

It decreases.
 
Back
Top Bottom