• 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
Well then tell us the benefits you see to outsourcing US jobs? We are waiting.

How about you tell us the benefits of the business just closing instead of outsourcing 30% of the jobs.

This is a cost benefit analysis. Not everything is black and white.
 
People in other countries without the income inequality of the US have computers. What's your point? How do the millions without jobs, who used to have jobs that were outsourced, in the US buy computers or food for that matter?

How does making a person jobless help him?
You seriously think other western countries bans outsourcing?

You seriously think US unemployment is due to outsourcing. With that static worldview in mind, why are you not totally against immigration. They are taking our jobs right?
 
It maximized their competitive advantage while lowering their cost of living?

I asked how outsourcing US jobs have helped the working class, not how it has helped the wealthy?

Competing with $20 dollar a day jobs in China, does not "maximize" the working class "competitive advantage."

Quite a bit. The jobless, in fact, are most dependent upon lower cost of living, as they have the least to live with.

They have the least to live with because of the outsourcing and reduction of pay of their jobs. But your argument is despite statistics, the working class is doing better? I think you forgot to tell them that.

not only that, but that there will be fewer unemployed.

And when is this supposed to kick in? Because I have not noticed that trend over the last decade.

For all his many sins, at least FDR was smart enough to realize that Trade Wars are wars that governments wage on their own people - which is why he reduced disastrous tariffs that had helped to produce the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.


No one has said anything about trade wars. We were talking about ending tax breaks for outsourcing US jobs, that the GOP supports and the Democrats oppose.
 
How about you tell us the benefits of the business just closing instead of outsourcing 30% of the jobs.

This is a cost benefit analysis. Not everything is black and white.

Read the ****ing bill if you want to discuss this. I am tired of your ignorant suppositions about something you know nothing about.
 
You seriously think other western countries bans outsourcing?

Who the **** said anything about banning outsourcing. The bill is about not giving them a ****ing tax break for doing it!
 
Read the ****ing bill if you want to discuss this. I am tired of your ignorant suppositions about something you know nothing about.
I am not interested in debating this topic. I got better things to do.

I criticized your black and white view of outsourcing. You are completly ignoring any negative effects that could come from the bill, and I pointed that out. If you took it into account, I wouldn't comment.

Who the **** said anything about banning outsourcing. The bill is about not giving them a ****ing tax break for doing it!
You obviously like cursing. I was just pointing out that your view is flawed. Other countries have outsourcing problems as well, and unemployment is not caused by outsourcing.
 
That data is from 1999. Most of those states has seen considerably improvement since 1999. I will just take their ACT ranking and add it with their SAT ranking and divide it

South Carolina – 45

North Carolina – 30.5

Georgia – 42.5

Texas – 40

Virginia – 23.5

If banning collective barganing for teahcers is so bad, why have all of the states seen massive improvements in their SAT/ACT rankings?

Kind of miss my point. I was less concerned with the test scores than the how many are in unions. Frankly, data on test scores would beg a lot of questions either way. I doubt would could prove unions or lack of unions actually meant anything in terms of test scores. However, what I'm seeking is to verify CP's claim concerning the size and scope of unions in education.
 
Yeah, I've seen this stuff before, I remember when the unionista's brought it out during the Wisconsin thing.

Here's something interesting though: it turns out that when you have a large number of hispanic immigrants, it drags down your state-wide scores. Who knew?



Gosh, that's interesting. :)

I see you miss the point as well. I'm trying to confirm or deny your size and scope claim you make concerning unions.

First I said this to you:
As most here do not belong to a union (though teachers in schools with a union do better), I would love to see national numbers.

Then I said this:

I'm still trying to find national numbers CP, but here are states that don't even have a union. Are they overwhelmingly unionized?

And then this:
Still looking.


It wasn't about the scores. Though interesting, when I spoke, I trying to get you to the point.
 
If banning collective barganing for teahcers is so bad, why have all of the states seen massive improvements in their SAT/ACT rankings?

You have the same problem those claiming unions are better. You don't have the factors involved any more than they do. Nor do I know how long unions have been banned or what other efforts have been used to help improve. Both sides should be careful of causal relationship errors.
 
I am not interested in debating this topic. I got better things to do.

Then quit trying to discuss something you know nothing about.

Its not about outsourcing, its about tax breaks for outsourcing.
 
Last edited:
Then get off the thread and quit trying to discuss something you know nothing about.

Its not about outsourcing, its about tax breaks for outsourcing.

Lets see if follow..

First you said: "Then get off the thread and quit trying to discuss something you know nothing about."

Then right after that you said: "Its not about outsourcing, its about tax breaks for outsourcing."

 
Then quit trying to discuss something you know nothing about.

Its not about outsourcing, its about tax breaks for outsourcing.

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.
 
I asked how outsourcing US jobs have helped the working class, not how it has helped the wealthy?

yes and I keep answering you? apparently you have reading comprehension issues?

Competing with $20 dollar a day jobs in China, does not "maximize" the working class "competitive advantage."

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. :)

They have the least to live with because of the outsourcing and reduction of pay of their jobs. But your argument is despite statistics, the working class is doing better? I think you forgot to tell them that.

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

And when is this supposed to kick in? Because I have not noticed that trend over the last decade.

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%.

No one has said anything about trade wars. We were talking about ending tax breaks for outsourcing US jobs, that the GOP supports and the Democrats oppose.

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. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Lets see if follow..

First you said: "Then get off the thread and quit trying to discuss something you know nothing about."

Then right after that you said: "Its not about outsourcing, its about tax breaks for outsourcing."

Yeah. And he did it on a forum about public unions. Whose jobs can't be outsourced.




All-together, though, I have to say I'm pleased with this thread. Not a single person thus far has offered a reasonable path forward for public unions to regain their slipping power and prestige.
 
Yeah. And he did it on a forum about public unions. Whose jobs can't be outsourced.




All-together, though, I have to say I'm pleased with this thread. Not a single person thus far has offered a reasonable path forward for public unions to regain their slipping power and prestige.

I don't think you've paid attention. That was done rather early on. Blinders are really a hinderence, so I would advise you remove them. ;)
 
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.
 
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. :roll:

"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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
:shrug: 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.

:yawn: 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.)
 
You're not going to escape your losing argument by way of vicious abstraction.

:lol: 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?

eggs.jpg


or just generally

food.jpg


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.

:shrug: 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?
 
Back
Top Bottom