• 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!

How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

How many here belong to a union?


  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
I've been gone awhile ... :shrug:

Insurance providers give a total cost (per person) to insure the group, they do not break it down into "it's $XXX for your young employees and $YYY for your older employees".

Fair point - the ACA now requires community rating. So now, yes, they do.
 
Not at all - experience counts as well. Doctors, for example. Or, my field (analysis) for another. Someone who has performed 1,000 open-heart-surgeries is simply able to charge more for the 1,001st than someone who has done 3, because their experience means that they are bringing a superior product to the table. Someone who has devised six successful major advertising campaigns for large multinationals before is more valuable and able to charge more for his seventh than he was for his first - because the product he is bringing to bear (his mind and abilities) is superior.
What you're showing is proof of ability (or an increase in skill, if you prefer), not just years in service. The doctor that botches one in a hundred heart surgeries isn't going to make as much for the 1001st as the guy who only botched one of 1000 and he may not even make as much as another doctor doing his 201st with no errors.

My argument rests upon the idea that people tend to increase in experience and abilities and knowledge; which, except for our perennially unemployed, generally is the case. Formal education is a nice-add-on (and necessary in some job fields), but not required for the broad populace.
I'm not necessarily taking about formal education. Even if you only look at spreadsheets for your job but learn on your own how to use Excel you're more educated. That's not the same as "experience".

That is technically not true - remember that the low-ends of the bell curve tend not to have jobs, but rather have disability payments. Or, their spouse works and they stay at home.
And it doesn't include all the smart people that are sitting at home because of other problems or have turned to a life of crime. While most of the dumb criminals end up in jails - and on the stat sheets - most of the smart ones don't. One only has to look at Wall Street to see that. ;)

we spend large sums on education. we get middling to poor results because we pump the money through a wasteful, sclerotic, bloated, union monster that serves it's own ends and ****'s over our children.
While I agree we have problems with education I certainly do not believe private industry can do better. In fact, it's been shown that it can't given the same goal as public education entities.



I will simply quote my avatar here, another proponent from America's beginning of the wonderful manner in which this nation offers self-improvement:
:)
Of course, nothing has changed in 200 years. The poor can still pick up their lot and move west to settle down on any unused land and start farming with no one to squeal about it.
:lamo

Show me Locke's "commons" and we can move forward on this point. But you can't because it's all been bought up. A person can no longer put forth his hand a pick fruit that is only his because of the labor he spent picking it. Today he must buy the tree or access rights to it or it's taken away from him and he's thrown in jail. Times change and that path of philosophy disappears right along with the "commons" they rest on.
 
Last edited:
Fair point - the ACA now requires community rating. So now, yes, they do.
From a company's perspective, insurance carries have done this for decades for group policies.
 
Okay, I've been polite to you so far. But you say that again and I am reaching through this screen and knife-handing you :mrgreen:

Marines consider that an insult. We run towards the sound of gunfire, not the sight of the chowhall. ;)
My apologies - I'm sure my brother would thunk me a good one if he were here. :)
 
What you're showing is proof of ability (or an increase in skill, if you prefer), not just years in service. The doctor that botches one in a hundred heart surgeries isn't going to make as much for the 1001st as the guy who only botched one of 1000 and he may not even make as much as another doctor doing his 201st with no errors.

Ability comes with experience - as does knowledge. For example:

I'm not necessarily taking about formal education. Even if you only look at spreadsheets for your job but learn on your own how to use Excel you're more educated. That's not the same as "experience".

learning Excel takes an amount of time, and a worker who has dealt with spreadsheets longer is more likely to be better at it. As Americans age, they increase their knowledge, experience, ability, etc., and with that, their bargaining power and thus their compensation.

And it doesn't include all the smart people that are sitting at home because of other problems or have turned to a life of crime. While most of the dumb criminals end up in jails - and on the stat sheets - most of the smart ones don't. One only has to look at Wall Street to see that. ;)

:) Cute, but if you want the criminals, you need Congress. Most smarter folks are in the workforce because they are well-paid for it. More of our low-intelligence folks... not as much. Many of them are "in" a workforce, but not the one that we count.

While I agree we have problems with education I certainly do not believe private industry can do better. In fact, it's been shown that it can't given the same goal as public education entities.

There is an entire forum devoted to that, suffice to say, the amount of money we expend on education isn't the problem - the system we pump that money through is.

Of course, nothing has changed in 200 years. The poor can still pick up their lot and move west to settle down on any unused land and start farming with no one to squeal about it.

Of course plenty has changed in two hundred years. It is now much easier for the poor to improve their lot than to go through the risk and labor of starting wilderness-clearing, indian-fighting, and subsistence-farming.
 
:thinking and yet they were able to live beneath their means and retire in relative comfort, whereas the boomers appear to have wasted more wealth than any generation in human history.....
Where do you think all the consumer spending to develop all your toys came from??? Call it wasted if you like - as soon as you hand over your computers (all types including iWhatever's), your cell phone(s) including the virtually limitless communications (no cable TV or cheap long distance when I was a kid!), and most satellite services including GPS. I'm sure there are a million other things but they're so second nature to me now I hardly think about them - like central A/C (or A/C at all!) - which only rich people used to have.
 
Where do you think all the consumer spending to develop all your toys came from?

Consumer spending didn't develop my toys. Capital did.

Call it wasted if you like - as soon as you hand over your computers (all types including iWhatever's), your cell phone(s) including the virtually limitless communications (no cable TV or cheap long distance when I was a kid!), and most satellite services including GPS. I'm sure there are a million other things but they're so second nature to me now I hardly think about them - like central A/C (or A/C at all!) - which only rich people used to have.

You are putting the cart before the horse and mistaking product for producer.
 
Ability comes with experience - as does knowledge. For example:

learning Excel takes an amount of time, and a worker who has dealt with spreadsheets longer is more likely to be better at it. As Americans age, they increase their knowledge, experience, ability, etc., and with that, their bargaining power and thus their compensation.
As anyone who's ever used Excel knows, there's a lot of difference between using the data provided in a spreadsheet and knowing how to make the spreadsheet itself. Access is an even more dramatic difference. You're almost ahead to just learn Visual Basic and be done with it. If your job doesn't require you to make spreadsheets or program databases then learning those skills is education, not experience.


There is an entire forum devoted to that, suffice to say, the amount of money we expend on education isn't the problem - the system we pump that money through is.
The problem isn't the education system, it's the people who use it and what they're taught when NOT at school.


Of course plenty has changed in two hundred years. It is now much easier for the poor to improve their lot than to go through the risk and labor of starting wilderness-clearing, indian-fighting, and subsistence-farming.
Hard to improve your lot if there's no one willing to pay you for your labor and you have no money to invest. About 4% of the population is in that position right now.
 
Consumer spending didn't develop my toys. Capital did.
Yeah - this "capital" just magically appeared from the heavens one day. :lamo

You know as well as I do that without demand there can be no sales and no money to be made - hence no capital invested.


You are putting the cart before the horse and mistaking product for producer.
Not at all. Demand does and must come first, followed by supply. I admit that they feed off each other but some kernel has to start the cycle. There are a few - very few - exceptions but not many. Pet Rocks might be one; I never saw the draw for that one. As far as I can tell that was pure sales hype. LOL!
 
Ability comes with experience - as does knowledge. For example:
On a more basic level ability obviously doesn't come with just experience. A klutz is never going to make a good surgeon but both could mop floors. Knowledge doesn't always come with time-on-job, either. Sadly, some people just never get it no matter how many times or how many different ways you tell them. In the end, the only recourse for those people is rote learning, which won't get them very far.
 
Yeah - this "capital" just magically appeared from the heavens one day.

Not at all, it was produced.

You know as well as I do that without demand there can be no sales and no money to be made - hence no capital invested.

No, we are speaking of very different things. as evidenced by:

Not at all. Demand does and must come first, followed by supply.

You are claiming that "demand" causes items to magically come into existence. I am pointing out that first they must be produced. And then, in order for the sale to occur, the individual expressing the "demand" must have his own produce to trade. Demand is a function of supply, not the other way around.

I admit that they feed off each other but some kernel has to start the cycle.

yes, and that kernel is not demand, else the cycle would never have started in the first place. You cannot trade what you do not have.
 
On a more basic level ability obviously doesn't come with just experience. A klutz is never going to make a good surgeon but both could mop floors.

Now you are confusing baselines with direction. A klutz becomes a better surgeon than he formerly was with experience, as does someone with superior hand-eye coordination.

Knowledge doesn't always come with time-on-job, either.

Pretty much all the time yes, it does. That's why we call it "experience", and it's why it's a valuable item to have in the job market.
 
As anyone who's ever used Excel knows, there's a lot of difference between using the data provided in a spreadsheet and knowing how to make the spreadsheet itself. Access is an even more dramatic difference. You're almost ahead to just learn Visual Basic and be done with it. If your job doesn't require you to make spreadsheets or program databases then learning those skills is education, not experience.

Bingo. It takes time to improve ones'self, and Americans tend to improve themselves over time. This makes them more valuable in the job market, meaning that if their employer does not compensate them what they are worth, they have the ability to get that higher compensation elsewhere.

The problem isn't the education system, it's the people who use it and what they're taught when NOT at school.

You will get no argument from me that our broken family structure is behind quite a lot of individual failure in our society. however, yes, the problem is the education system, which takes large amounts of resources per student to achieve poor results.

Hard to improve your lot if there's no one willing to pay you for your labor and you have no money to invest. About 4% of the population is in that position right now.

True enough, which is why I oppose artificial price floors that make those people too expensive to hire.
 
20% of the jobs pay less that $10 an hour. Show me that 20% of the workforce is under 21 and we can agree. I won't hold my breath but I'll admit I haven't researched it lately so you may be right.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25, not $10.


As I've just pointed out to cp - half the workforce IS "stupid" with an IQ of <100. You can't take your own experience and those in your personal little social group as an indication of the world as a whole.

That doesn't make them necessarily stupid, just below an average.

For those that actually ARE "lazy" or "don't want to work" - and I know a few of those - that's the path they've been put on and I have no reason to believe any amount of help will change them, now. Maybe when they were younger but not now.

Then let them starve to death.
 
Not at all, it was produced.

No, we are speaking of very different things. as evidenced by:

You are claiming that "demand" causes items to magically come into existence. I am pointing out that first they must be produced. And then, in order for the sale to occur, the individual expressing the "demand" must have his own produce to trade. Demand is a function of supply, not the other way around.

yes, and that kernel is not demand, else the cycle would never have started in the first place. You cannot trade what you do not have.
You can't trade what no one else wants, either, and nothing (with extremely rare exceptions as noted) gets produced without at least a foreseeable buyer (demand).


Let's try it this way:

1 In the beginning there was hunger and Adam felt it was bad. (demand is born!)
2 Then Adam reached out his hand plucked the fruit of the tree and feed himself and want, "Yum!" ((Labor is used to create supply to fulfill the demand. If Adam had not been hungry - no demand - there would have been no reason for him to pluck the fruit - no supply. We note he didn't pluck the flowers on the ground as there was no demand for flowers.))
3 After weeks of eating fruit Adam saw that Joe was eating nuts and, being tired of just fruit, wanted some nuts. (demand)
4 Joe, having tired of nuts and looking for something else to eat (demand), and Adam talked and agreed to an exchange of fruit for nuts (trade agreements!)

Eventually we get around to hoarding and spoilage, which leads to money, but virtually all economic ideas can be traced back to the above situation - the simple hunter-gatherer barter system. Adam doesn't expend labor and create product until he has a demand for said product. Investors work the same way. Investors won't sink their money into an endeavour without some kind of market in which to sell it. Without the foreseeable demand of the market capital is not invested.
 
Last edited:
Bingo. It takes time to improve ones'self, and Americans tend to improve themselves over time. This makes them more valuable in the job market, meaning that if their employer does not compensate them what they are worth, they have the ability to get that higher compensation elsewhere.

True enough, which is why I oppose artificial price floors that make those people too expensive to hire.
Your lower-than-minimum wage jobs would leave even more people in a position where they have no time for education. If industry was given a choice they'd work people 16 hours a day for nothing. Of course, that's detrimental to economic health but individual businesses can't and don't look at that. All they care about is THEIR bottom line, which is as it should be. It's our job as The People to regulate business in such a way as to maintain a balance between what's good for business and what's good for society as a whole. Run amok capitalism is self-destructive - even the best engines have governors.


You will get no argument from me that our broken family structure is behind quite a lot of individual failure in our society. however, yes, the problem is the education system, which takes large amounts of resources per student to achieve poor results.
The students are the crux of your "failed" equation. It should be self-evident that poor students will cost more to train. Improve the students enough and you could eliminate schools completely. Sadly that won't happen in our lifetime but it's the ultimate goal.
 
Now you are confusing baselines with direction. A klutz becomes a better surgeon than he formerly was with experience, as does someone with superior hand-eye coordination.
Hey - I've been nice, too, but now you've stepped over the line. As a surveyor I've forgotten more about baselines and direction than you'll even learn! ;)


Pretty much all the time yes, it does. That's why we call it "experience", and it's why it's a valuable item to have in the job market.
How much more can you learn about mopping floors after a few weeks of doing it? Many jobs - and especially those at the bottom end - have an extremely short experience timeline.
 
The federal minimum wage is $7.25, not $10.
That's still what it is on MO, too, though we're considering raising it to $7.75. I took $10/hour because the top end of the bottom quintile is ~$20k/year - IIRC.

That doesn't make them necessarily stupid, just below an average.
I thought that WAS "stupid" - or at least a good working definition.

Then let them starve to death.
Works for me if that's what we want. I'm a Darwinist at heart. I think we should ban most medicines as well, unless you want to agree to sterilization. No reason to saddle the next generation with those poor genes. ;)
 
That's still what it is on MO, too, though we're considering raising it to $7.75. I took $10/hour because the top end of the bottom quintile is ~$20k/year - IIRC.

And that's well and good, but when you're talking about minimum wage, at least stick to what minimum wage actually is.

I thought that WAS "stupid" - or at least a good working definition.

Stupidity has nothing to do with IQ, it has to do with how one deals with data. If you're going to talk about IQ, you are stuck talking about retardation, which is often people with an IQ below 70. You can have stupid people who score in the genius IQ range.

Works for me if that's what we want. I'm a Darwinist at heart. I think we should ban most medicines as well, unless you want to agree to sterilization. No reason to saddle the next generation with those poor genes. ;)

I don't think we should go that far, but I think we need to require people, like it or not, to pull their own weight and for those who just refuse to do anything, there has to come a point where we say "we've given you every chance under the sun, we've given you every opportunity and you've refused to make an effort, thus, we're just not going to support you anymore."
 
And that's well and good, but when you're talking about minimum wage, at least stick to what minimum wage actually is.
I didn't know we were talking about minimum wage (and if we are, which state's minimum are we going to use???). I thought we were talking about low-paying jobs. I'd say under $10/hr is low-paying.

Stupidity has nothing to do with IQ, it has to do with how one deals with data. If you're going to talk about IQ, you are stuck talking about retardation, which is often people with an IQ below 70. You can have stupid people who score in the genius IQ range.
Then there's no objective standard and everyone is stupid in someone's eyes.

I don't think we should go that far, but I think we need to require people, like it or not, to pull their own weight and for those who just refuse to do anything, there has to come a point where we say "we've given you every chance under the sun, we've given you every opportunity and you've refused to make an effort, thus, we're just not going to support you anymore."
I don't believe welfare in MO lasts past two years - nor unemp ins for more than 6 months. For the past few years that's been modified, as it should have been, to adjust to the extreme economic circumstances. I don't agree with lifetime support, either, and that isn't what I've been talking about. I've been talking about the working poor. If someone is willing to spend 40 hours/wk or more supporting society and it's various functions, they shouldn't have to live in squalor.


Than you, too, are a liberal in my eyes. If your body isn't designed to withstand the environment, with some exceptions like accidents from sports or other common situations, then you shouldn't be allowed to pass those poor genes on to the next generation. Mankind as an animal is going downhill fast because the unfit are still allowed to survive. If we can let people die from an inability to adjust to society we should certainly let them die from an inability to adjust to the biological environment. If you haven't got the right genes then you just haven't got them. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You can't trade what no one else wants, either, and nothing (with extremely rare exceptions as noted) gets produced without at least a foreseeable buyer (demand).


Let's try it this way:

1 In the beginning there was hunger and Adam felt it was bad. (demand is born!)
2 Then Adam reached out his hand plucked the fruit of the tree and feed himself and want, "Yum!" ((Labor is used to create supply to fulfill the demand. If Adam had not been hungry - no demand - there would have been no reason for him to pluck the fruit - no supply. We note he didn't pluck the flowers on the ground as there was no demand for flowers.))
3 After weeks of eating fruit Adam saw that Joe was eating nuts and, being tired of just fruit, wanted some nuts. (demand)
4 Joe, having tired of nuts and looking for something else to eat (demand), and Adam talked and agreed to an exchange of fruit for nuts (trade agreements!)

Eventually we get around to hoarding and spoilage, which leads to money, but virtually all economic ideas can be traced back to the above situation - the simple hunter-gatherer barter system. Adam doesn't expend labor and create product until he has a demand for said product. Investors work the same way. Investors won't sink their money into an endeavour without some kind of market in which to sell it. Without the foreseeable demand of the market capital is not invested.

:) couple of problems in this model

Here, I'll fix it for you.

1 In the beginning there was hunger and Adam felt it was bad. (demand is born!)
2 Then Adam reached out his hand plucked the fruit of the tree and feed himself and want, "Yum!" ((Labor is used to create supply to fulfill the demand. If Adam had not been hungry - no demand - there would have been no reason for him to pluck the fruit - no supply. We note he didn't pluck the flowers on the ground as there was no demand for flowers.))
2a. Note that as of yet no trade is taking place, nor really economic activity of any kind
3 After weeks of eating fruit Adam saw that Joe was eating nuts and, being tired of just fruit, wanted some nuts. (demand)
4 Joe, having tired of nuts and looking for something else to eat (theoretical demand), and Adam talked and agreed to an exchange of fruit for nuts (trade agreements!)
4b Sadly, Joe had eaten all the nuts he picked, and Adam had eaten all his fruit
5. Happily, each then returned to their plot of land and picked more (supply!) so that they could trade (expressed demand!)

Theoretical demand is infinite. Real demand, the kind that you get on a chart with price and supply, is that which is expressed through trade. Technically I have a demand for bunnies, if I could just get them to pull a wooden sleigh like in the Hobbit. But until I have supply to purchase said rabbits, my "demand" makes not a wit of difference. Right now I want a motorcycle (theoretical demand). But until either I build up the surplus supply or another loans it to me, I cannot purchase (expressed demand) said two-wheeled toy, and the number of sales of motorcycles remains sans cpwill.

Supply>Demand, when Demand = Actual, Real, Demand.
 
:) couple of problems in this model

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Theoretical demand is infinite. Real demand, the kind that you get on a chart with price and supply, is that which is expressed through trade. Technically I have a demand for bunnies, if I could just get them to pull a wooden sleigh like in the Hobbit. But until I have supply to purchase said rabbits, my "demand" makes not a wit of difference. Right now I want a motorcycle (theoretical demand). But until either I build up the surplus supply or another loans it to me, I cannot purchase (expressed demand) said two-wheeled toy, and the number of sales of motorcycles remains sans cpwill.

Supply>Demand, when Demand = Actual, Real, Demand.
I'm glad you pointed out in the modified example that demand came first. Sorry, but Adam's demand for food is what prompted the labor of reaching out and plucking it. Without the demand nothing would have happened - including the trades with Joe. If you want to call it "theoretical" demand, I don't care since that's exactly what I've been saying. Here, let me quote it for you again since you missed it several times already,: "Without a foreseeable" (in your terms, "theoretical") "demand there will be no capital invested to create supply". As I've said, you get no supply without a foreseeable demand - which includes a pricing component. In fact, you very, very seldom get innovation or invention - both of which drive business - without demand. "Necessity is the mother of invention."


And of course your demand makes a difference. Just like everything else, without the demand there would be no need for a supply to fill it. If you don't want a motorcycle then you have no need for the "supply" to buy one, so you won't work those off hours to make some extra cash.

Until you figure out how to get those bunnies to pull the sleigh on your own then you have no demand for bunnies - though you DO apparently have a some odd demand for bunnies that pull sleighs. I've seen bunnies that pull sleighs (and I'd bet a few are for hire) but neither your wife nor mine would go for it. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom