• 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?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
TurtleDude said:
that is a good slogan but what is your solution to the concept of competition? If a chinese worker can do the same work as an American worker but yet demands one fourth the wage how can a company that uses American Labor compete?
Click to expand...

Out innovate them just like we used to do before the GOP tax cuts for outsourcing. Why do you think it is right to make the working class in this country suffer to increase competition while the fat cats are raking in record wealth?
 
teamosil said:
Your graph doesn't say that public union membership is going up, it says that the PERCENTAGE of people in unions that are in the public sector is getting larger. That's not necessarily because there are more people in public sector unions, it could also be (and probably is) because of the dramatic drop in private sector union membership.
Click to expand...
All right, so that means when the percentage of people in public union increases, then wages go down? That doesn't sound well for public sector unions.

The notion that public sector incomes are bloated is absurd. We've just gone through and shown how teachers with master's degrees make just over half as much as people with master's degrees in the public sector. The same pattern (or worse) plays out in most sectors. For example, I'm in law school, so I'm very attuned to salaries lawyers make in the public and private sector. A job as a lawyer working for the DOJ is generally harder to get than jobs at any firm, but firms start you at $160k + a fat bonus, where the DOJ starts you at $110k with no bonus. Worse still, at the firm your compensation rapidly shoots up. If you put in 8 years and become a partner, you're most likely making over a million, but after 10 years in the DOJ you're still probably down around $140k.
Click to expand...
So? How many people can get those kind of jobs? Average median salary for law graduates is 62K. And thats a hard degree. But we need to look at what is an overpaid job. If the private market would pay for instance a garbage man 100K USD, then it is fine if the government pays 100K. If the private market would only pay 40K, then a person who earns 100K for a similar job is overpaid.

Among teachers, especially in some states, earnings are considerably better in public sector than private sector.

But just think about it. Of course having strong unions means higher wages for everybody. That's what they do. Even for companies that aren't unionized, the employer knows that they need to compete with employers with unions on salaries. .
Click to expand...

That point is right, but funny enough you forgot about one group. The poor.

The poor can not compete with public sector wages, so their wages won't go up. They will just see their costs and taxes will go up. Also, the quality of public sector services will drop. Public Sector unions make poor poorer.

All employers in states where they have strong unions know that if they try to screw the employees over too badly, they might unionize. It's a check on the worst abuses across the board for everybody. Just look at the differences in median income between "right to work" states and states where you can have an effective union. It's about a $10k/year difference. That's the only reason the right hates unions- because they lead to higher wages, which they see as a hindrance to profits for the rich
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I actually did. Here
http://voices.yahoo.com/richest-poorest-states-united-states-6335774.html?cat=3

Top union states:
New York: 42
Hawaii: 49
Alaska: 23
Washington: 8
Michigan: 27
California: 38

Average: 31.16. Hence unions states are poorer than non-unions states. And this is by median household income.

Also, the income adjusted poverty rate is highest in California and New York. Which support my point that unions make poor poorer.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't think that that's an actual notion outside of your imagination. Most of them are middle class as I've always argued.


Their environment would be pretty horrible. Teachers would have much larger class sizes, would be held accountable for things outside of their control, would work in less safe environments and so on. Firefighters and police officers would be cut and have to cover more area per person. They would also lose healthcare benefits, be held accountable for things outside of their control and so on.

I always laugh at the notion that only the private sector is willing and able to take advantage of its workers and that public workers don't have to worry about things like that. It's even more funny when it comes from conservatives and libertarians who apparently don't trust the government. If they don't trust the government, then it should be pretty easy to see how the government could exploit its workers. I guess they see what they want to see. It's too bad that what they want to see leads to the exploitation of workers and harm to the public.
Click to expand...

but yet "liberals" ,who trust the government, are the ones who push unions incessantly... funny how that work out eh? ;)

but yeah, I do tend to view folks as rational actors.. even folks in government.
not so rational in in their relationships with their subjects ( the citizens), but surely rational with their relationships with their own.
that may be an erred view, I admit... but it's one I tend to own.

unions do not control the amount of workers to be employed... so the argument that cops and firefighters is a bit specious.... as is the argument that they would lose healthcare benefits... and being held accountable for things beyond their control.... there are tons and tons of workers in those same governments who are not unionized, yet they don't seem to be exploited in any manner you profess.... how can that be?

I can see how they affect things like covering more area per person and class size though (those problems are easily rectified through internal regulation or legislation)
 
Catawba said:
Out innovate them just like we used to do before the GOP tax cuts for outsourcing. Why do you think it is right to make the working class in this country suffer to increase competition while the fat cats are raking in record wealth?
Click to expand...

Nice evasion which I have come to expect from you. but the fact is, in many areas, innovation is not going to make up for the massive overpricing of American labor. And if a "fat cat" can hire a very skilled Chinese laborer for one fifth of what you cost, why should he hire you? and that Chinese laborer isn't voting for people who are going to jack up that "fat cat's" taxes like you are. You see, hiring Union labor that is overpriced not only hurts the competitive ability of the company, it also is counterproductive given that unions funnel money towards the parasites who often want the company to be taxed even more
 
Catawba said:
Jenn said:
LOL! Evidently, you do not understand that derivatives were not an issue before deregulation removed the firewall that separated investment banks and commercial banks.
Click to expand...


Well, sh*t! I have no excuse except I had been spending some time with Tom Collins!
Click to expand...
 
Camlon said:
All right, so that means when the percentage of people in public union increases, then wages go down? That doesn't sound well for public sector unions.
Click to expand...

Obviously you understand that that would be a ridiculous inference to draw, no?

Camlon said:
So? How many people can get those kind of jobs? Average median salary for law graduates is 62K. And thats a hard degree. But we need to look at what is an overpaid job. If the private market would pay for instance a garbage man 100K USD, then it is fine if the government pays 100K. If the private market would only pay 40K, then a person who earns 100K for a similar job is overpaid.

Among teachers, especially in some states, earnings are considerably better in public sector than private sector.
Click to expand...

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the measure for the value of a profession is always how much profit employers can generate by hiring people to do the job. That would only be true for professions without major positive externalities. Education has huge positive externalities. The actual student only collects a portion of the benefit of their education. Future employers, future businesses they serve as customers for, people who benefit from things they invent, all benefit from that education too. Not to mention people who benefit from having more educated voters. Given all the massive positive externalities, the market salary doesn't really tell you much.

Camlon said:
That point is right, but funny enough you forgot about one group. The poor.

The poor can not compete with public sector wages, so their wages won't go up. They will just see their costs and taxes will go up. Also, the quality of public sector services will drop. Public Sector unions make poor poorer.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. The poor can't compete with public sector wages? That doesn't make sense. Employers have to compete with other employers for hires. Workers have to compete with other workers. When wages go up that increases the competition on employers, not workers. Maybe you can explain more. I don't think I'm following.
 
haymarket said:
from Centinel



that is called reality. It is the way it always has been and always will be. If the society you live in does not demand from the government that you have a specific right they want to have - they you do NOT have it.

Again, that is basic reality and the way of the world.
Click to expand...
I think you confuse protection/recognition of rights with the rights themselves...
fighting for protection or recognition of a right is not the same thing as fighting for the granting of a right.

generally speaking, when you are fighting the government over rights, you are demanding they do not violate those rights.
we possess tons and tons of rights ... rights the government does not always deem fit to recognize or protect... but hteir recognition or protection in no way diminishes the fact that we possess them.

for instance, the right to freely associate... one would be hard pressed to say we do not possess that right, but here we are fighting for ( and some against) the government recognizing and protecting that right.. we argue over that right when we argue unions and same sex marriage.
there are valid arguments on all sides as to why, or not, the government should recognize and protect those rights, or aspects of those rights.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nice evasion which I have come to expect from you. but the fact is, in many areas, innovation is not going to make up for the massive overpricing of American labor.
Click to expand...

What labor overpricing are you talking about? Half the country now lives at or near poverty. What percentage of the population do you think should live in poverty for us to be competitive with China?

And if a "fat cat" can hire a very skilled Chinese laborer for one fifth of what you cost, why should he hire you? and that Chinese laborer isn't voting for people who are going to jack up that "fat cat's" taxes like you are. You see, hiring Union labor that is overpriced not only hurts the competitive ability of the company, it also is counterproductive given that unions funnel money towards the parasites who often want the company to be taxed even more.
Click to expand...


Only 11% of the population belong to unions (public and private). So that is a load of horse****!

Tell me, what's the incentive for the working class to vote for those that think the working class are too rich, while half are living in, or near, poverty?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is a good slogan but what is your solution to the concept of competition? If a chinese worker can do the same work as an American worker but yet demands one fourth the wage how can a company that uses American Labor compete?
Click to expand...

Competition in this instance isn't about lowering the amount of compensation for those who produce the GDP in America anymore than it's about lowering the cost and cutting back on the ammo or weaponry we give our "valiant and heroic fighting men and women who fight for our freedom and democarcy around the world!! "

It's about making a better mouse trap. And 'Merica in the last generation has been about paying our competiton to make a better mouse trp - for US.
 
Catawba said:
What labor overpricing are you talking about? Half the country now lives at or near poverty. What percentage of the population do you think should live in poverty for us to be competitive with China?




Only 11% of the population belong to unions (public and private). So that is a load of horse****!

Tell me, what's the incentive for the working class to vote for those that think the working class are too rich, while half are living in, or near, poverty?
Click to expand...

More evasions

a company would be idiotic to pay too much for labor-especially labor that contributes to enemies of the company
 
LIE OF THE WEEK-Catawba claiming that HALF OF THE COUNTRY LIVES AT or NEAR A POVERTY LEVEL
 
jet57 said:
Competition in this instance isn't about lowering the amount of compensation for those who produce the GDP in America anymore than it's about lowering the cost and cutting back on the ammo or weaponry we give our "valiant and heroic fighting men and women who fight for our freedom and democarcy around the world!! "

It's about making a better mouse trap. And 'Merica in the last generation has been about paying our competiton to make a better mouse trp - for US.
Click to expand...

Uh that has absolutely no relevance to what I posted.
 
TurtleDude said:
More evasions
Click to expand...

On your part, as usual.

So stop evading and tell us what percentage of your fellow citizens would you be willing to have live in poverty so that the rich could maintain their record wealth?
 
Catawba said:
On your part, as usual.

So stop evading and tell us what percentage of your fellow citizens would you be willing to have live in poverty so that the rich could maintain their record wealth?
Click to expand...

what a moronic question. Its the usual Zero sum game BS we get from the whiners on the left who pretend that their failure and lack of success is the fault of those who have prospered and won. You want wealth? stop blaming others for your failures and start making success your personal responsibility. You will never win until you accept that you are responsible for your own destiny
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
as is the notion that they are all poor...;)

I wonder, in the absence of a public union, what would their job environment look like?
the usually argument for a union is that the employer would take advantage of their labor and further profit off of them ... folks like to talk about private labor reverting back to having to work 40 hours a day , with no days offs, in sweatshops and such ( which i understand is merely rhetoric)... but how would the public sector exploit labor?
Click to expand...

Before there were public unions POLITICS ruled, people got promoted based on political affiliations, nepotism and sometimes sexual escapades...people were fired for or demoted to make room for cronies and buddies.
I worked a public job before and after there were unions....Police were exploited to do questionable personal investigations and Much more...all the abuses politicians do at all lvls of government were translated into public employment and affected all employees, unions put a stop to all that garbage.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no . .. If you buy a mortage that requires a certain monthly contribution, the amount of the mortgae never changes: remember, that with teachers, in some states, they don't py into social secuirty by law, so their pension is it. Teachers don't set a goal, like $10,000,000; but they would like their pension contributions as high as they can get them: it's like dividends in reverse right?

So, teachers are worthless to you 'er what?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about -- and neither do you.
 
teamosil said:
Obviously you understand that that would be a ridiculous inference to draw, no?
Click to expand...
I thought correlation always means causation.

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the measure for the value of a profession is always how much profit employers can generate by hiring people to do the job. That would only be true for professions without major positive externalities. Education has huge positive externalities. The actual student only collects a portion of the benefit of their education. Future employers, future businesses they serve as customers for, people who benefit from things they invent, all benefit from that education too. Not to mention people who benefit from having more educated voters. Given all the massive positive externalities, the market salary doesn't really tell you much.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the same logic apply for firing regulations for teachers? If teachers are so important, shouldn't we be able to fire bad teachers?

If the high wages means that the only brightest could become teachers, and bad teachers get kicked out, then I wouldn't complain. Problem right now, is that the public sector union only care about their own wages, they don't really care about student performance. US, adjusted for costs,pays more than any country for its teachers. Still performance is terrible. Americans do badly in the PISA survey, and the poor do not receive a good education. The only reason US do not do even worse, is because private schools pull up the average


Not sure what you mean. The poor can't compete with public sector wages? That doesn't make sense. Employers have to compete with other employers for hires. Workers have to compete with other workers. When wages go up that increases the competition on employers, not workers. Maybe you can explain more. I don't think I'm following.
Click to expand...
Tell me, how can a poor person without qualifications, get a public sector job. There are no public sector jobs for high school dropouts. They have to work at gas stations, restaurants, and corner shops. They are all private.

If public sector increases their wages, then you are correct that the rich private sector will increase their wages, because qualified workers can get public sector jobs. But this is not true for private sector who employs poor people. Higher public wages do not mean more private sector jobs for poor people. The ones who employ poor people will not experience more competition. They will pay the same, possibly less because the employers have to pay higher taxes, or higher costs. That means poor people will experience no increases in wages, but higher costs and higher taxes.

So public sector unions, make poor poorer.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a moronic question.
Click to expand...

No just more of your evasion. You made the claim that the working class was too well off for the US to be competitive with China. So how poor are you willing for the working class to be the US to be competitive?

Stop weaseling.
 
Catawba said:
No just more of your evasion. You made the claim that the working class was too well off for the US to be competitive with China. So how poor are you willing for the working class to be the US to be competitive?

Stop weaseling.
Click to expand...


economic reality and global labor markets constantly bitch slap your fuzzy thinking when it comes to your dream world.

I say let the chips fall where the market drops them. It sure beats government intervention designed to appeal to the loser mentality and the "poor poor pitiful me" attitude that more than a few moon bat lefties constantly exhibit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom