- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
:lamo OH, anyone knows?
anyone but you, that is apparent and sad
:lamo OH, anyone knows?
anyone but you, that is apparent and sad
Totally NOT sad. As a matter of fact, I am extremely happy I'll have you know. :mrgreen:
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamoAnyone with any life experience knows that companies are closing and the unions are part of the problem. Sucks to be you.
Most liberals on the government teet are, we are not surprised
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamo
Well I am neither of those things. I am employed, and I'm not even a union member. I only know about them because I dated a guy who was in one, and my uncle is also in one. So go on with your assumptions. It's really quite amusing. :2razz: I've got to have dinner now, but I'll be back later so you can call me a poopy head or something. :lol:
IF you are denying unions are much of the problem, no you don't count
Sucks to be you.IF you are denying unions are much of the problem, no you don't count
Again you're trying to apply a commodities model to people
A supply/demand model might work for iron ore and paper but it can't work for people because you can't just park them in a warehouse and shut down production for awhile until the price goes back up.
Unless you're willing to let those idle people die, the supply cannot be adjusted to the demand.
As a society we've decided not to let people die
So, what happens then? The people that are still working pay for those people to be idle, which reduces consumer spending and drags the economy further down.
One in three employees (33 percent) say they plan to look for a new job this year and nearly one in five (18 percent) say they'll be looking in the next three months, according to a new survey by Harris Interactive for job-search site Glassdoor.com.
Over at Indeed.com, their survey showed the number of employees making a New Year's resolution to get a new job jumped to 38 percent.
Part of this shot of confidence comes from the early signs of recovery in the job market, like the December jobs report, and part of it comes from the fact that most companies, while more stable than in recent years, are not confident enough to start handing out raises....
And, of course, the No. 1 reason people cited when it comes to accepting a job offer is money.
Nearly three out of four (73 percent) cited salary and compensation as their top deciding factor, followed by location/commute (55 percent), career growth opportunities (30 percent) and the amount of work expected (22 percent)...
I guess my 50+ years doesn't qualify as "life experience" then. :lamorocketman said:Anyone with any life experience knows that companies are closing and the unions are part of the problem.
"you dated a guy":lamo:lamo Post whatever you want I realize now how much your argument has been about nothing
Sucks to be you.
And I bet MY Mopar is bigger than your Mopar! :tongue4:
That doesn't address the quesiton of "workers being part of the problem".Was it during this fifty years?
....cause.... this rough half-century (well, 62 years) seems to rather credit his thesis. If unions were succesfull models of organization, we would see them expanding as they beat out the competition.
That doesn't address the quesiton of "workers being part of the problem".
This is just another ill-thought post that peaches instead of discusses.
People are NOT commodities that can be parked in a warehouse nor idled like a piece of machinery when the market lags in demand. People are a constant and changes in the "production" of people take decades, not months.No, I am applying economics to labor. You seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp this basic concept - labor obeys the laws of supply and demand.
It's called Public Assistance (aka Welfare) when it continues past 6 months - or when the Republicans can be pushed into accepting a longer time-frame.Really? Here I thought we had a thing called "Unemployment".
Then we as a people are destined to paying welfare for the long-term unemployed OR shipping people out of the country OR letting them die in the streets. Of course, "the People", at least the majority of them, have absolutely no control over the labor market so - as usual - we as a People are subject to the whims of business. In other words, if business doesn't pay. the People end up paying in the form of taxes.You seem to be confusing "what we want to have happen" with "what really happens". Just because labor is the thing that most of us sell doesn't mean that there will magically be infinite demand for it at the prices we would prefer.
A) Only from a business perspective does labor obey supply/demand. From a societal standpoint it can't - unless you're willing to let people die from poverty.That is correct - we have a social welfare system. In no way whatsoever does that invalidate the basic point that A) labor obeys the laws of supply and demand and B) workers have the ability to seek better compensation.
People can't live on $3/hr. regardless of how much you or the business community would like them to. When the $$$/hr of labor falls below a certain point society, not business, starts paying to keep those people idled or underpaid - again, unless you're willing to let people die from poverty.Wrong. What happens is that the supply of available labor is increased which means that it's price drops, which means that demand (at the lower price) is higher.
At least, this is what happens until someone (and by someone I mean "government") decides to jack with that process by putting price controls on labor.
The race to the bottom has already happened with the Crash of 2008. PhD's now working as hotel clerks, hotel clerks now working as janitors, and janitors now living off the tax-payers. And they never hit bottom because of "government interference", as you call it. Since there is simply no consumer demand to drive the economy (except it's slow acceleration after slamming on the brakes of a freight train!) it wouldn't matter if people were getting paid $3/hr - there still wouldn't be any jobs. Not only that, the people that had those $3/hr jobs wouldn't be buying anything but bad food and more cardboard for their "house".Saw this today and thought it rather apropos for this discussion:
Huh. Looks like American workers think that your theory of labor immobility and an inevitable race to the bottom is crap.
Yeah - we'll just forget $0.50/hr jobs in China and decreases in the cost of shipping. :roll:Workers aren't part of the problem. Unions are part of the problem. They reduce growth, kill off businesses, and decrease employment. That's why that graph is one long slide downwards - inefficient means of organization being outcompeted by superior models.
Yeah - we'll just forget $0.50/hr jobs in China and decreases in the cost of shipping. :roll:
We can rule out EPA guidelines to assure the health of the populace - I'm sure THAT has nothing to do with it. I'm know you would have lived downwind of a steel plant had you been alive in 1960. :roll:
You're so fixated on your hatred for unions that you can't see the other things that have happened in the last 50+ years that also affected the American economy. Since you didn't live it I suggest you do some reading.
You mean like this?Was it during this fifty years?
....cause.... this rough half-century (well, 62 years) seems to rather credit his thesis. If unions were succesfull models of organization, we would see them expanding as they beat out the competition.
Thank you! I did forget to mention OSHA started up during that time as well. *thumbsup*Unions also ensure the safety of the worker. That is NOT the case with nonunion construction companies. Union job sites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis.
Unions also ensure the safety of the worker. That is NOT the case with nonunion construction companies. Union job sites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis.
*ALL* jobsites have OSHA visiting on a routine basis. Unions have nothing to do with it.
That is NOT true. OSHA has TONS of job sites. Union job sites are priority. Union members have to take safety classes and be OSHA certified.
That's a sweeping statement that simply is not true, I know people in unions who do not take any classes whatsoever, etc. I checked the OSHA site and it says nothing about union sites being a priority, in fact, the only thing I could find that it said about unions is that the union rep ought to be notified when an OSHA inspector is on site.
Where do you get this information?
Get a now line - that one is old and inaccurate.Workers aren't part of the problem. Unions are part of the problem. They reduce growth, kill off businesses, and decrease employment. That's why that graph is one long slide downwards - inefficient means of organization being outcompeted by superior models.