The Right to Work for less money

[Bern80]

They are high paying jobs because they are hard and they suck. Riding on a fishing boat for 1-3 months in 40 foot seas isn't a minimum wage job, you piece of shit. Also, most workers in the fhsing industry aren't unionized....they only make money based on covering their expenses of the boat first.

People get paid more money to live in bumfuck Alaska doing hard and dangerous work because most Americans would never do that work or even live in bumbfuck Alaska you stupid pile of shit.

California on the otherhand has inflated wages because of places like Hollywood employing people at crazy wages making movies and music. Some rap artisit makes $20M off a "record" as well as others involved in making the record.

You're so stupid your head hurts. Why are fishing and oil jobs high-paying? Or the many thousands of studio workers highly paid?

BECAUSE THEY'RE UNIONIZED, one unioin of which used to be headed up by Ronald Reagan, whom you may have heard of. If not, google it.

Picking strawberries if vastly harder work. And it pays shit.

Grow a fucking braincell; one that functions. Then look around. Maybe you'll learn something, dipshit.

Yeah I'm afraid your still the idiot in this one if you think more physically exerting is what is meant by harder work. Picking strawberries may be physically difficult, but it's still something any human and probably a few primates can do. When people say harder work what is meant is the scarcity of people with the skill willing and able to do it. If you possess a skill that few others have and is needed by someone chances are you'll get paid for it and well without the need of a union.

 

[Koios]

Someday all industry will be unionized and everyone will make a lot more money. Hmm....

How would that work out, do you think?

It's a pipe dream; not all will. But what's the effect of higher wages? A larger market, which existing companies and entrepreneurs will invest money in hopes of getting a piece of. Thus more is borrowed, scaling up the money-supply in parallel to the larger market, and many get rich or richer, even when their products and services are less expensive due to economies of scale and competition, since they make it up in spades with increased volume.

Hmm... so, seriously, have you ever studied economics? At all?

So, by your reasoning simply printing up cash and sending it out to everyone would have the same effect, right?

Or, hey... here's an idea that achieves the same results with less work. How about we just declare that every $1 bill is now worth $10. Problem solved! Everyone has more money - markets grow and much rejoicing.

Yes; what would you like to know? Stuff that's trending toward becoming a mere myth, such as division of labors, supply and demand, etc?

Drivers of cost / inflation? Components of tax policy, an area of study called "political economics?"

Whadaya wanna know?

 

[Bern80]

It's a pipe dream; not all will. But what's the effect of higher wages? A larger market, which existing companies and entrepreneurs will invest money in hopes of getting a piece of. Thus more is borrowed, scaling up the money-supply in parallel to the larger market, and many get rich or richer, even when their products and services are less expensive due to economies of scale and competition, since they make it up in spades with increased volume.

Hmm... so, seriously, have you ever studied economics? At all?

So, by your reasoning simply printing up cash and sending it out to everyone would have the same effect, right?

Or, hey... here's an idea that achieves the same results with less work. How about we just declare that every $1 bill is now worth $10. Problem solved! Everyone has more money - markets grow and much rejoicing.

Yes; what would you like to know? Stuff that's trending toward becoming a mere myth, such as division of labors, supply and demand, etc?

Drivers of cost / inflation? Components of tax policy, an area of study called "political economics?"

Whadaya wanna know?

The fact that you are this much in favor of unions is evidence that no, you didn't study economics. Or if you did you didn't learn shit. Pick one.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The idiot thinks people that can't speak English, aren't supposed to be in the USA and can't do 99% of the jobs in the USA based on low IQ or low skills.....they should be paid very, very well.

Nevermind they are criminals just like their employers are criminals employing them.

They are high paying jobs because they are hard and they suck. Riding on a fishing boat for 1-3 months in 40 foot seas isn't a minimum wage job, you piece of shit. Also, most workers in the fhsing industry aren't unionized....they only make money based on covering their expenses of the boat first.

People get paid more money to live in bumfuck Alaska doing hard and dangerous work because most Americans would never do that work or even live in bumbfuck Alaska you stupid pile of shit.

California on the otherhand has inflated wages because of places like Hollywood employing people at crazy wages making movies and music. Some rap artisit makes $20M off a "record" as well as others involved in making the record.

Picking strawberries if vastly harder work. And it pays shit.

Grow a fucking braincell; one that functions. Then look around. Maybe you'll learn something, dipshit.

Yeah I'm afraid your still the idiot in this one if you think more physically exerting is what is meant by harder work. Picking strawberries may be physically difficult, but it's still something any human and probably a few primates can do. When people say harder work what is meant is the scarcity of people with the skill willing and able to do it. If you possess a skill that few others have and is needed by someone chances are you'll get paid for it and well without the need of a union.

 

[Koios]

Hmm... so, seriously, have you ever studied economics? At all?

So, by your reasoning simply printing up cash and sending it out to everyone would have the same effect, right?

Or, hey... here's an idea that achieves the same results with less work. How about we just declare that every $1 bill is now worth $10. Problem solved! Everyone has more money - markets grow and much rejoicing.

Yes; what would you like to know? Stuff that's trending toward becoming a mere myth, such as division of labors, supply and demand, etc?

Drivers of cost / inflation? Components of tax policy, an area of study called "political economics?"

Whadaya wanna know?

The fact that you are this much in favor of unions is evidence that no, you didn't study economics. Or if you did you didn't learn shit. Pick one.

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.

 

[GoneBezerk]

If we could just train dogs or monkeys to not eat all the strawberries in the field and actually put them in buckets...then we could put all those workers out of work.

Dog food and bananas compared to paying some illegal under the table.....

 

[PredFan]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

That strawman has a union label.

 

[Bern80]

Yes; what would you like to know? Stuff that's trending toward becoming a mere myth, such as division of labors, supply and demand, etc?

Drivers of cost / inflation? Components of tax policy, an area of study called "political economics?"

Whadaya wanna know?

The fact that you are this much in favor of unions is evidence that no, you didn't study economics. Or if you did you didn't learn shit. Pick one.

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

 

[Bern80]

If we could just train dogs or monkeys to not eat all the strawberries in the field and actually put them in buckets...then we could put all those workers out of work.

Dog food and bananas compared to paying some illegal under the table.....

psst.....don't let the cat out of the bag, but in fact you could probably train a dog to do that.

 

[eflatminor]

Okay, confession. I'm confused.

I thought the whole idea behind RTW was to outlaw businesses that require union membership as a condition of employment. Now you're saying no business in any state can make that requirement?

I need to do more research. I'm hearing conflicting messages.

It outlaws 'union security agreements' - deals which are tucked into collective bargaining agreements which require all employees to pay union dues.

But Polk stated "...no one, in any state, is required to join a union as a condition of employment. That has been illegal for over 60 years."

That sounds contradictory. If these union security agreements require employees to pay union dues, how is that not requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment?

What am I missing?

So which is it Polk? Are you suggesting a worker being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment is not the same thing as being forced to join a union as a condition of employment?

If I've got this wrong, please tell me, but please also tell me if you're just trying split hairs...

 

[dblack]

It's a pipe dream; not all will. But what's the effect of higher wages? A larger market, which existing companies and entrepreneurs will invest money in hopes of getting a piece of. Thus more is borrowed, scaling up the money-supply in parallel to the larger market, and many get rich or richer, even when their products and services are less expensive due to economies of scale and competition, since they make it up in spades with increased volume.

Hmm... so, seriously, have you ever studied economics? At all?

So, by your reasoning simply printing up cash and sending it out to everyone would have the same effect, right?

Or, hey... here's an idea that achieves the same results with less work. How about we just declare that every $1 bill is now worth $10. Problem solved! Everyone has more money - markets grow and much rejoicing.

Yes; what would you like to know?

I'd like to know you understand the economic futility in simply paying everyone more money.

 

[Jarhead]

The fact that you are this much in favor of unions is evidence that no, you didn't study economics. Or if you did you didn't learn shit. Pick one.

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

it is not so much that they protect the least skilled.

They protect the least motivated...at the expense of the most motivated.

Per union contract, the one who doesnt end up using every sick day, vacation day and personal day will get the same raise as the guy who uses every single day including berevement days for relatives he never met before.

SO what do you think the guy who didnt use every day will do next year?

 

[GoneBezerk]

I know, my dogs would pluck them from our California backyard before I could get them....even leaving the plant intact to give them more later.

If we could just train dogs or monkeys to not eat all the strawberries in the field and actually put them in buckets...then we could put all those workers out of work.

Dog food and bananas compared to paying some illegal under the table.....

psst.....don't let the cat out of the bag, but in fact you could probably train a dog to do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The non union workers get the benefits that the union workers end up paying for.

Sort of like when 1/2 the country pays income taxes and the rest get the benefits.

Paying for how?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Unions restrict job growth because they force employers to pay them out the nose to the point where hiring more workers is impossible. Unions love their $80/hr on the auto assembly line and don't want to lower it to $55/hr to hire more people from town.

Unions also control employment by picking and choosing who they will let work for them. They will tell an employer Joe Schmoe isn't good for them or the company, so don't hire him. Then they will turn around and only pick their friends when a position opens up.

 

[Koios]

The fact that you are this much in favor of unions is evidence that no, you didn't study economics. Or if you did you didn't learn shit. Pick one.

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So your answer is: nothing. Okie doke. Stay stupid. Makes it easier for the rest of us to get the big bux jobs. Maybe division on labor is not a mere myth. It's working like fucking charm, in your case.

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.

 

[Koios]

Unions restrict job growth because they force employers to pay them out the nose to the point where hiring more workers is impossible. Unions love their $80/hr on the auto assembly line and don't want to lower it to $55/hr to hire more people from town.

Unions also control employment by picking and choosing who they will let work for them. They will tell an employer Joe Schmoe isn't good for them or the company, so don't hire him. Then they will turn around and only pick their friends when a position opens up.

Yes, in the topsy turvy world of Rightie retards, where businesses hire all the workers they can afford, and not merely those needed to keep the business functioning, you're dead bang on.

But back here in the real world, you'll note we have record corporate profits, helped in part by high unemployment, which drives the cost of labor down, as a percentage. It's great for the balance sheet, but there's a point the market businesses rely on gets fucked in the ass, since paying customers get scarce. For big consumer brands companies, no problem: enter foreign markets to make up for lost revenue, as Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble are doing. But your local corner store, is fucked, since the Mainland Chinese may not make a bataan-like march to get to them and buy a six pack.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It isn't about the right to work for less money.

Wages are lower in RTW states.

It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union.

That right exists in all 50 states. Its called IF YOU DON'T WANT A UNION JOB DON'T APPLY FOR ONE AT A UNION SHOP. Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and quite WHINING.

 

[Koios]

What do I want to know from you? Of course the answer is nothing. You are clearly unintelligent. No one with a brain would argue this much in favor of unions when what we know is they protect only the least skilled among us and enable and encourage those same people to remain unskilled.

You also don't know jack about me though I do make a decent living, excellent beneftis, non-union of course.

Oh that. Gotcha.

Not true, actually. In fact, unions are often a vital resource for getting ones hands on skilled workers in a hurry, at construction sites, etc. Also union sheetmetal workers and such have skill sets companies need, and thus look to their unions as a source of qualified / skilled workers. Ditto in automotive manufacture, etc.

But that's merely the convenience aspect. The trick is higher wages, in pusuit of higher median household income, which grows the market at high monetary velocity points. And unions are one of the ways to raise wages, in excess of miimum wage, which itself os a tool for raising wages. In short, our value is not in what we do, but what we spend into the economy. So it's beneficial by default when workers organize, since we know on average, they're better paid.

Sorry for fucking with your wish to not learn, from me, or anywhere else, it seems.

Unions have long since outlived their usefulness... they, like every good cause before them, have become a racket whereby the select few extort a lot of money from their minions.

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing productivity, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?