Unions Suffer Deathblow after Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling

[NYcarbineer]

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

Yes. Money in society finds its best and most effective uses. Sweetheart deals negotiated with corrupt public service labor unions results in taxes being higher OR a reduction in other government services. This is suboptimum.

Now people have lower property taxes and they can use that money in ways that they find more optimum than paying higher taxes. Do you know many people who voluntarily send EXTRA money to government because they believe that this is the best way to spend their own money? Well, do ya, punk?

Union membership in this country peaked around 1970, and has fallen steadily since.

Has the job situation gotten better? Have good paying jobs kept up with inflation and population growth? Has the one income family that was common in 1970 retained its ability to support a household?

What has gotten so much better for the American worker since 1970?

 

[Rikurzhen]

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

Both. That's pretty well established. When unions move in they raise wages. For union workers. For non union workers their wages go down. I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more.

I would love to see your evidence Rabbi. Cough it up.
I know you love charts, so here you go.

Middle class income shrinking with declining union membership. That's a classic case of a correlation not based on causation. Some factor is acting on both. What, oh what, could that factor be? Labor surpluses in the labor market. What's causing labor surpluses and the resulting increased returns to capital? This:

 

[whitehall]

Maybe people don't understand the concept of collective bargaining. In the private sector it can bankrupt a company but in the public sector it can bankrupt a municipality. Unions can force communities to finance such lavish retirement benefits that the tax base of the community cannot survive and services will be terminated putting the municipality in chaos.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The greatest expansion of the middle class in history occurred when Union's were at their highest membership. Since the membership started decreasing middle class wages become more and more stagnet.

And union membership reached such heights because we had a multi-decade immigration moratorium which amplified labor market shortages.

You want those good times again? Well, you can't have them when you dump millions of new immigrants into the labor market, every year, year after year. That simply guts any chance of labor market scarcity developing and pushing up wages and reducing corporate profits.

Unions, by themselves, don't achieve this goal. You have to actually affect the labor market and the way you do that is to create labor scarcity.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It seems as productivity has risen, wages have been stagnant. It's a fact that in Real Dollars, a non supervisory worker made more in 1979 than they do now.

How the gains from productivity increases are allocated between Capital and Labor is a function of their power. When labor has more power, as it does when the labor market is exhibiting signs of scarcity, then more of the gains which arise from increased productivity flow to labor. When Capital is strong, as it is when labor markets are dealing with massive surpluses of workers, then Capital has the stronger hand and captures most of the new gains from productivity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well let's examine some of Rabbi's big public sector job gains for Wisconsin since the union-busting law went into effect, since he's claiming it's producing more public sector jobs in Wisconsin, albeit for less money:

1. From March 2014

Wisconsin 2nd in U.S. in job losses last month, new estimates show

Wisconsin was second in the nation in total job losses last month, a somewhat surprising development considering the state’s unemployment rate has reached its lowest level since November 2008.



Employers in Wisconsin shed an estimated 9,500 total public and private sector jobs in February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported late last week.

Along with North Carolina (11,300 job losses) and Alaska (2,300 job losses), Wisconsin experienced a “statistically significant” decline in employment, according to a press release from the BLS.

The Wisconsin losses included an estimated 7,900 government jobs, 5,000 jobs in professional or business services and 2,200 in manufacturing.

Read more: Wisconsin 2nd in U.S. in job losses last month, new estimates show : Ct

2. From April 2012:

Wisconsin job losses highest in nation for last 12 months, federal report says

Of the 23,900 jobs lost in Wisconsin in that period, 17,900 were from the public sector

Read more: Wisconsin job losses highest in nation for last 12 months, federal report says : Wsj



Shall I continue?

Good. There are too many government workers as it is. They are a net drain on the economy.

That's not what Rabbi said. He said Wisconsin got rid of union rights so they could hire more public sector workers.

Of course he's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum.

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

 

[zeke]

The greatest expansion of the middle class in history occurred when Union's were at their highest membership. Since the membership started decreasing middle class wages become more and more stagnet.

And union membership reached such heights because we had a multi-decade immigration moratorium which amplified labor market shortages.

You want those good times again? Well, you can't have them when you dump millions of new immigrants into the labor market, every year, year after year. That simply guts any chance of labor market scarcity developing and pushing up wages and reducing corporate profits.

Unions, by themselves, don't achieve this goal. You have to actually affect the labor market and the way you do that is to create labor scarcity.

Unions reached their heights in numbers and power when factories cranked up after WWII. When hundreds of thousands of combat vets from WWII told the employers; we did the fighting, you factory owners made a fortune off the war and now we want our share.

And who were the factory owners to say no. These guys just kicked the shit out of our enemies.

If todays work world was full of hundreds of thousands of combat vets, you think the companies would still be able to push them around? Hell no.

Labor and management have ALWAYS fought. It's just after WWII, management didn't want to take on a bunch of pissed off vets with attitude.

Today, with the manufacturing industries having many less employees, there just isn't the attitude or the numbers of workers to fight for their rights.

Too bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good. There are too many government workers as it is. They are a net drain on the economy.

That's not what Rabbi said. He said Wisconsin got rid of union rights so they could hire more public sector workers.

Of course he's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum.

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

 

[zeke]

That's not what Rabbi said. He said Wisconsin got rid of union rights so they could hire more public sector workers.

Of course he's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum.

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

The rabbits been busted for his stupidity again. Why am I not surprised. Of course the rabbit live in a hole in the ground so what the fuck does a rabbit know?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not what Rabbi said. He said Wisconsin got rid of union rights so they could hire more public sector workers.

Of course he's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum.

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

Do those two statements actually sound like the same thing to you?
Holy Dogshit you are one fuckng stupid ignoramus!

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

The rabbits been busted for his stupidity again. Why am I not surprised. Of course the rabbit live in a hole in the ground so what the fuck does a rabbit know?

Hey Zeke, do those two statements sound like the same thing to you? Holy Dogshit, I might have found someone dumber than Carbonbrain.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Let's put your theory to the test.. You should favor that.

You favor paying people a wage that is above the market clearing level for that job.

Here's my proposal to make America stronger.

Every liberal sends every conservative $100 per year via an IRS redistribution mechanism. Liberals makes conservatives richer. Conservatives don't have to do anything for this free gift, just like public sector employees don't have to do anything to earn their above-market wages.

This will make America stronger because now conservatives will have higher incomes, just like public sector employees have high incomes.

You should favor this because it meets your criteria - one group is made richer at the expense of another group and done so in a way that doesn't require market forces.

What could go wrong with this plan? Why would you object?

 

[The Rabbi]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Let's put your theory to the test.. You should favor that.

You favor paying people a wage that is above the market clearing level for that job.

Here's my proposal to make America stronger.

Every liberal sends every conservative $100 per year via an IRS redistribution mechanism. Liberals makes conservatives richer. Conservatives don't have to do anything for this free gift, just like public sector employees don't have to do anything to earn their above-market wages.

This will make America stronger because now conservatives will have higher incomes, just like public sector employees have high incomes.

You should favor this because it meets your criteria - one group is made richer at the expense of another group and done so in a way that doesn't require market forces.

What could go wrong with this plan? Why would you object?

Because he's a liberal.

 

[kiwiman127]

Both. That's pretty well established. When unions move in they raise wages. For union workers. For non union workers their wages go down. I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more.

I would love to see your evidence Rabbi. Cough it up.
I know you love charts, so here you go.

Middle class income shrinking with declining union membership. That's a classic case of a correlation not based on causation. Some factor is acting on both. What, oh what, could that factor be? Labor surpluses in the labor market. What's causing labor surpluses and the resulting increased returns to capital? This:

Thank you for your response.
Here's an interesting piece I'm sure you'd like to digest:
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages | Economic Policy Institute

 

[The Rabbi]

I would love to see your evidence Rabbi. Cough it up.
I know you love charts, so here you go.

Middle class income shrinking with declining union membership. That's a classic case of a correlation not based on causation. Some factor is acting on both. What, oh what, could that factor be? Labor surpluses in the labor market. What's causing labor surpluses and the resulting increased returns to capital? This:

Thank you for your response.
Here's an interesting piece I'm sure you'd like to digest:
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages | Economic Policy Institute

Yeah, here's their mission statement:

EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security. To achieve this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America. EPI proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses policies with respect to how they affect those workers.

That's advocacy, not research.

Still waiting for your explanation of what the graph you posted means.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's not what Rabbi said. He said Wisconsin got rid of union rights so they could hire more public sector workers.

Of course he's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum.

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

Tell me...

Why can't a worker choose to represent himself instead of being represented by a union? What is so wrong with a worker being independent from a union? Democrats for months now have been doing victory laps over the economy recovering, and the unemployment rate dropping to 6.1%. So why is it here you ask "why are there fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us?"

Funny, from my vantage point, there are jobs, but not many people out there willing to accept them. They are too busy being subsidized by our government, kept idle. You complain that there aren't enough jobs, yet insist on keeping people on welfare for inordinate amounts of time. Maybe if people weren't looking for free stuff, they would start looking for jobs instead.

As it says in the Bible "The harvest is plenty, but the workers are few."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Middle class income shrinking with declining union membership. That's a classic case of a correlation not based on causation. Some factor is acting on both. What, oh what, could that factor be? Labor surpluses in the labor market. What's causing labor surpluses and the resulting increased returns to capital? This:

Thank you for your response.
Here's an interesting piece I'm sure you'd like to digest:
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages | Economic Policy Institute

Yeah, here's their mission statement:

EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security. To achieve this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America. EPI proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses policies with respect to how they affect those workers.

That's advocacy, not research.

Still waiting for your explanation of what the graph you posted means.

"Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity"

Kind of a dead giveaway.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for your response.
Here's an interesting piece I'm sure you'd like to digest:
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages
Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages | Economic Policy Institute

Yeah, here's their mission statement:

EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security. To achieve this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America. EPI proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses policies with respect to how they affect those workers.

That's advocacy, not research.

Still waiting for your explanation of what the graph you posted means.

"Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity"

Kind of a dead giveaway.

Of course it is. But to idiots like Kiwi, who can't even explain his own graph, it constitutes proof positive.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I didnt say anything like that. Anywhere.
Who's the dumbest fuckwit on this forum again?

So now you want to deny saying this when it's on the record?

"I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more."

That was your response to why breaking the unions is a good thing. More jobs. So again,
where are the fucking jobs?

Why are there far fewer jobs now, instead of more, as you assured us would be the outcome?

Do those two statements actually sound like the same thing to you?
Holy Dogshit you are one fuckng stupid ignoramus!

No. He is not an ignoramus. Carby is an IGNORANUS--he is both stupid, AND an asshole!