Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It takes organized labor to help keep industry from exploiting the working class. Industry has a long history of working people long and hard with little pay. Doctors, Dentists and Vets have associations that function like unions. Real Estate people organize, primarily to fix their commissions at 7%. All of these groups have lobbyist and buy advertising to create favorable public relations for their groups.
Yet the working class are expected to build roads and bridges and tall buildings and to do so at the mercy of their employers. The working class is basically without dignity or appreciation in our culture today.
In the 40's and 50's, the working people organized themselves [ at least in key industries ] and that caused government to pass the eight hour day and the 40 hour week and also to implement some safety measures that has improved the lot of workers.
In recent years, investors have demanded more money for the use of their money and that has put pressure on wages. At one time investors were satisfied with 4 to 5 % return but now expect 10 to 15 %.
If you haven't seen the youtube six minute video, it's well worth your while [ wealth inequality in america ]
So the money has been sucked up to the top 2 % and cannot be equalized until and only if the 120 million workers in America get some kind of a solid voice.
You are so poorly informed as to how unions work, I can only take pity out on you as a human being. Once again, if you hate unions, don't look like an idiot and get with a unionized workplace. Meanwhile, GET A LIFE!
From 1865-1890 wages in manufacturing rose 50% and another 34% from 1891-1914.
This was when less than 3% of the workforce was unionized and they had no special legal status like they do now. There were no minimum wage laws or other workplace protections. And millions were leaving heavily unionized Europe for non-union United States. Child labor was disappearing and work hours decreased from about 70 week to a little over 40.
You'll also notice world migration patterns show people always move from heavily unionized areas to non-union areas. Only exception was a decade or two in Detroit. If unions did anything to help workers these patterns would be the exact opposite.
Most people like you deal with these facts by ignoring it.
All numbers adjusted for inflation and can be found in U.S. Census records.
And anyone says that we would be making less money if it weren't for unions has to brainwashed or ignorant because all of history shows they are wrong.
And I'm poorly informed? lols.
And who said I hate unions? Stop making stuff up about me. I don't hate unions, I think they are worthless and hurt everyone involved. Doesn't mean I hate them.
Last edited by OhioRules; 06-19-2013 at 03:11 PM..
'Freedom to Freeload', as it is known, getting something for nothing.
Freedom to freeload? lols.
Not wanting to pay dues to an organization one does not belong to is freeloading? LMFAO
Freeloading is forcing non-members to pay dues to a union. It's actually not freeloading. It's theft.
P.S. Showing up to work and doing a job and getting paid for it is in no way freeloading. It's called work. Only a union moron would call a person wanting to work a freeloader.
Last edited by OhioRules; 06-19-2013 at 03:04 PM..
I asked Ohio if that is what he really wants, but he didn't answer my question, since the purpose of bringing right to work to a state is to weaken and get rid of labor unions that have become too well established.
I think states should be right to work because I believe people are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
If a guy wants to work someplace and an employer wants to pay him then it aint none of my business what terms they both agree to. It aint a union bosses either. If the employee wants to give up that right and join a union, so be it. That's their business.
You want to force people to pay dues that are not a member of the union because you believe stealing is okay.
And if unions were really about working people they would have no problem with people that don't want to join and/or pay dues. Those people want to work too. They also would not interfere with strike-busters. Strike-busters are only trying to put food on the table, just like a union worker. The fact that unions deny labor to strike-busters proves the unions don't give a rat's ass about workers. They care about themselves and themselves only.
The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.
That is not a misprint. 50 trillion dollars. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects." Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
The pro-union types deal with this by ignoring it.
First off, net profit margins are about 5% for big firms. (Walmart: 3.6%) So you won't get much money from reducing profit margins.
Secondly, what makes you think profits vanishes. Increasing profits either boost luxury demand, which would be a problem or they get invested somewhere. If it is placed in a bank, then the bank is able to loan more. If it is used to invest in increasing production then it creates jobs that boosts aggregate demand.
That's not what the economists say.
"Economists have been tracing the following chain of causality. Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”
As more money flows to the wealthy and less to the middle-class or poor, credit is eased to encourage purchasing by the middle-class and poor.
Much of the profit from easy credit feeds the wealth of the richest. The wealthy need liquid investments in which to put their additional wealth, leading to exotic high-risk speculative financial instruments, which causes volatility in the markets.
The economy, propped up on shaky credit, takes a double hit in a recession, as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses.
Thus, increasing wealth for the wealthy exerts a drag on the economy and increases market volatility whereas increasing wealth for the poor and middle-class increases demand.
Why are you all so intent on increasing the wealth of the already wealthy, i.e. plant owners and corporate CEOs, instead of increasing the wealth of the poor and middle-class whose wages have stagnated for several decades despite soaring profits?
"Economists have been tracing the following chain of causality. Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”
As more money flows to the wealthy and less to the middle-class or poor, credit is eased to encourage purchasing by the middle-class and poor.
Much of the profit from easy credit feeds the wealth of the richest. The wealthy need liquid investments in which to put their additional wealth, leading to exotic high-risk speculative financial instruments, which causes volatility in the markets.
The economy, propped up on shaky credit, takes a double hit in a recession, as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses.
Thus, increasing wealth for the wealthy exerts a drag on the economy and increases market volatility whereas increasing wealth for the poor and middle-class increases demand.
Why are you all so intent on increasing the wealth of the already wealthy, i.e. plant owners and corporate CEOs, instead of increasing the wealth of the poor and middle-class whose wages have stagnated for several decades despite soaring profits?
Man, you are making up strawman after strawman. First off, I never argued about what is more efficient. What I said was the money do not vanish. A drag is not the same as going to a halt.
And where did I say I want to increase the wealth of the richest. What I am pointing out is that it has negligible effect to reduce profit margins when the net profit margins for big companies are 5% and the money do not vanish.
Also, the main reason the economy collapsed was due to sub-prime mortages. The reason they started to exist was due to pressure from banking institutions who wanted to earn more money and government who wanted more votes by giving loans to people who don't qualify for loan. This would have happened no matter what the profit margin is, hence his theory is quite irrelevant.
Man, you are making up strawman after strawman. First off, I never argued about what is more efficient. What I said was the money do not vanish. A drag is not the same as going to a halt.
And where did I say I want to increase the wealth of the richest. What I am pointing out is that it has negligible effect to reduce profit margins when the net profit margins for big companies are 5% and the money do not vanish.
Also, the main reason the economy collapsed was due to sub-prime mortages. The reason they started to exist was due to pressure from banking institutions who wanted to earn more money and government who wanted more votes by giving loans to people who don't qualify for loan. This would have happened no matter what the profit margin is, hence his theory is quite irrelevant.
Using Walmart as an example, given that Walmart's Net Income (Profit) was $16,389,000 in 2011, that amount could be reduced and still leave more than enough profit.
You did not say you wanted to increase the wealth of the wealthiest, but if productivity increases, and wages are stagnant, where do you think much of the money goes? It's going to the owners of production, and CEOs and top executives of corporations, as well as Wall St. swine.
The money is not all put back in. Most companies are sitting on record amounts of cash at this time. Ultimately better performance results in higher stock prices and maybe some dividends. Since wealthy people own most of the stocks in this country, they benefit, their wealth grows which benefits the economy and the rest of the country hardly at all. It does not lead to an increase in aggregate demand. (Wealthy people do not spend more when their wealth increases by a percentage, they save more, poor and middle-class people do spend more.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
