States with the highest Union representation losing population the most (wages, illegal)
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.
How do you explain all of the union heavy states and cities being such dumps? You believe media sources without objective research?
Oh look at you changing the topic from what I replied too.
Objective research? Where? Certainly not from you, you throw out results you don't like, ignore that the union % vs population changes arent linear, etc etc.
I don't have to explain your nonsense. Many of the places you list arent dumps at all.
This isn't as political of an issue as it used to be - - Republicans and Americans as a whole are more favorable towards unions than in most times over the last decade.
No, Americans are not more favorable towards unions, that is baloney as is most of WAPO commie journalism. Even if 'Americans' are, that does not mean it is a good thing. Democracy is failing and unions are a great example of how mob-majority democracy, which is what a union structure is with a head-honcho organizer being in control of the mob itself.
Every once heavily unionized city is in a serious state of decay. Unions are communism and communism will always fail, time and time again.
Unions were somewhat called for a brief period during the dawn of the industrial age in the early 20th century when labor workers were being exploited.
After that all they have done is exploit the economy to appease the mob and created a democracy that enables dysfunction instead of increase production and efficiency. There are many examples.
Unions are not fair to non-union companies. They are not democratic and do not represent the public.
Isn't that what the purpose of a union should be, to represent the best interest of the public? Or is the purpose of a union for private personal gain, like it has become?
Unions generally represent the best interests of the majority of their dues paying members.
Chamber of Commerce sure ain't working on your behalf unless you paid your membership fee.
This is the United States, with a capitalistic market based economy. Cream of the crop rises to the top and is rewarded. Sure, we have higher minimum wages, but slugs ultimately get sent back to the hall, and good guys either keep their jobs, or get raises/promotions, perks like taking a vehicle home, etc. Nothing communistic about that.
It does make me sad when I see the same hall trash making some of the highest wages when I know there are really good non-union workers out there that are more deserving, but some people just aren't aware of the pay and benefits difference, or they are politically opposed to unions and would rather do the same job for less money.
My local union is probably split 50/50 between democrats and republicans. And if I had to guess, I'd say the republicans edge out the dems just a little being Texas and all.
There are as many different kinds of labor and trade unions as there are colors of the rainbow. You'll find some that push social causes, and others that act very much like any for-profit corporation. Some are more democratic, while others are more totalitarian.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
[quote=Objective Detective;50140242]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristramShandy
This isn't as political of an issue as it used to be - - Republicans and Americans as a whole are more favorable towards unions than in most times over the last decade.
No, Americans are not more favorable towards unions, that is baloney as is most of WAPO commie journalism. Even if 'Americans' are, that does not mean it is a good thing. Democracy is failing and unions are a great example of how mob-majority democracy, which is what a union structure is with a head-honcho organizer being in control of the mob itself.
Every once heavily unionized city is in a serious state of decay. Unions are communism and communism will always fail, time and time again.
Unions were somewhat called for a brief period during the dawn of the industrial age in the early 20th century when labor workers were being exploited.
After that all they have done is exploit the economy to appease the mob and created a democracy that enables dysfunction instead of increase production and efficiency. There are many examples.
Unions are not fair to non-union companies. They are not democratic and do not represent the public.
Isn't that what the purpose of a union should be, to represent the best interest of the public? Or is the purpose of a union for private personal gain, like it has become?
Unions aren't communism. The union doesn't own the company ffs. The union negotiates compensation (wages and benefits) with an employer on behalf of their members. The whole arrangement is voluntary. Where do you get this stuff? Breitbart? InfoWars?
Unions aren't communism. The union doesn't own the company ffs. The union negotiates compensation (wages and benefits) with an employer on behalf of their members. The whole arrangement is voluntary. Where do you get this stuff? Breitbart? InfoWars?
If the whole arrangement is voluntary then why is the union needed and why are dues paid to it?
The premise that someone needs a collective mediator to protect them from the people that employ them is not questionable to you? If someone needs a mediator to be employed is not the employment itself questionable? What is the difference between paying an attorney dues to represent you every week or paying a union?
Are corporations and people not trustworthy enough to deal with without the invention of a union establishment?
If the whole arrangement is voluntary then why is the union needed and why are dues paid to it?
The premise that someone needs a collective mediator to protect them from the people that employ them is not questionable to you? If someone needs a mediator to be employed is not the employment itself questionable? What is the difference between paying an attorney dues to represent you every week or paying a union?
Are corporations and people not trustworthy enough to deal with without the invention of a union establishment?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
[quote=Objective Detective;50141158]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
If the whole arrangement is voluntary then why is the union needed and why are dues paid to it?
The premise that someone needs a collective mediator to protect them from the people that employ them is not questionable to you? If someone needs a mediator to be employed is not the employment itself questionable? What is the difference between paying an attorney dues to represent you every week or paying a union?
Are corporations and people not trustworthy enough to deal with without the invention of a union establishment?
Ever hear of strength in numbers? Negotiating on your own is great if you are a star athlete or some hotshot stock broker or surgeon. But most other people have almost no leverage with a potential employer
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general. I would argue the opposite and say that over the long term they have hindered what should be a very dynamic economy across the board.
With the exception of Washington State, which has many large corporations such as Boeing and Amazon and many military bases to keep the economy going as well as a large agricultural sector in some parts, the states with the most union representation currently are losing population. If the union was good for an economy, should't the ones with the most union representation be gaining population due to a growing and healthy economy? What do you thinkis causing the losses of population?
Alaska is another exception because it is losing residents to out-migration but the offset in in state births is more than the loss. It has a small population of Alaska is only about 741,000.
The top ten states by union representation by percentage of employed are:
New York-25.2%
Hawaii-19.9%
Alaska-18.5%
Connecticut-18.5
Washington-17.4%
New Jersey-16.1%
California-15.9%
Illinois-14.5%
Michigan-14.4%
Illinois lost the most residents for the third year in a row in 2016, losing about 38,000 residents.
If unions are and were in fact really good for the economy why are the majority of states with the highest union representation losing population the most and why are many of the historically heavily union represented cities in such poor condition economically with crumbling infrastructures?
Your story is interesting but a lie.The ones losing population if you investigate are senors moving on for retirement,same as the ones gaining population,it has nothing to do with Unions but as I see you are anti Union you will make up false statements and lies.Sure you don't work for trump?
A corporation in my view is a company that is accountable to its stock holders. When a union takes over its work force the corporation is still accountable to the stockholders first and will make necessary changes. These changes are not always good for the union and it members or the non union members. If the union creates hostility to the corporation it can be very bad for the entire local economy. Other types of public service unions which do not have stock holdings have other effects of unionism. This is not condoning corporate greed at all, it is saying that fighting greed with greed can have bad effects. If a companies stock performance is based on a socialistic style work I force think it has bad effects over the long term for the company and the economy it supports.
On another point, in a right to work state if someone chooses not to be a union member in a company or public service, is it fair when the union is negotiating more compensation for those who do? Doesn't it take away the potential for a non-union member to be paid more because they are already held hostage by the union to prioritize paying their 'members' more with possibly better benefits? Does it not take away the potential for the company to hire more people? Does it not take away the potential for better employees to earn more because they are better workers and more productive because of fixed wage structures? Does it not create a crony and nepotistic work atmosphere?
Too many possibilities for unfair dealings all around. You can't fight power structures with puppet monopolies efficiently and fairly obviously.
Unions are not fair to non-union companies. They are not democratic and do not represent the public.
Isn't that what the purpose of a union should be, to represent the best interest of the public? Or is the purpose of a union for private personal gain, like it has become?
Then the non Union company should become Union.The purpose of a Union is to protect the workers and get the best for them and the company they work for!
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.
