|
On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it.
If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
|
On March 09 2011 07:48 etherwar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 05:43 DoubleReed wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Wisconsin issue is about public office unions. Firefighters, teachers, police officers, etc. etc. All this talk about better economics and private businesses doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in this context. Unions aren't that common in private enterprise, and where they are, they are often challenged (look at Directors Guild of America for instance).
This is about public unions specifically.
The Unions actually involved have said they will take massive pay cuts instead of giving up their union rights. This Republican Senators and Governor seem to be the only ones around who seems to think this is a good idea. The Wisconsin Teachers Union (The union actually involved in the situation you're referencing) did "concede" and say they would pay a relatively small portion of their benefits. Right now, they don't pay any towards their benefits/pension which is absolutely ludicrous. The WI Governor is proposing that they ONLY be able to collectively bargain for their salary, and only up to the cost of living index. This has turned into an all-out flame war/pissing contest from both sides. And make no mistake, NEITHER side is willing to budge. What you are dealing with in the Wisconsin teacher's union situation is a complete and utter spectacle drummed up by Democrats and the WI teacher's union. It's specifically designed to drum up this stupid argument about labor and corporate rights. That helps you to fit into one "side" so that you may in turn denounce the other "side". It's all about WI teachers getting as much as they possibly can on the public dime. Teacher's unions are absolutely bad for the taxpayers that fund their salaries and for the students that get drug into these arguments and indoctrinated by their teachers. The Teacher's union protects good and bad teachers alike, and makes firing a teacher pretty damn hard. They're also in bed with the Democrat political organization, which capitulates to the union's wants because of the associated campaign donations. The Democrats (or Liberals, choose your flavor) would love to have you believe that this is a Republican assault on unions (and by extension, the common man), and then they'll turn around and donate huge money to the next Democrat governor (and legislators). Next, those elected officials take part in the renegotiation of the union contracts and somehow "find it in the budget" to sweeten their deal a little bit. It's been going on in Wisconsin for YEARS... and the previous outgoing WI Governor Doyle actually rushed through passing SIX (6) separate public union contracts in December of 2010 before the current Gov. Walker could take office, despite requests from Gov. Walker to wait for him (this is why he's pissed and won't budge, right or wrong). http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/22/state_democrats_rush.phpAn applicable approach to the subject of Wisconsin teachers being "underpaid", a common misconception brandied by the Unions: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdfIt seems like we want to somehow link what we pay teachers, or what we spend on education, directly to how much achievement we get from students, while there are just too many other factors in play. Take a look at the census data from 2008 on how much we spend per pupil by state. ( http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf ) [page 14] I can assure you that while, DC tends to spend an enormous amount on their public education systems, it's continually labeled as one of the worst school systems in the country. Don't even get me started about the bullshit legislators that ran from the state to prevent the due course of lawmaking, how is that for some childish shit. In fact, they ALL deserve a giant FUCK YOU AND GROW UP from every last one of us. Politics, you gotta laugh at it because it keeps you from crying. By the way, I only think unions are appropriate for low-wage, low-skilled jobs. But there they serve a definite and beneficial purpose that is not fundamentally slanted against the public interest. Sorry for the lengthy post, but all the uneducated crap I read today made me want to lay it all down on the table.
Wow....
First of all, this is a direct assault on individual liberties. We could talk all day about whether or not public schooling/teachers, etc are good things but that would not affect this bill in any way. The primary issue with the legislation is that it is an attempt to strip the individual off the basic right to organize for a common interest.
As for Gov Doyle rushing through those bills...was he wrong? Yes. But could you expect any better from Walker? No. Was Walker just playing politics when he asked for them to be delayed? Yes
Nobody believes the teachers are underpaid--you will find a good portion of the people against this bill think teachers do get paid too much
Your argument about DC is irrelevant
Yeah, shame on those legislators for obstructing an unjust law that Walker is trying to force through without sufficient time for public discussion.
The WI Public Unions may be OP, but that does not in any way justify this sharp curtailing of basic liberties. Using "the public interest" as an excuse to do this is all fun and games until the government is pointing the barrel at you.
|
On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
I think, sir, that you are mistaken. Yes, society needs to get off of its a** and start making pro-active choices like you argue, but that does not mean there isn't room for organizations like unions. In fact, such organizations are vital to this type of libertarian society. You quite a few whistleblowers to help draw attention to abuses
|
The debate with unions boils down to a few main points. Unions are economically inefficient, they create unemployment, (price/wage) inflation, and decreases productivity of workers. Unions do increase worker rights and conditions, they get better benefits, higher wages, and better work environment.
The question is whether the gain in worker benefits justifies the loss in efficiency.
It is my opinion that the gain in benefits does not justify the loss in efficiency. Especially in an economic recession. I'll provide a few examples to support my opinion.
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
Second, we examine the role of unions in a labor rich market, such as now. Employers now have a lot of employees to select from, and they would like to hire more total workers which increases the efficiency of the firm but they can only hire at the marginal profit which is lower than the union mandated wage. In this case due to the high demands of the workers the firm is unable to hire otherwise out of work employees due to the high average cost and subsequent high marginal cost demanded by the union. The high marginal cost of the firm means less supply and higher prices, which inflates the price and decreases the output of the economy. In fact with the inflated prices and globalization it affects global prices which allows all competitors to raise prices, and in firms without unions those profits, due to the still labor rich market, will not transfer to the workers. The result is higher unemployment, higher prices, and in certain cases worse conditions for non-unionized workers.
The second case is why we generally see unions in unskilled industries. A union is in essence a collusion of workers working to promote their own interests and keep out competition. In economics collusion is always inefficient but sometimes necessary as the benefits it creates outweigh the costs.
Applied to the public sector unions become even more powerful and inefficient. Public jobs are highly inefficient because it is really hard to calculate their productivity and measure their worth. When you add unions the inefficiencies compound. This leads to government being one of the most inefficient type of organization we know of.
It is my opinion that unions should not be able to bargain with the employers. Employment agreements should be between the employee and the employer, it leads to the most efficient wages and benefits. Unions should serve as a lobbying organization for the problems workers face, and educating workers on market conditions so they can negotiate their own wages fairly. All worker rights resulted not because of individual unions but because of government regulation. Minimum wage, working hour regulations, working conditions, etc. are all the result of active oversight by the government, which as inefficient as it is, it is ideally unbiased, transparent, and accountable.
The best way to fight worker inequality is education, information, and worker awareness. I see a lot of misinformation regarding the principles of a free market, capitalism, and labor laws. With knowledge comes equality.
|
On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy.
I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one.
We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society.
|
On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:16 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
There's been plenty of good points brought up in favour of unions, but the single, most simple question that needs to be addressed can't be. Why should someone be denied a job based on something other than their ability and their asking price to do it? We have laws in place to prevent this from happening due to race, gender or age, so why should unions be the only body who can legally discriminate against people entering the work force?
Because a sufficient number of people near starvation levels will work for literally any wage. Unions are necessary because in order to protect the rights of a worker in a specific trade, they must include ALL workers of that specific trade. So there's nothing wrong with an individual working for a less then normal wage. However, enough of those individuals means that unions have no power. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit the laborers when the laborers are willing to work for less than a livable wage (and unwilling/unable to better themselves)? You get 1906 America, people are paid exactly enough that they don't starve to death, with enough people desperate for jobs, any more pay becomes unnecessary. You're dodging the question, though. What's the point of an organization attempting to benefit all workers when the only way it knows how is to shove people out of the work force and in to unemployment? Are you saying that people deserve to starve so that a privileged group can maintain high wages at a job others would be just as suited for? You're changing the question. You're point is that more people, demanding a larger than subsistence wage, would force some out of employment and onto the streets? This would be true, if companies operated on razer thin margins, but the reality is that most companies report enormous profits and this money goes directly to those in control of the company. Higher wages would only force a reduction in workers if the company couldn't stay in the black while maintaining the same production. That scenario is less and less true in today's world, as the rich/poor gap is increasing, companies are reporting record profits right out of the recessions (note, because people are willing to work for less). Americans earn, on average, less then they did 10 years ago. TL:DR: The difference between high and low wages for workers isn't the difference between everyone on subsistence wage or a privileged few working while the rest starve. The difference is how many yachts the CEO has.
That's flat out false. If any of these companies could hire another worker, who, when all costs are allocated, adds an extra $1 to the company's net profit, they would do it. CEO's bonuses actually have literally nothing to do with this, because no matter how much a CEO makes, that cost is not allocated to a new hire. This is something you'd learn in a first-year economics course, so if you haven't taken one or don't know the basic supply and demand model, then you aren't really qualified to disagree.
Otherwise, if you do know what you're talking about and you're suggesting that companies can push down wages without losing their employees (remember that an organization can lose all of its employees if another one is hiring for more money) then you're suggesting that there's a supply overflow of labour. This means that the supply curve has shifted to the right. Either wages stay fixed and the new entrants to the labour market go unemployed, or wages go down and people looking for jobs find them. It's not zero-sum, though, because if the unions win and new entrants can't find jobs, the GDP stays the same, but if the wages lower, production is increased, and new entrants do find jobs, GDP increases.
|
On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH.
Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself?
|
On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society.
With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot.
Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc.
|
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages.
|
On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote:
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages.
Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time.
|
On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc.
These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people.
This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo.
On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote:
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time.
This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true).
|
On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself?
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies.
I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.
Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it.
I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion.
|
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote:
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true).
I wasn't making the fixed-demand assumption, I was responding to someone who was doing so. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, because the truth is that it depends on how much people are making/how many people are employed and that gets complicated.
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo.
This is a valid viewpoint, but it comes with some speedbumps. First off, the US needs talent to be able to compete. It gets a talent inflow because of its good standards of living, tech companies, lowish taxes, etc. I've experienced this, as someone in math it's fully my intention to work in whatever country lets me earn the most and keep the most of what I earn, while also having a CPI that lets that wealth mean as much as it would elsewhere. Ie, I'll work for the highest bidder, on an international level, and so will many of the other actuaries, statisticians, economists, physicists, etc. who I study with. Taxing more will help in the short term, but it drives people away from your country in the long run.
|
On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote:
Unions are not necessary. Supply and demand dictates salaries in an open economy. Hence why Asia's booming. Asians generally are willing to work for notably smaller salaries.
All unions do is abuse situations and give incentive to find alternatives.
The advance in salaries and work conditions was due to regulation and strengthening of the economy. Not because of unions.
Should unions be allowed to exist? Of course. However, they should NOT be protected. If a union goes on strike, the employer should be free to fire all of them on the spot.
I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s.
|
On March 09 2011 11:41 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:38 Vile Animus wrote:On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:
Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto. The numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. Only 2 out of the top 20 donors lean heavily GOP while at least 10/20 are unions who are donating at least 90-10 to DEMs. In fact the top 70 are dominated by groups favoring DEMs. Corporations tend to give to both parties to keep the favors coming. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=AForcing employees in certain private industries to pay dues to a union which then gives millions in political donations is unseemly. Forcing tax payers to support public unions (through mandatory dues collections) which then give political donations needs to be ended. And likewise, forcing employees, unionised, or otherwise to support certain political parties (Based on which campaign their company finances - not all give equally to both parties) needs to be ended as well. It seems to me that the problem here is not with unions, but with political contributions.
Despite the fact that his numbers are wrong, this is exactly the case. Campaign finance reform needs to happen soon.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
The debate with unions boils down to a few main points. Unions are economically inefficient, they create unemployment, (price/wage) inflation, and decreases productivity of workers. Unions do increase worker rights and conditions, they get better benefits, higher wages, and better work environment.
The question is whether the gain in worker benefits justifies the loss in efficiency.
It is my opinion that the gain in benefits does not justify the loss in efficiency. Especially in an economic recession. I'll provide a few examples to support my opinion.
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
Second, we examine the role of unions in a labor rich market, such as now. Employers now have a lot of employees to select from, and they would like to hire more total workers which increases the efficiency of the firm but they can only hire at the marginal profit which is lower than the union mandated wage. In this case due to the high demands of the workers the firm is unable to hire otherwise out of work employees due to the high average cost and subsequent high marginal cost demanded by the union. The high marginal cost of the firm means less supply and higher prices, which inflates the price and decreases the output of the economy. In fact with the inflated prices and globalization it affects global prices which allows all competitors to raise prices, and in firms without unions those profits, due to the still labor rich market, will not transfer to the workers. The result is higher unemployment, higher prices, and in certain cases worse conditions for non-unionized workers.
The second case is why we generally see unions in unskilled industries. A union is in essence a collusion of workers working to promote their own interests and keep out competition. In economics collusion is always inefficient but sometimes necessary as the benefits it creates outweigh the costs.
Applied to the public sector unions become even more powerful and inefficient. Public jobs are highly inefficient because it is really hard to calculate their productivity and measure their worth. When you add unions the inefficiencies compound. This leads to government being one of the most inefficient type of organization we know of.
It is my opinion that unions should not be able to bargain with the employers. Employment agreements should be between the employee and the employer, it leads to the most efficient wages and benefits. Unions should serve as a lobbying organization for the problems workers face, and educating workers on market conditions so they can negotiate their own wages fairly. All worker rights resulted not because of individual unions but because of government regulation. Minimum wage, working hour regulations, working conditions, etc. are all the result of active oversight by the government, which as inefficient as it is, it is ideally unbiased, transparent, and accountable.
The best way to fight worker inequality is education, information, and worker awareness. I see a lot of misinformation regarding the principles of a free market, capitalism, and labor laws. With knowledge comes equality.
Yes, we definitely need to protect business owners because they are getting fucking screwed right now.
Why don't you compare the education and opportunities of the wealthier people who own businesses versus their employees?
Totally fallacious post.
Yes, in a perfect world, each worker would contract with employers to provide services and the employers would never do anything to screw over their employees in self-interest. But, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your view point is that of the business owner, yet you try to present your argument as if it were for the common good.
As the private sector contracts, the government needs to expand to fill in the gaps. Is government perfect? No. But people rely on public services (hence their workers) to get by. Making those government jobs less attractive is only going to result in shittier people getting hired as the more talented workers go somewhere else.
|
They're very necessary. I live in North Carolina which is probably the most anti-union state in the country. I work at a grocery store and have for four years now. We used to let people hang up flyers and stuff for things like lost pets or community events or fund raisers for the local high schools or whatever. We even had a bulletin board to encourage this kind of thing because it was nice for people and it made sense, y'know? Two years ago our company suddenly adopted a policy that no one can hang any sort of flyer or whatever anywhere in our store. A woman wants to hang up something for a fashion show at a high school nearby? No you can't do that, fuck you. Some guy comes in with his two kids and asks if he can hang up a poster because their new puppy ran away? Sorry, can't.
Why can't we do these things? Because a few stores in the western part of the state tried to unionize and they put up information about it on the bulletin board we have. We have a huge posting in our break room that says very clearly that no talk of unions will be tolerated and then proceeds to explain how great our company is so we'll never need unions! At the start of 2010 our company stopped offering health insurance plans to part time workers, because they can.
In Charlotte, our state's largest city, only 3% of workers are unionized which is the lowest number in any city in America. Our state is one of only two states where public workers are prohibited by law from engaging in collective bargaining (AP article). Anti-unionism is rampant throughout the south and we have the poverty rates and low incomes to prove it.
My state, along with most states, have laws that make it possible for an employer to fire an employee for literally no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you don't even have to give a reason for why they're being terminated you can just do it. Oh and to top it off I can't think of a southern state that has it's own minimum wage, if it wasn't for the federal minimum wage I can't imagine myself being paid anymore than $5 an hour.
So while I can't speak for some states who maybe feel their unions aren't necessary anymore, living in a state that has never had much of a union presence I can tell you right now that hell yes unions are necessary in the modern world. Unless of course, you're already rich.
|
On March 09 2011 12:22 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:18 Dogsi wrote:
Unions are not necessary. Supply and demand dictates salaries in an open economy. Hence why Asia's booming. Asians generally are willing to work for notably smaller salaries.
All unions do is abuse situations and give incentive to find alternatives.
The advance in salaries and work conditions was due to regulation and strengthening of the economy. Not because of unions.
Should unions be allowed to exist? Of course. However, they should NOT be protected. If a union goes on strike, the employer should be free to fire all of them on the spot. I sure wish we lived in a japanese society, with increasing hours and decreasing wages. Or china, where I can work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and risk dying in my 40s.
I like how a lot of the hardcore "for union" people spout stuff that isn't relevant, and doesn't include all the facts if it is.
And btw, I can't think of the right word, but goods in Japan have been getting steadily cheaper for years. Wages falling at the same % as the price of goods are falling = same purchasing power. They can buy the exact same quantity of stuff as they could before.
And china isn't a developed country, so don't be retarded. Less developed countries have lower wages, period. It's like randomly saying, because Chile has a low wage, then America needs unions!
Think your argument through please.
|
On March 09 2011 12:23 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:41 Nightfall.589 wrote:On March 09 2011 11:38 Vile Animus wrote:On March 09 2011 10:38 pfods wrote:
Plus, because of citizens united, unions are the only counter balance to corporate spending in politics, which are heavily republican. Given what positions you're taking on this issue though, I don't think you'd be opposed to the democratic party never being able to win an election de facto. The numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. Only 2 out of the top 20 donors lean heavily GOP while at least 10/20 are unions who are donating at least 90-10 to DEMs. In fact the top 70 are dominated by groups favoring DEMs. Corporations tend to give to both parties to keep the favors coming. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=AForcing employees in certain private industries to pay dues to a union which then gives millions in political donations is unseemly. Forcing tax payers to support public unions (through mandatory dues collections) which then give political donations needs to be ended. And likewise, forcing employees, unionised, or otherwise to support certain political parties (Based on which campaign their company finances - not all give equally to both parties) needs to be ended as well. It seems to me that the problem here is not with unions, but with political contributions. Despite the fact that his numbers are wrong, this is exactly the case. Campaign finance reform needs to happen soon.
It's even worse with 527s and 501(c)3's. And since these organizations are spending money themselves, rather than donating it to candidates, they are essentially unchecked.
|
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:11 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:00 Offhand wrote:On March 09 2011 11:46 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 11:34 Deja Thoris wrote:On March 09 2011 10:44 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 10:23 Ome wrote:
Corporations have proved time and time again that they will cut corners on everything to increase profit margins, see BP oil last year, or the practice by Nike, the Gap and others who employ young children overseas.
Unions somewhat keep Corporations in check. Of course there are bad unions, bad union leadership, and good, decent corporations. But overall they protect the worker from exploitation that would certainly occur if they did not exist. This is not a union's job. It's your job, as a consumer, to choose products that are created in ways you deem to be ethical. Until society is ready to do that, no one in it deserves to think they're doing their part to stand up for their position on the environment, how overseas workers are treated, etc. You are kidding or trolling, right? Society is far away from that level of maturity and will probably never reach it. If that's actually the case, then democracy's kind of screwed, isn't it? I'm being completely honest, you have no right to demand that a company do something that you aren't willing to accept the consequences of. If child labour doesn't make shoes, they are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. So far society has spoken, and it would rather the children make shoes. The responsibility for that lies solely in each and every person who's benefitted from that. Yes, the people on the top who are making millions off of the whole deal are being unethical, but they're a symptom, a monster you and I helped create through our own greed and apathy. I don't disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is, we can't make these choices. Do you want to buy shoes or clothes in this country? You're supporting child sweatshops. Do you want US produce? You support illegal immigration. Do you buy gas? You may as well suck Satan's dick for that one. We live in a society where these choices are unavoidable. It's not possible to "vote with your wallet" when all your options boil down to "evil" and "more evil". Regulation is a necessary part of a capitalist society. With some things like oil, I agree, but the fact is that companies have tried being ethical and sustainable, and the problem is that prices are so high, it becomes a luxury for the rich. Can you afford to spend double on your shoes, or to only drink free-trade coffee? If you bought non-chemical toilet paper, ate vegetarian to preserve our farmland, ate only free-range eggs, bought electronics made in Japan or the US or Europe, etc. your standard of living would drop, and by a lot. Show someone a picture of starving kids and sweat shops, and they will say "yes, I want this to end," but will they give up their savings, their ability to buy a nice house, their car, their TV, their morning coffee, just to save these people? If the answer is no, and it is, who is going to make that happen? I'd say it's being procrastinated because people are afraid of what would happen if things really did change like this. I sure as hell wouldn't like losing my internet, power, ability to fly to Europe and the Carribean, etc. These things are only affordable if you're a member of the upper class. Poor people don't shop at Luis Vinton or eat at Whole Foods. You can only afford these "guilt free" expensive purchases if you're a member of the elite, which precludes the majority of people. This all supports my belief that we need to tax the fuck out of the rich. Wealth disparity in the US is ridiculous and the political systems in place do nothing but maintain the status quo.
That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
On March 09 2011 12:16 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:15 SharkSpider wrote:On March 09 2011 12:12 Offhand wrote:
Companies only produce what they can sell. There's no reason to overproduce, and supply creating its own demand has been a proven economic fallacy for years. You've yet to address why companies reporting record profits shouldn't raise their worker's wages. Fixed economic demand is the same thing as overabundance of labour supply, which I've covered. The second you raise your wages after a good year, people are competing for your jobs, which drives the wages down over time. This is only true in a no-growth economy (also the same as being not true).
First, I'd like to point out you've assumed a no-growth economy. Fixed supply = fixed demand.
Second, in a perfectly free market profits would be near zero. Competition between firms would drive down prices till they reached costs, with free labor market determining the wage.
So your argument of firms controlling wages is a fallacy. Wages are determined by the labor market not by the firm. Unless the labor market isn't free, like when there's unions, and minimum wage, and salary caps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
