Future of Labor Unions in Changing U.S. Economy

[FederalRepublic]

Ok, that's what I mean when I say fairness.

Yeah, life isn't fair, and People starve to Death and so far there is no Cure for cancer ... So what, we should work to change that, at least moral People should.

Agreed. We should work to change that.

What's your difinition of "fairness?"

Well, it's not equal access to resources. Read "The Little Red Hen". Tell me why she should share her resources equally.

Pollution is an externality that the right wing ignores, specualtion is an act in the Finance industry With huge externalities that the right wing ignores.

No. The right wing does not ignore pollution. There is a cost/benefit curve for everything. Recognizing that relationship is not the same as ignoring one or the other. Speculation is planning ahead for what you expect (logically or otherwise) to happen. It is entirely natural and can be good, bad, or neither. Trying to eliminate it would be futile and would also involve externalities (as with any regulation).

I didn't mention bosses sleeping With employees, but whatever.

You mentioned the "layying of workers"...

22% of their GDP being oil and gas isn't an industry, and they do pollute, but since a large part of it is nationalized they have Public oversight, so less negative externalities ... this is also not an externality of high wages.
The price of coke and McDonalds isn't the measure of a successful economy, neither is it really that negative of an externality ... nor is it necessarily due to high wages.
Population being mostly white is the result of the country being Norway .... not an externality of high wages
Norwegians emegrated to the US pre WW2 because of poverty .... not really an externality of high wages.
Norway has 5 million People, the US has 300 million, so it isn't really that suprising the US has a much larger immigrant population, but again, I don't see how this is an externality of high wages, if anything Norway should have more illigal immigrants chasing high wages.

I have a feeling you don't know what an externality is.

Looks like English, reads like English, but has very little relevance as a response to my post.

If a job needs to be done it will be done, just because a janitor COSTs more doesn't mean a Company doesn't need a janitor, there is 0 evidence that higher minimum wages outprices workers at all. In Norway and in the US a Macdonalds store hires the same amount of burger flippers, because they need them to operate.

In what fantasy land do you believe the above to be a reasonable statement? If you need to have your lawn mowed, does that mean you will pay any price to get someone else to do it for you? The funny thing is, I actually expect you to say "yes" to that question...

Who decides what they are Worth? Is what they are Worth whatever the lowest wage you can pay them?

What something, or someone (someone's skill/experience/labor/ingenuity/creativity), is worth is an individual decision. Some people think Justin Beiber is a talented artist. Others think he's an insufferable douche. It's not my place to argue with those who think he's a talented artist and demand that they stop paying him so much and instead pay the starving artist down the street. What is it about that philosophy that is so hard to understand?

Government placing Controls on the price of labor is an economic action, not an externality, again, you don't know what externalities are.

Igjen, leser svaret ditt som om du reagerer på noe annet enn det jeg skrev. (Again, your response reads as if you're responding to something other than what I wrote.)

GM employees demanding what their contract says they are entitled to are not asking for a free lunch, executives giving themselves bonuses while NOT respecting union contracts are demanding a free lunch.

Agreed on the first part, not quite sure what you're referring to on the second. Executive bonuses and union contracts are not necessarily related. Are you talking about a specific instance?

But if some one demands what someone else provides for them is asking a free lunch, what if they had the option to provide it themself? Would they prefer to do that? I would say generally yes.

Does a panhandler want a free lunch? Sure, would he prefer to work for it? probably.

Я понятия не имею, что вы пытаетесь сказать. (I have no idea what you're trying to say.)

 

[RGacky3]

Well, it's not equal access to resources. Read "The Little Red Hen". Tell me why she should share her resources equally.

I didn't say share Resources, equally, I said Access to Resources, but that wasn't my question, my question is what is YOUR definition of "fair."

No. The right wing does not ignore pollution. There is a cost/benefit curve for everything. Recognizing that relationship is not the same as ignoring one or the other. Speculation is planning ahead for what you expect (logically or otherwise) to happen. It is entirely natural and can be good, bad, or neither. Trying to eliminate it would be futile and would also involve externalities (as with any regulation).

Who's doing the cost/benefit? Not the Company.

WHen I say speculation, I don't mean in the general sense, I mean more price manipulation through derivatives and the such in wallstreet, like what happened in 2007 where goldman sachs basically inflated the price of Food worldwide to make a profit.

You mentioned the "layying of workers"...

laying off.

Looks like English, reads like English, but has very little relevance as a response to my post.

Yes it does, since you were ranting about norway, InFact each point is a response to you're talk about Norway.

In what fantasy land do you believe the above to be a reasonable statement? If you need to have your lawn mowed, does that mean you will pay any price to get someone else to do it for you? The funny thing is, I actually expect you to say "yes" to that question...

No, I might do it myself, if I have a restaurant, and the minimum wage is $5, and I need 10 waiters, I'm gonna hire 10 waiters, if it's $10 and I need 10 waiters ... I'm gonna hire 10 waiters, because I need then to run the restaurant, now if the minimum wage is SO HIGH that a can't run a buisiness then thats a different thing, but Guess what, With a higher minimum wage there are a lot more People out there With more Money that might come to my restaurant, so I might end up having to hire MORE waiters to meet the demand, if it's lower, there will be less People With disposable Income, so I'll need less.

This is why you need to look at externalities and look at things in more than one dimention.

What something, or someone (someone's skill/experience/labor/ingenuity/creativity), is worth is an individual decision. Some people think Justin Beiber is a talented artist. Others think he's an insufferable douche. It's not my place to argue with those who think he's a talented artist and demand that they stop paying him so much and instead pay the starving artist down the street. What is it about that philosophy that is so hard to understand?

No it isn't, but it simply isn't the way the economy Works, more People value plumbers than People value Investment bankers .... I guarantee it, but Guess what, Investment bankers make a ****load more.

In Capitalism People are "Worth" whatever wage they can get for their labor, or whatever rent they can get from their property or whatever, that's IT, there is no intrinsic Worth, and if People get together to bargain for a higher wage ... Guess what, that's now what they are Worth, just like if a CEO decides to arbitrarily give himself a higher bonus.

Igjen, leser svaret ditt som om du reagerer på noe annet enn det jeg skrev. (Again, your response reads as if you're responding to something other than what I wrote.)

You listed government setting minimum wage as an externality ... which makes me think you don't know what an externality is.

Agreed on the first part, not quite sure what you're referring to on the second. Executive bonuses and union contracts are not necessarily related. Are you talking about a specific instance?

My point is the question of "free lunch" isn't as Clear cut as some People want to make it.

Я понятия не имею, что вы пытаетесь сказать. (I have no idea what you're trying to say.)

Pay attention.

 

[pdog]

The middle class shrinks because government grows...



But maybe correlation doesn't imply causation.

Sorry but I hardly see correlation and what I do see is contrary to your point - positive correlations from the 1992 bump, the fall thru the 90s, and two more bumps in 2002, and 2007. This is better (but still lousy) evidence for Keynesianism then it is for out of control government spending.

Second, the size of our government has been fairly consistent relative to the size of the economy that it regulates:

 

[FederalRepublic]

I didn't say share Resources, equally, I said Access to Resources, but that wasn't my question, my question is what is YOUR definition of "fair."

You said equal access to resources. The characters of the little red hen also want equal access to resources. In their case, the resource they want equal access to is the productivity of the little red hen. It is perfectly fair for the little red hen to tell the other characters to piss off.

Who's doing the cost/benefit? Not the Company.

We're talking about public policy, in this case, but it applies to the company as well.

WHen I say speculation, I don't mean in the general sense, I mean more price manipulation through derivatives and the such in wallstreet, like what happened in 2007 where goldman sachs basically inflated the price of Food worldwide to make a profit.

Then you aren't talking about speculation. You're talking about market manipulation and monopoly. That's not what speculation is.

laying off.

So you weren't talking about Bill Clinton taking advantage of an intern. Ok.

Yes it does, since you were ranting about norway, InFact each point is a response to you're talk about Norway.

I actually wasn't ranting about Norway, I was ranting about your attribution of Norway's success to the high minimum wage. I posted of list of things that are either relevant to their success and/or question what success looks like, so no. You did not respond coherently to that.

No, I might do it myself, if I have a restaurant, and the minimum wage is $5, and I need 10 waiters, I'm gonna hire 10 waiters, if it's $10 and I need 10 waiters ... I'm gonna hire 10 waiters, because I need then to run the restaurant, now if the minimum wage is SO HIGH that a can't run a buisiness then thats a different thing, but Guess what, With a higher minimum wage there are a lot more People out there With more Money that might come to my restaurant, so I might end up having to hire MORE waiters to meet the demand, if it's lower, there will be less People With disposable Income, so I'll need less.

This is why you need to look at externalities and look at things in more than one dimention.

Yes. And if you stand in a bucket you can lift yourself up by the handles. Perfectly reasonable. By the way, you will certainly not staff your restaurant without doing a cost/benefit analysis. If you have 10 waiters who make $5/hour and your labor costs double up on you, either you were screwing your workers over or someone is going to lose their job.

No it isn't, but it simply isn't the way the economy Works, more People value plumbers than People value Investment bankers .... I guarantee it, but Guess what, Investment bankers make a ****load more.

No idea what you're trying to say with the first part. On the second part, I think you're trying to say that people value plumbers more than they value investment bankers, which is just silly on several levels.

In Capitalism People are "Worth" whatever wage they can get for their labor, or whatever rent they can get from their property or whatever, that's IT, there is no intrinsic Worth

Yep.

...and if People get together to bargain for a higher wage ... Guess what, that's now what they are Worth, just like if a CEO decides to arbitrarily give himself a higher bonus.

Both of which are a form of monopoly and are typically bad for society.

You listed government setting minimum wage as an externality...

No. I didn't. Try reading it again.

My point is the question of "free lunch" isn't as Clear cut as some People want to make it.

Pay attention.

If you do want someone to give you a lunch and you do not want to give them fair value in return, then you do want a free lunch. If you can't afford to give them fair value in return because you decided to have a beer and watch football rather than working some overtime, then you still want a free lunch. If you're being paid a market wage and you work with the government to institute price controls in your favor, then you want a free lunch. It isn't really as nuanced as some people make it.

 

[RGacky3]

You said equal access to resources. The characters of the little red hen also want equal access to resources. In their case, the resource they want equal access to is the productivity of the little red hen. It is perfectly fair for the little red hen to tell the other characters to piss off.

I didn't read little red hen ... you didn't answer my question what's Your definition of "fair."

We're talking about public policy, in this case, but it applies to the company as well.

No ****, that's why you need collective action, the Company isn't going to make that cost/benefit analysis, becuase pollution is an externality.

Then you aren't talking about speculation. You're talking about market manipulation and monopoly. That's not what speculation is.

on wallstreet that's many times what it is, I'm not here for wordgames.

So you weren't talking about Bill Clinton taking advantage of an intern. Ok.

No .... I was talking about Companies laying off workers leading to negative externalities for the economy at large.

I actually wasn't ranting about Norway, I was ranting about your attribution of Norway's success to the high minimum wage. I posted of list of things that are either relevant to their success and/or question what success looks like, so no. You did not respond coherently to that.

That isn't what I was attributing Norways success too, I'm saying that a high minimum wage didn't lead to the doomsday scenario's Your talking about.

And then you wen't on to list Things you called externalities thus showing you don't know what an externality is.

Yes. And if you stand in a bucket you can lift yourself up by the handles. Perfectly reasonable. By the way, you will certainly not staff your restaurant without doing a cost/benefit analysis. If you have 10 waiters who make $5/hour and your labor costs double up on you, either you were screwing your workers over or someone is going to lose their job.

Companies screw workers all the time ... that's what a profit is.

No one is giong to loose their job if that means the Place is understaffed and they can't serve the customers, InFact if they have MORE customers (because other workers With higher wages are comming in to eat) they are gonna need to hire MORE People.

No idea what you're trying to say with the first part. On the second part, I think you're trying to say that people value plumbers more than they value investment bankers, which is just silly on several levels.

So you really in think in a survey People would pick Investment bankers over plumbers as more vital to society? Are you ****ting me?

Yep.

Then stop bitching about People getting paid "more than they are Worth" as if "Worth" economically was some platonic form.

Both of which are a form of monopoly and are typically bad for society.

A CEO giving himself a higher bonus is not a monopoly .... labor getting together is not a monopoly either, since labor isn't a product being produced.

If you do want someone to give you a lunch and you do not want to give them fair value in return, then you do want a free lunch. If you can't afford to give them fair value in return because you decided to have a beer and watch football rather than working some overtime, then you still want a free lunch. If you're being paid a market wage and you work with the government to institute price controls in your favor, then you want a free lunch. It isn't really as nuanced as some people make it.

Yes it is if you manage to think in more than one dimention and more than one step.

 

[DA60]

IMO, there should be no laws that discourage or encourage unions.

And companies should be able to fire any employ they wish for any reason they wish...or no reason at all.

Do the above and balance the budget (using only cuts and no taxation increases) and America will be an economically stronger place with a far lower unemployment rate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy81Fj5lrM0

I agree 100%. I do believe that we have moved backwards since the 50's. After the 50's and early 60's our middle class started not to move forward, and expand. Instead the middle class began to shrink and so did union membership. Now the ratio of pay CEO to an average worker in America is 475:1. Something is seriously wrong in this country, and I believe unions can help solve a lot of the problems in this country, especially when it deals with inequality.

Unions seem to be shifting into professional organizations, such as the PMI or the AMA I think, which are more akin to medieval guilds than unions. Perhaps over time, those organizations will trickle down into more blue collar type jobs. Hopefully.

 

[RGacky3]

IMO, there should be no laws that discourage or encourage unions.

And companies should be able to fire any employ they wish for any reason they wish...or no reason at all.

Do the above and balance the budget (using only cuts and no taxation increases) and America will be an economically stronger place with a far lower unemployment rate.

And if a union restricts that Companies right to fire any employee? through the threat of a strike?

 

[FederalRepublic]

I didn't read little red hen ... you didn't answer my question what's Your definition of "fair."

I did answer your question. You just didn't understand the answer. I don't think it's that the little red hen is above your comprehension level, you just haven't taken the time to think about it.

No ****, that's why you need collective action, the Company isn't going to make that cost/benefit analysis, becuase pollution is an externality.

The company is going to do a cost/benefit analysis. If there's a fine for polluting, it will be factored into their analysis.

on wallstreet that's many times what it is, I'm not here for wordgames.

No. That's not what it is. The reason you can't have a meaningful discussion with people is because you don't use words properly. Market manipulation and monopoly are not the same thing as speculation.

No .... I was talking about Companies laying off workers leading to negative externalities for the economy at large.

Yeah, well, companies not being able to lay off workers (or forcing companies to pay workers more than they're worth) also leads to negative externalities for the economy at large. So here we are.

That isn't what I was attributing Norways success too, I'm saying that a high minimum wage didn't lead to the doomsday scenario's Your talking about.

I didn't describe a doomsday scenario. I described how you want to cause both people and businesses that are on the margins to fail. It won't directly affect most people. Otherwise you'd never see another democrat in office anywhere.

And then you wen't on to list Things you called externalities thus showing you don't know what an externality is.

I can only assume that "externality" is unintended consequences. Maybe you'd better define it.

Companies screw workers all the time ... that's what a profit is.

No statement you could ever make would better illustrate the chasm that exists between you and reality.

No one is giong to loose their job if that means the Place is understaffed and they can't serve the customers, InFact if they have MORE customers (because other workers With higher wages are comming in to eat) they are gonna need to hire MORE People.

:thinking

So you really in think in a survey People would pick Investment bankers over plumbers as more vital to society? Are you ****ting me?

Yes. People who hire investment bankers value them much more than plumbers. A good one is harder to come by and a bad one can destroy everything they've worked for.

Then stop bitching about People getting paid "more than they are Worth" as if "Worth" economically was some platonic form.

Just because there is no intrinsic worth doesn't mean the term is meaningless.

A CEO giving himself a higher bonus is not a monopoly .... labor getting together is not a monopoly either, since labor isn't a product being produced.

CEO's don't give themselves bonuses, and a union that prevents non-union labor is a monopoly by any meaningful definition.

Yes it is if you manage to think in more than one dimention and more than one step.

When standing in the middle of a forest, there's a vast number of trees in any direction. It's still a forest.

 

[imagep]

And if a union restricts that Companies right to fire any employee? through the threat of a strike?

I would think that would be their choice, just like it should be the choice of the employer to fire everyone who didn't show up to work.

I'm actually pro-union, to the extent that collective bargaining gives employees negotiating power more or less equal to that the the employer, but I don't support any laws that give unions any special powers beyond what they can obtain from collective bargaining. I certainly don't support anyone being forced to join a union just to work for a particular employer, nor do I support corporations having their hands tied as to who they hire and fire.

I'm pretty much about where DA is on unions.

 

[RGacky3]

I did answer your question. You just didn't understand the answer. I don't think it's that the little red hen is above your comprehension level, you just haven't taken the time to think about it.

You said what you think is NOT fairness, that isn't the question, the question is what does fair itself mean, not what it doesn't mean.

The company is going to do a cost/benefit analysis. If there's a fine for polluting, it will be factored into their analysis.

A fine for pollution is government interferance isn't it?

No. That's not what it is. The reason you can't have a meaningful discussion with people is because you don't use words properly. Market manipulation and monopoly are not the same thing as speculation.

very often speculation IS market manipulation, when you effect the price of grain through speculation, but not consumption, and thus cause a Food crisis, that is market manipulation, and it's PART of the free market.

Yeah, well, companies not being able to lay off workers (or forcing companies to pay workers more than they're worth) also leads to negative externalities for the economy at large. So here we are.

... I think you're missing the point, it may lead to negative externalites, it may not, the point is the Company doesn't take those into account.

I didn't describe a doomsday scenario. I described how you want to cause both people and businesses that are on the margins to fail. It won't directly affect most people. Otherwise you'd never see another democrat in office anywhere.

Did the People in Norway's margins all fail when they raised their low end wages SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the US minimum wage?

I can only assume that "externality" is unintended consequences. Maybe you'd better define it.

an exaternality is a cost and/or benefit that isn't Incorporated into the market price.

No statement you could ever make would better illustrate the chasm that exists between you and reality.

they pay them less than what the workers produce With the Capital .... if you want a different definition of "screw" then give me one.

:thinking

read it again, carefully.

Yes. People who hire investment bankers value them much more than plumbers. A good one is harder to come by and a bad one can destroy everything they've worked for.

That isn't why, the amount of People looking for Investment bankers as MUCH LESS than the amount of People that need plumbers, the reason Investment bankers make more Money, is because they Control a ****load more Capital than pumbers, NOT because they actually benefit society (very often they don't)

Just because there is no intrinsic worth doesn't mean the term is meaningless.

Yes it is unless you give it an actual working definition.

CEO's don't give themselves bonuses, and a union that prevents non-union labor is a monopoly by any meaningful definition.

Yes .... they do ... essencially.

No a union that prevents non union labor is no more a monopoly than a CEO that refuses to hire union labor.

 

[RGacky3]

I would think that would be their choice, just like it should be the choice of the employer to fire everyone who didn't show up to work.

I'm actually pro-union, to the extent that collective bargaining gives employees negotiating power more or less equal to that the the employer, but I don't support any laws that give unions any special powers beyond what they can obtain from collective bargaining. I certainly don't support anyone being forced to join a union just to work for a particular employer, nor do I support corporations having their hands tied as to who they hire and fire.

I'm pretty much about where DA is on unions.

If a Union through it's bargaining Power, can get the employer to make a contract that he won't hire non union labor ..... how is that not the free market?

 

[imagep]

If a Union through it's bargaining Power, can get the employer to make a contract that he won't hire non union labor ..... how is that not the free market?

It may be, but it is also collusion between to parties conspiring to shut out a third.

 

[RGacky3]

It may be, but it is also collusion between to parties conspiring to shut out a third.

Yes, and a Boss deciding not to hire someone is a collusion between one party conpsiring to shut out a second ....

 

[faithful_servant]

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy81Fj5lrM0

I agree 100%. I do believe that we have moved backwards since the 50's. After the 50's and early 60's our middle class started not to move forward, and expand. Instead the middle class began to shrink and so did union membership. Now the ratio of pay CEO to an average worker in America is 475:1. Something is seriously wrong in this country, and I believe unions can help solve a lot of the problems in this country, especially when it deals with inequality.

Who cares what the difference between CEO's pay and the teh average worker is. If you think that it's problem where you work, find work elsewhere, but don't start forcing private businesses to change how they do business just to expresss your personal outrage and faux offence.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Yes, and a Boss deciding not to hire someone is a collusion between one party conpsiring to shut out a second ....

:yt

Just when I thought you'd amazed me for the last time, you've gone and outdone yourself.

 

[FederalRepublic]

You said what you think is NOT fairness, that isn't the question, the question is what does fair itself mean, not what it doesn't mean.

I answered both questions. Read the little red hen. By your argument she isn't being fair.

A fine for pollution is government interferance isn't it?

As I've said many times, on many threads, there is a proper role for government and collective action.

very often speculation IS market manipulation, when you effect the price of grain through speculation, but not consumption, and thus cause a Food crisis, that is market manipulation, and it's PART of the free market.

Speculation can move the market. Just because someone speculates that the price of "x" will go up and decides to invest in "x" doesn't mean that person is manipulating the market.

... I think you're missing the point, it may lead to negative externalites, it may not, the point is the Company doesn't take those into account.

I'm 100% certain that you don't understand the words that appear on your computer screen. If you have a choice between paying someone more than they are worth to you and not paying them at all, you will not pay them at all. There is no maybe about it. It's not even marginally debatable. You will always take into account the value of a particular service to you. A businessman does not have a different set of motivations than you do.

Did the People in Norway's margins all fail when they raised their low end wages SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the US minimum wage?

I'm not completely certain what you're talking about, but Norwegians local buying power is not what it used to be. Travelling to Sweden, Denmark, etc (or the U.S. for that matter) for shopping is a popular vacation plan for those who can afford it.

an exaternality is a cost and/or benefit that isn't Incorporated into the market price.

How does that relate to costs to society of government programs? You said that people losing their jobs is an externality relative to raising the minimum wage. Explain.

they pay them less than what the workers produce With the Capital .... if you want a different definition of "screw" then give me one.

So by that definition, you're screwing the bank when they pay you 1% return on your savings account. You might even say that workers are screwing the company because their time didn't cost them anything at all. The return they're making on their time can't even be stated mathematically as a percentage, because their investment was $0.00. Who's screwing who?

read it again, carefully.

The only way your statement makes any sense at all is if you assume that A-Businesses do not/will not adjust their business model/staffing levels to account for changing labor costs, and B-Businesses will continue to operate at a loss if they can't do A. Maybe these are externalities and that means they don't occur on your planet. I think that might actually be the case for you.

That isn't why, the amount of People looking for Investment bankers as MUCH LESS than the amount of People that need plumbers, the reason Investment bankers make more Money, is because they Control a ****load more Capital than pumbers, NOT because they actually benefit society (very often they don't)

No ****. People who pay investment bankers pay them more than they pay plumbers because they are more valuable to them. People who don't hire investment bankers couldn't care less how much investment bankers charge for their time because they don't need their services.

Yes it is unless you give it an actual working definition.

It has an actual working definition. I've been over that with you again and again. Your worth is determined by agreement between you and whoever is paying you. There's no other possible way to determine it. That doesn't matter if you are trading time for money or if you are trading goods for services (bartering).

Yes .... they do ... essencially.

If by "essencially", you mean in no way whatsoever, then yes. You're correct.

No a union that prevents non union labor is no more a monopoly than a CEO that refuses to hire union labor.

:2brickwal

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Who cares what the difference between CEO's pay and the teh average worker is. If you think that it's problem where you work, find work elsewhere, but don't start forcing private businesses to change how they do business just to expresss your personal outrage and faux offence.

Yea sorry.. Inequality does matter: Economist's View: Why Inequality Matters

 

[faithful_servant]

Yea sorry.. Inequality does matter: Economist's View: Why Inequality Matters

Quoting an editorial site that is blatantly anti-inequality in pay is not the way to prove a point. Lets try some real science, you math and numbers and that kind of stuff....

 

[RGacky3]

I answered both questions. Read the little red hen. By your argument she isn't being fair.

Asking me to read a childrens book isn't giving me a definition of fairness.

Speculation can move the market. Just because someone speculates that the price of "x" will go up and decides to invest in "x" doesn't mean that person is manipulating the market.

I think you're just arguing semantics here ...

I'm 100% certain that you don't understand the words that appear on your computer screen. If you have a choice between paying someone more than they are worth to you and not paying them at all, you will not pay them at all. There is no maybe about it. It's not even marginally debatable. You will always take into account the value of a particular service to you. A businessman does not have a different set of motivations than you do.

Thats not how the world Works, I'm willing to pay $12 for a beer in Norway, not because I think the beer is Worth $12, but because that's what it costs in Norway, in Mexico I'm not willing to pay $12, InFact I'd probably not want to pay more than $5, I'm going to pay the least amount I can. If I need a plumber, I'm going to hire him at $20 an hour, but if I'm in a Place where they cost $30, I'm gonna pay 30, because i need a plumber, if I don't need one I'm not paying anything ...

If you own a Company you are ONLY going to hire workers that you need to run the Company no matter what, and you're gonna fire those you don't need no matter what. there is 0 evidence that lower wages lead to higher employment.

Not only that but when you raise the wages across the Board MORE Companies will NEED MORE workers because there is more consumption.

I'm not completely certain what you're talking about, but Norwegians local buying power is not what it used to be. Travelling to Sweden, Denmark, etc (or the U.S. for that matter) for shopping is a popular vacation plan for those who can afford it.

Yes .... think about what you're saying shopping in cheaper Places for those who can afford it ... People arn't shopping in Denmark or Sweden because they are poorer, it's because they can afford to travel, take time off, and buy cheaper luxury goods and alcohol.

How does that relate to costs to society of government programs? You said that people losing their jobs is an externality relative to raising the minimum wage. Explain.

No, People will NOT lose their jobs when the minimum wage is increased, especially if it's increased nationally .... and InFact in the long term it will help job creation due to increased demand (more People With more Money = More demand for buisiness)

So by that definition, you're screwing the bank when they pay you 1% return on your savings account. You might even say that workers are screwing the company because their time didn't cost them anything at all. The return they're making on their time can't even be stated mathematically as a percentage, because their investment was $0.00. Who's screwing who?

Workers arn't being paid for their time, they are being paid for their Production, their labor.

My point was "screwing" is subjective, in the Old testament a 1% interest rate WAS screwing, and was in fact a sin, nower days People may not consider it so.

The only way your statement makes any sense at all is if you assume that A-Businesses do not/will not adjust their business model/staffing levels to account for changing labor costs, and B-Businesses will continue to operate at a loss if they can't do A. Maybe these are externalities and that means they don't occur on your planet. I think that might actually be the case for you.

Here is what I'm saying, A buisiness, will only hire the staff they need to run the buisiness no matter if the wage is higher or lower, what will adjust their staff Levels primarily is the amount of buisiness they are doing primarily, NOT the overall cost of the wages .... if the wages increase, they they may have to take a hit in profit, but if the wage is increased all over, you have the externality of INCREASED demand (more buisiness)

I still don't think you know what an externality is ... please look it up.

No ****. People who pay investment bankers pay them more than they pay plumbers because they are more valuable to them. People who don't hire investment bankers couldn't care less how much investment bankers charge for their time because they don't need their services.

Investment bankers don't actually benefit society though, benefiting a couple Rich People doesn't benefit society, also they arn't paid because they are SO valuable, they have HUGE Access to Capital, and they skim a lot off the top, that's it, that's all it is, they are skimming Money from the huge pool of Capital they Control.

It has an actual working definition. I've been over that with you again and again. Your worth is determined by agreement between you and whoever is paying you. There's no other possible way to determine it. That doesn't matter if you are trading time for money or if you are trading goods for services (bartering).

i.e. the market is alwasy right ... fair enough, then dont' bitch about unions getting workers higher wages .... that's what they are Worth, the same With higher minimum wage laws.

If by "essencially", you mean in no way whatsoever, then yes. You're correct.

Yes, they do, CEO's pay themselves through the Board (selected by the CEO and rubber stamped by the Stock holders).

 

[PoS]

Unions effectively destroyed American manufacturing by forcing management to adopt too high worker compensation and salaries and so all the jobs ended up being outsourced overseas. The less unions there are the better. Also public employees shouldnt be allowed to unionize at all.

 

[RGacky3]

Unions effectively destroyed American manufacturing by forcing management to adopt too high worker compensation and salaries and so all the jobs ended up being outsourced overseas. The less unions there are the better. Also public employees shouldnt be allowed to unionize at all.

Union's started getting destroyed in the early 1980s, outsourcing took off in the 1990s .....

 

[imagep]

Unions effectively destroyed American manufacturing by forcing management to adopt too high worker compensation and salaries and so all the jobs ended up being outsourced overseas. The less unions there are the better. Also public employees shouldnt be allowed to unionize at all.

More efficient trade, and a reduction of trade barriers were the major contributors to outsourcing.

Many states which did not have much unionization were the hardest to get hit by outsourcing, like the Carolinas, which lost nearly all their textile industry, despite having very low rates of unionization and fairly low wages.

 

[PoS]

Union's started getting destroyed in the early 1980s, outsourcing took off in the 1990s .....

While the term outsourcing may not have been coined till the 1980's businesses have been moving factories to other states and other countries since the 1880's, pal.

Its a matter of simple economics, American wages have surpassed their world counterparts so its a simple matter of moving manufacturing to other places to lower costs. You can thank the unions for that.

 

[Muhammed]

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy81Fj5lrM0

I agree 100%. I do believe that we have moved backwards since the 50's. After the 50's and early 60's our middle class started not to move forward, and expand. Instead the middle class began to shrink and so did union membership. Now the ratio of pay CEO to an average worker in America is 475:1. Something is seriously wrong in this country, and I believe unions can help solve a lot of the problems in this country, especially when it deals with inequality.

The video you linked to doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

However, Speaking as a career union cement mason, I will add my two cents anyways.

A lot of working class America has grown up hearing the incessant mantra that unions are no longer needed. IMNSHO nothing could be further from the truth. The financial decline of the working class in America is directly related to waning union membership. When I look at the financial situation of guys my age who have been cement masons for just as long as me (25+years) with comparable knowledge and skills who did not join the union the difference is incredible. I'm in the top 10% income bracket and many of the non-union guys are in the bottom 10-20% simply because they lived week to week all their lives and I had extra money to invest. I can retire comfortably at 46 years old, and their financial future is very bleak and will only get worse as they get older.

That is the very stark reality. And if young people don't get it through their head they will face a very grim future of increasing dependence on the government and therefore less financial independence and less liberty.

Yes, unions are very important for the working class today.