Don't Expect Unions to be Back

[Champakian]

Fairness, as a metric has been done to death here.

To be "fair" any metric must be objective and "fairness" is purely subjective.

To be fair, you should do something to earn some of my money. Communism is inherently unfair...

 

[JakBird]

In other words, you believe that unions exist to shake down the consumer
(which, ironically the union member is too) in the mistaken economic fallacy
that I encounter a lot with people who think that increased costs do not get
passed on to the consumer because they just come out of profits (and every-
one knows that business is evil [though 90% of it is Mom & Pops] run by the
equivalent of Scrooge McDuck). And fyi, federal and state contracts generally
do specify that the labor/services are provided by union labor, because let's
face it, the bureaucrats don't really pay for it, the taxpayers do (and, again,
ironically, pretty much everyone involved in this Ponzi is a taxpayer...).

FairTax.org

Shake down is such a harsh term. And its not the consumer, its the employer who pays. If we can implement Nixon era price controls again, like the 1970s, employers can't pass on the increases. It comes out of the pockets of shareholder, who should be forced to pay their fair share.

Of course employers are evil. I watch TV!

 

[Champakian]

OMG



What is "the cost of doing business" and who pays it???

 

[JakBird]

Fairness, as a metric has been done to death here.

To be "fair" any metric must be objective and "fairness" is purely subjective.

To be fair, you should do something to earn some of my money. Communism is inherently unfair...

It's pretty clear to me, if you hand me $2, that fits my definition of fair.

 

[Chobham]

Shake down is such a harsh term. And its not the consumer, its the employer who pays. If we can implement Nixon era price controls again, like the 1970s, employers can't pass on the increases. It comes out of the pockets of shareholder, who should be forced to pay their fair share.

Of course employers are evil. I watch TV!

Just to remind you what Nixon did was to impose WAGE and price controls and it was an utter failure.

 

[JakBird]

OMG



What is "the cost of doing business" and who pays it???

Do you mean union dues?

 

[Champakian]

Fair to you.

But that $2 was a result of my efforts/energies.

 

[Champakian]

Yeah. Union dues.
I was an elected union steward.
I voted to strike (as instructed) and was fired.
The union said that they had no funds to defend me...

... the guy who told me that drove off to lunch with the business owners in a nice new caddy.

 

[LittleDixie]

Labor unions are necessary to reverse the growing income gap.

No. Just, no. We should not allow our envy of those who are richer than us to dictate our policies. Every time I hear people bemoan the income gap and talk about how unfair it is, I have to remind myself that as an American in 2022, we all exist in the upper 1% of all human beings who ever lived. No other human being has had the level of access to information, education, communication, medicine, infrastructure, technology or equality than we have. We have been one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and enjoyed a stable supply chain of food and medicine and consumer goods.

Whenever people talk about the income gap, they only look at those above them. You don't care that the majority of humans on planet Earth look at you and I with desperate envy. They would do anything to live your life. To someone who lives on a couple of dollars a day, there is a huge income gap between you and them. I'm guessing that you don't care so much about this gap - it's not because you hold to the principle that we should all be more equal (you don't believe that), it's because you are greedy and you want a license to take from other people to enrich yourself.

We need ironclad rules that the top and bottom wage and benefit packages cannot differ by more than X%. I'm just not sure what 'X' should be.

The fact that low end workers make $10/hr while top end C Suite Critters yield tens of millions annually is criminal.

We absolutely do not.

People add different levels of value to an employer. Some people are good at their job, some people are bad at their job and some people are absolutely amazing at their job. Those people should be paid differently. Some people make no decisions at their job and do what they are told, some people make many important decisions and a select few are responsible for making multi-million dollar decisions that affect the lives of thousands of people. Those people should be paid differently. If person A is willing to give person B an amount of money to do a job, I don't see why person C should be involved or have any say in the transaction. Person C isn't doing the job, and they aren't paying the person who does the job - they are just sitting on the sidelines criticizing.

 

[jaF0]

It's not about standard of living, or leisure. It's about fairness. If I only have $1 in my pocket, but you have $5, to be fair you should give me $2. Then we both have enough to buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds, equal leisure, equal standard of living.

No, that's stupid shit.

It's more about if you have 10 million dollars and you want to pay me $1 to unclog your toilet, you can go to the dollar store, buy a plunger and fuck yourself with it.

 

[JakBird]

Just to remind you what Nixon did was to impose WAGE and price controls and it was an utter failure.

Yes, but this time we have a union friendly administration in power. Salaries will naturally rise to the level of fair, living wages where everyone receives the same amount, union scale.

Failure? It wasn't in place long enough to show any results. With a friendly administration and aggressive enforcement, we'd see much more satisfactory results.

 

[Champakian]

When wages rise, prices rise.

It's pretty much a zero-sum game.

You're engaging in the fallacy of "Broken Windows" as explained by Bastiat.

Rising wages is nothing more than a "feel good" metric unless they occur through improved means of production.

The only problem with improved means of production is that they generally require less labor,
so a few earn more, but fewer are employed.

 

[JakBird]

No, that's stupid shit.

It's more about if you have 10 million dollars and you want to pay me $1 to unclog your toilet, you can go to the dollar store, buy a plunger and fuck yourself with it.

I would pay union scale, say $250/hr. Now after dues you might still get only $1 but you will have the satisfaction of knowing the union kept you safe by forcing strict standards on the manufacture and use of plungers.

 

[Champakian]

Would you...


Fremdschämen

 

[Chobham]

Yes, but this time we have a union friendly administration in power. Salaries will naturally rise to the level of fair, living wages where everyone receives the same amount, union scale.

Failure? It wasn't in place long enough to show any results. With a friendly administration and aggressive enforcement, we'd see much more satisfactory results.

What you're suggesting is price controls without wage controls. Interesting notion. Who gets to set the price controls?

 

[JakBird]

When wages rise, prices rise.

It's pretty much a zero-sum game.

You're engaging in the fallacy of "Broken Windows" as explained by Bastiat.

Rising wages is nothing more than a "feel good" metric unless they occur through improved means of production.

The only problem with improved means of production is that they generally require less labor,
so a few earn more, but fewer are employed.

The government has clearly stated that increased spending drives down inflation, so linking wages and prices is an obvious fallacy. As wages rise inflation (prices) will head to the basement.

 

[JakBird]

What you're suggesting is price controls without wage controls. Interesting notion. Who gets to set the price controls?

A carefully selected group of government advisors who qualify by the size of their political donations. They proved they have the wisdom to invest wisely. We should return the favor by placing our faith in their integrity.

 

[Champakian]

Government will clearly state what it thinks is in its best interest
which is why my go-to sources are economists themselves.

 

[Champakian]

Carefully selected government advisors will be selected by those with
the means to buy government and game it to their favor.

You are arguing for and against all at the same time.

 

[Chobham]

A carefully selected group of government advisors who qualify by the size of their political donations. They proved they have the wisdom to invest wisely. We should return the favor by placing our faith in their integrity.

OK, carry on with your satire.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I always thought it odd that the government functionaries at the Department of Labor are unionized. They need a union to protect them from themselves.

 

[Champakian]

OK, carry on with your satire.

You feel like you're being played too?

 

[Chobham]

Yeah, it took a couple of posts to catch on.

 

[Champakian]

I'm just naturally suspicious of new alts...

 

[The_Trouvere]

There might be an income gap (the second example this morning that I've run across
of taking a stat out of context to make a specious point) but the average citizen of the
United States enjoys a steady increase in his/her(/its) standard of living and really has
nothing to complain about, but does enjoy a lot more leisure time in which to do it....