Pension Reform and Union Shenanigans in San Diego

[TheWrenaissance]

Great to see people taking action, the government has gotten way too large. These fantastical ideas of pension, social security, and bailing out corporations are not economically sound.

[MyDormantSoul]

@LordSparkisvati No, unions are. Police, teachers, and senior caregivers need to stay mostly public. 

[vonGleichenT]

love it.

[shamgar001]

I don't want to jump to conclusions if I don't know what I'm talking about, but does anyone else notice that unions are the only political action groups who engage in these kinds of dirty tactics?

[communeofone]

lmfao @ the "californians against identity fraud" advert. you just gotta love public sector unions. they're evil, but a funny kind of evil.

[rider92131]

Until about four years ago a typical "non-safety" (all but police and firefighters) SD city employee could retire as early as age 55 with TWO full pensions. In addition to the "standard" lucrative defined benefit plan, our city ALSO provides a remarkable fully matching 401k-type plan -- matching up to 6% of salary. With 8% growth and taking ONLY the eanings at age 55, a 30 year worker could look forward to retiring with about 130% of their highest salary.

[rider92131]

(continued) Oh, and when they died, their beneficiary would receive an additional lump sum IRA distribution of about 8 year's salary.

The 401k plan has dropped to match "only" 3% of salary, down from the 6% figure.

And they there's the (until recently) largely free lifetime health care coverage.

The answer is, of course, to GET A SAN DIEGO CITY JOB!

[rider92131]

To give you an idea the extent of the blocking effort, here's the worst example I heard.

When blockers learned the location of petition gatherers going door-to-door, they'd rush out a crew to "accompany" the volunteers (usually only volunteers did door-to-door). When a petitioner would start up a sidewalk to a house, the blocker would run ahead, ring the doorbell and yell to the people not to open the door -- that an identity thief was there to collect their info.

[rider92131]

I'm a big fan of DeMaio's efforts to reform our city pension system. It's been an epic battle.

My experience with the blockers was a bit different than what the video mentions. In addition to paid blockers, it seemed to me that most of the blockers were our beloved firefighters, who it turns out have WAY too much free time on their hands.

Most of the blockers were male, big, white and trim -- far beyond what one would expect from a more representative demographic.

[0HippyHunter0]

GO BOY GO! ! ! You win this, you may win for all of us. PS unions must be stopped, their greed is endless.

[coffeefish]

Democrats suck ass.

[johammbass]

Fuck the unions, fuck the socialists.

Ron Paul 2012!

[steelbreeze420]

why would u be shocked at union behavior. they are the dregs of the working world who need the govt to get them on par with everyone else. no govt help, no chance of a good life for them because they are incapable of competing with the rest of society.

[666sigma]

Unions are bad. Government Unions are totally uncalled for. They are no different than Wall Street, Lawyers and Military Industrial Complex. They spinge off the taxpayer.

[Firestryke2]

none of this is shocking... public unions shouldnt exist. funny thing is, if people knew economic law, they wouldnt support private sector unions either. ignorance isnt power. too bad people are stupid!

[freesk8]

Unions must be allowed. Freedom of association is a natural right. But unions deserve no special protection by govt. No employer should be forced to recognize or negotiate with any union. No employee should be forced to join a union, regardless of how the rest of the workers vote. No union should enjoy protection from competition from other unions that may want to organize at a workplace. All states should be "right to work" states.

[dlstb]

@freesk8 agreed in entirety. Not often does that happen. Personal Liberty should be the law and that means unions are free to form, compete, negotiate so long as they do not force their will on anyone else.

[H1TMANactual]

@freesk8 Well summed up.

[3martijns]

Public Sector Unions have been the Basis of Communism.

[navtel]

good luck.. i am with you san diego

[furyofbongos]

There is nothing civil about government. It confiscates wealth at gunpoint to fund its initiatives. Nothing good can ever come out of that.

[dlstb]

@furyofbongos Here's an idea, how about we change it so that everyone gets to decide when they become an adult and take an oath to protect the Constitution, gain the right to vote, and pay taxes or they can claim sovereignty and never pay taxes, vote, or receive the benefit of the judicial system.

[furyofbongos]

@dlstb - I'll take that. I can act like an adult and not depend on an authoritarian system that steals my money and delivers "services" that no-one can compete with. I'll hire private companies to handle security and justice.

[grraadd]

so they were stupid enough to broadcast that they paid for the advertisement?!?

those marxists are fucking retarded...

[666sigma]

Unions = Wall Street = Washington.  Corruption, corruption, corruption

[HamsterFueledRocket]

The unions are still just as barbaric as the mafia families that started them.

[Vindaven]

If you want Pension reform... okay... but you had better grandfather anyone already in the system through. Many went into the system with the understanding that they could depend on that for their retirement and it would be both ethically and legally wrong to take that away without several years warning.

[dlstb]

@Vindaven I disagree. I know this is slightly different from the soc. sec. argument, but the arguments are too similar in their context. Is it legal or ethical for one generation to take on debt and spend money while guaranteeing that future generation will pay back that debt with interest? In my mind it isn't, so I'm not worried about grandfathering anyone into continuing a system that is immoral and illegal.

BTW, turning your children into slaves is as unethical as it gets. 

[Vindaven]

@dlstb So is forcing old people to work... because that's exactly what you're doing when you take away pension without decades of warning... they didn't know they would need a secondary retirement.

[httm241]

@Vindaven agreed this koch propoganda at its finest

[bighitter42]

@httm241 Jesus.... I'm not funded by a billionaire and understood this to be true long before I found Reason. It's not only common sense, it's common god damned decency to say that unions as they exist in many states have outlived their purpose. Protections exist...OSHA exists. Move on already.

Nobody(not even the dreaded Koch brothers,) want unions outlawed...get together and decide anything you like with your coworkers. Just don't expect protection from the government.

[dlstb]

@Vindaven Really? People couldn't understand that their pensions and retirement were more than the taxpayer could afford when a gov't job pays more on average than the private sector's equivalent and the gov't doesn't produce a single thing? How is this stuff not obvious? Its like when people argue about soc. sec. They watched gov't take their money, convert it to bonds (IOU's), spend the money, and they think just because they paid in they should get it back... They got scammed by themselves.

[Berelore]

The absurdity of public sector unions: watch?v=su4PwZCWUdg

[6134chuck]

I read the below comments and I keep hearing variations on the "fairness" mantra...none of them of course can agree on the definition of said 4 lettered 'f' word.

It is absolutely necessary to question why government workers on average earn more than average private sector workers, only someone incredibly obtuse wouldn't think that those who make a living from the taxes of others a major problem now and in the future.

[GeminiK]

Ah! Didn't know about this, and I live in San Diego! Going to the supermarket later ;).

[DuaneEH]

"It was shocking" that union supporters would lie and send out muscle? Are you kidding me?

[richardcadbury]

Public unions shouldn't exist.

[JaySee5]

@richardcadbury YES! Why would you need employee protection from the government? It's completely idiotic.

[digging90650]

Is their endeavor targeted towards city council members, city planners, city officials, sheriffs, the mayor...city government in any and all forms?

If yes, than this thing has some merit. If no, and it's just targeting people who actually work hard for a living...they will need to redesign their measure.

[jybwatson]

Direct Democracy is nothing more than MOB RULE

[Panpiper]

@jybwatson Yea, well when the 'mob' is being ripped off by special interests in collusion with politicians who therefore refuse to do anything about it, then maybe it's time for some 'mob' rule.

[GeminiK]

@Panpiper The end's justify the means? Contempt and loathing aren't sufficient to describe what I feel to what you just said.

There shouldn't EVER be mob rule, unless you desire hell on earth.

[Panpiper]

@GeminiK So you are saying the public should just sit passively and do nothing while special interests use the power of government to loot them for all they are worth?

[GeminiK]

@Panpiper No, "special interests" interest in gov should end. But, to replace it with mob rule?! It can't even be joked about!

Just stop and think for a second about what you are asking for.

[Panpiper]

@GeminiK I should turn that around; just stop and think for a second about what 'you' are asking for. In fact I am not sure what you are asking for. If the 'people' are not to do anything 'democratic', because that would imply "mob rule", then just what are we to do? Should we simply wring our hands and gnash our teeth and 'wish' things would be better someday. perhaps while we commiserate with our fellow anarchists about how righteous we are in our passive acquiescence to our slavery?

[GeminiK]

@Panpiper I have, but what good is it to replace an unfair environment with a hellish one? What greater looting can be possible without mob rule. What great clamor of "special interests" can there be if all people become "special interests?" That is what you are asking for right? To make the situation far worse?

There is one answer thought of a long time ago: A constitutional republic, were the power of the gov is limited, and in which the individual is free from state power, democratic or not.

[Panpiper]

@GeminiK And we are to sit back and wait for a constitutional republic to somehow appear, without any effort on our part? If such a republic is to resurface, it will only be because sufficient numbers of people work to achieve it, and now again, we have the implication of the mob. Change requires human action. If those who desire peaceful, voluntary interaction do nothing lest they do it together, as a 'mob', then we surrender the battle to those who have no such compunction, who use force.

[GeminiK]

@Panpiper Nice argument except for the strawman and switch. Did the founders fought to establish mob rule? You can call them a mob of revolutionaries, but move rule isn't the same thing, not even in category.

Also, how do you think a constitutional republic was achieved the first time? Did the founders wait for it too?

[Hiro139]

that does sound alot like annie leonard in the union ad

[bjplum80]

what BS! no mention of interest rate swaps...the big banks and bought politicians are the problem.

[AtibbsSPARTAN]

THUGS

[Loathomar]

I love when reason's videos contradict each other. As if this was some shocking political add, you want to see shocking political add watch reason's "ATTACK ADS, CIRCA 1800".

And the idea of the voter changing in place contracts of former workers seems close to insanity. So, you work for a city for 40 years with a contract which include retirement, then retire and the voters say, we are changing the contract and this is ok? Really?

[Loathomar]

This would be like saying we are raising the income tax by 1%, so we would like everyone to pay 1% more in income tax for all the years you have worked in the past. Thats reasonable, right? The only real way a state should be allowed out of a contract like this is to declare bankruptcy, as that is the only way any person or company is allow to do so. I have no problem at all with changing future workers retirement and even saying all pension benefit at stop where they are now.

[Loathomar]

The pension plan is you get X% of you pay (often 2%) per year you have worked. For current workers, a pension reform should be allow to stop the counting of those years now, ei, if you have already worked 10 years, you get X% times 10 when you retire plus the 401K savings. The reform could even have a voluntarily buy out of the current pension plan, ei ,if you give up your current X% of pension, we will give you $XXX to your 401K.

[GeminiK]

@Loathomar I hope this isn't futile, but you forget that there isn't money to pay for the pensions. Either gov goes broke, or the fix it. The promises were made without having the backing to keep them.

If I may indulge in some arrogance, my argument should end yours.

[Loathomar]

@GeminiK Fine, there isn't money, the state/local gov needs to declare bankruptcy. If I am an employer and I hire workers and make a contract with you say "I will give you $7.50/hr, but at the $20K at the end of the year" and at the end of the year, I don't have that money in the bank, so I decide not to pay you, is that ok? This is not to say I don't have assets worth more then the amount promise, but it's not where I wanted it to come from, so I can just not pay you, right?

[GeminiK]

@Loathomar That makes sense actually. The state should declare bankruptcy and pay everything they owe. The people can then form another government from scratch and start anew :). Completely debt free, and, hopefully, much more politically free :D. I don't know if a default is as good with out firing the whole lot of those corrupt punks.

[Loathomar]

@GeminiK I am not sure it that should declare bankruptcy, but I see no reason why the should be allow to change existing contract with people without declaring bankruptcy. There is a odd view of capitalism here, most people thing they are totally in favor of capitalism while support the idea that the state is totally within is rights to cancel or change a contract because the voters fell like it. But without legally binding contracts, capitalism is dead.

[dlstb]

@Loathomar It's not just because the voters "fell" like it. It is because the pensions that the previous generation promised themselves is unsustainable and is destroying their prosperity. BTW, it is illegal for a person to sign a contract for another without a power of attorney. So how can one generation agree to make the next pay through the teeth for services that were rendered to the first generation? It cannot. It is illegal and gov't debt is tantamount to slavery.

[Loathomar]

If a company is weighed down with debt, it will likely hurt employ pay too, so the company can change it contract because "why should current workers lose pay for past workers?". No, the company made the contract and so did the state. You feel you are being unfair punished for the company or states past actions, change jobs or states, you are free to do so. But change contract because "it was a long time ago" or "it's too costly" or "it's unfair now" is complete BS and undermines capitalism.

[mzola17]

Good Luck San Diego, us here in Ohio had a similar fight with Senate Bill 5 being voted repealed because the Unions basically bought the States Soul. They've got money, they've got people and they'll use any dirty morally reprehensible tactic to misinform the voter and scare them into voting against the reform.

also, was that Annie Leonard in the TV ad claiming "identity theft"?

[klrdotorg]

Chris Reed is one of the smartest guys around. People need to listen to him. Love this guy.

Oh ... and unions are shameless. What won't they do to keep power?

[1czelaya]

This type of union behavior is no different from those that benefited from the Wall Street bailouts. They are lining their own pockets at the expense of the tax payers. So, I can't understand how people say that unions are for the working, everyday person. Unions ONLY benefit themselves, at the expense of others.

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya Well, so do CEOs and finance managers and Boards of Directors.

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance Only those that took bailout money. Not all companies rely on subsidization and bailouts. So no-CEO's, finance managers, and Boards of Directors don't use force. There funds come from stock holders and consumers who voluntarily purchase goods and services from the company they represent. Those that work on free enterprise work in capitalistic environment. The examples shown above, clearly, use force and coercion to serve their own self interest at the cost of others.

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya No, you said "Unions ONLY benefit themselves, at the expense of others."

So do CEOs and finance managers and Boards of Directors. Taking bailout money or not, they only benefit themselves. Which is why they took bailout money IF they could (as if the one's who didn't take it failed to do so on principle and not because they weren't offered it). Which is why they don't pay for the externalities their profit making enterprises engage in. Eck seter-ah! Eck seter-ah!

[sparksza1]

@eirefrance It's pronounced et cetera, it's Latin for and the rest.

[eirefrance]

@sparksza1 Thanks, buddy. I'm glad you were there to point that out!!!

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Yes, Unions only benefit their constituents. What you're trying to say is something so general it doesn't make sense. EVERYONE wants to benefit themselves. You, I, and the guy next door. The difference with private companies is that they don't use force (as long as they don't get subsidized). Unions, in the example provided, however, do. That's the difference.

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya A union benefits it's members. What tactics each individual union uses differ. For instance, the NEA has never used 'force' to get it's way.

Also, private companies use 'force' as well. A century ago, it was violent force against those who wanted to unionize. Today, it's non-violent threats of firing against those who would unionize. As some examples.

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance That's what I said. Unions benefit their constituents. If you have a union and it doesn't require force in the following: taking money involuntarily from a group; lobbying laws that protect unions or creates an unfair disadvantage to competitors-then their isn't anything wrong.

The same with private companies. They shouldn't be subsidized and allowed special benefits via government legislation. The law should adhere to everyone-equally.

[Panpiper]

@eirefrance You are misunderstanding. He said, "Unions only benefit themselves." You are criticizing him as if he said "Only unions benefit themselves." The two sentences have 'very' different meanings.

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper But the statement "Unions only benefit themselves." implies that is an abnormal and bad thing, when the fact is the all business and labor always work to "only benefit themselves". CEO's work hard to maximize company profits, not for the "good of the company/stockholder", but because it they do they will get paid more. The statement "Unions only benefit themselves" is meaningless when the real statement is "Everyone/thing only benefit themselves" at least in the why it is meant.

[Panpiper]

@Loathomar Business works to benefit themselves, yes. But despite that, they do not 'only' benefit themselves, others benefit from what they produce. If I buy something from the business, they benefit certainly, but I also benefit of I would never have bought from them. Unions (using government granted monopoly power over jobs) on the other hand work to benefit their members at the expense of absolutely everyone else. There is no upside.

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper Wait, there is no upside to union jobs paying better? So, they is no upside for a business owner to ever offer higher wages then it competition? Do you suggest that high wages and better benefits would not lead to higher demand for those jobs and those jobs being fill be the best employees? I mean that is what economic would say. So, in the same way business works to benefit others as do unions. You could say that there is poor rate of return on the C/B, but is would have a benefit.

[Loathomar]

Other then being blindly political, the statement "Unions only benefit themselves" is equal to "Everyone/thing only benefit themselves". The action of businesses and unions working to only benefit themselves will have both positive and negative effects. Business may cut cost to lower prices (positive) but that means firing people (negative). Unions may get higher wages for their employees which allows them to higher the best people (positive) but this cost more (negative).

[Loathomar]

You could cost wages and benefits for teachers by 50%, but what would be the results? When people get to college they need to decide what to become and people look as wages of the industries, so if teachers get pay 50% less then others with the same education, people will stop becoming teachers. It is teachers got paid 50% more then others with the same education, you would get a lot of people trying to become teachers.

[Panpiper]

@Loathomar There is plenty of upside to paying better, if it is voluntary and justified in the free market. But if it is coerced without justification in the free market, then it only benefits the unionized worker at the expense of everyone else.

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper There are upside in any case. The only thing you can really say is that the benefits do not give a rate of return that justifies the costs. Ei, if the productive of a working I hire at $50K is twice a productive as a working I hire at $25K there is not loss in the $50K, but if it takes $60K for twice a productive it is not optimal. There is clearly a real benefit for paying more, even at $60K vs $25, but it is not optimal for productive/$.

[Panpiper]

@Loathomar The the return of the benefits do not justify the costs, then it is a 'net' loss for society at sole benefit of the unionized worker. My essential point is that only when all actors are completely free to voluntarily engage in the market, including the market for labor, that the greatest fairness and wealth both is achieved. Anything that impedes that, that introduces force into it, detracts both from freedom 'and' the total wealth of society.

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper You often get a net loss from bad business choose, companies give multi-million golden parachute to CEO that tank the company and leave, cause people to lose there jobs and pay more for products. But the starting statement about "Unions only benefit themselves" was not right. If there is a 'net loss', it would be difficult to show, and assume there is a net loss is just an assumption. Anything that impedes free markets, will generally impede wealth but not fairness.

[Loathomar]

The US does great on wealth, one of the best in the world and we do great on economic freedom, but what about fairness? We rank in the top 10 in both GDP/capita and economic freedom, but we rank the 44th worst of 134 on the CIA's Gini index and not much better when compare rich to poor. We have a top world wealth but a horrible fairness and it is not unions fault for the lack of fairness.

[Loathomar]

If you take the total compensation of a state and local government worker it is $39.66 (cato), with is equal to ~$82,500/year. This seems like a lot, but the average state and local government worker is far more educated then the average non-government worker, even so, how is this in comparison to the total US income? If you just take the GDP and divide by all the employed people (full and part time) you get $104,000/year, or 26% more then the average state and local government worker.

[Loathomar]

The question should be asked it it is not the government worker earning too much be the average American worker earning too little from the US system that so favors the rich. The most wealth might be created by paying working less the $5/hr and there by making people need to work 80hr/week to get by, but is that a more far system? No, fairness implies equality and free-markets have never works for equality, which is not the same as say everyone has not benefited, we have just not fairly.

[Panpiper]

@Loathomar What is fair about a coercive union extorting a higher than market wage? You have a job paying $20. an hour. You form a coercive union and demand $25. an hour. I meanwhile having no job step in and say that I am willing to do the same job for $20. an hour. You pull out your government gun and tell both me and the employer, "No." Only you get to have the job and the employer must pay you $25. an hour or go out of business. I must stay unemployed, while you get higher than market?

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper If the US system had lower income inequality, the rate of union jobs would be the reasonable rate and only the amount of income inequality in the US makes this a problem. You say "I get $25/hr at a union job while you are unemployed." I say "The non-financial private secure in the US is currently holding the largest amount of liquid assets in history, over $2T, which is enough to higher every unemployed person in the country at the median wage for more then 5 years."

[Loathomar]

Why is it you look at someone earn 20% more then average and say "unfair" but the people earn 4000% more then average should pay less taxes? And it is not like you can say "that just the only way it will work", look at counties like Germany, Norway, Sweden, Austria, ect these are country doing just as well as the US but with less then half the US's income inequality. The truth is that government wages increase with US growth while non-gov wages did not, but that is not the failure in gov-wages.

[dirksilver]

@Loathomar actually income inequality is pretty consistent around the world regardless of political system or economy

[Loathomar]

@dirksilver Google "income inequality by country", and see for your self. The most basic would be the UN's richest's 10% income vs the poorest's 10% income. Made short this is, r/p 10%. The US R/P 10% is 15.9, meaning the average income of the bottom 10% of income earns made 1/15.9 of the top 10% of income earns or the richest 10% earn 15.9 times that of the bottom 10%. This is in comparison to 6.9 for Germany, 6.2 for Sweden, 5.8 for Finland and 4.5 for Japan.

[Panpiper]

@Loathomar I see, so two wrongs make a right, is that it?

[Loathomar]

@Panpiper No, I suggest that the government union wage is much closer to what wages should be, and as government income come from all wages, at the federal level it should be 18-19% of GDP, the wages in government union wage should go up with GDP/capita. So, if you have over 10 years a 10% increase in population and a 10% increase in GDP/capita you should get a 10% increase in government jobs and government wages. The fact that the ave wage in the US only went up 3% in the same time is the prob.

[Loathomar]

Really it would be two wrongs does not make a third wrong. The average wage is too low and the top wages are too high, but that does not make the government union wage too high. Government union jobs are well above average for education, yet are still 26% less then what the wages of the GDP divided by all employed people in the US. If the government union wage had an average education level and was earning more then GDP/employed, it would seem a problem, but that is not the case at all.

[dlstb]

@Loathomar Why is it that so many gov't jobs require a college degree? Why is it that most institutions of "higher learning" are run by the states? Why is it that the federal gov't is now the only body able to make a student loan without the student putting up physical property to back the loan? The fact of the matter is that if you work for the gov't, you are not a producer and you only drain money off the real producers of wealth.

[Loathomar]

@dlstb The statics say that the number of Public 4-year institutions = 615, and Private 4-year institutions = 1710. But as for why Public institutions? Taxes. The increase income from a 4-year degree means a $15k increase in household income, which gets taxed. Say the total taxes on that top part of the income of $15K is 10%, that means the government get $1.5K per year for 40 years ($600K) which more the pays for the higher education cost of any state.

[Loathomar]

As for "work for the gov't, you are not a producer and you only drain money off the real producers of wealth" so roads are not part of the real wealth of the country? Water, power, firefighters? Really, the government plays a supportive rule, like most people in most companies. The only people really make anything productive of wealth are people in manufacturing/production or design. Admins/HR/lawyers/IT/tech support... ect are all non-producers of wealth, but are all still needed parts.

[dlstb]

@Loathomar So the gov't is arbitrarily setting employment standards higher than they need be so that they can effect social change by funneling the young people of the nation through state run "higher" education where they can teach the people to act and think how the gov't wants and to perpetuate ever higher taxes.

[Loathomar]

@dlstb The idea at higher education is to teach people to like the state is funny. As the political groups that have the highest amount of college grad, by percent are Libertarian and other 3rd parties. This would be the opposite of what you would get if your idea was true. Your idea makes for a cute conspiracy theory, but died at the first logic check.

[eirefrance]

@Panpiper His statement suggests there is something uniquely malevolent about unions because they "only work for themselves" (imagine I said that in a Bela Lugosi B horror movie voice). Everyone only works for themselves. In fact, it's the entire argument behind capitalism, and erroneously attributed to Adam Smith. Because workers are exploited by their boss' desire to benefit himself at their expense, joining a union to benefit themselves is a natural response. Bah-lawnce!!!

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance No, it doesn't. There's a farce that many unions are beneficial for the common man. No they are not. Like you said, they only benefit their members. Many times, it's at the cost of consumers, in the form of higher prices for consumer goods and services or in many cases, with public unions-at the cost of the community. Are you saying that people don't look for their only self interest? What exactly are you saying about capitalism?

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya "Like you said, they only benefit their members."

And when more Americans were unionized, we actually had a middle class. It's only because the state hasn't destroyed unions the way private industry has over the past 30 years that we are left with public unions as the "last battle."

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance That's a complete farce & you can't give me a single objective researched analysis, from any source, to back up that claim. However, I can give you a sobering fact: the US automobile industry- non unionized factories(like Toyota & Honda) didn't accept bailouts and weren't hemorrhaging money. Non unionized factories were producing more efficient and better built automobiles and still paying there workers high wages. You know who decided that? American consumers.

[BigTex1454]

@1czelaya

Good stuff.

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya I can't give you a single objectively researched analysis to back that up? Are you crazy?

Miseryindex will provide you the unemployment figures. You'll have to do a little more digging for the historical union membership %, which might mean looking in printed BLS works.

[1czelaya]

@eirefrance What? How do you, directly, correlate union demise with increased unemployment with the Misery Index? Furthermore, inflation coupled with employment is directly correlated to unions, really? The BLS are statistics. You have to find causation-cause and effect. Economics is not centered around unions, sir. Would you please try to explain yourself here more succinctly. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[eirefrance]

@1czelaya Take another look at the statement that I wrote: "And when more Americans were unionized, we actually had a middle class." WHEN, not BECAUSE. I am not drawing a direct correlation, because that would be impossible to do. As Austrians acknowledge with their "Our theories can't be proven they must be accepted prima facie", economies are complicated things. All I'm saying is WHEN we x, we ALSO had y. When x went away, y also went away.

[BigTex1454]

@eirefrance

No, thats not what he's trying to indicate. Public employees who form unions are dependent on tax payer revenue but isolate the tax payer from any say in that union.

If its a union of a capitalist private company - the dispute is between the workers and the employer. When its a government job - its never between the workers and the taxpayers. But rather an attorney representing the state. And the state has no skin in the game.

Even FDR said that public unions were very bad.

[eirefrance]

@BigTex1454 First of all, his statement was not about Public Unions only. 1czelaya clearly stated "unions" not public-employee unions. Second, I agree that unions create problems especially public unions, and nothing I've said in here counters that. All I said is that in a world where bosses have limitless power to exploit their workers, unions act as a balance.

[Panpiper]

@eirefrance Bosses do not have limitless power to exploit their workers. That is socialist nonsense. The price of labor (wages) is not somehow magically exempt from the 'law' of supply and demand. A business wanting to grow has no choice but to bid for labor on the free market. Labor is a fixed resource (relatively), it does not increase with a rise in demand, and so inevitably if demand increases for labor, so will the price of it, the wages and working conditions paid.

[BigTex1454]

@eirefrance

Ok - well good.

When we're talking about bosses with limitless power...don't other companies compete for labor? How bad can a boss really act toward an employee before they quit and go somewhere else? If a boss is bad enough no one will work for him and his business will not grow.

I am not a fan of unions. I worked with UPS before, and they really took advantage of the union laws. Owners we're paying good money for non-productive time. It wasn't fair.

[Panpiper]

@eirefrance Ok, I grant you that. Yes, ultimately everyone works for themselves. But in a free market, any voluntary interaction benefits both parties. If I give you a dollar for a bread bun, you made the exchange because you valued the dollar more than the bun; I in turn valued the bun more than the dollar, we both gained. When a union uses a government license to extort greater wages than they would be paid voluntarily, the upside is only on the part of the union.

[sensibuddz]

fear-mongering at its best