Black Hole....errr The Political Roundtable

[hands11]

400 Americans have more wealth than the entire bottom half of the country.

that's scary.

And that's the reality most Republicans won't address. The poor have been getting poorer and the rich richer at an alarming rate since trickledown economics began. The middle class is completely vanishing. Hell, three families own almost ALL the property in Memphis.

In the 1950's, we had 25% of America in unions. Unions alone created the middle class -- by fighting tooth and nail for weekends, a livable wage, safety standards, sick days, etc. They raised the standard of living for the entire middle class -- because they set the standard wage and benefits with which non-union companies had to compete. The "free market" never created the middle class. Unions did. And without another strong union movement, we will continue to watch the middle class (which they created) wink back out of existence. That's the reality. The "free amrket" will simply continue to drain wealth out of this country unless workers themselves collectively demand a larger slice of the pie.

I tried to point that out earlier but those that don't want to listen wont. There is a 1:1 correlation between the union membership and the decreased wealth of the middle class. Going after the unions in not about budgets, it is about politics. The Republicans demographics are dwindling so they have to cut off the money to the Democrats 3 biggest donors to stay in the game. Then they have to defund NPR so there is no free news. They then buy up as much news and radio as possible and segment market the news/talking points. Fox hotties for one group. Fear mongering for another. Remember the end game. They have to convince enough people that it is in their best interested to vote against things that are in their best interest. That is no small task. But in low turnout elections, they can still win because they can turn out the base and confuse enough swing voters. But it is going to get harder and harder to do that election after election. They is why they are making such a hard move now so they can get things changed that will take years and years to change. And all that while they will have to money to fight and twist the system.

History will repeat itself if this keep up. Last time this country was in this situation of wealth disparity was just before the last great depression.

One a positive note, the people are getting active again. They just may well have done more politically for the Dems then they could muster up by themselves. As for Obama sitting on the sidelines to much. I think that was the best thing he could do. Give them nothing to attack and just step back and watch them hang themselves as they get over confident. The Tea party will pull the Republican Party over the c lift. Obama is a closer like Clinton. He fights for the last final stretch when it matter most. He did what needed done the first two year. These are the two years you lay low and let the Republican/Tea Party build the case against themselves. Then you use that to win the next four year. That is when you get busy again. The way our political system is set up for four year terms and long election cycles because of the money, you only get 4 or 5 years out of an 8 year term to get big things done.

[hands11]

I wonder who will pay for the huge now completely nonfunctional and likely
to be essentially permanent radioactive wastesite that was the Dendai complex?

what is the source of those fatality stats come from? I don't believe
them for a NY minute.

I'm tired of being trickled on 'cause it ain't jobs that are trickling down.

Well depending on who you listen to, the Chernobyl accident killed anywhere from 4000 to 500,000

There are studies done by different countries. Something worth reading up on.

I was listening to a nuclear scientist the other day that said there is a little bit of Chernobyl in each and everyone of us. Low level radiation is not supposed to be harmful though. But they are still counting cancer cases that they attribute to Chernobyl.

But as sad as it is, I guess we have to limit population growth some how since people are unwilling to limit the amount of children they have.

So anyone know if cancer rates are rising or falling over the last 100 years ?

[hands11]

Solar already energizes the world.

All the food, tree, wind, rivers running, fuels that are the result of bio and bio decomposition... all solar.

There is a old saying. I made my money by cutting out the middle man.

[nate33]

In the 1950's, we had 25% of America in unions. Unions alone created the middle class -- by fighting tooth and nail for weekends, a livable wage, safety standards, sick days, etc. They raised the standard of living for the entire middle class -- because they set the standard wage and benefits with which non-union companies had to compete. The "free market" never created the middle class. Unions did. And without another strong union movement, we will continue to watch the middle class (which they created) wink back out of existence. That's the reality. The "free amrket" will simply continue to drain wealth out of this country unless workers themselves collectively demand a larger slice of the pie.

I tried to point that out earlier but those that don't want to listen wont. There is a 1:1 correlation between the union membership and the decreased wealth of the middle class.

I know this narrative is appealing, but it's simply not true. Yes, the unions helped create the middle class in a time when there was no global competition so there was no pressure to keep labor costs down. But that was then, this is now.

Thanks to the increased labor costs due to unionization, corporations began to move overseas and foreign competitors began to out-compete us. It started in the 70's with the Japanese and the Germans. Now it's the Chinese and the Koreans. They have lower labor costs and have therefore taken the manufacturing jobs. THAT'S why there's no middle class. In a way, the unions DESTROYED the middle class with their good intentions by making it no longer competitive to manufacture things in the United States. The only industries where we compete are the technology and health care industries which are not unionized.

And I continue to be confused how you conflate public unions with private unions. There is no Republican assault on private unions. Republicans have a problem with the money-laundering scheme whereby workers are essentially forced to donate to the Democrat party if they want a taxpayer-funded public sector job. It's completely unfair and you guys would be up in arms about it if the situation was reversed.

[barelyawake]

So, it's unions' fault that American workers can't compete with their Chinese counterparts who get paid two dollars and a bowl of rice a day? Ridiculous claptrap. The "giant sucking sound" of jobs was caused by NAFTA and trade normalization with China. And guess who was the loudest voice against both? Unions. Guess who are the only ones currently petitioning the WTO to stop unfair practices by China? Unions. NAFTA and other trade agreements killed the bargaining power of many private unions because global corporations could simply threaten to move jobs overseas. I could go on, but it's a lovely day outside...

[DCZards]

I know this narrative is appealing, but it's simply not true. Yes, the unions helped create the middle class in a time when there was no global competition so there was no pressure to keep labor costs down. But that was then, this is now.

Thanks to the increased labor costs due to unionization, corporations began to move overseas and foreign competitors began to out-compete us. It started in the 70's with the Japanese and the Germans. Now it's the Chinese and the Koreans. They have lower labor costs and have therefore taken the manufacturing jobs. THAT'S why there's no middle class. In a way, the unions DESTROYED the middle class with their good intentions by making it no longer competitive to manufacture things in the United States. The only industries where we compete are the technology and health care industries which are not unionized.

And I continue to be confused how you conflate public unions with private unions. There is no Republican assault on private unions. Republicans have a problem with the money-laundering scheme whereby workers are essentially forced to donate to the Democrat party if they want a taxpayer-funded public sector job. It's completely unfair and you guys would be up in arms about it if the situation was reversed.

C'mon Nate, you totally let the big corporations off the hook when you blame unionization for their outright abandonment of American workers. It was the availability of CHEAP (sometimes child) labor that led these corporations to shut down their plants here and move them overseas. Profit over people...pure and simple.

Yes, American labor costs have gone up. But so has the cost of food, cars, homes, health care, higher education and everything else that working people need ever higher salaries to afford.

The unions "destoryed" the middle-class? What by insisting that hard-working coal miners, steel and autoworkers, firefighters, snow plow drivers, teachers, etc., have decent wages, safe workplaces, healthcare for their families, a secure retirement and due process? Shame on those unions!

Some of these corporate bigwigs get annual bonuses of $30-$40 mil, but it's the guy busting his ass on the factory floor who should make sacrifices. Give me a break!

BTW, most Republicans hate ALL unions. It's just that public unions are a far eaiser targets for governors and others elected leaders. American companies in the private sector are notorious for hiring slick union-busting law firms to keep unions from organizing in the private sector, often using illegal and underhanded tactics.

[doclinkin]

And I continue to be confused how you conflate public unions with private unions. There is no Republican assault on private unions. Republicans have a problem with the money-laundering scheme whereby workers are essentially forced to donate to the Democrat party if they want a taxpayer-funded public sector job. It's completely unfair and you guys would be up in arms about it if the situation was reversed.

It's also untrue.

Union workers tend to vote for democratic causes because democrats tend to support union causes. That's only sensible.

But this is distinct from the same way corporations tend to funnel cash to republican campaigns (because they tend to support loopholes to increase profit margins for stakeholders) inasmuch as laws and policies prevent Union dues from being used towards political candidates. There are significant firewalls preventing it, subject to lawsuit and employee backlash.

The function of a Union in the political arena is simply to give a coherent voice to the interests of those workers, stating we represent x-number of people who will tend to vote in this direction. It's the equivalent of a trade organization, except that the American Dairy Council or whatever has no laws preventing it from using its funds to support a particular candidate directly. Union affiliated political action committees raise funds from voluntary donations same as anyone else.

And even in closed shop situations employees commonly have an opt-out provision whereby an employee may donate to a non-profit charity in lieu of paying union dues (due to religious restriction etc). A closed shop only states that since the wages and bonuses the union negotiates benefits all employees then all employees shall contribute in-kind. It's a standard contract clause that ensures the employer won't simply undercut all union employees by hiring someone more desperate who will do the job for a minimal amount with no health benefits etc. Union busting.

But this is contract law, which is about as libertarian as you get, considering that contract law is the only portion of our legal system where you get to write your own law provided both parties agree to it. And you want to put restrictions on that? Why should civil servants be treated as sub-americans, not afforded the same rights and protections as anyone else? Why should they be prevented from negotiating a mutually agreed contract with their employer? Why eliminate their ability for free speech, assembly, redress of grievances etc. ? Public employees already lack some basic rights of privacy with their salaries a matter of public record, public debate, subject to citizen vote.

Consider that, whatever job you do, imagine that every member of this message board whether they knew dxck about what you do and how you work, could click on a poll to decide whether they thought you ought to have a job, whether your job class was poorly done and ought to be eliminated, or in the case of teachers whether to double your workload. None of this determined by the marketplace, where you can at least work your tail off to make your section profitable, but instead simply by whether the guy down the street thinks the gummint takes too much in taxes, because some guy on the radio said so.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But we like roads and police officers and a generally educated populace who can make proper change at a cash register or read a warning sign that says we have a security system on our hard-earned stuff. If not to say administer the proper dosage of a medication or insert a foley catheter in a painless manner, or whatever.

A public sector union simply says, if you want x-job done in the service of the greater good the minimum cost of doing that business is: fair wage, health care, reasonable hours, clearly delineated hiring and firing practices, and a chance at retirement if a person dedicates a lifetime to serving the general public instead of working for a personal profit-making venture. If the job is deemed worth doing by that general public then funds have to be raised.

As for the argument that fair labor practices and Unions in general threaten our economic health:




The average thai worker with a factory job working for Nike earns $59 a month. Considered a decent wage.

China puts children as young as 7 years old to work in factories, and corrupt factories use slave labor to churn out cheap goods.

By their nature corporations seek profits above all. If they can insulate themselves by outsourcing their morals to a culture with fewer demands and different values for quality of life, well many will choose to do so. Doesn't make it right just because them is foreign peoples over there.

Seems to me the same way we're nominally constantly trying to promote and export our democratic values (at gunpoint or via tariff etc) we'd do well to export our Unions as well. Not to attempt to eliminate them at home as well as abroad. If everybody insisted on some basic human rights for all people who work for a living seems to me we wouldn't have quite the trade deficit etc. Though granted I doubt most americans want to fasten aglets to shoelaces and punch grommets into shoe leather anymore. Maybe. Unless it paid at least 12 bucks an hour.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I hate talking politics because I am very, very uninformed by choice and because they depress me.

I have an opinion on unions: they save folks from getting fired--so if you're slack or have a bad attitude you gotta love 'em. I know I did when I was a postal worker. Also, they drive wages up even when the quality of the work and the amount of work goes down. Your dues buys you some first-class negotiators who will tie a business up. OTOH if not for the unions, the Republicans would go the way of China or Thailand because they'd allow businesses to work you until you drop and to drop all your benefits, too.

My feeling is that unrighteousness stemming from greed has enabled American companies like Walmart to sponsor what goes on in sweat shops. American corporations would rather save a buck and outsource. Meanwhile, American workers are not as productive, hard-working, or conscientious as folks in other countries who'll do darn near anything just to survive.

I wish the average American corporation would be less greedy and that unions could be eliminated for fair labor oversight without overhead and union tactics that overtax the decent employers out there.

As it is, American corporations are killing the average worker and the average American worker is losing jobs overseas.

I've for a short time worked as coop student at a GM auto assembly and for a couple years as a postal clerk. I see unions as good and bad. They can address safety issues, work conditions, breaks, etc for the good--and they can save the worst of the worst employees from getting fired. Overall, I see companies in America are unprincipled and darn greedy. However, our workers really have it good compared to some in the rest of the world.

I believe that taking advantage of foreign labor is unrighteous and that in general America will fall because of it.

[hands11]

So, it's unions' fault that American workers can't compete with their Chinese counterparts who get paid two dollars and a bowl of rice a day? Ridiculous claptrap. The "giant sucking sound" of jobs was caused by NAFTA and trade normalization with China. And guess who was the loudest voice against both? Unions. Guess who are the only ones currently petitioning the WTO to stop unfair practices by China? Unions. NAFTA and other trade agreements killed the bargaining power of many private unions because global corporations could simply threaten to move jobs overseas. I could go on, but it's a lovely day outside...

But there was a lot of truth in Nates last post.

It leaves out some factors like what you just posted. It also left out the tax laws that allowed those moves to happen. And it leaves out the transfer of money we all just made to Wall Street so they can do their voo doo and help make their mega richer mega richerer so they can fund campaigns.

It also leaves out all these top exec and golden parachutes that are a huge cost.

No matter how you slice it, there is way to much money in the hands of way to few so there is no reason to support policies that make that situation even worse. ie. Bush Tax Cuts and Estate Tax Cuts. Those are clearly republican policies and massive deficit spending hand outs.

[hands11]

Nice post Doc.

[nate33]

I have an opinion on unions: they save folks from getting fired--so if you're slack or have a bad attitude you gotta love 'em. I know I did when I was a postal worker. Also, they drive wages up even when the quality of the work and the amount of work goes down. Your dues buys you some first-class negotiators who will tie a business up. OTOH if not for the unions, the Republicans would go the way of China or Thailand because they'd allow businesses to work you until you drop and to

Nice post, CCJ.

I would like someone to explain to me why private industry has de-unionized while public industry unions have continued to grow. Surely it's not because public industry has inhumane workplace conditions or unfairly low pay. You guys can't answer it because you know that the only answer is that public unions are screwing the taxpayers to insure superior pay and workplace conditions relative to their private counterparts.

It's an unbalanced system. You can't have unions with government-enforced monopolies. It's doomed to fail.

[doclinkin]

I would like someone to explain to me why private industry has de-unionized while public industry unions have continued to grow. Surely it's not because public industry has inhumane workplace conditions or unfairly low pay.

It's because you can't send government jobs overseas if you want to pay slave labor wages.

You don't want to call a guy in Sri Lanka to find ten children to pick up your trash when you forget to put it out on time. You pretty much have to rely some local working joe to wake up at 4AM to haul your hot stink in the summer and battle raccoons and rats. Which means you will have to pay for health insurance in case he gets hit by some overcaffeinated yuppie in his beemer zipping out of the driveway too quick. Whereas in India you could just pour tar over the kid and call him a speed bump in a neighborhood improvement project. Wouldn't even have to pay the kid much, just let him keep the garbage he finds.

[DCZards]

I have an opinion on unions: they save folks from getting fired--so if you're slack or have a bad attitude you gotta love 'em.

I see unions as good and bad. They can address safety issues, work conditions, breaks, etc for the good--and they can save the worst of the worst employees from getting fired.

What the union does is ensure that every one covered by the contract has the right to due process. It's the union's legal obligation to represent that dues paying member in a disciplinary or dismissal hearing. And, yes, sadly that sometimes means that a bad employee keeps his job if the hearing officer or arbitrator does not believe the employer has proven that the alleged bad employee should be fired or disciplined.

Keep in mind that it was not the union that hired the slacker in the first place. So, if management hires a bad employee, the onus is on them to make the case that that person should be fired.

[nate33]

I would like someone to explain to me why private industry has de-unionized while public industry unions have continued to grow. Surely it's not because public industry has inhumane workplace conditions or unfairly low pay.

It's because you can't send government jobs overseas if you want to pay slave labor wages.

You don't want to call a guy in Sri Lanka to find ten children to pick up your trash when you forget to put it out on time. You pretty much have to rely some local working joe to wake up at 4AM to haul your hot stink in the summer and battle raccoons and rats. Which means you will have to pay for health insurance in case he gets hit by some overcaffeinated yuppie in his beemer zipping out of the driveway too quick. Whereas in India you could just pour tar over the kid and call him a speed bump in a neighborhood improvement project. Wouldn't even have to pay the kid much, just let him keep the garbage he finds.

Okay. Then why doesn't Pfizer have unions? Why not AFLAC? Darden Restaurants? Apple? Microsoft? Google? Home Depot? How is it that those companies manage to have well-paid, satisfied workers yet the public education system needs unionized teachers?

If anything, the fact that teachers don't have to compete with Chinese slave wages is an argument AGAINST them having to unionize.

[DCZards]

The function of a Union in the political arena is simply to give a coherent voice to the interests of those workers, stating we represent x-number of people who will tend to vote in this direction. It's the equivalent of a trade organization, except that the American Dairy Council or whatever has no laws preventing it from using its funds to support a particular candidate directly. Union affiliated political action committees raise funds from voluntary donations same as anyone else.

And even in closed shop situations employees commonly have an opt-out provision whereby an employee may donate to a non-profit charity in lieu of paying union dues (due to religious restriction etc). A closed shop only states that since the wages and bonuses the union negotiates benefits all employees then all employees shall contribute in-kind. It's a standard contract clause that ensures the employer won't simply undercut all union employees by hiring someone more desperate who will do the job for a minimal amount with no health benefits etc. Union busting.

These are two of the most misunderstand aspects of unionization: the notion that all employees in a unionized workplace are forced to pay full union dues and the mistaken belief that union dues are used on political campaigns. Very few public sector unions have a "closed shop." So, in many states, a large percentage of public employees have opted not to join the union or pay dues...though they benefit from the raises, pensions, working conditions and other provisions contained in the contract.

And, as you point out here and I pointed out before, unions have political action funds that union members "voluntary" contribute to. The Federal Elections Commission has strict laws (that require unions to file a great deal of paperwork) against unions using dues money to support political candidates.

[DCZards]

Okay. Then why doesn't Pfizer have unions? Why not AFLAC? Darden Restaurants? Apple? Microsoft? Google? Home Depot? How is it that those companies manage to have well-paid, satisfied workers yet the public education system needs unionized teachers?

If anything, the fact that teachers don't have to compete with Chinese slave wages is an argument AGAINST them having to unionize.

From noted author and education researcher Diane Ravitch:
"The union is thus necessary as a protection for teachers against the arbitrary exercise of power by heavy-handed administrators. In our school systems, as in our city, state, and federal governments, we need checks and balances. Just as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government all act as checks on each other, we need checks and balances in our school systems. It is unwise to centralize all power in one person: the mayor. We need independent lay school boards to hire the superintendent and to hold open public discussions of administrative decisions, and we need independent teacher unions to assure that teachers' rights are protected, to sound the alarm against unwise policies, and to advocate on behalf of sound education policies, especially when administrators are non-educators."

Here's the link if you care to read more: http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals ... avitch.cfm

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. An employee at Pfizer, AFLAC, Apple, Microsoft, Google does not have to worry about a politically motivated management team coming in and firing them because of their political beliefs. You might as well ask why private, for-profit universities have a tenure system for their professors. (Hint: It's because of McCarthy and his politically motivated witchhunt for Communists.)

What this idiot in Wisconsin is doing is proving beyond any shadow of a doubt why unions are necessary in government.

[DCZards]

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. An employee at Pfizer, AFLAC, Apple, Microsoft, Google does not have to worry about a politically motivated management team coming in and firing them because of their political beliefs. You might as well ask why private, for-profit universities have a tenure system for their professors. (Hint: It's because of McCarthy and his politically motivated witchhunt for Communists.)

What this idiot in Wisconsin is doing is proving beyond any shadow of a doubt why unions are necessary in government.

Back in the day, many teacher unions were organized to, among other things, protect female teachers from being fired for getting pregnant...or for not getting it on with their male principal. Of course, we've come a long way since then...until idealougues like Walker and Ohio gov. Kasich showed up.

[barelyawake]

I'm trying to decide if I should spend hours sufficiently answering this question. And I'm leaning towards no, since it's a waste of time anyway. But, let me throw out some facts that others can craft into an argument:

1) Pfizer employees do belong to a union. In fact, their union have threatened to strike to gain wage increases. Pfizer is closing plants in America and heading overseas.
2) Apple outsources it's labor to China. And Chinese labor unions have joined forces with American labor unions to try to get a livable wage out of Apple.
3) Microsoft outsources it's labor to India.
4) The wealth disparity in America is the root of almost every economic problem America is faced with -- from the housing crisis, to the lack of savings, to the increasing dependence on government.
5) The wealth disparty in America is at historic levels (only the 1920's comes close in modern times). Everything Republicans have done since Reagan (from capital gains cuts, to tax cuts for the megarich, to corporate welfare, to "free trade," to the "death tax," to fighting the minimum wage, to fighting unions), has done nothing but increase the wealth gap.
6) The rich earn 2/3rds of their income from capital gains.
7) The sole reason Fox news et al have launched a war on unions is that they are the sole, major contributors to the Democratic party. The death of unions means the death of the Democratic party, because the majority of the wealthy corporations and associations give to the Republican party.
8) This is why you hear Fox news calling unions and groups like Acorn "socialism" -- when, in fact, unions are the only voice attempting to sustain a rapidly dwindling middle class.
9) The wealth is completely being drained out of the middle class at an exponential rate. Temporary workers are being hired in droves, so that employers don't have to pay benefits. These "great jobs" from various companies you list are either fiction or in short supply.
10) Nate once claimed that Walmart employees were "happy" without a union. Watch the Walmart documentary to see how wrong he is and what workers face when they attempt to unionize.
11) The reason you see many of the megarich giving up half their fortunes is because they understand the middle class is being drained of it's wealth at such a rate that America is collapsing as a result.
12) Economists and philosophers have stated over and over throughout history that capitalism eventually leads to socialism (and vice versa). The reason is because capitalism, left unchecked, naturally drains the wealth of the worker until the system collapses. Unions and a government "redistributing the wealth" is the only thing (outside of a dictator) that can stem the flow of wealth to the top 1%.
13) 400 people now own more wealth than half of the rest of America. That's why people can't pay their mortgages. That's why you have a housing crisis.
14) Check the tax rates, union membership, and wealth disparity in the 1950s, if you want to see why that's the era we should emulate.
15) For capitalism to work, you need a healthy middle class (that of course is spurred to succeed by a reasonable wealth gap, but not being bilked by an unreasonable one).
16) I have much more to say, but I'm going fishing.

[nate33]

Unionizing doesn't SOLVE the outsourcing of labor. It just makes companies go bankrupt or move overseas so that there's no jobs at all!

You can talk to you're blue in the face about wealth disparity, but it won't change the fact that it's not competitive to manufacture things in America. Until that changes, you won't get anywhere. Increasing labor costs is only going to lead to more unemployment.

And those 400 wealthy people are those in the investor class who are first in line at the teat of the Federal Reserve. That's a different problem from the standard wealth disparity issue between owner and employee. Corporate CEO's are wealthy, but they're not in the same stratosphere as the old money investor class. I'm completely on board with a massive overhaul of the way Wall Street functions. Those guys are crooks. But most of that is due to the unholy alliance between Wall Street and Washington DC. Free market capitalism isn't the problem. It's crony capitalism. Ending the Fed would be a good start.