Republican Support For Slave Labor In America?

[williatw]

Thanks for bringing in the unions as well. I forgot that bit as I was typing.

Minimim Wage is a bad idea. It had its point, just like unions, but it was short sighted and has become corrupted.
It should have been created, allowed for a market correction, then abolished. Just like unions.
Minumum Wage and Unions go hand in hand. Learn the history.

Union Membership in U.S. Fell to a 70-Year Low Last Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/busin ... .html?_r=0

The number of American workers in unions declined sharply last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, with the percentage slipping to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years.

The report found that the number of workers in unions fell by 612,000 last year to 14.7 million, an even larger decrease than the overall 417,000 decline in the total number of Americans working.

“It was a very tough year for unionized workers,” said John Schmitt, a senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “We’re seeing declines in the private sector, and we’re seeing declines in the public sector.”

The number of private sector workers in unions fell by 339,000, to 7.1 million, while the number of public sector union members fell by 273,000, to 7.6 million.

The percentage of private sector workers in unions fell to 6.9 percent, down from 7.2 percent, the lowest rate for private sector workers in more than a century, labor historians said.

In 2009, for the first time in American history, government employees accounted for more than half the nation’s union membership, but the percentage of government workers in unions fell to 36.2 percent last year, down from 37.4 percent the previous year.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the overall unionization rate last year was down from 12.3 percent in 2009 and 20.1 percent in 1983, when there were 17.7 million union members. The peak unionization rate was 35 percent during the mid-1950s, after a surge in unionization during the Great Depression and after World War II.

Union jobs a have been going the way of the dinosaur for decades, minimum wage or not.

[hanelyp]

A union is based on anything but free association when it gets to a position of saying "join us and pay dues or you're locked out of this job."

[choff]

The next step for the corrections system will be inmates serving time as household slaves and guinea pigs for big pharma, legal loopholes and economics will provide the framework, free enterprise at work.

[ladajo]

Unions are, at their core, based on free association. And while they generally become corrupted, their original purpose remains.

The only problem I see with your thought is that Unions are not "Free Association". And, they don't want to be. There is no money in that.

[ladajo]

A union is based on anything but free association when it gets to a position of saying "join us and pay dues or you're locked out of this job."

Yup. Which is another reason municipalities, states, and businesses are rejecting them.

[Teahive]

Unions are, at their core, based on free association. The core idea is that workers join forces to increase their bargaining power.

Sure they have been corrupted. Power corrupts. In government or in large corporations as well.

And of course there is money/value in free association, otherwise the whole free market idea wouldn't work.

[ladajo]

Originally it was "free association". But that went away shortly there after.
The backlash for this is now known as "Right to Work" laws.

You fundamentally can not consider Unions as "Free Association". There was no choice. That was a myth that died at birth.

In concept, you are fine, it is the execution that fails your comment.

[ladajo]

Your describing what you believe are the disadvantages of the miniumum wage. Okay accepting all of that for the sake of argument, what do you think the negative consequences would be of abolishing it? You want to compare one vs another? That's the reason why the peasants were always disarmed throughout history. Then you can let wages drop to subsistence levels for large percentage of the population. Let them riot, the police/army can just shoot the unarmed starving unwashed masses. You really want to try that social experiment with our armed poor? Yes I believe in the 2nd amemdment too, and also for the right to use deadly force to protect life, limb and property, but I am not eager to put that to the ultimate test if I can help it. The problems you outline seem better than the likely alternative. And I am not talking about a free lunch. I would replace welfare/foodstamps for the able bodied and just pay them minimum wage, find something useful they can do and pay them either private sector or gov.

Abolishing minimum wage would result in an adjustment to the economic market. It would be fine.
The part you are missing is that the predominant work force is no longer unskilled, and job providers must compete for talent. the primary means of competition is wages. The world you envision of the peasant masses swarming the castle has been gone for a while.

Market costs are primarily driven these days by labor costs. Labor costs that are spirally out of control due to unreasoned and misguided external interference. These labor costs are also the primary economic driver in whether jobs are exported or not. The US has paid the price economically for misguided Democratic efforts that have been steadily driving up the cost to do buisness, of which the major component has been the cost of an employee. This is why cheap labor markets now dominate the world economy. If you raise minimum wage, we will export more jobs, and suffer more as a result, not to mention see aggregate cost of living move up as well. Your eggs and bread will become more expensive.

What did your father earn for an annual salary? How did you live? What does one of your contemporaries earn for the same job/age as your father had today? How much different do they live?

You abolish minimum wage, more folks will have jobs. Cost of living will go down. Goods will become cheaper.
Now if you can tackle the Federal Medical and Social Welfare interference as well, that shoul dtake care of the rest of it.

"If you are unemployed and have a kid, you are set for life..."

[hanelyp]

The rule under which a workplace takes a vote and the whole either unionises or doesn't is tyranny of the majority. The card check rule pushed by democrats (who conspire with public employee unions to launder government money) would make it worse. I favor a rule where those who wish to join a union may do so, while those who prefer not to remain outside the union, as individuals not as a whole workplace.

[williatw]

Abolishing minimum wage would result in an adjustment to the economic market.
You abolish minimum wage, more folks will have jobs. Cost of living will go down. Goods will become cheaper.
Now if you can tackle the Federal Medical and Social Welfare interference as well, that shoul dtake care of the rest of it.

Why not start with Medicare and SS? That's where most of the wastage and our deficit and aggregate debt are anyway. Healthcare would doubtlessly be a lot cheaper if not for gov programs obviously pricing up the cost. And old people won't riot and burn cities down, they will just bitch and moan and die early saving us a ton. And what do we need Europe for anyway? Let's get out of NATO; Japan, Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Israel, Pakistan and all the rest can take care of themselves. That will lower government expenditures tremendously. Our militaries job is to protect the US period, screw the rest of them, nothing but parasites. If that causes war abroad TS, they can suck it up. Just develop enough SDI to protect our shores, screw the rest of them. Disarmed Europe will learn the Koran under the gentle tutelage of their Muslims overlords, not our problem. If the poor in America don't deserve anything from their more affluent fellow citizens, so be it, then those sorry POS abroad can take care of themselves too. If they value their freedom they can get off of their socialist butts and defend it...if not they don't deserve the gift of our protection. The Japanese, Australians, and the rest can just learn to say "yessah master" in Chinese. Works for me. That will lower taxes greatly and then we can abolish the minimum wage, oh and Medicaid, welfare & food stamps too. And end the war on drugs too....those who choose the route of addiction for whatever reason is voluntarily choosing to be human wastage, their choice not ours.

[ladajo]

What in the world are you babbling about?

You are all over the map.

I take it your rant means that you concede on minimum wage. You can no longer present a credible position. Got it.

[williatw]

What in the world are you babbling about?

You are all over the map.

I take it your rant means that you concede on minimum wage. You can no longer present a credible position. Got it.

I am not babbling, you want to get rid of minimum wage then let's get rid of all the rest causing the problem too. Bring it on, MW is just the tip of the iceberg anyway. The war on drugs is interference in the free market just as much as MW and Medicare/Medicaid are.

[ladajo]

I agree that Medicare and Medicaid are disrupting the natural free market for medical care. And even more so fundamental an issue is that with the advent of medical insurance, there is no such thing as a medical free market. Medicare and Medicaid are but manifestations of insurance disruption in a market.
Insurance is another falsity foisted on the masses to allow making money off them.
Insurance is inherantly gambling, and in gambling, the house always wins.
If you took away insurance, folks would live a lot smarter and not beyond their means. They would pay way more attention to risk management, instead of having an underlying sub-consocious "safety net" that wispers to them, all is good, someone else is going to pay for their mistakes.

Did you ever stop to think about how the cost dynamic would change for the medical industry without insurance? It would get real cheap real fast.
Some may try to argue that it would limit innovation and access. I say not true. It is a market, that is skewed to support a few both in earnings and access. It is not universal, nor will it be as long as it is externally burdened by the insured and liabilities for practitioners.

Your introduction of the war on drugs into this discussion is non-sequitur. Illicit drugs are not related to national fiscal policies nor the fleecing of the masses.
The points we are discussing focus to the concept of dynamics in chaotic cyclic systems. The more complex the system, the more likely it will resonate and cause (in effect) fats and thins in the loop of piping. Where sections accumulate disproportionate concentrations of stuff at the expense of all other sections. The problem we have in the national economy is that these fat concentrations are demanding more than the system has to offer. Think of it like your circulatory system. If to much blood goes elsewhere, pressure drops and you go into shock and die because your brain doesn't get enough. The brain in our discussion is the contributing members of the public mass. Pressure is falling fast. The economy is in shock. And more demands and artificial constraints and restraints are preventing it from self regulating back to safety.
So in short, yes, we need to reconsider all of it. You are right. Except the drugs lunacy, which does not belong in this conversation.

[Teahive]

Insurance (and I mean actual insurance) is a product of the free market and all about risk management.

Originally it was "free association". But that went away shortly there after.
The backlash for this is now known as "Right to Work" laws.

You fundamentally can not consider Unions as "Free Association". There was no choice. That was a myth that died at birth.

That's like saying, the myth that government could do any good died at birth. Yes, there might be rampant corruption and reinterpretation, but the original idea has not entirely disappeared.

[williatw]

I agree that Medicare and Medicaid are disrupting the natural free market for medical care. And even more so fundamental an issue is that with the advent of medical insurance, there is no such thing as a medical free market. Medicare and Medicaid are but manifestations of insurance disruption in a market.
Insurance is another falsity foisted on the masses to allow making money off them.
Insurance is inherantly gambling, and in gambling, the house always wins.
If you took away insurance, folks would live a lot smarter and not beyond their means. They would pay way more attention to risk management, instead of having an underlying sub-consocious "safety net" that wispers to them, all is good, someone else is going to pay for their mistakes.

Did you ever stop to think about how the cost dynamic would change for the medical industry without insurance? It would get real cheap real fast.
Some may try to argue that it would limit innovation and access. I say not true. It is a market, that is skewed to support a few both in earnings and access. It is not universal, nor will it be as long as it is externally burdened by the insured and liabilities for practitioners.

Your introduction of the war on drugs into this discussion is non-sequitur. Illicit drugs are not related to national fiscal policies nor the fleecing of the masses.
The points we are discussing focus to the concept of dynamics in chaotic cyclic systems. The more complex the system, the more likely it will resonate and cause (in effect) fats and thins in the loop of piping. Where sections accumulate disproportionate concentrations of stuff at the expense of all other sections. The problem we have in the national economy is that these fat concentrations are demanding more than the system has to offer. Think of it like your circulatory system. If to much blood goes elsewhere, pressure drops and you go into shock and die because your brain doesn't get enough. The brain in our discussion is the contributing members of the public mass. Pressure is falling fast. The economy is in shock. And more demands and artificial constraints and restraints are preventing it from self regulating back to safety.
So in short, yes, we need to reconsider all of it. You are right. Except the drugs lunacy, which does not belong in this conversation.

Well lord knows Ladajo we don't need another pro vs anti drug war thread, so I agree let's table that part of what I said, I stand by the rest though.