Someone in the Republican Party is obviously paying attention to the last decade’s statistics on union growth, which show the biggest gains among public employees. A recent wave of decisions against public workers in Midwest states is threatening to reverse that trend. Recently elected Republican governors in both Indiana and Missouri have rescinded previous measures that extended state employees collective… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (47)Page 1 of 1 pagesI heard on the news today. IT workers are sueing their employers for overtime pay.
Everyone for the last twenty years has marveled at the wonderful productivity gains in this country, but can’t seem to put their finger on where they are coming from.
Well, the answer is right in front of their faces. They just don’t want to SAY what it is, because it is in direct conflict with the so-called “magic” of the free market, and the pro-business policies of government during that same period.
Productivity gains have come at the expense of workers (the 40 hour workweek is long dead), stagnant and at times DECLINING wages, unpaid overtime, reduced benefits (which reduces cost), destruction of unions and an absolute tilting of the scales in favor of management and their corporate masters.
The pendulum has swung totally against PEOPLE. Government sold the public a bill of goods that reduced taxes on corporations would lead to wage growth, job creation and prosperity.
The American people were rewarded with job outsourcing, draconian job cuts, a systemic and chronic national unemployment rate of almost 6%, a shredded safety net, a pass off of coverage costs from the federal government to those unable to meet their simple daily expenses, and now to add insult to injury LOCAL governments turning their backs on their citizens.
THIS is the ownership society of the class warfare waging elitist Republicans. This is the AMERICA of the richest 1% of the population that bankrupted the nation the LAST time, with the same callous, free market rhetoric, policies and unfettered behavior of greed, callousness, and lack of moral committment to the country.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 24, 2005 at 8:33 AM I don’t care what some people say about immigrant workers, americans ARE the hardest working people in the world and more and more they are getting less and less of anything for all their trouble! How many americans take actual vacations anymore? We, as a people, MUST stop this isolating at home with TV thing and FUCKING ORGANIZE ourselves. THEY SURE ARE!
Posted by God Bless The UNION on Feb 24, 2005 at 2:49 PM Capital and businesses have more value to politicians than than do individuals - though human beings should come first and are the very basis of support for all of the above. When the amount of payroll paid by a company exceeds the amount of capital invested in the enterprise by stockholders - who is doing the work to keep the company open, should the continuing profits not be shared equally? Depends on how stupid advertising has made your family.(sic)
Posted by SH on Feb 24, 2005 at 8:38 PM Off Topic but we all need to keep our eyes out to
stop this insanity and help if we can.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148719,00.html
Posted by protect the innocent on Feb 25, 2005 at 1:53 PM If things get bad enough will people change their voting patterns and start to fight in order to regain the simple rights that are being stripped away. As it is almost everyone I know now works 50 hours a week and most are on salary. The White Collar sweatshop is a fact of life that people put themselves through so that perhaps one day they will make corporate. I have been obsessed with the labor movement as of late and have been trying to follow the drama that it is going through as we speak. I really think labor is one of the few forces that stand in the way of the Right’s goals. I am glad we have David Bacon to help articulate some of the issues at hand everyone should read his book Children of NAFTA to see what these types of neo-liberal policies foment. And if anyone wants, I have been so sick of these attacks I have been ranting on my own blog ocne a day www.citizenchris.org Please check it out and comment.
Posted by Chris A Snyder on Feb 26, 2005 at 5:40 PM I find it significant that a data=based, verifiable article based on a major change in labor practices gets only a handful of responses in a full week, even from ITT commentors, a group that could be fairly assumed to be generally interested in labor-related issues and (unless vocally anti-union) friendly to the idea that the potency of management needs to be balanced by a potent, determined, self-interested labor force. Unhappily, labor issues aren’t chic. The main audience for news that describes the rollback of worker rights and the shrinking opportunities for prosperity are those who have already been messed over by the “new world order.”
One possible response from labor would be to actively advertise their successes in a publicity campaign, some PDAs with pizzazz that show the good results of worker empowerment. Even with the past stains caused by organized crime’s attempts to co-opt the labor movement, enough clear information is out there to show the connections between intelligent, honorable labor organization and a generally improved quality of life, while at the same time not damaging the company’s profitablility upon which every employee depends for a job. Dress it up, put out a little production value, best foot forward and all that, just like when you’re trying to convince someone to hire you. Americans from all over would be able to identify with spots like that, because they’d have benefitted themselves or known others who have.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 27, 2005 at 8:27 AM If stupid people want to vote for stupid politicians who take stupid actions that negatively affect the basic rights of the people, than shame on the voters.
Posted by jeff morgan on Mar 1, 2005 at 1:10 PM From Kuya’s post above:
“to show the connections between intelligent, honorable labor organization and a generally improved quality of life,”
Improved quality of life for the worker at the expense of someone else’s quality of life. Let’s say collective bargaining yields an extra dollar to a worker. Does that dollar appear out of thin air? No. It comes either from the company out of profits or from the consumer out of higher prices, or a combination of the two. At any rate, one man’s gain (the laborer’s) is another’s loss. And the artificially higher wages cost jobs. Unions hurt productivity and overall standards of livings even if they might help the standards of livings of the individuals that are the benefactors of union jobs with wages that are artificially higher than the true market value wages of those jobs.
Posted by J Craig on Mar 1, 2005 at 3:22 PM May I suggest readers do a search on “situationists”. Do you really think that you are here and now to exchange labor for money?
That is not much of a life.
Posted by cygnid on Mar 1, 2005 at 4:59 PM J Craig, I have no problem with your “zero sum game” approach.
However, the “balance” that you seem to think it will give only happens in fully efficient markets.
American capitalism is NOT a fully efficient market. Corporations are not run in the most efficient ways. They are subject to cheating, greed, overemphasis on profits, lack of emphasis on safe products in the interest of “cost efficiency”.
Unions provided a balance for workers against a system which was and now again is tilted heavily against them. The American public has only maintained its standard of living due to the increase in two wage earner families and extended working hours (although THAT balance has been tilted against them with the recent OT legislation).
If government will not provide the regulations and limitation on companies to allow workers the opportunity to earn equal pay for equal work and to avoid exploitation by management, then unions must.
Our corporate CEOs are very good at preaching at the altar of the free market, but if you look at statistics you’ll see that CEO pay has far outpaced worker pay growth over the last 30 years, and you will also see that it in no way can be justified when measured against corporate profits. Also, the free market only works if corporations understand that they have not only an obligation to their shareholders, but to their workers and the greater society as a whole. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to have missed that class in business school.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 2, 2005 at 6:12 AM Dear Liberal AND Proud,
I’m not talking about “balance.” I’m talking about the writer’s assertion of “improved quality of life” as if unions provide this at no cost whatsoever. Well there is a cost: to the extent that that improvement comes in the form of an extra dollar for the same work, it is a zero sum game, and the laborer’s gain is someone else’s loss. I’m not talking about fairness here, such as who deserves that dollar more. I’m talking about acknowledging that the benefits Kuya refers to come at a cost.
“The American public has only maintained its standard of living due to the increase in two wage earner families and extended working hours (although THAT balance has been tilted against them with the recent OT legislation).”
Do statistics bear that out? Have REAL wages actually fallen such that an extra income has become necessary just to stand still? I think your point fails both statistically and anecdotally. I think it is obvious that people are enjoying a higher standard of living (and it has occurred during a period of union decline).
“Our corporate CEOs are very good at preaching at the altar of the free market, but if you look at statistics you’ll see that CEO pay has far outpaced worker pay growth over the last 30 years, and you will also see that it in no way can be justified when measured against corporate profits.”
You seem to suggest that the growth in CEO pay that you think is not justified by corporate profits is somehow in conflict with free market ideas. How exactly? There is no connection. It is entirely possible to have CEO pay outpace worker pay in a free market. Price reflects scarcity. Qualified CEO’s are quite a bit more scarce than labor. Nobody is forcing a corporation to offer a a CEO an exorbitant package. The corporation is dealing with the realities of the market for CEOs.
“Also, the free market only works if corporations understand that they have not only an obligation to their shareholders, but to their workers and the greater society as a whole.”
I understand someone such as yourself would think this. I disagree. I think there are plenty of corporations that focus primarily if not solely on the bottom line (their lip service about caring about people notwithstanding), and they’ve done quite well for not only their shareholders, but also their employees and society.
A strong economy, which increases the scarcity of labor, serves labor much better than artificially raising the price of labor with no corresponding increase in labor output. And we’ll have a strong economy by limiting excessive government spending and regulation, including legislative support for unions.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 2, 2005 at 11:59 AM Hello J Craig,
Actually, I would not assert an automatic improvement in quality of life, whether for the particular worker or for all workers, as the outcome of unionization. There are examples of corrupt or stupid union actions that have actually hurt workers (having witnessed a vivid example in the case of my late father-in-law) However, I also don’t think the zero-sum picture is sufficient. Workers and owners have a shared interest in company success and profitability, but I’m convinced that this will be better achieved by good workplace governance more so than simple cost-cutting in the stereotypical bludgeon-like fashion. For me, this means prioritizing workplace efficiency, energetic pursuit of markets, a judicious approach to hiring new workers, incentives linked to measurable contributions to company success, ethical standards within worker-owner relations, and the like.
However, I will grant that whether unionization is or is not truly beneficial relies upon verifiable data, rather than upon philosophical stance, which so often forms the basis of these sorts of debates. If the presence of a union can be shown to have harmed workers by directly scuttling a company’s ability to continue existing successfully, this should be acknowledged and the union actions that contributed to the situation specified. If, however, collective bargaining can be shown to have improved the lot of workers while business continues to be profitable, this should also be acknowledged. My main point above was that if unions can truthfully demonstrate their beneficial contributions, they should.
Advertizing, eh?
I’m very curious to see information about the quality of life in America during this time of union decline. I’m especially interested in regional variations within the broad national trend, as well as information linked to particular categories of business, because I think that would give a clearer picture. If any readers (whether yes-union or no-union) have links to such, please share them.
One last mention, J Craig, as important as it is to acknowledge aggregate trends, the “facts on the ground” experienced by workers and their families will clearly be the basis for their personal decisions about whether they want to organize or go it alone. A middle aged family breadwinner could theoretically just go out and get a new job, but for millions, the specter of “entry level” is really quite frightening, and for good reason. Obviously their own hard work and adaptability are essential, but when half your productive life has already passed and the teenagers need braces or illness in the family looms, it’s only logical that seeking some sort of security in exchange for years of work would be sought. It’s not surprising if non-rich non-owners would feel the need to offset the legal and monetary strength of the ownership sector with the only kind of strength they may have, that of numbers.
Thanks for contributions that seek to be intelligent and informative, much preferable to the name-calling that sometimes infects this site.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 2, 2005 at 7:00 PM It never ceases to amaze me how brainwashed the average US worker/citizen is. USA workers have less vacations, vastly inferior health care arrangements and less general rights including a lot lower minimum wage, than the ordinary working people of practically any other country in the OECD, yet they are quite happy to have their government preach to the rest of the world that it’s the US way or the highway for every-one else. Listen up guys-the US labour market and its arrangements are well undertsood by workers in most other advanced capitialist economies-and guess what-they are a byword for every thing people there fear about the race to the bottom. In other words-when our governments introduce changes that are designed to make the rest of us just like you-people go beserk. Oh and by the way J. Craig, I would be interested in your analysis of real unit labour productivity for the uS. It is actually quite low. The reason is that the price of labour is so cheap in the uS that there is no positive ongoing force requiring deepening of capital investment in production generally. That is not to say that US firms don’t invest in new technology, it is just that there is no constant pressure to seek productivity gains via high level approaches to capital investment and investment in employee training. The results are clear to any labour market economist who knows what they are doing. Secondly, the idea that the pay of CEOs is a function of market scarcity is a joke. it has little to do with the market-free or otherwise (and which in the US context is little more than rhetorical device) and has a a lot more to do with the fact the US exhibits the classical signs of a perfectly formed plutocracy-CEOs have managed to ‘capture’ a greater share of the surplus produced by laboour, by dint of their success in being able to creat leagl stratagems, amply assisted by a compliant and unrepresenatative polity, in ensuring that they are paid share options, and then by being able to do anything and everything to ensure the short term rise in the shares of the company or corproation. This is quite different from acting to ensure the long term sustainability of that coporation or company. Give me break. how can it be good or democratic for an ever increasing product which is the result of the effort of millions of working people, to be garnered more and more by an ever fewer number of people? The US is riding towards to social crisis in my view, and in the views of a number of other outside observers. Understand, the rest of the world knows a lot more about you than you know about the rest of the world. That is because the relatively popwerless always must know more about the powerful, than the powerful feel they need to know about their underlings!
Posted by jane doe on Mar 3, 2005 at 1:08 AM Dear Jane,
“Listen up guys-the US labour market and its arrangements are well undertsood by workers in most other advanced capitialist economies-and guess what-they are a byword for every thing people there fear about the race to the bottom.”
And yet they are mistaken, because our economy and our standard of living have done nothing but climb for virtually all of the last 25 years, which is the timeframe of the implementation of economic policies with which I’m confident you disagree. If the people don’t like it, they can vote for change. Yet they don’t. Hmmm. I wonder which it is? That the people are brainwashed? Or that you’re out of touch with the people?
“Secondly, the idea that the pay of CEOs is a function of market scarcity is a joke. it has little to do with the market-free or otherwise (and which in the US context is little more than rhetorical device) and has a a lot more to do with the fact the US exhibits the classical signs of a perfectly formed plutocracy-CEOs have managed to ‘capture’ a greater share of the surplus produced by laboour, by dint of their success in being able to creat leagl stratagems, amply assisted by a compliant and unrepresenatative polity, in ensuring that they are paid share options, and then by being able to do anything and everything to ensure the short term rise in the shares of the company or corproation.”
Interesting tangent. It has nothing to do with the fact that corporations hire and agree to CEO compensation of free will. That has everything to do with scarcity. Tell me, when a Board of Directors is seeking a new CEO, and they come down to the candidate they want, what is it that makes them offer him, say, $6 million (or 40,000 options) instead of , say, $5 million (or 30,000 options)? Is it charity? No. It’s what the market for that CEO will bear.
“This is quite different from acting to ensure the long term sustainability of that coporation or company.”
It may be. But that has nothing to do with the point which you purported to make: that there is no free market for CEOs. This comment of yours has to do with whether what you see as typical corporate behavior is good for the corporation in the long run.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 3, 2005 at 9:58 AM Just how much of the surplus do you think it appropriate that the managers of capital actually appropriate J. Craig? To what do you attribute the varying arrangements and shares that have applied across both time and across different polities in respect of different arrangements and shares applying bwteen labour and capital? Unless you hold the view (which you might) that the optimum arrangments and shares are those applying to the US today,and therefore any deviation from that arragnment is a deviation from the ‘ideal’, then it is appropriate that you have some explanation for changes that have occurred for example in the US across time, where the minimum wage now is less in real terms than it was 30 years ago,and between liberal capaital polities, such as the UK, Australia and the rest of the OECD. Take infant mortality rates for example. Just what is your explanation for the woeful performance of the US compared to countries that in your view are ‘poorer’ than the US? Your explanation so far as one can tell, is that ‘people vote’ for the current arrangements and therefore any criticism of the curent political economy of the US is a criticism of people’s preferences and tout court-elitist and patronising. Nice One. But try harder. The views peddled by public choice theorists and rhetorical free marketeers are being undone by actual exisitng reality-as we argue. Your explanation for the woeful state of the US labour market and the growing impoverishment of the both the working poor and those who are described in the US as the ‘middle class’, is simply rubbish. It is not elitist to notice that people frequently vote and make choices that are not in their objective long term interets. This is called lack of information as well as lack of interest. It is not patronising to note that all people, some of the time, are able to be engaged politically on matters and issues that have little to do with their long term interests and a lot to do with the matters that the political elites generally believe they should be interested in. It is a matter of incredulity to any person regarded as rational in the universe I inhabit, that the US political class believes that the current arrangements can be infinitiely sustained without any effectual resistance from the people who actually produce the wealth of the US. But lets not worry about them-they are getting what they deserve in your view-or rather as you put it-what they voted for. Hmmm. I wonder. Now what was that again about -"they really like it you know-No, really they do-and if you think that there is something wrong with the way the world is-it just shows your contempt for the choices the poor make”. Give me a break!
Posted by jane doe on Mar 3, 2005 at 8:03 PM J Craig,
If there is one thing the labor unions effectively did,it was to boost the overall wages of the working class.Higher wages result in an increase of consumption.The increase of consumption leads to greater production,to a point,with increased profits for the corporation.
If one has the income to buy a new car every five years instead of every ten,one will usually do so.Subsequently more cars are produced,twice as many,and the company makes that much more money.This is true for every form of consumable goods.Myopic CEO’s and sycophant Re-partisans have done their best to sabotage this.However what they have done to mildly offset this is create a credit culture in which people consume and,in theory pay for it later,leading to your supposed increase in the standard of living.By the way,have you compared wages to the price of goods,and further compared to wages and goods prices of twenty-five years ago?Apparently not.Even with the inflationary trends induced by the Nixon and Ford administrations(what was Ford’s campaign slogan in ‘76?Whip Inflation Now)the average worker did far better.What happened?Reagan,unnecessary and ineffective tax-cuts for the rich and a laissez-faire attitude toward business that would make Coolidge cringe.I do take heart in this knowledge:the irresponsible attitude of business will give us another Teddy Roosevelt:Hilary Clinton.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 4, 2005 at 8:49 AM Dear Jane,
“Just how much of the surplus do you think it appropriate that the managers of capital actually appropriate J. Craig?”
As much as possible given supply and demand for their product inputs (their costs) and the supply and demand for their products (prices). Labor is an input. If we want to increase the cost of labor, it should be via greater demand, which will be achieved by strong economic growth. Unions are one of many barriers that slow economic growth at the margin.
“To what do you attribute the varying arrangements and shares that have applied across both time and across different polities in respect of different arrangements and shares applying bwteen labour and capital?”
Different voter attitudes and different political systems.
“Unless you hold the view (which you might) that the optimum arrangments and shares are those applying to the US today,and therefore any deviation from that arragnment is a deviation from the ‘ideal’…”
I don’t think today is ideal. I think unions have too much power.
“where the minimum wage now is less in real terms than it was 30 years ago”
The minimum wage should be zero. It’s an obstacle to economic growth and job creation.
“Take infant mortality rates for example. Just what is your explanation for the woeful performance of the US compared to countries that in your view are ‘poorer’ than the US?”
I don’t know. Do you?
“Your explanation so far as one can tell, is that ‘people vote’ for the current arrangements and therefore any criticism of the curent political economy of the US is a criticism of people’s preferences and tout court-elitist and patronising. Nice One. But try harder.”
I never said your criticism of policy is a criticism of people’s preferences. I said your criticism of policy shows that you are out of touch with people’s preferences, as they don’t seem to be voting for the changes you think they should.
“Your explanation for the woeful state of the US labour market and the growing impoverishment of the both the working poor and those who are described in the US as the ‘middle class’, is simply rubbish.”
Not much substance there. How exactly is it rubbish?
“It is not elitist to notice that people frequently vote and make choices that are not in their objective long term interets.”
And naturally, you know their interests better than they do, huh?
“This is called lack of information as well as lack of interest.”
The voters desperately need your help. It’s comforting to know you are there for them. But I agree in a way. There are plenty of people that vote for left-of-center policies. In my opinion, they are making choices that are not in their long term best interests. So in a way, we’re quite similar.
“It is a matter of incredulity to any person regarded as rational in the universe I inhabit, that the US political class believes that the current arrangements can be infinitiely sustained without any effectual resistance from the people who actually produce the wealth of the US.”
The standard of living in this country has steadily increased. You seem excessively concerned that some have done better than others.
“and if you think that there is something wrong with the way the world is-it just shows your contempt for the choices the poor make”.
I didn’t say it shows your contempt for the choices the poor make. I said it shows you are out of touch.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 4, 2005 at 9:28 AM Dear Woods,
“If there is one thing the labor unions effectively did,it was to boost the overall wages of the working class.”To the extent that happened, it was at the expense of others. That extra income (let’s call it a dollar) is a dollar out of another’s pocket, be it the consumer or the business. The consumer could have used it for consumption as well. The business could have used it for investment. Business investment accounts for 1/3 of GDP.
“Higher wages result in an increase of consumption.”
You can’t say with any degree of certainty whatsoever that consumption is higher because labor got that extra dollar instead of the other parties getting it. Lower prices also contribute to greater consumption.
“The increase of consumption leads to greater production,to a point,with increased profits for the corporation.”
Sure, that will happen whether that increase in consumption is the result of higher union wages or lower prices.
“If one has the income to buy a new car every five years instead of every ten,one will usually do so.Subsequently more cars are produced,twice as many,and the company makes that much more money.”
Here’s an idea: let’s raise the minimum wage to $40 per hour, then everyone will have more money and be able to buy more cars! Taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the pocket of the other very well could be a wash when it comes to demand in the economy, but it’s clear it does nothing to contribute to supply (production). It leads to fewer jobs and less work, in other words, less supply.
It’s a myth that unions are good for the economy. Unions are good only for those that have union jobs (and in some cases, not even them), and at the expense of other low income workers and the economy in general.
“Even with the inflationary trends induced by the Nixon and Ford administrations(what was Ford’s campaign slogan in ‘76?Whip Inflation Now)the average worker did far better.”
Support that with some numbers and a source (use a non-partisan source while your’re at it).
“What happened?Reagan,unnecessary and ineffective tax-cuts for the rich and a laissez-faire attitude toward business that would make Coolidge cringe. I do take heart in this knowledge:the irresponsible attitude of business will give us another Teddy Roosevelt:Hilary Clinton.”
Ineffective? Please. We’ve had 25 years of virtually uninterrupted economic growth. Twenty five years of experience with the policies Reagan fostered has resulted in the biggest Republican majority in this country in three generations. Changing the gist of his tax policies is political death (you may have noticed that there is nary a Democrat in office that proposes raising tax rates to pre-Reagan levels). Keep wishing.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 4, 2005 at 9:55 AM Business Investment is ONE of THREE components of GDP...nice semantic play there.
The single greatest part of present GDP is GOVERNMENT SPENDING, primarily in the MILITARY.
The country doesn’t produce anything anymore.
Business investments have been primarily made in construction of overseas offices and factories...which add no jobs to the domestic economy. It is the race to the bottom. American companies have sold out their workers to force downward pressure on wages.
This REDUCES domestic consumption. The only reason the problem isn’t bigger than it is, is that Americans are consuming foreign products at low prices. But they are doing that at the expense of savings, and with increasing debt because wages have been stagnant for thirty years...look it up.
The other weak leg in our economy is Government spending is being subsidized by foreign governments and money managers continuing to finance our depth. But that leg is about to break too...with the continuing slide...soon to be collapse of the U.S. dollar.
Companies have not maintained their part of the social contract...sorry...yes, there is one...we don’t live in the jungle. They have received sign off on huge tax cuts, achieved record profits from those cuts, and rewarded the American worker with outsourced jobs and a declining standard of living.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 4, 2005 at 10:03 AM Dear Liberal AND Proud,
“Business Investment is ONE of THREE components of GDP...nice semantic play there.”
Not “one of three”; one-third.
“The country doesn’t produce anything anymore.”
Really? What are the 133 million of us with jobs doing then for our money?
“Business investments have been primarily made in construction of overseas offices and factories...which add no jobs to the domestic economy.”
You can’t back that up with numbers. There is tons of business investment here. (BTW did you see Feb’s jobs numbers released today? 262,000 new jobs.) Do you know what the necessary flip side to the trade deficit is? The capital surplus. Foreigners invest here because we have the strongest advanced economy on the planet. Why invest in slow growth Japan, Germany or France?
“wages have been stagnant for thirty years...look it up.”
Of course, you mean real wages, not nominal wages, cause nominal wages are much higher, but nominal wages don’t mean much. So I’ll assume you mean real wages. I don’t believe you. Back it up. And even if true, stagnant real wages would contradict your “declining standard of living” assertioin, which would include declining real wages, not stagnant real wages.
“The other weak leg in our economy is Government spending is being subsidized by foreign governments and money managers continuing to finance our depth.”
Do you think they do it out of charity? Or is it self interest? They cherish a trade surplus and will do whatever necessary to preserve it. Oh well. Our gain.
“But that leg is about to break too...with the continuing slide...soon to be collapse of the U.S. dollar.”
We’ll have to wait a year or two to see if your crystal ball works. Or do you predict this crash will happen sooner?
“Companies have not maintained their part of the social contract...sorry...yes, there is one”
Agreed. There is one. To follow the law. Nothing more.
“They have received sign off on huge tax cuts, achieved record profits from those cuts, and rewarded the American worker with outsourced jobs and a declining standard of living.”
They’ve rewarded the U.S. economy with outsourced jobs. Tell me: if we could get something for free, should we forgo that and still have someone in this country produce at a cost? Or should that person work on something else that we can’t get for free?
There are no statistics that support your assertion of a declining standard of living.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 4, 2005 at 10:44 AM Business investment accounts for 1/3 of GDP.
You make it sound like business investment has provided FULLY on third of total GDP.
That is flatly WRONG.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 4, 2005 at 12:45 PM J Craig,
Check the statistics presented by the Department of Labor regarding wages and the comparison of such with the prices of goods in 1970,1975,and 1980 to now.Yes,yes,I know it’s heresy not to believe that Carter was responsible
for all that inflation during his administration.After all, didn’t Rush LImbaugh and Sean Hannity say it was so?This so-called economic growth during the Reagan administration you talk about does not necesarily translate into wage increases for labor.Nor do corporate profits.Again,heresy. Rush and Sean said so.
As well,the dollars you talk about coming out of pockets come out CEO pockets.Quite often these people are not the founder or even related to them.They are hired to run the company for the benefit of the stockholders,not the employees.They also seem to forget that products are not made by stockholders,but by workers.Management,consequently,views its workers as an expense instead of an essential element.Not making the profit you want?Lay
off some workers.Fired because of greed.Sweet.Raising taxes has become such a sensitive issue for re-partisans.I wonder if they are aware that during the Eisenhower administration,a republican, the top end was over eighty percent.Furthermore,when have taxes for the working classes ever gone down?The tax rate for minimum wage is roughly twenty-five percent. Those who make wages near median saw only that pittance of a tax break Bush gave us in 2oo1.
Unfortunately,The Big Lie(support the rich over the poor and you’ll get rich too)is still out there.It’s the reverse of a pyramid scheme and the sociological equivalent of a bug zapper.By the way,Clinton did support raising the top end of the tax rate from thirty-one to thirty-nine percent.What was the re-party’s response?Class warfare(in the wrong direction)!Raising taxes has become political suicide because re-partisans have duped the middle and working classes into believing they will suffer the most.
Honestly,J Craig,unless you’re a CEO or a millionaire I don’t see how you can defend a party whose policy benefits benefits the elite over the general populace.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 4, 2005 at 1:24 PM Addendum:
Not only is the tax rate for minimum wage at roughly twenty-five percent,it’s been that way for at least the past twenty years.I forgot to mention that.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 4, 2005 at 1:28 PM Dear Liberal AND Proud,
You are correct. Business investment generally ranges from about 15% to 19% of GDP. My mistake.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 4, 2005 at 1:49 PM Dear Woods,
You tell me to look into real wage growth statistics, but I’m not asserting anything about them. You did:
Woods: “Even with the inflationary trends induced by the Nixon and Ford administrations(what was Ford’s campaign slogan in ‘76?Whip Inflation Now)the average worker did far better.”
J Craig: “Support that with some numbers and a source (use a non-partisan source while your’re at it).”
You should do the research. I think you’ll find that real wages are higher now.
“so-called economic growth during the Reagan administration”
“So called”? Do you think it didn’t happen?
“As well,the dollars you talk about coming out of pockets come out CEO pockets.Quite often these people are not the founder or even related to them.They are hired to run the company for the benefit of the stockholders,not the employees.They also seem to forget that products are not made by stockholders,but by workers.Management,consequently,views its workers as an expense instead of an essential element.Not making the profit you want?Lay
off some workers.Fired because of greed.Sweet.”You’re mixing the economic discussion (how that extra dollar going in one pocket instead of another affects aggregate demand) with a discussion of social justice.
“Raising taxes has become such a sensitive issue for re-partisans.”
No, it has become a litmus test. Unlike in the past, it is nearly impossible to be a successful Republican politician if you favor tax increases. That’s progress. Even many (most?) Democrats don’t support higher taxes, or not significantly higher anyway, nothing like pre-Reagan levels. That’s REALLY progress.
“I wonder if they are aware that during the Eisenhower administration,a republican, the top end was over eighty percent.”
Yes. The bad old days.
“Furthermore,when have taxes for the working classes ever gone down?”
Under GW Bush. Oh, I see you acknowledge that, thereby answering your own question.
“The tax rate for minimum wage is roughly twenty-five percent.”
How do you figure? Someone making the minimum wage most likely pays only payroll taxes and MAYBE income taxes in the 10% bracket.
“Unfortunately,The Big Lie(support the rich over the poor and you’ll get rich too)is still out there.”
That’s how you’d say it. I’d say “If you support lower taxes for everyone, the economy will do much better, and out standard of living will continue to rise.” It’s not rich versus poor. It’s higher tax rates versus lower tax rates. It’s more government versus less government.
“It’s the reverse of a pyramid scheme and the sociological equivalent of a bug zapper.”
Please explain those analogies.
“By the way,Clinton did support raising the top end of the tax rate from thirty-one to thirty-nine percent.What was the re-party’s response?Class warfare(in the wrong direction)!”
Hello? Who was targeting a particular class? Clinton.
“Raising taxes has become political suicide because re-partisans have duped the middle and working classes into believing they will suffer the most.”
Once again, that middle class just doesn’t know what’s good for it, huh?
“Honestly,J Craig,unless you’re a CEO or a millionaire I don’t see how you can defend a party whose policy benefits benefits the elite over the general populace.”
I support the party of prosperity, not the party of dependence.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 4, 2005 at 2:12 PM I am amazed a the majority of you writing in here that are so against unions or any other organization that help the working class get better benefits. I’m afraid it leads me to believe most of you are CEO’S or are trying for that type of position.
Let me ask you, do you think people should work over and above 40 hours a week and not get compensated for it? Do you think most working people could afford insurance if they were’ntin some kind of organization that could get better rates if done collectivelly by large groups.
When you talk about zero minimum wage, are you talking about going back to sweat shop type working conditions where an employee couldn’t complain about something job related for fear of losing their job. Do you believe in companies making very large profits and giving nothing back, on the backs of thir sweat shop type working conditions, If you do, you are the one who has lost perspctive about today and now not the poor working man or woman.
You seem to take the attitude that the average man or woman without a college degree has no right to expect a nice standard of living. In fact your ideas of how to divide up the pie make me sick you greedy assholes.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 6, 2005 at 2:26 AM “I am amazed a the majority of you writing in here that are so against unions or any other organization that help the working class get better benefits.”
I don’t think they help the working class get better benefits. I think they help some of the working class get better benefits at the expense of companies, consumers, others in the working class, and stronger economic growth.
“Let me ask you, do you think people should work over and above 40 hours a week and not get compensated for it?”
I think people should be able to enter into an employment agreement for whatever monetary compensation framework they want to. So, yes. When I work more than 40 hours per week, I don’t get paid overtime.
“Do you think most working people could afford insurance if they were’ntin some kind of organization that could get better rates if done collectivelly by large groups.”
I think we have little if any idea what the health care economy would be like if it weren’t dominated by employer sponsored plans.
“When you talk about zero minimum wage, are you talking about going back to sweat shop type working conditions where an employee couldn’t complain about something job related for fear of losing their job.”
No, I’m talking about someone being able to work for $4 per hour if that person wants to.
“Do you believe in companies making very large profits and giving nothing back, on the backs of thir sweat shop type working conditions,”
I believe in companies making as much profit as they legally can, giving nothing back (unless they choose otherwise) other than what they are legally required to give back, and doing it due in part to the production provided in their workplace by a voluntary workforce at whatever wage the employer and the employee can agree upon.
“You seem to take the attitude that the average man or woman without a college degree has no right to expect a nice standard of living.”
That is how it seems to you? I want the greatest and broadest prosperity we can achieve, but obviously you and I disagree on how to achieve that. I think the policies I support are the best for everybody, whether already wealthy or of minimal means and only entry level or anywhere in between.
“In fact your ideas of how to divide up the pie make me sick you greedy assholes.”
Why must you swear?
I don’t want to divide up the pie. I want everybody to earn their own piece of the pie by offering value in return for their piece.
Posted by J Craig on Mar 6, 2005 at 2:27 PM J Craig,
You asked for facts,I provided them,you ignored them.In fact,you seem to assert that statistics are invalid if they prove you wrong.
“Real wages"are wages adjusted for cost of living and inflation,the exact factor that the Dept.of Labor was measuring.You are using the term as an abstraction to confuse the argument-typical re-partisan methodology.I mentioned CEO’s because of your comments about the"extra dollar”.Who brought and mixed an economic discussion with social justice?
I’m amazed you don’t know what a pyramid scheme is or how it works.I’m not going to explain it.I shouldn’t have to.As a matter of fact,you obviously have net access,find out.As for bug zappers,please...if you can’t make the connection,don’t talk to me anymore.
Wake up.The rich are doing their best to get as much as they can for nothing with the re-partisans providing method and wonderland reasoning to justify it.One thing you didn’t criticize was The Big Lie,because it’s true.Furthermore,it’s the basis for Re-partisan member by those who don’t make six-figure salaries.By the way,my neighbor’s daughter is selling Girl Scout Cookies.They go well with Kool-aid.
To my other non-reactionary posters,
Is it not amazing how much time and effort we have wasted over the past few days with this J Craig character trying to provide some enlighten ment to his dim arguments?To no avail,I might add.Further still,having thought about past postings, in which his ilk bring in their naive,myopic,and simple-minded philosophy,I’m aghast at the prevalence of political and philosophical retardation. To say nothing of the expenditure to combat this form of mental illness known as conservativism.
It seems to me that the only way to let Re-partisans know the stove is hot is to let them get burned.Perhaps a few more plant closings,some more outsourcing,and a few other deprivations that hurt them directly might work.I’m their party will eventually provide if profit’s involved.Then again,Re-partisans will probably just blame the liberals,as usual.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 7, 2005 at 7:34 AM Oh wwoods,
You make my day. That idiot Craig thinks theres just a bunch of dim bulbs out here.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 7, 2005 at 9:20 AM Dear Woods,
“You asked for facts,I provided them,you ignored them.”
No you provided what you thought was a fact. Just because you say something doesn’t make it a fact. You should be able to support it. Seems you aren’t able.
“In fact,you seem to assert that statistics are invalid if they prove you wrong.”
What statistic are you under the impression you provided? You provided not one. All you said was this:
“Check the statistics presented by the Department of Labor regarding wages and the comparison of such with the prices of goods in 1970,1975,and 1980 to now.”
Are those the facts and statistics you think you provided? How about instead of telling me to find the facts, you actually present the facts you think you are presenting. When you look for them, you will find yourself wrong.
“You are using the term as an abstraction to confuse the argument-typical re-partisan methodology.”How exactly? Cut and paste what I said, and explain how I’m using it as an abstraction. (Once again: you can support what you assert, can’t you?)
“Who brought and mixed an economic discussion with social justice?”
You did. My comments had nothing whatsoever to do with social justice (as in who deserves the extra dollar). My comments were entirely about economics.
You said: “As well,the dollars you talk about coming out of pockets come out CEO pockets.Quite often these people are not the founder or even related to them.They are hired to run the company for the benefit of the stockholders,not the employees.They also seem to forget that products are not made by stockholders,but by workers.Management,consequently,views its workers as an expense instead of an essential element.Not making the profit you want?Lay off some workers.Fired because of greed.Sweet.”
You move from economics to social justice with your talk of whether or not the CEOs were the founders or related to them. You also move from economics to social justice when you talk about the workers making the product, not the shareholders.
“I’m amazed you don’t know what a pyramid scheme is or how it works.I’m not going to explain it.”
I know what a pyramid scheme is. I didn’t ask you to explain what a pyramid scheme is. I asked you to explain your remarkably weak analogy involving a pyramid scheme. You should be able to explain your own analogy, especially if it really is a good analogy.
“To my other non-reactionary posters”I’m not a reactionary. I’m a progressive (with a small p, not a capital p). See #1 below.
pro·gres·sive
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar. A progressive verb form.I actively favor or strive for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
“It seems to me that the only way to let Re-partisans know the stove is hot is to let them get burned.Perhaps a few more plant closings,some more outsourcing,and a few other deprivations that hurt them directly might work.”
There are now more jobs in the U.S. than at any time in history, and that will continue! Prosperity all around! The continuing death knell of the bad ideas of the left!
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:09 AM Dear Pat,
“You make my day. That idiot Craig thinks theres just a bunch of dim bulbs out here.”
I notice that other than these 17 words, you’re a bit tongue tied today.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:11 AM You know your comment about there being more jobs in America then ever is a real stupid remark and an insult to hourly workers of America. There may be jobs out there, but most of them are minimum wage jobs that will not support a family. Who needs jobs like that, that forces both parents to work and a least one of the to have a second job so they can have the American dream. You know to own there own home. This causes a trickle down effect. If one parent isn’t home to supervise the kids, kids get into trouble. In the 50’s and before we didn’t have so much teenage crime, the breadwinner only had to work one job and you could afford to buy a house. I’m talking about who we refer to as the middle class. You on the other hand must have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth. At least you idea of want life should be like makes you appear that way. The rest of us are use to reality.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 7, 2005 at 12:22 PM J Craig,
I told you where to look for the facts.Got to the Dept.of Labor’s website and look up the statistics yourself.I’m not doing everything for you.I am capable of providing the facts in their entirety on this posting if need be,however,I don’t feel like taking the time.Nor do I feel like explaining a pyramid scheme.If the comparison wasn’t apparent,too bad.
Regarding this discussion all you seem to be able to do is pick apart statements made by others and throw them back.Generate a counterargument instead of this slip-shod debating tactic.
I also didn’t call you,or imply you were,a reactionary.You’re not the only one posting,nor is this the only post.Look at the rest of the site.Curiously,I’ve never heard of a progressive who would support allowing business to sodomize the population.Regarding prosperity,prosperity for who?If big business has their way ,it won’t be its employees.Your’e right about one thing,though,Bush has helped create more jobs.That they all involve french fries is what irritates me.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 7, 2005 at 12:26 PM Dear Woods,
“I told you where to look for the facts.Got to the Dept.of Labor’s website and look up the statistics yourself.I’m not doing everything for you.I am capable of providing the facts in their entirety on this posting if need be,however,I don’t feel like taking the time.”
I didn’t make the assertion. You did. It’s your job to support it. If you don’t want to, then don’t, but don’t pretend it’s my responsibility to do your work.
“Nor do I feel like explaining a pyramid scheme.If the comparison wasn’t apparent,too bad.”
The comparison wasn’t apparent because the comparison reeked.
“I also didn’t call you,or imply you were,a reactionary.”
Sure you did. You were talking specifically to me (the post began with “J Craig"), then you turned to the others, the “non-reactionaries” you called them. Clearly, that is an implication that I am a reactionary. But I’m not. I’m a progressive.
“Curiously,I’ve never heard of a progressive who would support allowing business to sodomize the population.”
Neither have I. I certainly don’t support allowing business to sodomize the population.
“Regarding prosperity,prosperity for who?”
Maximizing the broadest and the deepest prosperity. Broad is not good enough if it is shallow. And deep is not good enough if it is narrow.
“If big business has their way ,it won’t be its employees.”
If big business has their way, the economy will continue to grow strongly, and if the economy continues to grow strongly, labor will be relatively more scarce, and the price of labor will rise. Business’s goal is not to beat down its employees. It’s goal is to maximize revenue and minimize costs. But they have to pay market prices. What you see as them beating down their employees is simply them paying the market for labor. If they weren’t paying that, if the employees had better options, why would they possibly not take them? My way makes labor more scarce and thereby increases the market price of labor.
“Your’e right about one thing,though,Bush has helped create more jobs.That they all involve french fries is what irritates me.”
Really? They all involve french fries? You’re being sarcastic, right?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 7, 2005 at 12:48 PM Dear Pat,
“There may be jobs out there, but most of them are minimum wage jobs that will not support a family.”
Really? I quickly found a report on the state of Washington. It looks like it was done some time in 2003 or 2004. (The link wouldn’t cut and paste, but if you want to find it in about 10 seconds, go to Google, search “minimum wage jobs as a share of all jobs”, and click on the second item that pops up, it is a PDF.)
On page 7 of this report, it says that in Washington state in 2001, only 3.5% of all jobs paid only minimum wage. The source is Washington State Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Wage Data, 2001.
I think there is little reason to believe that the number is significantly different for the nation as a whole. I think we can safely assume the number is less than 10%.
Is 10% “most”?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 7, 2005 at 1:02 PM Well, this is not the case where we live. Over the past 10 years we have lost Stetson Hat, Quaker Oats, Nestles, Medical Research Manufacturing. All big companys that paid well and had good benefits. Also a big plant that made Lee Jeans and other well known labels on clothing. That’s a big hit for a city of 75,ooo people. Whats left is food service jobs and clerking in stores.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 7, 2005 at 2:23 PM Dear Pat,
The circumstances you describe are unfortunate. I hope things improve where you are.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:05 PM J Craig,
Are you simply going to quote back what others have said and then deny it,or are you going to generate an argument?So far,the only point you’ve made,a blunt one at that,is extra wages come out of someone else’s pocket.While making this point you also seem not to understand that higher wages mean more buying power,productivity increases,and that when wages for one group increase,wages will increase for others,skilled and unskilled.This is not some made up bit of information or some twising of facts to win an argument,It’s recnet history.
Instead,what we has been created in this country is a stunted economy,brought about by re-partisan economics,in which profit over people is the motivator.Lacking is the simple thought that poor people don’t buy that much.Oh well,they’ll buy some.Compared to Reagan and Bush Jr. younger,Dr.Frankenstein was an amateur.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 8, 2005 at 7:13 AM Dear Woods,
“Are you simply going to quote back what others have said and then deny it,or are you going to generate an argument?”
I’ll write whatever I want.
“While making this point you also seem not to understand that higher wages mean more buying power...”
Productivity-induced wage growth means more aggregate buying power. Union-generated artificially higher wages do nothing for aggregate buying power; it is simply a transfer from one pocket to another.
As such, the rest of your comment…
“,productivity increases,and that when wages for one group increase,wages will increase for others,skilled and unskilled.”
...is incorrect and demonstrates your misunderstanding of basic economics. Productivity doesn’t increase because an amount of money is transferred from one group to another. Productivity growth is the cause for wage growth (except in artificial wage growth scenarios such as union pay), not the result of wage growth.
“This is not some made up bit of information or some twising of facts to win an argument,It’s recnet history.”
Please, apply it to recent history.
“Instead,what we has been created in this country is a stunted economy,brought about by re-partisan economics,in which profit over people is the motivator.”
Do you mean the “stunted” economy that has grown at about 4% since Bush’s cuts were fully implemented in 2003? Yes, that “stunted” economy in fact is a result of Republican economics.
“Lacking is the simple thought that poor people don’t buy that much.”
What third world country are you living in? Vietnam? This country isn’t exactly swamped with poor people. Productivity growth is what drives the standard of living. Simply transferring money from one pocket to another (which is what happens under artificially high union wages) doesn’t lead to productivity growth. The people that benefit from such transfers will gain. But due to the job-growth-stunting effect of artificially high wages, other workers, businesses, consumers, and the economy in general suffer. There is gain only for those that benefit from the artificially higher wages, which is more than offset by the cost to all the others and the economy in general.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 8, 2005 at 11:37 AM Write whatever you want and continue to defend the greedy.Despite your pontificating and half-witted theory,you clearly know very little about modern history or economics.You seem to know almost nothing of the effect wages have,and have had,upon our economy.I can’t tell you what to read,especially if you’re to lazy to hit a website.I’m bored with your Ayn Rand falderol.Keep believing The Big Lie.Hopefully,you won’t be downsized by re-party economic policy.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 8, 2005 at 12:10 PM Dear Woods,
Why don’t you tell me specifically how my theories are half-witted? Can you?
You are unable to separate economics from your emotional desire for what you see as greater social and economic justice. Good economics and your ideas for greater social and economic justice ARE mutually exclusive.
By the way, in your sad attempt to use a big-boy word, you misspelled folderol.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 8, 2005 at 1:11 PM Pardon my spelling error.I didn’t have my dictionary handy.Then again,right-wingers attack details when they can’t win arguments.
Speaking of which,I want to know when you are going to generate or substantiate some kind of argument.All you have done is pontificate without proof,refute without counter-argument,and gainsay.Your alleged arguments are becoming tedious and sound more and more like talk-radio drivel.If you can’t explain how supporting economic policies that benefit management over labor is eocnomically beneficial to our country,other than merely asserting that it is,you’re wasting my time.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 9, 2005 at 11:34 AM Dear Woods,
“If you can’t explain how supporting economic policies that benefit management over labor is eocnomically beneficial to our country”
My policies support strong economic growth, which provides benefits to both management and labor. You see them as supporting management over labor. I can’t stop you from seeing what you think you see. Management and labor are on equal footing when they freely bargain in the market without union-supporting legislation to throw off this natural balance. It is not I that supports policies that give one or other the advantage; it is you in your support for stronger labor legislation.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 9, 2005 at 1:43 PM Craig I think your wrong about management and labor being on equal footing if there weren’t any unions. You should really take a refresher course on why we have unions in the first place.
Management would not give labor a fair shake if it wasn’t for unions. You would not see safe working conditions if it wasn’t for unions. And people would still have poor living standards if it wasn’t for unions. You wouln’t have group medical insurance at prices you can almost pay for if it wasn’t for unions. How do you think all these benefits came about, it certainly wasn’t out of the kindness of managements hearts.
Like I said before, you must come from the priviledged rich of our society, because no middle class American is going to agree with your philosophy about management and labor getting along on even footing. No hourly worker wants to work more then 40 hours a week without being compensated for it.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 10, 2005 at 4:04 PM Dear Pat,
“You would not see safe working conditions if it wasn’t for unions.”
No chance politicians wouldn’t pass such laws without unions, huh? I disagree.
You’re thinking back to a time when labor was much less scarce than it is today, so labor couldn’t get a decent deal. Not so today, and there’s hardly evidence that the progress is due to the existence of unions. There’s more evidence that it is due to capital creation and productivity growth.
“And people would still have poor living standards if it wasn’t for unions.”
Again, you’re comparing the two time periods and mistakenly attributing all that is good now to the presence of unions.
“You wouln’t have group medical insurance at prices you can almost pay for if it wasn’t for unions.”
Wrong. I’m not in a union. Why do I have health care coverage. You’re telling me I owe thanks to a union?
“How do you think all these benefits came about, it certainly wasn’t out of the kindness of managements hearts.”
Tax law is the reason we have an employer based healthcare system, not unions. And health and other benefits are part of competitive bidding for workers in the workplace right along with monetary benefits. They’re not offering it out of charity. They’re offering it cause they know they have to in order to keep you. And if they don’t offer it, they’re probably dealing with a skill level at which they don’t have to offer it, cause if they did have to but their total pay and benefits package was coming up short, they’d have no workers or a lower quality worker, as the worker would go where the better deal is.
I’m always surprised how much unions mistakenly get credit for.
“Like I said before, you must come from the priviledged rich of our society, because no middle class American is going to agree with your philosophy about management and labor getting along on even footing.”
I think you’d find plenty of middle class and upper middle class Republicans that feel the same way I do. I’ve found them.
“No hourly worker wants to work more then 40 hours a week without being compensated for it.”
Why would they want to? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I’ve said?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 4:45 PM Talk about revisionism.Where are you getting these so called facts?You called my Dept. of Labor reference propaganda,of course,I’m sure you didn’t check it,yet you pull out these Bizarro World facts and ideas.It was unions,namely their influence,which motivted politicians.It is the threat of walk-out or lack of production that makes big business give what they do,but no more than what will placate.
You still are doing nothing more than refuting without counter-argument.I might add you’ve also provided no proof,other than your saying so,that your assertions are true.
By the way,it’s BECAUSE not CAUSE,and when comparing items,or an item to a rate or measurement,it’s THAN not THEN.Why not learn how to use those little boy words instead of spouting empty rhetoric and baseless assertions.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 18, 2005 at 8:49 AM Hi wwoods,
We have to overlook Craig, either he’s to young, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth or didn’t come up through a couple of generations of union people. If he understood how hard union people have worked and sacrificed to achieve the standard of living we have today, he would shut his d--- mouth. He’s just full of hot air and of himself.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Mar 18, 2005 at 2:12 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Bacon
- The Midwest Union Rollback
Newly elected Republican governors nix public workers' collective bargaining rights - Lockout KO’d
San Francisco hotel workers triumph with help from city-by-city support - Grocery Workers Go to War Over Healthcare
- Workers Unite
Unions around the world oppose the drive for war - No Quiero Taco Bell!
David Bacon interviews Lucas Benitez of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. - Test Unrest
California teachers are leading a backlash against high-stakes exams.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
