This is topic Walmart Strike in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059220

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Walmart is so terrible, I hope this succeeds and they unionize.

I shop at the Walmart near my home, but I'm Canadian and as best as I understand it Walmart has a number of restrictions in order to operate in Quebec.

Link

Also doing some googling to confirm my gut feeling, doesn't look likely [Frown] I don't make enough money to shop anywhere else D:

From SA:

quote:

quote:

You mean she can buy back her family, because in My Dream America wasteful government-sponsored foster care has been completely privatized!

Why stop there? Let's combine the idea with Rothbard's sociopathy for the ultimate in market efficiency.

She can give her children up to me for foster care (her desperation sets the market value of those kids really low). I, then, will rent out her children (and any other fosters I can find) as child laborers. I can undercut adult labor, put more families out of jobs, buy their children from them, and cycle it endlessly upward into more and more wealth. With good timing, a little luck, and enough starting capital, I could make a localized monopoly on children.

I shed a single, eagle-shaped tear as I imagine what a glorious market-controlled world we could live in.

Hear hear!
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

ey guys, do as the truck drivers syndicate does in Argentina. Unionize up and picket the [bleep] out of their supply access roads. Works every time. I know I criticize our mafia-like unions and their extremely violent and thuggish methods, but you can't deny their effectiveness, and in Walmart's case I think it's more than justified. Just gather a large amount of people, burn some tires, and wait. Make sure to threaten the temporarily hired seasonal workers and anyone who tries to go to work, block them, threaten them with sticks if they try to enter (sadly, I'm 100% serious, this is the only way to actually picket successfully). Enjoy a good barbecue while you're at it.

Also from SA, this is something unironic that I completely agree with, American unions need to grow a pair; the problem of course is the militerized police who'll tear gas the protesters. Its sad how America despite being a first world democracy is little different from a third world dictatorship in this regard (echoing another poster there).
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing Third-World-esque about police who prevent an armed crowd from beating workers who are trying to do their jobs.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights, the corporations do everything in their power to prevent unionization; people who bring it up are blacklisted and fired on the spot. If the corporation can hire scabs and starve out the unionizers how are they supposed to effectively bargain for their rights? The scabs need to be prevented from working is absolute requirement in a system where the government takes the side of the corporations against the workers.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights
Now there's an interesting argument. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"?

In a somewhat similar vein, one might say that there is no recourse other than blowing up clinics to resolve the issue of fetus rights; no recourse other than lynching to resolve the issue of white people's rights; no recourse other than terrorism to resolve the issue of Islamic rights...

In short, what you are actually saying is that you think the issue of workers' rights is so important that you're willing to resort to violence to get your way, or at any rate you're willing to have other people resort to violence for you. Very well, I'm not going to say that violence is always wrong, but then how can you complain if the other side also uses violence? "It's a great pity the other side has more people with guns and truncheons than we do". It sure is! That's the problem with resorting to violence, somehow it doesn't actually respect the justice of anyone's cause.

Your real problem with the American police is that they're not on your side, and they are able to beat up the people who are. If they were using tear gas on protesters outside an abortion clinic you'd be full of the rule of law and the need for peaceful protesting, not riots.

Additionally, the excuse that Canadian Walmart has to make concessions to operate in Quebec is just ridiculous. It's like saying that the American Nazi party isn't allowed to use stormtroopers in the streets, so it's ok to vote for them even though of course you don't support those evil brownshirts in Germany. If you think Walmart is so evil that violence is justified, then grow a dang pair and boycott the bastards; your actual money is going to the same people you affect to hate so much.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
Don't forget, corporations are people to.

But, where do you draw the line? The bakers' union just caused 18,500 to lose their jobs.

Walmart brought tons of money to the eastern shore of Maryland. It brought other businesses with it.

Federal and state labor laws are all workers need.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
That situation is because the bakery in question was already bankrupt and wasn't honoring pension promises.

The other problem with labour laws is that there not always enforced, for instance in know this one person who had his hands burned because Walmart didn't provide gloves which under OHSA they are supposed to, but whistleblowers are fired and blacklisted.

Those laws are also a result of the work of unions who organized and helped elect politicians (during the New Deal era specifically comes to mind) so it isn't correct to say unions are unneeded. There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

I'm sure Lyrhawn probably has a lot to add to the topic.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
That situation is because the bakery in question was already bankrupt and wasn't honoring pension promises.

The other problem with labour laws is that there not always enforced, for instance in know this one person who had his hands burned because Walmart didn't provide gloves which under OHSA they are supposed to, but whistleblowers are fired and blacklisted.

Those laws are also a result of the work of unions who organized and helped elect politicians (during the New Deal era specifically comes to mind) so it isn't correct to say unions are unneeded. There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

I'm sure Lyrhawn probably has a lot to add to the topic.

I guess I just have a different personal experience. I am bitter about the powerless teacher union I am in, that still takes $30 a pay check, $28 if I am not in the union.

I worked at a hotel without a union about 10 years ago. I was a whistle blower. Called the labor board anonymously, and they fixed the problem. Cost the local corporation thousands in past wages.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

Do you have data to back up this claim?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
There's a strong correlation with a lower standard of living in Right to Work states where unions are relatively powerless compared to states with strong unions.

Do you have data to back up this claim?
Yup. Not that you ever researched this yourself.

quote:

But now take a look at the differences from another angle. There is a significant difference in median family incomes in states that are RTW versus those that are not. Using a three-years-average median family income for 2009 to 2009, RTW states have a median family income of $46,919, non RTW it is $53,418, a difference of $6,499 or 13.9 percent per year. Testing for the impact of RTW on median family incomes, the relationship is -0.4. This means there is statistical evidence that RTW is associated with lower incomes: RTW depresses wages. Finally, the percentage of the state's work force unionized demonstrates a positive 0.47 correlation with incomes: Unions increase household incomes.

link
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Blayne, you need to speak more precisely.

Do you see how your data doesnt actually back up the claim that you made? You left a key term ("standard of living") undefined, and then when challenged you decided that the obvious definition was median family income.

But that's total hogwash. Nevermind some of the other shoddy science involved in that quote, this one is big enough to make the entire quote utterly irrelevant.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I looked up "standard of living" as I wasn't sure what Dan's objection was and income is a part of it, but it's a huge list...

quote:
Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area. The standard of living includes factors such as income, quality and availability of employment, class disparity, poverty rate, quality and affordability of housing, hours of work required to purchase necessities, gross domestic product, inflation rate, number of vacation days per year, affordable (or free) access to quality healthcare, quality and availability of education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, national economic growth, economic and political stability, political and religious freedom, environmental quality, climate and safety. The standard of living is closely related to quality of life.[1]
So while I get that "household income" ≠ "standard of living" in and of itself, I'd have to say (as long as Blayne's source holds water and I'm not commenting either way on that one) that the general idea he is putting out is valid.

I cut my teeth politically on Atlas Shrugged and had a lot of strong opinions about how the government was crushing poor business, the back bone of the nation, as a young man. But as I have grown up I have seen the major corporations laying off thousands of workers, jacking their prices and reporting record profits, with multi million dollar bonus for CEOs, and I've got to say that the working class joe needs an avenue to protect their interests and that's what unions do. Of course unions can also do a lot of harm...but what coin only has one side?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
I'm not denying that median income is a factor re: standard of living. But taken in isolation it's worse than meaningless.

At bare minimum, Blayne would need to supply median income compared to cost of living. Even then he'd be neglecting too much, but there would at least be some context given to the income figures. Without it, the incomes are totally useless.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Also the cognitive dissonance on display in this quote is pretty funny.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Walmart is so terrible, I hope this succeeds and they unionize.
. . .
I don't make enough money to shop anywhere else D:

Edit: just to spell it out... On some level, you clearly recognize the immense value that Walmart provides (especially to the poor and disadvantaged!), yet you're also able to ignore that fact and demonize the very thing that is improving your life.

Amazing.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?

Don't let frustration with imprecision get you carried away, Dan. *If* WM brings such huge benefits to people-a case you haven't made at all, only asserted-they don't exactly get moral credit for it, given that it's incidental.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?


And that is different from countless other corporations, how?
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I would have expected you to have a principled problem with right-to-work laws, Dan, since they restrict which sorts of arms-length contracts employers can offer their employees.

Maybe not where public sector unions are concerned, since I can see the argument that they enjoy unfair advantages due to the nature of their employer. But for private sector unions, I can't see what the laissez-faire argument for right-to-work is even supposed to be.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dan hates unions more than he loves freedom. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Heh.

I certainly don't think that RTW states are ideal, no. You're right, to an extent (despite what Tom said).

But even private sector unions also get special legal protections that don't make much sense to me. For example: Why should it be illegal to fire striking workers?

I don't have any problem at all with the basic concept of unions, though. Free people associating to try and increase their bargaining power is fine.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?

Don't let frustration with imprecision get you carried away, Dan. *If* WM brings such huge benefits to people-a case you haven't made at all, only asserted-they don't exactly get moral credit for it, given that it's incidental.

Heh, no, my point was that Blayne made the argument for those benefits already. He can't afford to shop anywhere else! That's a compelling argument, all by itself, that Walmart provides a distinct and significant advantage to him. And other poor people like him.

I also think Walmart provides a valuable service to its employees, yes, but you're absolutely right that I didn't make a case for that one. I was just amused that Blayne saw huge value in shopping at Walmart while claiming they were terrible. It's a common example of cognitive dissonance.

Sorry if all this still wasn't clear post-edit.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The immense value it brings to the poor and disadvantaged-like its employees? Or those who work in factories to build what they sell?

Don't let frustration with imprecision get you carried away, Dan. *If* WM brings such huge benefits to people-a case you haven't made at all, only asserted-they don't exactly get moral credit for it, given that it's incidental.

Heh, no, my point was that Blayne made the argument for those benefits already. He can't afford to shop anywhere else! That's a compelling argument, all by itself, that Walmart provides a distinct and significant advantage to him. And other poor people like him.

I also think Walmart provides a valuable service to its employees, yes, but you're absolutely right that I didn't make a case for that one. I was just amused that Blayne saw huge value in shopping at Walmart while claiming they were terrible. It's a common example of cognitive dissonance.

Sorry if all this still wasn't clear post-edit.

I noticed that dissonance too Dan, I was just too tired at the time to describe it.

People often forget that for all their ranting and railing against Walmart, those people still shop there...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't shop there. [Smile] But, then, I think the proliferation of cheap, disposable, completely unnecessary goods -- the kind of stuff Blayne buys at WalMart -- is a bad thing, not something to be lauded.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
How do you know Blayne's shopping habits Tom? That's awfully presumptuous.

I food shop at Wal-Mart because their food is less expensive...for the exact same items at big brand super markets...and the convenience of having a large selection of nonfood goods at cheap prices.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Technically Maxi is even cheaper than Walmart, but that's an extra minute of walking; I personally consider the price difference to be a sort of "Exercise Tax" though it depends, although primarily I only buy food. The only non food purchase I made was for a 10$ rice cooker (because my sushi rice kept getting burnt in a pot) and a pair of new boxers and a shirt.

I only moved to the area *recently*, while in Quebec Walmart doesn't seem to be innately better behaved it *is* however under closer scrutiny and isn't quite the same store as it is State side.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't shop there. [Smile] But, then, I think the proliferation of cheap, disposable, completely unnecessary goods -- the kind of stuff Blayne buys at WalMart -- is a bad thing, not something to be lauded.

I shop there for the groceries. So much cheaper than going to any other grocery store.

What goods would those be? The clothes are the only thing i can think of that would fit your description?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Wow. In my experience, WalMart is not noticeably cheaper, grocery-wise. I'm sorry that's the case for you.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Technically Maxi is even cheaper than Walmart, but that's an extra minute of walking;
You hate wal-mart enough to call america a third-world-dictatorship-esque condition for its workers here in present circumstances, but your slacktivism ends literally at the 'inconvenience' of having to walk literally an, a, one, (1), extra minute to a place that has cheaper food.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I mean seriously, good lord

at long last, I have no words

quote:
But for private sector unions, I can't see what the laissez-faire argument for right-to-work is even supposed to be.
"Me no like union. Me pretend union is unfair collusion. Me try very hard and squint eyes till look right."

because free market


/edit

quote:
Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.
working at walmart is for unwashed poors
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
But for private sector unions, I can't see what the laissez-faire argument for right-to-work is even supposed to be.
"Me no like union. Me pretend union is unfair collusion. Me try very hard and squint eyes till look right."

because free market

Yeah, I guess that's one laissez-faire argument.

Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.

As Destineer alluded to, it's not a principled position. It's still, at base, a market restriction. But they see it as less corrosive than following the prevailing law of the land (the NLRA) re: unions.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.
And they would genuinely propose that this is a laissez-faire argument, as opposed to (at best) minarchist argument?

Like it is literally an argument wherein laissez-faire is asserting how a rule diametrically opposed to free association is okay, because free association for the workers is less important than using them as a sacrificial lamb to fight the terrible horrible woes inflicted on our poor sweet corporations and waltons by the NLRA.

I guess you're right that it isn't a principled position, unless the principle is how easily the dominant thinktanked goals of free-market types can be bought by the uppers
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
But for private sector unions, I can't see what the laissez-faire argument for right-to-work is even supposed to be.

Do you mean: How does right-to-work fit into the framework of laissez-faire economics?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Another might be that a state doesn't have the power to repeal the NLRA, and they see RTW as the only viable way to circumvent it.
And they would genuinely propose that this is a laissez-faire argument, as opposed to (at best) minarchist argument?

Like it is literally an argument wherein laissez-faire is asserting how a rule diametrically opposed to free association is okay, because free association for the workers is less important than using them as a sacrificial lamb to fight the terrible horrible woes inflicted on our poor sweet corporations and waltons by the NLRA.

I guess you're right that it isn't a principled position, unless the principle is how easily the dominant thinktanked goals of free-market types can be bought by the uppers

Huh? The NLRA includes lots of blatant restrictions of freedom, and they all revolve around unions. Like the aforementioned illegality of firing your workers when they refuse to work.

The concept of RTW has a core flaw in that it still restricts freedom, just in a different way, but anyone pretending that RTW is more restrictive of freedom is going to need to give a coherent argument to that effect. Not just some insipid mockery.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Anyone pretending that NLRA is more restrictive of freedom is going to need to give a coherent argument to that effect. Not just some insipid mockery.

I suppose it will rely on traducing the issue to how the NLRA is a greater restriction of freedom if we oversimplify the issue to the point where both "total number of unionized and potentially unionized workers" and "corporations and private large-scale employers" are made to be equivalent value-wise, at a 1 for 1 level.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Sure, that might work.

Also, I didn't say the NLRA was more restrictive, Sam. I suspect it is, but I'm open to the possibility that it's not.

But you and Tom seem utterly convinced, so I figured some sort of actual argument to that effect might be in order. If not... okay then. I guess we're done?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Also, I didn't say the NLRA was more restrictive, Sam. I suspect it is, but I'm open to the possibility that it's not.
In what respect?

Certainly there are abuses and inefficiencies in any system, and unions are no exception-and as their power grows in a given industry, so does the likelihood of trouble it seems to me.

But I think there's a reason that nationwide, particularly throughout the south, the biggest and most meaningful support for various RTW legislation and attitudes has come not from widespread public support but much more top-down sorts of ideals. Or are we to believe that industrialists and corporations support such things out of a sense of universal fairness and the freedoms of everyone-rather than their own bottom line?
 
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights
Now there's an interesting argument. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"?

In a somewhat similar vein, one might say that there is no recourse other than blowing up clinics to resolve the issue of fetus rights; no recourse other than lynching to resolve the issue of white people's rights; no recourse other than terrorism to resolve the issue of Islamic rights...

In short, what you are actually saying is that you think the issue of workers' rights is so important that you're willing to resort to violence to get your way, or at any rate you're willing to have other people resort to violence for you. Very well, I'm not going to say that violence is always wrong, but then how can you complain if the other side also uses violence? "It's a great pity the other side has more people with guns and truncheons than we do". It sure is! That's the problem with resorting to violence, somehow it doesn't actually respect the justice of anyone's cause.

Your real problem with the American police is that they're not on your side, and they are able to beat up the people who are. If they were using tear gas on protesters outside an abortion clinic you'd be full of the rule of law and the need for peaceful protesting, not riots.

.

I've got no problem biting the bullet with any of this. Sometimes heads do need knocking.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Also, I didn't say the NLRA was more restrictive, Sam. I suspect it is, but I'm open to the possibility that it's not.

Then "pretend" doesn't need to be in your post, otherwise your language frames it as something people only believe but is not true.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
additional eaten detail: the right to work restrictions represent the greater restriction on free association because of the staggering quantity of the workforce it affects directly or indirectly in terms of employment compacts and the overall social power or bargaining capacity that various levels of the workplace have or can employ. Without fail, the right to free association means unions, unions, unions. Only through differential pressures which "conveniently" inspire some to protect employer rights at the specific expense of the right to free association among the labor force, can you dampen unions. Without a strictly anti-union governmental apparatus taking away specific forms of free association, you have unions. Doesn't matter if you get rid of the wagner act (the ostensible pro-free-markets argument in favor of RTW states), as once the prohibitions on specific closed-shop union methods are gone, you just get more and more unions in more and more industries. Libertarians in favor of RTW states are baldly hypocritical OR completely ignorant of the disconnect between a right to free association and RTW laws. Or they're not really libertarian, they're just playing the squint-real-hard game.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
It's sort of funny to see you appropriating the "free association" term to argue against RTW, Sam.

Just to clarify, though: RTW states don't ban unions, they ban contracts between unions and employers that would compel all employees to join the union. You can make the argument that this in effect bans unions, but that only seems to make sense if you're saying unions aren't broadly appealing enough to sustain membership without that compulsion... which seems to run counter to the whole "right to free association means unions, unions, unions" thing.

Now, admittedly, unions and corporations (if you cut away all the special privileges they both get, most of which I certainly do object to on principle) ought to have the right to make whatever contracts they want, and thus hire/not hire people based on those contracts. But then, they also ought to have the right to fire people for not working, so... shrug.

Yes, RTW laws get in the way of certain kinds of contracts between unions and corporations. So in a substantially more free market, I can see the argument that RTW laws are hindering free association.

But given that we don't have a free market, and that we're going to have lots of laws and restrictions on this stuff for a long time to come... I'll admit that it seems more valuable to me to do what we can to promote free association for individuals, even if that restricts some free association options for collectives. I care less about collectives than I do individuals.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
There is no other recourse however to resolve the issue of workers rights

quote:
I shop at the Walmart near my home
These two things have something to do with each other.


quote:
Walmart has a number of restrictions in order to operate in Quebec.
Walmart is a corporation. One that you choose freely to patronize and support financially.


quote:
but I'm Canadian
Not really relevant.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Unions are a natural free market solution to corporations attempting to suppress wages; in an economic climate where you would support the existence of monopolies so to must one support unions as their natural predator; with the state not interfering with either (since unions are traditionally suppressed by the state).

quote:

You hate wal-mart enough to call america a third-world-dictatorship-esque condition for its workers here in present circumstances, but your slacktivism ends literally at the 'inconvenience' of having to walk literally an, a, one, (1), extra minute to a place that has cheaper food.

I live in a predominantly social democratic province, your labour woes aren't entirely applicable in Quebec. That and I'm not a hipster, I do have the individual right and obligation to act in my rational best interest, sometimes that means walker a little further and sometimes it doesn't simple as that, my personal life is not your business.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Blayne, you are the one who put it out there-and no one had to go dredging other threads or memories of threads to apply it either, you mentioned these things *here* in a discussion where you've spoken about the morality of Wal Mart and the possibility of unionized violence. If one or more of these factors was missing, I think you might be right, but in this context it seems pretty fair game.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Particularly since one of the reasons Wal-Mart HAS goods so cheaply is they pay their people so little.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I'm critical of large exploitive corporations in general, and generally don't subscribe to the "voting with your wallet" arguments as fallacious. Walmart just happens to be topical; however what you say isn't true, they could afford to pay their employees a living wage and it would only increase prices by 1%.

Regarding standard of living argument a lengthy article of how higher wages would improve the economy and bring hundreds of thousands out of poverty
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Why on Earth would the vote with wallet argument be fallacious? The entire existence of Wal Mart hinges on people purchasing goods and services from them-whatever they may do that anyone finds objectionable is possible because of that.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
He probably means, for the same reason that your vote doesn't make a difference. And I'd say he's probably correct. If one person's purchases made a difference in the big scheme of things, I'd feel a very strong obligation to become a vegetarian.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Particularly since one of the reasons Wal-Mart HAS goods so cheaply is they pay their people so little.

Are they paid that much less than Kmart or target?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I do have the individual right and obligation to act in my rational best interest, sometimes that means walker a little further and sometimes it doesn't simple as that, my personal life is not your business.
Blayne, you talked about your personal life, offered it directly relevant to the subject of your thread, and then you just want to close it off and say "hey, these things I have been talking about here in this thread aren't your busines." What do we do, ask that it be stricken from the record? Or are you inventing a special rule that says "I get to talk about things, and then decide the only ways in which they are allowed to be used"

Nope!

So, moving on.

"Rational best interest" is not contested at all. The issue is that you are beyond parody. If you weren't going to use wal-mart as such an example of a terrible company and a locus for calling this american labor conflict akin to a third world dictatorship in any regard, who would really care that you still shop at wal-mart? Pretty much nobody. Especially not me. I am perfectly happy with people shopping at wal-mart if they feel they need to.

But you call wal-mart 'terrible' and offer pronouncements against it, and then you contrast and hypocrifinate™ your internet righteousness with 'Well I still shop there because this place with cheaper food is a minute further away.'

Oh, wah. It is the clearest possible way to demonstrate that your slactivism about wal-mart is not something you give any effort literally even a minute to beyond just using the issue to pontificate socioeconomic righteousness in text on the internet. Dan is right to point out your hypocrisy. You're like this guy I know who complains about illegal immigrants and wants them all deported, then hires an illegal to mow his lawn because he's literally just a dollar twenty cheaper an hour. Because rational self-interest, right?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
It's sort of funny to see you appropriating the "free association" term to argue against RTW, Sam.

It's not funny! It's direly appropriate. RTW laws expressly prohibit forms of free association. What unions would be allowed to do in the absence of RTW laws are not issues of free association.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
He probably means, for the same reason that your vote doesn't make a difference. And I'd say he's probably correct. If one person's purchases made a difference in the big scheme of things, I'd feel a very strong obligation to become a vegetarian.

Something like that, it has slightly more to do with that consumer habits are cultural and ethics will never swing a larger majority of them except in a few edge cases (like say if Walmart suddenly supported terrorism).

For example Walmart in Japan doesn't do very well, this has nothing to do with its history or ethics but everything to do with the baffling Japanese propensity towards preferring expensive trendy goods because they are trendy expensive crap over the cheaper alternative; Germany as the oldest social democratic european welfare state has abysmal situation for Walmart who a) find out that there's already a dedicated store for most of what they sell and b) already mom&pop stores that sell cheap stuff and c) that ze Germans don't take too kindly to Walmart's anti union rhetoric. (Chinese Walmart apparently sells expensive stuff, irony?)

Its not that I believe one person doesn't make a difference, only that whatever difference they make is entirely offset by the millions of others who likely do not have better options than Walmart. Its better to enact social change through unions who are better positioned to remain informed and react to exploitation than the average person.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Libertarian view on Right To Work laws.

Which truly defines freedom, the laws making it illegal to force employees to join a union in order to hold a specific job, or a lack of those laws.

At first glance it would be simple. The employee who has the choice between joining a union or not joining a union to hold a specific job has more freedom.

Yet it is a basic Libertarian value that people have the right to limit their own freedoms. You will not be forced to choose the most freedom filled option. So a restaurant should have the choice of serving all people, or limiting there serving options to those of any specific group--even limiting it to specific racial groups if they desire. The freedom of the patron to eat where ever they wish is less important than the freedom of the server to serve only those people they wish.

So it is that a Libertarian can and must contractually limit their freedoms in every day business agreements. It would be nice to work only the hours one feels like it, but when you sign an employment contract you agree to work the hours the employer wishes you to.

Are unions any less made up of a group of free individuals as businesses are? Of course not. So if a union is negotiating a contract with a business it is as free to set limits and requirements, including the requirement that all employees hired by that business must join the union. It could just as easily not put in that requirement. Obviously this would be against the union's interests.

So "Right To Work" laws are not Libertarian.

Try it this way, I feel that I should be free to play golf at any golf course I wish. The neighboring country club only allows members and guests to use their grounds. Would a law requiring all golf courses be open to the general public be acceptable? Its not outlawing Country Clubs. I mean, if what the Country Club offers, besides the golf, is important to you, then you would continue to pay the $30,000 a year membership fees.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Its not that I believe one person doesn't make a difference, only that whatever difference they make is entirely offset by the millions of others who likely do not have better options than Walmart. Its better to enact social change through unions who are better positioned to remain informed and react to exploitation than the average person.
Well since it's an either/or situation...
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
As for me, since I am making an effort to lose weight going the extra minute is something I'll probably do, but its not really relevant as it has no bearing on the argument.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.

If Wal-Mart were doing anything illegal, they would have already been sued. It doesn't matter how much money a company has, they have to follow State and Federal employment law.

I've seen some of the complaints of workers, and the answer to their problems really comes down to contacting their representatives in Congress and asking for them to push better labor laws. That's about it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
But wouldn't that result in Big Gov't Geraine? Wouldn't it be preferable to rely on the laissez faire free market solution which is the entirely natural establishment of unions?

And Walmart *has* been sued, but the legal system makes it difficult to bring class action law suits successfully forward.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Heh.

I certainly don't think that RTW states are ideal, no. You're right, to an extent (despite what Tom said).

But even private sector unions also get special legal protections that don't make much sense to me. For example: Why should it be illegal to fire striking workers?

I don't have any problem at all with the basic concept of unions, though. Free people associating to try and increase their bargaining power is fine.

The only real negotiating tool that workers have to offer is their labor. If they can't use their labor as a wedge in negotiations, they there's really nothing to negotiate, and there's no point in having a union. Don't like the union? Fire everyone who is a part of it. They want to strike to put some backbone in their demands? Fire them. They mouth off in the media? Fire them.

Labor is all they have, and the strike is the only tool they really have to leverage their only thing of value in negotiations. Without it, it'd still be 1935 as far as labor standards and pay are concerned.

Also, it's amusing to me to see the NLRA described in such harsh terms. I've spent a lot of time researching subsequent labor laws in the 40s and 50s (and somewhat in the 70s) that gutted the NLRA in favor of big business. Corporations won't be happy until they get labor law back to where it was in the 1880s. In other words, they won't be happy until all labor laws are repealed.

Unions are not awesome 100% of the time, but without them, workers would be in a great deal larger world of hurt.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.

If Wal-Mart were doing anything illegal, they would have already been sued. It doesn't matter how much money a company has, they have to follow State and Federal employment law.

I've seen some of the complaints of workers, and the answer to their problems really comes down to contacting their representatives in Congress and asking for them to push better labor laws. That's about it.

Many unfair labor practices complaints have to be made first to the NLRB before they can be referred to the court system for compensation, damages, criminality, etc. At least, those at the federal level, which is the only protection some workers have in states with very low levels of protection at the state level.

The NLRB, in addition to being woefully understaffed and overworked with its caseload, was also functionally inactive for a couple years since Senate Republicans refused to confirm any of Obama's nominees. Work began again earlier this year after Obama filled three seats with recess appointments, over the loud objections of the GOP. Those appointments end soon however, and it seems just as unlikely that the GOP will ratify them or any one else Obama puts forward. Essentially, this renders the Board powerless, which renders a great deal of federal worker protections moot as well.

In practice, many workers have worked around this by seeking protections under different aspects of labor law, but that has led in many cases to a seriously convoluted mess, and a backlog of cases that could take years to fix.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Furthermore, by that reasoning, nothing illegal is going on anywhere, because everyone has to follow state, local, and federal law. They would be sued if they didn't!
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The only real negotiating tool that workers have to offer is their labor. If they can't use their labor as a wedge in negotiations, they there's really nothing to negotiate, and there's no point in having a union. Don't like the union? Fire everyone who is a part of it. They want to strike to put some backbone in their demands? Fire them. They mouth off in the media? Fire them.

I may be misunderstanding you, so, to clarify: This is meant to be an argument for why you shouldn't be allowed to fire striking workers, right? If so, I have two thoughts.

One: They can still use their labor as a negotiating tool, it's just that the strength of that tool will actually be tied to the value of their labor. So, a union of striking doctors or computer programmers would be harder and more costly to replace than a union of striking plumbers, which would be harder and more costly to replace than a union of striking retail cashiers.

I think this is a good thing, because I don't see the point in artificially inflating the value of low-skill/interchangeable jobs. If the union members are sufficiently costly to replace, firing will be a less desirable option than simply giving in to their demands.

Two: I think that keeping the firing option on the table is the only way to create win/win scenarios where everyone gets the best possible outcome that they can achieve without exerting force on someone else.

Here's a simple concrete example of what I mean: Joe and his comrades are striking because he thinks his current job at X Industries pays too little. But X Industries doesn't want to pay any higher wages for the job Joe and his fellows are doing. They also think they can hire other people to do the job for the price they want to pay, to the level of competence that they need.

So, they fire Joe and the striking workers. They hire Fred and some other folks who were unemployed and are happy to make the wages that Joe and his other union members were not happy with.

So Fred and his peers get paid a wage they're happy with, X Industries pays a wage they're willing to pay, and Joe doesn't have to work at a job that pays him less than he is worth. Since he's higher value than that, he can now go on to find a job that pays him properly for his value. Or, failing that, he can re-evaluate how much he thinks his labor is worth, and change his preferences.

I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.

It's fundamentally the same way that it would be irrational for me to want Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars... just writ much, much smaller, and couched in sufficiently mild language that it seems more "reasonable."

But just saying "I want someone else to give me X thing, and if they don't, I lose," is an irrational position. You need to build your own life and take responsibility for it. If you want something you can't get on your own, you need to allow for the possibility that you will fail to find anyone to help you.

In light of that, by striking, Joe was creating two possible outcomes for himself, with either outcome preferable to his current situation. Those outcomes were: get better conditions at this job, or find a new job.

He might have preferred the former the most, but we don't always get our top preference, especially when that relies on someone else.

If he actually had only one preference, "Get better conditions at this job," then his preference wasn't qualitatively different than "Get Bill Gates to give me all his money." Fundamentally, in both cases, one is putting all of their hope in their ability to persuade someone else to do what they want. If they fail, then the only two options remaining become misery and force. That's a terrible way to live.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I largely agree with your position and reasons here, Dan, other things being equal (which they aren't at present). I would have no problem weakening the power of "labor" if our system had a healthier safety net in place and making use of the safety net wasn't so badly stigmatized.

But I find this idea puzzling:

quote:
I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.

It's fundamentally the same way that it would be irrational for me to want Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars... just writ much, much smaller, and couched in sufficiently mild language that it seems more "reasonable."

What do you mean by "want"? The way I normally understand that term is synonymous with "desire," and I normally think that I desire X if
I am happier if X happens than I am if X doesn't happen.

By that definition, I absolutely do want Gates to give me $1 billion. You seem to have another definition of wanting in mind. What is it?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.
But...this use of 'force' (it's not, neither when an employer refuses to grant a raise or when a union threatens to strike) is precisely what you're interested in defending, when the employer is doing it: the employer doesn't wish to raise wages, or doesn't wish to maintain a worker who after decades costs more than a junior worker, and so fires them-an attempt to gain more money for himself, by precisely the same means as the union attempts to use-economic pressure, applied in a different way.

All of this of course is before we even touch on less straightforward but sometimes more important matters, such as workplace conditions, safety, etc.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.

If Wal-Mart were doing anything illegal, they would have already been sued. It doesn't matter how much money a company has, they have to follow State and Federal employment law.

I've seen some of the complaints of workers, and the answer to their problems really comes down to contacting their representatives in Congress and asking for them to push better labor laws. That's about it.

Many unfair labor practices complaints have to be made first to the NLRB before they can be referred to the court system for compensation, damages, criminality, etc. At least, those at the federal level, which is the only protection some workers have in states with very low levels of protection at the state level.

The NLRB, in addition to being woefully understaffed and overworked with its caseload, was also functionally inactive for a couple years since Senate Republicans refused to confirm any of Obama's nominees. Work began again earlier this year after Obama filled three seats with recess appointments, over the loud objections of the GOP. Those appointments end soon however, and it seems just as unlikely that the GOP will ratify them or any one else Obama puts forward. Essentially, this renders the Board powerless, which renders a great deal of federal worker protections moot as well.

In practice, many workers have worked around this by seeking protections under different aspects of labor law, but that has led in many cases to a seriously convoluted mess, and a backlog of cases that could take years to fix.

What specific negative labor practices would you accuse Wal-Mart of committing on a regular basis? Paying minimum wage? Putting too many people on part time status? Predatory pricing?

I'm curious.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
And a lot of these mechanisms are in place because things like changing careers and moving to another town are typically really hard for people. If we were better at these things, I would have an easier time seeing things in a way more like Dan does.

Although I think bringing up the "use of force" in these cases is almost always unhelpful. The things other people do create incentives or disincentives for us to act in certain ways, and when these incentives militate strongly against doing something we would otherwise want to do, we feel like we are "forced" not to do it. There's nothing more to it than that. Thus when libertarian types suggest that true freedom is freedom from aggression, the only grain of truth to that statement lies in the fact that we don't want our actions to have bad consequences, and sometimes other people can arrange for our actions to have very bad consequences.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
My understanding was that much of what Walmart is accused of doing is a violation of the law and in some cases, people have been able to sue Walmart for lost wages and stuff over the retaliations. However, ability to do that is limited to people who don't live paycheck to paycheck.

Some rich, connected guy should get a job at Walmart so as to secretly film how bad it is for employees and then sue the crap out of them.

Sam, if you're listening, you should totally do this.

If Wal-Mart were doing anything illegal, they would have already been sued. It doesn't matter how much money a company has, they have to follow State and Federal employment law.

I've seen some of the complaints of workers, and the answer to their problems really comes down to contacting their representatives in Congress and asking for them to push better labor laws. That's about it.

Many unfair labor practices complaints have to be made first to the NLRB before they can be referred to the court system for compensation, damages, criminality, etc. At least, those at the federal level, which is the only protection some workers have in states with very low levels of protection at the state level.

The NLRB, in addition to being woefully understaffed and overworked with its caseload, was also functionally inactive for a couple years since Senate Republicans refused to confirm any of Obama's nominees. Work began again earlier this year after Obama filled three seats with recess appointments, over the loud objections of the GOP. Those appointments end soon however, and it seems just as unlikely that the GOP will ratify them or any one else Obama puts forward. Essentially, this renders the Board powerless, which renders a great deal of federal worker protections moot as well.

In practice, many workers have worked around this by seeking protections under different aspects of labor law, but that has led in many cases to a seriously convoluted mess, and a backlog of cases that could take years to fix.

What specific negative labor practices would you accuse Wal-Mart of committing on a regular basis? Paying minimum wage? Putting too many people on part time status? Predatory pricing?

I'm curious.

I'm not accusing them of anything. I'm speaking generally about a broken enforcement mechanism.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The only real negotiating tool that workers have to offer is their labor. If they can't use their labor as a wedge in negotiations, they there's really nothing to negotiate, and there's no point in having a union. Don't like the union? Fire everyone who is a part of it. They want to strike to put some backbone in their demands? Fire them. They mouth off in the media? Fire them.

I may be misunderstanding you, so, to clarify: This is meant to be an argument for why you shouldn't be allowed to fire striking workers, right? If so, I have two thoughts.

One: They can still use their labor as a negotiating tool, it's just that the strength of that tool will actually be tied to the value of their labor. So, a union of striking doctors or computer programmers would be harder and more costly to replace than a union of striking plumbers, which would be harder and more costly to replace than a union of striking retail cashiers.

I think this is a good thing, because I don't see the point in artificially inflating the value of low-skill/interchangeable jobs. If the union members are sufficiently costly to replace, firing will be a less desirable option than simply giving in to their demands.

Two: I think that keeping the firing option on the table is the only way to create win/win scenarios where everyone gets the best possible outcome that they can achieve without exerting force on someone else.

Here's a simple concrete example of what I mean: Joe and his comrades are striking because he thinks his current job at X Industries pays too little. But X Industries doesn't want to pay any higher wages for the job Joe and his fellows are doing. They also think they can hire other people to do the job for the price they want to pay, to the level of competence that they need.

So, they fire Joe and the striking workers. They hire Fred and some other folks who were unemployed and are happy to make the wages that Joe and his other union members were not happy with.

So Fred and his peers get paid a wage they're happy with, X Industries pays a wage they're willing to pay, and Joe doesn't have to work at a job that pays him less than he is worth. Since he's higher value than that, he can now go on to find a job that pays him properly for his value. Or, failing that, he can re-evaluate how much he thinks his labor is worth, and change his preferences.

I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.

It's fundamentally the same way that it would be irrational for me to want Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars... just writ much, much smaller, and couched in sufficiently mild language that it seems more "reasonable."

But just saying "I want someone else to give me X thing, and if they don't, I lose," is an irrational position. You need to build your own life and take responsibility for it. If you want something you can't get on your own, you need to allow for the possibility that you will fail to find anyone to help you.

In light of that, by striking, Joe was creating two possible outcomes for himself, with either outcome preferable to his current situation. Those outcomes were: get better conditions at this job, or find a new job.

He might have preferred the former the most, but we don't always get our top preference, especially when that relies on someone else.

If he actually had only one preference, "Get better conditions at this job," then his preference wasn't qualitatively different than "Get Bill Gates to give me all his money." Fundamentally, in both cases, one is putting all of their hope in their ability to persuade someone else to do what they want. If they fail, then the only two options remaining become misery and force. That's a terrible way to live.

I'm not sure there's much point in refuting you point by point.

But suffice to say I fundamentally disagree with most of this. You could turn just about every one of those arguments around and put it on corporations, but for some reason, you and many others don't see the problem on the other foot.

I've simply seen too much evidence of what society looks like, especially for the working poor, without protections in place. Their lives and standards of living have gotten considerably better over the past several decades, and corporations have only become richer during that same period, despite increased wages and labor standards, so their cries fall a bit on deaf ears. Without laws protecting workers, corporations would waste no time in destroying those gains made, because all they care about is cheap labor. And in a labor market where there are always more hands willing to do the labor for a crust of bread and a hovel to sleep in, they'll pay the lowest possible wage.

You know during slavery, the South spent most of their propaganda time not so much defending slavery as attacking the north's "wage slavery." It's something that largely went away by the 1940s or so, but to an Irishman living in a New York slum, the difference wasn't all that appreciable. Corporations would like nothing better than to return us to that.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I've simply seen too much evidence of what society looks like, especially for the working poor, without protections in place. Their lives and standards of living have gotten considerably better over the past several decades, and corporations have only become richer during that same period, despite increased wages and labor standards, so their cries fall a bit on deaf ears. Without laws protecting workers, corporations would waste no time in destroying those gains made, because all they care about is cheap labor. And in a labor market where there are always more hands willing to do the labor for a crust of bread and a hovel to sleep in, they'll pay the lowest possible wage.
I would've tried to speak to the same point less precisely by explaining how, when I look at the passage of time and history, I see plenty of reason to be *extremely* skeptical to trusting the welfare of the broader society-on any area, economic, social, political-to the wealthiest and most powerful. I don't trust them-or anyone-to work towards or improve the lots of anyone, as a class, except for people like themselves.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Geraine, this strike is over the idea that when an employee complains, te company retaliates against them. So, a worker reports unsafe conditions and their hours are cut to 39 so the company doesn't have to pay health insurance as not a full time worker. Whether the laws exist, if people are too scared to use them, they are meaningless. Just something to keep in mind- the strike isn't about wages or working conditions, it is about retaliation, the right to complain about those other issues.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.
But...this use of 'force' (it's not, neither when an employer refuses to grant a raise or when a union threatens to strike)

A little busy, but I just wanted to reply quickly to this: that's not what I was equating to force. None of that. The force I alluded to was, e.g. Companies being banned from firing striking workers. That ban, the illegality it creates, involves some measure of force.

The relationship between workers and employers doesn't inherently involve force on either side, and I didn't intend to imply different. Only when one side or the other is literally being forced to do/not do something.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Corporations being not allowed to fire people who dare complain about unsafe or exploitative working conditions? Clearly this is a social injustice that the army must be deployed to help alleviate.

You know the US had a history of when essential workers went on strike and simply couldn't be fired. The army was sent to shoot them and force them back to work.

Walmart will fire you simply for daring to suggest the idea of a union, many companies can and will fire you without probable cause in many RTW states; if you go on strike and your fired your barred from seeking unemployment insurance and can be left destitute and forced into wage slavery.

By making it illegal to fire strikers you can best give them enough of an equal negotiating position to force a concession. The only way a worker can successfully bargain for better conditions is collectively, the imbalance of power heavily favors the corporation here, especially when it comes to expensive lawsuits. This is what unions are for, to even the playing field.

Are you against the idea of an even playing field or do you believe that even without unions that the playing field is sufficiently equal?
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Making it illegal to fire striking workers is level playing field?

Anyway, dan, if you remove the federal protections for unions, would you insist that right to work laws be completely abolished as well? You are pretty caught on how you are arguing against a right to free association if you support right to work.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Making it illegal to fire striking workers is level playing field?

Anyway, dan, if you remove the federal protections for unions, would you insist that right to work laws be completely abolished as well? You are pretty caught on how you are arguing against a right to free association if you support right to work.

Oh sure, I think RTW is basically a flawed stopgap solution to an existent problem. If that problem (fed special privileges for unions) went away, RTW wouldn't have any legitimate reason to exist as far as I can tell.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Would you then have a solution, if these special privileges were done away with, for the problem that abruptly workers would have much, much less ability to negotiate with their employers (except for the often very difficult, inaccessible 'quit and find another job if you don't like it)?
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
To him, that IS the solution.

Pullman Towns forever!
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Would you then have a solution, if these special privileges were done away with, for the problem that abruptly workers would have much, much less ability to negotiate with their employers (except for the often very difficult, inaccessible 'quit and find another job if you don't like it)?

They would have no power to negotiate. Quitting isn't negotiating.

If workers can't use their labor as a negotiating tool, the only thing they have to rely on is the generosity and largesse of their employers.

Good luck with that.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
He probably means, for the same reason that your vote doesn't make a difference. And I'd say he's probably correct. If one person's purchases made a difference in the big scheme of things, I'd feel a very strong obligation to become a vegetarian.

Well, he should be aware that this type of thinking is what is fallacious. An individual's actions have an effect. And choosing not to act according to conscience is to abandon responsibility for society's ills.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
In a country where loss of employment also results in loss of subsidized health insurance, I don't think one can reasonably assert that labour is mobile in a meaningful way.

Fix the first problem, and then maybe we can talk about unions and making it easier to fire people.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
If you have a good solution to the voter paradox, lay it on me.

I mean the Downs "paradox," not the Condorcet one. Although it's really not a paradox. It's just a valid argument to the conclusion that voting doesn't have an effect on the outcome of an election. There are other reasons to vote, besides affecting the outcome, which is why I usually vote. But I don't see any reason to participate in a boycott except to affect the behavior of the entity I'm boycotting, and my participation won't matter to that one way or another.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Making it illegal to fire striking workers is level playing field?

Anyway, dan, if you remove the federal protections for unions, would you insist that right to work laws be completely abolished as well? You are pretty caught on how you are arguing against a right to free association if you support right to work.

You know what I mean.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
In a country where loss of employment also results in loss of subsidized health insurance, I don't think one can reasonably assert that labour is mobile in a meaningful way.

Fix the first problem, and then maybe we can talk about unions and making it easier to fire people.

Yep. In case there was any confusion, I agree with this completely. Well, mayb not completely... I think some jobs are still mobile, to varying extents. But the core point here is totally true.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Wait, ... what is your proposal for fixing the loss of health insurance when you leave your job?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Are you asking in what circumstances i think twinky is wrong and jobs are still mobile?

Or are you asking how I would solve the problem twinky discussed and I largely agreed is a problem?

Edited for snack cakes.

[ November 26, 2012, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Think snackcake, not star-like.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Dammit.

Posting from my phone, didn't notice the autocorrect. I knew that! Sorry twinky. Will fix when I have time.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Geraine, this strike is over the idea that when an employee complains, te company retaliates against them. So, a worker reports unsafe conditions and their hours are cut to 39 so the company doesn't have to pay health insurance as not a full time worker. Whether the laws exist, if people are too scared to use them, they are meaningless. Just something to keep in mind- the strike isn't about wages or working conditions, it is about retaliation, the right to complain about those other issues.

Retaliation IS against he law. Not only that, but the burden of proof falls on the employer, not the employee, to prove that no retaliation took place.

I am an HR consultant and I deal with this sort of thing every day. If an employee reports unsafe working conditions, harassment, or workplace violence, and the employee is retaliated against, the company has broken the law.

If the employee is retaliated against, they can file an OSHA complaint, and they take care of the rest. If OSHA finds that it is a valid complaint and that retaliation took place, the employee can be awarded compensation, and the company can be fined for each incident.

I think employees need to be educated on what their rights as employees are. Every business is required by law to have posters in their break rooms letting employees know who to contact in case something happens. This includes portions regarding OSHA and the EEOC. Both of them talk about retaliation and how to report instances.

I don't think Wal-Mart is a perfect employer or company by any means. I know there are some valid complaints. But let's be honest. The unions want into Wal-Mart because they see a gigantic paycheck in it for them. The average rate for union dues is 3%. You tell me how much the unions stand to make off of 2.2 million employees.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I don't think Wal-Mart is a perfect employer or company by any means. I know there are some valid complaints. But let's be honest. The unions want into Wal-Mart because they see a gigantic paycheck in it for them. The average rate for union dues is 3%. You tell me how much the unions stand to make off of 2.2 million employees.
While we're throwing around all of this specific honesty, let's be honest about why exactly various Powers That Be in WM want unions kept out of their company. Or is all this greed you're talking about just on the side of organized labor? Corporate leadership wants them out for...what, good citizenship?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
But wouldn't that result in Big Gov't Geraine? Wouldn't it be preferable to rely on the laissez faire free market solution which is the entirely natural establishment of unions?

And Walmart *has* been sued, but the legal system makes it difficult to bring class action law suits successfully forward.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I don't think Wal-Mart is a perfect employer or company by any means. I know there are some valid complaints. But let's be honest. The unions want into Wal-Mart because they see a gigantic paycheck in it for them. The average rate for union dues is 3%. You tell me how much the unions stand to make off of 2.2 million employees.
While we're throwing around all of this specific honesty, let's be honest about why exactly various Powers That Be in WM want unions kept out of their company. Or is all this greed you're talking about just on the side of organized labor? Corporate leadership wants them out for...what, good citizenship?
Guys, looks to me like you're poking (a bit sarcastically, no less) at Geraine as if he's a hardcore free market/right wing advocate. And yet as far as I've seen he's, at most, a mixed economy advocate who leans further right than you do.

I dunno, just seems especially weird to me to see him getting, if anything, more flack and less benefit of the doubt than I do. Counterintuitive, I guess, considering I'm substantially more hardcore in my views than he is.

But maybe I'm reading too much into your replies to him. If so, let me offer a preemptive apology for calling you out over nothing.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
He seems pretty hardcore to me when he says flat out that unions are "unnecessary" despite overwhelming historical evidence.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
the issue in the second one is that geraine is completely and totally inferring the motive for the unions on behalf of them, absent any other particular pressures or motivators that lead to unions being a ubiquitous part of freely assembled labor. rakeesh is noting that even if we make the giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaant leap to conclusively deciding that unions are motivated primarily from profit motive, does that make them less worthy of having the right to act on that profit motive versus other entities which obviously work on profit motive straightforwardly.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i mean we all know that the profit motive is something we should just basically let do whatever it wants because that works out the best for eve

quote:
A company that makes clothes for Sean Combs' clothing brand ENYCE and other U.S. labels reassured investors that a factory fire that killed 112 people over the weekend would not harm its balance sheet, and also pledged to pay the families of the dead $1,200 per victim.

In an announcement Monday, Li & Fung Ltd., a middleman company that supplies clothes from Bangladesh factories to U.S. brands, said "it wishes to clarify" that the deadly Saturday night blaze at the high-rise Tazreen Fashions factory outside Dhaka "will not have any material impact on the financial performance" of the firm.

... ryone
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Disgusting.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
"I would be a traitor to these poor burned bodies if I came here to talk good fellowship. We have tried you good people of the public and we have found you wanting.... We have tried you citizens; we are trying you now, and you have a couple of dollars for the sorrowing mothers, brothers and sisters by way of a charity gift. But every time the workers come out in the only way they know to protest against conditions which are unbearable the strong hand of the law is allowed to press down heavily upon us.

Public officials have only words of warning to us—warning that we must be intensely peaceable, and they have the workhouse just back of all their warnings. The strong hand of the law beats us back, when we rise, into the conditions that make life unbearable.

I can't talk fellowship to you who are gathered here. Too much blood has been spilled. I know from my experience it is up to the working people to save themselves. The only way they can save themselves is by a strong working-class movement."

Rose Schneiderman, a union activist after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
You know, there are no Unions in Bangladesh. Workers are given a choice of subsistence wages or starvation. Works well there--except for the 100+ recently killed in a factory fire, because the unsafe working conditions the management insisted on--such as no fire exits because that might lead to employee theft. Such unsafe working conditions are one of the main things Unions fight against.

What we have is a monopoly of jobs by the company vs a monopoly of labor by the unions. The company insists that a monopoly doesn't exist because people are free to find employment elsewhere. The problem is that if you are caught looking for another job you can get fired.

When an employer and a union work together, you get a real win/win. Example is airlines. In the past unions at many airlines have asked for more money, better conditions, etc. The airlines worked with the unions and provided them. Then when hard times hit, many of the airlines asked the unions to take less money and fewer benefits. The unions agreed. Then you have American Airlines, who asked the unions to "take one for the team" and take a pay cut. The unions agreed. Then the owners said, "yay. We saved a load of money. We did such a good job we deserve a big bonus and raise." The result of this lopsided turn of events has been disaster for American.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that people forget (or never knew) that the reason we have - and continue to have - laws that protect workers from unsafe conditions is not because benevolent bosses gave them to us. It is because unions fought for them.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
the issue in the second one is that geraine is completely and totally inferring the motive for the unions on behalf of them, absent any other particular pressures or motivators that lead to unions being a ubiquitous part of freely assembled labor. rakeesh is noting that even if we make the giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaant leap to conclusively deciding that unions are motivated primarily from profit motive, does that make them less worthy of having the right to act on that profit motive versus other entities which obviously work on profit motive straightforwardly.

SO you are making the giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaant leap in saying that the money unions stand to make has nothing to do with wanting in Walmart? Even with some unions going as far as setting up their own separate organizations and websites, with brand new Fed-ID numbers, in order to try to sway public opinion while hiding the fact that they are funded by unions?

Yeah, I'm sure money has NOTHING to do with it. Why pick on Walmart then? There are numerous other stores that pay their employees the same average rate as Walmart. According to the BLS, Walmart is smack dab in the middle in pay for hourly retail sales people.

I understand that you want employees everywhere to have the right to unionize. Should the company have no choice in the matter? Why should a company be dragged through the gutter because they do not want to unionize?

I've work with companies that have union employees all the time. Most companies on the Strip here in Vegas work with the Culinary and Bartender's Union. I've found the Bartender's Union a lot more enjoyable to work. The leadership is pretty good and they tend to work towards resolutions rather than fines. The Culinary union on the other hand has a history of bad negotiations, dragging their feet, and always taking the side of the employee without gathering facts first. That isn't to say I haven't met some good reps at some of the businesses I work with, but they are few and far between. The bad ones only talk in monetary threats instead of trying to find an agreeable resolution between the employee and the company.

Back to the protests, it looks like less than 50 Walmart associates nationwide protested on Black Friday. Walmart then reported that "
roughly the same number of associates missed their scheduled shift as last year."

Interesting, I thought Walmart employees wanted to unionize so much they were willing to do anything. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Oh all those poor companies, being forced to be "dragged through the gutter" so their employees don't have to be subsidized by the federal government.

If their profit model depends on government intervention then maybe they shouldn't be in business?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
You know, there are no unions in Bangladesh.

Know what else they don't have in Bangladesh? A robust court system with a longstanding tradition of common law precedents and a strong respect for the property rights of all individuals.

Just as a random example of stuff they don't have in Bangladesh.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

You know the US had a history of when essential workers went on strike and simply couldn't be fired. The army was sent to shoot them and force them back to work.

Blayne, we've discussed issues like this a lot, so I want to try a thought exercise here, if you're game.

What would you guess my thoughts on this sort of occurrence are? Sincerely, without sarcastic misrepresentation. What do you think I think about this?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Being reasonable ruins the fun.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Dan--prior to Unions neither did the US. Ever hear of The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire?

Its from disasters like these that unions are born.

People with money have controlled the local courts in the past, and try to do so in the present. There are other historical evidence of such blatant disregard for the lives, not to mention the rights, of employees by businesses.

What I find most troubling is that you treat workers, especially unskilled workers, like just another commodity for the companies.

I know you hate unions, but remember, they are a great immunization against class warfare, Socialism, and Communism.

You said that the company wins when Frank works for the company at the fee Joe struck over. Would you then allow Joe to picket Walmart? What happens to Joe? He gets mad and does damages--either through attacking Walmart's reputation or attacking Walmart or fighting for "workers rights" on a much bigger scale that Walmart denied him. This is a cost to Walmart. They start losing. When enough workers are like Joe, Walmart will start losing big. Joe has lost. Walmart has lost. And even Frank, he accepted Joe's pay may soon discover, as Joe did, that the pay is not enough to live on. He then strikes and is fired. Now Walmart has to pay to train another employee to take Frank's place--another loss.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Okay Dan, if you accept that shooting striking workers is wrong, then why is it wrong for them to strike and unionize? If we accept on principle that they have rights (n), and this is true for the base case of not being shot; then can we agree that they also have the right to earn equal pay for equal work? So they should have n+1 rights no?

Also I would like to point out that the court system is not particularly robust because it is a part of government, which has been in many states taking an active interest in weakening unions and the rights of workers to collective bargaining.

To extend the point you left unsaid, you know what Bangladesh is not? A first world nation, why should US workers be reduced to a third world living standard and wages if that is what the companies want of their service workers and unskilled labour?
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I'm not going to say these historical examples are beside the point, exactly, but it might be good to consider whether they really do represent a bygone era rather than the present state of affairs. I'm by no means decided about this, but I wonder if the need for government-backed unions might be like the need for affirmative action: once the problems that needed to be solved by the institution are well and truly solved, the institution won't be needed any longer. Whether things have reached that point, in either case, is a whole other subject for debate.

I should also say, perhaps the one arena where I'm entirely convinced that unions are essential is K-12 education. There are many school districts in "unfriendly" parts of the country--whether because the population is elderly or largely right wing or something else--where the school boards cannot be trusted to serve the interests of students and teacher unions are the last bastion of sanity.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Okay Dan, if you accept that shooting striking workers is wrong, then why is it wrong for them to strike and unionize? If we accept on principle that they have rights (n), and this is true for the base case of not being shot; then can we agree that they also have the right to earn equal pay for equal work? So they should have n+1 rights no?

Ha, nice proof by induction. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Destineer, the reason I brought up bygone era events is not to compare them to now--but to offer them as an example of where this trend can lead. In the 1900's workers were considered chattel. Much of the corporate discussion on "employees" threatens to bring that back. Notice, they are no longer workers. Workers imply that they work and bring value to the company. They are employees--an accounting term meaning financial liability.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Destineer, the reason I brought up bygone era events is not to compare them to now--but to offer them as an example of where this trend can lead. In the 1900's workers were considered chattel. Much of the corporate discussion on "employees" threatens to bring that back. Notice, they are no longer workers. Workers imply that they work and bring value to the company. They are employees--an accounting term meaning financial liability.

Alternatively, "worker" is a term with connotations of physical labor, evoking images of factory workers and the like. "Employee" is context neutral and seems more applicable to anyone.

But you see demons where you want to.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Okay Dan, if you accept that shooting striking workers is wrong, then why is it wrong for them to strike and unionize? If we accept on principle that they have rights (n), and this is true for the base case of not being shot; then can we agree that they also have the right to earn equal pay for equal work? So they should have n+1 rights no?

Ha, nice proof by induction. [Roll Eyes]
Yeah... Blayne this is a woefully disjointed non sequitur.

"If you have the right to not be robbed by me, then can we agree you also have the right to take my house, sleep with my wife, and shoot me in the face, right?"

I guess your whole point here assumes that basic personal rights (like the right to not be shot by thugs and criminals) also include the ability to use government force to make someone give you something you want. But there's no connection that I can see, and you didn't explain one.

Again, I don't think people should be disallowed from striking, I just think that their employers should have the option to fire them if they decide not to work.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
The more I think about your "Win/Win" scenario the less I think its really a Win for anyone. As you recall:

quote:
Here's a simple concrete example of what I mean: Joe and his comrades are striking because he thinks his current job at X Industries pays too little. But X Industries doesn't want to pay any higher wages for the job Joe and his fellows are doing. They also think they can hire other people to do the job for the price they want to pay, to the level of competence that they need.

So, they fire Joe and the striking workers. They hire Fred and some other folks who were unemployed and are happy to make the wages that Joe and his other union members were not happy with.

So Fred and his peers get paid a wage they're happy with, X Industries pays a wage they're willing to pay, and Joe doesn't have to work at a job that pays him less than he is worth. Since he's higher value than that, he can now go on to find a job that pays him properly for his value. Or, failing that, he can re-evaluate how much he thinks his labor is worth, and change his preferences.

The win comes in three forms:

Wal-Mart wins because they have employees at the fee they want to pay them. Except they also have to pay for training of the new employees, new uniforms and other new employee costs. They have lost the experience and knowledge of the older employees like Joe so overall efficiency and customer satisfaction drops. Joe and his co-strikers will not leave quietly or quickly. Bad press will have been made by the strikers, and will continue as they use their right of free speech to attack and condemn Wal-Mart. While Wal-Mart won't be bothered by losing the Joe's business, Joe and his friend will try hard to convince many others to join this boycott.

This leaves off the illegal but probable theft and damage some of now unemployed Joe's co-strikers my do as they strive for what the mistakenly believe is justice.

Wal-Mart has not won.

Joe has not won. He is out of a job. Sure, its a job that he thought he should be paid more for, but you can't call losing a job by itself a win. I am guessing that you would frown on even letting fired Joe get unemployment since he was "fired for cause--not showing up for work" so Joe has to either find a new job now or go on welfare, collect food stamps, ... oh yeah, Wal-mart pay is so small he is probably doing that already. Still, Joe won nothing. He had time to find a new, better paying job before he was fired, as his job was mostly part-time as most Wal-Mart jobs are.

Frank, though, was a winner. Frank got a job he wanted at a base rate he thought he could live with. Yet Frank's win is also tainted. This depends on whether Joe had a reason to strike for more money. Was Joe just greedy? Than fine, Frank won. But Joe went on strike because the pay kept him in eternal poverty, with no chance for advancement, no path beyond $10-$12/hr for years at a time, Frank may find himself considering going on strike in the near future. I think Frank's win is questionable.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Society doesn't get such a big win either. We have to subsidize Joe and Frank.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
There seems to be confusion overthe concept of a win. I thought i explained it, sorry.

What I mean by a "win" has to do with the contexts of the people involved, and not their overall success. And not the outside judgment of a third party (you) that says whether or not it was a good deal or good for them in the long run or whatever. People are responsible for their own lives, preferences, and choices. A "win" is when people get to make the decisions they want to make, that they believe will lead to a better life.

Walmart decided it would be in their best interests to fire Joe, and they were able to do so. Whether or not this was the best choice they could have made is irrelevant. They thought they knew the risks, and did it anyway. If they assessed the risks badly, that's their mistake. I would rather they make their choices and succeed or fail based on those choices, than you dictate what choices are allowed or not.

Joe is in the same boat. He wanted to strike. Any reasonable approach to a strike involves assessing the possible outcomes, one of which is losing the job you don't like. He thought that was worth it. You have decided that he guessed wrong... How paternalistic! He had the freedom to make his choice, he made it, now he lives with the life that results.

If he guessed wrong, then he made a mistake. I'd rather people be free to make mistakes and learn from them. The idea that a mistake is a terrible thing to be avoided at all costs is a philosophical mistake itself. Mistakes are inevitable, and are opportunities for learning.

The idea that Walmart and Joe "lost" is predicated on a paternalistic view antithetical to a free society. You don't get to make decisions for other people. They are responsible for their own lives, mistakes and all.

Kate, I don't know what you mean. Are you bringing up other issues like healthcare or something? I don't advocate reforms in a vacuum, I'd like across the board incremental improvement. Union issues aren't really even at the top of my list...

Edit: typed on my phone, forgive any errors.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Joe is not in the same boat as Walmart. Walmart is in an enormous ocean liner and can cruise wherever it wants to. It has tons of choices and if it gets a couple of choices wrong, it will still float.

Joe's "boat" is a couple of boards lashed together. Joe doesn't have the freedom or the choices Walmart has. At least with a union lots of people can lash their rafts together.

This is what you keep missing. Not everyone has the same freedom or the same choices. You keep pretending that everyone is completely free except for what the government imposes and that is just not true. Unless you think that drowning is a choice.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Even ocean liners can go down to a single sufficiently bad choice, I think.

I'm not sure I understand in what way you think people aren't free. Certainly there is an infinite number of choices and yet at any given moment individuals may only have the option to make a few thousand choices or whatever, and once they exclude lots of bad choices they may only be left with a few reasonable ones. But there are still multiple choices.

And if someone thinks there are no other options than to keep doing X thing they despise, then they've made the choice that trying to find other options is less appealing than maintaining the status quo... Another choice, in essence.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Even ocean liners can go down to a single sufficiently bad choice, I think.
Yep, but it has to be a whopper. Probably several whoppers for a company like Walmart.

For WalMart, the best possible clerk costs virtually nothing to replace. A person for which WalMart is the best possible job opportunity has a much higher relative cost associated with not accepting the pay, benefits, and working conditions offered to them.

Both WalMart and their employees are "free" to take or leave the agreement, but WalMart has much more power because their agreement with that individual is much less valuable to them than the employee's agreement that single company.

Put another way, think of how often the average employee of major corporation talks about that company at the dinner table vs how often that employee is likely to be mentioned in the boardroom of that company.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Even ocean liners can go down to a single sufficiently bad choice, I think.

I'm not sure I understand in what way you think people aren't free. Certainly there is an infinite number of choices and yet at any given moment individuals may only have the option to make a few thousand choices or whatever, and once they exclude lots of bad choices they may only be left with a few reasonable ones. But there are still multiple choices.

And if someone thinks there are no other options than to keep doing X thing they despise, then they've made the choice that trying to find other options is less appealing than maintaining the status quo... Another choice, in essence.

In other words, you are considering drowning a choice.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
Even ocean liners can go down to a single sufficiently bad choice, I think.
For WalMart, the best possible clerk costs virtually nothing to replace. A person for which WalMart is the best possible job opportunity has a much higher relative cost associated with not accepting the pay, benefits, and working conditions offered to them.

Wait a minute. If Walmart is the best possible job opportunity then what's the problem? They have the bed job they could get! That's awesome! Good for them. If they feel dissatisfied and want to be able to get an even better job, they should increase their skills and then change jobs.

I thought the idea behind striking was that Walmart wasn't really the best job they could get, they were worth more than that, so rather than changing jobs they are trying to convince Walmart to reevaluate them and pay them more.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
I thought the idea behind striking was that Walmart wasn't really the best job they could get, they were worth more than that, so rather than changing jobs they are trying to convince Walmart to reevaluate them and pay them more.
No, it's more of a prisoner's dilemma issue. If everyone acts in their individual best interest then they ultimately have a worse outcome. It becomes a race to the bottom until everyone is working for the absolute lowest pay and benefits they can possible accept. It's only a win for Walmart and, arguably (but not necessarily), their customers. The workers are getting the worst possible arrangement in which they are still willing to take what they are being offered.

The equivalent situation on the other side would be Walmart paying the absolute most they'd be willing to pay. Unions take us somewhere between those two points.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Wait a minute. If Walmart is the best possible job opportunity then what's the problem? They have the bed job they could get! That's awesome! Good for them.

Except that the best job they can get is crap. And not sufficient to keep them above the poverty line.

quote:
If they feel dissatisfied and want to be able to get an even better job, they should increase their skills and then change jobs.

Do you imagine this is even possible for everyone?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Wait a minute. If Walmart is the best possible job opportunity then what's the problem? They have the bed job they could get! That's awesome! Good for them.

Except that the best job they can get is crap. And not sufficient to keep them above the poverty line.
So, aside from improving their skills so the best job they can get is less crap, how do you solve this? It sounds like you just want to wish reality away and make it so that their labor is worth more without any responsibility or action being taken by them. But maybe I'm missing something?

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
If they feel dissatisfied and want to be able to get an even better job, they should increase their skills and then change jobs.

Do you imagine this is even possible for everyone?
Sure, why wouldn't it be? There may be some outliers, and I'm open to discussing those edge cases... but I'm getting the impression you don't have edge cases in mind. You think this is impossible for a significant chunk of people, right? Why?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I thought the idea behind striking was that Walmart wasn't really the best job they could get, they were worth more than that, so rather than changing jobs they are trying to convince Walmart to reevaluate them and pay them more.
No, it's more of a prisoner's dilemma issue. If everyone acts in their individual best interest then they ultimately have a worse outcome. It becomes a race to the bottom until everyone is working for the absolute lowest pay and benefits they can possible accept. It's only a win for Walmart and, arguably (but not necessarily), their customers. The workers are getting the worst possible arrangement in which they are still willing to take what they are being offered.

The equivalent situation on the other side would be Walmart paying the absolute most they'd be willing to pay. Unions take us somewhere between those two points.

But we don't need unions to achieve that. Reality achieves it just fine. Everyone working for Walmart is making at or above the minimum they are willing to be paid, and simultaneously being paid at or below the maximum Walmart is willing to pay. And if the race to the bottom theory held true then wouldn't they all be making minimum wage, because that's the bottom? But they aren't. Some make more than that.

Fundamentally it seems the only way the race to the bottom idea is even remotely possible also requires no competition. If Walmart was the only employer in the world, maybe, though even then I am skeptical. But in a world where you can go work for Target or Costco or Safeway, it really doesn't make sense.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Dan, do you believe the current high unemployment numbers don't represent a surplus of workers relative to available jobs?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Dan, you do realize that "increasing skills" generally requires a surplus of time, money and energy. For starters.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
letting everyone have "the best job they can possibly get" without any sort of a bottom net to prevent poverty concerns isn't even fiscally recommendable (it ends up costing you more in the end)
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, you do realize that "increasing skills" generally requires a surplus of time, money and energy. For starters.

In some capacity, sure, though I also think you're taking too limited a view of what might qualify as increasing one's skills.

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Dan, do you believe the current high unemployment numbers don't represent a surplus of workers relative to available jobs?

Yeah of course they do. I think the point you're hinting at is going over my head, though. [Smile]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
This thread makes me die a little inside.

Don't worry though, that part of me has been on life support for years.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Yeah of course they do. I think the point you're hinting at is going over my head, though.
I wasn't hinting at anything, just clarifying that this wasn't an area where you had an unconventional opinion.

But on that point, if there is a surplus of workers, then there is further downward pressure on salaries. The lowest salary will be the amount below which no one else is willing to work for because unemployment is of greater perceived value. Minimum wage is only a partial mitigation of this problem and having the lowest wage paid be above minimum wage is not an indication that the employer isn't paying the lowest possible salary.

Again, this is biased heavily in the employer's favor because a surplus labor market automatically minimizes labor costs for them. Workers are accepting the weakest position possible. There is no likely scenario in which Walmart will face the same problem. It happens in some professions, but for low-skill labor, the employer always has the bulk of the power.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
This thread makes me die a little inside.

Don't worry though, that part of me has been on life support for years.

haha, why?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
If Wal Mart is the best job you can get, and unless you're living very frugally (in a place where that can provide meaningful, serious savings at and below the poverty line) with responsibility only to yourself, it's going to be only one of at least two jobs in your household. More likely one of at least three. If you've responsibility to a family, there is another chunk of time and money and energy gone-proportionally a large one. Hopefully your car doesn't break down or your house doesn't turn up with a leaky roof, because then your meager savings are toast or you to (further) into debt. Which will do wonders for the impact you can have on the lives and education of any kids you might have.

Through a series of lucky breaks, you haven't been fired for missing work (due to all that other stuff), and everyone in your family has excellent health so you're not broke or crushed by debt.

Well I guess then you could hope for a montage scene that takes care not only of transmitting marketable skills to you but also secures employment for you where you live, in such a way that you can transition easily from WM to this new job.

Yay! Choices. Great choices for those kids, too-they have exactly as much freedom as the children of their store's manager, because freedom is an abstract concept not to be confused with the question 'how MUCH freedom?'

Sorry to be this acidic, Dan, but holy hell are you overstating the ease and simplicity with which one can-other than preemptively-navigate to all of this freedom you're talking about. There might almost be a link between that oversimplificafion and how much better blessed the man at the top is by this sort of freedom than the bottom.

-------

Destineer, while I agree that such things are of a bygone age *here*, at the same time I don't mind them remaining parts of the discussion because we can see all the time that where the option exists for business to *make* them things of the present rather than the past, they often will. It is not their own good will that makes this so, but fear of public backlash. Indeed, the very things that would make what happened in Bangladesh (much less their response to it) unthinkable here, those things were done in the teeth of their furious opposition.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
This thread makes me die a little inside.

Don't worry though, that part of me has been on life support for years.

haha, why?
That we have to rehash 100 year old arguments.

Any serious study of labor history invariable leads to sadness, because there are so few victories, and most of them fall under attack the moment they happen.

So much of it is stories of crushing sadness, and the worker almost always loses. From the start of real mass labor movements in the Gilded Age until the 1930s and 40s, workers were being crushed by big business and government. After that, they were crushed by business, government AND union bosses. And they're so frequently demonized in the media that it's taken on faith that they're dumb, greedy, lazy, and entitled. I'm just sick of it. And God forbid we turn that same critical eye on the greedy bastards who employ them. Like we're supposed to get down on our knees and kowtow to the bosses for giving us this largesse out of the goodness of their hearts while they get rich off the backs of workers. Without workers there is no business, and there is no wealth, and I'm sick of seeing them demonized for wanting more out of their lives than churning out widgets.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Dan is right, the problem is the definition of "win".

Dan has defined a "win" as having the freedom to make the decisions you wish even if they are disastrous to yourself, me, the market place, and society as a whole. All that matters, all that is needed for a win, is that everyone has the freedom to do what they want.

The rest of us, and society as a whole, define "win" as the ability to get the best outcome out of the situation. Even if the way to achieve that outcome denies choice and freedom to individuals, it is the outcome that matters.

By the definition that Dan puts as a "win" then legalizing Marijuana, and all drugs, is a win. Legalizing gambling everywhere is a win. Legalizing prostitution (that is not forced upon the prostitute but is a free choice of that person), gay marriage, and suicide are all wins. People are free to choose their fate.

I'm sorry Dan, I disagree with your definition. All you are doing is replacing the word Liberty with Win and using the same definition. Libertarian-ism is a winning strategy because we define winning as Libertarian-ism.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
This thread makes me die a little inside.

Don't worry though, that part of me has been on life support for years.

haha, why?
That we have to rehash 100 year old arguments.

Any serious study of labor history invariable leads to sadness, because there are so few victories, and most of them fall under attack the moment they happen.

So much of it is stories of crushing sadness, and the worker almost always loses. From the start of real mass labor movements in the Gilded Age until the 1930s and 40s, workers were being crushed by big business and government. After that, they were crushed by business, government AND union bosses. And they're so frequently demonized in the media that it's taken on faith that they're dumb, greedy, lazy, and entitled. I'm just sick of it. And God forbid we turn that same critical eye on the greedy bastards who employ them. Like we're supposed to get down on our knees and kowtow to the bosses for giving us this largesse out of the goodness of their hearts while they get rich off the backs of workers. Without workers there is no business, and there is no wealth, and I'm sick of seeing them demonized for wanting more out of their lives than churning out widgets.

I am just always continually surprised with the reactionary loathing of unions from people who are all about things like non-aggression principles.

Truly, TRULY free association (here assuming in where that society doesn't reflexively autonomize into strictly regulated private microfederal entities for protection and basic communal functionality) will come with

guess what

UNIONS

TONS OF UNIONS EVERYWHERE

GET USED TO THEM FOREVERRRRRRRRRRR
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
... then legalizing Marijuana, and all drugs, is a win. Legalizing gambling everywhere is a win. Legalizing prostitution (that is not forced upon the prostitute but is a free choice of that person), gay marriage, and suicide are all wins. People are free to choose their fate.

I gotta say, of the various takes on Dan's views, that sounds remarkably appealing.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Like we're supposed to get down on our knees and kowtow to the bosses for giving us this largesse out of the goodness of their hearts while they get rich off the backs of workers.
To me there is this, and also the pragmatic side of it that I am baffled people refuse to acknowledge: employers will generally go out of their way to achieve the best financial success at the lowest cost in resources, whether it's time, money, or effort. Nothing wrong with that, or rather nothing unusual. It's the human condition.

But employers don't employ *anyone* out of some philosophical regard for choice, or concern for the public welfare, or for anything else except to turn a profit. That's why they're businesspeople and not, say, poets. The ones that do are unusual.

Again fine. That's what a prudent person should expect of other people. But when we start imputing some sort of *morality* to this dynamic, whether to say it's particularly moral (or immoral, too, in the case of ordinary competitiveness divorced from things like roasting factory workers), and when we pretend that the system doesn't look more favorably on the people at the top...but especially when we let 'freedom' be a blanket rejoinder to any number of wealth and power disparities...

The employer wants freedom mitigated as little as possible to advance his success in business. He will and certainly has not been shy about using his much greater power, access, and discretionary income to get the government, the press, and even the military and police on his side in that effort-sometimes in an ordinary PR campaign, and sometimes quite a lot more.

But let workers, the people much more like ourselves than the large scale businessperson, work to wield the same kind of influence and suddenly freedom this and choice that and capitalism the other thing.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
First, just a few quick asides, because it seems like some of my positions are being misunderstood and/or there are some wrong assumptions being made.

So, in no particular order:

I'm not demonizing workers. I don't expect (nor does anything I've said require) that employers be particularly generous or whatever. In fact, I'm also not actually on the side of the employers. Many employers throughout history have tried very hard to get government privileges and advantages over their competition. The idea that most employers both want, and benefit from, a truly free market is a total fiction. As is the idea that workers are hurt by a free market.

I'm also not actually a libertarian, per se. Not the least reason being that I think the Non-Aggression Principle is so vague as to be meaningless, and is therefore useless. I don't loathe Unions, either, nor would I be concerned if we had unions "foreverrrrrrr." I just object to specific union-related philosophies and laws.

Now, on to a couple of specific responses!

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Dan is right, the problem is the definition of "win".

Dan has defined a "win" as having the freedom to make the decisions you wish even if they are disastrous to yourself, me, the market place, and society as a whole. All that matters, all that is needed for a win, is that everyone has the freedom to do what they want.

The rest of us, and society as a whole, define "win" as the ability to get the best outcome out of the situation. Even if the way to achieve that outcome denies choice and freedom to individuals, it is the outcome that matters.

But that's not really what "winning" means. Winning, straightforwardly, has to do with a specific party achieving their goals. If the Nazis won WW2, then that would have been bad for the world. It even would have been bad for the Nazis! But they would have, very literally, won. That's what winning means.

You're using "win" in a very abstract, imprecise, metaphorical context. I'm not.

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:

I'm sorry Dan, I disagree with your definition. All you are doing is replacing the word Liberty with Win and using the same definition. Libertarian-ism is a winning strategy because we define winning as Libertarian-ism.

Not really.

My description of a win/win scenario was just a description of a scenario in which all parties achieved some of their goals.

Now, I admitted then, and still admit, that there are some versions of Joe for whom it wouldn't be feel like a win/win outcome. If Joe approached the strike irrationally, from a position where he wasn't willing to live with the possible negative repercussions of his decision.

I'm describng the scenario where he wasn't willing to give up the job entirely, and the only outcome he was willing to accept was one where the employer gave in to the strikers' demands.

As I said before, though, this would be a terrible way to live. It dictates that the scenario shift from having a win/win outcome and into win/lose. The only way for Joe to be happy is for him to get something that he can't achieve by himself; to get someone else to do what he wants. So if can't do that, then his only remaining options are to be miserable (in which case he loses), or force the other party to do what he wants (in which case they lose).

I freely admit that this sort of win/lose situation crops up in the real world! Frequently, even. But those are examples where giving Joe, giving Unions, special powers is the most dangerous. Failure to convince someone that they should do what you want is a piss-poor justification for forcing them to do it.

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
... then legalizing Marijuana, and all drugs, is a win. Legalizing gambling everywhere is a win. Legalizing prostitution (that is not forced upon the prostitute but is a free choice of that person), gay marriage, and suicide are all wins. People are free to choose their fate.

I gotta say, of the various takes on Dan's views, that sounds remarkably appealing.
I know, right? [Wink]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Yeah, drugs really are about individual freedom. There aren't competing interests and power differentials involved there. And even an argument to outcome is pretty weak given what the "war on drugs" has produced compared to the outcome it was aiming for.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Failure to convince someone that they should do what you want is a piss-poor justification for forcing them to do it.
But you understand, right, that threatening things like strikes -- and thus carrying out strikes occasionally, to keep the threat viable -- is the only way workers can actually achieve gains, since their employers do not feel any moral obligation and the power imbalance is such that they do not perceive any practical obligation?
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Dan, you are defining a win as when a person achieves their goal. Then I think the problem is that you misunderstand everyone's goal.

Joe's goal is not to leave a company he feels underpays him. If that was his goal than just quitting would be more effective. His stated goal is to earn more money. The strike is his strategy to achieve that goal. Being fired leaves him making no money. That is not a win.

Wal-Mart's self-proclaimed goal was to pay the rate that they wanted to for an equivalent employee. Frank meets that criteria only after training, and some time spent gaining the experience Joe has. If he is hired at the rate Joe was being paid, then it is not a win for Wal-Mart until Frank has been trained and gains equivalent experience. Before that point it is a loss.

Of course, part of that loss will be made up by paying Frank less than they paid Joe--as Joe's pay includes annual pay raises that a Trainee Frank won't be getting. On the other hand the high turnover of employees means that Frank may not stay that long, and then the process continues over and over again.

Wal-Mart comes close to winning, but not quite.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Dan what you object to is similar to the objections to the individual mandate; something key and central to the ability for the organism to function for its desired services.

I also believe that employees would benefit from a "free" market, but that would involve recognizing unions as inherent to the free market as a response to corporate excess and mistreatment of labour; and that how government "benefits" corporations is not equivalent to how "unions" are benefited. I don't see any unions given bailouts.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
I'm also not actually a libertarian, per se. Not the least reason being that I think the Non-Aggression Principle is so vague as to be meaningless, and is therefore useless.
- Under your moral system, are taxes at all morally legitimate?

- Why?

/addendum - a minority of libertarians follow the non aggression principle
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
As I said before, though, this would be a terrible way to live. It dictates that the scenario shift from having a win/win outcome and into win/lose. The only way for Joe to be happy is for him to get something that he can't achieve by himself; to get someone else to do what he wants. So if can't do that, then his only remaining options are to be miserable (in which case he loses), or force the other party to do what he wants (in which case they lose).

I freely admit that this sort of win/lose situation crops up in the real world! Frequently, even. But those are examples where giving Joe, giving Unions, special powers is the most dangerous. Failure to convince someone that they should do what you want is a piss-poor justification for forcing them to do it.

People getting other people to do what they want is right at the heart of this little civilization thing we've got going here. The *default*, in questions of employment and employer/employee relations is that each side is trying-and succeeding-in getting other people to do what they want. The only thing that's at issue is the question 'how much?'

Boss wants employees to do x work for y compensation. If they don't wish to settle for y, boss forces employees to either tolerate y compensation or go elsewhere.

It is precisely the same as the sorts of things you're objecting to when the employees attempt to do it to boss, Dan. Except when employees threaten to strike, they are 'forcing' boss to do what they wish, or trying to do so. Yet when boss says y is the compensation for x work, period...somehow we are not to consider this as 'forcing' employees to do what boss wants.

I'm still not sure why one is forcing and the other isn't. It probably lies at the heart of why you may not intend to be on the side of employers (and I do believe you mean that with sincere honesty), but are responding as though you are-because your positions are.
 
Posted by heresolong (Member # 12918) on :
 
Wow, So apparently true freedom of association comes with my being forced to join a union that I don't wish to join or contribute to?

"Without fail, the right to free association means unions, unions, unions"

Is a negative association considered a free association? I would say that the union takes over $500 from my pocket each year against my wishes and, in my opinion, does not benefit me to the tune of $500 per year. Shouldn't that be my choice? In a right to work state I don't have to join or pay the union unless I choose. I can still join, I can still pay them money, I just don't have to. That is true freedom of association, where I get to choose.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Posting from phone, but... Tom and Rakeesh:

Do you guys think I am against strikes, and/or think that strikes are somehow forcing a company? I... I'm honestly a little lost to words, if so, since I have explicitly said that I don't think that. There is no inherent force at all in the employer/employee relationship.

What I am against is a situation where someone strikes and the company is forced to go without workers or give in, rather than do something they might prefer, like fire the strikers and hire new ones. That's the element of force. I call it force because it's the law, and if they don't comply they will be shut down or fined or arrested or what-have-you.

The reason I say unions are using force is because they have special laws that prevent employers from responding.

If I want to sell you my car, and we're haggling, there's no force... Unless the law says that I'm not allowed to ask for more than X amount, or it says that you have to buy the car from me regardless of what price we decide, or some other similar restriction.

But, again, I don't think that unions going on strike (in a vacuum, disregarding American laws) involves any inherent force. So as far as I can tell all of your comments to me are based on a wrong assumption. Right?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Is a negative association considered a free association? I would say that the union takes over $500 from my pocket each year against my wishes and, in my opinion, does not benefit me to the tune of $500 per year. Shouldn't that be my choice? In a right to work state I don't have to join or pay the union unless I choose. I can still join, I can still pay them money, I just don't have to. That is true freedom of association, where I get to choose.
There is something to this, but there's another aspect you're ignoring or else simply not seeing: how many of the conditions, which may have driven you to seek employment there in the first place, owe to union work in the past?

Answers will vary depending on the context-but sometimes the answer is 'a great deal'. So then another question to be asked is 'shall the organization which gained compensation x be forced to negotiate for compensation even for people who don't support it? You're generally getting more than just a new coffee machine for your $500/yr, whether you like to admit it or not.

If the answer is 'yes', well then it abruptly becomes the simplest thing in the world for the employer to weaken and starve out a union.

It's a more complicated situation than you (or Dan) are acknowledging. Strict adherence to absolute free association benefits employers and employees in unequal ways. Insisting that things be ratcheted down to the most individualist level possible at all times serves...the individual with the most power, more.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Its the same argument for taxes, you are "forced" to pay taxes for services that may benefit people you feel undeserving. But this is a legitimate part of the social compact; so union dues are also a legitimate for the same reasons, they form a integral part of the same social compact.

I think its also the same for social security? Part of you pay is deducted right to insure you and everyone else has some form of pension when you or they retire? If you gave the option to opt out the system would collapse.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
At a computer now, so I'll provide a couple more specific responses.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Failure to convince someone that they should do what you want is a piss-poor justification for forcing them to do it.
But you understand, right, that threatening things like strikes -- and thus carrying out strikes occasionally, to keep the threat viable -- is the only way workers can actually achieve gains, since their employers do not feel any moral obligation and the power imbalance is such that they do not perceive any practical obligation?
Right... I don't think that threatening a strike or striking is forcing anyone inherently. Only in our society.

In fact, I think that in a world where Unions didn't have the special privileges they do, strikes would be more analogous to the persuasion I talked about in the above quote. It's an attempt to convince someone that they should do what you want. It might fail, it might succeed; either case should be based on the actual merits of both options, not based on what a third party says is allowable.

Again, see my earlier post about how I don't think strike and unions are prima facie bad, and how I don't think that force is involved in the employer/employee relationship when you take external restrictions away.

Darth, I already answered the points you're making, I think. But I'll go through bit by bit to make sure it's clear.

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Dan, you are defining a win as when a person achieves their goal. Then I think the problem is that you misunderstand everyone's goal.

Joe's goal is not to leave a company he feels underpays him. If that was his goal than just quitting would be more effective. His stated goal is to earn more money. The strike is his strategy to achieve that goal. Being fired leaves him making no money. That is not a win.

Here is the relevant response:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Now, I admitted then, and still admit, that there are some versions of Joe for whom it wouldn't be feel like a win/win outcome. If Joe approached the strike irrationally, from a position where he wasn't willing to live with the possible negative repercussions of his decision.

I'm describing the scenario where he wasn't willing to give up the job entirely, and the only outcome he was willing to accept was one where the employer gave in to the strikers' demands.

As I said before, though, this would be a terrible way to live. It dictates that the scenario shift from having a win/win outcome and into win/lose. The only way for Joe to be happy is for him to get something that he can't achieve by himself; to get someone else to do what he wants. So if can't do that, then his only remaining options are to be miserable (in which case he loses), or force the other party to do what he wants (in which case they lose).


I freely admit that this sort of win/lose situation crops up in the real world! Frequently, even. But those are examples where giving Joe, giving Unions, special powers is the most dangerous. Failure to convince someone that they should do what you want is a piss-poor justification for forcing them to do it.

I bolded the most important bits. If it's a win/lose scenario for Joe it's because he made a serious mistake, and set himself up for failure. More importantly, he's the one that decided it has to be win/lose. Nobody else. He has full responsibility for that.

I can decide to make win/lose scenarios all day, in every situation, but these are all creations in my head, and nobody else is making me lose (or "win"). It's just my own irrationality.

If I do it too much, I'm an asshole ("You stole my parking spot!")... even more, and I'm a criminal ("This chump left his laptop unattended!")... and if I do it constantly then I'm a crazy guy in the street ("If I close my eyes they'll steal my skin!")... but fundamentally in each case I'm imagining a win/lose scenario where one need not exist.

That's on me, not Walmart.

quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Wal-Mart's self-proclaimed goal was to pay the rate that they wanted to for an equivalent employee. Frank meets that criteria only after training, and some time spent gaining the experience Joe has. If he is hired at the rate Joe was being paid, then it is not a win for Wal-Mart until Frank has been trained and gains equivalent experience. Before that point it is a loss.

Of course, part of that loss will be made up by paying Frank less than they paid Joe--as Joe's pay includes annual pay raises that a Trainee Frank won't be getting. On the other hand the high turnover of employees means that Frank may not stay that long, and then the process continues over and over again.

Wal-Mart comes close to winning, but not quite.

You're looking too long term, in hindsight. People don't live in the future, they live now, and have to make do with their best predictions.

If Walmart thought that they would lose out by replacing the striking worker, they wouldn't do it. They made the decision based on their best predictions. If they turn out to be wrong later, that's a mistake they can learn from, but it doesn't change anything about the original situation. They hadn't learned from it yet, because it hadn't happened.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Except when employees threaten to strike, they are 'forcing' boss to do what they wish, or trying to do so. Yet when boss says y is the compensation for x work, period...somehow we are not to consider this as 'forcing' employees to do what boss wants.

I'm still not sure why one is forcing and the other isn't.

Just checking in, Rakeesh: You saw my response to this in the earlier, post, right? Your confusion here is based on a misunderstanding of my point. I don't think that striking is forcing employers to do anything, except insofar as the government does, in face, literally force employers to do certain things when faced with a strike.

That's not intrinsic to strikes, though!

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
[QUOTE]I'm also not actually a libertarian, per se. Not the least reason being that I think the Non-Aggression Principle is so vague as to be meaningless, and is therefore useless.

- Under your moral system, are taxes at all morally legitimate?

- Why?

/addendum - a minority of libertarians follow the non aggression principle

Sure. Why wouldn't they be? In general I think that a good role for government (or an even more consent-based government-like analogue) is to create a basic framework of minimum consent to avoid violence, and try and defend the freedoms of its citizens. Even if the government thinks that freedom is immoral, as long as it isn't harming anyone else. Even a government like that would presumably need some funding, and some form of taxation or fee to its users/citizens would be in order.

Taxes generally don' scare me, though, Sam. I mean, I think our government is way too bloated and has a budget that's orders of magnitude bigger than it ought to be. So in that sense, if we solved that problem and shrank the size of government, then taxes could be reduced because costs would be reduced. But lower taxes would be a side effect of the solution, not the goal itself.

By the same token, in practical terms I'm much more concerned about the depth and breadth of the regulatory state than I am about the state of taxation. At a conference I once heard Peter Thiel say much the same thing. A paraphrase: "The effective tax rate on funds I would spend to purchase a technology that doesn't exist because of excess regulation is 100%." I thought that was a cute way of expressing it, and I largely agree with the sentiment.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its the same argument for taxes, you are "forced" to pay taxes for services that may benefit people you feel undeserving. But this is a legitimate part of the social compact; so union dues are also a legitimate for the same reasons, they form a integral part of the same social compact.

I think its also the same for social security? Part of you pay is deducted right to insure you and everyone else has some form of pension when you or they retire? If you gave the option to opt out the system would collapse.

So now we've gone from "Unions are great and everyone would choose unions given the chance" to "Unions provide vital services that few individuals recognize on a regular basis, so we need to compel everyone to be in a union," is that what you're saying?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Sure. Why wouldn't they be?
Point of question was to determine where you stood on the non-aggression principle, in effect.

In essence, the answer to "why wouldn't they be" is the non-aggression principle as a hard and fast moral rule.

You had previously described yourself as an anarcho-capitalist which is based on NAP being an ABSOLUTE and thus the state must be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED (the free market would presumably remain free through magic or something) because something like taxation is inherently immoral and cannot be permitted.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I've decided to put this thread through a word filter that changes the word unions to the word unicorns

quote:
So now we've gone from "Unicorns are great and everyone would choose unicorns given the chance" to "Unicorns provide vital services that few individuals recognize on a regular basis, so we need to compel everyone to be in a unicorn," is that what you're saying?
these proposals are so much better
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
I liked it till the end, when it took a turn for the weird and pornographic.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure when we talked about anarcho-capitalism before I clarified that I'm not actually a Smash-The-Statist, and in fact I think those people are not only wrong but significantly worse than, say, the average moderate Democrat or Republican in middle America.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I know you hate unicorns, but remember, they are a great immunization against class warfare, Socialism, and Communism.

Are unicorns any less made up of a group of free individuals as businesses are? Of course not. So if a unicorn is negotiating a contract with a business it is as free to set limits and requirements, including the requirement that all employees hired by that business must join the unicorn. It could just as easily not put in that requirement. Obviously this would be against the unicorn's interests.

Walmart will fire you simply for daring to suggest the idea of a unicorn,

Unicorns are not awesome 100% of the time, but without them, workers would be in a great deal larger world of hurt.

He seems pretty hardcore to me when he says flat out that unicorns are "unnecessary" despite overwhelming historical evidence.

You know, there are no Unicorns in Bangladesh.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

He seems pretty hardcore to me when he says flat out that unicorns are "unnecessary" despite overwhelming historical evidence.

I think this one was my favorite.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Dan, since your ideas about "winning" in job loss scenarios have come up again, I thought I might pose the following again:

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:

quote:
I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.

It's fundamentally the same way that it would be irrational for me to want Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars... just writ much, much smaller, and couched in sufficiently mild language that it seems more "reasonable."

What do you mean by "want"? The way I normally understand that term is synonymous with "desire," and I normally think that I desire X if
I am happier if X happens than I am if X doesn't happen.

By that definition, I absolutely do want Gates to give me $1 billion. You seem to have another definition of wanting in mind. What is it?


 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Dan, since your ideas about "winning" in job loss scenarios have come up again, I thought I might pose the following again:

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:

quote:
I know it might seem weird to that I would call a scenario in which someone loses their job "win/win," but it's predicated on the idea that one should have rational expectations, and using force to make other people give you what you want is wrong.

It's fundamentally the same way that it would be irrational for me to want Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars... just writ much, much smaller, and couched in sufficiently mild language that it seems more "reasonable."

What do you mean by "want"? The way I normally understand that term is synonymous with "desire," and I normally think that I desire X if
I am happier if X happens than I am if X doesn't happen.

By that definition, I absolutely do want Gates to give me $1 billion. You seem to have another definition of wanting in mind. What is it?


I think you're using a very loose definition of "want," one that doesn't really factor in actual expectations. Right?

That is, when Bill Gates doesn't write you your check, do you feel that you have lost? Do you feel depressed, or feel that Gates has defeated you or beaten you or cheated you or deprived you of your due?

I'm guessing no.

I fully agree that a rational striking worker (in a world where he can be fired for striking, and knows it) likely prefers that the company give in and give him what he wants. And that's fine! I'd prefer it if Gates gave me a billion dollars too.

But he should also be prepared for the possibility that they don't think his labor is worth as much as he thinks it is. It shouldn't feel like losing. It's a totally unsurprising outcome that he should be prepared for. If he puts on blinders and pretends it won't happen, that's on him. I should have a solid plan for my life that isn't hinging on finding that check from Gates in the mail tomorrow.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I feel like you're thinking about this type of thing in a way that's much less precise, and just less well motivated than formal decision theory.

The question isn't, will you feel depressed or beaten if X doesn't happen (where X is something like, you get a raise or more benefits or keep your job)? That question doesn't have anything to do with how employees should bargain with their employers.

The question is, should you try to do things that will improve the chances of X happening? And if X is something that benefits you, even if you don't "deserve" X by some property-rights-based standard of fairness, you should do what you can to improve your odds of getting X. And if you don't get X, you do lose in the sense that you are worse off than you would have been if you got X. How upset you feel is a whole other thing, and not of much consequence to questions about how labor and management should relate to one another.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
I feel like you're thinking about this type of thing in a way that's much less precise, and just less well motivated than formal decision theory.

The question isn't, will you feel depressed or beaten if X doesn't happen (where X is something like, you get a raise or more benefits or keep your job)? That question doesn't have anything to do with how employees should bargain with their employers.

The question is, should you try to do things that will improve the chances of X happening? And if X is something that benefits you, even if you don't "deserve" X by some property-rights-based standard of fairness, you should do what you can to improve your odds of getting X. And if you don't get X, you do lose in the sense that you are worse off than you would have been if you got X. How upset you feel is a whole other thing, and not of much consequence to questions about how labor and management should relate to one another.

I think there are two important errors here.

The first is that you dismiss whether or not you deserve something by some property-rights based standard of fairness as if this was irrelevant. But I made several moral claims, and this is not irrelevant. If you don't "deserve" it... why are you trying to get it? One example of acquiring something you don't deserve is theft. If you think it's okay to get stuff you don't deserve, but you reject theft, then how are you drawing the distinction?

The second is that you're focusing too much on the feelings of the person; partly my fault, since I mentioned various feelings, but it wasn't intended to be taken as the whole explanation, just a convenient shorthand. Whatever your emotional state, the expectation is still the relevant part.

The way you're describing it now, not only did you lose this morning when you didn't get your check from Bill Gates, but if you could find a way to steal a billion dollars from him, you ought to. And if you didn't, you'd have lost even more.

At least that's how it seems to me. So either you're advocating immorality and also distorting the definition of "losing," and calling hundreds of thousands of things "losing" that few people would recognize.

Or I've misunderstood. I'm betting it's that.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I feel that such a line of argumentation is antithetical to social change; because by a similar line of reasoning, or perhaps the same reasoning. One should never attempt to attempt to change the status quo for fear that someone who benefited from it will lose out from his benefits from the status quo as being "not fair" to him.

Secondly the problem with moralistic thinking is that its rarely objective, and often fails to account for other view points on the issue at hand. Objectivism versus Utilitarianism for instance.

For example its easy to make the moralistic claim that taxation is theft, and even come up with at first glance 'strong' sounding arguments originating from property right principles but its easily shot out of the water with a quick glance at utilitarianism. Heck moralism depending on which moral theory you pick will contradict a property rights driven moral argument.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:

I think there are two important errors here.

The first is that you dismiss whether or not you deserve something by some property-rights based standard of fairness as if this was irrelevant. But I made several moral claims, and this is not irrelevant. If you don't "deserve" it... why are you trying to get it? One example of acquiring something you don't deserve is theft. If you think it's okay to get stuff you don't deserve, but you reject theft, then how are you drawing the distinction?

The second is that you're focusing too much on the feelings of the person; partly my fault, since I mentioned various feelings, but it wasn't intended to be taken as the whole explanation, just a convenient shorthand. Whatever your emotional state, the expectation is still the relevant part.

The way you're describing it now, not only did you lose this morning when you didn't get your check from Bill Gates, but if you could find a way to steal a billion dollars from him, you ought to. And if you didn't, you'd have lost even more.

At least that's how it seems to me. So either you're advocating immorality and also distorting the definition of "losing," and calling hundreds of thousands of things "losing" that few people would recognize.

Or I've misunderstood. I'm betting it's that.

Your whole "deserves" argument falls apart unless you can explain to me why the child of a billionaire deserves more than a child born into poverty deserves. Compared to what they actually have.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Okay, jeez. I want to derail this whole winner/loser meta-argument, because it's not getting anywhere in the ways that it should be. Instead of talking who wins and loses, let's talk about what's fair versus what's stupid. I think it speaks to a lot of the issues with why we have to have some wage control, whether they invariably come in the form of unions or possibly come in the form of federal or state level protections.

quote:
"Fairness" in economic terms (or anywhere else in life) is a bullshit concept, as fantastical as Peter Pan's shadow or Donald Trump's self-awareness. Economic equality has never existed throughout human history since the Great Leap Forward 50,000 years ago, nor should we expect it to now.

Post-kindergarten, there's no such thing as fairness. Some of your classmates turn out to be more physically attractive than you thanks to good genetics, they will live better lives than you with much less hardship and instant advantages in virtually every situation. This makes perfect sense because they are likely the product of a beautiful mother and a smart, high-earning father. Go stop by the elementary school in Westport, Connecticut if you'd like to see this demonstrated in real-life - they're inadvertently building a Master Race up there of blonde-haired, blue-eyed future hedge fund managers and tennis phenoms, it's actually quite frightening.

So no, life's not fair - we make it on our wits, the connections we forge with others, the skills we learn, the lucky breaks that come our way, the sweat equity we've put into our work and the sheer statistical fortuitousness of not being struck down by a drunk driver. Some of us win big, some of us lose huge and the rest of us take what we can from this life just to get by. And it usually works out in the end, even though nothing along the way was ever "fair."

I don't permit my kids to use "that's not fair!" in their tearful appeals to me. Tony Soprano once shattered the windshield of his kid's SUV upon hearing the term and it was probably the single most constructive thing he's ever done for that little pain in the ass. I also don't care much for President Obama's frequent use of the phrase "fair share" either, it's commie talk and it sparks a kneejerk aversion for half the country that has yet to do him any favors in his negotiation efforts.

So no, the economy isn't fair and you can make a pretty strong case that it's gotten less fair, but that fact alone will never sway those in power.

So instead of lamenting the lack of fairness, let's talk about the stupidity of this hollowing out of the middle class in this country, year after year, with bought and paid for legislation and preferential tax treatment.

Henry Blodget demonstrated last night how, while corporate profits have never been higher, the wages paid to workers at these same corporations have never been lower. While corporate profit margins just hit a 70-year high, have a glance at wages as a percentage of GDP.

Corporations haven't magically learned a new secret to profitability, they've just found a workaround to the need for a living wage in this country. **** it, someone else's problem.

In the meanwhile, over at The Atlantic, Derek Thomson shows how, while tax rates for the median household in America have dropped by 7% since 1980, tax rates for the very wealthiest households have dropped by double, roughly 14%.

The fairness aspect is irrelevant - since when in the history of human civilization did wealthy people not make the rules so that their advantages would be assured? It is only when they go to far that there is a reset, a turning point like the beheading of French monarchs and the storming of the Bastille. Episodes like those are the exception, not the rule, which is why they're so memorable in the first place. 99% of the time, the rich get richer and there is very little turnover in their ranks. Fine.

But the stupidity of having such an obviously unbalanced economy is the more important discussion we should be having right now. The corporations are every bit as vulnerable to the disappearance of the middle class as the middle class is itself.

They've managed around this issue thus far with an increasing emphasis on exports (now responsible for half of the S&P 500's sales and profits) as well as systemic and legally-sanctioned overseas tax evasion. Consider that Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009 and paid zero Federal income tax (you want to laugh, they actually got a rebate of $256 million). GE earned $14 billion in 2010 and also paid zero in Federal income tax. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard have each set up offshore subsidiaries which they use as payment conduits so as to keep their profits shielded from the IRS.

But offshoring of profits and the export of goods and services won't sustain these corporations forever. At a certain point, native companies within the developing world will nudge our adventuring multinationals aside (China's already building its own version of Wall Street). And when that happens, Corporate America is going to turn around and be horrified by the devastation in its own backyard.

"Where did all our customers go?"

Well, you enormous ****ing idiots, you fired all your customers. You've spent the last decade or so suppressing wage growth in the name of "creating shareholder value" and now even your shareholder base is disappearing.

You allowed wages to stagnate for a decade and made every decision you could in the service of nudging the quarterly profit higher, thinking less of the yearly profit and virtually nothing of the long-term viability of your business.

One hundred years ago, Henry Ford gave his employees an unasked for wage increase and, when asked why, he replied "How else will they be able to buy my cars?"

Can you imagine one of these pinheaded pricks in today's corporate C-Suites ever thinking that far ahead or that broadly? Hilarious.

Now Henry Ford was no sweetheart (when he wasn't publicly browbeating his son, Edsel, he was busy giving handjobs to Hitler) but he also wasn't an idiot. He knew that good living wages meant more customers for his product, and they also made for a better wokforce and a stronger company.

Take this tidbit from the Michigan State Historical Archives:

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production. To combat the high turnover and to boost morale, Henry Ford announced the famous "$5 a day" wage...Nevertheless, Ford's plan doubled typical wages and sent shockwaves through the other car companies. They thought Ford was crazy and would soon go out of business. Ford knew, however, that this new deal would not only lower costs due to decreased turnover, but it would create more buyers of his cars: the employees themselves!

By improving the lives of his workers, ol' Henry improved his own company's competitive position and made it more profitable in the process. A century later and our supposed Captains of Industry don't seem to understand this concept at all. For every forward-thinking employer like Starbucks, there are ten more who think nothing of shitting where they eat in the course of their ongoing negligence for the American workforce.

Thankfully, the backlash to short-term greed, long-term nihilism is already underway. This piece from The Economist looks at the perversity of the modern-day Profits Now obsession:

One study shows that listed companies have invested only 4% of their total assets, compared with 10% for “observably similar” privately held companies. A second shows that 80% of managers are willing to reduce spending on R&D or advertising to hit the numbers. The fashion for linking pay to share prices has spurred some bosses to manipulate those prices. For example, a manager with share options gets nothing if the share price misses its target, so he may take unwise risks to hit it. Short-termism is rife on Wall Street: the average time that people hold a stock on the New York Stock Exchange has tumbled from eight years in 1960 to four months in 2010. The emphasis on short-term results has tempted some firms to skimp on research and innovation, robbing the future to flatter this year’s profits.

Fairness ain't got nothing to do with it.

Rather, it is this short-term myopia that has meant a relentless plundering of America's middle, an industrial-strength strip mining of our once world-beating workforce. And it's going to bite the One Percenter and his corporate enterprises back when all is said and done.

Already the cracks are showing: consider that 88% of the S&P 500's profit growth this year came from just ten companies and four of these companies alone accounted for half! It gets worse, half of this top ten are current or former problem-children banks who essentially live off the retiree-punishing financial repression interest rates at the Fed. If that sounds like a bullshit economy, well, it is one. And you want people to be "confident" in the presence of this experiment? You expect the downsized to cheer as the holders of financial assets suck up more and more of the remaining crumbs?

Again, you can thank the poisonous atmosphere we currently enjoy. In 2012, the masses spend their waking hours trying to figure out which credit card loanshark to pay off first while a plutocratic handful use their control of the media and Congress to press their own interests even further. And now they're doddering about in abject ignorance over why everyone turned on them this election cycle - they are the very smartest dumbasses you'll ever meet.

It's this very stupidity that the national debate should be about, economic equality becomes a naturally occurring byproduct once we put an end to the Strong Companies, Stressed Country dichotomy.

So don't worry about Fair, let's just stop the Stupid and see what happens.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2012/12/02/forget-fairness-lets-talk-about-stupidity/

Just as ford's era would dwindle down to that patternable rich-hand-themselves-all-they-need to catastrophically stagnate, and an economic crisis and a new deal followed, so too does this era need to re-learn the same damn lessons.

Anti-union laws are the most hilariously showing of these tells.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Ford didn't give his people a raise to increase their standard of living. Right there in the guy's post he gives the real reason: he wanted to attract and retain a higher caliber of worker.

If he could've gotten the workers he wanted for less, he would've. But he wanted the best and he paid for them.

Anyway, the crux of this guy's argument revolves around the old saw about the shrinking middle class. I always find those assertions really interesting. For example, in this piece the main evidence he cites is wages as a percentage of GDP, not, say, wages simply adjusted for inflation.

Of course, this is predicated on the idea of GDP as an economic pie that should be cut up evenly. If people are making the same money they aren't middle class because the rich are richer proportionally, which means... Something?

Ah, it means it's unfair. It's predicated on the idea of fairness, which he derided earlier in his post. But clearly, that's actually pretty important to him.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Dan, reread that post. Ford paid workers more than then going rate so they would be able to buy his cars. He, being a smart businessman who was interested in more than just the next quarter, knew that long term, he had to pay attention to demand.

Dan, again, if you want to use terms like "fair" and "deserve" you need to answer my question.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Dan, your post does not present what I would consider any understanding of his article.

quote:
the old saw about the shrinking middle class
the old true saw
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:

The first is that you dismiss whether or not you deserve something by some property-rights based standard of fairness as if this was irrelevant. But I made several moral claims, and this is not irrelevant. If you don't "deserve" it... why are you trying to get it? One example of acquiring something you don't deserve is theft. If you think it's okay to get stuff you don't deserve, but you reject theft, then how are you drawing the distinction?

Trying to win a lottery would be another example of trying to get something you don't deserve. Or really any time when you do the equivalent of making a bet (unless you think that when your card comes up in poker, you suddenly "deserve" to win the pot, but you wouldn't deserve it if your card didn't come, which seems strange).

Also, I think it's sometimes morally OK to steal. Coincidentally, a friend of mine recently revealed that he regularly shoplifts at Walmart. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

quote:

Of course, this is predicated on the idea of GDP as an economic pie that should be cut up evenly. If people are making the same money they aren't middle class because the rich are richer proportionally, which means... Something?

Ah, it means it's unfair. It's predicated on the idea of fairness, which he derided earlier in his post. But clearly, that's actually pretty important to him.

No, I think Sam and the source he quotes are right that fairness isn't what matters in economics. Large amounts of inequality have bad social effects (crime, public health). That's why they're bad, not because it's unfair to have a dwindling middle class or something.

Here's the way I generally see it. The freedom that matters in life isn't freedom from interference by others, having your stuff stolen, etc. It's freedom to do what you want with your life (which includes having the stuff you want). As a means to freedom, money has diminishing returns--each additional dollar Gates makes provides him with far fewer new opportunities to do what he wants than each additional dollar you make. So it improves the net freedom of people if money is transferred from Gates to you. (If Gates is prone to stimulating net growth more when he's taxed less, that's a complication that needs to be taken into account, but the empirical evidence indicates otherwise.)

Thus, I agree with Sam:
quote:
I think it speaks to a lot of the issues with why we have to have some wage control, whether they invariably come in the form of unions or possibly come in the form of federal or state level protections.
although I would much rather have the controls take the form of a guaranteed minimum income, rather than unions, which (like subsidies) have a distorting effect on the efficiency of the overall system and thus probably do impede growth.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, reread that post. Ford paid workers more than then going rate so they would be able to buy his cars. He, being a smart businessman who was interested in more than just the next quarter, knew that long term, he had to pay attention to demand.

Dan, again, if you want to use terms like "fair" and "deserve" you need to answer my question.

I know what it says, Kate. The idea that Ford paid higher wages because he wanted his workers to buy his cars is a myth. The actual reason is, it so happens, also listed in the linked article, though. He needed to fix his turnover problem.

As for your other question, I'm not sure what you'd like. I mean, the plight of children born to parents who really shouldn't be having kids is certainly something I care about. I care that children are treated as subhuman, that they have few autonomous rights under he law, that violence not in self defense is still legal when committed against a child... And yeah, I care when people who can't adequately care for a child have one (or more) anyway.

The child doesn't particularly "deserve" any of that, no. If you're arguing that children of poor families should be taken from their families, though, I'm a bit reluctant except in the most extreme cases. I don't really have a lot of faith that whoever takes the kid will do much better.

And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Dan, your post does not present what I would consider any understanding of his article.

quote:
the old saw about the shrinking middle class
the old true saw
Well Sam, you're free not to discuss it with me if you prefer. Otherwise, just asserting that I didn't understand it isn't very persuasive. Why do you think that?

Re: Pew... Heh. Let's take a look!

So, everyone's wages went down, after the dot com and housing bubbles burst. No surprise there. The changes in wage for the middle classes was the least... The top 5% and the bottom quintile dropped proportionally more than anyone in the middle class. Also household income has dropped, butlet's ignore whether or not household size has changed too.

And there's been a consistent trend for a percentage point of middle income people to shift to lower income every 10 years or so, and the same or more people to shift from middle income to higher income. If this coninues in exactly the same fashion for the next 250 years the middle class will be gone!
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.
One easy step would be to give all children Medicaid, or equivalent coverage.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, reread that post. Ford paid workers more than then going rate so they would be able to buy his cars. He, being a smart businessman who was interested in more than just the next quarter, knew that long term, he had to pay attention to demand.

Dan, again, if you want to use terms like "fair" and "deserve" you need to answer my question.

I know what it says, Kate. The idea that Ford paid higher wages because he wanted his workers to buy his cars is a myth. The actual reason is, it so happens, also listed in the linked article, though. He needed to fix his turnover problem.
Do you have any evidence of that?

quote:


As for your other question, I'm not sure what you'd like. I mean, the plight of children born to parents who really shouldn't be having kids is certainly something I care about. I care that children are treated as subhuman, that they have few autonomous rights under he law, that violence not in self defense is still legal when committed against a child... And yeah, I care when people who can't adequately care for a child have one (or more) anyway.

The child doesn't particularly "deserve" any of that, no. If you're arguing that children of poor families should be taken from their families, though, I'm a bit reluctant except in the most extreme cases. I don't really have a lot of faith that whoever takes the kid will do much better.

And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.

My point is that "fair" and "deserve" have very little place in a discussion of economics. When you can explain to me how it is fair that some people are born with advantages that others do not have, then you can talk about how people deserve to hold on to whatever they can manage to acquire. Otherwise, "fair" and "deserve" are meaningless.

And consider me stunned (if not, in retrospect, surprised) that the "solution" that springs to your mind is taking children away from poor families rather than addressing the reasons the family is poor.. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:

The first is that you dismiss whether or not you deserve something by some property-rights based standard of fairness as if this was irrelevant. But I made several moral claims, and this is not irrelevant. If you don't "deserve" it... why are you trying to get it? One example of acquiring something you don't deserve is theft. If you think it's okay to get stuff you don't deserve, but you reject theft, then how are you drawing the distinction?

Trying to win a lottery would be another example of trying to get something you don't deserve. Or really any time when you do the equivalent of making a bet (unless you think that when your card comes up in poker, you suddenly "deserve" to win the pot, but you wouldn't deserve it if your card didn't come, which seems strange).
I'm not sure why it seems strange. You all agreed to play a game with rules beforehand. One of those rules is that the person with he right ink on his pieces of cardboard wins money. Why wouldn't the winner deserve the money he won?

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Also, I think it's sometimes morally OK to steal. Coincidentally, a friend of mine recently revealed that he regularly shoplifts at Walmart. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Wow. Alright then. Not sure what to do with this. I guess I'll just implicitly reply through my responses above and below.

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:

quote:

Of course, this is predicated on the idea of GDP as an economic pie that should be cut up evenly. If people are making the same money they aren't middle class because the rich are richer proportionally, which means... Something?

Ah, it means it's unfair. It's predicated on the idea of fairness, which he derided earlier in his post. But clearly, that's actually pretty important to him.

No, I think Sam and the source he quotes are right that fairness isn't what matters in economics. Large amounts of inequality have bad social effects (crime, public health). That's why they're bad, not because it's unfair to have a dwindling middle class or something.
These assertions sound like they probably have associated cites. Have any handy?

Or, in lieu of a cite I'd happily accept an argument for why this is the case. I can imagine some possibilities but they seem like solvable problems, not inherent consequences of "inequality."

(Scare quoted because the term itself is a scare tactic. Unequal pay for unequal work creates inequality, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:

Here's the way I generally see it. The freedom that matters in life isn't freedom from interference by others, having your stuff stolen, etc. It's freedom to do what you want with your life (which includes having the stuff you want). As a means to freedom, money has diminishing returns--each additional dollar Gates makes provides him with far fewer new opportunities to do what he wants than each additional dollar you make. So it improves the net freedom of people if money is transferred from Gates to you. (If Gates is prone to stimulating net growth more when he's taxed less, that's a complication that needs to be taken into account, but the empirical evidence indicates otherwise.)

As you can probably expect, I disagree. Positive rights like that place constraints (unequal restraints, so you know they're bad) on other people. The moment someone else's want is to not have their money taken, you're up shit creek because you're not restraining their freedom to do what they want.

I think to make this sort of thing work in reality you would need to judge which wants were okay and which got priority. Which means everyone's wants in every sphere of their life would be subject to a third party approval. So then we're back to my problems with such systems... Everyone makes mistakes, so frequently people would be wrongly stymied from doing something they rightly think is good.

Another problem with positive rights like this is that they tend to be punitive. The most important, advantageous, and unequally distributed qualities can't simply be taken from someone and given to another.

If we see an unequal race, and if we lack the means to improve the legs of the losers, the other way to equalize it is to break the legs of the winners.

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:

Thus, I agree with Sam:
quote:
I think it speaks to a lot of the issues with why we have to have some wage control, whether they invariably come in the form of unions or possibly come in the form of federal or state level protections.
although I would much rather have the controls take the form of a guaranteed minimum income, rather than unions, which (like subsidies) have a distorting effect on the efficiency of the overall system and thus probably do impede growth.
Worth mentioning: though I still don't like it, I'd happily take a minimum income if it meant we could cut a swathe through the regulations and laws and entitlements that ostensibly are there to help the poor but mostly just cost money, impede progress, and benefit the middle class elderly.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.
One easy step would be to give all children Medicaid, or equivalent coverage.
Yeah, another sort of thing I might support if it came with enough cutting away of other stuff.

To be clear, though, this doesn't solve most of the problems I was referring to.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, reread that post. Ford paid workers more than then going rate so they would be able to buy his cars. He, being a smart businessman who was interested in more than just the next quarter, knew that long term, he had to pay attention to demand.

Dan, again, if you want to use terms like "fair" and "deserve" you need to answer my question.

I know what it says, Kate. The idea that Ford paid higher wages because he wanted his workers to buy his cars is a myth. The actual reason is, it so happens, also listed in the linked article, though. He needed to fix his turnover problem.
Do you have any evidence of that?

Google? Don't recall where I read it first. I can try to find something when I get home. [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

As for your other question, I'm not sure what you'd like. I mean, the plight of children born to parents who really shouldn't be having kids is certainly something I care about. I care that children are treated as subhuman, that they have few autonomous rights under he law, that violence not in self defense is still legal when committed against a child... And yeah, I care when people who can't adequately care for a child have one (or more) anyway.

The child doesn't particularly "deserve" any of that, no. If you're arguing that children of poor families should be taken from their families, though, I'm a bit reluctant except in the most extreme cases. I don't really have a lot of faith that whoever takes the kid will do much better.

And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.

My point is that "fair" and "deserve" have very little place in a discussion of economics. When you can explain to me how it is fair that some people are born with advantages that others do not have, then you can talk about how people deserve to hold on to whatever they can manage to acquire. Otherwise, "fair" and "deserve" are meaningless.

And consider me stunned (if not, in retrospect, surprised) that the "solution" that springs to your mind is taking children away from poor families rather than addressing the reasons the family is poor.. [Roll Eyes]

I didn't want to disappoint! [Wink]

But yeah, the family is poor because of lousy luck combined wih lousy decisions, as evidenced by their terrible decision to have kids while they were impoverished. That's not a good or rational decision. They hurt themselves and they hurt their kid before the kid was even born.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So how is any of that "fair" or "deserved"? The biggest factor in our success is the pure luck of which parents we get. Unless you are suggesting predestination or past lives - none of what we start with is deserved or fair.

How do you know they were impoverished before they had kids? Maybe they were fine but made the terrible decision to have a kid that got sick. Or perhaps the terrible decision was getting the sick kid medical help?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So how is any of that "fair" or "deserved"? The biggest factor in our success is the pure luck of which parents we get. Unless you are suggesting predestination or past lives - none of what we start with is deserved or fair.

How do you know they were impoverished before they had kids? Maybe they were fine but made the terrible decision to have a kid that got sick. Or perhaps the terrible decision was getting the sick kid medical help?

Why would those be terrible decisions? I'm confused. Those seem like reasonable decisions given the circumstances.

I'm also not interested in planning society around edge cases, like a comfortably positioned family that suffers from a sudden, rare, super expensive illness. It certainly happens, though. As do lots of other things that are as bad or worse. Is that your benchmark, though? If so, why?

As far as the parents thing... That's not pure luck, that's a choice. Being a parent is a choice. It's just, sadly, a choice made for us. But why is that remarkable to you? People make choices for their kids all the time. Having a kid at all is just the first one.

I guess how good a choice it was could be lucky or unlucky for the kid... was that what you were getting at? Same way someone's choice to drive drunk might be unlucky for whoever is driving near them?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
My thumbs are tired. Taking a break.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
How on earth do you still think that it is only rare diseases that are "super-expensive" and bankrupt people?

Yes. To the last bit, yes. That was what I was getting at. How was that not clear from my first question?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How on earth do you still think that it is only rare diseases that are "super-expensive" and bankrupt people?

Yes. To the last bit, yes. That was what I was getting at. How was that not clear from my first question?

Re: diseases... A family with a reasonable income, savings, and insurance isn't usually bankrupted by ilness. It's only the more extreme cases that would do that. Am I mistaken? Are scads and scads of middle income Americans going bankrupt due to hospital bills?

Re: kids...I'm far more concerned with the fact that parents of all income brackets typically instill in their kids countless bad ideas, bad habits, bad philosophy, etc. severely hamper their life. The income of the parents is far less worrisome than that.

And again, how does the state solve that problem without trying to forbid poor people from having kids?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You are mistaken. Medical bills are a contributing cause of personal bankruptcy more than %60 of the time. More than three quarters of those have health insurance.

What you are concerned with is not the issue. Nor are the ideas, habits, or philosophy more worrisome in any real sense than their income.

Honest to goodness, Dan. If someone got pushed off a tall building, I swear you would consider it their "bad choice" not to have grown wings.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Dan, I looked over my comments and yours from earlier (I've been busy). Let me clarify my point.

You say this is a win for Joe because he apparently had two outcomes--one where Wal-Mart gives him the raise and one where he get's fired. If he gets the raise its a win for Joe. If he gets fired it must be a win for Joe because if he was thinking rationally then he wouldn't strike where he might end up fired.
quote:
If Joe approached the strike irrationally, from a position where he wasn't willing to live with the possible negative repercussions of his decision.

I'm describing the scenario where he wasn't willing to give up the job entirely, and the only outcome he was willing to accept was one where the employer gave in to the strikers' demands.

As I said before, though, this would be a terrible way to live. It dictates that the scenario shift from having a win/win outcome and into win/lose. The only way for Joe to be happy is for him to get something that he can't achieve by himself; to get someone else to do what he wants. So if can't do that, then his only remaining options are to be miserable (in which case he loses), or force the other party to do what he wants (in which case they lose).

In other words, Joe had a two winning options and no losing ones so it must be a win for Joe. If it is a loss for Joe then he was irrational.

If you set up the hypothetical so that no matter what happens it is a "win/win" then you don't prove anything.

On the other hand lets look at the win/lose scenario you are suggesting. Joe considers his options and realizes that the moment he strikes he will lose his job and has no prospects for a better one. So he does not go on strike.

In the short range Wal-Mart wins and Joe loses because he's stuck in a job that does not pay what he seeks.

One other point, when I point out the problems that Wal-Mart will face by firing Joe and Hiring Frank, you say that is too long-term thinking to go into this short-term win/win scenario. Yet you say that Joe must make even longer term decisions about future employment. Apparently the company is allowed to make short-term based decisions while the employees must live by long-term based ones only.

You also mention that Joe's demands for more pay, in the open market, do not reflect reality and if the Union helps him get money he doesn't deserve, that is stealing.

But isn't it stealing from Joe if Wal-Mart colludes to keep salaries artificially low?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You are mistaken. Medical bills are a contributing cause of personal bankruptcy more than %60 of the time. More than three quarters of those have health insurance.

What you are concerned with is not the issue. Nor are the ideas, habits, or philosophy more worrisome in any real sense than their income.

Honest to goodness, Dan. If someone got pushed off a tall building, I swear you would consider it their "bad choice" not to have grown wings.

"Contributing cause?" Sure, that makes sense. That's not what either of us said before, though. You moved the target.

I'm confused. You're talking to me, so I assume you care what I think (which includes what concerns me). If not, why talk to me? What's the point of that? Just to pass the time? I don't get it.

And no, I wouldn't. It might have been a bad decision to go up to the top of the building with a murderer, though! I don't have all the facts of the case. [Wink]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.
quote:
Expensive illnesses trigger half of personal bankruptcies.

Majority of people who go bankrupt because of medical reasons actually have insurance!

Many start out their illnesses with insurance while 38% lose coverage by the time bankruptcy is filed.

Medical-caused bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans each year, including 700,000 children.

Link to the study: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf

It isn't that I don't care what you think, Dan. It is that what you are thinking is nonsense.

And, again. You are missing the point.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
You're still moving goalposts, Kate. Don't these figures include people who weren't comfortably middle income with savings etc?

I haven't checked the link yet, but it looks like this is all medical bankruptcies, including those of the poor. Is that right? Or was your point just that I mentioned insurance, and this sort of contradicts that, or what?

So 2 million Americans, which is what, a half a percent? Less? And including poor income families.

You haven't given any arguments with your data. Are you asserting that this contradicts what I said? I don't see it. Would you like to explain?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What I am saying is that often - more often than not by a long shot - is that people are poor or wealthy for reasons that have not a blessed thing to do with what they deserve or what is fair. Much of our failure or success is due to circumstances beyond our control. Your image of people being poor because of their own "bad choices" or wealthy because they deserve to be is, for the most part, simply not true.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
And if you aren't arguing that (I don't think you are) then I don't really see your point. Children suffer from their parents' mistakes. A lot. It sucks, but it doesn't seem like you have offered a solution here.
One easy step would be to give all children Medicaid, or equivalent coverage.
Yeah, another sort of thing I might support if it came with enough cutting away of other stuff.
Why does it have to come with cutting away other stuff? Wouldn't it be an improvement on the present system, even if that were the only change?
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
These assertions sound like they probably have associated cites. Have any handy?
I'm not trying to convince you that inequality has those effects. I'm merely pointing out that it's the effects that matter, not the fairness.

quote:
As you can probably expect, I disagree. Positive rights like that place constraints (unequal restraints, so you know they're bad) on other people. The moment someone else's want is to not have their money taken, you're up shit creek because you're not restraining their freedom to do what they want.
Indeed, leaving Gates's money with Gates does give him some freedoms (like you say, he now has the freedom to hold onto that money). Pointing this out doesn't refute my point that the freedoms he gains from additional money are much less extensive than the freedoms you gain from additional money.

It's not a question of how badly he wants the dollar versus how badly you want the dollar. It's a question of how many different opportunities would he have if he had the dollar, versus how many you would have if you had the dollar. I don't pretend to know exactly how to add these things up, but it's obvious that the opportunities you gain from an additional $1 are more extensive than the ones he gains.

quote:
I think to make this sort of thing work in reality you would need to judge which wants were okay and which got priority. Which means everyone's wants in every sphere of their life would be subject to a third party approval. So then we're back to my problems with such systems... Everyone makes mistakes, so frequently people would be wrongly stymied from doing something they rightly think is good.
That happens anyway, of course. I'm constantly wrongly stymied in my desire to have better health, less busy work and more worthwhile things to do with my time. Thankfully, civilization has developed to the point where I'm much better off in that regard than I would've been a while back. But I think a little more income equality would help that process even further.

Now, would someone have to judge? Naturally, someone would. Fortunately, the relevant judgements are really easy to make. The kind of opportunities that poor people would gain if they had more money are obviously much more valuable than the kind that wealthy people would gain if they had more money. In some cases they mean the difference between life and death, while in other cases they mean the difference between drudgery and the realization of very basic life goals (like having children, as you point out). The freedom to have children is more important than any freedom a rich person could gain by making an extra $50K a year or something. No question, that's a premise of my argument, and I stand by it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Well Sam, you're free not to discuss it with me if you prefer. Otherwise, just asserting that I didn't understand it isn't very persuasive. Why do you think that?
You leapt right to concluding that his article ended up being all about fairness all over again. It's very well established — hell, even drilled constantly — that it's not about fairness, it's about making the system operable in the long run so that this doesn't come back to bite everyone in the ass later because of profit motive and independent shareholder interest making businesses think in the unsustainable now.

It is literally as much about "fairness" as Ford's decision to drastically increase worker wages was about "fairness." It is about doing smart things which work and keeping people from doing bad things which will cost us in the end.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
More replies...

quote:
I'm not sure why it seems strange. You all agreed to play a game with rules beforehand. One of those rules is that the person with he right ink on his pieces of cardboard wins money. Why wouldn't the winner deserve the money he won?
The thought is that the result (whether he won or not) was a matter of chance. He didn't do anything to deserve the money, any more than he would deserve it if his card hadn't come up. In other words, the notion that what he deserves is not merely a function of his choices, but includes also the deliverance of luck, strikes me as odd.

You're right that there is a sense in which he should be awarded the money, since everyone agreed to the rules. But there is also a sense in which he didn't earn the money, and this is the sense in which desert matters for our present purposes, from what I can tell. (For one thing, we're never given the opportunity to agree to the rules of economic life, so our economic life can't be analogous to a card game in that sense.)

quote:
Worth mentioning: though I still don't like it, I'd happily take a minimum income if it meant we could cut a swathe through the regulations and laws and entitlements that ostensibly are there to help the poor but mostly just cost money, impede progress, and benefit the middle class elderly.
That is worth mentioning, since it reaffirms for me that you're basically reasonable and not an an-cap or minarchist type with principles that are totally beyond the pale.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I asked about taxation y/n specifically to line out specifically how an-cap thought is not even being entertained here anymore afaik
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
What a coincidence that we were just discussing this. Now our "moderate" Repub governor in MI is about to sign RTW into law.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The good news is that negotiating with employers for fair wages, better working conditions, and more secure employment is something most effectively done on am individual level.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
What a coincidence that we were just discussing this. Now our "moderate" Repub governor in MI is about to sign RTW into law.

It really is a triumph of gerrymandering. The state is largely democratic, it voted heavily in favor of Obama, but the republicans get to pull this stunt because the districts are heavily packed and cracked, allowing them full control of the legislature. Oh right and they're now in a pretty much permanent 'state of emergency' so they could pull this stunt in a day.

too bad they're essentially jamming themselves into the political grave as fast as they can by doing this, and will be loathed so completely and indefinitely that the state will be a liberal stronghold for generations but uhhhhhhhh yeah, good job guys, y'all stuck it to the unions and to free association horray!
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
We do also have a Republican governor. Can't blame gerrymandering for that.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Yeah, but you can blame the bill on that.

quote:
“I do not view this as something against the unions,” Snyder said. Rather, he went on, it’s about “workers [having] the right to choose who they associate with.”
can you even fathom the amount of mental gymnastics that went into this quote
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
On the surface, it requires very little mental gymnastics. The first part is plainly a lie, of course-the bones of the argument are that unions should not be able to compel membership from other workers. This is a right they currently have, and it substantially increases their power and status from what it would otherwise be. So obviously it's intended as against the unions-no one should have any illusions about that, and without a pretty compelling line of reasoning I won't be able to take seriously anyone who does.

The rub is that the argument goes 'this is an unjust power the unions have, so being against them in this is actually a good thing'. But that's a lot of nuance for any politician. All of that said, though...heh. Is there anyone who truly believes the impetus for these kinds of legislative effort really stem from a high-minded concern over the associations of workers, and their rights involved in them? Republicans are certainly not known lately for such concern in other areas of shall we say association on an individual level.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

The rub is that the argument goes 'this is an unjust power the unions have, so being against them in this is actually a good thing'. But that's a lot of nuance for any politician. All of that said, though...heh. Is there anyone who truly believes the impetus for these kinds of legislative effort really stem from a high-minded concern over the associations of workers, and their rights involved in them?

Pretty much I do, yeah. What do you think the motivation is?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
What, really? The self-interest of various wealthy business owners and corporations play no role in influencing labor politics, Dan?

Note that I'm not claiming this is the *only* reason-I'm questioning whether the governor would care as much without it. It would be a strange politician, quite incredibly high minded, to be so free of his *own* interest in, well, his interest.

I wonder if your choice of quote means you accept my claim that the first part was an obvious lie? [Wink]

Anyway, all of that aside, I would still be interested-as I suspect others are-in hearing how workers can effectively negotiate with employers if they are unable to enforce their own group-status. More individual style negotiations, which enormously favor the employer? Or the standard retroactive Republican method (if you wanted better working conditions, you should have trained yourself better ten years ago)?

The previous paragraph was written in frustration with what seems to me to be a peculiarly cynical (with respect to unions) and naive (with respect to individual negotiations) attitude, but this one is less emotional: why is it that the standard conservative, libertarian-leaning, what-have-you, attitude towards employment is 'If you're unsatisfied, you're free to go elsewhere and get a better deal if you think you can' when we're talking about, say, RTW...but then you DON'T also say of people unhappy with union membership 'If you don't like it you can go elsewhere and get a better deal if you can'?

This is precisely the sort of contradiction I was getting at-am argument can be made that if one is concerned with protecting the rights of free association, well employees dissatisfied may already vote with their feet! God knows we hear this sort of argument all the time if some uppity worker doesn't like the deal his boss has on offer-if he is unhappy with the current status quo where he lacks many choices, then he can leave and seek better choices elsewhere. And we're fine with that-it even seems the proper order of things.

Unless it's not the employer doing it. Then it's an infringement on the right to free association, or something-and of course Republicans and employers are so VERY concerned with protecting that right when it comes to joining a union...or homosexuals marrying...or giving charity to illegal immigrants...or on and on.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
The previous paragraph was written in frustration with what seems to me to be a peculiarly cynical (with respect to unions) and naive (with respect to individual negotiations) attitude, but this one is less emotional: why is it that the standard conservative, libertarian-leaning, what-have-you, attitude towards employment is 'If you're unsatisfied, you're free to go elsewhere and get a better deal if you think you can' when we're talking about, say, RTW...but then you DON'T also say of people unhappy with union membership 'If you don't like it you can go elsewhere and get a better deal if you can'?
I thought Dan was pretty clear before that this is what he would say if other regulations favoring unions didn't make RTW the lesser evil.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
The fact that the Michigan GOP is taking on labor rights by ending closed union shops in the state where the labor movement helped create the middle class is a slap in the face to workers. That Republicans are doing it after Mitt Romney lost the state by 9.5 percent is a reminder of the lasting effects of the 2010 election, when Democrats stayed home and the GOP won the opportunity to redistrict themselves into power for the next decade.

The deceptively named “Right to Work” bill was passed by both state houses and is about to be signed into law without one hearing or any input from citizens. The legislation includes a $1 million appropriation so it cannot be overturned by popular vote, as the Emergency Manager Law was in November.

Labor is still trying to pressure Governor Rick Snyder, who until this lame-duck session had been reluctant to put his signature on a law designed to deflate union power in the heartland of the auto industry. But with multimillionaire Rick DeVos promising to support any Republican who votes for the bill and punish anyone who doesn’t, the bill seems destined to become law.

MI republicans are the cleverest anti-democratic folk around.

additionally:

quote:
By now you must be thinking, “There’s gotta be some benefit to this law. How about growth? It’s gotta lead to new jobs…” The Higgins Labor Studies Program at the University of Notre Dame looked at states that recently became RTW and found that growth was higher before they passed the law. In addition, non-RTW states have a higher level of income.

 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Rakeesh, I'm a bit busy today, posting from my phone, but I wanted to say a couple things.

One: yeah saying it's not about unions is a lie. It's a law about unions. I didn't object to you characterizing that as a lie. [Smile]

Two: Destineer basically nailed my response to that part of what you said.

Three: Republican lack of consistency between economic and personal freedom isn't new, and I expect you know I don't agree with it. Such lacks of consistency aren't exclusive to any political group, though. Judgments of which might be "worse" than others are likely to fall down pretty blatant partisan lines. No?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
(I thought you would recognize that particular standard political lie, but I didn't want to roll on as though our agreement there was a given.)

Re: #2, I suppose my question would be, "Why?" As it stands, many regulations and even more the simple reality of employment-especially the latter-are enormously favorable to the employer. Absent unions, for example, when has any employer anywhere, ever, agree that he must show cause before, say, abruptly lowering wages or limiting hours or changing working conditions, so on and so forth? My question is to ask why efforts to apply some sort of parity between the employer and all of his workers as a group are to be so feared? Or not really parity, even in conditions most favorable to the union, but at least status to be heard.

Re: 3, yes, it's nothing new but it DOES call into question just how concerned Republicans are with these rights, doesn't it? Yes, this sort of 'contradiction' (the correct word being hypocrisy) is nothing new, but that doesn't exactly mitigate the dubiousness of a claim towards high-minded respect for individual rights, does it? Rather it makes it less likely I would think. It's not about which is worst, or when or how often, it's about the hypocrisy existing in the first place.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
it's nothing new but it DOES call into question just how concerned Republicans are with these rights, doesn't it?
1. they're sold on the (paid for) narrative that they need to be concerned about these rights. in exactly the way the people who fork impressively large paychecks to conservative think tanks have conveniently dictated they should be, but

2. it's not like they're particularly unique in this regard, they're just today's example of the 'merican demo the (presently) most reliably sold against their own interests
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
in union related news, the MI capitol is now completely cordoned off by road closures and the police are out in force with anti-riot gear and gas masks

mi republicans: "we're going down, so we better go down so hard nobody likes us for generations"
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Looks like things are getting ugly in Michigan.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
hahaha on the subject of unions, check these guys out

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Blogh/archives/2012/12/11/upmc-opens-food-bank-for-struggling-employees-misses-point-completely
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
One of the comments on that blog post was insightful:
quote:
It will take time to analyze this move by UPMC in terms of the size of their endowment, the number and average family size of people they employ (how many are part time, with spouses who lost jobs in the past year?), projected revenues vs operating costs, and executive salaries.
I know the blog post is meant to be a feel-good piece but it's not detailed enough to be persuasive.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation made some good points about unions on Talk of The Nation today:
quote:
The problem is that union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Consider a high-performing worker. Well, the seniority system is actually holding him back. He could be - get a raise faster than what the unions negotiated for him, or seniority-based layoffs, with the new hires are going to be first on the chopping block to get laid off. They don't benefit from a union contract, but the union is insisting that, you know, they pay for it anyway.

I mean unions could - the Supreme Court has recognized repeatedly the right of unions to negotiate members-only contracts that only cover their members. So they could say, all right, we'll negotiate for our members. You guys do your own thing. They don't do that. They voluntarily choose to represent everyone in the workforce - precisely because they want those new hires to be forced into the seniority system so they get laid off first and the more senior union members don't get laid off.

And the law gives them that power, but they shouldn't be able to force all the workers in the company to pay dues to the union, simply to work. I mean it's, you know, it's your money. You've worked to earn that. If you're a worker, you shouldn't be forced to pay the union simply to hold a job.

ETA Sherk continuing his point:
quote:
You've got this, you know, your first hire or your last hired, first fired seniority provisions. And so you have like the Milwaukee public schools in 2010 awarded Megan Sampson their Outstanding First Year Teacher Award, and then a week later fired her. Why? Because she didn't have seniority.

Well, what happened to best interest of the children? No, I don't think it was, but she was fired because that was in the union contract that they wanted the new hires to go first. And I think it leads to tremendous unfairness for individual workers who the collective has decided you're going to take the hit for us.


 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.

Is that all you got? Sarcastic comments and a petulant, unions-can-do-no-harm approach to the discussion?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The Heritage Foundation. It's like The Somalian quoting the Protocols of Zion in an argument with Lisa.

It ignores the utility argument of how sometimes the individual loses a little for a broader benefit for workers everywhere. This is accepted fact, its the social contract in microcosm.

In fact the argument above is the FYIGM argument, its "I could get stuff faster than all of your leachers slowing me down" and instead of him getting his raise "slower" than everyone else, its him along getting his raise at the expense of everyone else.

Its an entirely convincing argument, they don't argue numbers or economics, just pseudo objectivism. If your more capable, smarter, more attractive whatever, the other workers in the factory can suck it so you can get two rice bowls.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The Heritage Foundation. It's like The Somalian quoting the Protocols of Zion in an argument with Lisa.

"It's the Heritage foundation" isn't an argument. You can't dismiss the validity of a certain point based simply on who made the point. It's considered a logical fallacy. If an argument is logical, factual and relevant it should merit an honest response in a good-faith discussion. You don't like the Heritage Foundation? Fine. Just present your counterpoint.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I did both, you chose to ignore the counter argument.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Whew! Good thing employers have the best interest of the individual workers at heart. That's a relief.

Is that all you got? Sarcastic comments and a petulant, unions-can-do-no-harm approach to the discussion?
Sarcastic, yes. Unions do no wrong, no.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

It ignores the utility argument of how sometimes the individual loses a little for a broader benefit for workers everywhere. This is accepted fact, its the social contract in microcosm.

No it doesn't. Actually, it addressed that argument specifically.

But, you know. The Heritage Foundation. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
... I don't think you understand what a 'feel-good piece' means, or the point of the post flew right over your head
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Asserting in some fashion, shape or form. That the social contract is 'wrong' is not a valid counter argument to the social contract. An argument without evidence is just an assertion.

In fact rereading it doesn't even directly address the social contract; it just asserts that there's some superhuman brilliant blue collar worker being held back by an alleged union somewhere IF ONLY IT WEREN'T FOR THE EVIL UNIONS.

Which isn't an argument, its basically a strawman and again, ignores all the benefit unions have brought to America in the first place that said poor superhuman brilliant blue collar worker ALSO benefits from.

Heck, why is it more fair to lay off an experienced senior worker? Heck how does it make economically more sense? He's better trained, has industry tribal knowledge that the newbie lacks.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
... I don't think you understand what a 'feel-good piece' means, or the point of the post flew right over your head

An appeal to emotion while producing little to no relevant information about the full context and implications of the situation, rendering any sort of intelligent or rational discussion nearly impossible.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Gosh, noted poster capaxinfiniti, that article is clearly not a feel-good piece, why did you use "feel-good piece" to describe it? If you actually believe it you didn't understand or didn't really read it and should go read it carefully so you pick up on what you missed before!
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Gosh, noted poster capaxinfiniti, that article is clearly not a feel-good piece, why did you use "feel-good piece" to describe it? If you actually believe it you didn't understand or didn't really read it and should go read it carefully so you pick up on what you missed before!

Cut the snark and we can have a big boy conversation.

Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Still ignoring my post I see, not really an adult act.

Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Big boy conversation, hah. By all means, flee under the cloak of outrage at snark when it suits you-as though you're not an uncommon wielder yourself.

Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Big boy conversation, hah. By all means, flee under the cloak of outrage at snark when it suits you-as though you're not an uncommon wielder yourself.

Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.

Cloak of outrage? You got that out of my one sentence? Look at the impetuous language and word choice of what you just posted. You get huffy and riled up and shoot off comments that makes no sense. I was calling for a more mature, civil discussion then you storm in with this.

"Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW"

Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee. I'm not concerned with what guides the employers. The decision to seek employment at a certain location is a personal choice. The decision to join a union is a personal choice. RTW ensure that this choice is truly a choice and always remains one. It's the right of the employee to decide if they want the union to represent them. Unions come with negative consequences. (A point some don't agree with. See Blayne's comments.) If the employee thinks the positives outweigh the negatives, it's unlikely they would find the union dues burdensome.

People can defend RTW in whichever way they see fit. To me and every other conservative I know, the issue is one of personal rights.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
That's the only thing you can conclude? I'll admit again that I had difficulty parsing your comments but if I got the gist of it correct, Dan_Frank pointed out that your argument equally (perhaps more so) strengthens the position counter to your own.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I am not arguing Dan's post, I am arguing your post. And I posted my rebuttal, so either refute it or concede. Don't waste my time with disingenuous nonsense about how you suddenly aren't able to parse a simple post.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Feel-good in that anyone who is careless enough to believe, without question, that this situation is as simple as portrayed can receive an immediate reaffirmation that their worldview is "correct." In short, feel good about the post's implied conclusion, that employers are heartless and cruel (cut wages then create a food pantry) in their pursuit of profits.

Heartless? Maybe!
Cruel? Maybe?

So utterly blinkered as to not see what their actions say about themselves? Way to completely miss the point, morons. Let's us treat our employees like charity cases! in response to "We're paid so goddamn little we have to use food banks" they opened up a company food bank. And it appears are possibly soliciting those very underpaid employees to donate to the food bank, which they can then withdraw from?

It's too stupid. And about 20 years too early for our triumphant return to company towns.

And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that there is an interesting parallel to be made about unions and vaccination. Sure. People think that vaccinating kids is a bad thing and, for a while, we all are okay because of herd immunity. Enough people ride free, though, and that immunity breaks downs and we all get sick.

Unions are similar. When they are strong, they protect all of us, even those of us who aren't in unions.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

When you don't agree with someone's analysis you immediately claim they "didn't even read it" or that they don't know what X means. It's your standard, cut and paste response and it reeks of arrogance.

I didn't say it was a "warm fuzzies about the world" feel-good story. I explained what I was referring to when I called it a feel-good story. Reread my response. But if rereading it causes you to become more angry just ignore what I said. It's not a big deal.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom? I have a long list of you calling people names, so I'm well aware of the caliber of person you are, no surprises there, but are you no longer capable of articulation your opinion or crafting an intelligent argument?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

When you don't agree with someone's analysis you immediately claim they "didn't even read it" or that they don't know what X means. It's your standard, cut and paste response and it reeks of arrogance.

I didn't say it was a "warm fuzzies about the world" feel-good story. I explained what I was referring to when I called it a feel-good story. Reread my response. But if rereading it causes you to become more angry just ignore what I said. It's not a big deal.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Right-to-Work is first and foremost for the employee.
You know who believes that? Stupid employees.
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom? I have a long list of you calling people names, so I'm well aware of the caliber of person you are, no surprises there, but are you no longer capable of articulation your opinion or crafting an intelligent argument?

Careful, Capax. Tom gave you the moral high ground, don't give it up frivolously. [Wink]

Tom isn't, broadly, a low-caliber person or thinker. He just has his critical thinking capabilities massively disabled around certain topics. It's fine to not discuss with him on those topics. But if you choose to do that, just do it. Don't let the attacks rattle you. They aren't substantive criticisms, so they can just be ignored.

It's okay to ignore them, I promise. You're not Sam, you don't need to crusade on behalf of the slighted and belittled right-wing posters on the board. We can take attacks in stride, and not be offended. Or, if we can't, we should, because it's an invaluable skill to cultivate when engaging in political discussions.

And it's the individualist thing to do, too!

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Capa, if the situation is so complex, why is the best solution the 'simple' one of RTW despite all of the controversy surrounding it?

The complex situation I'm was talking about is found in the blog post linked to by Samprimary.

But obviously the issue of Right-to-Work is complex as well. I admit I find your posts following my Sherk quote slightly confusing. The jump from RTW to social contract theory might be the culprit. What, exactly, is your contention? I'll see if I can respond to it.

So you concede? The link from one to the other is so obvious that I can only conclude your lack of understand as facetious.
Blayne, it's kind of pathetic to respond to a legitimate clarifying question in the way you've done here. He didn't concede, he asked you to explain yourself, because you've done a poor job of it so far. If you don't want to explain yourself again, that's fine, you can drop it, but don't try to wrangle a win out of that. It won't fly.

The truth isn't obvious. We have to discover it. Your meaning also isn't obvious. Assuming that things are obvious, and anyone who can't see what you see is either stupid or evil and lying, is a really terrible way to approach critical discussion. It's a terrible way to approach life.

It leads to demonizing opposition, it makes it harder for you to accept critical responses, and it generally just screws up your interactions with people. It's not worth it.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Way to completely miss the point, morons. Let's us treat our employees like charity cases! in response to "We're paid so goddamn little we have to use food banks" they opened up a company food bank. And it appears are possibly soliciting those very underpaid employees to donate to the food bank, which they can then withdraw from?

I assumed they expect to receive donations from the employees that were not doing as poorly. Either because they were paid more (I doubt everyone is paid the same. At the very least there's probably a few layers of management), or because they had fewer expenses (also a strong possibility; I've worked with people who relied on food banks before. We were paid the same, and I had lots of surplus cash. Different lifestyles have different upkeep levels.)

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And, like I suspected, you really don't know what "feel-good story" means. You think to anyone who agrees with this story sits down and reads it to really feel good about the world?

No, he thinks people who read it do so to reaffirm their sense of injustice and stoke the fires of anti-business/anti-capitalist outrage in their hearts. They do it to feel bad about the world, and to feel good about their attempts to force improvements.

"Feel-good" wasn't the best way to put it, I'll agree. It's nonstandard usage. But he explained what he meant already, and the phenomena he's thinking of is pretty accurate, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well I for one am eager to hear the circumstances that motivates their compassionate concern such that rather than raising wages or benefits, they create a food bank...which need was spurred by the low wages in the first place.

I guess their concern is sufficient that it would permit the creation of a food bank, but not *quite* enough that they could raise wages?

Right. Food bank is probably way cheaper. And easier to justify than increasing wages for a job that presumably isn't worth a lot more.

I mean, is it a high-skill job, or one that is low-skill with relatively high turnover? Some low-skill jobs in big corps have a certain level of stability and low-stress you can't find in food service, and a little more pay, so they are more appealing "career" paths for low-skill workers. But ultimately it's still a low-skill job that could support a higher turnover, so it's hard to justify a high pay in situations like that.

Or is it a normally high skill job with low turnover? Did they just hit everyone with massive pay cuts? What's up? I don't know the details. Do you?

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Still waiting to hear why there is a rational reason to believe employers are more guided by high minded concern for individual rights rather than their own bottom line when it comes to RTW, btw. It is bitterly amusing how quickly conservatives are to pretend the whole 'self-interest' angle of capitalism, supposed to be one of its best features and the harnessing thereof, isn't the main factor when it becomes expedient to ignore it on moral questions.

But then are so eager to pick it up again when pointing the finger at unions. Oh, yes-they're against RTW because it would hurt their wallets...but we aren't supposed to believe that employers are for it for the reverse reason. I'm sick of being asked to swallow this horse s*%t as though I were an idiot, under the blanket of 'well all politicians are bad'.

You'll be waiting a long time, dude.

I've said numerous times that I don't think that most companies are motivated for the greater good or for broad rights or whatever. I have no trouble believing they're motivated for financial gain. That's why so many companies get into bed with local and federal governments!

Some ideological thinktanks are pretty clearly motivated by ideology, though. Like Cato, or Heritage, or the Kochs. There's a clear ideology at play there.

Broadly, people are motivated by what they see as good reasons for stuff. That can be money, or ideology, or any of a million other things.

None of that is really relevant, though. Unions oppose RTW because RTW hurts unions, duh. It hurts their ability to make money and increase their power. It hurts their ability to fight for better conditions for their workers. It hurts them, broadly, for all sorts of reasons. So they oppose it. Right, this isn't rocket science.

And the employers that favor RTW do so because... it hurts unions! And they don't want to deal with unions. There are a million reasons here, too. Still not rocket science.

Ultimately, those reasons come back to the basic reason of this: The employer doesn't think that's the best way to run his business. Probably because of the increased cost. Also the increases in bureaucratic struggles and rules and procedures and whatnot. But that's basically a cost, so, see above.

Wonks at right wing thinktanks support RTW for ideological reasons, broadly. These might dovetail with the employer's reasons, but they aren't the same because there's no practical impetus for them. It's pure ideology. Naturally, Capax and I sound more like this than we do employers.

And wonks at left wing thinktanks oppose RTW for ideological reasons that also dovetail with the reasons Unions oppose them. But there are going to be some differences, more of a focus on broad social good, because again it's purely ideological. See Kate's comments for an example of what I mean.

But frankly, Rakeesh, I just don't see what you're referring to here. I think you're making big assumptions about our reasons for supporting RTW laws. This isn't the first time you've indicated that you think your opposition is, in effect, saying "get rid of regulations and everyone will do the things the regulations were trying to achieve anyway out of the goodness of their heart."

But, to the extent you think I or Capax are saying that, it's a straw man. I reject that characterization of my opinion, and I suspect he would too.

It's valuable, in critical discussion, to restate your opponent's ideas. It can help create clarity, and ensure that you understand them. The goal should be restating them in terms that they would agree with. If they say you aren't doing that, then you should adjust accordingly. If you don't, then it goes from a valuable tool for increasing clarity into a straw man argument that actively reduces clarity.

I don't think that's your intent, but so far that's how it's come through. Just FYI.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions' members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Killing The Goose

Where I work the profit margin is small. If we were burdened with such senseless inefficiency we would likely be operating in the red.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy...
I think if you do the research on this, you'll find what drove the company into bankruptcy was executive fraud and largesse.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Careful, Capax. Tom gave you the moral high ground, don't give it up frivolously. [Wink]

Thank you for the reminder. The fact that it wasn't substantive - and is consistent with a pattern of behavior he has exhibited - caused me to lose patience with such a blatant personal attack. I've done extremely well at ignoring such comments in recent months. You've prompted me to continue my efforts. [Smile]
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy...
I think if you do the research on this, you'll find what drove the company into bankruptcy was executive fraud and largesse.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

Yes, it was mismanaged. But a number of powerful, very pro-union people had their role in that debacle too. Sowell points out that the operational inefficiency mandated by the union, not just the wage and pension liabilities, indicate a self-serving intransigence on the part of unions. Intentionally creating drag on the system doesn't lead one to believe the union wanted mutual success with their employer, rather the union saw Hostess as a source of money to be exploited by way of inane contractual obligations.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It seems to me that if you're saying "intentionally creating drag on the system" means that the parties involved didn't want success at Hostess, the management of Hostess was far more committed to destroying that company.

This particular line of attack is interesting because unions will always be the enemy of a certain kind of efficiency -- namely, the harming of individual workers in the name of "productivity." That's their mission statement. A union, when it is doing its job, is finding ways to produce inefficiencies in favor of its members that do not overburden the actual operations of a company. And this is tolerable because very rarely is a company actually running so close to the edge that inefficiency threatens it; this is a myth that is promulgated by the same people who believe that a publicly owned company has no moral obligation to anyone or anything but the pockets of its shareholders.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Not just that but the unions had already undertaken cuts to benefits and salaries; the point to the recent strike and lawsuit is to insure that whatever benefits they have remaining can be upheld by the courts and not go poof.

But yeah, Tom of all people loses his critical thinking skills around certain topics? That's amusing.

Lets ask this question a different way, is there anyone besides yourself and Capa who do not understand the point of my post?

Because here's the thing, the burden of proof is on capax. History, such as the gilded age has already shown what a lack of unions can lead to; socialism has already proven itself more practical and workable a theory to manage society than libertarianism, this is already a fact as well.

Capax's efforts strike me as a weak willed attempt to shift the burden of proof onto other parties, due to a lack of evidence on his part for his argumentation. The most evidence posted to date? An opinion piece, one whose arguments have already been driven into the ground.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Dan, I admire you and your long post for the noble attempt to get this thread back on track.

quote:

This particular line of attack is interesting because unions will always be the enemy of a certain kind of efficiency -- namely, the harming of individual workers in the name of "productivity." That's their mission statement. A union, when it is doing its job, is finding ways to produce inefficiencies in favor of its members that do not overburden the actual operations of a company.

But isn't productivity a valuable thing? Otherwise why would there be work that needs doing in the first place?

quote:
And this is tolerable because very rarely is a company actually running so close to the edge that inefficiency threatens it; this is a myth that is promulgated by the same people who believe that a publicly owned company has no moral obligation to anyone or anything but the pockets of its shareholders.
But there may be negative side-effects of inefficiency even when the company is in no danger; for example, if the price of the goods or services provided goes up.

I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it. That's why the story Sam linked doesn't click with me. Sure, the company's response was probably tone-deaf and gave ammo to their opponents, but that doesn't make them wrong.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Paying walmart employees a living wage would increase the cost of goods only by 1% across the board.

Additionally what are we comparing productivity to? Productivity in the US has kept going up over the last 12 years and up and up while wages go down and employment is a slow crawl.

There's not enough demand because there's not enough people with good wages to promote that demand. Higher wages means higher demand, and economic growth.

US Productivity thanks to technology, training, and education is already so much vastly higher relative to its past history that is it at all right to suggest we should really be squeezing workers out of more productivity without due recourse through collective means?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/working-conditions

Here's a video that talks about workplace conditions in the US Gaming industry, a multi billion dollar industry with very little to nill unions.

Extremely high productivity but terrible sweatshop conditions.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Working conditions are a place where I would agree with you that improvement is needed, even if it comes at a reduction in efficiency. The main problem is overwork, as in your example of the game industry. The 40 hour work week should be stringently enforced, and I would support increasing the overtime bonus throughout the US.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Right, and we can't trust the government (regulatory capture) to enforce it, which is where unions come in.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Lets ask this question a different way, is there anyone besides yourself and Capa who do not understand the point of my post?

I don't know. Who cares? Capax was the one you were talking to, so your goal should be clear, effective communication with him.

You failed to do that. If you want to continue discussing with him, that should be addressed. Again, you don't get to be vague and unclear and then declare victory and go home. It just makes you look like a tool. Take a deep breath, and either try again, or acknowledge that you don't want to talk to Capax. And then don't.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Because here's the thing, the burden of proof is on capax. History, such as the gilded age has already shown what a lack of unions can lead to; socialism has already proven itself more practical and workable a theory to manage society than libertarianism, this is already a fact as well.

None of those are facts. They're all heavily disputed. You just dismiss the dispute as if it's already settled. That's not a critical, open-minded approach to finding the truth.

Again, I know you already think you know the truth. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't. But just repeatedly asserting that what you believe is the truth and anyone who disagrees is stupid/lying isn't productive.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor, I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor,
I do think that! As a matter of fact, I would say their labor has no intrinsic value, and the facets of US culture that make the acceptance of charity shameful are deeply sick.

quote:
I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
No doubt that's right. Is it supposed to count against what I said?
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
A modest proposal:

Right To Work laws can be the groundwork for some other sorely needed reforms in our society.

Since the scandal that has struck Tiger Woods, the US has fallen behind in Golf. Even Tennis is seeing European and even Chinese victors. The solution is what I call "Right To Golf".

Right to Golf is simple legislation that requires all Country Clubs to waive mandatory membership dues and usage fees.

Opening up our best golf courses and other facilities to the public is the quickest way to attract more players, lowering the already steep cost of getting involved in the sport.

This is not an anti-Country Club measure. It is sure to increase attendance at Country Clubs through out the state. The more golfers we have, the more they will want to golf. Clubs could expand, make new courses, and grow. Demand will be there, since its free.

Further, if the country club you attend is important to you, and the services the provide are important, I am sure you will continue paying your dues and fees out of respect for those institutions.

I am sure right now that Country Clubs are holding back great golfers, with their rules and regulations about when and how to play. Waiting for tee times, making reservations, replacing divots, these all get in the way of the true dedicated golfer who just wants to hit the ball, and hit it NOW.

Save Golf in the US. Pass the "Right To Golf" now.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Working conditions are a place where I would agree with you that improvement is needed, even if it comes at a reduction in efficiency. The main problem is overwork, as in your example of the game industry. The 40 hour work week should be stringently enforced, and I would support increasing the overtime bonus throughout the US.

None of the laws we have regarding workplace safety, a 40 hour week, overtime or what have you, would have existed without unions, Nor will they continue to exist for long without strong unions.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Destineer isn't anti-union, Kate.

Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.

I mean... I disagree. But you didn't offer any argument to explain your claim, so, what should I do? I guess I'll just politely disagree and move on?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I guess my general outlook is: if someone needs more money, it doesn't follow automatically that their employer (as opposed to society as a whole, via social programs) is the one who should provide it.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is better to get people to accept "charity" than to recognize the inherent value of their labor,
I do think that! As a matter of fact, I would say their labor has no intrinsic value, and the facets of US culture that make the acceptance of charity shameful are deeply sick.
Yeah, the idea that labor has "intrinsic value" is a pernicious fable in our culture. I think it contributes to the misunderstandings around this topic. Like when high-profile politicians say that someone who works hard should get enough money to have a house/car/middle class life etc.

Labor has value when people value that labor, or more accurately, the result of that labor. You can work hard digging a ditch nobody wants dug, and it doesn't have value. Or, if it has value to you, that's great, but nobody's gonna pay you for digging it.

You can work hard writing a post on an internet forum... and maybe that does have value to people, but not monetary value, so you still won't get paid.

There's nothing wrong with those scenarios. That's just part of life. Labor isn't intrinsically valuable. The value comes from mutual exchange for mutual benefit.

Also, Destineer: What exactly are you calling deeply sick?

I mean, I generally think that most things in our society that are shame based are wrong, at least wrong in motivation. Shame isn't a good reason not to steal/murder etc. but I think it's a fairly common one.

Similarly, there's no point in being ashamed of taking charity. But if you only want to receive stuff from other people when they it's an exchange for mutual benefit, then I can see potentially refusing some charity. Unless the person is being charitable genuinely because they want to do so and they think it will improve their lives. Then it would be a form of mutual exchange. But such a person might turn away some forms of "pity" charity. Is that deeply sick? I'm not so sure.

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
I don't think you'll find significant overlap between people who think unions should be abolished and people who think we need more social programs to take care of the poor.
No doubt that's right. Is it supposed to count against what I said?
I don't know. Hayek is held up as an example of a very free-market/capitalist sort of guy by most people, and Hayek advocated e.g. a guaranteed minimum income.

If by "significant" you mean "large number of random people," you may be right... though maybe not, because lots of mostly non-political center-ish sort of people sometimes scoff at unions but broadly support Social Security, etc.

But if by "significant" you just mean notable people whose ideas significantly shape the discussion, there may be even more overlap. I'm not sure, honestly. But I wouldn't discount it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I am not convinced Dan that there is a two way effort to understand the other side. He does not understand my post because either the points I've raised are inherently incomprehensible for him to understand or because he simply dismissed it and didn't read it. He says that its a 'jump' from RTW to Social contract, but this is clearly not the case in context.

quote:

None of those are facts. They're all heavily disputed. You just dismiss the dispute as if it's already settled. That's not a critical, open-minded approach to finding the truth.

Have you yourself, fully research US labour history; looked at the rate of change in living standards, workplace safety, quality of life, wealth gap, and wages? I know I looked at it, and I know which forces actually resulted in improvements in the above.

Ever read The Jungle?

quote:

Again, I know you already think you know the truth. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't. But just repeatedly asserting that what you believe is the truth and anyone who disagrees is stupid/lying isn't productive.

But turning the US to 19th century living standards and destroying the middle class is productive? Badum tush.

Your complaining about assertions, but have you ever at any point actually presented evidence that unions do not have an effect in improving wages, standard of living, workplace safety and so on? Or does these improvements not matter and that the employers 'rights' surpass these?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
. . . but have you ever at any point actually presented evidence that unions do not have an effect in improving wages, standard of living, workplace safety and so on? Or does these improvements not matter and that the employers 'rights' surpass these?

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting, Blayne. So I think your claims are spurious. The kind of "evidence" you're claiming to have does not exist. At least, not in the sense you're acting like it does.

What we have is various events in history that occurred, and then explanations attempting to accurately explain those events and their causes. What's needed is explanatory power, e.g. argument, to make the case for a given idea.

Historical facts (e.g. when minimum wage was adopted, or when X% of the population had a 2-day weekend) play a vital role here, in helping to falsify bad arguments. Those facts could conceivably be called "evidence," but they don't stand on their own. They don't have any explanatory power without interpretation. And arguments shape those interpretations.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting

If that is your standards of evidence then why does this not apply in reverse? Where is the exhaustive studies by RTW proponents? Where's the evidence that RTW creates jobs? Increase wages of blue collar workers? How is this not hypocritical?

Where's the evidence that RTW laws DO NOT negatively affect workers rights?

If there is none, then why do you accept it over unions whom have evidence even if not to your standards? By that logic RTW should be on even shakier ground and less credible.

Is there any explanation for this that is not a weak rationalization?
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:

Those events were not scientific phenomena in a controlled setting

If that is your standards of evidence then why does this not apply in reverse? Where is the exhaustive studies by RTW proponents? Where's the evidence that RTW creates jobs? Increase wages of blue collar workers? How is this not hypocritical?

Where's the evidence that RTW laws DO NOT negatively affect workers rights?

If there is none, then why do you accept it over unions whom have evidence even if not to your standards? By that logic RTW should be on even shakier ground and less credible.

Is there any explanation for this that is not a weak rationalization?

You completely missed my point. It's not about standards of evidence, or exhaustive studies, or anything like that. I would have the same objections that I enumerated above.

Really, not a single thing you've said above is actually a response to what I said. You've made some wild, slapdash assumptions and tried to turn things around on me. But it doesn't work, because you've failed to understand my point.

Would you like me to attempt to explain again? I can try.

Alternatively, rather than arguing with what you think I'm saying, could you phrase, in your words, what you think I'm saying? Maybe it will be easier for me to see how this miscommunication occurred if I can better understand what, exactly, you think I said.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Except it is, you state that there's "doubt", and you seem to find it sufficient to dismiss the counter arguments based on that doubt, so the doubt should be evenly applied. There's more relative doubt regarding RTW laws, thus you should not be in favor of RTW laws since there's more doubts about their utility.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.
Absolute statements, using word like all or none, I think i agree with you. That's probably an overstatement. But as to the broader issue I think it's pretty clear she meant to get at (but she can correct me if I'm wrong), do I understand you to be claiming that without strong labor agitation and politicking, legal protections for things like overtime and safety would be more or less the same?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Do you think it's appropriate to call me stupid, Tom?
I didn't say I thought you believed what you were saying. The people who believe it are stupid.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.
Absolute statements, using word like all or none, I think i agree with you. That's probably an overstatement. But as to the broader issue I think it's pretty clear she meant to get at (but she can correct me if I'm wrong), do I understand you to be claiming that without strong labor agitation and politicking, legal protections for things like overtime and safety would be more or less the same?
Not necessarily. I don't know what they would be like. She doesn't either. That's my point.

To look at times in the past and say "things were worse" is one thing. I think you can do that with any point in all of history, pretty much. But to then say "X is the reason why things got better," well... that's more dicey. You'd better have a good explanation for why you think that.

And to say "And if we hadn't done X then things now would be way worse in Y and Z ways," is reallystretching things. That's going from an attempt to explain a cause of something into, essentially, soothsaying.

Broadly, though, I think that although we are overall better off than in the Gilded Age, the Gilded Age itself was vastly better than the hundred years before it. Which were better than the hundred years before that. Which were...

You get my point. And I'm not convinced that all of the improvements across the ages have been due to the actions of unions, or their analogues.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.

You know, Blayne, the more I think about this, the more obnoxious it seems.

I let you know that you had misunderstood me. I proposed a couple of possible solutions. Including the (generous, I think) option of me completely rewriting my position in an attempt to make it clearer for you.

Instead, you insist that no, you understand me fine, and to prove it you... misquote me, and continue arguing against a gross misunderstanding of my position.

This kind of sloppy thinking and discussing is not conducive to a productive critical discussion. If you're going to continue, I think you would seriously benefit from taking a step back, re-reading what I said (and your responses), and try to adjust your understanding of what I said. Or, if that's not possible, try asking some clarifying questions rather than making assumptions and then arguing with your assumptions.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Destineer isn't anti-union, Kate.
Well, it's an interesting question.

Do I think unions serve overall beneficial functions as things presently are? Yes. But at the same time, I wonder if weakening unions might not be so bad, if other social entities arise to take their place in certain ways.

Right now, unions have two roles: as collective bargaining clubs, and as lefty special interest groups. I wonder whether those two roles might not be better served by separate entities. Perhaps the second, political role could be better handled by something like a more mature version of the Occupy movement, something devoted to social justice but without the protectionist motives that unions have.

quote:
None of the laws we have regarding workplace safety, a 40 hour week, overtime or what have you, would have existed without unions,
Certainly not, I agree.

quote:
Nor will they continue to exist for long without strong unions.
I don't know if this is true. I certainly hope it isn't true, because the way things are going we are not going to have strong unions in the future. I wonder whether a national social justice movement (something Occupy-inspired) could take their place in this regard.

quote:
Yeah, the idea that labor has "intrinsic value" is a pernicious fable in our culture. I think it contributes to the misunderstandings around this topic. Like when high-profile politicians say that someone who works hard should get enough money to have a house/car/middle class life etc.

Labor has value when people value that labor, or more accurately, the result of that labor. You can work hard digging a ditch nobody wants dug, and it doesn't have value. Or, if it has value to you, that's great, but nobody's gonna pay you for digging it.

You can work hard writing a post on an internet forum... and maybe that does have value to people, but not monetary value, so you still won't get paid.

I actually meant value in the broader sense, not the monetary sense. I think leisure time is more valuable to people and contributes more to their well-being than labor does, and the US's protestant work ethic keeps most people from recognizing that fact. Working on one's own personal goals is great, of course. But there's this ideal in the US that it's noble to do something you'd never do for its own sake, if you get paid for it and that helps you put bread on the table. Actually, it's a waste of time. Might be a necessary waste of time, but still, it shouldn't be treated as an end in itself or something that needs to be artifically encouraged.

quote:
Also, Destineer: What exactly are you calling deeply sick?
The mentality that says it's noble to turn down charity, even when you need it. And the very similar mentality that says it's better to work for your money than to have it given to you.

quote:
Similarly, there's no point in being ashamed of taking charity. But if you only want to receive stuff from other people when they it's an exchange for mutual benefit, then I can see potentially refusing some charity.
I guess. And if you only want to receive stuff that comes in plastic bags, I can see refusing charity if it comes in paper bags. But in neither case do I see any justifiable reason for such a preference. The only good reason to refuse charity is if someone else could use it more, IMO.

quote:
Unless the person is being charitable genuinely because they want to do so and they think it will improve their lives. Then it would be a form of mutual exchange. But such a person might turn away some forms of "pity" charity. Is that deeply sick? I'm not so sure.
I think there's a mistaken assumption here. Charity isn't something that should be pity-motivated. It's something that should be justice-motivated. I give to charity (and vote for laws that redistribute wealth) because I think it's unjust that other people are so much poorer than I am and thus have so much less control over their own lives than I have over my life. I'm not giving them something as a present, because I feel sorry for them. I'm giving them what I owe them, as fellow humans. What they deserve.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.

You are consistently arguing that we cannot know if not having unions would degrade worker protections. Its reverse is true, we cannot know if RTW would also improve worker's conditions, thus we should not implement RTW legislation without study and bipartisan consensus.

Why do you believe it is more right to pass RTW legislation, than it is to keep the status quo without further study?

e: Destineer the occupy movement utterly failed, putting left wing interest into that umbrella would also lead to failure. Unions have been so far most effective and so I believe it best if they stick together.

Also of course labour has value, re: Das Kapital.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Additionally arguing that because living standards were better during the industrial revolution than during the middle ages in which unions didn't exist to drive that change ergo unions aren't required to improve living standards now is entirely and profoundly nonsensical.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Dan,

quote:
To look at times in the past and say "things were worse" is one thing. I think you can do that with any point in all of history, pretty much. But to then say "X is the reason why things got better," well... that's more dicey. You'd better have a good explanation for why you think that.
I...well yes. The explanation being that as generations have passed and the lower, larger portions of the pyramid have grown-through the slow, plodding progress of improvements in education and standards of living-become less and less willing to accept and employer's de facto overwhelming superior individual power-we have become more and more willing to listen to the idea that if we don't like this disparity, there is another way besides 'try to be the top yourself'.

If you can argue with any of that, I'd be interested, but in the field of 'good explanations'...Dan, what on Earth is *yours*? These reforms we're talking about, unions didn't just spring forth wholly formed out of the collective heads of labor and demand them. It took generations, centuries even, of unsuccessful attempts to move beyond the tiny incremental progress of supply and demand.

How do we know these reforms would probably have not taken place as powerfully without unions? Because people *asked* for them before unions, without notable success-but when unions asked, strangely the pace quickened perceptibly. But maybe you're right, and we shouldn't think there's much of a connection?

I mean, can you point to a time and place where, above the micro level, in whole industries on the regional or national scale, embraced the sorts of reforms we're talking about *without* the presence within or nearby of organized labor? Are we to seriously entertain the notion that growing worker unhappiness with the status quo *wasn't* a hugely important factor in...changing the status quo?
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2