FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Walmart Strike (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Walmart Strike
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
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.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
My thumbs are tired. Taking a break.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I asked about taxation y/n specifically to line out specifically how an-cap thought is not even being entertained here anymore afaik
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
What a coincidence that we were just discussing this. Now our "moderate" Repub governor in MI is about to sign RTW into law.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
We do also have a Republican governor. Can't blame gerrymandering for that.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
(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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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"

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like things are getting ugly in Michigan.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

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