• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Do unions raise wages?

The problem is most of that productivity increase is from equipment, not from the workers producing more. The extra money goes to the supplier of that equipment.

I hope the workers at the factory which made the equipment get some of that money, since their labor increased the productivity of their customers.

They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.
 
The problem is higher wages is higher wages irrespective of what lead to them and you and axulus are on record stating that higher wages for some means less for others.

Now why is it ok for executives and corporations to have higher wages but not laborers?

You still don't see the difference between higher wages paid based on value vs forced higher wages.



It's the difference between a business transaction and a robbery.

Yep...the equivalent rule would be if Congress came in and mandated a 15% pay raise for CEOs.
 
I hope the workers at the factory which made the equipment get some of that money, since their labor increased the productivity of their customers.

They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.

Why not pay the bulldozer operator the same as a single shoveler?
 
They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.

Why not pay the bulldozer operator the same as a single shoveler?

A dozer operator requires more skill. That warrants more pay.
 
They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.

Why not pay the bulldozer operator the same as a single shoveler?

A dozer operator requires more skill. That warrants more pay.

Really?

A nuclear scientist has more math skills than does an MBA with a bachelors in math. Using your logic why doesn't the physicist make more?
 
....

As the video mentions, unions do in fact raise wages for the few lucky ones who are able to obtain membership in one, but at the expense of everyone else, resulting in a net loss overall (higher prices, lower wages, less efficient companies, lower levels of employment). This is evidenced by analysis of countries with high union membership vs those with lower union membership - there is no increase in prosperity to the working class in the high union membership countries.

I love to see the way anti-union arguments bounce between sympathy for those who are "forced" to join a union and admiration for those who are "lucky"to join a union.

I was having coffee with a group of old friends and one of them, who happens to be a certified financial planner(not really sure what that means) made a nasty crack about unions. I said that was a strange attitude for a union member to take. He was a little offended that I would call him a union member, but I explained.

A union is group that keeps wages high for its member by restricting who can enter a particular job category, right?

He agreed, with a very irritating grin.

"You have a license from a state financial planner board, right? (that's the certified part). No one can become a certified financial planner without their approval, which limits who can be a financial planner, means you can charge higher prices. That makes it a union."

At the time, I was an auto mechanic. On any day of the week, I repaired anti-lock brakes systems, diagnosed malfunctioning airbags(known as supplemental passive restraints) and all the other electronic systems in a modern automobile. The was not, and still is not a state board to limit who could work on cars. I had many years of training and experience, but I only needed two things in order to be a mechanic. The first was a desire to work on cars. The second someone willing to pay me to do it. The rest was superfluous.

I don't know of a state in the Union where a person can charge money to represent a person in court, if he has not passed an exam administered by other attorneys. It doesn't matter how much time one spends in law school. In fact, you don't to go to law school. The Bar Exam is what allows one into the group.

There are similar state sanctioned boards for barbers, hairdressers, and even people who clip fingernails.

If we are going to bring unions into question and ask if they are really good for society in general, lets talk about all of them, not just the blue collar unions.
:thumbsup: +1 And please don't forget about the biggest union of them all, the American Medical Association.
 
All of you pro-union people are going to look silly once Loren starts presenting evidence showing how well workers were compensated in addition to the much better work place conditions before unions ruined everything.
:hysterical:
 
The problem is higher wages is higher wages irrespective of what lead to them and you and axulus are on record stating that higher wages for some means less for others.

Now why is it ok for executives and corporations to have higher wages but not laborers?

You still don't see the difference between higher wages paid based on value vs forced higher wages.



It's the difference between a business transaction and a robbery.
But CEO's don't get higher wages based on value. Because if they did, CEO's could never make vast fortunes while running companies into the ground. And this happens all the time.
 
They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.

Why not pay the bulldozer operator the same as a single shoveler?

A dozer operator requires more skill. That warrants more pay.

It's not the skills. The company decides the bulldozer operator production is worth more than a shoveler's production.

Of course, all the skilled dozer operators might decide to form a corporation and sell their productive time to the highest bidder. Free market economics in action, or as you would call it, "robbery."
 
You still don't see the difference between higher wages paid based on value vs forced higher wages.



It's the difference between a business transaction and a robbery.
But CEO's don't get higher wages based on value. Because if they did, CEO's could never make vast fortunes while running companies into the ground. And this happens all the time.

Perceived value. Sometimes mistakes are made.

- - - Updated - - -

They do.

Do you really think corporate accountants are unable to calculate what percentage of productivity increases are due to labor?

I don't see why you are asking this--you're the one that's arguing the money should go to the workers without considering the equipment.

Which would be a better deal for the company, one man operating a $300,000 bulldozer, or a 1000 men with shovels? Maybe 10,000 men?

Exactly--while a bulldozer operator is a more skilled job than an idiot stick operator most of the increased productivity is due to the $300k bulldozer. You don't pay the dozer operator anything like what you would pay the number of shovelers that it would take to do the same job.

Why not pay the bulldozer operator the same as a single shoveler?

A dozer operator requires more skill. That warrants more pay.

It's not the skills. The company decides the bulldozer operator production is worth more than a shoveler's production.

Of course, all the skilled dozer operators might decide to form a corporation and sell their productive time to the highest bidder. Free market economics in action, or as you would call it, "robbery."

You have to offer more if you want a dozer operator to answer your help-wanted.

As for a company--fine, so long as you aren't engaging in monopoly practices.
 
Back
Top Bottom