Trickle-Up Economics?

[untermensche]

Unions exploited companies just like companies exploited employees. Neither party ever acted in the best interests of both parties. My years of experience working in unionized shops was only negative. Both groups were ignoramuses and deserved each other.

I agree, but not as bad as working in non-unionized shops. :/

Unions are a good idea, usually horribly implemented, and the best option the worker has to reduce/avoid exploitation, much like democracy.....

The problem with the whole union/capital dynamic is that over time many unions become as bad as the thing they are negotiating with.

Corruption exists in business, in government, and in some unions.

But it is only something that tars the whole system with unions for some reason.

The double standard where all unions are bad because some are corrupt yet every business is just looking after the poor worker despite widespread corruption and abuse.

We don't see it because it is not people going to jail.

It is just corporation after corporation paying multi-billion dollar fines.

The poisoning of Flint Michigan for profit. And nobody in jail for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with the whole union/capital dynamic is that over time many unions become as bad as the thing they are negotiating with.

If anything, I would say the problem is worse.

The thing is, look at a few things unions normally ask for (and generally get):

1) Seniority. This is actually a huge trap--it means that if you change employers you start out at the bottom again. The biggest power an employee has to get good wages is the power to go to another employer who will pay them better. In an industry with seniority at work this isn't a meaningful option--the workers are basically powerless to get a raise on their own, the only game in town is the union.

2) Pensions. Again, a huge trap--going elsewhere almost certainly hurts you badly come retirement, once again removing the worker's power and forcing them to rely on the union.

 

[angelo]

If unions were the best thing invented since sliced bread, they would have more than around 10-12% overall of the workforce as members.

 

[untermensche]

If unions were the best thing invented since sliced bread, they would have more than around 10-12% overall of the workforce as members.

Unions gave us an 8 hour work day and a 40 hour week.

They gave us safe working conditions.

They eliminated child labor.

They raised the pay of all workers not just union workers.

The unions made capitalism a decent system for many. And capitalists fought against it.

Over the last few decades capitalists have illegally crushed the unions.

And with them the US middle class. The only decent thing about US capitalism.

 

[Elixir]

Despite the derails, I keep thinking about the effects of a tax giveaway lottery vs handing the already rich big piles of cash.
Now that El Cheato has added another trillion dollars to the pot, I have to wonder - if a candidate from either party, or even an independent, suggested that rather than tilt the table toward the rich, they offered a million dollars each (over ten years) to 2 million taxpayers randomly drawn, would people support that? That's one in 70 taxpayers... pretty good odds that everyone would know someone who "won". COuld they get elected on that promise?
And if it was done, how would it effect consumer spending, economic growth etc?

I think all the effects would be far greater and more beneficial than greedy Cheato's kleptocratic design.

If unions were the best thing invented since sliced bread, they would have more than around 10-12% overall of the workforce as members.

...which they would, if they weren't outlawed in many places.

 

[angelo]

Despite the derails, I keep thinking about the effects of a tax giveaway lottery vs handing the already rich big piles of cash.
Now that El Cheato has added another trillion dollars to the pot, I have to wonder - if a candidate from either party, or even an independent, suggested that rather than tilt the table toward the rich, they offered a million dollars each (over ten years) to 2 million taxpayers randomly drawn, would people support that? That's one in 70 taxpayers... pretty good odds that everyone would know someone who "won". COuld they get elected on that promise?
And if it was done, how would it effect consumer spending, economic growth etc?

I think all the effects would be far greater and more beneficial than greedy Cheato's kleptocratic design.

If unions were the best thing invented since sliced bread, they would have more than around 10-12% overall of the workforce as members.

...which they would, if they weren't outlawed in many places.

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

 

[untermensche]

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

Unions have not been outlawed in many US states but they have been destroyed by so called "right to work" laws which are just laws that allow theft.

They say a person can be in a union and get all the benefits the union has won but they don't have to support the union.

Another way unions are killed is employees are fired if they try to organize. This is a widespread practice in US capitalism. Illegal and widespread.

Unions need protections from illegal theft and illegal firings.

That is the only way they can prosper.

And when unions prosper so does the middle class. When they are killed off the middle class also dies.

 

[angelo]

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

Unions have not been outlawed in many US states but they have been destroyed by so called "right to work" laws which are just laws that allow theft.

They say a person can be in a union and get all the benefits the union has won but they don't have to support the union.

Another way unions are killed is employees are fired if they try to organize. This is a widespread practice in US capitalism. Illegal and widespread.

Unions need protections from illegal theft and illegal firings.

That is the only way they can prosper.

And when unions prosper so does the middle class. When they are killed off the middle class also dies.

Rubbish! Socialist states such California, or for that matter the whole USA was ruled by the left of center, union friendly Obongo administration for 8 years, who's party receive billions in union donations, yet still failed to add new members. in fact lost and are losing membership by the day!

 

[DBT]

"Unionisation has collapsed far more violently in Australia than virtually anywhere in other developed, rich countries," said Josh Bornstein, Melbourne-based employment lawyer at Maurice Blackburn, who often represents workers in litigation.

"Unions have been disempowered and that is bad for wage outcomes," he added.''

Australian union membership has been plunging because of the demise of traditional manufacturing industries that were heavily unionised, and labour market deregulation in the 1990s which decentralised wage setting and reduced the powers of unions.

In addition, the millennial generation unlike some of their parents has not grown up in an atmosphere where joining a union was regarded as one of the rites of passage, and many newer employers actively campaign to prevent unions from getting a foot in the door.''

 

[angelo]

The heavily unionised manufacturing industries in Australia were to a large degree to blame for many closures, the companies shifted manufacturing overseas because they were unable to compete for the much cheaper imports because of unions never ceasing demands of ever more perks and ridicules wage demands. A trade assistant, or a laborer in a steel manufacturing factory earning around $100.000 per annum against the same earning a fraction of that in hundreds of South Eastern factories just cannot compete.

 

[untermensche]

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

Unions have not been outlawed in many US states but they have been destroyed by so called "right to work" laws which are just laws that allow theft.

They say a person can be in a union and get all the benefits the union has won but they don't have to support the union.

Another way unions are killed is employees are fired if they try to organize. This is a widespread practice in US capitalism. Illegal and widespread.

Unions need protections from illegal theft and illegal firings.

That is the only way they can prosper.

And when unions prosper so does the middle class. When they are killed off the middle class also dies.

Rubbish! Socialist states such California, or for that matter the whole USA was ruled by the left of center, union friendly Obongo administration for 8 years, who's party receive billions in union donations, yet still failed to add new members. in fact lost and are losing membership by the day!

Presidents don't build unions or revive dead unions.

To think they do displays a childish mentality.

 

[angelo]

Rubbish! Socialist states such California, or for that matter the whole USA was ruled by the left of center, union friendly Obongo administration for 8 years, who's party receive billions in union donations, yet still failed to add new members. in fact lost and are losing membership by the day!

Presidents don't build unions or revive dead unions.

To think they do displays a childish mentality.

No, presidents don't force workers to join a union. [yet] But they and if they happen to be of the left certainly encourage them to do so.

 

[untermensche]

Rubbish! Socialist states such California, or for that matter the whole USA was ruled by the left of center, union friendly Obongo administration for 8 years, who's party receive billions in union donations, yet still failed to add new members. in fact lost and are losing membership by the day!

Presidents don't build unions or revive dead unions.

To think they do displays a childish mentality.

No, presidents don't force workers to join a union. [yet] But they and if they happen to be of the left certainly encourage them to do so.

Nobody has ever once been forced to join a union.

Everybody is free to not work in a union. Go work somewhere else if you don't want to join a union. Enjoy the bounty of capitalism.

But the unions are the only thing that ever improved conditions for workers.

They created the middle class. And as the unions die so does the middle class.

You can have a nation free of unions.

Or you can have a nation with unions and a middle class.

 

[Elixir]

Despite the derails, I keep thinking about the effects of a tax giveaway lottery vs handing the already rich big piles of cash.
Now that El Cheato has added another trillion dollars to the pot, I have to wonder - if a candidate from either party, or even an independent, suggested that rather than tilt the table toward the rich, they offered a million dollars each (over ten years) to 2 million taxpayers randomly drawn, would people support that? That's one in 70 taxpayers... pretty good odds that everyone would know someone who "won". COuld they get elected on that promise?
And if it was done, how would it effect consumer spending, economic growth etc?

I think all the effects would be far greater and more beneficial than greedy Cheato's kleptocratic design.

If unions were the best thing invented since sliced bread, they would have more than around 10-12% overall of the workforce as members.

...which they would, if they weren't outlawed in many places.

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

Okay, you want to talk about unions. Have at it. I find that discussion boring, but YMMV.
I'm just sitting here wondering why nobody wants to talk about the effect that giving away 2 trillion dollars to likely consumers would have, vs the effects of giving it to billionaires and corporations. Also, the sale-ability of the idea. Who wouldn't vote for a 1/70 chance for a $1m break?

 

[bilby]

Okay, you want to talk about unions. Have at it. I find that discussion boring, but YMMV.
I'm just sitting here wondering why nobody wants to talk about the effect that giving away 2 trillion dollars to likely consumers would have, vs the effects of giving it to billionaires and corporations. Also, the sale-ability of the idea. Who wouldn't vote for a 1/70 chance for a $1m break?

Why subject it to chance? Most people who survive childhood live for between 80 and 90 years; life expectancy at 21 is approximately 70 more years in the developed world. So 1/70 of the population is approximately everyone of a given year of birth.

Why not just give every citizen $1million on their 21st birthday, to spend or invest as they wish?

I suspect that the effect of such a move on the economy would be profound and positive.

After all, it would mean that people would all start out rich, and therefore virtuous; good managers of money, life, business and people; and (unlike poor people) incentivised by handouts.

More seriously, it would mean that everyone had a good start. I certainly don't see how it could be worse than instead giving that money to the already hyper-wealthy.

 

[DBT]

The heavily unionised manufacturing industries in Australia were to a large degree to blame for many closures, the companies shifted manufacturing overseas because they were unable to compete for the much cheaper imports because of unions never ceasing demands of ever more perks and ridicules wage demands. A trade assistant, or a laborer in a steel manufacturing factory earning around $100.000 per annum against the same earning a fraction of that in hundreds of South Eastern factories just cannot compete.

Are you saying that you expect Australian workers to get paid a few dollars an hour so that these businesses can compete with those in developing nation with workers on extremely low incomes?

Is that what you want for Australia?

Would you be willing to work for five dollars an hour with no holidays or sick leave, working in abhorrent conditions?

Is that supposed to be the future for our young?

 

[angelo]

They're not outlawed in ALL Western Democratic countries. Sure they may be outlawed in places such as North Korea and some other third world and dictatorial nations. But most certainly not the West!

Okay, you want to talk about unions. Have at it. I find that discussion boring, but YMMV.
I'm just sitting here wondering why nobody wants to talk about the effect that giving away 2 trillion dollars to likely consumers would have, vs the effects of giving it to billionaires and corporations. Also, the sale-ability of the idea. Who wouldn't vote for a 1/70 chance for a $1m break?

By giving it to corporations [ as lowering the corporate tax hike] as you say, would assure that American corporations are on the same tax rates of most European and many Asian nations, thereby allowing them to compete on a level playing field. Example, if you wanted to build a manufacturing plant employing hundreds of workers. Where would you build the said plant, in a nation where the corporate tax hike is 35% or in a nation with a corporate tax hike of say....18% ? This is why corporations such as Ford decided to build a new plant in USA instead of Mexico.

 

[angelo]

The heavily unionised manufacturing industries in Australia were to a large degree to blame for many closures, the companies shifted manufacturing overseas because they were unable to compete for the much cheaper imports because of unions never ceasing demands of ever more perks and ridicules wage demands. A trade assistant, or a laborer in a steel manufacturing factory earning around $100.000 per annum against the same earning a fraction of that in hundreds of South Eastern factories just cannot compete.

Are you saying that you expect Australian workers to get paid a few dollars an hour so that these businesses can compete with those in developing nation with workers on extremely low incomes?

Is that what you want for Australia?

Would you be willing to work for five dollars an hour with no holidays or sick leave, working in abhorrent conditions?

Is that supposed to be the future for our young?

Iv'e already posted an example here somewhere. [ damn memory] Toyota in Australia tried to approach and negotiate directly with their employees which their union forbade. Toyota's case was that it cost $3000 AUD more to build a Camry in Australia than it cost in Germany, a nation with more or less, same living standards and very similar salaries, less all the myriad of perks afforded to Australian manufacturing workers. The unions said no, Toyota announced later that they too would be following GMH and Ford and also stop making cars in Australia, costing thousands of jobs. So much for the greedy unions who flatly refused to re negotiate the exorbitant salaries and perks of their membership.

 

[DBT]

The heavily unionised manufacturing industries in Australia were to a large degree to blame for many closures, the companies shifted manufacturing overseas because they were unable to compete for the much cheaper imports because of unions never ceasing demands of ever more perks and ridicules wage demands. A trade assistant, or a laborer in a steel manufacturing factory earning around $100.000 per annum against the same earning a fraction of that in hundreds of South Eastern factories just cannot compete.

Are you saying that you expect Australian workers to get paid a few dollars an hour so that these businesses can compete with those in developing nation with workers on extremely low incomes?

Is that what you want for Australia?

Would you be willing to work for five dollars an hour with no holidays or sick leave, working in abhorrent conditions?

Is that supposed to be the future for our young?

Iv'e already posted an example here somewhere. [ damn memory] Toyota in Australia tried to approach and negotiate directly with their employees which their union forbade. Toyota's case was that it cost $3000 AUD more to build a Camry in Australia than it cost in Germany, a nation with more or less, same living standards and very similar salaries, less all the myriad of perks afforded to Australian manufacturing workers. The unions said no, Toyota announced later that they too would be following GMH and Ford and also stop making cars in Australia, costing thousands of jobs. So much for the greedy unions who flatly refused to re negotiate the exorbitant salaries and perks of their membership.

It's not that simple. There is more to that story than the issue of pay rates and conditions for workers. Which goes back to what I pointed out about relative wage rates and the impossibility of workers in developed nations to subsist on anything like the wages paid in Thailand. Not without a race to the bottom.....meanwhile CEO's and management increase their incomes in leaps and bounds. A gross double standard. Workers on minimum incomes, management milking the system for all its worth.

Quote;
''Of all the Free Trade Agreements that Australia has with other countries, none was more brutal than the deal with Thailand introduced in 2005. Since Australia agreed to lift the import tariff on cars from Thailand, more than two million Thai-made vehicles have been imported; from familiar brands such as Ford, Holden and Toyota, as well as Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda and others.

In return, Australia shipped to Thailand just 100 Ford Territory SUVs. That’s because Thailand maintained hidden, non-tariff barriers while Australia opened its borders completely. Ingeniously, Thailand continued to impose higher registration fees on cars with larger engines – such as those made by Ford and Holden. Toyota already had a Camry factory in Thailand so couldn’t export cars there. Thailand – regarded as the ‘Detroit of the AsiaPacific’ – is now the second-biggest source of motor vehicles in Australia after Japan and ahead of South Korea.

Was it right to end the taxpayer assistance to the Australian car industry or will the billions of dollars seem cheap in the long run when compared against the social cost? The nation is about to find out.''

However, it is not just a strong economy that pressures automakers but also the small domestic market - and a changing one at that. All three carmakers had been making (and continue to make) mostly medium-to-large sized sedans. The problem is that sales of this style of vehicle are in steep decline, specifically in Australia where smaller vehicles as well as 4x4s account for close to 80 percent of total sales.

In addition, government industrial policy is much stricter than in other countries. This makes it difficult for companies when negotiating cost of operations, but it also means that, unlike in the US with Chrysler, Ford, et al, there will be no bail out.''

 

[Elixir]

Okay, you want to talk about unions. Have at it. I find that discussion boring, but YMMV.
I'm just sitting here wondering why nobody wants to talk about the effect that giving away 2 trillion dollars to likely consumers would have, vs the effects of giving it to billionaires and corporations. Also, the sale-ability of the idea. Who wouldn't vote for a 1/70 chance for a $1m break?

Why subject it to chance? Most people who survive childhood live for between 80 and 90 years; life expectancy at 21 is approximately 70 more years in the developed world. So 1/70 of the population is approximately everyone of a given year of birth.

Why not just give every citizen $1million on their 21st birthday, to spend or invest as they wish?

I suspect that the effect of such a move on the economy would be profound and positive.

After all, it would mean that people would all start out rich, and therefore virtuous; good managers of money, life, business and people; and (unlike poor people) incentivised by handouts.

More seriously, it would mean that everyone had a good start. I certainly don't see how it could be worse than instead giving that money to the already hyper-wealthy.

I like the idea, in principle. SOCIALISM!! AAAAaak! Well, at least it could be difficult to game that system the way "socialist dictators" (An oxymoron IMO) do.
To make it analogous to the $2t Trump is giving away to his donors though, it would have to be a 10 year payout. Still, a 100k/yr bump for ten years would be significant for most people, and a great educational opportunity. People who might fritter away 1m in less than 10 years, could possibly learn how to manage money better if the payout was over a decade... and hell - if they just go spend the 100k/yr for ten years, at least the money goes back into the economy, right? By the tenth year of the program people would be dropping off, and the cost per capita would stabilize, so if it lasted that long, it might go on. But that is a recurring, permanent cost that will increase in track with the population.

OTOH, I visualized the 2 million winners (1/70 Taxpayers) as only a one-time campaign gimmick to offer to reallocate the money Trump is giving away.

"YOU could win, and almost CERTAINLY,
you will know someone who won! Probably multiple people!
When again will you and everyone you know have a straight up
1 in 70 chance at a million dollars!!!??"​

[repeat ad nauseum to yuge drooling crowds]
I could hear Liz Warren and AOC going to town on it.