tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post5615779973628420320..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: What Are Right To Work Laws?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-23131153676312948672013-05-17T04:23:22.434-04:002013-05-17T04:23:22.434-04:00Jonathan,
Um I give up ?! ;-(
I have no idea what ...Jonathan,<br />Um I give up ?! ;-(<br />I have no idea what I was on about on this one ! As my son puts it The little red brain train went walkabout <br />I got it WRONG WRONG WRONG! Sorry<br />Clearly I was reading something else entirely ( the gods know what) <br />It appears I was on about how the rich fiddle their tax by "giving?" to Non profit organizations. <br />What it has to do with the article? nothing, zip, narder, boopkiss. <br />Much apologies.<br /><br />Anyway as *part* of the solution it's fine . <br />A few points though, doesn't this fly in the face of your treasured view of User pays.... why should the tax payer pay out of their tax to 'subsidise' business's crappy wages? Surely under 101 Capitalism. Logic would dictate that employer should pay the real cost of an employee.<br />The real problem there is business can get away without paying the true cost by externalising some or much of it to the state( people)...because the playing field is tilted their way. The need for jobs is clearly higher than the supply (basic supply and demand).<br />The issue is that the cheap exploitable labor O/Seas is distorting the equation. <br />It is here I'd point out that in the REAL capitalism (as writ) the capitalist would be so nationalistic they'd not export the means of production (Jobs) long term good/self interest.<br /><br />The hard core reality is that business as it is today i.e. the consumer market will follow to where the jobs are.(any doubts look at Spain 25% unemployed 60% youth unemployment and their economy is a basket case) <br />Common sense should tell America that if the people don't have jobs they don't have $ to buy things.<br />Off shoring of job is a short term profit option. Capitalists don't care. <br /><br />The corollary of this is as the Working tax base shrinks Those that have jobs will have to bare more of the cost of the unemployed. <br /><br />As for encouraging working more meh That depends on if the work is available and increasingly it isn't. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-27576601793435165952013-05-15T10:24:27.902-04:002013-05-15T10:24:27.902-04:00Examinator,
Which article are you referring to? M...Examinator,<br /><br />Which article are you referring to? My link is in reference to a government tax break that incentives the poor to work more which in turn gives them a larger tax refund. Unlike previous programs where the more you make, the less the poor get back, which actually decentivizes people to work more, this plan encourages people to work more with cash money which some interesting upsides...Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-84450518680205818902013-05-14T21:04:22.547-04:002013-05-14T21:04:22.547-04:00Jonathan,
Like all programs there is a good side a...Jonathan,<br />Like all programs there is a good side and a bad side.... those who (ab)use the system and those who simply give for the sake of giving.<br /><br />I.e. at some marginal rates it's in the interests of some people to give a portion away in order to avoid a higher rate.<br />There are those who make a 'charitable' gift of say $200000 getting a tax credit then the charity loans the benefactor say $150K at no interest. the numbers work out that the 'benefactor' actually pays no tax but has the use of the money.<br />There are issues with giving money to "tax free" organizations to get this break but the donation is really a tax free Political donation. <br />Keep in mind too a lot of that money isn't “charity for the poor “ so to speak but often for sporting clubs, church buildings jets for leaders etc.<br />My argument is that money making sporting clubs aren't charity they are self serving discretionary activities (perks). Particularly if there are still poor who haven't got food , somewhere reasonable to live access to equitable opportunities or say health care <br /><br />That are a "few" wrinkles I've seen . there are a lot more and of course they are more complex.<br /><br />The true benefit to the poor is nothing like the numbers in the article.<br /><br />in reality more often that not the 'gift' is really simply advertising dressed up as charity.<br /><br />To me true charity is as in the 'bible' and just about every other religious book/dogma I can think of done anonymously and for charity sake.... not to get advertising or to "buy" public accolades. <br /><br />But that is just me. Capitalists would deny the religious responsibility and seek worldly benefits. <br /><br />For example My mom is by her church expected to tithe and they tick the people's names off … a bit like having your name and amount you put in the offerings plate ticked against you name. The psychological pressure (mind game) is immense. I would argue that isn't charity rather bullying (guilt or peer pressure marketing).<br /><br />BY the way this ISN'T liberal or liberalism . <br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-3187004791836061352013-05-14T14:18:03.757-04:002013-05-14T14:18:03.757-04:00Jon,
Here's an interesting story relevant to ...Jon,<br /><br />Here's an interesting story relevant to the topic of giving money to the poor, nay, increasing amounts of money the more the poor make, and the economic rationale behind said action.<br /><br />http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/04/12/177063399/episode-451-why-some-people-love-tax-dayJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-45215425763537625972013-05-14T12:48:32.104-04:002013-05-14T12:48:32.104-04:00A person would be forced to at least alter/amend t...A person would be forced to at least alter/amend their thinking if there is unskewed data to support a particular claim.<br /><br />I am willing to put my foot in the bear trap here - sounds like you already are ready to spring data of somekind on me so I am game.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-32115364233724597472013-05-14T08:57:05.592-04:002013-05-14T08:57:05.592-04:00Chad, I'm planning to do a post soon on giving...Chad, I'm planning to do a post soon on giving away money to the poor with no strings attached. Looking forward to your comments and maybe continuing this discussion there. It again centers on this difference we have. It just makes sense to you that if you give handouts people slack off, abuse the privilege. What's happened is we've had some recent expiraments. You can guess how it turned out and whether your fears were realized.<br /><br />I'm hoping you continue with the trend you reveal here. You abandon principles and allow free riders if it serves a greater good. I'd like to see you do the same on welfare. If your theoretical concepts don't hold up to the actual data, would you consider altering your strategy?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-64531059052822009782013-05-13T21:14:01.078-04:002013-05-13T21:14:01.078-04:00Chad
I thought you didn't read my comments! As...Chad<br />I thought you didn't read my comments! As YOU stated !So which statement is true? clearly you do lie for effect. ;-P <br /><br />I said the REMARKS were racist and or elitist. Context is clearly a foreign word to you.(and your friends?)<br /><br />Yet again Chad you still refuse to understand that I am NOT a liberal(sic) nor am I your version of a conservative.<br /><br />I also note you don't offer comment when you are wrong or expressing BS. <br />Come on Prove me wrong about Contract law give me Chapter and verse! If I'm wrong I'll apologise... You simply CAN'T prove me wrong or admit when you're wrong.<br /><br />Like the book says "being wrong is no shame refusing to learn from it is." <br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-8117568935943093062013-05-13T13:48:39.134-04:002013-05-13T13:48:39.134-04:00Believe me when I say some free riding is okay for...Believe me when I say some free riding is okay for me too - although I prefer to use the term hand up.<br /><br />Where we differ considerably about 'help' is that I want the hand up to be extremely limited in scope and come with strings attached. Your happy to ignore the root of the problem, continue throwing money at it as the monster grows and grows.<br /><br />The idea that the blind, deaf and handicapped will not be taken care of is really very silly. Those are the individuals who should be most pissed about the recipient class of people - they don't have a choice and in most cases my guess is that they work 10 times harder at life. If it were up to me - that group and our military members would never have to worry about a meal, medicine, a roof over their head - ever so please bury that garbage once and for all. Your better than that and you know its not true anyhow.<br /><br />Hey - my taxes, my parents taxes are used for all those things you mentioned JC. It is not as if I have not paid into it, my parents did not pay into and my grandparents avoided paying into those things and suddenly we are using them. Actually it is opposite - our money and good majority of tax payers money is taken and used for things we will never ever use. For those things created by government then improved dramatically by the private market to become something that I use today - well I would say thank God we got a little return on our investment at least.<br /><br />I am very well aware that someone else - somewhere in the world - could use far more than I ever could give. What I choose to do and how I choose to 'help' society (outside any direct charity) is to be a consumer of products. When I spend money it circulates and those who actually do want to work - continue to work.<br /><br />When you think about your idea - the minimalist idea - you have yet to admit to me the extreme ramifications on the global economy that would cause. You talk about a total collapse - lets take 1 example only - automobiles. Lets pretend that 300 + Americans suddenly believed like you do and in 2014 no new cars were sold. 16 million units taken out of the market - total collapse.<br /><br />You have the luxury of saving all of your cash for retirement (and not donate to your causes), to ride around in an old vehicle and to curse those who choose to spend their cash on trival items when someone else may be hungry. Valid point to a degree, but I at the same time it would be far worse in the world if we didn't spend.<br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-75542009298500283562013-05-13T09:50:59.660-04:002013-05-13T09:50:59.660-04:00Regarding your statement that I'm deluding mys...Regarding your statement that I'm deluding myself about money and happiness, don't take me the wrong way. I'd be thrilled to hit the lotto. I prefer a big raise at work. I like doing fun things, like traveling. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the things money can bring. It's just I'm not at the level where I have to stress about money because people are hungry or bills aren't paid. More money is good for me, but for someone that's hungry more money is REALLY good. They need it more than me. Some free riding is OK for me.<br /><br />You want to go to the derby, drive your RV, and all that. In your mind you work hard and deserve it, so even though a hungry person would enjoy another $100 more than you it doesn't matter because you worked hard and he didn't. But I don't think you acknowledge how much of your success is gifts from others, like public transit, automation techniques developed by the government used in your industry, computers. The very kinds of gifts given to us are the same kinds of gifts I think should be offered to others that haven't had similar breaks.<br /><br />Your idea, with RTW legislation, is not only that you shouldn't have to contribute to free riders, you're going to compel the poor, like factory workers in a union, to do the providing, providing that you and I and other rich people are in a better position to do. It's like you say free riders are bad, but if anybody should shoulder the burden it should be the handicap, blind, and deaf. They have a hard enough time providing for themselves, and they should be further forced to provide for other poor people. There's what our disagreement amounts to. You want to increase the load on the poor, and I say that since you and I and others that are even more rich don't have a load at all, if anybody should pick up slack it's us.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-23435905354101447252013-05-13T05:51:40.041-04:002013-05-13T05:51:40.041-04:00Being called a racist is a badge of honor now a da...Being called a racist is a badge of honor now a days - its the defacto response whenever a progressive or liberal loses thier footing on arguements. It's easy and rolls off the tongue - racist, hater, non-Christian and hypocrisy, but it's been over played so often and it's completely lost any effect. Even our black/other race/religious friends - oh yeah we have several - laugh about the use so I hope your not expecting too much from what amounts to a bunch of white noise, but I hope you feel better none the less. If your a conservative and your not eventually called a racist or any of those other things you mentioned then your really not doing a very good job arguing.<br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13395366622857602862013-05-12T23:18:42.700-04:002013-05-12T23:18:42.700-04:00Jon,
Chad's brain isn't working! He doesn&...Jon,<br />Chad's brain isn't working! He doesn't WANT to think from any position but his own. Too much scotch Perhaps?<br /><br />He in his clear racist attitudes [Without the so called rich to give the "Bangy people" (racist/disrespectful) a job - they would starve or worse] Really?<br /> <br />1. he doesn't understand that it is His brand of capitalism that defines wealth .<br />2 He doesn't understand that it is centralised Capitalism is causing the population concentration in cities ...urban poverty et al in the cities. <br />3. clearly he has difficult with moral cause and effect.<br />i.e.US companies have no moral responsibility to ensure their goods aren't being produced under ILLEGAL conditions. <br />I seem to remember the US being upset with a British Bank over libor rates... essentially the same principal... creating, encouraging Illegal activities in the US in the name of amoral profits to UK.<br /><br /> ["Those workers - they "appreciate"(?) the money"] That is the moral equivalent to saying " at least southern Slavery kept the poor blacks employed and fed"<br />[" - to you it's not enough - for them it puts food on the table."] Um No!<br /><br />[" Have you looked up the average income in *Bang-le-wherever?* (racist,<br />I wonder how he would feel if he/ his attitude and US cits were referred to as "septic tanks" ["full of shit" derogatory rhyming slang for Yank arrogance ?"<br /> <br />[" Where do the factory workers rank? Are saying that working conditions for other workers not producing for the USA is better?"] straw man, distraction.<br />Some one should ask Chad " what about the Unemployed Americans ?"<br />Clearly in his mind American workers should be prepared to work for Bangladesh wage rates or to him Bangladeshis are sub American humans and deserve to live is appalling conditions 'because it's what they're used to' (sic and sick) ( C18th White superiority racist attitudes?) . <br />Or In his mind Christian ethics of "brothers keeper" only applies to those Americans HE feels match his Patronising (elitist)criteria. <br />He simply doesn't realize that his words ooze with palpable unchristian hypocrisy and prejudice. <br />I don't think he's a bad person per se...just doesn't think what he says through to what it may mean to others. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-91582863380994040692013-05-12T22:14:30.472-04:002013-05-12T22:14:30.472-04:00Chad,
Contract Law: concepts(101)
To have a contr...Chad,<br />Contract Law: concepts(101)<br /><br />To have a contract you must have clear OFFER and ACCEPTANCE.<br /><br />Under the fact that you ACTIVELY live in the USA (ANY GOVERNMENT SERVICE) is considered as Active ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT OF THE COUNTRY.( contrary to your understanding that includes any service that has Government assistance i.e. Electricity, roads, water etc) <br />By this you have accepted the rules of the country... To reject the contract you do as I have Migrated and renounced my US citizenship in favor of Australian. To do I had to apply for and accept (sign) a contract (citizenship)<br /><br />**Read any first year law book on contract law and principal**<br />Under that contract you are agreeing to abide by the laws and conditions of the US<br />The constitution mean that you have the right to disagree and to campaign for a law or conditions change BUT You are OBLIGED TO HONOR THOSE LAWS OR suffer the consequences.<br />Without that concept the government wouldn't have the moral/legal justification to enforce laws.(By being an AMERICAN YOU are legally accepting the "responsibilities" i.e. Military conscription. <br /><br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-21071703295795790632013-05-11T19:36:36.817-04:002013-05-11T19:36:36.817-04:00I heard yeah boss - just don't agree with ya. ...I heard yeah boss - just don't agree with ya. Without the so called rich to give the Bangy people a job - they would starve or worse. Those workers - they appreciate the money - to you it's not enough - for them it puts food on the table. Have you looked up the average income in Bang-le-wherever? Where do the factory workers rank? Are saying that working conditions for other workers not producing for the USA is better?<br /><br />If unions didn't drive work overseas there would be more work here, but then again the workers here just don't know how to work. They'd rather be on the tit of their neighbor. Discussion for another time.<br /><br />Rich? What is the definition of rich exactly? We get one single life to live on this earth - when I get up, do the work, make the effort - I am going to live it to the fulliest without reservation or apology. <br /><br />Generally speaking - I am a really happy guy nearly everyday. I do not need a specific thing to make me happy because I love life. With the said - there are levels of happiness. You've brain washed yourself in saying that you need very little to make you happy - I say congrats, but also BS. <br /><br />We are taking a weekend off mainly because of bad weather - we are sitting around watching some idiot box catching up on shows we taped from weeks ago. This is great and I am enjoying the heck out of the day cause I enjoy my family, but compared to last week (camping/Kentucky Derby Party) there is no comparison. Part of life is to enjoy and to take advantage of things - new adventures and activities and we plan on doing as much as we can for as long as we can. <br /><br /><br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-91089517291361572322013-05-11T12:12:25.178-04:002013-05-11T12:12:25.178-04:00You don't like this so you agree we sold shut ...<i>You don't like this so you agree we sold shut off the "free riders" outside the union as well?</i><br /><br />Holy shit, Chad, this is now the third time I've said I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FREE RIDERS. I mean seriously, is your brain just not working here? I don't even know what to say at this point.<br /><br />I mean, I can say it again if that helps, though I'm not sure it will. Some people should free ride. And when they free ride I obviously don't think they should do it primarily on the backs of the poor. They should free ride on my back more than they should on the backs of working class people, like people in unions. I can afford to help them and I'm happy to do it. Not that I'm rich or as rich as you, but I'm good enough and don't need to acquire more, more, more.<br /><br />A funny thing I can tell you on a related note. I'm in the process of refinancing my home, which will save me a few bucks of course because interest rates are ridiculous right now. Having some problems with it related to the appraisal, which could prevent my refinance, so last night I'm kind of irritated about it knowing it's going to cost me if it doesn't work out. My boy says to me kind of randomly "Dad, what would you want that would make you happy right now?" So I'm thinking about it and I realize, not much. I have to remember that saving some money doesn't actually make any difference to me in terms of my happiness. I don't care about cars, the latest touch screen ultrabooks, whatever you might come up with. What I do like is time, so if I save money I know that means I more quickly reach savings milestones that could conceivably allow me to retire, so yeah, I'd take piles of money. A refi gets my house paid off more quickly, so that would be great, but in terms of my immediate needs I really don't need anything. In addition to the fact that I don't need anything I also have income left over that I can save. I really am living like a king. Many people never have this good of a lifestyle. Kings of the past lack modern technological advances I enjoy. I'm really living better than a king in a lot of ways, when you consider kings of the past.<br /><br />So while I'm not rich I have so much. I'm certainly willing to allow some people to free ride off some of the blessings I've enjoyed because so many Americans are nowhere close. Yeah, some should free ride, and when they do they don't do it on the backs of unions. They do it on the backs of people that have much more than they need, like you and me. And of course our riches are nothing compared to the ultra rich in the US, so yeah, I support some free riding on the backs of the ultra rich and not on the backs of the poor, handicap, or working class.<br /><br />Even though as you may know I don't think the ultra rich earn their own riches. They take the productive contributions of others via private property requirements enforced by the state (once again it's nanny state for the rich and free markets for the poor). So in my view if you tax the rich you aren't free riding off them because they are already free riding off Bangladeshi sweatshop workers buring up in factories getting paid 18 cents a day. But that's a separate discussion.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16555304916610385832013-05-11T07:46:17.772-04:002013-05-11T07:46:17.772-04:00"What RTW does is it creates a free rider pro..."What RTW does is it creates a free rider problem."<br /><br />You don't like this so you agree we sold shut off the "free riders" outside the union as well? Now we are on the same page brother. Until there is not 49% not paying income taxes, 13 million illegals sucking trillions, "free" healthcare and millions on food stamps I really can not take our argument on this subject very serious sir.<br /><br />I've said it many times on your blog - many many times - I am not anti Union, in fact I do see a valuable place for unions that stick to their charter. A highly disciplined and business supportive group that creates value for management and ownership.<br /><br />I normally don't read Ex's post, but thinking it was JC I read a previous post about some BS about society.<br /><br />#1 - where is said contract I signed to society?<br /><br />And more importantly what does the contract say in regards to what I get out of the deal?<br /><br />I pay my debt and more to society. Taxes are taken from me to pay my actually debt to society, I take care of my responsibilities, I do not not take without paying or working and I am generous in other areas. I only have two kids because frankly the burden to have 3 financially scare my wife and I.<br /><br />What are the free loaders and a'holes who don't give a crap about their responsibilities doing to uphold their end of their contract? Your posts make absolutely no sense - at least JC has points - yours are like the ramblings of a mad man. If there is a contract to society then those not living up to that would be what - punished, imprisoned or maybe eliminated? I am living up to my end so what are you going to do to those who are not?<br /><br />The idea that I somehow owe some other person something is ludicrous a best. Why because they breath the same air? I help people outside of the heavy tax burden - heavy heavy tax burden to society we already feel - when will the rest of the world live up to the same so called contract then? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-32786198827008810742013-05-09T21:06:35.836-04:002013-05-09T21:06:35.836-04:00Jon
I differ from you on two (nuanced but importan...Jon<br />I differ from you on two (nuanced but important) ways:<br /> Firstly I don't think it's a matter of strengthening unions rather repealing the RTW legislation as it is simply a regressive political ploy to prevent the equitable ( no necessarily equal but fair) i.e. by ELIMINATING a competitor, as described by me earlier, <br /><br />The clear issue here is that the government has been corrupted by unfair and unreasonable power by the interests of the minority of *people* (wealthy capitalists). <br /><br />consequently many unions have become quasi personal power bases (like corporations) and as such the institution has become more important that the people (at Large) interest.<br />In capitalism there is a natural cycle from start up (high ideals... through to cash cow ...low input...low ideals.) Competition and Equitable outcomes for the workers or the public is no longer its primary goal … competitors , uncontrolled innovation must be eliminated by *any * ( read anti competitive) means. (see “me to” patent manipulation... copy right to 99years etc and prohibitive clauses to engender Vertical marketing e.g. Monsanto and “Round up”). Personal power base (e.g. Koch Bros) and ever increasing profit to maintain it's existence at all cost.<br />See Walmart from a business based on empowering its workforce (and making a profit) to now where its focus is on more and more profit and de-empowering the workforce).<br /><br />I'd suggest that the same process is at play in unions and as such their original high ideal objective has now been replaced by their own existence (personal power and constant demands) at all costs. And yes Chad , sometimes anti competitive actions. <br /><br />In truth the models for BOTH corporations and unions are beyond their 17 th-19 th century ideas/ thinking .<br /><br />Solution I'd suggest is A VARIATION on the Scandinavian enterprise based union (no room for power base building.) <br /> Corporations in the same industry have to empower workers or they'll go to opposition[capitalism 101] and government has final say *in conflict* . Government has ultimate power over corporations and Unions. Taxation on say Oil is 40% and has been that for 40 + years and as the Norwegian minister for mines and energy says ….”industry complains etc but they are still there and making profits.” and the workers rarely strike for more than a week. They also have some of the safest working environments laws in the world. <br />The problem with America generally is it drinks its own Kool aid.... it rarely looks beyond its own borders for ideas …. there is an underlying conviction that America is No 1 and therefore their systems on every<br />thing are the best all they need is tweeking . And nothing else will work. This is palpably NONSENSE.<br />Most countries borrow ideas from others and tweek them for the local environment. See universal Pharmaceutical health care, Firearm control, abortions, industrial relations, environmental controls, cohabitation of religion and secular government … and the list goes on. <br /> <br />BTW I am NOT pushing Australia as a Nirvana it simply isn't but it does look beyond its own navel.<br />I write on some 20 sites around the world and I am disappointed by the American obsession with its self as being the be all and end of the world... Chad's myopic indifference to all things not HIS ENVIRONMENT or Country is point in fact . This type of thinking tends to make America what it is a target (rightly or wrongly) for every malcontent elsewhere. The fear of Terrorism is way more (unjustly) intense in USA than anywhere else. Consider the Sth Koreans/ Taiwanese … now they have real reason to be paranoid. US loses/ lost 100 times more people in car accidents and 2000 times more people each year than in 911. <br />Don't under estimate the background effect this has on the people.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-78671682264974177742013-05-09T08:26:04.146-04:002013-05-09T08:26:04.146-04:00I think of it more like a game of chess - sacrific...<i>I think of it more like a game of chess - sacrifice a pawn to take the bishop.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I think this is good because we understand each other, and really maybe we sort of have a point of agreement. You say you support small government and free markets. But you'll bend the rules to achieve a greater good. You obviously think unions are bad for an overall economy, so really your end goal is a healthy economy, and if that means violating contracts, free markets, and big government this is what you do. I understand that. Actually I think that's a good principle to work with. But then recognize what your real principle is. A healthy economy. Not small government. Not free markets. We want a good economy, because as Ex mentions above we're not really here to maximize profits for shareholders. What we want is a well functioning society. If that means big government, then fine.<br /><br />What I think is happening though is I think the government intervention that you tend not to focus on is the government intervention that helps the rich. So a corporation is a great tool for the rich. It allows them to pool their resources and then use their collective strength to drive hard bargains on wages, lobby Congress, etc. Corporations don't exist without the state. They are a state created institution. Without a state they don't exist. What the Wagner Act did was it created some room for unions to counterbalance that corporate strength. These are both government interventions. One that helps the rich and another that helps the working class. What RTW does is it creates a free rider problem. That of course weakens the working class side and strengthens the corporate side. Do you really think that today corporations don't have enough power and working people have too much? Take a look at the environmental devastation in China, Latin America, and Africa. That's a visual presentation of corporate power.<br /><br />Unions make it possible for working people to enjoy a larger share of the revenue generated. Take a look at this chart of union participation as contrasted with the share of income going to the top 10%.<br /><br />http://i.imgur.com/6wJ7GS0.jpg<br /><br />I would suggest to you that strengthening unions is the best thing you can do for an economy. The reason is because it puts a larger share of the income into the pockets of the poor. They spend money and this spurs the economy. That's why the economy in the US performed much better in the 50's, 60's, and 70's then it has in the 30 years since then. That's why today our economy is struggling. The rich have more than ever today and yet the rebound that you seem to expect from creating a better business climate hasn't materialized. The Dow is setting records, we have record profits. And sky high unemployment. Youth unemployment that will create a future crisis.<br /><br />But like I say, I'm glad your focus is on the greater good rather then some sort of theoretical ideal of limited government and free markets. What matters is what works. If unions actually harmed economies I'd be in agreement with you and happy that they are weakened by RTW laws. The fact is they don't though. We know that from nearly universal experience over the last 60 years from countries all across the globe.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-4487478426119567422013-05-08T23:19:59.188-04:002013-05-08T23:19:59.188-04:00The crux of my concern with The so called "ri...The crux of my concern with The so called "right" is that they ignore the POINT of Societies either believing in non existing human attitudes <br />OR <br />They are simply selfishly myopic i.e. People should be like me or to hell with them. <br />Much of what is "called" liberal (sic) in the USA is neither it is just trying to meet the MANDATE of Society.<br /><br />LEFT actually relates to the structure of a government where all people are EQUAL including in power Equally a logical an equal impossibility/nonsense as true capitalism.<br />In truth the people who continue this misinterpretation do so usually out of ignorance victims to the myopic spin of those in power's self interest. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-45740228539679984912013-05-08T23:09:03.292-04:002013-05-08T23:09:03.292-04:00Not that my thoughts matter but I think the conver...Not that my thoughts matter but I think the conversation has missed the point.<br />In truth it's all about power and fair use of it . Unions good bad or indifferent are there to balance the power (otherwise unchecked) of the capitalist's proxy MANAGEMENT. And if that means (ab)usinging its power to increase that profit so be it. In the reality of balance sheets the largest recurring costs are those covered by wages, benefits and conditions (safety) followed by environmental. Therefore it makes Capitalist sense to minimise them, eliminate if possible. Assuming employer some how have a natural largess to its workers, the nation (society) is simply a nonsense. History/ current news is full of proof . Only the least objective on the right (sic)(read myopic Capitalist) suggest that a business has ANY other purpose other than to make as much money it can for its shareholders. <br />Capitalism was based on the flawed notions that nationalism would moderate their excesses and a level playing field would ensure it. Sadly neither is factually or objectively so.<br />What most partisan conversations deliberately ignore is that THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SOCIETIES IS MUTUAL BENEFIT. A corollary of all of the above means MUTUAL benefit can't exist if there isn't EQUITABLE (not necessarily equal) (there are naturally transient or conditional variations in power between people... everyone the same is fanciful on innumerable reasons not least biologically) power. <br /><br />Clearly this leaves us with two options The first is for workers to organise (Unions). Here the reality is that UNIONS cant match the money (power/influence) of the gapitalists.<br />This invariably means that the second a government which by democratic assent it's duty is to moderate excesses (of either as indicated by democratic assent) with it's primary mandate in mind i.e. the mutual benefit of the people. Clearly this includes the capitalists through their utilities (businesses/corporations) and the workers through their Unions.<br /><br />The reality of life is that there is no absolute good or Bad (binary) options, it invariably come down to the lessor of evils (individual right and the interests of the MOST minimising the (number of losers aka PEOPLE ). From the perspective of the wealthy and those who benefit or perceive they benefit from siding with the most powerful (capital) this is interpolated as freedom (sic) and government *equity(ising) *(sic) it is depicted (erroneous) as “nanny state” or “Big Brother” when in reality it is simply the assented to government ATTEMPTING TO FULFILL IT'S MANDATE. <br />That simply means that the government minimising the number of workers working at a disadvantage to the others in the same “unionised” shop. <br /><br />The fact that some work places aren't unionised gives testimony to government NOT taking sides merely ensuring equity. <br />As previously stated the RTW laws are simply a round about way to break unions by means other than by level playing field tactics (simply offering more money, conditions and letting the workers FREELY CHOOSE)<br /><br />The Australian conservatives (sic) tried to enforce contracts over unionism (work choices [sic] pushed by mining corps ) i.e. Sign away your rights conditions for a contract of marginally more money or you don't work here.... no Unions. ( no choice). My point is that if left to the Corporations the same long term loss and safety risk WILL happen in the US.<br /><br />They got decimated at the polls the sitting PM lost his seat only the 2nd time in Aust History. And the other was in WW1.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-45323766078991878322013-05-08T21:21:38.739-04:002013-05-08T21:21:38.739-04:00So anyone who thinks the Union is simply laying in...So anyone who thinks the Union is simply laying in the very bed they built must then also denounce their free market beliefs?<br /><br />I think of it more like a game of chess - sacrifice a pawn to take the bishop. The plan of attack was brilliant actually - know the limits to get the job done and inflict a little damage in the process. BTW what are the numbers - what percentage of members are opting out at this point? I thought the biggest problems for these big unions in RTW states was the competition from new companies opening as non union shops since the business environment tends to improve. I don't recall seeing or hearing a drastic decline or opt out at the union shops in RTW states. But what I do continue reading frequently is how states that went to RTW have all enjoyed an economic turn around. We'll see what happens in Michigan now - if Michigan rebounds it would be a HUGE feather in the RTW march.<br /><br />I understand the distain from the big picture view your feeling. It's gotta really suck that the Right leaning, Conservative, RTW states are prospering, growing and flourishing in this horrible environment. While the Big Liberal States are dying slow deaths, taxing their citizens to their max while people and business leave at a steady pace.<br /> <br /> Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-54295016309440684202013-05-08T12:05:49.030-04:002013-05-08T12:05:49.030-04:00There are NO non paying members invited to the bar...<i>There are NO non paying members invited to the bargining table at GM at FORD at anywhere sir.</i><br /><br />I don't think I said non paying members are at the bargaining table. I mean, maybe they are, I don't know. Usually it's like HP pointed out. If you are not in the union but you work under the union contract you still can be charged what is called an "agency fee". His corporate front group source says that fee is nearly the same as union dues, I've seen from other sources it's not that high, but in any case, it may be true that in a non RTW state everyone represented by the union pays at least some fee even if they aren't part of the union.<br /><br />What I happen to think is that if you want to go negotiate a contract with GM or whoever and you don't want to pay the union a fee to represent you then what you should do is go negotiate for yourself. If you want to be a slave, go for it. That doesn't mean that everyone that negotiates for themselves (that's what I did) is a slave. It just means basically right now the law allows you to do that if you want. Not technically a slave of course, what I mean is you can negotiate some poor terms for yourself if you like. Go ahead. You can do that in a non right to work state, assuming you aren't dealing with certain industries that were excluded from Wagner Act restrictions. So GM, Ford, Hostess, whatever. The law in a non RTW state permits that. So what exactly do RTW laws do?<br /><br />They create free riders. The union has to provide you a service and you don't have to pay. Why would any self respecting liberterian support that? They wouldn't, and in fact they usually don't. But if you are going to support it you need to admit you really aren't for free markets and small government. You basically want to do whatever it takes to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and you'll go with big government when it suits you and nullify free markets when it suits you. Classic hypocrite that Jesus spoke about so often.<br /><br />The rest of your comments are off topic, so I'm not addressing them.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-70252589459899264192013-05-08T10:47:04.324-04:002013-05-08T10:47:04.324-04:00JC - I do recall that blog article and I recall th...JC - I do recall that blog article and I recall thinking (as I am now) wow you must love this closet capitalist a lot to take that much time to actually confirm Bogdanor was pretty spot on. If you read your responses - either it was out of context, the source Chum referenced was wrong so therefore he did not lie or Chum was wrong, but didn't lie. You put a lot of time in doing that and frankly it reads like a mother who sticks up for her bully son at the school board meeting. What your review certainly did not do is prove Bogdanor as a hack of any kind. He actually comes across as far more informed than Big brain Chum actually.<br /><br />Back to your sillyness - what your attempting to say to all of us is that the Union - all Unions across this great country have non paying members in a position to have a voice in the collective bargining process. You found the admendment that allows it to happen sure did, but IT IS NOT HAPPENING SIR. There are NO non paying members invited to the bargining table at GM at FORD at anywhere sir.<br /><br />I love your analogy it speaks to your thinking. Non Paying Union Member = Slave to GM. Paying Union Member = Freedom through collective bargining when in actually Paying Union Member = Slave to the Union.<br /><br />Just like your view on society sir - the winners in a union format are the lazy, the unproductive members within the group. A union's ultimate goal (like socialism) is to not have a super star. Or to enslave the super stars talent for the improvement of the group. They breed and promote being just above average. <br /><br />So really what Chum was saying is that your either a slave to GM or your a slave to the Union. I think that is probably true when they can only sell unskilled labor and they suck at it. A person who is skilled and offers value will never be a slave to anyone - they will be able to sell their abilities to the highest bidder or demand more for what they do.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-70897200474438452022013-05-07T09:15:48.144-04:002013-05-07T09:15:48.144-04:00What does it mean to say, on paper, that you can a...<i>What does it mean to say, on paper, that you can abstain from joining a union if it gives you essentially no benefits? Okay, now you don't have to go to their stupid picnics....but you didn't have to go as a union member either! </i><br /><br />Well, in addition to the picnics you get the overtime pay, weekends off, an independent review board if your termination isn't fair, pensions, decent salary. They're getting all those things thanks to tough work. Negotiating a contract with a corporation often isn't easy since they have all the power. Without a union it's like they have infinite resources and you have nothing, so your negotiating strength is weak. That's why union workers for so long were able to enjoy a decent, middle class life. But to achieve that unions need some revenue, so they say if you're going to get the benefits you should pay. And if you don't want the benefits, fine. Go negotiate with the employer by yourself and see how that works out for you. What's wrong with that? If you don't want what the union has to offer, then just walk away. But that's not what these laws do. They compel the union to provide the service for free. That's what "right to work" means.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-41357649775532138142013-05-07T09:10:01.881-04:002013-05-07T09:10:01.881-04:00Chad, haven't we already discussed all these p...Chad, haven't we already discussed all these points about Chomsky, including my rebuttal to the Bogdanor article here:<br /><br />http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-to-paul-bogdanors-top-200.html<br /><br />It's actually one of my top traffic posts. Check it out.<br /><br />Now, regarding exclusive representation, I think it's really saying what I'm saying. You have to distinguish between being in the union and being a member of the bargaining unit. You can opt of the union and still be in the bargaining unit. That way you get all the benefits of collective bargaining, but you don't pay. You free load. Once you are in the bargaining unit, yeah, you have to accept that the union represents you, and likewise an employer can't negotiate with you separately. I'll quote your source:<br /><br /><i>As a corollary, the employer may not extend different terms to any workers <b>in the bargaining unit</b>, even if those terms are more favorable,</i><br /><br />But, not only do you not have to be in the union, you don't have to be in the bargaining unit. You can negotiate your own contract <i>if you are outside the bargaining unit</i>. Of course people don't want to do that too much because the bargaining unit produces some nice benefits. Good working conditions, pay, etc. But nothing is stopping you from stepping outside the bargaining unit and negotiating your own contract.<br /><br />See for instance this link, which is a .ppt presentation.<br /><br />www.nffe-fsc.org/Documents/reno/Bargaining_Units.pptx<br /><br />There are all kinds of rules that in fact REQUIRE people to be outside the bargaining unit. So obviously if in some cases an employee is REQUIRED to be outside the bargaining unit, then it is possible to negotiate a contract outside the bargaining unit.<br /><br />Chomsky's point holds. You want to negotiate with GM and be their slave, go ahead. If you want to receive the benefits created by union representation and yet you don't want to pay for it, that's what right to work laws accomplish for you.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-81255296194768723052013-05-07T03:40:53.934-04:002013-05-07T03:40:53.934-04:00Chad and others
I'd like to thank you for your...Chad and others<br />I'd like to thank you for your post about Chomsky "Lies" it makes a fascinating read... on how NOT to write a well researched attack.<br />To be honest I've only researched 8 of his points at random. So as to not tax your self admitted limited attention span I'll cut to the chase.<br /><br />In fact I found 7 time error and 12 contextual errors in his references to the 8 zingers examined. And 5 of his claims were taken out of context to what Chomsky was saying at the time.<br /><br />The second CRITICAL error in his list is that he has supplies no base figures for comparison.<br />Thirdly on two his points the figures actually proved Chomsky's point that the e RATE of those deaths mention did decrease and even faster once Starlin died 1950's. To be sure it was no picnic but when one considers the rate of increase in hegemonic states of the USA have increased since WW2<br />The point is he argues like you ….Starts with a conclusion GOES FACT SHOPPING.<br /><br />One can suggest one needs to look at the brutal killings in EAST Timor40% of the population , Columbia? , Nicaragua?, India 50k in Bopal , West Papua 30k, Vietnam ? , Thailand?, Laos ?, Korea, Isreal 300k+ Iran under the Shar est 50k, Iraq /Iran was funded by the US in this give or take (6million in that one), And in how many other middle eastern Despotic regimes. And I didn't bother with Africa. <br /><br />In short this list is questionable at best Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.com