Apechild, i'm still waiting for your graph chowing the effects on unemployment of ceo and shareholder greed. Also, do you seriously believe that the average employer will make any more concessions than they have to?
And, how can you claim that union members get paid more than they deserve? That is something only an economist or a ceo would say. To think that the minimum wage 6.?? is more than someone deserves for time they will never get back while their bosses stand to make millions for in some instances comparatively little labr or effort is insulting. I'm sorry, but if all you can see is econ, and antiworker econ at that, you seriously need to take a look at the real world. Maybe you could explain to me why econ, as you are using it, isn't bullshit? How do your models apply to the real world, give an example? Even with an example you'd have to be full of shit if you try to claim that they apply accross the board under all circumstances. Your argument is one-dimensional. You can talk econ all you want, but you have to realize that econ in many instances is nothing more than artistic guesswork. Atleast acknowledge the limits of your argument.
You keep telling us to read up on econ, i have-much of it is bullshit, maybe you could try reading up on labor struggles throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Then you'd see how quick employers were to provide a safe working environment and better-than-slave wages.

Greed, otherwise known as rational self interest, is good. Everyone should act in his own best interest, provided he does so within an ethical and legal framework. Some CEOs have acted unethically, and many of them have been forced to pay fines or serve jail sentences for their crimes. As have some shareholders. So have some of the greedy union mobsters out there. But while corporations are subject to anti-trust legislation in efforts to limit the influence their greed can garner, no such legislation exists to limit the greedy anti-competitive behavior of the unions. What a shame...

No. What's your point? Why should they?

With objective economic analysis and sound reasoning. How would you like to rebut me?

Most economists and ceos are extremely well educated, successful, experienced individuals. Are you trying to somehow discredit what I'm saying by associating my words with those of financiers, business leaders, and experts in labor markets and monetary policy? Well thank you, filtherton. I'm flattered.

To think that someone should be paid more than $6 an hour when the labor they produce is not worth the expense of supervising their pathetic, useless butt is the insult, my friend. No one is entitled to hand outs. You have to earn what you make in this world. Don't like it? Then stand on a street corner and beg.

I am the real world.

Maybe I could, but I think I've been more than generous already in dispensing my free economics lessons. I can't force you to understand it.

I've given several already. I'm not taking your bait because this is becoming quite futile and a waste of my time.

Basic concepts, like supply and demand govern rational human behavior. While some irrational people exist, these basic laws aren't even subject to debate. They are economic realities. Trying to argue with these concepts will do you about as much good as jumping off a cliff and arguing with gravity.

I'm through with you.

Wow, lots of good stuff on both sides. I actually watched the interview between Dean and Mathews and it was enjoyablebut pointless, since this is a states issue, not one for the federal government.

I live in a right to work state, where I have been both a "worker" and in management. I have also worked with Unions on political and lobbying issues in the past. My ultimate feeling is that Unions have played a vital and essential role in the history of the United States. I think that they have every right to exsist and to pursure their own goals. However, I as a worker, should be able to join or not join a group if I choose. I, as an employer, should be able to hire someone if I think they are qualified, whether or not they belong to a union. Forcing unions on people or banning them begins to step on my personal freedoms. I like the concept of a right-to-work state, and if the Unions are truely needed (as they were in the past) they will survive.

Years ago I worked in a distillery that was unionized. Like Sixate says,the place was filled with useless fuckbags that did nothing but get drunk all day and sleep.

The frustrating thing for me and others was that we actually had some pride in what we were doing, and wanted to be a viable part of the production.

The owners were not against us. They, like the rest of us who showed up and worked, wanted the union disbanded,not to fuck over those of us who wanted to work,but to lose the deadweight and push production to its maximum.

The owners were prepared to offer the same benefits and pay.There was a waiting list of hundreds of people dying to get a job there. The company was also offering incentives for meeting production quotas.This wasn't to be slave driven and dictated by the owners but rather by the employees .Ever here of sport stars getting incentives to surpass a quota? Same thing.

Unfortunately the union said it would strike.The owners said go ahead,we'll close down shop and go back to Puerto Rico. They didn't because they felt indebted to Canada for taking them in when Castro kicked them out of Cuba and stole all they had.In the end all the grade 6 educated fuckbags got their way and continued to earn $50,000 a year for their lack of effort.

I left shortly after since the environment and the union was turning a negative person into me.That was almost 15 years ago.I work in a couple of different areas now,mainly in a consulting role when my main gig is taking a break.In my experiences,the most creative,positive people who want to make a difference and contol there destiny never get anywhere near a union.

Have you heard of the term "over-qualified"? I think companies tend to want the people that are going to stick around and allow themselves to get walked on rather than people that are motivated and want to work up the ladder. Yeah, they are going to want some people that are very motivated, but for the boring grunt work that anyone can do there is no reason to. Either they'll stay or they'll leave and they are easily replaced. Though, I guess it really depends on the industry and the company on an individual basis, it is hard to make generalizations that work for everything on this matter.

Is it our personal responsibility to get educated? Yes, but does that also mean that the people who aren't educated aren't educated just because they're lazy or unmotivated? For people like me, school was a positive experience. I was able to go nearly everyday, my classes weren't too hard (yet typically were challenging for me), and I was able to do my homework easily (having a computer and support at home). When someone has to work a second job, or help the parents on the farm (which I saw a lot with the poor and Hispanic familes back home), or if the parents don't emphasize the importance of education and make it difficult for the student to actually get to school at all, or when someone has some processing difficulty that makes it embarrassing to be in a class with other kids and the school doesn't realize the kid needs an IEP or a 504, or when going to school is a violent experience, etc etc etc the incentive to learn and to get educated is gone. Unfortunately, even kids have lives that can prevent them from succeeding later on in life. This is generally connected directly with the drug abuse that you're bound to see with someone stuck in a life that they don't want to be in.

How do you teach motivation? After a certain point it probably is a lost cause with some people. There is a strong cultural phenomenon that is promoted by the media (I know how we love to harken on the media, but I've seen this so many times that I have to mention it) that encourages people to defer responsibility from themselves to practically anything else. This is quite a barrier to motivating people when the cultural standard is to not take responsibility for one's own life. The schizopheric nature of our society is clear here, because we also laud those Puritan ideals of a work ethic. "Anyone can do anything if they work hard enough, and if didn't work out it isn't your fault." is generally the message that I see. Also, when people don't succeed right away, even going back to grade school and middle school they tend to be put on a track when it is reinforced for them to fail. Eventually, many of these people expect to fail at what they do, their motivation is shot because every time that they have been motivated before they got crapped on. I would guess, that in most cases, bad family experiences contribute to all of this the most.

There is a difference between greed and self interest. Greed is the taking more than you need, it is not a good thing and is not in the best interest of humanity.


Well, i guess my point is that if it is all right for the employer to bend the worker over the barrel, why is it wrong for the worker to attempt to exert power over the employer through organization? Both the employer and the workercan fuck eachother and themselves over- what's wrong with a level playing field.


Well, according to your endorsement of "rational self interest" and greed it is only rational and therefore good for the unions to try and get as much as they can for as little as they can, right? That only makes good economic sense?

Besides, with sound reasoning and objective economic analysis you could make a case for a great many things, including slavery and indentured servitude. You need to consider other factors- like is this ethical, is this something i wouldn't mind being on the other side of?


Actually, i was alluding to the over emphasis most economists and the average ceo place on the bottom line. Maximizing profit is apparently more important than providing a better quality of life, including the quality of life of the least fortunate among us.

Are you paris hilton? How much is an hour of your life worth? How much is it worth when that hour is spent lining the pockets of someone who shows their appreciation by paying you as little as they can possibly get away with according to the law? That's bullshit. As for handouts, corporate welfare cost me more money as a taxpayer than social welfare last year. Indeed, where would our economy be if not for the handouts provided to such "needy" corporations as nike and microsoft.

Further, not all economists would argue that a minimum wage is a bad thing. Some predict that it may force employers to update the skills and productivity of their employees.


You're not the real world, you're a model of the real world based on many innacurate assumptions about the way things work. You're based on the idea of a free marketplace that doesn't actually exist attempting to justify and explain things with little regard to the idea that the economy exists to serve all of humanity, rather than to fuel its own fires ad infinitum.

Or maybe you couldn't, since you apparently can't even acknowledge that there may be flaws in your assumptions. I certainly hope your econ lessons are free, since anyone paying for them would be under the assumption that there aren't any limitations to the accuracy of your statements. You assume the we live in a competitive free market(what does that even mean? do you mean perfect competition?)- where exactly does corporate welfare, trade tariffs, and the like come into the competitive free market? If you were offering a good econ lesson, you'd offer all the sides of the story

I have seen no real-world examples, just one-sided economic theories and models.

I'm not arguing against the laws of supply and demand, just that they are not as simple as you portray them. You're the one trying to argue that the only function of unions is to increase unemployment.
Heres one more:
Unions and the minimum wage increase wages and benefits for workers.
Workers have more disposable income.
Workers spend their disposable income.
More money goes into the economy, creating more growth opportunities for businesses in general.

Guys that I work with make a whole helluva lot more than $6 an hour, plus insurance. Do they deserve to come into work high as a kite, drunk, and then sleep half of their day away. Essentially they do fucking nothing for what what they get paid. I can assure you the only way that will happen is if there's a worthless union run by a bunch of lazy potheads who protect these morons.

wilbjammin, i like the way you think. It's a little different than my opinion, yet you raise some interesting questions and have different ideas on where some problems occur. I wish I had some answers for you, but I don't. Education and motivation are hard to teach. We all have different backgrounds, and that's a huge factor in our levels of education and motivation, and sadly, many people never break away from the lifestyle they grow up with.

Thanks, unfortunately, I don't have the answers to what I bring up and I'm not even sure if I've I'm getting the whole picture. I tend to think that a lot of things are connected in more ways than we realize. It is very theoretical to say "these are the problems and this what would fix it". I do think that improved education would help, but otherwise there are many other factors that I have no idea how to address and haven't identified yet. It is a place to start a discussion though. I like looking at issues from as many different perspectives as possible. Whether or not some lines of inquiry prove to be fruitless or not doesn't really matter; I find the process helpful and it makes me feel a little less powerless.

Many people never do break away from the lifestyle that they grow up with, so definitely when you find many people making the same choices that you consider to be poor it will take many years and effort for a positive change if one is ever coming.

Many of the graduate students who work in any University of California are unionized. All of us pay "fair use dues" for the benefits gained from collective bargaining. Those of us who choose to be active, voting members can pay a few dollars more per month.

I don't know if this makes all graduate workers unionized but the universities certainly count us as such, regardless of whether we've paid the active dues.