I agree with you, however, the sheeple continue to put these people into office either thru willful blindness (not paying attention to their actions while in office) or dumbing down of the populace at large, in either case these traitors to WE the PEOPLE are continuing to screw US in favor of themselves and the Oligarchy!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-quinn-illinois-pension-abuse-20120105,0,2589281.story

The Democratic governors are getting sick of the union abuses also.

I am a resident of Indiana and I just took the survey and yes I was shocked and saddened. I challenge everybody to take this survey!!!

Sadly the survey is gone.

I disagree that the PATCO strike is what started the decline of unions. The fatal step that started the decline was when labor deserted the Dems to support Nixon. Union leaders could not abide by the changes in the rules for the Dem party and Eugene McCarthy because unions lost a lot of their influence in the party. The rule changes brought in a lot of groups that were frozen out of the party selection process which diluted the unions power. Reagan and the strike was the culmination of that process.

The decline of the Unions in this country was caused by offshoring the jobs.

The foundational power of the Union is to withhold the labor that capitalists need to produce products, the strike.

If a capitalist can say "We don't need your labor" what is the response from labor?

By moving into areas with vast pools of untapped labor willing to work for a pittance, capitalists have under cut the Unions.

The only effective response from labor is to organize the new labor force.

Unionizing the world is a lofty and noble goal Pat, but the very possible side effect of that is pretty large price increases in just about everything. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just a cause and effect thing.

Skip

I was just trying to look at the discussion in a little more fundamental way. The discussions that look at individual politicians or laws get so convoluted that they seldom achieve any clarity. The cause and effect relationships cannot be clearly defined because of the sheer complexity of world economy. not.

Thomas Freidman really gets at the root of what I was trying to say in his book, "The World is Flat"

@skip

Labor laws and unions would not be necessary if companies treated their workers properly. They don't so government protection and unions are necessary to insure that workers get a fair deal.

Pat

The world is complex in many ways, but if workers in China get the same union wages of a worker in the U.S., the product of that worker WILL go up in price. I don't think any deep analysis or discussion is needed to come to that conclusion.

Mike

I agree with you about treating workers properly. If you give them better working conditions and better wages and benefits, it does have an effect on the companies "bottom line" - like it or not. Yes, the executives could get paid a lot less, but that in many cases would still cause a rise in the price of the good or service.

The company has to make a choice, lower profits and happy workers or high profits and unhappy workers. Companies choose the latter while paying high salaries to executives just because they are in management. But companies should not complain when workers are disgruntled and try to unionize. Choices have consequences.

Skip

The world is complex in many ways, but if workers in China get the same union wages of a worker in the U.S., the product of that worker WILL go up in price.

So what? Is price the sole arbiter of of our social and economic systems? We burn coal because it is 'cheap' It kills thousand each and every year. Do I want that cheap electricity price so I can watch my child cough her lungs out?

@Pat

Skip is using China workers wages as a justification for why work is outsourced. But that is a false equivalency because workers in China work longer days, have no job protections or safety laws, and low wages. If we want to get our wages as low as China, we would have to dismantle the EPA and OSHA as well as the labor laws and product liability laws. But business would not be happy with that because there is still the FDA and other regulatory agencies that prevent business and the rich from raping the country. Chinese workers have worked themselves up from nothing to a state of poverty compared to US workers (all credit to Groucho for this comment).

Pat,

I am all with you on your last post. I am merely pointing out a probable scenario. I'm sure you do not want your child to cough due to coal burning, but on the other hand, do you buy the most expensive product or service? If you have a choice in electricity companies, I would imagine you and many others would pick the one with the cheaper rate. And their rate may be cheaper because of where and how they get thier electricity to sell to you (it could be coal). It may not be the greenest way or the company may pay less to their employees, but when people are choosing the cheapest power company, most times they don't think that way - they just know that they can turn their lights on for less. I'm not saying it is a "good" thing, just a fact of what is actually going on. I drive by an upscale mall and a Wal Mart each day and the Wal Mart lot is always full. I am not defending the Wal Marts of the world or the slave labor in other parts of the planet. But the world, when it comes to labor and corporations are in part due to the actions of the shoppers. People go to WalMart because of the PRICE, not because they are thinking of the social and economic conditions of the world. Yes, some go there because they have to (no or low paying jobs), but that is the unfortunate fact of today's world.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying it is the right way or the best way for our world, but it is the way it is happening (many times).

The prices are cheap because of unfair trade policies. China forces American companies to relocate to China and turn over tech in exchange for the right to sell in China. We do not impose such restrictions. Walmart would be significantly affected if our trade policies were balanced. All the Chinese products they sell would no longer be cheap in comparison to American products. Our trade policies should not be open door, but rather reciprocal. That means whatever restrictions and taxes China imposes, we will do like likewise.

Mike

If we want to get our wages as low as China, we would have to dismantle the EPA and OSHA as well as the labor laws and product liability laws

We are arguing the same point from opposite ends, I think. You are arguing against what is often called the race to the bottom.

I am arguing for the the race to the top. I want Chinese workers to have a living wage. They are human beings. I think their children should breath clean air and drink clean water. All the children in the world deserve that.

If that causes the prices at Walmart to rise I'm OK with that. Skip seems to have a problem with it.

You push and I'll pull OK? :)

Pat,

I agree - I am for bringing their wages and benefits UP to OUR level not the other way. I don't know how Mike got that from my comment. I just merely stated that higher labor costs USUALLY results in higher product costs. Is that not correct? All corportations - American or elsewhere can always improve. I would think our companies are better - working condition wise - that a good majority of the rest of the world. Still, if you increase costs for anything, raw materials OR labor, the obvious result will mostly be increase prices. Sorry if bringing up that point makes me look anti-union. It is just the most likely scenario. I am just the proverbial "messenger" here :)

And I do not have a problem with rising prices. Where did I say that. Again I just pointed out an obvious result. I try to buy American whenever I can, regardless of the price. Why do you think I am anti-union or anti-price. I did NOT complain about either.

Unionizing the world is a lofty and noble goal Pat, but the very possible side effect of that is pretty large price increases in just about everything. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just a cause and effect thing.

Just a reminder Pat and Mike, this was my first post. :-)

China is a sovereign nation and we cannot make them treat their workers better; we can only use pressure through trade and international agreements. If China cannot dump products in the US and EU, they will have to adopt better trade policies.

We, as a society, have placed judgment values on the environment, product safety, worker safety and so on. These values outweigh money/profits. If these laws interfere with the business ability to make a profit, it is because we have placed a higher value on some other aspect. Free trade and profits are not the only consideration we should use to determine our laws.

I think what Skip was trying to argue (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong here ;-)) is that you have to raise wages intelligently and not at random. If you increase wages by 1$/hr you have to see how that will affect the cost of the product and how that cost will affect supply and demand. Luckily all of this can be calculated and you can actually figure out whether an increase in wages will result in an increase in prices and if so to how much and how much of an impact, if any, that will have on consumer demand.

Thom Hartmann has had several economists on his show who have explained that raising the minimum wage in the US to 10$/hr would have very little impact on the overall cost of goods versus wages earned, which would mean increased buying power for the individual. These very same economists, however, counter that raising wages to- let's say 15$/hr- would have the opposite effect and would decrease buying power. Our goal should be to increase wages as is necessary to keep our working class always above the rate of inflation so that they always have disposable income and at least in the mathematical hypothetical this is possible to do. But it would require that every few years you increase the minimum wage and/or that every few years employees negotiate for a higher salary from their employer (decidedly NOT what happens in the US currently).

Thank your Mouzer - you hit my point exactly.

@Mouzer

I don't know of any unions that have made exorbitant salary/fringe benefit demands other than professional athletes. Unions are just trying to keep up with costs of living and health care with only minor wage increases. That is because fringe benefits are more important to workers. If businesses want to increase their profits, then they should get behind socialized medicine and take that out of the equation for doing business. Health care is the biggest rising cost to business and workers.

Skip

Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I have been growing increasingly dissatisfied with our continued (as a society) focus on money as the central point of every argument.

Thinking about Mikes comments about trying to control China's internal economy and them Mouzers comments about economists trying to control minimum wages brings me to the idea that the current capitalist systems seems to be a victim of it's own success.

It is great for finding ways to capture and develop resources but not so much at using those resources in a constructive way. As the world starts to run into more and more resource and sustainability issues I just wonder about the sustainability of capitalism itself.

We are just starting to conceive of the problems sustainability raises and we can barely manage the capitalism system now. Our current wealth inequality problems really just scratch the surface.

But I digress :)

Mike,

Pat and I were talking about labor globally - like China:

The decline of the Unions in this country was caused by offshoring the jobs.

By moving into areas with vast pools of untapped labor willing to work for a pittance, capitalists have under cut the Unions.

The only effective response from labor is to organize the new labor force.

And again, my point (which Mouzer nicely encapsuled) was about the somewhat steep rise of wages from these countries that make MANY of our goods and the effect on the prices of said goods - like clothes, electronics, etc. If as Pat mentioned, these workers got the equivalent of say a $15/hour increase on their wages (and that STILL would not be enough) from unionizing, that would be an increase of HUNDREDS of percent in the labor cost of the product. My posts and his were NOT about American workers/unions per se.

@Mike

I wasn't necessarily talking about unions in general. I was merely trying to clarify Skip's point. The argument I was giving about the 10$ versus 15$ was just meant as an example to help w/ conceptual understanding. Skip is making the same argument my macroeconomics teacher used to make ;-). I guess that's why I arrogantly thought I understood it well enough to attempt clarification? ;-). He used to talk about it a lot.

We've encountered a situation where the cost of living is going up, but the costs consumers want to pay for products is going down (primarily as a result of the first element). And this leads us into a situation where the snake is eating it's own tail. And this, by and large, is thanks to NAFTA and other piss poor trade agreements that we have here in the US (such as our ridiculous tax rates on our exported goods coupled w/ our ridiculous subsidies on other's imported goods).

My point is that the cost of goods in China does not include all the collateral issues that private industry in the US has to build into its costs. For example, oil and coal are required to comply with various regulations in the extraction of the resource and on the consumer end we have EPA regulations that govern the use of the oil and coal. Those things add to the cost of the goods in the US, but in China those costs are borne by the whole of their society. China is privatizing the profits and socializing the costs which is exactly what US business wants to do. In China the private industry is not cleaning up the environment; it is the government that absorbs those costs. The same logic applies to health care, pensions, etc. The costs of Chinese goods does not include those items which allows China to sell its products cheaper. If we want to replicate China, then the government will have to absorb those programs. That will allow US products to be made cheaper because private industry is relieved of those attendant matters. China is socialist not capitalist. If US business wants us to be like China then they cannot pick and choose what the government should absorb. It is the choice between socialism and capitalism.

Well now that is the most compelling argument I've ever heard for involving the state in profiteering.

I wonder if that's a solution China figured long ago? The whole offset costs by making the general public pay? They have 1.2+ billion people. If every single person pays taxes- even if those taxes are minimal compared to the amount every individual person here pays- they can offset the costs of many, many things that private entities alone could not offset....but then that does raise a question about responsibility and accountability. Do we want a world in which businesses can make decisions and offset the problems onto us? Hm.

China is not socialist at all. It is a totalitarian state with a capitalist economy governed by a small, self-perpetuating elite which allegedly has socialism as it's eventual goal. There are good reasons not to take that seriously.

Socialism, to use current jargon, is when the 99% have all the economic and political power in their hands and government really is by and for the people. Socialism in these terms does not exist anywhere in the world, never has and never will if the 1% continue to have their way. In China, the Communists are the 1%.

Another thing to understand about China's ruling class is that they are obsessive about political stability. Income inequality and ecological damage make for instability. At least in the long term. At some point, China's rulers may step in if they come to fear that their current course will lead to instability.

Krista, You are still appreciated by every parent and student whose life you touch daily. I am sorry the GOP feels that you are paid too much, but I could not and would not even try to do your job. It takes very special people to be teachers, police officers and fire fighters. Thank you. In Oklahoma we have some of the LOWEST paid teachers in America. And our police and fire fighters are in that same pay scale. But know there are those out here who care.

Teachers are respected in Wisconsin, but not the public sector union and the abuses that occur. 100% of the pension paid by taxpayers? really? Only 6% of health care insurance paid for by employee while federal workers pay 24%. Retiring at 50-55. 90 days of accumulated sick leave in Oshkosh. Substitute 2 weeks in Green Bay and receive 1/3 yearly salary. WEA trust health insurance that charged waaaaaaaaay too much. Double dipping. Spiking of salaries before retirement. All this allowed bus drivers to be the highest paid public workers in Milwaukee. If the union wants to retain collective bargaining, then taxpayers should have a seat at the table to prevent these abuses.

Please add Workman's Compensation to that long list. Workers comp is a quagmire of inadequate care and fighting for every step of recovery. The worker is demonized for getting hurt on the job and punished with that stigma in future job searches.

ahahahahah

bring back child labor laws?

ahhahahah. you are too funny.

What is so democratic about public sector unions that help elect officials and then bargain with those same elected officials over taxpayer money when the taxpayer who pays the bill, is not allowed a seat at the bargaining table?

They have a conservative leader who did not believe Keynesian policy was the way to get out of this recession.

German manufacturers' combination of engineering excellence, impeccable quality, and technical innovation enables them to command a premium price around the world. (The weaker euro, because of the recent crisis over Greece and other southern European countries, hasn't hurt their competitiveness, either.)
That has enabled Germany to be one of the few countries—China and Japan are others—with a trade surplus: Germany's hit $75 billion in the first half. And total government debt should level off at 80% of GDP over the next few years.

Still, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken the austerity route, tightening spending sharply in an E80-billion plan aimed at bringing the annual deficit down close to zero. We will find out whether that ultimately cements or undermines the recovery.
FROM: Seeking Alpha...Why is Germany doing so well.

Re:Contessa.Seems funny a consertive is so emamoured with socialist and communist countries.

finally, a liberal admits Europe is socialized.

When they get tired of Kim Jong-il, will it be Jabba the Hut or Emperor Palatine?

Ming the Merciless? Professor Moriarty? KAOS?