AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

I suspect George is behaving like the Republicans in the House. Conservative apparently feel obligated to be do the "conservative thing" no matter what. For the House members it is "no increase in taxes on the wealthy"...even though many of the wealthy are now saying, "Jesus Christ, let it go. Tax us more and get on with it."

Conservatives claim that unions are bad...and George is going to stick with that no matter what.

Hey...whatever makes them happy.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That bit of self-important patronizing is hardly a rational explanation of my position any more than it is of Republicans in Congress. Other that trite phrases such as " gettin a living wage for their workers" you haven't yet added much of substance to this dialogue.

Consider this. Unions exist only where they enjoy a government enforced monopoly on worker representation, and direct collection of their dues by the employer through predeductions from the wages of all represented employees. Without either of these leaglly enforcerd monopolistic features the free choices of individual members cause the unions to coillapse. (It's happening in Wisconsin now.) It was the same with the Mafia protection rackets. Without the thuggery, the businesses wouldn't pay. The difference here is that the unions enjoy government enforcement.

In states with Right to Work laws, forbidding enforced union membership or payment of dues, unions hardly exist at all. Just to emphasize the point, wherever individual unionized employees are given the free choic, they voluntarily stop paying dues and quit the union in large enough majorities to kill the union. What does that tell you?

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

I guess you have to remember that corporations only exist when there is a government enforced recognition of them.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That bit of self-important patronizing is hardly a rational explanation of my position any more than it is of Republicans in Congress. Other that trite phrases such as " gettin a living wage for their workers" you haven't yet added much of substance to this dialogue.

Consider this. Unions exist only where they enjoy a government enforced monopoly on worker representation, and direct collection of their dues by the employer through predeductions from the wages of all represented employees. Without either of these leaglly enforcerd monopolistic features the free choices of individual members cause the unions to coillapse. (It's happening in Wisconsin now.) It was the same with the Mafia protection rackets. Without the thuggery, the businesses wouldn't pay. The difference here is that the unions enjoy government enforcement.

In states with Right to Work laws, forbidding enforced union membership or payment of dues, unions hardly exist at all. Just to emphasize the point, wherever individual unionized employees are given the free choic, they voluntarily stop paying dues and quit the union in large enough majorities to kill the union. What does that tell you?

It "tells me" (confirms for me) that I am more sure than ever that I was correct when I wrote:

"Conservatives claim that unions are bad...and George is going to stick with that no matter what. "

Thank you for asking, George.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I don't think that's "self-serving patronizing" when the facts are now known to the majority that the rich are saying "tax us more!" At least for those who have spoken up about the conservative's stance on cutting taxes for the rich.

They're fighting for a cause that doesn't exist. In the mean time they're playing chicken with the fiscal cliff - for what? It'll end up with everybody's taxes going up on January 1 - including the rich. What are they fighting for? ..

Their power?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

In states with Right to Work laws, forbidding enforced union membership or payment of dues, unions hardly exist at all. Just to emphasize the point, wherever individual unionized employees are given the free choic, they voluntarily stop paying dues and quit the union in large enough majorities to kill the union. What does that tell you?

It tells me that legislators who pass "right to work freeload" laws understand the free rider problem.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't think that's "self-serving patronizing" when the facts are now known to the majority that the rich are saying "tax us more!" At least for those who have spoken up about the conservative's stance on cutting taxes for the rich.

They're fighting for a cause that doesn't exist. In the mean time they're playing chicken with the fiscal cliff - for what? It'll end up with everybody's taxes going up on January 1 - including the rich. What are they fighting for? ..

Their power?

Whatever you suppose :"the rich" may be doing, has nothing whatever to do with the tone and content of Frank's post above. That's a truly nonsensical connection.

I'm willing to take you at your word that "the majority of the rich are saying tax us no more", however, it's also a safe bet that the poor and the middle class are also saying exactly the same thing. Nobody likes more taxes, so the value judgments in your assertion are without meaning.

Most groups of people everywhere seek to retain and extend their power to shape events that directly affect their lives. Human nature seeks freedom, and our government increasingly restricts it. The political activities of labor unions, various advocacy groups, various "progressive" movementsd, and many others are motivated by the exact same impulses as those you ascribe to "the rich".

I believe the issue that motivates conservatives in this instance is the massive expansion of government spending that has occurred in the passt four years. The result so far is that our debt is now greater than our GDP and rising fast. Most of it is held overseas, not by Americans, and that makes us even more vulnerable. The examples in Europe unfolding now should teach us that this is a very precarious situation. As has occurred with Greece, Portugual, and Spain, the tipping point is generally not seen coming , and, once it is crossed, the situation no longer can be reversed, the ensuing collapse is sudden and unforseen. The tax increases you cited will not fix this problem if spending is not curtailed, and that is the source of the current deadlock in Washington.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

It tells me that legislators who pass "right to work freeload" laws understand the free rider problem.

We do claim the individual freedom of association in this country. Government mandated union monopolies are no more beneficial to our economy than government sponsored corporate monopolies. Forcibly taking money from working people without their free assent is correctly seen in about 23 states as a violation of our fundamental freedoms. The recent flight of businesses from Illinois to Indiana (the latest right to work state - will Michigan be next?) also suggests that forced union membership is inimical to productive economic activity.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Whatever you suppose :"the rich" may be doing, has nothing whatever to do with the tone and content of Frank's post above.

The "tone and content" of my posts on this issue, George, simply reflect my feelings that conservatives tend to walk in lock step on issues like this. I doubt any arguments will change the minds of people like you...so putting much effort into such arguments is wasted time.

Look...I understand your position. There are parts of it with which I am in complete agreement. I've said so...sarcastically, but I have said it.

If the workers here in America who back unions would just stop doing so...and allow corporate America to pay workers what they can...full employment would result.

That is for certain.

I guarantee you that if American workers were willing to work 50 - 60 hour work weeks at less than a dollar per hour...almost all of the work being farmed out to third world countries would be retained here.

The conservative view seems to be: American industry ought be able to lower all cost of the factors of production to the lowest levels it can obtain.

George, without unions, labor eventually will be gotten dirt cheap. If not...THE JOBS ARE GONE. We all know that.

Workers have the right to unite in order not to be low man on the totem pole...in order not to be unfairly disadvantaged. The fact that many Americans act and vote against their best interests (as you pointed out they often do on this issue) is not an argument against unions...it is an argument about the general intelligence and forethought of many Americans.

Or at least, that is the way I see it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

It tells me that legislators who pass "right to work freeload" laws understand the free rider problem.

We do claim the individual freedom of association in this country. Government mandated union monopolies are no more beneficial to our economy than government sponsored corporate monopolies. Forcibly taking money from working people without their free assent is correctly seen in about 23 states as a violation of our fundamental freedoms. The recent flight of businesses from Illinois to Indiana (the latest right to work state - will Michigan be next?) also suggests that forced union membership is inimical to productive economic activity.

Which says nothing at all about the free rider problem.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your argument has been dusted off from the distant past and is not at all relevant to the current siutuation. We have a legally established minimum wage and legally established limits on the workweek and required payment for overtime for hourly workers. The prevailing wage rates in right to work states are indeed often lower than the union rates in other states, but they are hardly the draconian flight to the bottom that you have described here. Moreover enterprise and job growth in these states is much higher than in states infested with labor unions. That means there are more job opportunities for the folks seking them, and that too is a significant benefit.

The fact is that labor rates are competitive, both up and down. Where skills are in demand the market will quickly bid them up. In the absence of labor unions, successful companies do take a positive interest in the welfare and motivation of their workers, and actively encourage dialogue with production staff on process, methods and quality.

In many instances labor unions act to limit employment and to exclude new entrants into their job/skill categories. They "protect" the current membership on the backs of the unemployed seeking employment.

It's also true that there are many low skill level jobs that are exported in large numbers, mostly to Asia and Mexico, just as you inferrred. There are marginal cases that could well be argued, but most of these involve products that could not be designed and produced economically at U.S. labor rates. These jobs have been the avenue through which the recipient countries have escaped poverty. Is that bad in your view?

There are also social factors at work here. There are jobs that few Americans wish to do at all. The agriculture in California's Central valley relies entirely on Mexican expats and their descendents for its existence. Even in periods of high unemployment the growers can't lure the abundent unemployed from Los Angeles or Sacramento to take these jobs at any feasible price.

As a related matter economists are also concerned that the extention of unemployment benefits is slowing our economic recovery because people are reluctant to take lower paying jobs and prefer to hang on to the benefits, thereby slowing the economic recovery. This was a problem that Germany faced about ten years ago and they fixed it by limiting the duration of such benefits for people who declined job opportunities. This and other related economiuc reforms stimulated a resurgence in German economic productivity which has been the critical factor in protecting them from the economic collapse now threatening a large portion of Europe.

The point here is that our ability to sustain the economic aspirations of everyone is ultimately dependent on our economic competitiveness as a nation. Though it's not a zero-sum game, there aresignificant adverse side effects resulting from the protection of some over the others. Ultimately we all have to adjust to the situations before us and seek to create incentives that reward productive behavior over its alternative.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Which says nothing at all about the free rider problem.

Bullshit !

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Such a convincing and well-reasoned argument. How is one to respond?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The prevailing wage rates in right to work states are indeed often lower than the union rates in other states, but they are hardly the draconian flight to the bottom that you have described here.

Well, they absolutely would be if we allowed those who push the 'right to work' laws to have their way. We regularly see rhetoric coming from the right-wing about getting rid of the minimum wage; and what exactly do you think the effects of that would be?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It seems free association doesn't mean the freedom to not associate if you don't want to pay but rather the ability to associate without having to pay for that association.

When are corporations going to let me own stock that pays dividends without having to pay for it?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Your argument has been dusted off from the distant past and is not at all relevant to the current siutuation.

I understand your need to suppose it not to be relevant…and your reasons for presenting those reasons in such a dismissive way, George, but the argument I am making is not inapplicable...and most assuredly IS relevant to the current situation.

Quote:

We have a legally established minimum wage and legally established limits on the workweek and required payment for overtime for hourly workers.

So we do. I wonder how they got established? Do you think employers and the people who run companies had more influence in having them become the norm…or do you think it came more from the labor movement?

And are not those minimums and limits the reason so much of our manufacturing is being off-shored?

Quote:

The prevailing wage rates in right to work states are indeed often lower than the union rates in other states, but they are hardly the draconian flight to the bottom that you have described here.

I’ll have to take your word that they are not on a “draconian flight to the bottom”, George…but is there some reason to suppose they won’t eventually get to the bottom in a non-draconian flight?

Do you think the people who manage American corporations should NOT try to obtain labor at the lowest possible cost? Do you think they should artificially pay more than they have to because of “social considerations”…or should the social considerations not even enter the equation, and with all other things being equal, the lowest possible cost be the significant determinant.

Quote:

In many instances labor unions act to limit employment and to exclude new entrants into their job/skill categories. They "protect" the current membership on the backs of the unemployed seeking employment.

I will agree with you that labor unions have displayed excesses in the question of how much work can be done and how much has to be paid for that work. But American industry has also displayed excesses...and I see the reason labor has to battle back.

The sad fact is, George, that human labor has become damn near expendable…and is almost valueless. Some humans…like those living in third world countries are willing to work for much, much, much less than an American is willing to work for. Third world labor (for much of manufacturing) has, in effect, made American labor prohibitively expensive. A further sad fact is that when a cheap, renewable energy source is finally discovered, machines will almost immediately make that third world labor prohibitively expensive.

Systemic changes are the only way to deal with that. Human labor will never again be worth much to a capitalist desiring to maximize profits. Perhaps we ought re-think the notion that humans must be required to work in order "to earn a living."

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

But the rates aren't draconian in current right to work states - as you apparently acknowledged. Indeed these states are doing much better than the others in terms of the, usual economic performance indicators: unemployment rates, GDP growth, etc. So far the presence of right to work laws correlates very well with rapid recovery from the recent recession.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The sad fact is, George, that human labor has become damn near expendable…and is almost valueless. Some humans…like those living in third world countries are willing to work for much, much, much less than an American is willing to work for. Third world labor (for much of manufacturing) has, in effect, made American labor prohibitively expensive. A further sad fact is that when a cheap, renewable energy source is finally discovered, machines will almost immediately make that third world labor prohibitively expensive.

Systemic changes are the only way to deal with that. Human labor will never again be worth much to a capitalist desiring to maximize profits. Perhaps we ought re-think the notion that humans must be required to work in order "to earn a living."

Interesting point, but I believe you are over generalizing it.

It is simply a fact that the value of human labor in modern enterprises is now much greater than it was even a few decades ago. That is a result of automation and new technology. This, of course, puts a premium on education and skills, and we certainly should be concerned about the quality of our educational system and the incentives we create for people to develop the needed skills. Too often we appear to be doing the opposite in(1) pouring ever more money in a public educational system that perversely lowers its productivity with new investment, instead of doing more, and (2) rewarding indolence through various wealth transfer programs instead of rewarding achievment.

The process at work now is somewhat similar to the transformation that occurred in agriculture a century ago as new harvesting and processing equipment enormously reduced the requirement for human labor in food production. Nations saw the fraction of the population involved in food production suddenly drop from around 70% to less than 30%. That provided the labor resources for industry and manufacturing which further enriched everyone. There were painful adjustments attendant to this process that should not be repeated. I'm referring to the poverty of the displaced rural populations that attended the process so visibly in 18th and 19th century England. I suspect we agree on this point, but disagree on the needed remedy.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

But the rates aren't draconian in current right to work states - as you apparently acknowledged. Indeed these states are doing much better than the others in terms of the, usual economic performance indicators: unemployment rates, GDP growth, etc. So far the presence of right to work laws correlates very well with rapid recovery from the recent recession.

I don't think that's necessarily supported by actual research on the subject - indeed, some studies have found that there is no correlation between the two:

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/clearinghouse_resources/stevans_article.pdf

I'm sure other studies could find different results, but we shouldn't pretend that it's a cut-and-dry case of correlation. And it's a fact that wages and benefits are lower in so-called 'right to work' states:

http://epi.3cdn.net/a39019fdac5ee92a28_s8m6b9f8x.pdf

One of the reasons that 'gdp growth' rates are higher in so-called RTW states, is that the baseline they start from is so much lower.

http://www.nea.org/home/52880.htm

GDP per-capita is over 5k higher in non-RTW states.

Poverty is also far higher in RTW states than non-RTW states - something like 10 or 11 of the 15 poorest states are RTW and almost none of the richest ones are. Unemployment only runs about half a point lower on average in RTW states than in non-RTW states (for every Texas there's a Nevada) and almost every other factor we consider to be important to quality of life is lower in RTW states.

From a businessman's point of view, I can see the attraction of RTW. But from an employee's point of view, it's hardly a good thing.

Here's a map of the RTW states:

http://www.nea.org/assets/img/content/StatesWithRTWLaws.bmp

RTW isn't an economic standpoint - it's a political one, a philosophy regarding a preference for top-down control of industry, greatly favoring ownership and management, versus a more equitable arrangement.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Interesting point, but I believe you are over generalizing it.

Not sure what you mean by "over-generalizing" it, but I think it is something that must be discussed fully...and I think it is something being given short shrift at this time. I suspect it is a point which will be much discussed during the next decade or two. But…we will see.

Quote:

It is simply a fact that the value of human labor in modern enterprises is now much greater than it was even a few decades ago.

C’mon, George. Most of the work that has ever been done by “people” is grunt work. A best guess is that MOST of the work that will ever be done by “people” will be grunt work. Yes…some people can get above that…and the percentage of those who can may be rising, but to suppose there will be enough work (of the kind they can do) that will provide a living income for most of the people who need and want to work…is wishful thinking at best.

By the way: If EVERY HUMAN BEING in America were educated to the point where EVERYONE could do all the high-technology jobs that need to be done by humans…and if every one of them were of maximum motivation to do those jobs…what do you suppose would happen to the wages for those jobs?

Do you think that companies will a) hire competent people at the lowest wage possible or b) decide to pay workers, despite their abundance, wages greatly exceeding what they could get others for?

The bottom line is that the need for human labor is decreasing. That is why we have developed the technology…so that machines can do more of the work.

All this training some folk talk about is just a Band-aid for the problems we are facing.

Quote:

That is a result of automation and new technology. This, of course, puts a premium on education and skills, and we certainly should be concerned about the quality of our educational system and the incentives we create for people to develop the needed skills. Too often we appear to be doing the opposite in(1) pouring ever more money in a public educational system that perversely lowers its productivity with new investment, instead of doing more, and (2) rewarding indolence through various wealth transfer programs instead of rewarding achievment.

As I said…figure out a way to educate EVERY human in America to do the most complex/technical jobs…and all you would end up with are highly complex jobs being done by highly qualified workers…at a pittance! Do not kid yourself on that.

Quote:

The process at work now is somewhat similar to the transformation that occurred in agriculture a century ago as new harvesting and processing equipment enormously reduced the requirement for human labor in food production. Nations saw the fraction of the population involved in food production suddenly drop from around 70% to less than 30%. That provided the labor resources for industry and manufacturing which further enriched everyone. There were painful adjustments attendant to this process that should not be repeated. I'm referring to the poverty of the displaced rural populations that attended the process so visibly in 18th and 19th century England.

Yes…but on steroids.

Quote:

I suspect we agree on this point, but disagree on the needed remedy.

I would certainly not bet against this unless I received HUGE odds, George.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know