nope, no agenda there. none whatsoever.

wake up sheeple

BD9

Texas is a penal colony. If anything goes down in there, we'll have to send in Snake Plissken to handle it.

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:So the military is doing some exercises in Texas so Abbott deployed the national guard to 'monitor' them. Uhm, you're part of the United States. The military is allowed to be in your state, idiot.

This story is so fascinating to me. People seriously believe that a military coup is pending...but only in Texas. There are rumors of train cars with shackles and Walmarts converted into prisoner camps. Crazy shit.

Prove that a military coup is NOT pending and that the rumors aren't true. Can't do it, can you? Better start prepping...there is no limit to the lengths that Muslim Obama will go to to retain control of his fiefdom.

If the national RTW becomes a primary issue like Scott Walker wants it to, this is going to be an incredibly important election.

RTW is a terrible policy for a country whose overriding economic issue the past 30 years has been stagnant wages.

Most of the job growth has been in industries that don't have unions though right? I don't like RTW but is there any evidence protecting unions is going to do much to bolster the middle class since our economy is moving away from manufacturing?

unions are useful in non-manufacturing areas, too. the decline in wages has an awfully high correlation with the decline in unionization.

how is it 'protecting unions' to allow them to exist?

cue jh

pacino wrote:unions are useful in non-manufacturing areas, too. the decline in wages has an awfully high correlation with the decline in unionization.

how is it 'protecting unions' to allow them to exist?

cue jh

I said I don't like RTW. I think it's a malicious attempt at getting people to vote against their own interests. That said, I don't see how you can argue against my use of the word "protecting" there. Fighting against RTW legislation is literally (literally) protecting unions.

why would you be against RTW if you think unions are an impediment to bolstering hte middle class?

Soren wrote:Most of the job growth has been in industries that don't have unions though right? I don't like RTW but is there any evidence protecting unions is going to do much to bolster the middle class since our economy is moving away from manufacturing?

The vast majority of union jobs are not in manufacturing at this point. I would guess less than 5%.

thats not what hes saying

yes, the lage majority of jobs that have been 'created' have been outside unionized sectors. i don't think that's a good thing. some do.

if we were intersted in bolstering the middle class without unions being a participant we'd likely have seen it on a large scale in those sectors and in governmental policy. I'm still waiting.

Soren wrote:Most of the job growth has been in industries that don't have unions though right? I don't like RTW but is there any evidence protecting unions is going to do much to bolster the middle class since our economy is moving away from manufacturing?

To my mind, the "right to work" movement is much less about destroying currently existing unions, though its sponsors certainly wouldn't mind that, as its an effort to stifle the growth of new ones. The effort to unionize service workers is not a new one, having been brought to the fore about twenty years ago. But it's still a nascent one, since it's minor gains have been more than offset by efforts to combat it. The focus behind these unions recognizes changes in the economy and seeks to address a growing class of workers and to establish them in middle class, rather than simply trying to hold on to a shrinking pool of workers in traditionally unionized work environments.

It's tough to break a union, but it's easier to stop one from ever taking hold in the first place, especially when part of your plug is to tell people that they'll receive all the benefits of a union by never signing up.

Soren wrote:

pacino wrote:So the military is doing some exercises in Texas so Abbott deployed the national guard to 'monitor' them. Uhm, you're part of the United States. The military is allowed to be in your state, idiot.

This story is so fascinating to me. People seriously believe that a military coup is pending...but only in Texas. There are rumors of train cars with shackles and Walmarts converted into prisoner camps. Crazy shit.

I've read some think it's the whole SW. The fact that high level people in Texas believe it to be true is hilarious and terrifying.

Unions are helpful in raising the cost of labor above the market clearing price of that labor. For supporters, that's a virtue, as it changes the relative negotiating power of labor and employer, and supporters are happy to see higher wages/benefits. For opponents of unions, it raises unemployment by restricting the supply of labor at a given price, while also raising the cost of the goods provided by the union. That may or may not be an acceptable tradeoff.

Overall, having wages above the market-clearing price can result in a few outcomes. One, the employer/sector takes a beating if they are forced to compete with non-union companies who can pay less for labor. This may mean a wave of bankruptcies if the re negotiations do not happen in a timely fashion. Or two, if the government insulates the industry from non-union competition (or the union IS the government), then the cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In either case, the short-term gains are reaped by union members are borne by non-union members.

pacino wrote:why would you be against RTW if you think unions are an impediment to bolstering hte middle class?

? Why would be against Right To Work laws (which weaken the hold that unions have) if unions hurt the middle class? Did you mean the opposite?

Soren wrote:is there any evidence protecting unions is going to do much to bolster the middle class

I would love to see evidence.

The Dude wrote:thats not what hes saying

Right. I'm pro Union.

no, i asked soren why he is against RTW laws if he thinks unions do little to help wage growth. they seem like opposing viewpoints to hold. why be for unions if you don't think they help

Werthless wrote:

Soren wrote:is there any evidence protecting unions is going to do much to bolster the middle class

I would love to see evidence.

Well, you could just look at wage equality vs union membership the last 60 years...