Why I hate Unions, and you should too

The ragged trousered philanthropist

 

This entire premise is rendered moot because pretty little graphs like this take into account a single issue "wage per hour" in this case, or the more dubious and misleading "wage rates" as defined in the first graph, which defines wage as "in term's of what can be bought with an hour's wage" from 1860 to the mid 1950's. Even more dubious is the line which represents "Union Membership", as if the actual percentage of union members somehow reflects the entire scope and effect of organized labor on U.S. "wages" during the time period - which is a ridiculous supposition at best, and alarmingly misleading and deceptive to a critical mind.

In any case, Wages (or wage increases) are probably the least important driver of organized labor - throughout the history of organized labor up to today. Right now, in India, domestic servants are organizing not for pay increases but for the right to not lose their jobs if they take a day off to receive medical treatment for life threatening illnesses, like tuberculosis. They're organizing so that they can have 4 days a MONTH OFF. As opposed to the two they normally get, but rarely use because they could easily be legally fired for taking the official two days off a month they're supposed to get.

Economists rarely take these kind of working conditions into consideration, because they are systematically educated to avoid them. They define these kind of issues as externalities. Industrial pollutant climate change is another one of these externalities, yet economist will try to make the claim that their discipline is scientific. An externality is any aspect of any given problem that creates an insurmountable problem for the proof that an exonomist is trying to create and is thereby conveniently omitted from the equation. The fact is economists use creative mathematics to support any argument or agenda that is required, whether it is patently psychopathic or altruistic - in either case they never achieve any kind of real truth, because they are psuedoscientific. They are the contemporary equivalent of bird sign readers. I'm not trying to be nasty about this, but that is the nature of the study of economics.

The only thing these graphs suggest, based on the limited scope of their content, is that there are factors outside of organized labor that have contributed to wage growth from the period of time indicated on these graphs. That's it. And from this the OP has taken the great triumphant leap onto bullshit mountain by offering this up as proof that Unions and strikes are categorically violent and bad.

"Also, despite what is usually taught in public school, Union activity often causes much more harm than good."

How do safer working conditions do more harm than good?

"Direct sources, such as newspaper articles of various Labor movement events tell the true story. "

Yes, because the content/slant of "newspaper" articles is never subject to the opinions of said newspaper's advertisers (aka their primary source of income). You cannot be this naive.

Go peddle this fiction to Faux News, we've got people capable of critical thought on these boards.

 

seems like Harper is arguing that productivity drives wages, and you seem to agree with him

no. I see no basis for this.

while competition for labor can indeed raise wages, it is fundamentally supply and demand that control wage rates rather than an approximation of productivity.

both in recent years and during the great depression, an increase in the supply of labor relative to available jobs meant that workers had to work harder to earn less money

in addition, much labor is directed toward reducing needed labor and labor costs. workers often end up working themselves out of a job. productivity and wage can be inversely proportional

I would agree that there are other factors that can account for rising wages. I would also say there are many ways in which unions can be inefficient

however, the graph shows only a relationship between wages in general and the rate of union membership. it does not, in itself, demonstrate the relationship between union membership and wages.

the statistic also disguises any income earning gap between the lowest and highest wage earners

a fairer comparison would be to show wages prior to union membership compared with wages after union membership per unionized worker.

the reason why a laborer doesn't produce 1000 berries for themselves is because they can't. essentially all resources and land in the whole world are owned, and were owned prior to the birth of the laborer.

the laborer then has to either inherit resources, or be paid for work (or steal). many laborers live hand-to-mouth, and can't accumulate capital to start their own ventures. some don't have the education. some don't have the innate characteristics that lead to business success (intelligence, energy, ability to form business relationships, intrepid spirit, ruthlessness). some may try, but fail.

it is foreseeable that most of the labor needed to produce goods can be replaced by machines. the opportunities for the laborer to "create value" are shrinking. under conditions where the laborer is born into a world where all resources are already owned, a purely market based economic system would lead them to starve.

those who are making the most money are not necessarily generating value for society, and in some cases are undermining it. a purely market based economic system is not, and will not lead to rising wages and quality of life for laborers.

the sample size of the data is not the relevant point. if you conducted an economic study from 10,000 to 8,000 BC, you might conclude that trade takes the form of barter exclusively, can be measured in terms of stone axes and animal skins, and that no change in the general characteristics of that economic system could be expected. and it would be a reasonable conclusion, if the study were conducted in 8000 BC.

the huge sampling size does not give it predictive value that is superior to observing events that actually occurred after the study.

if we want to reach conclusions about what is driving wages and the relationship of union membership to wages, it's necessary to look at more recent data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A"]The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class - YouTube

27:04 in particular

no, see above

no

no

there is a difference between saying there is a potential for work and saying that a laissez-faire market based economy will work to the benefit of all people


the notion that laissez-faire capitalism necessarily leads to benefits for all people is one aggressively promoted by those who have the most to gain from such a system. they are equally willing to abandon it when it doesn't work in their favor (e.g., wallstreet banks that wanted bailouts).

I think that market forces can both help and harm a society.

there are better ways to regulate markets than through unionization, but there nontheless needs to be regulation of markets

 

The industrial revolution(s) is(are) a great example of how when productivity rises, wages do NOT rise. So is the current situation, where wages are stagnant but productivity in just about EVERY line of work (from teaching to stocking supermarket shelves) has skyrocketed with the microchip/digital revolution. Wages, with CEO outliers removed, have gone to shit, especially when compared to the CEO outliers, who's wages have skyrocketed with the money that has been made with the increased productivity.

Also, it's very important to consider what industries the unions are in, and how those effect other things, and the fact that even with far fewer in a union at a given point, the union still holds a lot of clout -- and the union is there if people NEED to join. If people start joining a union, a company will get scared and try to avoid a union action.

So, your'e taking a very simplistic look at a very complex subject -- but the fact is, if people didn't clamour for decent wages and working conditions, decent wages and working conditions would NOT be provided.

Costs of living dramatically increased in a lot of this time, and people lived in company towns and such, where the money was all spent, no matter HOW much it was.

If you examine thase graphs, there is a very obvious corrolation...... the fact that wages are higher up the graph than union membership is about the only thing that doesn't make it look corrolated.

If anything, your graphs are amazing, because they show that unions, despite low member-ship when measured in percent, quite obviously have effected wages. It would be silly to expect union membership to climb exponentially, it runs out at 100%.

The use of such a large dataset allows for a very misleading graph, simply by putting physical distance on the graph between unions and wages, when you can quite clearly see the peaks and dips, and their offsets, showing the push-pull that happens. The reason wages have climbed the way they have is on one hand because society IS more productive by some measures, and on the other hand, because money is worth much much much less.

Lastly, this thread has a clear motive, or sell: that you should hate unions -- but even if the evidence presented supported the text analizing it, that text does not support the original statement, which is that you should "hate" unions. Even if the evidence did show that the unions did nothing, that is no reason to hate them. And even if there WAS a reason to hate them, there's reasons to hate lots of corporations, but we don't make them illegal -- you generally argue for regulation of workers, to force them to accept a lack of regulation of their employers.

 

As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit, the conversation has obviously turned to taxes.

Specifically, what should be done with them.

Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxes, and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes.

But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense.

Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people.

Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy.

So who's right?

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

Don't take our word for it, though.


And here are some of the explanations of the graphs that are shown....

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.

And before you protest that INCOME taxes may be low, but the government is now gouging us a thousand new ways, note that total government tax revenue (federal, state, and local) is actually now lower than pretty much any time in the last 40 years. (Not as low as it was in the first half of the last century, though!)

The federal portion of that tax revenue--the blue part in the chart below--is in the same range as it has been in since 1950 (15%-20% of GDP). State (red) and local (green) tax revenues are in a similar long-term range. (State revenue has actually shrunk of late).

And in case you're curious about the composition of that tax revenue... About a third (blue) is income tax. Another third is "value added" tax--property taxes, sales taxes, and tariffs (green). And another third is business tax (yellow) and social taxes (red).

Here's another look at how consistent the federal "take" has been as a percentage of GDP, going all the way back to 1950. Federal revenues have been 15%-20% of GDP, like clockwork (blue line). Of course, spending has usually been higher than this revenue--20%-25% of GDP. We just can't seem to live within our means.

And here's another look at federal spending as a percent of GDP for the past century. It's not way out of whack these days, at least relative to the last 60 years. But, thanks to the stimulus, it's higher than it has been since World War 2. (And the Republicans are probably right--it's too high).

And now, finally, a reminder of where that top bracket (35%) sits in the history of top tax brackets. (It's very low). Let's take a closer look at that history...

Let's start in 1921, before the boom/bubble decade that became known as the "Roaring 20s." The income tax scale in 1921 was very broad, and the top rates were high. The top bracket, for those earning over $1 million (many millions in today's dollars) was 73%.

And what happened to the economy? For a few years, from 1925-1929, the economy and stock market boomed. The decade became known as the "roaring 20s." Inequality--the difference in wealth between the top earners and everyone else--also soared to unprecedented levels. Then the bottom fell out.

By 1932, with the country's economy in a shambles, the tax code changed again. The high rates on top earners were reintroduced. Now, anyone who made over $100,000 was in a 56% bracket (versus 25% in the late 20s). And those earning over $1 million paid 63%.

And then, in 1945, with the country loaded to the gills with war debts, the top bracket hit an all-time high: 94%. This was assessed on anyone making more than $200,000. (Next time you hear (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how unfair it would be to raise our top bracket a few percentage points from 35%, remember that).

And taxes stayed pretty much just that way for the next 15 years, until the early 1960s. Importantly, this was one of the most successful eras in US economic history. The middle class boomed, the economy boomed, and the stock market boomed. And all with the top marginal income tax rate over 90%. This suggests that the Republican mantra about high marginal tax rates killing the economy is, well, a bunch of crap.

By 1965, the top bracket was down to 70%.

And there rates stayed, right through the early 1980s. The economy of the 1970s, of course, was horrendous--a condition that was later often blamed on high marginal tax rates. Based on the history of the 1950s, however, which had higher marginal tax rates, the cause of the 1970s misery was more likely stagflation.

In any event, in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan came along. And he started cutting taxes. In 1982, the top marginal rate dropped to 50%.

Five years later, Reagan slashed taxes again, cutting the new top rate to 38.5%. (Note that this rate is still higher than today's.)

And then, in 1988, Reagan finished the job, whacking the top rate to 28%.

But suddenly we had a huge deficit to worry about. So George Bush 1 raised rates a bit. The top marginal rate bumped up to 31%.

Of course, George Bush had broken a campaign promise by raising rates ("Read my lips: No new taxes"), so he was dismissed. And Bill Clinton came in and jacked the top bracket back up to 39.6%. And, lo and behold, the economy boomed! And the deficit shrank! And eventually, we even had a surplus.

But taxes were too high for George Bush 2, so he cut them. Just marginally, at first.

Then more significantly. In 2003, the top bracket dropped to 35%. The deficit reappeared--and then soared. And, interestingly, we saw a repeat of the 1920s: An unsustainable economic boom that ultimately collapsed, followed by a massive recession and huge deficits. And soaring inequality, which still plagues us today.

So, what does the future hold? Good question! Obviously, no one likes tax increases, but the similarities between the 1920s-1930s and the 2000s-2010s seem hard to ignore. Today, after an era of very low taxes, we have enormous inequality and a huge deficit. Last time that happened, the top tax rate soared (and, it should be noted, the economy boomed--even with the top rate high). And we certainly wouldn't be surprised to see history repeat itself again.

click here to see the graphs
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1
​

 

Because you're a wealth junkie.

Beware of those who tell you how to think.

 

Well let's see...before Maytag shut the plant down in Galesburg Illinois I was making a good wage...one that you could at least live off of & had excellent health benefits plus a retirement to look forward to.

Since Maytag shut the plant down for cheaper wages in Mexico the company has folded. That real breaks my heart !

But also since then I am now in a job making similar wages to what I started out at with Maytag way back in 1989. I have some of the worst family health insurance but the main thing is...it's affordable. They offer no such thing as a company retirement plan but you can invest in 401k if you can afford to after you've taken a pay cut and seen the price of the shit ass insurance more than double.

The simple truth to the matter is that without a Union the company can stick it up your ass as often and as far up as they possible can and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it besides go to work for your local WalMart.

 

Our politicians have sold American citizens out, in preference of an international economic system that has no place for "national workforce" preference. The workforce with the lowest bidder wins the contract. Lowest bidder nations in asia sacrifice the environment for short term monetary gain.

But it is that way by design. International profiteers are the winners in that scheme. Their only allegience is to themselves and profits.

Since it is that way by design, it can be changed.

 

Excellant posts. OK-my aneurism is healed up and I may be able to be coherant now. Just needed a little vacation from the BS and the post stealer.

 

Glad to see you're back scratcho

As you know, when politics is discussed BS is not far. (As the OP confirms)

 

Thanks. I'm not commenting tho.

 

I gotta say, a lot of very good posts in response to the garbage presented from that book from... what, 60 yrs ago?

And that's a perfect example of the problem with most of the OP. And those manipulative graphs.
You can't compare a individual on an island collecting berries to a manufacturing corporation. Its beyond ludicrous.
I'd say it's a little knee-jerk to make a statement like "why I hate unions", based on one book from 60 years ago. You can hate them, but that's no reason why I should. I know enough to know that it's a very complicated issue with many many variables.

 

Yeah unions have their problems -- but without them we would practically be slaves

 

Does anybody think this is fair?

At the High Court, Mr Justice Underhill said the NUM was no longer obliged to meet the £34,000 annual bill for the £1.5m three-bedroom flat in the Barbican. Mr Scargill has occupied the apartment, rented from the Corporation of London, since June 1982. He retired in 2002.

It was customary for retired union leaders to have a house effectively bought for them near the union’s London office, to be used not only while in office, but after retirement as well.

But Mr Scargill also had a mortgage paid for him by the NUM on a house in Yorkshire and it was also known at the time of his election that the union was likely to be moving its headquarters outside London, which it duly did.

When Mr Scargill first occupied the flat the NUM numbered several hundred thousand members. Now it has less than 2,000, all of whom are paying around £20 a year for their former leader’s housing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ion-pay-for-london-flat-for-life-8428774.html

 

As to the graph, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that unions do not help based on data that is 60 years old. In addition there is information missing. How were wages tracked in the 1800's. I doubt there was a centralized agency that tracked all wages in the US at that time. What wages were involved? Were the voluntarily reported? Was the sample representative? Did it include only those high paying reported jobs but did not include the sweat shops?

How was the union membership determined? Again were there reporting errors? If I look at the last portion of the graph there seems to be a correlation between union membership and wage increase. There is the question of cart and horse but your weak analogy of a fly on a cart wheel does not in any way show unions did not have an impact. In fact I would think it is a symbiotic relation ship. Unions did bring about wage and working conditions improvement that helped to increase membership.

Unions have also served other functions. The Triangle Factory Fire was mentioned. I would wonder what school you attended, I learned about that event in history class. Look up the recent Bangladesh factory fire, the Triangle fire was the same thing, in NYC. Workers underpaid in poor conditions were locked in the factory when the fire started. They could not escape. 140+ died, many from jumping from 8th and 9th floors since all the exits had been locked by management. Look at the working conditions in the late 188's and early 1900's compared to today. Child labor, sweat shops, unsafe equipment and working conditions. They created weekends, 8 hour days. Most if not all of the legislation that protects workers rights were generated and fostered by union type organizations.

If you think unions are past their usefulness, there was a company around here, non-union, in which to cut costs the managers failed to create a safe work environment. Dangerous chemicals without any education or protection. They were charged with manslaughter.

Are there issues with unions? Certainly, as pointed earlier there are several. However given the choice between unions and allowing business leaders to have full influence and dictate policy (think the financial meltdown caused by greed and lack of oversight) I will take unions to offset their influence. If you believe 2 60 year old graphs with suspect data proves unions do not have an impact, I suggest you return to school.

 

You can go the other way too, though.

There's a sweet spot of ultimate happiness and productivity that's in the middle between a low wage and a high wage. For example, millionaires and billionaires generally have a tremendously low productivity rate and when you give them a pay raise, they aren't the least bit more productive. You can read about that in several economist books, but I read about it Linda McQuaig's "The Trouble with Billionaires".

 

I was in a union I did skilled work and made $4 an hour less than a guy driving a forktruck because of a split wage scale, but we had solidarity, just like I got suspended for little reason and my grievance was thrown out in order to save a guy's pension who I was "traded" for thanks uaw and caterpillar