Labor unions made it possible

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by badcompany

I can see why Mike considered banning you, as you have a dispicible habit of distorting what people say. I also regret coming to your defense (You're welcome, btw).

Those children weren't forced to work in factories. Their parents had the option of staying in the country but they obviously felt their chances of surviving were better in the city. No one wants to see kids working in factories, but, at the time, it was the lesser of two evils, the other being starvation.

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

However, in the bizarre, entitled, liberal worldview, all pain and suffering is caused by the very people who produce wealth. This argument is easily crushed by looking at parts of the world like sub-saharan Africa where there is little foreign investment. How's their standard of living?

I agree with you, BC. It is OK to have an unexpressed thought!

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Hope everybody enjoyed today's national salute to organized labor!

Nice try. I think you're confusing May 1st with Labor Day.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Nice try. I think you're confusing May 1st with Labor Day.

The History of Labor Day

Check out our Labor Day 2012 page, complete with videos, photo, resources, and more.

Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

More at the link: http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/laborday.htm

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by hcap

Still don't get why so-called Capitalists and avid free marketers would not consider workers selling their labor and services for market price. Enabled by Worker organizations we call Unions. Let the market set perceived value. If the workers ask to much the company can shut down. Just like if the worker is not happy with his deal, let him work somewhere else.

Only provision should be neither the worker or company can skedaddle overseas and add wealth to another country.

When your bargaining tactic is to shut down a business via a strike, it's not the market price. It's a form of coercion.

The Union model has had its chance and has failed. That's why you have to resort to Fascist tactics like forcing a company to stay in a certain place. If unionized industries were really more efficient this tactic wouldn't be necessary.

[ntheiroff]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Sorry, but thinking that labor unions and their purpose are obsolete (ntheiroff) is stupid.
Thinking that the way to solve the problem of children starving is to make those children work, rather than paying their parents a living wage, (badcompany) is stupid.
Blaming unions for bankruptcy (delayjf) is stupid.
Believing that this country was established, grew and prospered because of guns is stupid (Tom)
Thinking that Niall Ferguson is someone who has an unbiased view of unions is stupid. (delayjf)
Posting a reply that reads "Oh my. is... you get the point.

And I would like to point out that I said the replies were stupid, not any particular poster.

If labor unions and lobbyists were to be made illegal, 90+% of corruption at all levels of government would disappear. This by itself would cause the cost of many products that we purchase on a daily basis to be less. At some point these products would become cost effective with products that we now import. Voila, we could now make it in the good ol' U.S.A, new jobs!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by ntheiroff

If labor unions and lobbyists were to be made illegal, 90+% of corruption at all levels of government would disappear. This by itself would cause the cost of many products that we purchase on a daily basis to be less. At some point these products would become cost effective with products that we now import. Voila, we could now make it in the good ol' U.S.A, new jobs!

After so many years of lurking, you sure found your voice. Quite hysterical but damn, you fit right in. Welcome to OT

[hcap]

Originally Posted by badcompany

When your bargaining tactic is to shut down a business via a strike, it's not the market price. It's a form of coercion.

The Union model has had its chance and has failed. That's why you have to resort to Fascist tactics like forcing a company to stay in a certain place. If unionized industries were really more efficient this tactic wouldn't be necessary.

Globalization and outsourcing have been going on WAY before you gentlemen got the bug to blame Union tactics for the "Giant sucking sound" we are hearing. The advent of cheap international shipping and .10 cents/hour Chinese/Vietnamese/Caribbean sweatshop labor, and offshore tax havens have drawn companies overseas. Even if Unions were to roll back wages, do you honestly think many companies would alter their race to the bottom strategies?

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by hcap

Globalization and outsourcing have been going on WAY before you gentlemen got the bug to blame Union tactics for the "Giant sucking sound" we are hearing. The advent of cheap international shipping and .10 cents/hour Chinese/Vietnamese/Caribbean sweatshop labor, and offshore tax havens have drawn companies overseas. Even if Unions were to roll back wages, do you honestly think many companies would alter their race to the bottom strategies?

Much like NJ Stinks, you're an economic illiterate. So, explaining why an International Division of Labor increases overall wealth and has resulted in the average Joe having access to goods and services that weren't available even to the top 1% just a few years ago is pointless.

But maybe you can understand a basic economic concept like the Demand Curve which illustrates that when the price for something goes up, the demand for it goes down. This applies to labor, as well. Anyone can price themselves out of the labor market if they charge too much for their services.

When Unions use coercive tactics like strikes to gain a monopoly price, the demand for union labor goes down. This creates a glut of workers in non-unionized sectors of the economy. The increased supply of workers in those sectors pushes wages DOWN. That's the real class warfare.

Unionize everybody, you say! Then you'd have permanent large scale unemployment akin to what would happen if Minimum Wage were raised to $20 hour.

The "Race to the bottom" you cite is just a decrease in demand for overpriced labor.

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

no doubt that communism would not have been able to survive in this country, even thrive, had it not been for unions. so there's that.

If there is one institution that has been infiltrated, influenced, and controlled by the American Communist Party, it has been organized labor. The CPUSA has been active in the unions since the early years of both movements. During the Depression the unions were almost completely run by the Reds, for an example take a look at Harry Bridges and the longshoremen's union. Later anti communist leaders such as George Meaney and Lane Kirkland tried to clean up the unions by kicking the Reds out, with moderate success. However, in recent years the doors have been opened wide for the communists, with the presidency of John Sweeney, an openly avowed Marxist, and Richard Trumka, whose ideology is at least as far left as Sweeney's.

[DJofSD]

With the pending termination of the regime, I wonder how many of the unelected elite will find positions in union related organizations. Just like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, they'll be looking for any place to hide out of the spotlight.

[Tom]

Many of those people came to the Obama administration from underneath refrigerators to begin with!

[DJofSD]

The cap to the milk bottle must have rolled under it.

[BlueShoe]

For those that "look for the union label", here is a brief profile of AFL/CIO President Richard Trumka, a man that is in touch with the White House two or three times a week, and who has stated that being labeled a socialist is a step upward.
www.frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/union-gangsters-richard-trumka/

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by badcompany

I can see why Mike considered banning you, as you have a dispicible habit of distorting what people say. I also regret coming to your defense (You're welcome, btw).

Those children weren't forced to work in factories. Their parents had the option of staying in the country but they obviously felt their chances of surviving were better in the city. No one wants to see kids working in factories, but, at the time, it was the lesser of two evils, the other being starvation.

Liberals seem to think this is a world of plenty where if only the wealthy would part with their "fair share" all want would be eliminated. The truth is that nature is very stingy and only the productive efforts brought about by Capitalism have created enough wealth that even someone as useless as you can live a comfortable life.

However, in the bizarre, entitled, liberal worldview, all pain and suffering is caused by the very people who produce wealth. This argument is easily crushed by looking at parts of the world like sub-saharan Africa where there is little foreign investment. How's their standard of living?

From your original post:

Originally Posted by badcompany

The reason you had children working in factories back then is that the other option was to starve to death in the country.

This is a good example of how something can be misinterpreted. When I saw country, I took it to mean "nation". You meant it as "rural." That does somewhat change the tenor of your remarks and my response to them.

It does not, however, make them correct.

By and large, the people affected by child labor were not people moving from farms to the city. They were immigrants moving from Europe to America. People in the city were much more likely to be starving than people on the farm.

All of which leaves my question. How is it moral that a child should have to work in order to feed himself? How is it moral to not pay a parent enough to feed himself and his family? How is it moral to put (excessive) profits ahead of people? If a business can survive after paying its employees fairly, great! If it can not, then let it fail.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by hcap

Corporations may be people, but Unions not corporations were responsible for all these things we take for granted this Labor Day.

And Labor Day does not mean Union Day.

http://www.thedisciplinedinvestor.co...not-union-day/