@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.

As long as unions are an association of workers, working together to get better wages and a better working environment, I have no problem with them whatsoever. When unions start being monopolizing - "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab" I have a problem with them. I should be allowed to negotiate my own contract if I so choose.

The problem is, if that is allowed every employer will want non-union workers and thus unions only work if they are a monopoly.

In a straight up negotiation process the employer has the upper hand over the worker, since the employer negotiates for a living while a worker does his work instead.

Perhaps a third option is a better solution?

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

The NAFTA Superhighway thing always struck me as the weirdest rightwing conspiracy theory ever. Let's set aside for a moment whether or not it's real. Why is it something they oppose?

I mean, NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement. Free trade is part of what you need for a free market. Business people love it, liberals kinda hate it.

Mexico and Canada are physically adjacent to the US, but to ship goods to and from them, it makes most sense for us to use road and railways as the primary cargo carriers. Since we're opening up trade, we expect the volume of goods transported between the countries to increase, putting additional load on our state-run road and rail systems. So they need to be enhanced, to deal with the added load.

Now yes, building highways is technically a big socialist public works project funded by tax dollars, but I've never met a Republican who thought roads weren't something government should build, and I've never met a crackpot Ron Paul-style "constitutionalist" who thought building roads weren't something the Federal government had the power to do.

That said, the talk about Spain controlling it actually comes from this (no, World Net Daily isn't reliable in the usual sense, but it is usually the source of most right-wing crazy these days). Basically, Ed Rendell (PA-Gov, and a DEMONCRAT) auctioned off the contract for managing the Pennsylvania Turnpike, possibly the most well-known toll road in America, to private companies. Who had the winning bid? A private corporation based in Spain called Abertis Infraestructuras that manages toll roads all over Europe.

So, basically, I'm left wondering...why the hell this is supposed to be scary?

Now, I can think of a few good reasons why liberals would be opposed to such a thing. Specifically, it makes it easier for companies to move manufacturing to Mexico to take advantage of their cheap labor, low taxes, and low regulation, plus it makes it so they can use non-union ports to unload goods coming in from Asia, and then truck them into the US. But those should all sound like positives to your average right-winger.

I get that this is lumped in with a fear of some sort of EU-style North American Union, but I honestly don't get why that is supposed to be scary either.

Are all conservatives so xenophobic that they see any signs of long-term collaboration between the US and its closest neighbors as a threat of some sort?

Anyways, for those who are curious, this is the most thorough debunking of this nonsense I've seen.

You cannot use union actors if you're non-union. If you do, and you do not specifically get the actor to sign a contract explicitly agreeing he is non-union, then SAG will sue you... and SAG will win. There's no fighting that evil behemoth.

Unions are silly in the film industry, but that's a long drawn-out conversation for another time. Later my Hitler-lovin' Socialists!

^ No one is making unions compulsory anywhere. It may be that in the film industry most of the talent worth having is part of one or more unions, and those unions have exclusivity agreements with the major movie houses, but as your own sweatshop-made film would prove, it's not against the law to have a film-related job without a union.

You can always find a non-union job at Walmart or Whole Foods, for example.

>> ^blankfist:
I am anti-labor. My movie was non-union, so be sure to boycott that, too.
From what I understand a large portion of "organic" produce comes from China. I don't eat organic, because there's not proof it's any healthier.


Did you import your crew from China?

I am anti-labor. My movie was non-union, so be sure to boycott that, too.

From what I understand a large portion of "organic" produce comes from China. I don't eat organic, because there's not proof it's any healthier.

I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

Labour unions are given power through Federal and State government. In both cases business claim that minimum wages, safety standards, and work agreements pushed through by labor unions stifle business growth. Labor is seen as an input factor in economic thinking, not as a group of people. Mises always argued for the elimination of minimum wage for example. Furthermore if you remember the when the Detroit bailout was being discussed it was the Union workers that were blamed for over inflating their wages.

If labor mobility is taken as presented in Austrian economics then all trade restrictions must be done away with, there is efficiency reached when US manufacturing jobs are taken to less regulated non union parts of the world such as China.

The business has great power then its workers to dictate the terms of employment, dissatisfaction with labor conditions would mean mass firings and replacements, the exact reason why China has no labor problems with regards to unions there are so many people vying for the jobs as is.

Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium.

Fair price is never set in the capitalist market, its is the abnormal profits price that is set. With migration of manufacturing to Chinese nations there has been no price fall in basic commodities like clothes. Per unit production costs are in the pennies, however the price charged is inflated. So what you bought for 50$ made in the US is still $50 when made in China, even though production costs are reduced. This applies to almost every industry. Even though market competitiveness is supposed to drive down price we do not see that as there is unspoken collusion of where to set the price. Or rather how much can you set such that demand is stable but with the highest profit creation possible. There is an entire course on profit maximization at the expense of the consumer.

It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced.

What about Government intervention on child labour laws? Social externalities and pollution? In the last 8 years the argument has always been that firms in a free market system can account for externalization given the chance because they are hurting their own market in the long run.

However firms operate on short term profit maximization, and do the best they can in socializing their losses, and privatizing their gains. See Banking bailout.

It is only government regulation that allows or rather forces through economic incentives such as carbon trading to make firms pollute less or increase the welfare with regards to its work force.

Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts.

Really? Explain how socialistic and free market governments flourish in places like Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland and shit even China? Mixed economy systems are the most prevalent in the world yet somehow you claim they are all made to internally fail because there is government intervention. That flies in the face of historical fact.

China is the perfect example because you have centralized government which allows free market activity in the economy but nowhere else basically proving Mises belief that the free market leads to democracy in a populace is not altogether sound.

The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans.

Utter right wing spin rubbish, I mean do you even think about it? A 1977 act results in a market meltdown some 32 years later. Be serious. The banks knew the risks, they just hoped the bubble wouldn't burst before making out, further increased exposure by repacking toxic debt and then selling that off as investment packages.

There clear causality found in the 1994 to 2004 time of Fed debates regarding regulating sub prime and derivatives markets, remember junk bonds of the 1980s? Same shit different name but far more severe effects.
For more http://www.videosift.com/video/Klein-Blames-Greenspan-Deregulation-for-Economic-Crisis

Greenspan believed that banks would self regulate themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7687101.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

Committee chairman Henry Waxman, a Democrat, suggested that Mr Greenspan had added to the problem by rejecting calls for the Fed to regulate the sub-prime sector and some complex, risky financial products.

"The list of regulatory mistakes and misjudgements is long," Mr Waxman said.

"Our regulators became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite," he added, saying that the mantra became "government regulation is wrong".

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned.

Of course it does, but that makes my comment sound like an endorsement of communism and central planning, its not, its rather a clarificaition in that there is no idealized free market system that enables all citizens to be free in the vein of Rand and Friedman. One extreme is a mirror of the other.

Goverment intervention is needed to regulate markets through laws, laws that protect from monopolies from emerging and allow free market competitiveness to occur. To state that a free market system would simply regulate and account for all external costs that it imposes is ridculous.

At the end of the day the onus of proof lies at the feet of Free marketers to prove it can, well the derivatives and sub prime market was a free market entirely with no regulation and see how much profit maximazation and risky behavior that developed, primarily because each firm was acting as an independent actor working towards its own profit maximization.

What did it create? A huge social externality that they were bailout out for, so we continuously social the costs and risks through government and privatize the profits and benefits because that is capitalism.

If we allow free market thinking to take over all these banks should have been allowed to fail for their risky behavior in the market, but that would mean socio-economic collapse, though I think it would have been better since it would clarify to any one else that risky business behavior has its costs. But the people running the banks are tied closely to those running the economy, and you can't have a major change in the Wall Street it would create a huge loss of investor confidence that would create even worse effects. Business confidence is a frighteningly fickle beast.

Unions aren't entirely blameless either though. At one time they were responsible for the minimum wage, 40 hour work week, and other things that helped all of us but over time they forgot that stuff to a large extent. I had a long talk with a union rep a while back where I explained it and she granted the point after a while.

Problem is when the truckers strike as they did several times a couple of decades back or when other things of the sort happen it's not their employers who are hurt the first and the worst but the cashiers, stock clerks, and assembly line workers. Mostly people who had less than the truckers did to start with. I worked construction and in some towns you can't even get work if you aren't a part of the club and it's not always an easy club to join.

The conversation started with her defending the idea that they look after their own and ended with me pointing out that if it really is about serving their own there's no reason after a time for the non-union public not to feel exactly the same way about them. It was the wrong message to send.

If they expect public support, and I do think we'd be better off with some stronger worker protections, then they have to be worth something to non members as well and they forgot that for a while there. Fixing it is going to have to involve reminding the public why we have unions in the first place, offer them a stake in it too.

Hanns said: "If the average currently productive worker (read: not a retiree or whatever) is earning any more money than the labor market would normally support at a non unionized plant, then they are at a competitive disadvantage."


That's where you and most everyone else is wrong.

The current UAW contract that is to expire in two years, clearly outlines that UAW workers earn about 3 to 4 dollars and hour more than those who work at foreign plants.

The UAW has already stated, time and fucking time again, that they will go lower once the current contract expires. They will go lower than the wages at those foreign plants.


I'm not even getting in to the rest of your talking points, because you've started out 100% wrong, and either you're not researching any of this or you're lying to prove a point. I'm guessing you haven't done the research.

@NetRunner:

Woah there. It's apparent by this post and others on this topic that this is a subject that hits close to home. My reply here was without emotion, and merely an observation based on evidence presented and personal experience.

So let's see:

"Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked."

If you are referring to the $70/hr versus $40/hr versus $28/hr debacle, frankly, it doesn't really matter. If the average currently productive worker (read: not a retiree or whatever) is earning any more money than the labor market would normally support at a non unionized plant, then they are at a competitive disadvantage. That is bad for everyone.

Besides, if unions are so competitive, why do they need them in the first place? You say I need an education? Help me out then.

"The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?"

I agree with this. I even noted this in my original comment: "Obviously that's not the only problem going on that got the auto manufacturers..." Of course there are other major problems. My point was, a competitive disadvantage due to high (currently productive) labor costs relative to the competition is a contributing factor.

"But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating."

An axe to grind? Hmm. No, I just happen to believe that if I am able and willing to do work for myself, I shouldn't be forced to pay someone else to do it. Unions also make rapid adjustment to market conditions difficult via stonewalling things like salary changes even when they are necessary.

"If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do."

Which leads to my next point: the fostering of the "them versus us" mentality. That is, management versus labor. There was a really interesting special on the airline industry a while back where this was discussed. You have mechanic unions, pilot unions, flight attendant unions, and the big, bad management who are trying to keep the company afloat. These attitudes don't help anyone out. Organized labor forgets one very important thing: management needs to be able to do their job too, and what's bad for the company is bad for everyone within the company - though the reverse is obviously not always true.

Now, does management bear responsibility for the state of the company? For sure. I never disputed that. Has management been able to do everything they felt they needed to without being blocked by a union under threat of a strike? That's a question worth investigating.

"As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics."

Yup, I saw that (even commented on that video). Personally I was more interested in the text of the note rather than some media's interpretation of it. The first paragraph essentially accuses the Democrats of doing this as a way of paying off the union for their support in the election. The second paragraph I think needs to be repeated:

"This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling."

I can't help but wholeheartedly agree there. Making snap decisions about spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money without having time to understand the ramifications is bad. That is just the common sense view. Fortunately for me, there are also several people who predicted the current economic climate and are far more educated in economics than I am that would also agree. I believe one of the more prominent ones has been floating around on the Sift lately.

In fact, I think the view that bailouts in general are bad has some merit. The money must come from somewhere, and it's not like the government has hundreds of billions of dollars sitting around waiting to bail out failing companies. So, it's either coming from cuts in existing programs, borrowing, or printing more money. If I had to take a wild, uneducated guess as to where it's coming from, I'd say the latter two are the likely suspects, and those aren't good for anyone right now, union or no union.

^ Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked.

The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?

But that's not the main source of their trouble, and certainly not the primary reason they're about to go bankrupt. Take your pick of many factors, including poor decisions in product mix, the subsidies that southern states have given to their competitors, CEO pay being about 10 times what their competitors have, and the little problem where people are having trouble getting loans because of the credit market that's putting a dent in all auto manufacturers, even the supposedly unflappable Japanese ones.

But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating.

If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do.

As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics.

In the days before America had tight labor laws, unions had a real purpose. These days? In almost every instance they seem to do more harm than good.

"But," you say, "They get better wages and benefits for working Americans! What's so bad about that!?"

Well, by artificially keeping wages high, you end up in one of two situations:
a) The company struggles to be competitive against its non unionized counterparts as its expenses are higher. This hurts the organization, and when the organization is in trouble, everyone is in trouble. Auto factory workers are finding this out the hard way right now. Obviously that's not the only problem going on that got the auto manufacturers into their present mess, but if the union is willing to flush the company down the toilet rather than make concessions, I have a hard time being sympathetic.

b) The company realizes that labor in this country is crazy, and they decide to hire a Chinese plant to manufacturer their goods and import them. That's not a win for the workers, as they are all now jobless.

Let's not even get into labor unions that control turf and won't let people who are able to do work for themselves do it without paying the union. Don't believe me? Try setting up your own booth at a trade show and watch how fast the union guys come out of the woodwork to charge you an outrageous hourly fee for something you are able to do on your own.

The guy in this video looked at it from the angle of "unions = Democrats, kill unions!" I cannot profess to know the thought process behind the Republican decision to block the bailout, but I suspect the true fiscal conservative types dislike unions for the reasons I just outlined. Besides, if you have a group of Democrats, and you hurt them by letting their company go out of business, that's not going to bring them over to your side. They will still be voting Democrat next time, so that argument seems a little contrived to me.

>> ^ShakyJake:
The people that keep claiming these union workers are making $71 dollars an hour are being very disingenuous. That isn't the hourly wage these people take a check home for, but rather includes the companies' average costs for that person for all benefits they receive, as well as pension.

They never said workers were making that much, they said the companies were spending that much (like you said). Maddow misunderstood that (hopefully not purposefully) and asked to see what workers were "taking home" that much per hour. I don't have a problem with the senators stating the costs that way as long as the figures are fairly accurate and include the costs of benefits and such in the non-union labors costs. The amount that each labor hour costs the company is more relevant to the health of the company than the number on the workers' paychecks.

Maddow is an intelligent woman, but it really seemed like she was deliberately implying that the senator said workers were taking home $71 per hour (she should know the difference).