From Goldy's blog at The Stranger:

Yeah sure, it's kind of a weak rip-off of that classic "What have the Romans ever done for us?" bit in Monty Python's Life of Brian, [http://videosift.com/video/Life-of-Brian-What-have-the-Romans-done-for-us] but it's an obvious rip-off that makes a salient point. (It also starts off as I imagine all Seattle Times editorial board meetings do.)

Isn't it funny how the free marketeers love to sing the praises of competition, yet refuse to acknowledge the role of competition between corporations and organized labor in raising living standards and building the modern middle class?

When I speak of "God" to Christians, I usually speak to them in terms of a colloquial personal god, and sometimes I use the Einsteinian meaning of creation or nature. I find it bizarre, and frankly a bit misleading, to use it to mean their fundamental teachings and their effects. That's very bizarre indeed.

Quick point of information: it's not volunteerist society; it's voluntaryist society. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about people volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts to run some form of public works projects.

Just like your bizarre and revisionist definition of God, you're also following a bad trend of modern society to change the definitions of free markets to suit a political end; in your case, conflating free markets with the negative impacts of corporatists. When I point out the differences, you loudly profess that you don't care if you're painting the two with the same broad brush. That's where ignorance begins, dft. And ignorance isn't a moral high ground.

Free markets are as idealistic and utopian as freedom itself. There's no more an invisible deity that guides free people to make free choices than there's an invisible hand guiding their free exchanges.

1. Wait, wait, wait. I never said selfishness was a virtue while empathy and compassion was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, what assertions in favor of free markets require evidence? That they've helped humanity? I think you mean capitalism. There are loads of examples, dft. The entire industrialized revolution which lifted poorer generations out of poverty is a good place to start. Today live longer, healthier lives which is the result of capitalism. Even Karl Marx understood the necessity of capitalism in the betterment of human lives and saw it as an evolution.

2. Corporations are fair-weather. They enjoy regulated markets as long as they're regulated in a way that benefits them. Corporations hate competition, which is the cornerstone of free markets. There's absolutely zero connection between corporations and free markets (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of people without coercion).

3. My view isn't "utopic"; it's the real definition. You speak here again about capitalism, which is dangerous, I agree. Corporations collude with government to use unilateral aggression in areas of the world that have plentiful natural resources. It's robbery. It's greed. And it's horrendous. And I stand in open opposition to it. But to me this is ultimately the failing of government and the centralized bank system, but that's a whole other conversation.

4. Meh.

5. Doesn't matter. If we have to change the definition of free markets, then so be it. We had to change the definition of liberal from it's original meaning to now embody anti-liberals like yourself.

6. Surely. But go back and read what you initially wrote. Comes off as alarmist and paranoid.

7. No. This was about government "implementing" reforms as being part of the free market. You're changing the criteria now. I would NOT agree that "taking power away from labor" is a principle of the free markets. Remember, free markets are voluntary exchanges between people without coercion.

8. I have no idea what you're getting at. This started with a comment about chaos where there's no taxation. Still irrelevant.

9. Hahaha. Talk about utopian! That's what we have today.

Nah, you don't need to purchase the book for me. I can do that myself. And, to be honest, I don't want to give you a reading assignment, because I doubt that will benefit our differences in world beliefs.

And I know you're more of a Social Democrat than a Docialist. Funny thing, the social democrat is disliked by both the Libertarians and the Marxists equally. Marxists tend to think Social Democrats perverted the socialist movement. Marxists and Libertarians (don't think the party) have a lot in common in terms of how they view human interactions and the evolution of human society. Tangent.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Response to your 10 reasons list below.

1. Patently false. Free markets do not "state" anything, as it's a system of free exchange between people without coercion. Free markets do not have an opinion of altruism or empathy or greed or selfishness anymore than it can of Biblical literalism, axiology, utilitarianism, happiness, Chinese philosophy and so on.

2. Also false. Corporations enjoy corporate welfare, government subsidies, franchise monopolies and crony-capitalism. All of those things are not part of a free market, as they constitute intervention.

3. Ridiculous on its face. How can voluntary interactions without coercion (aka, a free market) be implemented through "force" and "terror"? Here again, you're conflating free markets with government/corporate collusion.

4. Free markets don't promote anything. It's the free exchanges between people without coercion, and was used effectively to aid science in the past. Jonas Salk gave the polio vaccine away without a patent. He was free to patent it and charge through the nose for it, which is what a corporation would do, but he chose to voluntarily give it away. Free market in action.

5. Meh. Republicans speak the rhetoric of free markets, but they believe in them as much as the Democrats do.

6. Sounds like someone is paranoid.

7. False. Government "implementing" anything is not free in nature. Government uses the threat of violence to "implement" their policies, which is antithetical to free markets.

8. I like how you added this to the list. Irrelevant to free markets, except at least as far as governments encroach on free markets by regulating private exchanges among the people.

9. Free markets are capable of faults. So is capitalism. I'd charge you to offer a better system. An ad hoc system of government plus capitalism is a regulated market, and we've seen those fail countless times in the past 100 years. Our current economic mess comes from central planning and interventionism, not free markets.

10. I don't listen to those people, so I cannot respond.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

Yeah, I miss you too.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
*brief *wheels

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see unions making concessions on benefits and pensions, effectively cutting the teachers' take-home pay by about 7%, but also a governor who wants to break the back of organized labor by drastically cutting collective bargaining rights. Yeah, let's support the guy who's happy to carry water for out-of-state billionaires.>> ^bobknight33:

I see unions fighting to bankrupt the state. Yea, let's support them.

*brief *wheels

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see unions making concessions on benefits and pensions, effectively cutting the teachers' take-home pay by about 7%, but also a governor who wants to break the back of organized labor by drastically cutting collective bargaining rights. Yeah, let's support the guy who's happy to carry water for out-of-state billionaires.>> ^bobknight33:

I see unions fighting to bankrupt the state. Yea, let's support them.

I see unions making concessions on benefits and pensions, effectively cutting the teachers' take-home pay by about 7%, but also a governor who wants to break the back of organized labor by drastically cutting collective bargaining rights. Yeah, let's support the guy who's happy to carry water for out-of-state billionaires.>> ^bobknight33:

I see unions fighting to bankrupt the state. Yea, let's support them.

All respect my friend, but Democrats are not trying to damage the relationship between big business and Republicans and quite to the contrary. It was President Bill Clinton (Democrat) who signed the financial modernization act which allowed three previously discrete financial industries (banking, securities, and insurance) to consolidate. It may not sound like much but this act, authored by three Republicans, was more than an olive branch to Wall Street. It was the birth of "too big to fail" and the precursor to our current financial meltdown. Maddow is simply asking if Democrats understand that by serving corporate interests, they've empowered their political enemies and disenfranchised much of their base?

Unions are all but dead in this country so I'd hardly call them anyone's backbone at this point. That's not good enough for some, unfortunately. Wisconsin proves that Republicans and Big Business want to completely eradicate organized labor, effectively "salting the earth" so unions, once destroyed, can never grow again. Organized labor needs a "Hail Mary" pass at this point if it hopes to come back. I really don't think that will come from Democrats and I fear it won't come from the people, either. Despite it being against their own interests, most Americans have swallowed whole the idea that organized labor is an obstacle to prosperity. Unions are getting it from all sides and I'm afraid no amount of free pizza will change that. However, if things turn out well for labor in Wisconsin I might sing a different tune.



In reply to this comment by My_design:
Maddow makes a lot of sense here, but seems to forget that it is a 2 way street. She pointedly admits that Unions are the backbone of the Democratic machine and that Republicans are trying to do away with that. Kind of like how Businesses are the backbone of the Republican machine and Democrats are trying to damage that relationship. Each gives bonuses to their backers. In either case the public loses. Seems to me that the money goes to private security firms, or money goes to Union bosses, over inflated pensions and employees that can not be fired. But that doesn't make what is happening in Wisconsin right.

^So they are basically reacting to buzzwords. Say 'labor power is suppressed' and all they here is labor, which is 50% of the phrase 'labor union', and Glenn Beck told them that organized labor is a bad thing. If you ever have a child, be very careful not to use the phrase 'going into labor', lest they think you are trying to incite some kind of proletariat riot.

The crazy thing is that you aren't radical at all. Concern for the people who get fucked over in society is just good old fashioned compassion. Concern for the air we breathe, the water we drink and responsible management of resources is quite literally 'conservative'. Massive tax cuts for people who don't need them during a time recession, massive unemployment and an insurmountable debt seems far more 'radical' to me.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Henry Clay Frick, Homestead, Carnegie Steel, organized laboer, pinkertons, union' to 'Henry Clay Frick, Homestead, Carnegie Steel, organized labor, pinkertons, union' - edited by kronosposeidon

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pinkertons, Carnegie Steel, Homestead Strike, 1892, Organized labor, Firefight' to 'Pinkertons, Carnegie Steel, Homestead Strike, 1892, Organized labor, Firefight, union' - edited by kronosposeidon

There's a lot I could say, but I think Blankfist already has it covered.

Regarding unions: If it were simply a more effective way to bargain for salaries, that wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, it's not just a bargaining tool when management can't and/or won't give what the union wants, so the union has the employees strike.

It seems to me that unions will use every means at their disposal to hurt the company in order to "help" the workers. Unfortunately when they do their part to put the company out of business via artificially high wage/benefit costs and preventing management from cutting back where necessary under threat of a strike, everyone gets to lose their jobs.

Here's a funny story: A local McDonalds was having a labor dispute. The employees erected a giant inflatable rat on the property adjacent to the McDonalds so as to drive away business and stick it to the man. They never followed that logic though to its conclusion: less business = less need for labor. Out of business = no labor.

Organized labor had its place before there were a dizzying array of labor protection laws. From what I can see now, it does more harm than good - especially for jobs that can be shipped to China.

When in doubt, always remember: some pay > no pay. That, and life's not fair. It never will be, even if we were to completely socialize everything, because humans are corrupt creatures and there is no perfect system.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

DFT, honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that comment. You obviously have a pro-labor, pro-Marxist, anti-Capitalist bone to pick with our society, which I simply do not understand, but your attacks are all over the board. First, my comment was focused at unions, because I disagree with organized labor usurping the efforts of individuals who take financial risk to create business. It's wrong no matter how uneven the pay scales are between the shelf stocker at Walmart and the CEO. There was something written into our Constitution called the Freedom of Contract which allows us a right to contract the wage we find suitable for our labor. It's fair. Union lockouts and their push for self-serving political legislation is not fair.

I have to admit, as I wrote that, I felt a little slimy defending Walmart. I will, nonetheless, continue...

You say if you can't afford to pay workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business? Let's tally up all the hours Lucky has worked and see if his financial compensation can match that. I bet it cannot. Should VideoSift be put out of business? Why do you hate VideoSift so much, DFT?! The thing to consider is Lucky is here working for whatever unsaid amount (or negotiated profit sharing) because he finds the price to be fair. Oh no! Someone call the government! We have a free thinking laborer on our hands!

And this comment! "Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions." DFT, we don't live in a monarchy where king Walmart has employed everyone and refuses to pay out more than a shilling wage per citizen. If that was the case, then, yeah, we'd be in trouble, but people have the ability and the right to make their own contracts and receive the pay they deserve. If you stock shelves at a Walmart, then, yes, you get much less. If you offer a more needed service, then, yes, you get more - and you also buy more from services from other people keeping the economy moving.

>> ^volumptuous:

I'm not sure I get why you brought up I&O. I like their business model. I think it's wonderful that they're willing and able to pay more to their employees. They are the exception, but I'd like to think if I was in their CEO's position, I'd do the same thing. But, if paying their workers $9/hr (by the way, a far cry from the $20/hr wage I mentioned above which I believe prompted your question to me, right?) became unprofitable, then they'd give their employees a huge pay cut. Luckily for them, their burgers are yum, and the added competition from higher wages means my food is fresh, hot and my order is never wrong. [/vagina monologue]

@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.