Impeachment

[TitoFan]

Again, the plural of anecdote is not data. And you're making a load of incorrect claims about investment and growth being deterred. Once again here are economic growth rates in America since the end of WW2:

You keep saying that, and countering with data that I can easily argue is circumstantial. You yourself have said there are numerous factors that affect the economy, including productivity and investment. So why can't I counter your "plural of anecdote is not data" with..... "data presented out of context can be misleading and easily manipulated"? You tell me I've made a "load of incorrect claims about investment and growth being deterred"..... then you turn around and present me with growth rate data, presumably wanting to assign all of it to the growth (or lack thereof) of unions. Do you honestly expect me to just take you at your word?

You know I'm not going to get into a graphs and charts battle with you. Also we both know I don't have the economics background that you seem to have. But to easily dismiss personal experience as "anecdotes, not data" is a bit presumptuous, if you don't mind my saying so. Let's establish here that just like you're obviously a huge fan of unions....... I'm NOT.

Circumstantial. For every article that says unions have been (and are) good for productivity and investment, I can find another that says the opposite. Articles written by economists, not me.

But whatever. Neither of us will ever change our stance. The point I've constantly made, which has been constantly ignored, is that unions have brought a whole set of ills to industry that cannot be measured simply by dollars and cents. You may or may not agree with that statement, or even pull out your "anecdote" comment again....... but it remains true. Maybe if you had a broader background in industry and we could discuss things not covered in your graphs, you'd see the other side of the coin.

Seventy five years of economic data is circumstantial whereas the opinion of one person is the definitive answer to whether unions have been and are a good thing for the economy and its participants.

Let's look at one aspect of it to try and explain this more clearly to the hard of thinking. Productivity, the amount one person produces per unit (normally per hour) of work. Productivity has increased by twenty percent since 2007. That means we can produce twenty percent more output with the same amount of work that we could back in 2007. That's about a three trillion dollar increase in income which works out at about $36000 a year per family.

Now Kirkland, I hear you say. You told us that the average family would be making $20000 a year more in 2020 than they were in 1980 if they'd maintained the share of increased income that they used to get pre Reagan. How come they'd get nearly twice that just since 2007? Well it's because workers don't get all the increase for themselves. They only get a share. Back in the seventies the lion's share of increased income went to the people who own the capital -- the existing money stock and means of production, factories, shops and so on. And that's good! As one of the owners of that capital I completely agree that the Plains Apes who own the capital should get the largest share of the returns on that capital.

But it turns out that if the Plains Apes who own all the capital take all of the increase in income, which is what has happened since Reagan took office, it fucks the economy up to the point where forty years later our now massively unequal rigged economy is sputtering along badly despite massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. A small minority of people are doing well and the vast majority are living paycheque to paycheque. And things are only going to get worse.

Does this look to you like a situation in which unions have too much power and control over the economy versus the small number of Plains Apes with the dough?

I'll overlook the obvious condescension of particularly the first few sentences while I respond. But thanks for dumbing it down for me.

With all your charts and graphs, you still haven't tied the state of the economy strictly to the fate of unions, which by the way, are not gone.... just more limited. But that's ok. I don't wish to engage in a never-ending squabble over that one. Beyond the charts and graphs, it still boils down to your speculation vs mine. The Plains Apes or whatever other cute name you've used to illustrate your point have certainly gotten fat and happy off the backs of workers in the overall picture. That still doesn't erase the ills of at least some of the unions in industry throughout history. We don't have to agree. Just please do not offer to hand me crayons or attempt to teach me math.

As I said, you're a HUGE fan of unions. Maybe a mix of personal experience with horror stories from people close to you. Or maybe some sensationalized accounts of the horrid abuse the Plains Apes have rained down on the downtrodden, plain ol' monkeys that are doing all the work (might as well stay with the jungle theme).

My personal industry experience (and those of many of my colleagues) may mean diddly squat to you, next to your shiny charts and graphs. But they're meaningful nonetheless. In my opinion (which is how I like to preface most things), unions have by and large resembled a giant pendulum in the history of industry. It went from a dire necessity, to protect workers' health and very lives....... to becoming a cumbersome and expensive ball and chain on industry, having achieved an amount of power and influence totally out of proportion with reality.

But rather than risk engaging in what could become a nasty back-and-forth (I don't appreciate being talked down to), I'll just accept your opinion as what it is........ an OPINION.

If you don't want to be talked down to then don't make utterly moronic posts. Trying to argue against seventy five years of data with fucking anecdotes is laugh out loud idiotic. I've been really polite considering the garbage you're posting.

What I've written isn't speculation. Unions managed to secure about a third of increases in national income for their members and the wider workforce. Since the unions were neutered forty years ago the US workforce now gets absolutely fuck all because American labour has no bargaining power anymore. You can come up with an explanation why this has happened that doesn't involve unions losing their power anytime you want.

But you don't want to do that. You just can't face the fact that you're significantly worse off financially today than you would have been had unions still had the power they had back in the fifties and sixties. You're quite happy to see the top one percent loot the economy and parrot their propaganda about how it all works. It's like you're watching me come out of a bank with trolleys full of bags of cash and I'm loading my van to make a getaway and you're saying sit, wait, you dropped a bag. Let me help you load your truck. Idiot.

Fuck off, Kirk. You're a lot more belligerent than I remember you. As an avowed Reagan hater, you laughingly talk about unions getting "neutered" forty years ago, implying they don't exist or are woefully ineffective. You stupidly ignore their existence today, even if on a more measured level. You laser focus on your charts and graphs, ignoring all other factors, and the basic fact that most in the industry acknowledge and argue both the good and the bad that labor unions bring. You also laughingly attribute all of the economy's woes to the drop in union memberships and in their power and influence as well. You're good at posting charts and graphs, but lousy at logic.

Basically you're just another fucking fanatic who can't see the forest for the trees. Union... good. Management.... bad. Still living in the 60's, or whatever the fuck other era you happen to be stuck in. You conveniently ignore any other factors that may get in the way of your horse blinders. I honestly thought you were smarter and more even-tempered than that. I guess I thought wrong.

Unions can, and have on occasion, impeded their company's ability to compete by their unwillingness to compromise, even when it means reducing the competitiveness of the firm. In the end, everybody loses. But you don't see that side of that, because you have this puzzling attitude that keeps you from seeing anything big picture. You're just another fanatical bozo like the loser from Good Will Hunting who regurgitates what he memorizes from the textbooks.

Really..... fuck off.