Impeachment

[TitoFan]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

You steadfastly mention the wages, for which I have no data to counter with. But you ignore the productivity side of the equation, and certainly did not mention anything on that air traffic controller strike which Reagan ended rather quickly. From personal experience, let me tell you the frustration a manager/supervisor feels when he asks a unionized worker to tighten the leaking universal union on the compressed air line, only to be countered with "I only loosen universal unions... I don't tighten them. You need to get a Class 2 Division B Millwright." I personally witnessed at some point in my life the sight of unionized workers lounging around refusing to do work they were perfectly capable of doing, with the only reason being that their collective agreement didn't allow them to do so. As a young, hands-on person, I learned the hard way that you can't do a unionized person's job for them, either. That's like opening a free can of shit, resulting in wasted time and money while grievances are being heard.

Sorry....... not a union fan.

[Kirkland Laing]

Too much posting for me to keep up, but I will say it forever until the day I die, interest rates are way too low. Mind you I got a bank to give me 5%, but they only let me put in 300 bucks a month for a year. That is not going to pay for my facelift at 50, is it?

I think the Corona beer virus that induces deadly hangovers is probably going to sink things this year. Interesting that a recession is about to happen at this election cycle juncture, but hopefully people stop drinking soon.

How are interest rates too low? Either from a monetary policy position or an actual real world position? Central banks like interest rates low enough to generate low stable inflation. Two percent is the normal target rate. Central banks haven't been able to generate two percent inflation since the 2008 meltdown even with zero interest rates and QE. In the real world there's a gigantic ocean of money looking for returns. There are so few things to invest in and so much fucking cash out there that the people with the dough will fucking pay governments to look after it for the next ten/twenty/thirty years.

In what universe should interest rates be higher? The global economic recovery is so poor that increasing rates right now would cause a recession, which would cause money to pour out of speculative assets like stocks into safe assets like government bonds which would ......... cause interest rates to fall. In the next recession yields on American government bonds will go negative. Investors will be paying the American government to borrow their money.

There is a way for economies to raise interest rates. A massive redistribution of welth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy to make up for the forty year ongoing massive upward redistribution of wealth that we're currently experiencing. Hand that money out to people and they'll spend it in the real economy, creating demand for goods and services, creating an economic boom with loads of investment opportunities which creates a demand for money from firms to invest in catering to this economic boom by building new factories, plant and equipment, staff and so on. Lots of demand for money from a capital pool diminished by the redistribution does what to interest rates?

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

You steadfastly mention the wages, for which I have no data to counter with. But you ignore the productivity side of the equation, and certainly did not mention anything on that air traffic controller strike which Reagan ended rather quickly. From personal experience, let me tell you the frustration a manager/supervisor feels when he asks a unionized worker to tighten the leaking universal union on the compressed air line, only to be countered with "I only loosen universal unions... I don't tighten them. You need to get a Class 2 Division B Millwright." I personally witnessed at some point in my life the sight of unionized workers lounging around refusing to do work they were perfectly capable of doing, with the only reason being that their collective agreement didn't allow them to do so. As a young, hands-on person, I learned the hard way that you can't do a unionized person's job for them, either. That's like opening a free can of shit, resulting in wasted time and money while grievances are being heard.

Sorry....... not a union fan.

One strike is kinda meaningless compared to the whole Reagan era anti union regulation/legislation. It's another example of powerful interests smashing workers though ultimately creating powerless workers working for what they're told they can have rather than them being able to negotiate their fair share of increasing national income. And as far as anecdotes go, the plural of anecdote is not data. As far as productivity goes the era of real union power in America, the fifties to the late seventies, saw the biggest sustained growth in productivity in American history. From about the year 2000, an era when capital has been absolutely dominant and unions have been smashed, we've seen the poorest productivity growth in American history.

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

You steadfastly mention the wages, for which I have no data to counter with. But you ignore the productivity side of the equation, and certainly did not mention anything on that air traffic controller strike which Reagan ended rather quickly. From personal experience, let me tell you the frustration a manager/supervisor feels when he asks a unionized worker to tighten the leaking universal union on the compressed air line, only to be countered with "I only loosen universal unions... I don't tighten them. You need to get a Class 2 Division B Millwright." I personally witnessed at some point in my life the sight of unionized workers lounging around refusing to do work they were perfectly capable of doing, with the only reason being that their collective agreement didn't allow them to do so. As a young, hands-on person, I learned the hard way that you can't do a unionized person's job for them, either. That's like opening a free can of shit, resulting in wasted time and money while grievances are being heard.

Sorry....... not a union fan.

https://news.gallup.com/reports/1987...y-decline.aspx

[TitoFan]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

You steadfastly mention the wages, for which I have no data to counter with. But you ignore the productivity side of the equation, and certainly did not mention anything on that air traffic controller strike which Reagan ended rather quickly. From personal experience, let me tell you the frustration a manager/supervisor feels when he asks a unionized worker to tighten the leaking universal union on the compressed air line, only to be countered with "I only loosen universal unions... I don't tighten them. You need to get a Class 2 Division B Millwright." I personally witnessed at some point in my life the sight of unionized workers lounging around refusing to do work they were perfectly capable of doing, with the only reason being that their collective agreement didn't allow them to do so. As a young, hands-on person, I learned the hard way that you can't do a unionized person's job for them, either. That's like opening a free can of shit, resulting in wasted time and money while grievances are being heard.

Sorry....... not a union fan.

One strike is kinda meaningless compared to the whole Reagan era anti union regulation/legislation. It's another example of powerful interests smashing workers though ultimately creating powerless workers working for what they're told they can have rather than them being able to negotiate their fair share of increasing national income. And as far as anecdotes go, the plural of anecdote is not data. As far as productivity goes the era of real union power in America, the fifties to the late seventies, saw the biggest sustained growth in productivity in American history. From about the year 2000, an era when capital has been absolutely dominant and unions have been smashed, we've seen the poorest productivity growth in American history.

I've worked in both unionized and non-unionized industries. It's my personal experience that the non-unionized environment tends to be more productive. Charts and graphs I don't have. What I have though, is personal experience. My wife has worked a long time for a company that twice tried to institute a union for their workers. Twice they failed. It's widely perceived it was for the better. Unions in many industries act like their own little Mafia. You don't get to choose whether you want to belong to the union and pay their dues. It comes with the job. Many unions indirectly promote worker wastefulness, regardless of what your economics numbers might say.

I already stated that in some industries is pretty much a necessary evil. Namely the rough, potentially dangerous industries where safety standards must be stringently met. But as with most things, too much of anything is rarely a good thing. Many unions restrict employment, subsequently driving up labor costs as a result. We're not talking about starving wages here. Many unions are unrealistic about their labor cost demands, sometimes even deterring investment and growth. Not every worker likes or chooses to work in unionized companies. Yet most of them have no choice. I don't know that that's necessarily a good thing.

I also fail to see how a unionized environment, where workers are told exactly what they can and can't do, even when fully capable of doing it, leads to more productivity.

[Gandalf]

Too much posting for me to keep up, but I will say it forever until the day I die, interest rates are way too low. Mind you I got a bank to give me 5%, but they only let me put in 300 bucks a month for a year. That is not going to pay for my facelift at 50, is it?

I think the Corona beer virus that induces deadly hangovers is probably going to sink things this year. Interesting that a recession is about to happen at this election cycle juncture, but hopefully people stop drinking soon.

How are interest rates too low? Either from a monetary policy position or an actual real world position? Central banks like interest rates low enough to generate low stable inflation. Two percent is the normal target rate. Central banks haven't been able to generate two percent inflation since the 2008 meltdown even with zero interest rates and QE. In the real world there's a gigantic ocean of money looking for returns. There are so few things to invest in and so much fucking cash out there that the people with the dough will fucking pay governments to look after it for the next ten/twenty/thirty years.

In what universe should interest rates be higher? The global economic recovery is so poor that increasing rates right now would cause a recession, which would cause money to pour out of speculative assets like stocks into safe assets like government bonds which would ......... cause interest rates to fall. In the next recession yields on American government bonds will go negative. Investors will be paying the American government to borrow their money.

There is a way for economies to raise interest rates. A massive redistribution of welth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy to make up for the forty year ongoing massive upward redistribution of wealth that we're currently experiencing. Hand that money out to people and they'll spend it in the real economy, creating demand for goods and services, creating an economic boom with loads of investment opportunities which creates a demand for money from firms to invest in catering to this economic boom by building new factories, plant and equipment, staff and so on. Lots of demand for money from a capital pool diminished by the redistribution does what to interest rates?

This economy is an abortion. Interest rates should have been raised after a bank clearing out period in 2008 meaning to take the pain for a long term sustainable future. They took the easy options. Interest rates are too low. They should never be below 3% except in an emergency which suggests the recovery is a mirage. Plus these low rates are terrible for insurers and others like that. It is a bailout of the irresponsible and if you have a mortgage you cannot afford then I have little sympathy. Debt is a mugs game.

[walrus]

https://californiapolicycenter.org/p...er-deep-state/

[El Kabong]

https://californiapolicycenter.org/p...er-deep-state/

dnc slush fund

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

So there are 0 drawbacks to Unions? 0, none, nil, nada?

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything. I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages. Well wages have been stagnant ever since the unions were neutered back under Reagan. There is no significant political force now representing American workers which is why they've been fucked at the drive in for the last forty years. Workers need to have representation and the ability to bargain collectively for a fair share of the economic pie or they don't get it and the last forty years are conclusive evidence of this. So scrap unions, it doesn't matter. Set up workers' councils or workers' representative bodies or whatever you want to call them but workers need representation in the economy or they'll continue to get fucked.

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

You steadfastly mention the wages, for which I have no data to counter with. But you ignore the productivity side of the equation, and certainly did not mention anything on that air traffic controller strike which Reagan ended rather quickly. From personal experience, let me tell you the frustration a manager/supervisor feels when he asks a unionized worker to tighten the leaking universal union on the compressed air line, only to be countered with "I only loosen universal unions... I don't tighten them. You need to get a Class 2 Division B Millwright." I personally witnessed at some point in my life the sight of unionized workers lounging around refusing to do work they were perfectly capable of doing, with the only reason being that their collective agreement didn't allow them to do so. As a young, hands-on person, I learned the hard way that you can't do a unionized person's job for them, either. That's like opening a free can of shit, resulting in wasted time and money while grievances are being heard.

Sorry....... not a union fan.

One strike is kinda meaningless compared to the whole Reagan era anti union regulation/legislation. It's another example of powerful interests smashing workers though ultimately creating powerless workers working for what they're told they can have rather than them being able to negotiate their fair share of increasing national income. And as far as anecdotes go, the plural of anecdote is not data. As far as productivity goes the era of real union power in America, the fifties to the late seventies, saw the biggest sustained growth in productivity in American history. From about the year 2000, an era when capital has been absolutely dominant and unions have been smashed, we've seen the poorest productivity growth in American history.

I've worked in both unionized and non-unionized industries. It's my personal experience that the non-unionized environment tends to be more productive. Charts and graphs I don't have. What I have though, is personal experience. My wife has worked a long time for a company that twice tried to institute a union for their workers. Twice they failed. It's widely perceived it was for the better. Unions in many industries act like their own little Mafia. You don't get to choose whether you want to belong to the union and pay their dues. It comes with the job. Many unions indirectly promote worker wastefulness, regardless of what your economics numbers might say.

I already stated that in some industries is pretty much a necessary evil. Namely the rough, potentially dangerous industries where safety standards must be stringently met. But as with most things, too much of anything is rarely a good thing. Many unions restrict employment, subsequently driving up labor costs as a result. We're not talking about starving wages here. Many unions are unrealistic about their labor cost demands, sometimes even deterring investment and growth. Not every worker likes or chooses to work in unionized companies. Yet most of them have no choice. I don't know that that's necessarily a good thing.

I also fail to see how a unionized environment, where workers are told exactly what they can and can't do, even when fully capable of doing it, leads to more productivity.

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:



Back when America had the highest rates of growth and investment was the time one in three Americans belonged to a union (now under tenpercent) and nonunion workers could unionise so easily that nonunion companies had to keep pace with union wage and benefit increases or their workers would unionise meaning back before 1980 American labour was effectively fully unionised.

Here's productivity:



Productivity fell off due to the two gigantic oil shocks in the seventies (in 1973 alone the price of oil quadrupled overnight). It picked back up in the nineties and 2000s due to Microsoft which is a one in a lifetime kind of productivity jump and we'll probably get a similiar jump when AI bears fruit in a decade or three. But look at productivity right now. We've had forty years of successively smashing the unions, every single "business friendly" policy (slashing taxes and regulation) that business wanted and look at the situation right now. Really low productivity, the lowest levels of investment in the modern era and a massively unequal economy. De facto nionisation of labour back in the day certainly didn't affect producivity too much, did it?

Amazing that high taxes, a properly regulated economy and strong unions provided much better economic growth that was broadly shared, not shitty economic growth that all goes to top earners with three quarters of Americans living paycheque to paycheque.

[Kirkland Laing]

Too much posting for me to keep up, but I will say it forever until the day I die, interest rates are way too low. Mind you I got a bank to give me 5%, but they only let me put in 300 bucks a month for a year. That is not going to pay for my facelift at 50, is it?

I think the Corona beer virus that induces deadly hangovers is probably going to sink things this year. Interesting that a recession is about to happen at this election cycle juncture, but hopefully people stop drinking soon.

How are interest rates too low? Either from a monetary policy position or an actual real world position? Central banks like interest rates low enough to generate low stable inflation. Two percent is the normal target rate. Central banks haven't been able to generate two percent inflation since the 2008 meltdown even with zero interest rates and QE. In the real world there's a gigantic ocean of money looking for returns. There are so few things to invest in and so much fucking cash out there that the people with the dough will fucking pay governments to look after it for the next ten/twenty/thirty years.

In what universe should interest rates be higher? The global economic recovery is so poor that increasing rates right now would cause a recession, which would cause money to pour out of speculative assets like stocks into safe assets like government bonds which would ......... cause interest rates to fall. In the next recession yields on American government bonds will go negative. Investors will be paying the American government to borrow their money.

There is a way for economies to raise interest rates. A massive redistribution of welth from the wealthy to the not so wealthy to make up for the forty year ongoing massive upward redistribution of wealth that we're currently experiencing. Hand that money out to people and they'll spend it in the real economy, creating demand for goods and services, creating an economic boom with loads of investment opportunities which creates a demand for money from firms to invest in catering to this economic boom by building new factories, plant and equipment, staff and so on. Lots of demand for money from a capital pool diminished by the redistribution does what to interest rates?

This economy is an abortion. Interest rates should have been raised after a bank clearing out period in 2008 meaning to take the pain for a long term sustainable future. They took the easy options. Interest rates are too low. They should never be below 3% except in an emergency which suggests the recovery is a mirage. Plus these low rates are terrible for insurers and others like that. It is a bailout of the irresponsible and if you have a mortgage you cannot afford then I have little sympathy. Debt is a mugs game.

They tried raising interest rates to a whopping two and a half percent last year and the economy almost tipped into recession. That's because the economic recovery in out shitty deformed unequal economy is so shitty. It can't handle even two percent interest rates without growth stalling. 2008 wasn't an emergency? If they hadn't kept rates at zero back then we know for certain the recession would have turned into a depression. Rates rose automatically back in 1929 due to the dollar being tied to the price of gold and it turned the recession back then into a depression.

It is a problem that interest rates are low but the problem is that the economy is so fucked, unequal, deformed that it can't function properly anymore. Low interest rates are a symptom of this, not a cause.

[Kirkland Laing]

https://californiapolicycenter.org/p...er-deep-state/

Ooooh, another google search. You managed to google up a Koch Brothers pressure group:

The California Public Policy Center (formerly the California Public Policy Center) is a right-wing pressure group based in California. Founded in June 2010, it is a state affiliate of the $83 million right-wing State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as "think tanks" and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.^[1] See SPN Members for more.
Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.^[2]
In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"^[3]
A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes.^[4]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._Policy_Center


So yeah, a bunch of guys who draw their salaries from right wing anti union billionaires don't like unions. Assuming your household earns sixty thousand a year which is roughly the median household income you're about one point six million out of pocket over the last forty years due to enough fucking idiots being fed bullshit like this to cause them to vote against their economic interests.

[El Kabong]

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

And specifically in regards to Unions those drawbacks would be?

I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages.

Yup, still am. You know how you just said...

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

....so what then would be the drawbacks of illegal immigration especially when it comes to the wages of the low and unskilled workers?

[Kirkland Laing]

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

And specifically in regards to Unions those drawbacks would be?

I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages.

Yup, still am. You know how you just said...

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

....so what then would be the drawbacks of illegal immigration especially when it comes to the wages of the low and unskilled workers?

There's historically been criminality and corrution in American unions, although it pales into insignificance compared to a. the comprehensively corrupt political system that's bought and paid for by lobbyists and b. the amount of good unions actually did before they were neutered. Corruption has been a problem in every American institution at one time or another and once again the unions were vestal virgins compared to the lobbying system that exists.

As far as illegal workers go here you're on the same side as the unions who want a properly regulated labour market with no employers able to undercut existing wages by employing illegal workers.

[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.

Back when America had the highest rates of growth and investment was the time one in three Americans belonged to a union (now under tenpercent) and nonunion workers could unionise so easily that nonunion companies had to keep pace with union wage and benefit increases or their workers would unionise meaning back before 1980 American labour was effectively fully unionised.

Here's productivity:



Productivity fell off due to the two gigantic oil shocks in the seventies (in 1973 alone the price of oil quadrupled overnight). It picked back up in the nineties and 2000s due to Microsoft which is a one in a lifetime kind of productivity jump and we'll probably get a similiar jump when AI bears fruit in a decade or three. But look at productivity right now. We've had forty years of successively smashing the unions, every single "business friendly" policy (slashing taxes and regulation) that business wanted and look at the situation right now. Really low productivity, the lowest levels of investment in the modern era and a massively unequal economy. De facto nionisation of labour back in the day certainly didn't affect producivity too much, did it?

Amazing that high taxes, a properly regulated economy and strong unions provided much better economic growth that was broadly shared, not shitty economic growth that all goes to top earners with three quarters of Americans living paycheque to paycheque.

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.