Impeachment

[Kirkland Laing]

We all know you've worked in finance 30 years, Kirk. It still doesn't excuse you from being condescending and belligerent when discussing issues having to do with the economy.

You of all people should know the economy doesn't rise and fall due to one single, solitary factor. There are always several involved.

It's just like those who think that the economy turns on a dime. I've played down the credit people want to give solely to Trump and blame they want to place squarely on Obama based on that very same principle.

But I digress. My point is that we should be able to have a conversation about something you're obviously very passionate about, like labor unions, without devolving into an insult-fest.

My only points are this:

1. The demise of unions are not solely to blame for the shrinking wages (in purchasing power) in recent economies.

2. Unions have brought both good and bad to U.S. industry. You've stated some of the good..... I stated some of the bad. (Oh..... and about your anecdote-phobia..... is your waxing on about your shipbuilding and mining ancestry not engaging in anecdotes? IMO, it's bad form to discount things like personal experience when discussing an issue. But you may differ on that.)

3. Obtaining better wages for the American worker doesn't necessarily need to be through the traditional labor unions. Can't we come up with different mechanisms to reach the same goal?


The following article points to some of the other factors that can be blamed for the worker wage situation we're facing today.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we...ers-2019-05-29



I don't wish to continue the hostilities, but I'll insist that once in awhile we need to get our heads out of the textbooks, and see how things occur in real life. My telling you about experiences with labor unions in very unionized industries such as the steel industry isn't meant to eliminate or counter any of the data you've presented. But rather to complement it with a rounder picture of what unions bring to the table, both good and bad.

Unions being neutered is the overriding number one reason that wages have been stagnant for forty years. Look at this.



That article you posted admits at the start the consensus opinion is that the lack of union power is the reason for stagnating wages and then proceeds to quote McKinsey, a consultancy firm that have been used by corporations to attack unions for generations. The best reason McKinsey can come up with that unions aren't a big factor is the "boom and bust" cycles since 2000. There have always been boom and bust cycles. You get expansions and then recessions. That's never been any different. It's incoherent garbage and the graph/numbers are bullshit too. They're counting every small busnessman, CEO, executive, doctor, lawyer, accountant, dentist and other professional as "labour". Anything thatisn't investment income is counted as "labour". What a load of shite.


Oh and globalisation. That's actually true. Workers had no say in how globalisation was done. Why was that? Unions have no political muscle anymore and don't have a seat at the table for economic policy decisions anymore like they did in the pre-Reagan era.

Look at the graph I posted though. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation has doubled since Reagan took office. That's per capita though, the average. If you and your best friend and Bill Gates share a taxi somewhere the average salary for the four people in the taxi is three billion dollars a year. So averages are misleading. Half of American workers are actually worse off over the last forty years. You can see who is making all the money. This is not rocket science. There needs to be somebody representing the people who are getting fucked up the arse every day or they're going to continue to get fucked.

To be clear, I don't disagree with you regarding the plight of the average American worker and his/her wages. Just wanted to clear that up front. I'm also definitely not part of that "top 1%" in your graph, so I'm not knocking unions for that reason. I think it all boils down to me asking you how would you solve this problem if it were up to you. Would you favor the old, traditional model of labor union? Or would you prefer another way or vehicle to have labor's interests better represented? You see.... all I was saying from the very beginning (and still saying) is that some of those traditional labor union models did some harm to industry which had nothing to do with stagnating wages or downtrodden American workers. So looking at the big picture... in what way do you think labor would be well served while maintaining the competitiveness of industry in today's globalized market? I'm all for American workers not having to hold down two jobs just to make ends meet. That's what has eroded the essence of American families over the last several decades. At the same time, and I know you hate "anecdotes and personal experience", traditional unions can and have been somewhat self-serving, and IMO you can't be narrow minded when demanding a list of conditions from a company. Big picture..... the ideal relationship between management and labor is a win-win where the workers are happy with the wages..... and companies are allowed to maintain their competitiveness.

Corporations are never going to have any kind of relationship with unions. Long story short, since FDR allowed collective bargaining back and give unions a seat at the economic policy table in the 1930s corporations have fought a scorched earth battle to overturn the legislation and take things back to before the New Deal era. There's a long history you can read about this. Under Reagan they succeeded.


It isn't about competitiveness. That's what corporations say when they're asked about why they're not increasing wages. It's not about international trade either. Less than one percent of American businesses export and ninety plus percent of exports are high quality manufactures and products that have patented IP or are products like airliners that few countries make, wages are an irrelevance with big value added products like this. Competitiveness is the absolute last thing they want. Do you know what happens in an actual competitive market with no barriers to entry and universal level playing field access to customers and suppliers? Profits trend towards zero. And profits are the single issue with corporations. If you're a CEO your one job is to maximise profits. If you can do this by screwing your workforce, cutting jobs, lobbying for legislation that fucks any competitor, buying up competitors or merging with one or just buying back your shares to increase the share price this is your job. If you don't succeed you're out on your arse.

How can we tell we have a sclerotic corporate landscape with a few big firms in every industry dominating the market by using the measures outlined above? Right now we have record corporate profits, that's how.




Corporate profits versus wages



Here's an economist from the noted communists Goldman Sachs:

http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/...es-are-so-low/