Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  6
Likes Likes:  25
Dislikes Dislikes:  5
Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 219

Thread: Impeachment

Share/Bookmark
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,323
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    609
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post

    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.
    Tits welcome to kirks world

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,348
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1689
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post

    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.

    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?

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    59,327
    Mentioned
    523 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3013
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Looks like JFK had quite the economic impact. I guess 0% of that was his "a rising tide floats all boats" tax cuts....in fact I bet you'd probably say "if he didn't cut taxes he would have done even better".
    "Drown in a vat of whiskey.....death where is thy sting?" - W.C. Fields.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    59,327
    Mentioned
    523 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3013
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Also worth noting not only the unionization of the companies back from the mid-late 40s to the early 70s but also immigration. One could surmise that Hart-Celler brought that era of prosperity to a halt. Timeline works out.
    "Drown in a vat of whiskey.....death where is thy sting?" - W.C. Fields.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    21,351
    Mentioned
    461 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1672
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post

    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.

    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.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,348
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1689
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
    Looks like JFK had quite the economic impact. I guess 0% of that was his "a rising tide floats all boats" tax cuts....in fact I bet you'd probably say "if he didn't cut taxes he would have done even better".

    It depends on rates and levels and the tax base Lyle. Kennedy cut the top rate from ninety one percent to seventy percent but broadened the tax base which meant loopholes were cut and more people paid the top rate. Kennedy also increased the minimum wage. The net result wasn't much of anything at all.




    The most significant change in the US tax regime came in the 1980s. Reagan slashed the top rate, realised that there was now a huge revenue gap and then plugged the gap with new taxes on low/middle income earners. This still didn't cover the shortfall so read my lips no new taxes Bush 41 had to come up with some new taxes because obviously increasing the top rate was out of the question.

    And you're correct that how many people you let into a country affects economic growth. GDP growth is made up of two (2) things: productivity increases, which we've already covered and population growth. That's it. Lots of nice new immigrants mean lots more economic growth. Even the Trump administration knows this, they just feed anti immigrant bullshit to idiots like you to get them to vote for them:

    Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told a crowd at a private gathering in England on Wednesday night that the Trump administration “needs more immigrants” for the U.S. economy to continue growing, according to an audio recording of his remarks obtained by The Washington Post.“We are desperate — desperate — for more people,” Mulvaney said. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.”

    The Trump administration wants those immigrants to come in a “legal fashion,” Mulvaney said, according to the recording.

    Mulvaney’s remarks appear in contrast to the public position of several top figures in Trump’s White House — especially that of senior policy adviser Stephen Miller — who have been working to slash legal and illegal immigration through a slew of policies that aim to close off the U.S. border to foreigners. They have insisted that the steady arrival of newcomers depresses wages for the blue-collar U.S. workers whose votes helped lift Trump to the presidency in 2016.



    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dd7_story.html

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,348
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1689
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post

    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.

    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.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    21,351
    Mentioned
    461 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1672
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
    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.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    21,351
    Mentioned
    461 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1672
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Kirk, since you're too small-minded for personal experience and "anecdotes", I'll put it in terms even you can understand.

    Back in the 70's and before, the U.S. steel industry, one of the backbones of American industry, was flourishing. There was no reason for that to change, given the amount of resources and technology to keep the industry growing and flourishing. Then, a funny thing happened on the way to Happily Ever After Land. In the late 70's and beyond, Japan started to take large pieces away from the pie, and U.S. steel started floundering. Now..... you can cite product dumping in the U.S. market, cost of environmental controls, etc, all you want. But obviously you'll gloss over and ignore one of the biggest reasons of them all.

    While the U.S. Steelworkers unions were fighting for half-hour coffee breaks and overly generous wage increases, Japan was quietly taking over the industry with its worker mindset and culture of working as one with company management. You know..... those Plains Apes you stupidly refer to in your childishly moronic descriptions. Sure..... there were other factors, as well as other countries in Europe taking from the pie. But it was Japan steel squashing U.S. steel that was making all the headlines. The U.S. steel industry has never recovered, and countless plants were closed, affecting the livelihoods of thousands of workers and their families. Maybe you can find us a nice chart and graph on that.

    What holds for the steel industry can likely be repeated with ditto marks for other core industries as well. But you get the point (or not).

    You see Kirk....... when Johnny and Sally join unions that proceed to drive up labor costs and making all sorts of outlandish demands, their employer ACME Company starts to lose competitiveness. ACME's costs go up, so product prices go up. Johnny and Sally's friends and family can no longer afford to buy the purple widgets from ACME Company. Eventually, a country such as Japan, with the foresight to know that industry can be a win-win with the right attitude, starts to make the purple widgets at half the price as ACME Company was making them. Soon all of Johnny and Sally's friends and family (including Johnny and Sally) start buying the purple widgets from the Japanese company. Lo and behold, ACME Company can no longer survive and closes. Ooooooohhhh!!! Johnny and Sally are left without jobs, and no longer make the money needed to buy their purple widgets from anybody.

    Now...... how's about you printing up some of those little, neat charts and graphs and go wipe your own ass with them.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    47,895
    Mentioned
    931 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3180
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    True Tito, it isn't just about Unions. It is sbout companies wanting cheaper labour. Thus America boomed post WW2, but when the chance to put people in sweat shops for pennies came along companies grabbed at it because 'Hey globalisation, we will be a service based economy'. Thus the jobs were shipped away to Japan, Korea, China, now Vietnam and India and on it goes. And what happens in those countries? They eventually lose their jobs to somewhere cheaper too.

    Here is a bit like the UK at the dawn of Thatcher. They will likely open the borders to poor people willing to work for little to fill the cracks, but eventually you are left with a hollow shell that once was. That is America, that will be here, and on it goes as globalization rules.
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWNc_AZewu7AAERwCfLfupUZIJSbzqC MgjXFbc0u9YrZkuInoB

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    47,895
    Mentioned
    931 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3180
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    A case in point, the UK used to build ships. A sunk industry. Others could do it cheaper and more efficiently and in decades from a world leader to a world bleeder. Unions cannot do a thing against globalisation.
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWNc_AZewu7AAERwCfLfupUZIJSbzqC MgjXFbc0u9YrZkuInoB

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    57,535
    Mentioned
    1493 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2732
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Unions were not the cause of the economy leading to a down turn and recession.

    Strong Unions give workers better rights/pay/working conditions and I would rather that senior managers (fat cats) getting overpaid or even worse shareholders taking a slice of the profits.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,323
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    609
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    Unions were not the cause of the economy leading to a down turn and recession.

    Strong Unions give workers better rights/pay/working conditions and I would rather that senior managers (fat cats) getting overpaid or even worse shareholders taking a slice of the profits.
    Master there is a big difference between public and private unions in the US. Public unions are the fat cats and have run our states into huge deficits as they are basically feeding the Democratic Party. I’m not saying the Republican Party hasn’t joined in to an extent but I worked for my state for many years and I saw first hand how it operated and it’s just a bunch of fat cats keeping themselves in power. Unions certainly did do some positive things for workers during the industrial revolution, the monopolies, labor laws etc back in the day but seriously collective bargaining has run its course and turned into part of the political machine, especially at the public level. Modern labor laws protect workers just about as good as any union. You can actually do a search online for state and federal labor laws and workers protection and get an idea of what I’m talking about. Some day I’ll send you a link showing you my states deficit and how much of that is due to the state union. And this is coming from someone who worked for the state for many years. At the union meetings they would try to start anti republican chants which is actually breaking their own rules but it was the union president doing it. By the way, my state is in debt to the union for billions and billions of dollars. That means everyone we raise taxes to improve roads, we aren’t doing that, we are raising taxes to feed the unions who donate to the politicians who will support the unions. It’s a big scam

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    57,535
    Mentioned
    1493 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2732
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    That sounds like an abuse of power by those particular Unions which is counterproductive as it is letting their members down. Unions do not want to bring down companies/economies because it hurts their own members.

    Over here there has been an erosion of workers’ rights which has led to zero hour contracts and low pay. Yet the super-rich get even wealthier. I would rather the money be more equally and fairly distributed than it going to a few at the top.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,323
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    609
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Impeachment

    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    That sounds like an abuse of power by those particular Unions which is counterproductive as it is letting their members down. Unions do not want to bring down companies/economies because it hurts their own members.

    Over here there has been an erosion of workers’ rights which has led to zero hour contracts and low pay. Yet the super-rich get even wealthier. I would rather the money be more equally and fairly distributed than it going to a few at the top.
    Ya I get you. I’m not saying it’s perfect here. Plenty of companies take advantage of workers when they can but too many unions, especially public unions, are willing to kill a state to keep pockets full. I’m not saying unions are inherently bad unfunded pension liabilities are sinking companies and states. Shit I’d love to see everyone make 100 bucks an hour. None of us are dumb, we can see both sides of the issue and they both have merit but when the unions can’t be be separated from politics and everybody’s goal is to stay in power and not have an army of workers but an army of voters you can see how that becomes problematic. If private businesses saw what they were really paying for with these public unions I think we would have a mini revolution but we are probably about 20 years away from that right now. I live in one of the highest taxed states in the US we have a nasty deficit and it’s all due to the public union.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  





Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Videos | Boxing Forum | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Auctions | Fun and Games | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Saddo Boxing - Boxing