Democrats economic advice: Correlation between union work and GDP

[bucs90]

Some political advice for Democrats. Look at the correlation between union membership and GDP.

I'm no genius. But as union membership declines, United States citizens get more and more wealth. Our GDP and standard of living have soared along the same lines that union membership has declined. There is a correlation. See libs, we do like science!!!

 

[bucs90]

Other correlations?

As union membership declined, we had massive breakthroughs in medicine. Huge successes in technology. Internet. Changed the world. Technology that saved lives in medicine, car safety, airline safety. Medicines that (GASP were produced to make profit) have healed many and extended the life of many. We saw housing explode to heights never imagined. Modest incomes could get 5 bedroom homes. We over did it a lot, but hell, we were so successful we basically got drunk off the housing wealth and now are suffering a hangover.

What else? We've exported more food and money in aid that any nation in the world. Probably any 10 nations combined.

The accomplishments this nation has seen, through private sector innovation and yes profit, have all been accomplished as union membership has steadily declined.

The only area where union membership has increased is in government.

And have we not seen a steady DECLINE in government efficiency and trust over 50 years?

It's simple. Success and efficiency do not go well with union labor.

 

[bucs90]

Hey liberals, I'm waiting.

Explain to me why this correlation exists?

That while wealth and innovation have skyrocketed.............during the same span union membership has tanked?

 

[rdean]

The correlation is in your mind.

Massive breakthroughs in science and technology? Unions had about as much to do with that as Republicans.

 

[bucs90]

The correlation is in your mind.

Massive breakthroughs in science and technology? Unions had about as much to do with that as Republicans.

Ummmm..............no dude, the correlation is right there on the charts I provided. Is that the best you can do?

Innovation and technology boomed, in all fields, including medicine. Medicine FOR PROFIT.

And PRIVATE union membership has dwindled to 7% or less. And guess who are some PRIVATE companies that have boomed our technology to new heights?

Microsoft, Apple, Lochead-Martin, Boeing, Google, Verizon, Abbot Med, I could name a thousand. Private schools like Harvard, Duke, Yale, Vanderbilt. Private citizens like Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jerry Richardson, Whole Foods founder (who btw is a liberal, but someone I deeply admire for the work he is doing to promote clean eating and health through the private sector). I could again list thousands.

Meanwhile, government union membership is over 85%. And government that has been efficient, innovative and produced wealth includes................................well..................................um.....................................hmmmm..................oh, NASA does some good stuff. And so does the military..........but the military and NASA get a lot of their technology done through Lochead-Martin and Boeing and Force Protection Inc.........so....um, yeah.


Rdean, the correlation is perfectly clear. Less unions means more efficiency, greater growth.

 

[bucs90]

And you said Unions had AS MUCH to do with breakthroughs in science and tech as Republicans?

Well, um, yeah, I agree. NEITHER did much for it. Unions and GOVERNMENT (Republicans) never, ever do as much for these breakthroughs as the non-union, private sector do.

Unions are basically masses of inefficient, griping WORKERS. They see themselves in the old communist model of a "worker". Not an innovator. Not an investor. Not a businessman. A "worker". Meaning show up, perform work by going through the motions, get check, complain, go home.

Meanwhile, the private, non-union sector excells.

 

[bucs90]

Come on libs. You can't debate this fact? This obvious correlation? Is it TOO MUCH PROOF that you're wrong?

Ok, ok. Didn't wanna have to do this to draw you all out from under your rocks. But I will.

"SARAH PALIN AGREES WITH THIS CORRELATION".

There. Thats the most expensive liberal bait on the shelf.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's the old "Prosperity Through Lower Wages" scam.

 

[bucs90]

It's the old "Prosperity Through Lower Wages" scam.

But our wages AREN'T lower. Over the last 100 years, we've become so rich, that our "poor" are among the wealthiest 5% of humans in the world. Worked out pretty well, huh?

 

[Toro]

Hey liberals, I'm waiting.

Explain to me why this correlation exists?

That while wealth and innovation have skyrocketed.............during the same span union membership has tanked?

You have not demonstrated a correlation. In fact, GDP per capita in the US has risen pretty consistently for at least the past 140 years, which corresponds to both a rise and a decline in unionization.

That doesn't mean the level of unionization does not affect GDP growth. It just means that you have not demonstrated it.

 

[Agit8r]

Some political advice for Democrats. Look at the correlation between union membership and GDP.

I'm no genius. But as union membership declines, United States citizens get more and more wealth. Our GDP and standard of living have soared along the same lines that union membership has declined. There is a correlation. See libs, we do like science!!!

ummmmm... are those figures adjusted for inflation?

just askin'

 

[Agit8r]

It's the old "Prosperity Through Lower Wages" scam.

But our wages AREN'T lower. Over the last 100 years, we've become so rich, that our "poor" are among the wealthiest 5% of humans in the world. Worked out pretty well, huh?

And WHY do our lowest enjoy a comparatively high standard of living compared to places that don't have wage and hour laws, a redistributive tax code and a safety net? hmmmm...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the old "Prosperity Through Lower Wages" scam.

Coming from the guy that divides one number by a smaller number and gets a fraction as a result... whatever.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the old "Prosperity Through Lower Wages" scam.

But our wages AREN'T lower. Over the last 100 years, we've become so rich, that our "poor" are among the wealthiest 5% of humans in the world. Worked out pretty well, huh?

And WHY do our lowest enjoy a comparatively high standard of living compared to places that don't have wage and hour laws, a redistributive tax code and a safety net? hmmmm...

Because we're all racists.

 

[newpolitics]

Some political advice for Democrats. Look at the correlation between union membership and GDP.

I'm no genius. But as union membership declines, United States citizens get more and more wealth. Our GDP and standard of living have soared along the same lines that union membership has declined. There is a correlation. See libs, we do like science!!!

who's standard of living? The rich. That's who gets wealthier, while the worker gets buried. These charts don't indicate the wealth distribution, just net numbers... the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the GDP rises and so does the standard of living. YAY! This is totally misleading. You can't draw the conclusion that unions are bad simply because of GDP and standard of living. It's simply not enough information. I bet you that if you had further charts, you would find the quality of work conditions and of life for the majority of workers without union representation to have declined, while the companies that hire them get richer because they can pay them less, hence, higher standard of living for them, and they can higher more workers for less, hence, more production, therefore, higher GDP.

 

[bucs90]

Some political advice for Democrats. Look at the correlation between union membership and GDP.

I'm no genius. But as union membership declines, United States citizens get more and more wealth. Our GDP and standard of living have soared along the same lines that union membership has declined. There is a correlation. See libs, we do like science!!!

who's standard of living? The rich. That's who gets wealthier, while the worker gets buried. These charts don't indicate the wealth distribution, just net numbers... the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the GDP rises and so does the standard of living. YAY! This is totally misleading. You can't draw the conclusion that unions are bad simply because of GDP and standard of living. It's simply not enough information. I bet you that if you had further charts, you would find the quality of work conditions and of life for the majority of workers without union representation to have declined, while the companies that hire them get richer because they can pay them less, hence, higher standard of living for them, and they can higher more workers for less, hence, more production, therefore, higher GDP.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

There you go. Thats the link to show that the standard of living, for even our poor, has risen above that of 95% of the rest of the world.

This standard of living spike has occurred along the same line as the union membership decline.

Game set match.

 

[newpolitics]

Some political advice for Democrats. Look at the correlation between union membership and GDP.

I'm no genius. But as union membership declines, United States citizens get more and more wealth. Our GDP and standard of living have soared along the same lines that union membership has declined. There is a correlation. See libs, we do like science!!!

who's standard of living? The rich. That's who gets wealthier, while the worker gets buried. These charts don't indicate the wealth distribution, just net numbers... the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the GDP rises and so does the standard of living. YAY! This is totally misleading. You can't draw the conclusion that unions are bad simply because of GDP and standard of living. It's simply not enough information. I bet you that if you had further charts, you would find the quality of work conditions and of life for the majority of workers without union representation to have declined, while the companies that hire them get richer because they can pay them less, hence, higher standard of living for them, and they can higher more workers for less, hence, more production, therefore, higher GDP.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

There you go. Thats the link to show that the standard of living, for even our poor, has risen above that of 95% of the rest of the world.

This standard of living spike has occurred along the same line as the union membership decline.

Game set match.

Wow, so you present some stats on relative poverty, and game set match? No. We are not a third world country. Of course our relative poverty does not equal absolute poverty, such that which you find in third world countries, as defined as being so impoverished, you don not have enough money or resources for basic human sustenance. Is that where you think our poor should be to be considered poor? The conditions of those poor in this country has not at all gotten better because the standard of living has gotten better. That has nothing to do with the poor. The poor class has only gotten larger, the middle class is shrinking, and the rich are getting so much richer, but statistics such as GDP and standard of living don't take these distributions into account, they take the numbers as an aggregate. Nice try though. Advantage me.

 

[bucs90]

who's standard of living? The rich. That's who gets wealthier, while the worker gets buried. These charts don't indicate the wealth distribution, just net numbers... the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the GDP rises and so does the standard of living. YAY! This is totally misleading. You can't draw the conclusion that unions are bad simply because of GDP and standard of living. It's simply not enough information. I bet you that if you had further charts, you would find the quality of work conditions and of life for the majority of workers without union representation to have declined, while the companies that hire them get richer because they can pay them less, hence, higher standard of living for them, and they can higher more workers for less, hence, more production, therefore, higher GDP.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

There you go. Thats the link to show that the standard of living, for even our poor, has risen above that of 95% of the rest of the world.

This standard of living spike has occurred along the same line as the union membership decline.

Game set match.

Wow, so you present some stats on relative poverty, and game set match? No. We are not a third world country. Of course our relative poverty does not equal absolute poverty, such that which you find in third world countries, as defined as being so impoverished, you don not have enough money or resources for basic human sustenance. Is that where you think our poor should be to be considered poor? The conditions of those poor in this country has not at all gotten better because the standard of living has gotten better. That has nothing to do with the poor. The poor class has only gotten larger, the middle class is shrinking, and the rich are getting so much richer, but statistics such as GDP and standard of living don't take these distributions into account, they take the numbers as an aggregate. Nice try though. Advantage me.

So.....basically, your gripe isn't that our poor are so bad off. Because relative to the rest of the world, our poor live very well.

And it isn't that our "poor" live FAR above the global poverty line. Because compared to the rest of the world, our poor live a life that is about equal with a middle class life in Western Europe.

No, no. YOUR gripe that the rich in America are getting richer.

Meaning, your gripe is based purely in envy, not despair?????

Yep. Typical liberalism.