Republican's lie about Smoot Hawley

[editec]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

 

[Agnapostate]

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

Even whilst bickering over the proper "formula" for developing countries, fair trade advocates have granted too many concessions to their neoliberal opponents. Perhaps the most damaging is the inaccurate idea that the current capitalist powers of the world developed through the "free trade" model that the Washington Consensus now dictates to others. Of course, the reality is far different. As put by Ha-Joon Chang in Kicking Away the Ladder:

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

That then parallels with the observation I made earlier about the use of strategic trade policy to protect the appropriate and sustainable development of infant industries rather than force them into an early collapse through premature competition. This is especially pertinent because of the traditional neoliberal focus on Ricardian conceptions of comparative advantage (though they seem to limit their focus to its ideological nature rather than its practical nature), since a "free trade" formula only attends to static comparative advantage rather than seeking the maximization of dynamic comparative advantage and thus maximizing the greatest total utility.

Ironically, it conflicts with the simple adage of rational choice theory (that great ideological fraud of free marketers!), that the rational economic man will reject five dollars today if he can gain ten dollars tomorrow, though that's admittedly a bit of an oversimplification.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

That's not necessarily untrue (though somewhat misleading, as unionization's effects on unemployment are somewhat more varying than that), but we would also have to include unionization's apparently beneficial effects on wage and productivity increases, and then incorporate appropriate cost/benefit analysis. For instance, we could refer to Vassilis Monastiriotis's Union Retreat and Regional Economic Performance: The UK Experience to examine the British experience.

A panel of regional data is used to investigate the impact the well-documented decline in trade unionism in the UK had on the economic performance of its regions. The analysis departs from the traditional firm-level and cross-sectional analyses and looks at the economy-wide effects of unionism. The findings provide evidence in line with theory that predicts that unions will increase wages and unemployment, but they also indicate that unionism is positively related to productivity and incomes, although in all cases the effects are non-linear. It is concluded that unionism is not necessarily a burden for the economy, so long that the beneficial wage/productivity effects outweigh the negative effects on employment.

Your major problem seems to be that you approach these issues from an almost unrelenting neoclassical approach, assuming that the laws of supply and demand rule over all in an uncontested state of perfection. There's nothing ideologically flawed with such an approach, of course, but practical matters turn out to be significantly different. With such a fact in mind, there is obvious virtue to Steve Keen's observation that "[t]he most important thing that global financial crisis has done for economic theory is to show that neoclassical economics is not merely wrong, but dangerous."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

The sourced empirical evidence hasn't indicated consistency with any such claim. I'd hope you'd venture out of the world of ideology and embrace the glories of empirical analysis!

 

[sealybobo]

Without Wal-Mart where would they have gone?

Without Walmart, Americans would be making more money working for Krogers, Farmer Jacks, Kmart, A&P, Costco, Sams Club & Meijers.

Don't get me started on Walmart. It is another argument you right wingers won't win. No one but you is loving Walmart. (and I know you aren't a right winger K, but you are close enough.

I will respect you call to say away from Walmart in this thread, but one thing to one out. Many walmart shoppers are from the lower econ level, I'm sure these people love Walmart, but are not right winger!

Yes, the masses shop at walmart. Keep in mind, they aren't all that bright, which is why they are poor.

Yes, ex union workers who lost their jobs to China buy from Walmart. How smart is that?

 

[sealybobo]

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

How do unions lead to higher unemployment?

And also Kevin, with all the outsourcing we are doing to China and India, aren't you worried they are going to take over our position as world superpower?

At what point do we stop leading and China starts?

Eventually other countries are going to invest in the Yen over the Dollar.

We went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Kevin, your arguments are weak. Unions lead to higher unemployment? Are you saying because a company has to pay a decent wage that they can't hire more people because they don't have the money? And if they could just lower wages, they could hire a couple more people? If thats the weak argument you are making, please stop.

 

[sealybobo]

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

I'd rather 100 people make $50k a year than 75 people making $40.

I know the 100 people will go out and spend, have a good quality of life and be able to retire with dignity. The 75 making $40K will not.

And I'd rather pay $21K for an American made car than pay $20K for a foreign car.

I know the extra money I spent will stay here in America and keep wages where they need to be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

How do unions lead to higher unemployment?

And also Kevin, with all the outsourcing we are doing to China and India, aren't you worried they are going to take over our position as world superpower?

At what point do we stop leading and China starts?

Eventually other countries are going to invest in the Yen over the Dollar.

We went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Kevin, your arguments are weak. Unions lead to higher unemployment? Are you saying because a company has to pay a decent wage that they can't hire more people because they don't have the money? And if they could just lower wages, they could hire a couple more people? If thats the weak argument you are making, please stop.

If you're forced to pay people more than they might be worth then you're going to be forced to employ less people.

I'm not concerned with who the world superpower is, my pride in the United States isn't based on our imperial military presence around the world.

Whether you believe it's a weak argument or not it's the truth, and I will not stop telling it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

I'd rather 100 people make $50k a year than 75 people making $40.

I know the 100 people will go out and spend, have a good quality of life and be able to retire with dignity. The 75 making $40K will not.

And I'd rather pay $21K for an American made car than pay $20K for a foreign car.

I know the extra money I spent will stay here in America and keep wages where they need to be.

Your analogy is backwards. It would be 75 people making $50k, and 100 making $40.

 

[editec]

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

Yes the unemployed children digging seams of coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia , and working in dangerous facotories where their life expentency was driven down to something like 20, were dislocated from their dangerous low paying jobs into classrooms.

The HORROR!

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

Okay, you disagree with Adam Smith, then

Fine by me.

Just so long as you understand that.

 

[editec]

Nemesis suggests:

The sourced empirical evidence hasn't indicated consistency with any such claim. I'd hope you'd venture out of the world of ideology and embrace the glories of empirical analysis!

Yeah, right...good luck with that.

Expecting idealogues (and the apologists who love them) to embrace empirical analysis?

Not fucking chance, amigo.

If they did that, they'd have to admit that they have been hoodwinked by propaganda and weren't actually paying attention to the facts on the ground.

They're not call idelogues for nothing, ya' know.

I'd keep giving you REP for actually providing us with scholarly support of your positions, since I'm not as well read as you obviously are on this subject, if I could.

Keep 'em coming though.

Occassionally I actually bother to read some of the economic analysis that you and Agna present to us.

Sadly my lack of higher math skills make much of what I read a waste of my time.

But you know what Ben Johnson said, right?

One doesn't have to be a carpenter to know the table wobbles.​

 

[sealybobo]

Well unions lead to higher unemployment, so I wouldn't agree that they allowed anyone to get "their share of the American pie."

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

How do unions lead to higher unemployment?

And also Kevin, with all the outsourcing we are doing to China and India, aren't you worried they are going to take over our position as world superpower?

At what point do we stop leading and China starts?

Eventually other countries are going to invest in the Yen over the Dollar.

We went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Kevin, your arguments are weak. Unions lead to higher unemployment? Are you saying because a company has to pay a decent wage that they can't hire more people because they don't have the money? And if they could just lower wages, they could hire a couple more people? If thats the weak argument you are making, please stop.

If you're forced to pay people more than they might be worth then you're going to be forced to employ less people.

I'm not concerned with who the world superpower is, my pride in the United States isn't based on our imperial military presence around the world.

Whether you believe it's a weak argument or not it's the truth, and I will not stop telling it.

Who says people are being paid "more than they are worth"?

Do you mean more than you could pay if you were allowed to hire foreign or illegal labor?

Then that's easy. Make it illegal for you to hire illegals and tariff you if you are manufacturing outside the US. Then the American wages will not be "more than they are worth". In other words, take away your other two options.

So then that will raise the price of the products you make. Fine. I'll pay more. And I'll be able to afford it because now I make a decent wage.

That will drive up inflation? BFD!

Its like I know your next arguments before you even make them.

And are you talking about American Union workers or all American workers when you say we get paid, "more than we are worth"?

But yes, I'll nod my head that if you are forced to pay $2 hr, then you won't be able to hire as many people as you could if you were allowed to pay $1 hr. So what?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense.

American industrial power and the middle class that sprang from it (when they finally unionized to get their share of the American pie) owe their existence to tariffs.

There are other factors which, inarguably, ALSO made American great, but sans tariffs we'd have remained a third world agricultural nation.

I know you sincerely believe this nonsense you write, and the fact is that there is SOME truth to the argument that imposing tariffs stupidly can be detrimental to a national economy, too.

But the negative effects of removing tariffs stupidly, as we have been doing for about 50 years, is pretty god damned obvious to those of us who lived in areas which were once heavily industrialized.

When a nation gives us making stuff?

It gives up its economic powerbase.

And that is what we are doing.

Its stupid to the extreme for this nation, even though it is making a very small group of Americans very wealthy.

Yes the unemployed children digging seams of coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia , and working in dangerous facotories where their life expentency was driven down to something like 20, were dislocated from their dangerous low paying jobs into classrooms.

The HORROR!

I'd also disagree that we would have remained a "third world agricultural nation" without tariffs, more likely our industrial sector would have grown bigger and faster without them.

Okay, you disagree with Adam Smith, then

Fine by me.

Just so long as you understand that.

You don't necessarily have to disagree with unions to understand that they do in fact lead to unemployment, you just have to understand that you're trading the employment of one group for the benefit of another.

I disagree with many people, it has never kept me up at night and I'm sure none of them have been remotely bothered by the fact.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do unions lead to higher unemployment?

And also Kevin, with all the outsourcing we are doing to China and India, aren't you worried they are going to take over our position as world superpower?

At what point do we stop leading and China starts?

Eventually other countries are going to invest in the Yen over the Dollar.

We went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Kevin, your arguments are weak. Unions lead to higher unemployment? Are you saying because a company has to pay a decent wage that they can't hire more people because they don't have the money? And if they could just lower wages, they could hire a couple more people? If thats the weak argument you are making, please stop.

If you're forced to pay people more than they might be worth then you're going to be forced to employ less people.

I'm not concerned with who the world superpower is, my pride in the United States isn't based on our imperial military presence around the world.

Whether you believe it's a weak argument or not it's the truth, and I will not stop telling it.

Who says people are being paid "more than they are worth"?

Do you mean more than you could pay if you were allowed to hire foreign or illegal labor?

Then that's easy. Make it illegal for you to hire illegals and tariff you if you are manufacturing outside the US. Then the American wages will not be "more than they are worth". In other words, take away your other two options.

So then that will raise the price of the products you make. Fine. I'll pay more. And I'll be able to afford it because now I make a decent wage.

That will drive up inflation? BFD!

Its like I know your next arguments before you even make them.

And are you talking about American Union workers or all American workers when you say we get paid, "more than we are worth"?

But yes, I'll nod my head that if you are forced to pay $2 hr, then you won't be able to hire as many people as you could if you were allowed to pay $1 hr. So what?

I did not say everyone is paid more than they're worth.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes the unemployed children digging seams of coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia , and working in dangerous facotories where their life expentency was driven down to something like 20, were dislocated from their dangerous low paying jobs into classrooms.

The HORROR!



Okay, you disagree with Adam Smith, then

Fine by me.

Just so long as you understand that.

You don't necessarily have to disagree with unions to understand that they do in fact lead to unemployment, you just have to understand that you're trading the employment of one group for the benefit of another.

.

This is one of those weak right wing arguments that is probably true to a small extent, but still just a rediculous pointless point to make.

Kevin, what are you suggesting here?

How do Unions lead to unemployment?

Think about the right to work companies we work for. Every year they lay off 10% of their staff at the end of the year, just because they want to go into the next year as lean and mean as possible.

You can't do that to people who are in unions, so I say unions equal less unemployment.

In America, you have no right to your job. Unless you are in a union of course.

So I say we give us employees more job security. If I didn't do anything wrong, I should be able to sue the company. And my job requirements should be clearly defined. And I should be able to complain to my union boss, not just the HR department who is NEVER on the side of the employee.

 

[sealybobo]

If you're forced to pay people more than they might be worth then you're going to be forced to employ less people.

I'm not concerned with who the world superpower is, my pride in the United States isn't based on our imperial military presence around the world.

Whether you believe it's a weak argument or not it's the truth, and I will not stop telling it.

Who says people are being paid "more than they are worth"?

Do you mean more than you could pay if you were allowed to hire foreign or illegal labor?

Then that's easy. Make it illegal for you to hire illegals and tariff you if you are manufacturing outside the US. Then the American wages will not be "more than they are worth". In other words, take away your other two options.

So then that will raise the price of the products you make. Fine. I'll pay more. And I'll be able to afford it because now I make a decent wage.

That will drive up inflation? BFD!

Its like I know your next arguments before you even make them.

And are you talking about American Union workers or all American workers when you say we get paid, "more than we are worth"?

But yes, I'll nod my head that if you are forced to pay $2 hr, then you won't be able to hire as many people as you could if you were allowed to pay $1 hr. So what?

I did not say everyone is paid more than they're worth.

Well if you can get someone to do my job in India for $20K and I'm making $40K, then I assume you think I'm being paid "more than I'm worth"?

And that would be true, if it were legal to pit me against the guy in India.

So we need to make it illegal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't necessarily have to disagree with unions to understand that they do in fact lead to unemployment, you just have to understand that you're trading the employment of one group for the benefit of another.

.

This is one of those weak right wing arguments that is probably true to a small extent, but still just a rediculous pointless point to make.

Kevin, what are you suggesting here?

How do Unions lead to unemployment?

Think about the right to work companies we work for. Every year they lay off 10% of their staff at the end of the year, just because they want to go into the next year as lean and mean as possible.

You can't do that to people who are in unions, so I say unions equal less unemployment.

In America, you have no right to your job. Unless you are in a union of course.

So I say we give us employees more job security. If I didn't do anything wrong, I should be able to sue the company. And my job requirements should be clearly defined. And I should be able to complain to my union boss, not just the HR department who is NEVER on the side of the employee.

I've already explained how unions lead to higher unemployment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who says people are being paid "more than they are worth"?

Do you mean more than you could pay if you were allowed to hire foreign or illegal labor?

Then that's easy. Make it illegal for you to hire illegals and tariff you if you are manufacturing outside the US. Then the American wages will not be "more than they are worth". In other words, take away your other two options.

So then that will raise the price of the products you make. Fine. I'll pay more. And I'll be able to afford it because now I make a decent wage.

That will drive up inflation? BFD!

Its like I know your next arguments before you even make them.

And are you talking about American Union workers or all American workers when you say we get paid, "more than we are worth"?

But yes, I'll nod my head that if you are forced to pay $2 hr, then you won't be able to hire as many people as you could if you were allowed to pay $1 hr. So what?

I did not say everyone is paid more than they're worth.

Well if you can get someone to do my job in India for $20K and I'm making $40K, then I assume you think I'm being paid "more than I'm worth"?

And that would be true, if it were legal to pit me against the guy in India.

So we need to make it illegal.

Not at all. There could be many reasons why you'd be making more than the person in India. Maybe you're highly efficient, maybe you've been loyal for many years, or any other number of factors. If your boss thinks you're worth what you're being paid then that's great. However, if a union dictates that you have to be paid more than what your employer feels your worth then they may not hire you in the first place, or they may not be able to hire other people.

 

[sealybobo]

I did not say everyone is paid more than they're worth.

Well if you can get someone to do my job in India for $20K and I'm making $40K, then I assume you think I'm being paid "more than I'm worth"?

And that would be true, if it were legal to pit me against the guy in India.

So we need to make it illegal.

Not at all. There could be many reasons why you'd be making more than the person in India. Maybe you're highly efficient, maybe you've been loyal for many years, or any other number of factors. If your boss thinks you're worth what you're being paid then that's great. However, if a union dictates that you have to be paid more than what your employer feels your worth then they may not hire you in the first place, or they may not be able to hire other people.

When unions fought and won higher wages for their employees, do you know that it raised the wages at non union companies?

Factories paying $5 had to raise their pay to compete with what the unions were paying.

So for years and years, companies could have paid more but instead put the money somewhere else. Sometimes they hired more people, sometimes they gave it back to stock holders, sometimes they gave the executives huge bonus'.

But NEVER did they decide on their own to give it to the employees.

So every year Ford made a profit, my dad got profit sharing.

Wouldn't have got that without being in a union.

So you aren't wrong about anything kevin, but at the same time, you aren't right about anything either. IMO.

In other words, this isn't a "I'm right you are wrong" conversation. You just prefer lowering labor's wages for any given reason and I prefer giving labor more.

If given the choice, companies will always opt for paying us less. That's why we have unions.

 

[sealybobo]

I did not say everyone is paid more than they're worth.

Well if you can get someone to do my job in India for $20K and I'm making $40K, then I assume you think I'm being paid "more than I'm worth"?

And that would be true, if it were legal to pit me against the guy in India.

So we need to make it illegal.

Not at all. There could be many reasons why you'd be making more than the person in India. Maybe you're highly efficient, maybe you've been loyal for many years, or any other number of factors. If your boss thinks you're worth what you're being paid then that's great. However, if a union dictates that you have to be paid more than what your employer feels your worth then they may not hire you in the first place, or they may not be able to hire other people.

Great example of non union companies paying more because of union companies. HONDA and TOYOTA.

They based their wages on how much the union workers were making. Not as much but pretty comparable.

Eventually, the employees at Honda & Toyota will be asked to take pay cuts too, or they might lose their jobs to China/Mexico.

Because compared to mexico and china, southerners make way too much.