SARAH PALIN shows correlation: Less unions means more wealth, innovation

[bucs90]

Here it is boys, enjoy!!! http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-correlation-between-union-work-and-gdp.html








(OK, Sarah Palin had nothing to do with it. But her name is the only way liberals will respond these days.)

 

[Truthmatters]

wealth for who?

 

[LilOlLady]

wealth for who?

ditto

 

[mdn2000]

wealth for who?

For Obama, Al Gore, and their Wall Street buddys.

 

[blu]

wealth for who?

the people at the top who 'innovate' nothing but take all the rewards

 

[washamericom]

the ayn rand

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure glad that eliminating unions will mean more wealth for the top 4% of Americans

Does she have a chart on the declining wealth of working Americans with fewer unions?

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad that eliminating unions will mean more wealth for the top 4% of Americans

Does she have a chart on the declining wealth of working Americans with fewer unions?

Right, stealing is OK if your victim can afford it. You live in a great country that affords you the ability to take you as far as your intelligence, wits and drive take you. Rather then treating the Rich as your personal ATM, why don't you make more of yourself. You live in the greatest country in the history of man to do that. That is until you get your way.

 

[washamericom]

obama wants metropolis so he and his friends can enjoy his "club of the sons", with it's theatres and lecture halls

 

[bucs90]

wealth for who?

Everyone.

In the last 100 years, our country became so rich, that our "poor" are among the richest 5% of humans on Earth.

The black population of America, if taken alone as a seperate nation, would be the 5th richest country on Earth. Take that in for a moment. African Americans, if counted in isolation from the rest of Americans, would be the 5th richest country on Earth.

Yep. We all got rich.....as union dwindled in numbers.

 

[bucs90]

I'm sure glad that eliminating unions will mean more wealth for the top 4% of Americans

Does she have a chart on the declining wealth of working Americans with fewer unions?

You are simply wrong. American wealth, at all levels, has soared over the last 50-100 years.

Our lower class is among the richest 5% of humans on Earth. YOU and your leftist friends can't see that, however, because you're blinded by envy of the few humans on Earth who are richer than you.

Take that in. YOU, as an American, at any level basically, are richer than at least 90% of the rest of the world. Among all humans on Earth, Americans at any level are among the elite. Yet, the "lower elite" can't get over their envy of the few above them.

Only about .05% of humans on planet Earth have more wealth than lower and middle class Americans. Yet, their envy of those few blind them to the amazing hand they've been dealt as an American citizen.









On another note, this thread is the exact same thread I posted 2 days ago, just a link to it with SARAH PALIN attached.

The other thread got 1 response in 2 days.

This one, by simply adding "SARAH PALIN" got 8 in a few hours.

You libs are so predictable.

 

[The Hatter]

But wait:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the overall unionization rate last year was down from 12.3 percent in 2009 and 20.1 percent in 1983, when there were 17.7 million union members. The peak unionization rate was 35 percent during the mid-1950s, after a surge in unionization during the Great Depression and after World War II.

In fact, if wealth and innovation was correlated to less unions, then this time period should be one of the worst in American history for those two things. Except, it wasn't.

Interesting.

 

[bucs90]

But wait:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the overall unionization rate last year was down from 12.3 percent in 2009 and 20.1 percent in 1983, when there were 17.7 million union members. The peak unionization rate was 35 percent during the mid-1950s, after a surge in unionization during the Great Depression and after World War II.

In fact, if wealth and innovation was correlated to less unions, then this time period should be one of the worst in American history for those two things. Except, it wasn't.

Interesting.

It wasn't. Unions had a purpose then, to ensure fair labor conditions. That happened. But then unions got greedy. And AFTER 1950, look what happened?

How much wealth and innovation have we seen since 1950???? At the same time, union membership has plummeted. Look at the graph. American wealth began to explode in the 80's (under Reagan). And innovation? The last 20 years we've advanced medicine and technology to heights past generations couldnt even imagine.

All done in the private sector, non-unionized labor pool.

 

[kaz]

wealth for who?

Everyone.

In the last 100 years, our country became so rich, that our "poor" are among the richest 5% of humans on Earth.

The black population of America, if taken alone as a seperate nation, would be the 5th richest country on Earth. Take that in for a moment. African Americans, if counted in isolation from the rest of Americans, would be the 5th richest country on Earth.

Yep. We all got rich.....as union dwindled in numbers.

To you and me it's about how much pie we have, not how much our neighbor does. For the left, it's the other way around. No matter how much pie they have, their neighbor must not have more and they are willing to sacrifice as much of their own pie as necessary to ensure it is so.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries

 

[The Infidel]

Oh gawd you trolls are stupid!

 

[The Hatter]

It wasn't. Unions had a purpose then, to ensure fair labor conditions. That happened. But then unions got greedy. And AFTER 1950, look what happened?

How much wealth and innovation have we seen since 1950???? At the same time, union membership has plummeted. Look at the graph. American wealth began to explode in the 80's (under Reagan). And innovation? The last 20 years we've advanced medicine and technology to heights past generations couldnt even imagine.

All done in the private sector, non-unionized labor pool.

Actually, wealth only "exploded" because Reagan lowered the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest people from 78% to about 28%. However, he kept spending like we were still taxing the wealthiest people at 78%. It has nothing to do with the Middle or Lower class whatsoever.

In fact, your graph fails to take into account that more houses are two income houses now than the 1980's.

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318.

Of course, none of this actually relates to Unions. What you're doing is falling for the Association-is-causation fallacy. This is the incorrect idea that if two variables (in this case Union Membership and Wealth of Households) are associated in time, one must necessarily cause the other. This is basic economics, something you should probably acquaint yourself with before you begin using graphs to say that "X causes Y".

The rest of your post about innovation ranges from doesn't apply to this topic to pure gobbledygook

 

[The Infidel]

It wasn't. Unions had a purpose then, to ensure fair labor conditions. That happened. But then unions got greedy. And AFTER 1950, look what happened?

How much wealth and innovation have we seen since 1950???? At the same time, union membership has plummeted. Look at the graph. American wealth began to explode in the 80's (under Reagan). And innovation? The last 20 years we've advanced medicine and technology to heights past generations couldnt even imagine.

All done in the private sector, non-unionized labor pool.

 

[The Hatter]

I didn't realize Basic Economics was and I quote "bullshit."

Hi, you have received -93 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
oh bullshit

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[The Infidel]

I didn't realize Basic Economics was and I quote "bullshit."

Hi, you have received -93 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
oh bullshit

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

No .... you blatant disregard for the facts is bullshit.

You are a waste of my VALUEABLE time

 

[The Hatter]

No .... you blatant disregard for the facts is bullshit.

You are a waste of my VALUEABLE time

I suppose not enough of a waste to give me a negative rep and then post this response however. Instead of slinging mud, perhaps you could try and actually prove me wrong.

By the way, I suppose using spell check is also a waste of your "valuable" time? Only reason why I point that out is if you're going to put something in all capital letters, might want to make sure you spell it right.