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

[bucs90]

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

I was a sociology major, you could've just said "It's spurrious". Thats your argument. I know plenty about correlations of X and Y.

Its basically accepted that union work isn't as efficient as non-union work, as basic competition ensures that. The correlation between technological innovation (by means of working towards making profits and being more competitive) and less union work is valid.

And yes, thanks for making that point that America got rich as shit after Reagan lowered taxes.

And yes, thanks for making the point that while that help us, continued big spending hurt us.

Which is why we are NOW gonna lower spending. Right thing to do.....right?

But the correlation is valid.

 

[xotoxi]

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

But that wealth will trickle down...like menstruation when a pad overflows.

 

[bucs90]

In simpler terms....

If you know your job depends on out-performing the next guy, you perform better work.

If you know your company depends on being more efficient than the competition, your company does better.

If you know your jobs is basically guaranteed (unions) and that there is no competition (government).......then you get subpar work and awful inefficiency.

 

[bucs90]

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

But that wealth will trickle down...like menstruation when a pad overflows.

And it does. Our "poor" are richer than 95% of all other humans on planet Earth. It works.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Exactly why Im not going to debate you.... this stupidity has been hashed out in 20 different threads.

Go read them, and you will see where I have proved you libs wrong several times!

Spelling.....
You libturds always throw out that card.

 

[The Hatter]

I was a sociology major, you could've just said "It's spurrious". Thats your argument. I know plenty about correlations of X and Y.

Its basically accepted that union work isn't as efficient as non-union work, as basic competition ensures that. The correlation between technological innovation (by means of working towards making profits and being more competitive) and less union work is valid.

And yes, thanks for making that point that America got rich as shit after Reagan lowered taxes.

And yes, thanks for making the point that while that help us, continued big spending hurt us.

Which is why we are NOW gonna lower spending. Right thing to do.....right?

But the correlation is valid.

It's basically accepted, according to whom? Your post is very flawed, especially since you seem to be trying to define words however you like.

Also, America did not get "rich as shit" after Reagan lowered taxes, the rich got richer after Reagan lowered taxes. Trickle-down economics was a complete and utter failure. I never said that trickle-down economics helped us, all I pointed out was that Reagan continued big spending.

Again, your graph falls for the fallacy I previously mentioned.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes trying to have a conversation about this difficult. In fact, you have refuted none of my posts and merely have tried to twist what I said.

 

[bucs90]

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.

Exactly why Im not going to debate you.... this stupidity has been hashed out in 20 different threads.

Go read them, and you will see where I have proved you libs wrong several times!

Spelling.....
You libturds always throw out that card.

Good job man.

They're like spoiled children who just got told "You're 18, no more free ride from mommy and daddy, grow up, you're on your own."

They know unions harm business and stifle innovation.

But if they can't have a socialst society, then they demand a socialist workplace.

 

[The Hatter]

Exactly why Im not going to debate you.... this stupidity has been hashed out in 20 different threads.

Go read them, and you will see where I have proved you libs wrong several times!

Spelling.....
You libturds always throw out that card.

If this "stupidity" has been hashed out in 20 different threads, why did you bother to reply in the first place? You didn't mind once again replying to me with a non-answer or support of other answers. However, you do seem to mind giving me a real answer with facts and or information relevant to this topic.

I'm not a Liberal, which is a poor assumption on your part.

 

[The Infidel]

I was a sociology major, you could've just said "It's spurrious". Thats your argument. I know plenty about correlations of X and Y.

Its basically accepted that union work isn't as efficient as non-union work, as basic competition ensures that. The correlation between technological innovation (by means of working towards making profits and being more competitive) and less union work is valid.

And yes, thanks for making that point that America got rich as shit after Reagan lowered taxes.

And yes, thanks for making the point that while that help us, continued big spending hurt us.

Which is why we are NOW gonna lower spending. Right thing to do.....right?

But the correlation is valid.

It's basically accepted, according to whom? Your post is very flawed, especially since you seem to be trying to define words however you like.

Also, America did not get "rich as shit" after Reagan lowered taxes, the rich got richer after Reagan lowered taxes. Trickle-down economics was a complete and utter failure. I never said that trickle-down economics helped us, all I pointed out was that Reagan continued big spending.

Again, your graph falls for the fallacy I previously mentioned.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes trying to have a conversation about this difficult. In fact, you have refuted none of my posts and merely have tried to twist what I said.

You got owned!!!!

 

[The Infidel]

I'm not a Liberal

OK.... then, yur a liar!


Oooooooppppsssssiiieeee....


I MISspeeled you're!

 

[bucs90]

I was a sociology major, you could've just said "It's spurrious". Thats your argument. I know plenty about correlations of X and Y.

Its basically accepted that union work isn't as efficient as non-union work, as basic competition ensures that. The correlation between technological innovation (by means of working towards making profits and being more competitive) and less union work is valid.

And yes, thanks for making that point that America got rich as shit after Reagan lowered taxes.

And yes, thanks for making the point that while that help us, continued big spending hurt us.

Which is why we are NOW gonna lower spending. Right thing to do.....right?

But the correlation is valid.

It's basically accepted, according to whom? Your post is very flawed, especially since you seem to be trying to define words however you like.

Also, America did not get "rich as shit" after Reagan lowered taxes, the rich got richer after Reagan lowered taxes. Trickle-down economics was a complete and utter failure. I never said that trickle-down economics helped us, all I pointed out was that Reagan continued big spending.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes trying to have a conversation about this difficult. In fact, you have refuted none of my posts and merely have tried to twist what I said.

By the 93% of people who aren't in unions.

Unions crippled the auto industry. They are bankrupting the government sector.

You ignore my main premise. America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth.

African Americans, if taken seperately, would be the world's 5th richest nation.

Trickle down economics does work.....................BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD FOR THEIR MONEY.

Thats the key. Trickle down economics does NOT work for lazy people. It does work for hard working "employees" (I refuse to use the communist term "worker").

You can't deny our poor and lower class are wealthier than 95% of the rest of humans on Earth.

But that groups envy of the few humans even wealthier than them blinds them to this.

You just hate knowing that all this is true. The free union ride is over. Please exit to your left, and follow the yellow lines back to the Real World Amusement Park.

 

[The Hatter]

By the 93% of people who aren't in unions.

Unions crippled the auto industry. They are bankrupting the government sector.

You ignore my main premise. America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth.

African Americans, if taken seperately, would be the world's 5th richest nation.

Trickle down economics does work.....................BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD FOR THEIR MONEY.

Thats the key. Trickle down economics does NOT work for lazy people. It does work for hard working "employees" (I refuse to use the communist term "worker").

You can't deny our poor and lower class are wealthier than 95% of the rest of humans on Earth.

But that groups envy of the few humans even wealthier than them blinds them to this.

You just hate knowing that all this is true. The free union ride is over. Please exit to your left, and follow the yellow lines back to the Real World Amusement Park.

93%? Evidence?

Unions did not cripple the Auto industry, bad management did.

Also, link for "America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth."

I don't even get the point of this comment anyway. Do you want the lower class wages to be more like Zimbabwe? On top of that, the cost of living in the rest of the world as compared to the United States can be completely different when comparing it with another individual country. That comment of yours ignores basic economics among other things.

Trickle down economics doesn't work at all, including those who work hard for their money. You're making the assumption that rich = hard working or poor = lazy. That's a very poor assumption to make.

Also, you still have to failed to proof correlation when it comes to your original graph. Among many of your points that have been yet to be proved.

 

[The Infidel]

Good job man.

They're like spoiled children who just got told "You're 18, no more free ride from mommy and daddy, grow up, you're on your own."

They know unions harm business and stifle innovation.

But if they can't have a socialst society, then they demand a socialist workplace.

I would entertain MAD hater with some facts to prove he is NO conservative, and that his FAILED ideas dont work, but truthfully.... Im in a shitty mood, I have the flu, and I just feel like pissing a liberal off.....

THATS RIGHT HATTER (hater) YOUR A LIBERAL!

 

[The Infidel]

93%? Evidence?

Unions did not cripple the Auto industry, bad management did.

Duhhhh

The BAD management started by letting the unions have all their demands met.... which in turn, broke Detroits back.

Jeez.... this is just too damn easy.



Im out!

 

[The T]

By the 93% of people who aren't in unions.

Unions crippled the auto industry. They are bankrupting the government sector.

You ignore my main premise. America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth.

African Americans, if taken seperately, would be the world's 5th richest nation.

Trickle down economics does work.....................BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD FOR THEIR MONEY.

Thats the key. Trickle down economics does NOT work for lazy people. It does work for hard working "employees" (I refuse to use the communist term "worker").

You can't deny our poor and lower class are wealthier than 95% of the rest of humans on Earth.

But that groups envy of the few humans even wealthier than them blinds them to this.

You just hate knowing that all this is true. The free union ride is over. Please exit to your left, and follow the yellow lines back to the Real World Amusement Park.

93%? Evidence?

Unions did not cripple the Auto industry, bad management did.

Also, link for "America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth."

I don't even get the point of this comment anyway. Do you want the lower class wages to be more like Zimbabwe? On top of that, the cost of living in the rest of the world as compared to the United States can be completely different when comparing it with another individual country. That comment of yours ignores basic economics among other things.

Trickle down economics doesn't work at all, including those who work hard for their money. You're making the assumption that rich = hard working or poor = lazy. That's a very poor assumption to make.

Also, you still have to failed to proof correlation when it comes to your original graph. Among many of your points that have been yet to be proved.

Admit it. YOU live in an alternate Universe.

 

[bucs90]

By the 93% of people who aren't in unions.

Unions crippled the auto industry. They are bankrupting the government sector.

You ignore my main premise. America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth.

African Americans, if taken seperately, would be the world's 5th richest nation.

Trickle down economics does work.....................BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD FOR THEIR MONEY.

Thats the key. Trickle down economics does NOT work for lazy people. It does work for hard working "employees" (I refuse to use the communist term "worker").

You can't deny our poor and lower class are wealthier than 95% of the rest of humans on Earth.

But that groups envy of the few humans even wealthier than them blinds them to this.

You just hate knowing that all this is true. The free union ride is over. Please exit to your left, and follow the yellow lines back to the Real World Amusement Park.

93%? Evidence?

Unions did not cripple the Auto industry, bad management did.

Also, link for "America's lower class are richer than 95% of the other humans on planet Earth."

I don't even get the point of this comment anyway. Do you want the lower class wages to be more like Zimbabwe? On top of that, the cost of living in the rest of the world as compared to the United States can be completely different when comparing it with another individual country. That comment of yours ignores basic economics among other things.

Trickle down economics doesn't work at all, including those who work hard for their money. You're making the assumption that rich = hard working or poor = lazy. That's a very poor assumption to make.

Also, you still have to failed to proof correlation when it comes to your original graph. Among many of your points that have been yet to be proved.

You could google it, I'm tired of educating liberals. But, here you go....

Labor unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7% of the private sector is unionized.

The global poverty line is $1.25 a day: Poverty Around The World ? Global Issues

American poor people get hundreds a week in welfare checks alone, not to mention free or subsidized housing, healthcare, education, food stamps.

Just how relatively wealthy is America's poor: How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation




Ok. My point proven, sealed and delivered. I win. You lose. Unions are obsolete in modern economies. You fail. Get over it.

 

[bucs90]

Oh, and BTW, the "management" at car plants in the Southern states like Georgia and South Carolina did quite well keeping jobs and productivity during this economy.

Whats the key difference? Low taxes, non-union.

BMW plant in Greenville, SC is thriving, and producing thousands of good paying jobs for residents, as well as trickling that salary pay out to housing, restaurants, shopping malls, etc, where those employees visit.

Game, set, match.

 

[bucs90]

And why is only 7% of private sector unionized, while double that is for gov't?

Because gov't has no competitor. Private sector does.

And the private sector knows that unions are less efficient, less productive to the bottom line.

For a 3rd time....you lose.

 

[The Hatter]

You could google it, I'm tired of educating liberals. But, here you go....

Labor unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7% of the private sector is unionized.

The global poverty line is $1.25 a day: Poverty Around The World ? Global Issues

American poor people get hundreds a week in welfare checks alone, not to mention free or subsidized housing, healthcare, education, food stamps.

Just how relatively wealthy is America's poor: How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation




Ok. My point proven, sealed and delivered. I win. You lose. Unions are obsolete in modern economies. You fail. Get over it.

Union density is 7.2%. Again, I'm failing to see the point of bringing up the rest of the world. Is the cost of living in Zimbabwe the same as it is in the United States? I think you're more obsessed with "winning" on the internet than you are with actually making sense.

As for Unions, they are actually not obsolete in modern economies.

 

[The Hatter]

Oh, and BTW, the "management" at car plants in the Southern states like Georgia and South Carolina did quite well keeping jobs and productivity during this economy.

Whats the key difference? Low taxes, non-union.

BMW plant in Greenville, SC is thriving, and producing thousands of good paying jobs for residents, as well as trickling that salary pay out to housing, restaurants, shopping malls, etc, where those employees visit.

Game, set, match.

So you're saying we should be more like China then, right? After all, if all these jobs are moving to China, then we should emulate them, correct? You are saying with this post that we should emulate these Southern states, so why not go one step further and emulate China?