Unions: Is this time and money well spent?

[Windship]

blue collar, right wing, wack job. I hope you dont vote

 

[Mr Natural]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[Andylusion]

Dear, I didn't say only union jobs were outsourced. I said liberal unions outsourced 30 million jobs and much or our manufacturing base and that unions should be made illegal again.

Common sense will tell you that if BWM can make their cars here paying workers $15 and hour or in Germany paying workers $67 an hour their biggest production facility will be here.

Simple but still over a liberals head- right?

This makes even less sense. A liberal union outsourced 30 million jobs? Any links?

dear why do you think BMW just built its largest plant in the world in South Carolina rather than Detroit?

Cheap labor, but I'll bet BMW in Germany is union. There's no solidarity among workers. The ownership class hasn't got it all yet, give them time and maybe the workers will say "enough is enough". Right now, workers are happy to work for any wages knowing that they're in competition with the world, including low wage countries. This is the meaning of globalization. Unlimited supply of cheap labor to skew the traditional supply and demand ratio of workers to jobs.

It is Union. German Union are completely different from American Unions. German Unions are pro-corporate. Pro-businesss. Pro-profit.

German Unions actually try to benefit the company, and increase employment and growth.

For example, German Unions actually support, and encourage outsourcing, and the use of Temp Employees. They actually want the company to remain competitive, and are willing to use cheaper labor to do it.

German Unions are willing to accept people earning low wages, when it's a low skill job, so the that company can remain profitable and growing in a competitive world environment.

American Unions are opposed to that, which is why again... which declared bankruptcy? Toyota or VW America? Or GM and Chrysler? American VW plants are not Unionized by UAW. In fact..... UAW met with the German Unions, and when the German Unions realized what they stood for, they cut off talks. The VW plant employees voted down Unionization. What shock. The works don't want to end up like Hostess, where the new Employer, after the Hostess Union killed the company, refuses to even accept application from former Union employees. Well done idiots. Screwed them over completely.

hmmmm...ith no mention of the companies that do quite well with a union shop. A little bias there?

Great! More power to them! But that's not a reason to force people to be Unionized. If you want to be Unionized, go for it. But don't tell that they are inherently beneficial, because most places are not Unionized, and Unions are falling. If they are so great and wonderful, wouldn't everyone be Unionizing? I don't want my hard earned money going to some phat Union bosses.

I get it... you do.

I got it dude. You think Union Boss Mark Rosenthal needs a new Tahoe to haul his 400+ lbs butt into work at 2 PM, where he racks up $1400 in food bills on the Union dime, to compliment his $150K income, before falling asleep for 2 hours, and wakes up before 4 PM to go home.

You think that's a good use of your Union dues... got it.

I don't.

Karen Lewis. CTU, and FTI, Unions. Salary $300K plus. Owns three homes. A $300K vacation home in Piers Mich, and a $400K home in Hawaii. Yes, I get it, you think she needs another, and your Union dues can help.

I don't.

Apparently $400K is too low. Even $1 Million is not enough. Let's get more Union members, and feed these phat cats even more.

Well, you go and do that. Here's my deal. You want to join a Union, by all means. The rest of us, demand a choice in the matter, and the right to refuse. I think that's what being in a free country is all about.

 

[Andylusion]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

"Prosperity Though No Wages" -Leftard.

 

[Andylusion]

blue collar, right wing, wack job. I hope you dont vote

Awww.... poor little Liberal. Sucks we can vote too huh?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

blue collar, right wing, wack job. I hope you dont vote

typical liberal reduced to ad hominem becuase he lacks the IQ for substance

 

[SmedlyButler]

The bottom line of any pro-union vs anti-union discussion is, while unions are far from perfect entities, ultimately they are extremely beneficial for workers. The Union Movement was a critical factor in the rise of the American Middle Class. Without it the U.S. would still be a two-class society consisting of the rich and the obedient, groveling poor, working long, hard hours just to maintain a low living standard.

Opponents of unions are typically too young to remember what America was like before the union movement and how dramatically it changed the quality of life for the working class. It is very rare to hear a mature American speak against unions.

Those who are receptive to anti-union propaganda need to be reminded that were it not for unions there would be no 40-hour work week, no paid vacations, no worker safety standards, no minimum wage, no worker protections of any kind,

The following movies are educational, entertaining -- and important.


Harlan County USA
Norma Rae
The Molly McGuires
On The Waterfront
Metewan
Hoffa

Good post. It's hard to get across in a few words how much Unions helped the working man and woman but that sums it up nicely. When I was a young fellow just starting off in the job that turned into a 30+ year career I became a Union member. And even when I entered management I was always grateful for the Unions fight for decent conditions and wages, they had to pay us more than the average working guy after all. And even losing out on overtime pay was made up one way or another. There's an article here that's titled "Thank a Union: 36 Ways Unions Have Improved Your Life". The tone is a little overly partisan but it's a good reminder that Unions aren't all the evil entities that right wing propaganda has convinced many people they are. It's starts off with this;

"Let's get one thing straight...
Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".

Anyone who knows a little social history understands that before Unions had enough power to counterbalance the employer advantage a working persons life could be drudgery and bondage, dangerous and not much better than serfdom. Hey, remember this classic?






Anyway Frank maybe you're right about finding a better way to allocate Union resources in this case, but just maybe conspicuously drawing peoples attention to the threat to Union goals is worth it in this era of constant anti-union propaganda.

 

[Andylusion]

blue collar, right wing, wack job. I hope you dont vote

typical liberal reduced to ad hominem becuase he lacks the IQ for substance

Based on his other posts, my expectations were already zero. He did succeed in meeting those low expectations.

 

[Kimura]

How else can workers close the gap between wages and productivity gains? .

it automatic under capitalism of course. Unless you offer the best products and jobs possible you go bankrupt! A childs would know this, just not a liberal.

LOL.

Not according to the history books.

 

[Andylusion]

How else can workers close the gap between wages and productivity gains? .

it automatic under capitalism of course. Unless you offer the best products and jobs possible you go bankrupt! A childs would know this, just not a liberal.

LOL.

Not according to the history books.

And yet, dozens of companies that don't provide good products close all the time, and those that do, end up very large. Where is Gateway and Tandy Computers today? They are gone.

Where is Dell, and Apple? Oh they are still here. Almost like the capitalist free-market system works pretty well, without government intervention.

Good thing we don't have a Capitalist free-market system in K-12 education. Otherwise we might end up spending the most money of any country, for poorly education students..... which... oh... wait.........

 

[Kimura]

How else can workers close the gap between wages and productivity gains? .

it automatic under capitalism of course. Unless you offer the best products and jobs possible you go bankrupt! A childs would know this, just not a liberal.

LOL.

Not according to the history books.

And yet, dozens of companies that don't provide good products close all the time, and those that do, end up very large. Where is Gateway and Tandy Computers today? They are gone.

Where is Dell, and Apple? Oh they are still here. Almost like the capitalist free-market system works pretty well, without government intervention.

Good thing we don't have a Capitalist free-market system in K-12 education. Otherwise we might end up spending the most money of any country, for poorly education students..... which... oh... wait.........

The demise of unions has decreased corporate profits, decreased total economic output, and increased inequality.

1) The US had the most union membership from 1950-1980. GDP had a compound annual rate of 3.53% and corporate profits increased at a compound annual rate of 8%

2) The US had a severe drop in union membership from 1980-2010. GDP had a compound annual rate of 2.7% and corporate profits increased at a compound ann.al rate of 7%

 

[Andylusion]

How else can workers close the gap between wages and productivity gains? .

it automatic under capitalism of course. Unless you offer the best products and jobs possible you go bankrupt! A childs would know this, just not a liberal.

LOL.

Not according to the history books.

And yet, dozens of companies that don't provide good products close all the time, and those that do, end up very large. Where is Gateway and Tandy Computers today? They are gone.

Where is Dell, and Apple? Oh they are still here. Almost like the capitalist free-market system works pretty well, without government intervention.

Good thing we don't have a Capitalist free-market system in K-12 education. Otherwise we might end up spending the most money of any country, for poorly education students..... which... oh... wait.........

The demise of unions has decreased corporate profits, decreased total economic output, and increased inequality.

1) The US had the most union membership from 1950-1980. GDP had a compound annual rate of 3.53% and corporate profits increased at a compound annual rate of 8%

2) The US had a severe drop in union membership from 1980-2010. GDP had a compound annual rate of 2.7% and corporate profits increased at a compound ann.al rate of 7%

Correlation is not causation.

I think we had a decrease in GDP growth for two reasons. First, we're at the top of the economic ladder. The US is top of the world right now. We won't be for too much longer I wager, but as it stands today, there is no other country with a higher standard of living.... and it's by a ridiculous margin too.

I've been to Europe, and it's not nearly as close to us, as the left portrays. Not by a long shot. They are not poor.... didn't say that... but comparatively, we're miles and miles beyond where they are.

Logically, our ability to advance by leaps and bounds, is limited because there is no one ahead of us.

Secondly, we've drastically increased the regulations, controls, and the massive spending of government. As government controls and limits the economy, that automatically means a reduction in advancement. Similarly, as government sucks up ever growing amounts of money, and diverts it to less, or zero value investments, that reduces the growth of the economy.

Unionization had nothing to do with it. I doubt there is any worth while conclusions that can be made from comparing Union membership and GDP, since there is simply too much non-union GDP created, and far too many external factors.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The problem with the union issue is that it has become politicized. And when that happens, everything becomes dumbed down, simplified and binary. And when that happens, virtually nothing of substance can be accomplished.

Change the scope and approach of unions and you'll save them. Keep the collective bargaining for working wages and the ability to maintain and improve workplace safety. Jettison the long-term pension plans that massively increase costs for business and move to 401Ks; get rid of the ridiculous union protection rules that add to inefficiencies, such as only certain people can do this task, or you need three trucks to accomplish what one truck could.

But no, both sides would have to give in with this approach, and we can't have that. Instead, both "sides" continue to play politics as unions crumble and the middle class vanishes. Either unions remain exactly as they are or they disappear. Absurd.

The decay continues. A pox on both houses. Partisans need to find a new fucking hobby so the rest of us can try to improve things.

.

Gm's pensions were fully funded. What makes you think people shouldn't have pensions after a lifetime of work? Put the money in 401 k's. Ha ha. Wall street is a gambling casino where the crooks don't go to prison, they give themselves a bonus after the taxpayers bail them out.

Holy crap. Many, many pensions are not fully funded, particularly in the public sector. And while we're asking absurd questions, what makes you think people should work for a lifetime only to see their pension collapse? Instead of this silly straw man question of yours meant to make me look like a big fat meanie, perhaps you could remind yourself of the old adage, "money doesn't grow on trees".

And Wall Street is a casino? Where in the world do you think pension funds put their money to make it grow? Do you have any idea whatsoever how pension benefit promises are calculated, and how problematic many pension calculations have become over the last few years? Do you think that pension paychecks just fall from the sky?

As I said in my post, this stuff gets dumbed down when it gets political, and here's an example. I offered a balanced approach to save and improve unions.

Unbelievable. Unbe-fucking-lievable. You've gotta be kidding me.

.

 

[hadit]

Unions are victims of their own success. Virtually everything they campaigned for, such as the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, safety regulations, etc, have been put into law. Unfortunately, they act like it's still 1934. That's why they are increasingly being seen as useless, behind the times, and an arm of the DNC. They need to adapt and deal with the world the way it is today. Focus on making the Union Label mean superior quality and not just higher costs, for example, would go a long way.

Unions are seen that way now because of right wing propaganda and that propaganda is in place to increace corporate profits and has worked suberbly because of ignorance. Convince a blue collar worker that unions are bad.....wow. "Right to work state" = place where you get payed and treated like shit.

They're seen that way because of reality. I notice that you studiously avoided the idea of providing superior quality.

 

[Mr Natural]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

"Prosperity Though No Wages" -Leftard.

And no wages is the end game for your corporate masters.

Enjoy the ride, sucker.

 

[Andylusion]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

"Prosperity Though No Wages" -Leftard.

And no wages is the end game for your corporate masters.

Enjoy the ride, sucker.

Funny, I just got a raise last year. They didn't have to. I thought you said no wages was their end game? Why did they just give me a raise?

Oh wait... that's right... I keep forgetting... YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Kimura]

Correlation is not causation.

Are you implying correlation doesn't imply causation?

I think we had a decrease in GDP growth for two reasons. First, we're at the top of the economic ladder. The US is top of the world right now. We won't be for too much longer I wager, but as it stands today, there is no other country with a higher standard of living.... and it's by a ridiculous margin too.

All the data is freely available from the Commerce Dept and BLS. I gave you the data, take it or leave it.

I've been to Europe, and it's not nearly as close to us, as the left portrays. Not by a long shot. They are not poor.... didn't say that... but comparatively, we're miles and miles beyond where they are.

Logically, our ability to advance by leaps and bounds, is limited because there is no one ahead of us.

My family is from Italy, I attended university and lived in Italy for many years. Back then, and up until the EU started pursuing austerity, they had a better standard of living, in terms of quality of life, etc. They still have a longer life expectancy than we do but I digress.

The US middle class is no longer the wealthiest. For example, post-tax middle-class incomes in Canada have surpassed the US. And the poor in most of Europe earn more than their poor American counterparts.

Secondly, we've drastically increased the regulations, controls, and the massive spending of government. As government controls and limits the economy, that automatically means a reduction in advancement. Similarly, as government sucks up ever growing amounts of money, and diverts it to less, or zero value investments, that reduces the growth of the economy.

The government doesn't suck up money, it's the issuer of the currency, so it doesn't need to confiscate that which it issues. But yeah, government spending can effect GDP, allocation of real resources, and capital formation just not in the way you seem to think.

Unionization had nothing to do with it. I doubt there is any worth while conclusions that can be made from comparing Union membership and GDP, since there is simply too much non-union GDP created, and far too many external factors.

The decimation of unions has resulted in income inequality, less output and decreased corporate profits in the aggregate data sets I looked up. To say that unions are bad for an economy is revisionism of the highest order.

Also, I forgot to mention that weekly earnings are now far lower than they were in 1968. For example, CEO compensation packages have went from 40 times a workers salary to over 400 times a workers salary. In another two decades, if this continues, the US will resemble something closer to Mexico.

 

[Andylusion]

Correlation is not causation.

Are you implying correlation doesn't imply causation?

Are you implying the implication alone proves causation?

I think we had a decrease in GDP growth for two reasons. First, we're at the top of the economic ladder. The US is top of the world right now. We won't be for too much longer I wager, but as it stands today, there is no other country with a higher standard of living.... and it's by a ridiculous margin too.

All the data is freely available from the Commerce Dept and BLS. I gave you the data, take it or leave it.

Are you saying that questioning your personal interpretation and conclusion from the data, means I'm questioning the data itself?

It is possible that your interpretation and conclusions are wrong, even if the data is right.

I've been to Europe, and it's not nearly as close to us, as the left portrays. Not by a long shot. They are not poor.... didn't say that... but comparatively, we're miles and miles beyond where they are.

Logically, our ability to advance by leaps and bounds, is limited because there is no one ahead of us.

My family is from Italy, I attended university and lived in Italy for many years. Back then, and up until the EU started pursuing austerity, they had a better standard of living, in terms of quality of life, etc. They still have a longer life expectancy than we do but I digress.

The US middle class is no longer the wealthiest. For example, post-tax middle-class incomes in Canada have surpassed the US. And the poor in most of Europe earn more than their poor American counterparts.

'in terms of quality of life'. That's subjective. Quality of life for me, is being able to own a massive luxury car, with leather interior, that can fit 5 people, and pull a boat, even though I make less than $20K a year. Can I do that in Italy? Nope. I've been there.

The average home size in Europe, and especially Italy, is a fraction of what it is here.

To compare, again, I earn $20K a year, and my home is 1.2K sq feet. Or... 111 sq Meters. And I have two bedrooms, and I have 1.5 bath, and I have a fully furnished basement.

My home, on my massive $20,000 income, is nearly 1/3rd larger, than the AVERAGE for the entire country of Italy.

By any economically viable measure, our standard of living is MUCH higher than that of Europe.

Further, life expectancy is higher in the US, when you exclude fatal injury. Americans die in homicide and auto accidents, more than in Europe. This is because we like our cars. Obviously, if you live in Europe, and can't afford a car, you have a lower chance of dying. But that would hardly be considered a sign of higher wealth and living standards.

And again, I've been to Europe. I've seen their poor. To claim that the poor in Europe are better off than the poor in the US... is just flat out laughable. I'm not even going to bother with that one.

Secondly, we've drastically increased the regulations, controls, and the massive spending of government. As government controls and limits the economy, that automatically means a reduction in advancement. Similarly, as government sucks up ever growing amounts of money, and diverts it to less, or zero value investments, that reduces the growth of the economy.

The government doesn't suck up money, it's the issuer of the currency, so it doesn't need to confiscate that which it issues. But yeah, government spending can effect GDP, allocation of real resources, and capital formation just not in the way you seem to think.

Really.... Funny because my pay stub clearly says that I earned $6,000, that I don't have. So unless you propose the Martian Money Mice, came and ate $6,000 out of my check, it would seem to me that government sucked up that money.... and given my pay stub says they did, I'm willing to bet they did.

Unionization had nothing to do with it. I doubt there is any worth while conclusions that can be made from comparing Union membership and GDP, since there is simply too much non-union GDP created, and far too many external factors.

The decimation of unions has resulted in income inequality, less output and decreased corporate profits in the aggregate data sets I looked up. To say that unions are bad for an economy is revisionism of the highest order.

Also, I forgot to mention that weekly earnings are now far lower than they were in 1968. For example, CEO compensation packages have went from 40 times a workers salary to over 400 times a workers salary. In another two decades, if this continues, the US will resemble something closer to Mexico.

[/QUOTE]

Well get the employees working at Toyota, and the ex-employees that used to work for GM, and tell them both that it was the lack of Unions that increased income inequality. After they laugh at you and walk away, I'll post the video on Youtube, and we'll discuss the comments by all the people about whose opinion matches reality.

CEO compensation should increase faster than employee compensation. This is natural and normal, and good.

Say I invest into building a store, and the store makes me $150K a year.

Now, I open a second store, and it makes me $150K a year.

My income is now $300K. Tell me, do the economic fundamentals of the second store double? Can I pay the workers twice as much?

No, the economic fundamentals of the first store, are exactly the same as second.

Say I open 100 stores. Now my income is $15 Million.

Can I pay the employees of all the stores, 100 times as much money? Of course not. The economics of each store, is exactly the same as the original store, that only made $150K in profit.

The idea that CEO pay should only increase in direct relation to employee pay, is both absolutely idiotic, but it's also incredibly destructive.

If you were to limit my income, to only 40x a workers salary, once I hit that mark, why would I ever bother to expand the business? Why would I ever produce more goods that grow the economy? Why would I ever create more jobs?

If my lowest paid worker is $20,000 a year, once I opened 5 stores, I would never bother to open another one. 95 stores serving millions of customers, and providing thousands on thousands of jobs, would never exist, and never be created. The entire country would be worse off.

 

[Kimura]

Are you implying the implication alone proves causation?

Are you saying that questioning your personal interpretation and conclusion from the data, means I'm questioning the data itself?

It is possible that your interpretation and conclusions are wrong, even if the data is right.

I'm saying, according to the available data, GDP grew more when there was more union membership, and annual compounded corporate profits were higher.

The data available, not just from, demonstrates that the deterioration of unions have resulted in a collapse of incomes.

I've been to Europe, and it's not nearly as close to us, as the left portrays. Not by a long shot. They are not poor.... didn't say that... but comparatively, we're miles and miles beyond where they are.

Logically, our ability to advance by leaps and bounds, is limited because there is no one ahead of us.

'in terms of quality of life'. That's subjective. Quality of life for me, is being able to own a massive luxury car, with leather interior, that can fit 5 people, and pull a boat, even though I make less than $20K a year. Can I do that in Italy? Nope. I've been there.

How do you define luxury car? You're not buying a 55K SUV on 20K per year.

The average home size in Europe, and especially Italy, is a fraction of what it is here.

To compare, again, I earn $20K a year, and my home is 1.2K sq feet. Or... 111 sq Meters. And I have two bedrooms, and I have 1.5 bath, and I have a fully furnished basement.

Other countries have different building codes, zoning laws, etc.

For example, in Italy, people don't want new builds. They don't want them in their localities, and home buyers aren't willing to shell out 300,000 Euro for a 5 bedroom, 3.5 bath in say.....Bassano del Grappa, Pudua or Vicenza. For example, they conducted a survey in Veneto and found the vast majority of local politicians don't want any new home construction (besides the fact Italian banks aren't lending for new construction).

By any economically viable measure, our standard of living is MUCH higher than that of Europe.

And again, I've been to Europe. I've seen their poor. To claim that the poor in Europe are better off than the poor in the US... is just flat out laughable. I'm not even going to bother with that one.

Um....no it's not. The claim that we in the US have a higher standard of living is based on the US having a higher average income than most EU countries. This doesn't relate to income distribution. For example, if Warren Buffet walked into Outback Steakhouse, all the patrons would see their average income increase by hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars, depending on how many people were in the restaurant.

Also, since Americans have higher average incomes, why do most Europeans have a higher savings rate than Americans? Quality of life also encompasses things like health care, free education, institutions, etc.

Around 20% of American children live below the poverty line, so do 23% of the elderly, these are some of the highest numbers in the western world.

Further, life expectancy is higher in the US, when you exclude fatal injury. Americans die in homicide and auto accidents, more than in Europe. This is because we like our cars. Obviously, if you live in Europe, and can't afford a car, you have a lower chance of dying. But that would hardly be considered a sign of higher wealth and living standards.

I'm glad you mentioned auto accidents. US life expectancy is currently 79 and 80 if we factor in auto deaths. However, Germany is 81, Japan is 83 and Canada is like 82. Three additional years is fairly significant.

In the US, we spend two to three times more on health care, but we're at the bottom of the barrel, in terms of infant mortality(29th), life expectancy, and major diseases. We also have 60% more cancer cases than our European partners.

We have kick ass medical technology but a laughable delivery system that is extremely inefficient compared to the other OECD counties. People babble on about we have the awesome system but the numbers tell us the reality.

Really.... Funny because my pay stub clearly says that I earned $6,000, that I don't have. So unless you propose the Martian Money Mice, came and ate $6,000 out of my check, it would seem to me that government sucked up that money.... and given my pay stub says they did, I'm willing to bet they did.

The federal government taxes to regulate aggregate demand among other things, but it's not to raise revenue, although this is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.

Unionization had nothing to do with it. I doubt there is any worth while conclusions that can be made from comparing Union membership and GDP, since there is simply too much non-union GDP created, and far too many external factors.

The decimation of unions has resulted in income inequality, less output and decreased corporate profits in the aggregate data sets I looked up. To say that unions are bad for an economy is revisionism of the highest order.

Well get the employees working at Toyota, and the ex-employees that used to work for GM, and tell them both that it was the lack of Unions that increased income inequality. After they laugh at you and walk away, I'll post the video on YouTube, and we'll discuss the comments by all the people about whose opinion matches reality.

I'm interested in data sets, not your preconceived biases towards unions and collective bargaining. Why is it that Germany pays their autoworkers around twice as much as we do and why do they sell more automobiles then we do?

CEO compensation should increase faster than employee compensation. This is natural and normal, and good.

Say I invest into building a store, and the store makes me $150K a year.

Now, I open a second store, and it makes me $150K a year.

My income is now $300K. Tell me, do the economic fundamentals of the second store double? Can I pay the workers twice as much?

No, the economic fundamentals of the first store, are exactly the same as second.

Say I open 100 stores. Now my income is $15 Million.

Can I pay the employees of all the stores, 100 times as much money? Of course not. The economics of each store, is exactly the same as the original store, that only made $150K in profit.

The idea that CEO pay should only increase in direct relation to employee pay, is both absolutely idiotic, but it's also incredibly destructive.

If you were to limit my income, to only 40x a workers salary, once I hit that mark, why would I ever bother to expand the business? Why would I ever produce more goods that grow the economy? Why would I ever create more jobs?

If my lowest paid worker is $20,000 a year, once I opened 5 stores, I would never bother to open another one. 95 stores serving millions of customers, and providing thousands on thousands of jobs, would never exist, and never be created. The entire country would be worse off.

It's not a good thing at all. The ratio between pay for CEOs and workers has increased 1000% since about 1950. This data is freely available. Your average Fortune 500 CEO makes 204 times more than regular workers. This ratio has increased from 20-to-1 in 1950, to 42-to-1 in 1980, and 120-to-1 in 2000.

The excessive amount of income going to the top 1%, and the fact that the vast majority of these activities are economically useless, such as returns on stocks or serving as a CEO in the finance sector, for example, has finally demonstrated that marginal productivity theory is bullshit. It’s become impossible to rationalize this concentration of wealth among those at the very top of the pyramid with the lame idea people ultimately get what they deserve mostly due to their marginal contributions to production.

The problem, in the end, after all the analysis, is that capitalists are almost pathologically driven to seek economic rent to grab a higher percentage of value than is given to workers, regardless of any type of productive contribution.

Hence, why we need unions and collective bargaining.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

To compare, again, I earn $20K a year, and my home is 1.2K sq feet. Or... 111 sq Meters. And I have two bedrooms, and I have 1.5 bath, and I have a fully furnished basement.

My home, on my massive $20,000 income, is nearly 1/3rd larger, than the AVERAGE for the entire country of Italy.

[...]

You earn $20k a year and you are anti-union. Somehow that just doesn't compute for me.

My son-in-law drives an 18-wheeler for UPS. He makes airport runs on the 4-12 PM shift. With 4-6 overtime hours per week he averages around $75k a year. That's more than I earned with a college degree -- and he didn't graduate from high-school. He is a happy Teamster who likes his job -- and there are a lot more like him.

Were it not for the Teamsters Union Donald would be lucky to earn $20k for doing the same job! And in spite of paying its drivers excellent hourly wages and providing them with premium benefits, UPS remains a very high profit corporation. That is but one example of why your position is rather hollow and misleading.

I don't know what you do or whom you work for, but if you enjoy an 8-hour day, a 40-hour week, and if you have a paid vacation, and if your boss treats you with civil respect you should be thanking the union movement for those basic but important benefits. Because the American worker had a very hard way to go before a lot of blood was shed on behalf of today's generation of workers -- many of whom are spoiled and ungrateful.