When has a union created a job?

[Dragon]

The only way a union can create jobs is by assimilating other non-union companies into their collective.

It's easy to see that this is untrue by reference to history. There has never been a time in this country when the majority of workers belonged to a union; the highest union strength as a percentage was 39% of the private-sector work force, achieved in 1959.

Also, the mechanism presented in the rest of your post is simply not the way that unions create jobs and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (even if it were possible, which it's not).

Higher wages = more consumer demand. More consumer demand = more investment to produce goods and services. More investment = more jobs. It's really quite simple and requires no dubious total control over what goods are put on the market, which unions have never achieved and don't even strive for.

When unions were strong in this country, wages were high (not only in union shops; the way strong unions push up wages across the board is well documented) and so was consumer demand. I'm referring to the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and on into the early 1970s. The economy performed better during those three decades than at any time in our history before or since. Recessions were shorter and milder, and times of growth stronger with fuller employment. Growth in per capita GDP was higher than in either the earlier or later decades (both of which featured weaker unions, as well as other differences contributing to wider income gaps) by more than two to one.

Employers dislike unions because they keep wages, and so labor costs, high. But for that very reason, unions are good for the economy. Unions create jobs.

Actually it's the investment of business that makes it possible for corporations to create a product that consumers will WANT to purchase for themselves. Without investment capitol there is no "reality" behind the creative process. Where would Apple be if there were no investors to go behind such creative ideas as the i-Phone, i-Pad, or i-Tunes? How many consumers have a desire to own an Blu-Ray player, Compact Disc, LCD or Plasma because of the investments behind the creation?

There are two answers to this. One is that you, like Grunt, don't seem to understand what "demand" means. Demand is not desire, or rather, desire is only one necessary component of demand. Demand doesn't just mean that people want a product -- it means they want it and have the money to buy it. And that's where wages, and hence unions, come into the picture.

The second is that a world "without investment capital" is not something we ever need to fear. Sure, if all investment capital were to magically and mysteriously vanish into the ether, we'd be in a bad way, but that simply isn't going to happen. The reality is that a modern industrial economy always has more investment capital that it can invest in the production of wealth. The limiting factor on investment is never how much capital exists, but always how much investment is justified by consumer demand, because the latter is always less than the former.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Or for that matter.. when has a group of poor people created jobs?

Or why don't we declare ALL businesses are NONPROFIT!

Which means there will be committees , i.e. central planners in D.C. that will tell all oil, transportation, manufacturers how often they will drill, or pump or when cars can be on the roads, or how many iPads can be built because
Central planning" says there isn't enough lithium available for the batteries because Central planning hasn't signed the Afghanistan agreement from China!

NOT for profits meaning NO Federal income/state/local/sales or property taxes!

Come on all of you are in favor of withdrawing from these evil profit making banks and putting into those kindly nonprofit credit unions right???
AFter all they have "union" in their name!

So who will pay the property taxes after all NONPROFITS are exempt!

Again.. tell me all you OWS supporters.. why not do away with ALL evil for profit companies?

Because that seems to be the logical extension!

The idea of 'creating a job' is ridiculous. They don't come into existence by 'creating' them. Companies hire people, they don't create them. If a company is not hiring, they are not hiring. sorry. conservatives insistence on the simple number of jobs created is so overly simplistic, and worse or their methods or ideas for making the situation better... even worse is how they blame others when they have no original ideas of their own, other than to 'take it easy on the rich.' The right is a joke... I don't know how you all support your own logic without laughing at yourself.

Again it's the rich who own the capitol who want to "risk" investing in the creative process to build a product they believe someone may want to buy. The Creative ideas of the Model T, the telephone, the phonograph, airplane, or the incandescent light bulb did not come from government funding but personal investment or investors. It's the Rich, and the capitalist process to make a profit, that sparked many of the latest jumps in technology and innovation. When you take away the profit of investment, and give it to the Federal Government in a form of tax increases, you pull FROM the capital of investment that is needed to build an economy. The Rich also are more free to make major purchases, such as yachts, elegant dinners, high end cars, and mansions, when taxes are reduced. They build a NEED to employ workers who build and maintain luxury boats, employ waiters, employ limo drivers, employ autoworkers of luxury model vehicles, etc. When has government ever been able to cost effectively create and maintain employment on the long term? Where has the vast majority of the creative process, which led to major steps in innovation in the United States History, been developed . . . through private industry or government funding?

 

[Dragon]

Again it's the rich who own the capitol who want to "risk" investing in the creative process to build a product they believe someone may want to buy.

Unlike the political and economic beliefs of conservatives, investment decisions by holders of capital are fact-based. That means that when they "believe someone may want to buy" a product, they:

1) Have some reasonable basis for that belief, and

2) ALSO believe that those who want to buy the product can afford to do so.

If a holder of capital doesn't have a good reason that people will both want AND BE ABLE to buy his product, he WILL NOT invest in producing it.

Consider a potential investor who has a ten million dollars in available capital. He could invest, let's say five million of that in a factory to produce a new product, computer-controlled tennis shoes. The economy is in a shambles around him, though, with many people out of work, businesses failing left and right because the people don't have enough money to buy their products. If he invests that million dollars hiring people and producing something to put on the market, no matter whether people like the product or not, no matter how much they may WANT to buy it, they WON'T buy it because they CAN'T buy it. And that means his five million bucks will be LOST. And that means he won't invest it.

Now, the government looks at this situation and decides what to do about it. The options are as follows:

1) Invest fifteen million dollars in a public-works project that will hire a lot of unemployed people and put money in their pockets. This will require raising taxes so the guy with ten million dollars only has eight million.

2) Give rich people a tax cut that will give our hypothetical investor another two million dollars, meaning he'll have twelve million dollars in capital rather than his current ten million.

Rational people observe that he isn't investing his current ten million, so giving hm another two million won't do much of anything, while giving people jobs and more money to spend will maybe make it profitable for him to invest five million of the eight million he has left. They would therefore go with option 1.

Conservatives, who don't care about facts, instead go with option 2, because it fits their belief-system, facts be damned.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Actually it's the investment of business that makes it possible for corporations to create a product that consumers will WANT to purchase for themselves. Without investment capitol there is no "reality" behind the creative process. Where would Apple be if there were no investors to go behind such creative ideas as the i-Phone, i-Pad, or i-Tunes? How many consumers have a desire to own an Blu-Ray player, Compact Disc, LCD or Plasma because of the investments behind the creation?

There are two answers to this. One is that you, like Grunt, don't seem to understand what "demand" means. Demand is not desire, or rather, desire is only one necessary component of demand. Demand doesn't just mean that people want a product -- it means they want it and have the money to buy it. And that's where wages, and hence unions, come into the picture.

The second is that a world "without investment capital" is not something we ever need to fear. Sure, if all investment capital were to magically and mysteriously vanish into the ether, we'd be in a bad way, but that simply isn't going to happen. The reality is that a modern industrial economy always has more investment capital that it can invest in the production of wealth. The limiting factor on investment is never how much capital exists, but always how much investment is justified by consumer demand, because the latter is always less than the former.

In short. No. When Apple released the creation of the i-Pad, the ability for someone to make a purchase wasn't based upon whether they earned "union" type wages. Do you have any statistics that show the purchase of an i-pad was limited to those of a higher income bracket, like your previous UNION argument? Unions, as you have mentioned don't have a big enough stake in the private sector in the United States. Yet the i-Pad was still a major technology success based upon the need to own one. The United States consumer thrives on purchasing the latest of technologies. Higher wages does NOT equal more consumer demand, as union wages only lead to an increase in cost to build the product. This in turn, makes the product only affordable to only those with higher incomes. Higher costs along with the necessity for a higher income can actually reduce demand, case in point - how many consumers purchased a Chevy Volt in comparison to a Honda Accord or Volkswagon Beetle? Chevy Volt is after all a UNION product with a high price tag, one that can only be offset through government incentives. Without such incentives do you honestly believe a Chevy Volt will employ more jobs, where production affordability outreaches a product that's cost effective for the needs of the consumer?

 

[healthmyths]

...and it's blatantly obvious that unions and union organizers are marxist. If you agree with marxism, I'd like to say more power to you and what have you- but in all honesty- get out of our country.

Here is a FACT about unions that is little known or mentioned-

In a non-union job - a salary might be say, 25 or 26 $ per hour, right?

In a union job, that same position would cost the employer 43-46 $ per hour.

Pulling numbers out of your ass? My wife is an RN and makes about $26/hour for the Commonwealth of PA...She's also a member of SEIU. Furthermore... that $26/hour is after 23 years of Service. Nothing like exaggerating to cause fear... well... why should I be surprised... that's what right wingers do.

A more factual comparison is that a non-union job might pay $10/hour and the same job in a union might pay $13, Plus the Union job will have a better benefits package.

You know... I love this mythological thinking from you guys. Big Business can have scads of lawyers and Lobbyists to represent their interests... but labor shouldn't be allowed to have anything to represent their NEEDS. That's how fucking brainwashed you guys are. ANYTHING that Faux News and the Gods of AM Radio say... you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

HEY.. tell me if the UNION is so good, why are members FORCED to join?
If it is so wonderful, why are their DUES taken out without the members having a choice?
Finally... why does 90% of union donations go to Democrats?
Yet the Union membership is no 90% Democrats!
Is that FAIR??
Sounds like your wife is a slave to some union leader and I wonder if she has to perform any other services to that Service UNION!!!

 

[Cammmpbell]

...and it's blatantly obvious that unions and union organizers are marxist. If you agree with marxism, I'd like to say more power to you and what have you- but in all honesty- get out of our country.

Here is a FACT about unions that is little known or mentioned-

In a non-union job - a salary might be say, 25 or 26 $ per hour, right?

In a union job, that same position would cost the employer 43-46 $ per hour.

Pulling numbers out of your ass? My wife is an RN and makes about $26/hour for the Commonwealth of PA...She's also a member of SEIU. Furthermore... that $26/hour is after 23 years of Service. Nothing like exaggerating to cause fear... well... why should I be surprised... that's what right wingers do.

A more factual comparison is that a non-union job might pay $10/hour and the same job in a union might pay $13, Plus the Union job will have a better benefits package.

You know... I love this mythological thinking from you guys. Big Business can have scads of lawyers and Lobbyists to represent their interests... but labor shouldn't be allowed to have anything to represent their NEEDS. That's how fucking brainwashed you guys are. ANYTHING that Faux News and the Gods of AM Radio say... you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

HEY.. tell me if the UNION is so good, why are members FORCED to join?
If it is so wonderful, why are their DUES taken out without the members having a choice?
Finally... why does 90% of union donations go to Democrats?
Yet the Union membership is no 90% Democrats!
Is that FAIR??
Sounds like your wife is a slave to some union leader and I wonder if she has to perform any other services to that Service UNION!!!

That my friend is up to the state legislatures. It has everything to do with a states laws about "Right To Work."

 

[Dragon]

When Apple released the creation of the i-Pad, the ability for someone to make a purchase wasn't based upon whether they earned "union" type wages. Do you have any statistics that show the purchase of an i-pad was limited to those of a higher income bracket, like your previous UNION argument?

LOL. No draconian bureaucracy required. The iPad costs $500 and up. Therefore, the only people who can buy iPads are those who have $500 or more to spend on such a gadget. This is not a small amount of money; many people are surely interested in having one who have not bought one because they can't afford it. Thus, the more money people have to spend, the more iPads will be sold (all else being equal). This is really pretty obvious, and is a function of the market, not of any silly requirement by Apple that everyone who buys an iPad have a union job. Obviously, though, people with union jobs will be more likely to buy an iPad than people who work for not very much money, or who are unemployed.

Higher wages does NOT equal more consumer demand, as union wages only lead to an increase in cost to build the product. This in turn, makes the product only affordable to only those with higher incomes.

As I've said before, conservative economics is not fact-based. If it were, you would have at least checked this statement out before posting it. It is not true. Prices do not automatically rise to reflect cost of production. Prices are, rather, set to reflect what the customer will pay. The more is charged for a product, the fewer will buy it; however, the more is charged for it, the more revenue the seller will gain per sale. There is a "sweet spot" where these two opposing trend lines cross, and where the company will maximize its total sales revenue. Cost of production only impacts this when it is such that a higher price than the "sweet spot" must be charged in order to be profitable.

Union wages predominated U.S. manufacturing in the 1950s and 1960s, and they still dominate manufacturing in many advanced foreign countries. This does not drive the prices of products from those countries, e.g. German automobiles, to a noncompetitive point.

The statement "higher wages do not increase consumer demand" is simply a statement from ignorance. Anyone who knows anything about basic economics knows that it is nonsense.

Chevy Volt is after all a UNION product

So is a Volkswagen Beetle. Or, for that matter, a BMW. You get what you pay for, and that's really all you're saying here.

 

[Dragon]

HEY.. tell me if the UNION is so good, why are members FORCED to join?
If it is so wonderful, why are their DUES taken out without the members having a choice?

If you work for a union shop, you get the same benefit from that whether you are a member of the union or not. Asking why, under those circumstances, people have to be required to pay the union dues, is asking why people wouldn't want to get something for nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unions don't create Jobs, they save them. Sheesh, some of you 1%ers really need a dose of reality.

Tell that to Dodge and General Motors Corporations.

You could add:
American Motors Corp
Many steel companies.
Most railroad companies.

In fact any industry that was heavily unionized in the 1920s became obsolete by the 1970s because of high labor costs. The truth is that unions cost jobs. This should be obvious because they demand above-market wages. When the price of something is fixed above the market cost shortages result. This is Econ101.

 

[JoeB131]

Unions have created many jobs...

They created jobs with a 40 hour workweek
They created jobs with fair hiring and promotion opportunitiesThey created jobs with vacation and health benefits
They created jobs where you work in a safe work environment
They created jobs where you don't have to put up with sexual harassment to remain employed

Yes, we can all be thankful for the jobs unions have created

Except they didn't really do a lot of those things. A lot of those things, companies did without the unions. I work in a non-union shop where the GM is a hawk on safety. Why? Because one lost time accident can erase weeks of profits.

But I want to emphasize the one in Red. Who gets to determine "fair hiring and promotion"?

Obviously, it's not "fair hiring" when you can only get a job if you are IN the union, and then when you get the job will be determined not on your work performance, but your seniority.

Also, "Health benefits" didn't come about because of unions. They came about because during WWII, when they drafted 16 million guys and unemployment dropped to 2%, the only way to keep companies from poaching each others workers with higher wages was to impose wage and price freezes and regulate who could change jobs. So the only way companies could attract top talent was to offer health insurance as a side benefit.

 

[bripat9643]

Poor people start businesses all the time.

Why do you hate poor people so much?

Can you name one of these businesses?

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly because they are the job creators!

How do you figure poor people are job creators?

 

[bripat9643]

When has a union created a job?

When it imposed the eight-hour day on American industry it created millions of jobs.

The eight hour day was standard before any union contract required it. Henry Ford created the 8 hour day, not some sleazy union.

 

[Cammmpbell]

When has a union created a job?

When it imposed the eight-hour day on American industry it created millions of jobs.

The eight hour day was standard before any union contract required it. Henry Ford created the 8 hour day, not some sleazy union.

Yeah...for Ford workers. He had a monopoly on auto sales. Rich business men always have a selfish motive attached to every move they make.

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families. In the late 30's my daddy worked in a box factory for $3.50 a week and ruptured himself lifting from a skid...after the second day he missed they replaced him. There was no such thing as vacation, sick leave, health insurance, retirement etc. Unless you were around during the depression you don't have a goddam clue what you're talking about.

 

[KissMy]

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families.

Where did you ever see that?

 

[Cammmpbell]

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families.

Where did you ever see that?

West Tennessee during 1939, 1940 and 1941. The unemployment rate almost reached 50%. The $0.75 a day work was as field laborers on farms. I'm going on 78 years old. Like I said...people who have never seen what it used to be like before unions don't have a clue. Don't worry...right now they're in the middle of a scheme which when it comes to fruition will result in what used to be the middle class in America will be able to earn proportionately about what a worker in Maylasia makes.

The wealthy and those in control have pulled off a scam which resulted in the government handing nearly a trillion dollars to banks with no directions and no restrictions on how they used it. Bush, Paulson and Bernanke pulled it off. They convinced the congress that the sky would fall within weeks if they didn't approved it. Then...Bernanke sent another three trillion to banks from the Fed at a couple of percent interest so they never would have to miss a bonus for their already wealthy bankers.

Watch what the banks do if this Occupy movement continues to gather momentum...they will shut the banks down and we will have another great depression. What do they have to lose...they will still be rich as six feet up a bull's ass.

 

[JoeB131]

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families. In the late 30's my daddy worked in a box factory for $3.50 a week and ruptured himself lifting from a skid...after the second day he missed they replaced him. There was no such thing as vacation, sick leave, health insurance, retirement etc. Unless you were around during the depression you don't have a goddam clue what you're talking about.

And again, who pays for all this shit?

It strikes me that unionism has become about paying people to do nothing. Well, the money has to come from somewhere..

 

[KissMy]

I saw men begging for 12 hour a day jobs to make $0.75 a day and their mid day meal. I saw grown men cry because they were unable to put food on the table for their families.

Where did you ever see that?

West Tennessee during 1939, 1940 and 1941. The unemployment rate almost reached 50%. The $0.75 a day work was as field laborers on farms. I'm going on 78 years old. Like I said...people who have never seen what it used to be like before unions don't have a clue. Don't worry...right now they're in the middle of a scheme which when it comes to fruition will result in what used to be the middle class in America will be able to earn proportionately about what a worker in Maylasia makes.

The wealthy and those in control have pulled off a scam which resulted in the government handing nearly a trillion dollars to banks with no directions and no restrictions on how they used it. Bush, Paulson and Bernanke pulled it off. They convinced the congress that the sky would fall within weeks if they didn't approved it. Then...Bernanke sent another three trillion to banks from the Fed at a couple of percent interest so they never would have to miss a bonus for their already wealthy bankers.

Watch what the banks do if this Occupy movement continues to gather momentum...they will shut the banks down and we will have another great depression. What do they have to lose...they will still be rich as six feet up a bull's ass.

We now have the department of labor, minimum wage & many other laws protecting workers rights. Workers can now get a fair shake. I don't mind if workers want to unionize in private industry because the free market will decide if that company survives vs a non-union one. I do resent government bailing out the unionized companies creating an unleveled playing field that bankrupts the non-union ones.

The public sector employees should never be allowed to unionize because it is a defacto monopoly who just keeps on taxing the citizens or devaluing their savings. It is a complete outrage & must be stopped at all cost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How poor does the American working class have to get before conservatives will stop bitching about them?

 

[Full-Auto]

How poor does the American working class have to get before conservatives will stop bitching about them?

They are not bitching about the working class LIAR.

Its the moucher class.