my personal observations for $15 an hour minimum

[Dadoalex]

I have a better idea. Encourage companies to form their own worker councils like a lot of German companies have. Germany doesn't bother with unions usually, because these worker councils are essentially internal unions, which function far better than our typical unions. The reason for this is that an internal body has a vested interest in efficiency, whereas an outside body has a vested interest in just maximizing its fees and revenue.

I'm willing to listen to ideas of making unions more responsive to their workers needs and I'm not that familiar with German labor law but have such a meeting at wal mart and they will fire every worker and close the store. They've done it which is why we need laws supporting unions at the federal level.

Worker councils are organized by the management of the company. So, it would require the consent of management. I realize that work culture is very different in the US as compared with Germany, which is why Walmart would oppose something like this. A lot of corporate culture in America overall is ironically woke on social issues but not exactly worker-friendly on economic issues. It shows just how disingenuous their virtue signaling is. It's like how Nike supports BLM but profits off of Uyghur slave labor.

Not every company is run by assholes though.

Management and Labor should be hand in glove partners. After all, they share a common goal. The success of the company.
Again, I can't speak for Germany but the attitude from management in this country has traditionally been "give as little as you can."
Conversely, when unions organized they approached the effort with "get as much as we can."
The battle lines were set. Greed, not the success of the company, would drive every aspect of the relationship.
But if the sides could approach the relationship as partners rather than enemies then both would benefit.

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

 

[danielpalos]

Labor must be able to afford our first-world economy. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage can help put an institutional upward pressure on wages.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Lose 2 world wars
Suffer decades of privation
Have the country divided for 50 years...

Maybe there's a better way?

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law; it is an entitlement.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law; it is an entitlement.

No, you're not.
That is a lie.
You're lobbying for removal of equal protections.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law; it is an entitlement.

No, you're not.
That is a lie.
You're lobbying for removal of equal protections.

How did you reach that conclusion? Are you on the Right Wing?

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Lose 2 world wars
Suffer decades of privation
Have the country divided for 50 years...

Maybe there's a better way?

Well, Germany had a pretty solid work culture before even WW1. Also, they had socialized healthcare before that.

The real change that needs to happen here is in our education system. We push academics too much and trades too little. We have a massive shortage of many blue collar trades.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

Agreed, which is why I also support more privatization of education. If more areas had charter schools or private schools to pick from, it would greatly improve overall results.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

Co-op style businesses work well for certain industries, but they're only feasible when there isn't a wide variety of different skill sets involved. It's why you'll see them with grocery stores, but not, say, pharmaceutical companies.

Germany's approach is broader in its applicability, because it allows for democratic decision making in every business while still being flexible in management.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

The problem with the equality in socialism is that it's usually just equal suffering. Now, socialization can sometimes work, but that's not the same thing as socialism as an economic system.

It's the difference between Venezuela and Sweden. Sweden socializes certain amenities but has a capitalistic economy. Venezuela has a socialistic economy.

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

UBI makes more sense than unemployment insurance, if you end all other forms of welfare (including corporate welfare).

 

[Utilitarian]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.

Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.

A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.

A market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".

Ahhhhh

You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.

I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.

Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.

Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.

Don't know where you're from but I'm from "At Will For Less" Florida and getting unemployment compensation, if you can navigate the process, is next to impossible.

So, try this time to actually respond to the post.

Protecting barbarism as we have in Florida is not part of a solution.

Generally speaking, the states that are most unionized are stagnating economically. Industry tends to move to states that are at-will. So, if Florida ceased being at-will, it would become poorer than it already is due to losing industries.

The states that manage to still grow despite unionization usually have a lot of capital to begin with. New York has always been one of the wealthier states in the country, so it can afford to unionize, so to speak. California is similar. You'll notice the same didn't work out for Michigan, Ohio, or Illinois.

Illinois, in particular, is an interesting case, because Chicago has plenty of money, but the state overall is losing population. People are moving to neighboring states, like Indiana. Chicago has enough capital to survive for now, but if you're working class, it's not a good place to be. It's much easier to start a business in Indiana, for example.

 

[danielpalos]

There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.

Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.

If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.

You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.

Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.

Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.

I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.

Agreed, which is why I also support more privatization of education. If more areas had charter schools or private schools to pick from, it would greatly improve overall results.

In a vacuum of special pleading, I agree with you.