- This topic has 305 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM #16095July 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM #436938Allan from FallbrookParticipant
[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:[/quote]
Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.
I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.
See the following quote from Vedder:
While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.
* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.
Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.
Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf
It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.
Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.
July 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM #437139Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:[/quote]
Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.
I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.
See the following quote from Vedder:
While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.
* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.
Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.
Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf
It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.
Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.
July 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM #437454Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:[/quote]
Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.
I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.
See the following quote from Vedder:
While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.
* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.
Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.
Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf
It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.
Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.
July 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM #437524Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:[/quote]
Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.
I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.
See the following quote from Vedder:
While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.
* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.
Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.
Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf
It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.
Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.
July 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM #437689Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:[/quote]
Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.
I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.
See the following quote from Vedder:
While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.
* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.
Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.
Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:
http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf
It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.
Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.
July 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM #436972Rt.66ParticipantYou are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.
We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.
If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?
Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.
July 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM #437173Rt.66ParticipantYou are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.
We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.
If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?
Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.
July 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM #437488Rt.66ParticipantYou are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.
We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.
If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?
Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.
July 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM #437559Rt.66ParticipantYou are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.
We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.
If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?
Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.
July 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM #437724Rt.66ParticipantYou are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.
We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.
If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?
Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.
July 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM #436977patientrenterParticipantRt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.
So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.
Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.
And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.
I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?
July 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM #437178patientrenterParticipantRt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.
So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.
Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.
And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.
I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?
July 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM #437493patientrenterParticipantRt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.
So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.
Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.
And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.
I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?
July 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM #437564patientrenterParticipantRt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.
So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.
Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.
And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.
I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.