Unions = a large middle class

[maxx]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010602824.html
"... The one great period of broadly shared prosperity in U.S. history remains the three decades following World War II, which, anything but coincidentally, is the one period in which America had high levels of unionization. The business lobby is throwing big money into ads opposing the Employee Free Choice Act [[EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to join unions, but one concern it has neglected to address is how the United States can again become a land of broad-based affluence with private-sector unionization at its current 7 percent level. There is no historic precedent for mass prosperity absent mass collective bargaining. The model cannot be constructed..."

[bailey]

If ever there was an example of "correlation not implying causation" it's that article. There are a whole host of variables that are not being addressed. I mean one could easily say there were no Ipods during that period, thus we should all burn our Ipods and we'll be back to prosperity.

[Detroitnerd]

If ever there was an example of "correlation not implying causation" it's that article. There are a whole host of variables that are not being addressed. I mean one could easily say there were no Ipods during that period, thus we should all burn our Ipods and we'll be back to prosperity.

I think those blinders are cutting off the blood supply to your brain.

[Gyro]

Bailey is technically right in a trivial way that doesn't mean anything.
What other institutions have been aggressively working for the interests of the middle class other than unions? Certainly not the middle-class Teabagers and Republicans who have fallen prey to the right wing anti-union demagogues and who oppose even trivial increases to the minimum wage. So now when the middle-class has seen no growth in income in 30 years while the wealthy have seen huge gains, why should we doubt this correlation?

[Johnlodge]

If that's the case, how do you explain this graph?

[Mikeg]

If ever there was an example of "correlation not implying causation" it's that article. There are a whole host of variables that are not being addressed.

Let's see - what else might have happened in the years immediately after the end of WW II that might have contributed to the "broadly shared prosperity" that the author singularly attributes to "high levels of unionization":

• Voters gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans in 1946, ending 14 years of total Democrat control.of the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government.
• In 1947, the Republican 80th Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act and overrode President Truman's veto to make it the law of the land.
• The 80th Congress undid the many war-time controls that still existed and returned the country to a more market-oriented economy, just in time to allow manufacturers to meet the pent-up consumer demand.
• In 1952, voters gave Republicans total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government
• During the 1950s and 1960s, technological advancements in transportation, communications and air conditioning - coupled with massive federal infrastructure spending and fueled by the growing number of states which passed right-to-work laws as permitted by Taft-Hartley - broke the northeastern and north central region's long-held dominance in the areas of manufacturing, finance and politics, resulting in impressive growth and prosperity in the western and southern regions of the country.

[Stosh]

Let's see - what else might have happened in the years immediately after the end of WW II that might have contributed to the "broadly shared prosperity" that the author singularly attributes to "high levels of unionization":

• Voters gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans in 1946, ending 14 years of total Democrat control.of the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government.
• In 1947, the Republican 80th Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act and overrode President Truman's veto to make it the law of the land.
• The 80th Congress undid the many war-time controls that still existed and returned the country to a more market-oriented economy, just in time to allow manufacturers to meet the pent-up consumer demand.
• In 1952, voters gave Republicans total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government
• During the 1950s and 1960s, technological advancements in transportation, communications and air conditioning - coupled with massive federal infrastructure spending and fueled by the growing number of states which passed right-to-work laws as permitted by Taft-Hartley - broke the northeastern and north central region's long-held dominance in the areas of manufacturing, finance and politics, resulting in impressive growth and prosperity in the western and southern regions of the country.

Naturally this is correct, unfortunately, or more lilely a error of purposeful omission, you fail to mention the recession in 1958, caused directly by having the Republicans doing exactly what you mentioned. The republicans were removed from positions of power after that, where the prosperity came in.

[Det_ard]

Maxx is right. Our region was and still is heavily unionized and we're doing great! Our unemployment is low and our incomes keep going up faster than any other state! Yay unions!

[Gyro]

It seems to absolutely devoid of any meaning whatsoever! Kind of like Republican deficit-reduction promises, Teabaggers' indignation over the Anti-Christ living in the White House, and the Pope's remorse for protecting child molesters.

I'm gonna save that one!

[mjs]

What other institutions have been aggressively working for the interests of the middle class other than unions? Certainly not the middle-class Teabagers . . . who have fallen prey to the right wing anti-union demagogues and who oppose even trivial increases to the minimum wage.

Teabaggers' indignation over the Anti-Christ living in the White House.

Talk about making correlations without support. There are polls on what self proclaimed tea partiers believe compared to what the general public and self proclaimed democrats and republicans believe. Show me the polling data that support your claims on tea party platforms.

Not being as formal as the republican and democratic parties, alot of different people claim to speak on behalf of those that identify with the tea party. Don't quote that propagandist trash; you need data to convince me. The only common platform is pay your bills as they come due and acknowledge the tenth amendment. Religion, heritage, unions, and minimum wage don't affect these goals. We not only don't care if that serves to undermine crooks from both parties, we actually desire it.

BTW, I'm shocked anyone can live on minimum wage and believe raising it is one of the most intelligent ways to create a healthy wealth distribution. I'm also management in a union shop and I don't mind the union because my bosses would most certainly work them to death and pay them garbage otherwise. If a union shop is full of no good lazy bums, its because their middle and lower management is improperly trained and managed. Our guys might get paid alot considering their education and experience, but they do earn it.

[maxx]

Maxx is right. Our region was and still is heavily unionized and we're doing great! Our unemployment is low and our incomes keep going up faster than any other state! Yay unions!

Our biggest manufacturing competition is the third world including China where people work for as little as $.40/ hr. So your solution would be for people in Michigan to agree to work for even less ?

[barnesfoto]

Solutions? I don't think our conservocrite friends have any solutions. Their deregulation didn't work. Their stupid wars and funding of terrorism abroad didn't work. Their tax cuts didn't work.

The only thing that they are good at is obstruction, and distracting the small minded with their fear pimping of muslims, illegal immigrants and alleged "socialists".

Well, that and hacking away at labor unions.

As I have pointed out before, there are no illegal immigrants working in union shops..
[[Whoa, an effective, and non-governmental means of keeping jobs for US Citizens!!) .and yet, unions are still under attack by members of certain sick, right wing cults [[See Mike's post above).


I became a union member this month. It's nice to have health insurance again. I used to pay for my own, until a routine check up detected an irregular heartbeat and my insurer tripled my monthly rate. This made it impossible for me to afford health insurance, like millions of other Americans. Our "friends" on the right had no problem with that whatsoever, [[nor did they have any solutions).

After years of freelancing and part time gigs, It's nice to know that somebody has my back, and that I am solidly in the middle class again.

[oladub]

I'm solidly in support of unions and have paid dues to unions for over 30 years and continue to do so voluntarily. Unions do sometimes overreach, make bad decisions, and destroy jobs but probably not nearly as often as bad management.

From a libertarian perspective, workers have as much right to hire lawyers, accountants, set up health care plans, etc. as do rich people. Since the average worker does not make enough money to have such private services, it only makes sense to pool individual interests and collectively hire lawyers and other services.

[Jimaz]

Solutions? I don't think our conservocrite friends have any solutions. Their deregulation didn't work. Their stupid wars and funding of terrorism abroad didn't work. Their tax cuts didn't work....

You're too kind.

Maybe it did work. Maybe they intended to destroy the whole country. Could anyone else have accomplished that goal half as well even if they tried?

Gotta hand it to them. The one thing they're really good at is destruction. Construction? Not so much.

[maxx]

You're too kind.

Maybe it did work. Maybe they intended to destroy the whole country. Could anyone else have accomplished that goal half as well even if they tried?

Gotta hand it to them. The one thing they're really good at is destruction. Construction? Not so much.

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist

What then, Grover? Oligarchy? Corporatocracy?

We Republicans believe that government is a bad thing and we have the candidates to prove it.
P.J. O'Rourke

[Patrick]

This made it impossible for me to afford health insurance, like millions of other Americans. Our "friends" on the right had no problem with that whatsoever, [[nor did they have any solutions).

Fuck you, I got mine.


Kindest regards

The Right

[DetroitDad]

If ever there was an example of "correlation not implying causation" it's that article. There are a whole host of variables that are not being addressed. I mean one could easily say there were no Ipods during that period, thus we should all burn our Ipods and we'll be back to prosperity.

Bailey?

[[The latest Ifire)

[Fury13]

...growing number of states which passed right-to-work laws as permitted by Taft-Hartley - broke the northeastern and north central region's long-held dominance in the areas of manufacturing, finance and politics, resulting in impressive growth and prosperity in the western and southern regions of the country.

And you're saying that was a GOOD thing?

[ghettopalmetto]

• During the 1950s and 1960s, technological advancements in transportation, communications and air conditioning - coupled with massive federal infrastructure spending and fueled by the growing number of states which passed right-to-work laws as permitted by Taft-Hartley - broke the northeastern and north central region's long-held dominance in the areas of manufacturing, finance and politics, resulting in impressive growth and prosperity in the western and southern regions of the country.

Have you even BEEN to the rural South???

[56packman]

The one great period of broadly shared prosperity in U.S. history remains the three decades following World War II, which, anything but coincidentally, is the one period in which America had high levels of unionization.

A little historical perspective might be handy right now. After the war the US was the only country in the world that had its industrial infrastructure--we destroyed the industrial backbone of Germany and Japan, France and the UK suffered mightly from the Germans and all other countries were just a footnote to the above in terms of industry and the manufacture of consumer goods and durables. China was a nation of farmers and India was a British colony that wanted out but was decades from being useful to the rest of the developed world. This put the labor unions in the catbird seat in the US and they played it for all it's worth. Look at the history of labor strikes and inflation during 1946-1955 and you will see the "beginning of the end" being sowed by the unions. By the 1960s the mob had infiltrated to unions to the extent that they no longer did a good job hiding the fact. During this time the union had one powerful tool: the ability to shut down any business that didn't play ball with them by calling a boycott. The one thing any business owner WILL pay attention to is monthy cash flow. The union could call a boycott and shut the money faucet off to a business, and at that point they had the owner's undivided attention. That ended in the 1970s with the "me" generation, who no longer cared if the latest clothes or products were union made or not.
It was easy for the unions and the working man after the war, there was no competition.
We helped rebuild the industrial infrastructure of Germany and Japan, and they had state of the art factories when we were still making do and paying dividends by using old factories.

[oladub]

packman, Just on addition. In order to have the power to shut things down, there has to be a demand for US labor. After WWII, as you pointed out, their was a huge foreign demand for the fruits of US labor. We are in a differnt situation today,as you also pinted out, because the external demand for our products has diminished. This problem has been compounded by politicians who have sold out US labor with trade and other agreements such as GATT, FAFTA, OPIC, and certain immigration policies. If Obama tried to do an infrastructure project involving high speed trains or wind generation, the money would have to go overseas where those things are largley made. That happened with the Cash for Clunkers fiasco. Because of these agreements, we cannot guarantee production to US manufacturers. Labor can only make demands when labor is in demand. It no longer is.

[56packman]

DING! DING! DING!

As shareholders through our 401-K plans, lets keep this thing going to its logical extension: management has deccreed that "those guys out in the shop make too much money" and have outsourced production of just about everything that can be in the interest of fatter profits, which of course, benefit the shareholders. We aren't taking this thing far enough. Management is saying that "I deserve a [[more than) healthy share of the spoils of the company's income but the stupid workers out in the shop don't". Let's keep this going and outsource the management jobs. Send them overseas, where an MBA is willing to work for less. They can manage over the internet, and probably be closer to the source of the production of the goods, always an issue. A few trips here per year and some hotel rooms and the company willl still be money ahead. Let's see McMansions empty out faster than they already are and have the jobs crisis hit the front office the way it has hit the shop floor. Has to be good for our 401-Ks, right?

[barnesfoto]

You're too kind.

Maybe it did work. Maybe they intended to destroy the whole country. Could anyone else have accomplished that goal half as well even if they tried?

Gotta hand it to them. The one thing they're really good at is destruction. Construction? Not so much.

Jim, Jim... you are too pessimistic. The conservocrites love this country more than us, how could they want to destroy it? ...[[at least, the parts of it that are, you know, more American).

I think that what they want is to turn it into a country with lower taxes, no welfare, weaker unions, less regulation, and no legal abortion. A country where the wealthy could be more wealthy.

A country like Mexico, or Honduras, or Guatemala, or perhaps Pakistan.

[Jimaz]

Jim, Jim... you are too pessimistic. The conservocrites love this country more than us, how could they want to destroy it? ...[[at least, the parts of it that are, you know, more American).

Hey, here's a time proven way they can assault even the "more American" portions of America! Simply turn America against itself! What could possibly be a more simple and effective implementation of an assault against America?!: The Mis-Informant Part 2 - with Jack Black as Nathan Spewman.

I've actually experienced this kind of coercion on school playgrounds. No kidding! It's pretty pathetic that some people would stoop to that level.

[rb336]

I'm solidly in support of unions and have paid dues to unions for over 30 years and continue to do so voluntarily. Unions do sometimes overreach, make bad decisions, and destroy jobs but probably not nearly as often as bad management.

From a libertarian perspective, workers have as much right to hire lawyers, accountants, set up health care plans, etc. as do rich people. Since the average worker does not make enough money to have such private services, it only makes sense to pool individual interests and collectively hire lawyers and other services.

I have never heard any libertarian support the rights of workers to organize. Ever