Unions are the reason it's cheaper to import a Mazda than buy a truck built in America.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 4:37:00 PM (view original):
That whizzing sound you hear is the point passing over your head.

If you're unskilled, you should learn a skill. If you're expendable, you should try to make yourself indispensable. If you're easily replaced by someone making minimum wage, you should expand your skill set. You should always be striving to be better. Or learn a useful trade or gain a marketable skill.

Sure. But there is a HUGE group of people in the country that are semi-skilled. It's in their best interest to unionize but large companies have been successful in their lobbying to weaken labor laws.

Unions have worked out well for auto workers, steel manufacturers, etc the last 50 years or so.

The national labor relations act was signed in the mid-30's. Union membership fell below 15% in the mid-90's.

I guess it's just a coincidence that the bottom 90% of earners had their most prosperous years between 1940 and 1997.

Now who's being dishonest. Union membership has been falling since the fifties yet your graph stays the same. Correlation? I think not.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 4:37:00 PM (view original):
That whizzing sound you hear is the point passing over your head.

If you're unskilled, you should learn a skill. If you're expendable, you should try to make yourself indispensable. If you're easily replaced by someone making minimum wage, you should expand your skill set. You should always be striving to be better. Or learn a useful trade or gain a marketable skill.

Sure. But there is a HUGE group of people in the country that are semi-skilled. It's in their best interest to unionize but large companies have been successful in their lobbying to weaken labor laws.

Unions have worked out well for auto workers, steel manufacturers, etc the last 50 years or so.

The national labor relations act was signed in the mid-30's. Union membership fell below 15% in the mid-90's.

I guess it's just a coincidence that the bottom 90% of earners had their most prosperous years between 1940 and 1997.

Now who's being dishonest. Union membership has been falling since the fifties yet your graph stays the same. Correlation? I think not.

Hey look, union membership starts to dive in the late 70's. I wonder if we looked at my graph if it would show the share on income for the bottom 90% starting to go down in the late 70's/early 80's?

Well...sonofabitch. It does. Thanks, moy.

No. It doesn't. Nor does your groundbreaking evidence explain the income equality shift in early 2000. Correlated, I think not.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/8/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 4:37:00 PM (view original):
That whizzing sound you hear is the point passing over your head.

If you're unskilled, you should learn a skill. If you're expendable, you should try to make yourself indispensable. If you're easily replaced by someone making minimum wage, you should expand your skill set. You should always be striving to be better. Or learn a useful trade or gain a marketable skill.

Sure. But there is a HUGE group of people in the country that are semi-skilled. It's in their best interest to unionize but large companies have been successful in their lobbying to weaken labor laws.

Unions have worked out well for auto workers, steel manufacturers, etc the last 50 years or so.

The national labor relations act was signed in the mid-30's. Union membership fell below 15% in the mid-90's.

I guess it's just a coincidence that the bottom 90% of earners had their most prosperous years between 1940 and 1997.

Now who's being dishonest. Union membership has been falling since the fifties yet your graph stays the same. Correlation? I think not.

Hey look, union membership starts to dive in the late 70's. I wonder if we looked at my graph if it would show the share on income for the bottom 90% starting to go down in the late 70's/early 80's?

Well...sonofabitch. It does. Thanks, moy.

No. It doesn't. Nor does your groundbreaking evidence explain the income equality shift in early 2000. Correlated, I think not.

You mean the dot-com bubble?

So is income equality correlated to the market or labor unions? Make up your mind.

Wait, are you implying that being semi-skilled with stagnant development should be rewarded?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 4:37:00 PM (view original):
That whizzing sound you hear is the point passing over your head.

If you're unskilled, you should learn a skill. If you're expendable, you should try to make yourself indispensable. If you're easily replaced by someone making minimum wage, you should expand your skill set. You should always be striving to be better. Or learn a useful trade or gain a marketable skill.

Sure. But there is a HUGE group of people in the country that are semi-skilled. It's in their best interest to unionize but large companies have been successful in their lobbying to weaken labor laws.

Because it's in the large companies best interests to not be forced to overpay for a workforce. Which is what unions bring to the table.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Wait, are you implying that being semi-skilled with stagnant development should be rewarded?

I'm saying those semi-skilled workers would be better off if they unionized.

Join a union and lose your job to another state (or country) that's non-union. Yeah. They'd be better off.

Trump was right a few years ago. Americans are not going to like the answer if they want to keep their manufacturing jobs.... They'll have to be paid less. And before you go there that doesn't mean minimum wage. There's nothing wrong with a $20 / hour job.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/8/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/8/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/8/2017 4:37:00 PM (view original):
That whizzing sound you hear is the point passing over your head.

If you're unskilled, you should learn a skill. If you're expendable, you should try to make yourself indispensable. If you're easily replaced by someone making minimum wage, you should expand your skill set. You should always be striving to be better. Or learn a useful trade or gain a marketable skill.

Sure. But there is a HUGE group of people in the country that are semi-skilled. It's in their best interest to unionize but large companies have been successful in their lobbying to weaken labor laws.

Because it's in the large companies best interests to not be forced to overpay for a workforce. Which is what unions bring to the table.

Absolutely. But, in my opinion, we're all better off if the bottom 90% has more and the top 10% has less.

Interesting perspective, comrade.