It's All Over But The Crying in WI

[kermit]

We build very few "consumer" goods i.e. ones you would find in retail other than health/beauty and automobiles. We really didn't have a choice. The rest of the world was going to move forward without us.

Our companies would have had higher tariffs for their exports if we had not joined, and we were already at a cost disadvantage due to our higher labor rates. It was the best solution we had at the time.

We were far ahead the rest of the world was playing catch-up. We basically stopped running and let them. Look at every country that has a growing economy and they all have one thing in common, they protect their industrial base. Countries like the US and England who's economies are stagnant don't protect their industries.

Where your argument really fails is that free trade agreements didn't help them by being able to buy our products cheaper because they weren't buying our products in the first place. All it did was make it cheap to outsource and import our own products. It created a scenerio where an American company produces in another country and sells to Americans.

Everyone has always known that if you outsource that those jobs are gone and as that eventually so many of those jobs would disappear as to make our consumer base collapse. "Eventually" is not a nebulous future anymore. We are seeing the effects already.

 

[jamesrwright3]

We were far ahead the rest of the world was playing catch-up. We basically stopped running and let them. Look at every country that has a growing economy and they all have one thing in common, they protect their industrial base. Countries like the US and England who's economies are stagnant don't protect their industries.

Where your argument really fails is that free trade agreements didn't help them by being able to buy our products cheaper because they weren't buying our products in the first place. All it did was make it cheap to outsource and import our own products. It created a scenerio where an American company produces in another country and sells to Americans.

Everyone has always known that if you outsource that those jobs are gone and as that eventually so many of those jobs would disappear as to make our consumer base collapse. "Eventually" is not a nebulous future anymore. We are seeing the effects already.

That is absolutely not true. We were not running around the rest of the world. The rest of the world had stopped running due to WWII and the Cold War. The Asian Tigers were still babies, and Mao was marching people around China in the great hope of perfecting socialism. Half of Europe was under the iron curtain. We can no longer be protectionist when the rest of the world isn't.
There was nothing special about the American economy. We just lucked out due to history for the first 3/4 of the 20th century. Now it's a different era where we need to make sure our businesses remain competitive

 

[Umaro]

That is absolutely not true. We were not running around the rest of the world. The rest of the world had stopped running due to WWII and the Cold War. The Asian Tigers were still babies, and Mao was marching people around China in the great hope of perfecting socialism. Half of Europe was under the iron curtain. We can no longer be protectionist when the rest of the world isn't.
There was nothing special about the American economy. We just lucked out due to history for the first 3/4 of the 20th century. Now it's a different era where we need to make sure our businesses remain competitive

How do you propose we remain competitive though? Are you personally willing to live in a tin shack and work 14 hours a day for a couple bucks? If not, then we had better come up with a different strategy than just pure competition.

 

[kermit]

That is absolutely not true. We were not running around the rest of the world. The rest of the world had stopped running due to WWII and the Cold War. The Asian Tigers were still babies, and Mao was marching people around China in the great hope of perfecting socialism. Half of Europe was under the iron curtain. We can no longer be protectionist when the rest of the world isn't.
There was nothing special about the American economy. We just lucked out due to history for the first 3/4 of the 20th century. Now it's a different era where we need to make sure our businesses remain competitive

Regardless of the reason we were able to get ahead, that is no reason for us to give up our lead.

Like I said, the economies that are showing the most growth are also the most protectionist.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Regardless of the reason we were able to get ahead, that is no reason for us to give up our lead.

You can't keep a lead in economics with more players involved. We essentially had a monopoly. We no longer have a monopoly. Nothing can be done about it other than to physically destroy our competition which really isn't an option.

 

[jamesrwright3]

How do you propose we remain competitive though? Are you personally willing to live in a tin shack and work 14 hours a day for a couple bucks? If not, then we had better come up with a different strategy than just pure competition.

We won't have to go back to tin shacks, but we can't expect much growth beyond what we have now unless we hit the jackpot with some type of invention that literally changes the globe which can happen.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No,my salary comes from public funds. Once it is paid to me it is mine. Though I suspect from your response we are saying the same thing.

We are; and I think a little further in my post I explained that.

There isn't? Funny, because as a non union government worker who pays no dues I kind of feel free to argue the point. I do not have to join a union. In fact most of my co-workers decided not to join the union for our own reasons. I am free to join if I so desire but it is not compulsory.

My original post (and point) referenced specifically union workers. When you replied to it without identifying yourself as a non-union worker, it was only reasonable to assume you were union, hence my response to yours.

So my (once again nonexistent) dues which are paid BY ME to a MY UNION go to support democratic candidates who support union members. If republicans supported unions they would find unions supporting them.

Ok, let's go with that logic - if (say) liberals supported conservatives and conservative causes, perhaps more conservatives would support liberals too.

Doesn't really work, does it?

I don't know what union you where in, but the one I was in had elected leadership and regular elections on direction the union would take. They regularly held meetings where we were invited to speak our minds. I have a choice and I have a voice. That my, or your, desires might not always be followed does not negate that fact.

Well, if you were in a public sector union - it's irrelevant to your point that you "regularly held meetings," had "elected leadership" with "regular elections on direction the union would take." It *is* however quite relevant to mine. If you and your union, being public sector employees, decided to support - oh I don't know, the Democrat party with your dues - that's my point.

You want to argue that you have a right to spend your salary however you please, regardless that it came from public funds. Part of your salary would go to union dues; and if you, as a union member took part in your union's internal processes decided with the majority to send those dues to fund - oh, I don't know, the local Democrat politician(s), then therein lie the problem.

You are sending your money to elect politicians favorable to (if not corrupted by) your cause/interests, with whom you will later negotiate future contracts - ever always increasing your pay and benefits, terms of employment, etc. - basically with MY money but without one iota of my say.

For Democrat politicians, it's a great scheme - a perfect money-laundering scheme, for as long as they support unions, unions will [privately] donate to their campaigns, earning ever increasing concessions from the very government through which they are supposed to "serve" the greater public.

For any who are reading who might not understand the link here with the teachers and other unions in Wisconsin, who are (well, now were, thankfully) fighting so hard to keep their precious collective bargaining rights - they knew that next election cycle they had an opportunity to get back their Democrat politicians with whom they could favorably re-negotiate out of their contract whatever they'd given up this go-around. The net result would've been the state of WI would be in the same, or worse situation later than they were before going into this issue.

And I guarantee you that when Democrats take control of the WI congress again (regardless sooner or later), the FIRST issue on the docket will be to restore collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. Good for Democrat politicians; good for public sector unions; disastrous for the public and state of WI at large.

And finally, once again, why should the public who pays my salary have any say in where my money goes once I have earned it?

Already asked and answered.

 

[Belk]

We are; and I think a little further in my post I explained that.

It did, thanks.

My original post (and point) referenced specifically union workers. When you replied to it without identifying yourself as a non-union worker, it was only reasonable to assume you were union, hence my response to yours.

Understood, and I am taking my position based on my experience both having been in a union and having decided not to continue my union membership. Just wanted to ensure my position was clear.

Ok, let's go with that logic - if (say) liberals supported conservatives and conservative causes, perhaps more conservatives would support liberals too.

Doesn't really work, does it?

So unions can be and only should be supported by liberals? Did you not say that half of union members are conservative? Would it not make sense that those who are conservative would like to support conservative politicians and feel supported by them in return?

Well, if you were in a public sector union - it's irrelevant to your point that you "regularly held meetings," had "elected leadership" with "regular elections on direction the union would take." It *is* however quite relevant to mine. If you and your union, being public sector employees, decided to support - oh I don't know, the Democrat party with your dues - that's my point.

You want to argue that you have a right to spend your salary however you please, regardless that it came from public funds. Part of your salary would go to union dues; and if you, as a union member took part in your union's internal processes decided with the majority to send those dues to fund - oh, I don't know, the local Democrat politician(s), then therein lie the problem.

You are sending your money to elect politicians favorable to (if not corrupted by) your cause/interests, with whom you will later negotiate future contracts - ever always increasing your pay and benefits, terms of employment, etc. - basically with MY money but without one iota of my say.

For Democrat politicians, it's a great scheme - a perfect money-laundering scheme, for as long as they support unions, unions will [privately] donate to their campaigns, earning ever increasing concessions from the very government through which they are supposed to "serve" the greater public.

And this is different from anyone who interacts with government how exactly? Why is it not OK for me to elect someone who will be favorable to my position as far as wages are concerned but it is OK for a conservative to support a candidate that will lower his taxes or give his corporation favorable legislation?

For any who are reading who might not understand the link here with the teachers and other unions in Wisconsin, who are (well, now were, thankfully) fighting so hard to keep their precious collective bargaining rights - they knew that next election cycle they had an opportunity to get back their Democrat politicians with whom they could favorably re-negotiate out of their contract whatever they'd given up this go-around. The net result would've been the state of WI would be in the same, or worse situation later than they were before going into this issue.

And I guarantee you that when Democrats take control of the WI congress again (regardless sooner or later), the FIRST issue on the docket will be to restore collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. Good for Democrat politicians; good for public sector unions; disastrous for the public and state of WI at large.

Yes, it is horribly disastrous when people use the power of the voting booth to influence things in their favor. Apparently only when democrats do it though.

Already asked and answered.

Then why is this at the end of your post?

You had no choice in that decision and neither did the public who paid your salary.

What exactly do you feel the public should have a say in that it currently does not?

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

YouTube - Ronald Reagan: Collective Bargaining = Freedom

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination who've been willing to go into the gulag and suffer the torture of imprisonment because of their dissidence. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

I guess Reagan was right. It only took 1 generation

 

[nephilimiyr]

"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government-employee organizations. The employer is the whole people."

-- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1937 --​

.​

What a very wise man he was, President Roosevelt, it's a shame his own party people are sweeping him under the bus.

 

[nephilimiyr]

YouTube - Ronald Reagan: Collective Bargaining = Freedom



I guess Reagan was right. It only took 1 generation

President Reagan was talking about private unions, not public! What is happenning in Madison Wisconsin is not about private unions but about public unions!!

UHHJHJH, the ignorance of the people here makes me so mad!!!

 

[kermit]

You can't keep a lead in economics with more players involved. We essentially had a monopoly. We no longer have a monopoly. Nothing can be done about it other than to physically destroy our competition which really isn't an option.

What I don't think that you understand is that we didn't lose our lead, we actively gave it up. This was due the greediness of a few. Some industrialists knew that they could make a pile of cash if they could use the 3rd world as the production floor for American goods sold in America. So they bribed the right people and the idea of free-trade was born. Obsensively, it was supposed to be beneficial to both sides, but they knew that was a lie. They knew that the American consumer would see short-term benefits, but they also knew that outsourcing would cause long-term harm.

I suggest you look around the world and see what all prosperous economies have in common and what all struggling ones have in common. The former are protectionist of their industrial base the later is not.

 

[kermit]

President Reagan was talking about private unions, not public! What is happenning in Madison Wisconsin is not about private unions but about public unions!!

UHHJHJH, the ignorance of the people here makes me so mad!!!

You are getting mad because you claim that someone took Reagan out of context, when you ignored part of what FRD said this in the very same letter that you quoted:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions­, developmen­t of opportunit­ies for advancemen­t, facilities for fair and impartial considerat­ion and review of grievances­, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organizati­on on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationsh­ips and obligation­s of public servants to the public itself and to the Government­.​

 

[lordbt]

What I don't think that you understand is that we didn't lose our lead, we actively gave it up. This was due the greediness of a few. Some industrialists knew that they could make a pile of cash if they could use the 3rd world as the production floor for American goods sold in America. So they bribed the right people and the idea of free-trade was born. Obsensively, it was supposed to be beneficial to both sides, but they knew that was a lie. They knew that the American consumer would see short-term benefits, but they also knew that outsourcing would cause long-term harm.

I suggest you look around the world and see what all prosperous economies have in common and what all struggling ones have in common. The former are protectionist of their industrial base the later is not.

Thats quite an accusation. You can fill in some blanks by naming names. Who were these 'greedy few?' Who were these 'industrialists?' Who did they bribe?

 

[nephilimiyr]

You are getting mad because you claim that someone took Reagan out of context, when you ignored part of what FRD said this in the very same letter that you quoted:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions­, developmen­t of opportunit­ies for advancemen­t, facilities for fair and impartial considerat­ion and review of grievances­, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organizati­on on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationsh­ips and obligation­s of public servants to the public itself and to the Government­.​

Would you please investigate what you are talking about before you post. Honestly, you are apparently ignorant of the Wisconsin state civil services laws, please investigate those laws before you post again.

Basically, all these things are covered under the Wisconsin state civil service act and no union contract, or no contract at all, will make a difference. Public workers in Wisconsin are already very well taken care of with or without union representation. We are considered as having the best civil service laws in the nation.

In Wisconsin public unions should be obsolete as it's not the unions who garrantee safe and suitable working conditions or reasonable hours of work etc., but the civil service law does. And the only possible reason to argue that the civil service laws are not strong enough or adequate is to keep bad employes on the job and keeping potential better employees unemployed. Of coarse, in the eyes of the union, a good employee is nothing but those who pay their union dues. As long as the union gets their money, then they're all hard working and great employees.