Let's have that political discussion.

[jwhitehorn]

What you and Wormsca are forgetting is the increase in two worker households since 1980.

Are you seriously backing up to the fact that there has been "population growth" now? Is that really the point your trying to make because if so I can save you some time. Nobody is arguing against population growth.

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

[Ikpeip]

2. Labor: I completely agree, however, that's the point of "we all lay down" or at least enough people capable of doing the job that it doesn't matter. Companies have products to sell. Without those things, they go bankrupt. If a boss is so willing to say "to hell with it", they're not going to stay in business long. If they reached a point where they need to hire extra help, and enough of it that a labor strike will hurt, they can't do anything but negotiate. It's how labor unions gained the power they have. It's why we have a large middle and working class instead of upper class and the poor. (FYI, many of the upper class would love to see us go back to the upper/ruling class and the rest of us basically be slaves of one sort or another.)

I think you and I associate labor strikes with different behaviors. When I think labor strikes and unions, thuggish behavior trying to prevent others from taking the jobs that have been vacated through force or intimidation comes to mind. I'm assuming you're thinking of something a bit more peaceful.

I agree that quitting, or threatening to quit, is a valid tactic if you're not getting compensated what you deserve. However, I don't believe in trying to coerce employers by preventing them from filling the positions of striking employees.

People make this mistake all the time. Most Union workers are actually highly skilled workers. They're teachers, electricians, steel workers, heavy equipment operators, specially trained government employees, etc.... It's in most cases impossible to replace those workers in case of a strike without years of rehiring. Even moderately skilled workers like production line workers or other manufacturing workers require a week or two of orientation and then further training on whatever machines they work on. This retraining costs big bucks and slowdowns hurt the company, so worker action is always a way to gain power in negotiated labor agreements.

What does your response have to do with what you quoted? No one mentioned unions. No one mentioned skilled workers vs. unskilled workers. The exchange between MagicMan I was discussing that while a labor strike is a legitimate and moral tactic, violence and other unlawful coercion is not. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Where MagicMan and I probably part ways on the labor issue, is that I don't think it should be illegal to fire striking workers, and Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act ought to be repealed.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Claeyt]

I think you and I associate labor strikes with different behaviors. When I think labor strikes and unions, thuggish behavior trying to prevent others from taking the jobs that have been vacated through force or intimidation comes to mind. I'm assuming you're thinking of something a bit more peaceful.

Labor strikes take on a variety of forms. Sometimes they have been as peaceful as they can be, other times they have turned ugly and into rioting. I live in the Air Capital, so we see them every year or two as one manufacturer or another has at least one contract up for negotiation. Some years they go smoothely and are done in a week or two, other times they turn ugly, last more than a few weeks, and you hear of "scabs" getting assaulted. On the other hand, Gandhi lead India to their freedom through labor strikes. There was certainly violence, but usually instigated by the Imperial British forces. (I've not read enough on it to know of all the issues, though, and I'm sure there were a few groups that assaulted the troops with no immediate provocation. India isn't without its own violent past.) I know from our own (US history) that labor strikes have involved serious rioting that resulted in the loss of life of both strikers as well as law enforcement requiring the National Guard to be called in.

+1 for Truth

There's a difference between voluntary obligations and involuntary obligations. I'm "stuck at a job" because I want to live a certain lifestyle - my job is an obligation.

Let's say your poor. You can barely make rent and utilities, but can't feed your family without some sort of assistance. You've been at your job for 10 years and have made enough raises and promotions that leaves you just barely scraping by with some help. Your wife would go to work (assuming your still married), but the daycare for the youngest kid, even after school only, would eat up nearly every dime of her wages, not to mention the other extra expenses of her being out of the house. Your boss is a complete ******* and abusive to everyone. You start looking for work, but to change jobs would require a 20% pay cut at a minimum, but you have no education or management experience (company won't give you management training because you have no education!!) to get a job with a similar salary. Have I started making this "slave to the system" clear to you? This isn't a theoretical thing, but an anecdotal example of millions of people's lives in the US alone.

I will most certainly describe my young life to you, and it doesn't deviate too much from the above. My mother was educated well enough that she eventually rose up out of the working poor situation, finally graduated from college (after we--my brothers and I--finished high school, and in under 3 years despite not being in school in 20 years and changing from Education to Business; think she had 20 credits transfer) and got a nice public position as an accountant. Money wasn't big, but it was an altruistic job helping run a school system. However, growing up (before I was about 16 or so), if it wasn't for my grandparents helping out with groceries, serious couponing (almost what you see from the fanatics on TV), and frequent hunting and fishing, we wouldn't have had much of anything other than food. And now you know my story and why I'm so left socially.

My life was pretty similar and it's why I'm also liberal. People who've never seen the face of poverty or the working poor think's it's the face of a minority mother with too many kids leeching off the government, when really it's the face of a single mother or hard working father trying to make a better life for their kids through education, hard work and simply trying to make a home by any means necessary. It's not about cutting benefits or eliminating food stamps it's about giving a people a little help to get them into a peace of the future.

Government spending actually grew astronomically during Reagan's terms. Mostly due to massive defense spending but also due to massive tax cuts for the rich while maintaining the current Government programs with deficit spending. This was termed 'voodoo economics' by his vice-president, George Bush SR.

I get what your saying, but your not saying what your thinking, I think. Don't forget that this all came off the huge recession of the 70s that saw gas prices climbing daily, gold prices spiking to the highest value on record (until the latest "recession"), and double digit inflation at times. FDR increased spending while he was in office greatly, too, but didn't have the deep tax cuts accompanying the expenses.

It was actually a series of recessions with the late seventies one being the biggest. The inflation, the gold buying and the price of gas were all mostly part of the inflation from the first recession and then the 1979 oil crisis not the economy.

Carter started climbing out of the 1974-75 recession rather well but had to deal with inflation and then got clobbered by the oil crisis from the Iranian Revolution and Iraq-Iran war. This all led to the malaise speech and eventual election of Reagan's "Brand New Day".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter

Claeyt made the argument that because divorce rates were down Single Person households were also down.

I probably read right over that... damn

You didn't, he misread my statements about divorce.

[Claeyt]

What you and Wormsca are forgetting is the increase in two worker households since 1980.

Are you seriously backing up to the fact that there has been "population growth" now? Is that really the point your trying to make because if so I can save you some time. Nobody is arguing against population growth.

It has nothing to do with population growth. There are a lot more married women in the workplace now than in 1980. More household incomes now include 2 incomes rather than just the dad's income since 1980. This should have slightly raised the median household income, just like having more single parent and single person households should slightly decreased median household income. I'm giving an example of off-setting minor statistical facts about where our median household income is right now in 2014.

I think you and I associate labor strikes with different behaviors. When I think labor strikes and unions, thuggish behavior trying to prevent others from taking the jobs that have been vacated through force or intimidation comes to mind. I'm assuming you're thinking of something a bit more peaceful.

I agree that quitting, or threatening to quit, is a valid tactic if you're not getting compensated what you deserve. However, I don't believe in trying to coerce employers by preventing them from filling the positions of striking employees.

People make this mistake all the time. Most Union workers are actually highly skilled workers. They're teachers, electricians, steel workers, heavy equipment operators, specially trained government employees, etc.... It's in most cases impossible to replace those workers in case of a strike without years of rehiring. Even moderately skilled workers like production line workers or other manufacturing workers require a week or two of orientation and then further training on whatever machines they work on. This retraining costs big bucks and slowdowns hurt the company, so worker action is always a way to gain power in negotiated labor agreements.

What does your response have to do with what you quoted? No one mentioned unions. No one mentioned skilled workers vs. unskilled workers. The exchange between MagicMan I was discussing that while a labor strike is a legitimate and moral tactic, violence and other unlawful coercion is not. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

I was describing why it's harder for companies to replace unionized labor now and also why we don't see more violent strikes. That's the exact thing you were talking about jackass.

Where MagicMan and I probably part ways on the labor issue, is that I don't think it should be illegal to fire striking workers, and Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act ought to be repealed.

One of the reasons we are the country we are is because of our labor laws. Without them we would be a third world nation and dirt poor.

[Ikpeip]

I was describing why it's harder for companies to replace unionized labor now and also why we don't see more violent strikes. That's the exact thing you were talking about jackass.

No, it wasn't.

One of the reasons we are the country we are is because of our labor laws. Without them we would be a third world nation and dirt poor.

https://www.detroitmi.gov/

Today:

My mother was educated well enough that she eventually rose up out of the working poor situation, finally graduated from college (after we--my brothers and I--finished high school, and in under 3 years despite not being in school in 20 years and changing from Education to Business; think she had 20 credits transfer) and got a nice public position as an accountant. Money wasn't big, but it was an altruistic job helping run a school system. However, growing up (before I was about 16 or so), if it wasn't for my grandparents helping out with groceries, serious couponing (almost what you see from the fanatics on TV), and frequent hunting and fishing, we wouldn't have had much of anything other than food. And now you know my story and why I'm so left socially.

My life was pretty similar and it's why I'm also liberal. People who've never seen the face of poverty or the working poor...

Yesterday:

I'm neither poor nor uneducated. You couldn't have gotten it more wrong Chief. Even from the personal details I've given you here on the forum you should be able to figure out I've got at least a masters. I work in the private sector. I'd be considered upper middle class but definitely grew up in the lower middle class.

Seems like your past changes to fit whatever narrative you're trying to push. If you're going to lie so blatantly, try not to contradict yourself in so short a timeframe.

While my past was not as dire as MagicMan's, I'm no stranger to growing up in a family with strained finances. Your assumption that the people you're arguing with here have "never seen the face of poverty or the working poor" is a poor one. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I work in manufacturing, and not all our positions are skilled ones. Even rich conservatives are likely to be familiar with the working poor. Conservatives not only give more to charity (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0), they spend more time doing charity work on average, and are more likely to give blood.

I've also seen first-hand poverty in both Central America and the Middle East. That's true poverty - not what you're referring to, Claeyt.
(edit to add following chart)

My mother was educated well enough that she eventually rose up out of the working poor situation, finally graduated from college (after we--my brothers and I--finished high school, and in under 3 years despite not being in school in 20 years and changing from Education to Business; think she had 20 credits transfer) and got a nice public position as an accountant. Money wasn't big, but it was an altruistic job helping run a school system. However, growing up (before I was about 16 or so), if it wasn't for my grandparents helping out with groceries, serious couponing (almost what you see from the fanatics on TV), and frequent hunting and fishing, we wouldn't have had much of anything other than food. And now you know my story and why I'm so left socially.

Not to make little of any past suffering, but if you're still well fed and protected from the elements, you're still pretty well off in life.

Also, there is always a way to improve your situation in life, if you're willing to make sacrifices.

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[MagicManICT]

Where MagicMan and I probably part ways on the labor issue, is that I don't think it should be illegal to fire striking workers, and Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act ought to be repealed.

Actually, it is legal under certain circumstances. Let's see if I recall this correctly, but I believe a slew of Air Traffic Controllers were fired for striking in 1981 because their Federal contract said it would be considered illegal. (could have swore it was more like 87 or 88!) http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm I'm not sure of the current laws, but as the article I linked points out, at the time, a Federal employee going on strike could face a misdemeanor charge and up to 1 year prison time. Otherwise, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but under some circumstances, it could lead to pay decreases over time that aren't beneficial to anyone other than the company owner(s).

From http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/o ... z2fy30KEfe

There is an awful amount of muddled thinking about rights on college campuses and among the judiciary. According to the jurisprudential doctrine called legal positivism, legislation creates rights. There are no natural rights. IT’s a matter of counting the votes. For example, if there are enough votes in Congress in favor of creating a right for person A to interfere in a voluntary exchange between persons B and C, then such a right may be created. All that is needed is that the correct procedures for enacting legislation be followed. According to this view, there are no substantive limits on what Congress may enact.

While this is quite true, it really does fly into the face of the Founding Fathers and the belief in inalienable rights. I just found it funny (weird) in where it was located. Of course, the writer does continue on and address the point, but I still find it funny. Of course, it's also why these inalienable rights are limited in scope and broad in nature: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

One of the reasons we are the country we are is because of our labor laws. Without them we would be a third world nation and dirt poor.

We weren't dirt poor before labor unions in the US, were we? The common folk might have been, but the country as a whole wasn't. Dem socialist ideas like "labor unions" and "universal healthcare" will bankrupt this country!!!

Not to make little of any past suffering, but if you're still well fed and protected from the elements, you're still pretty well off in life.

Also, there is always a way to improve your situation in life, if you're willing to make sacrifices.

I quite agree. I had a good home and good family, and due to diligence and squeezing nickels, we had a few things. However, I had friends that didn't have as much for various reasons. A couple of cases were drugs (including alcohol), one friend's parent was permanently disabled, another was just plain unlucky, I think.

I will say some things have improved over the years, but at the same time, it's gotten worse in other areas. In the effort to clean up waste in food stamps and welfare, a lot of good people have suffered that need the assistance, but for those trying to get off assistance, it is possible to do so with training programs and public assistance other than through Pell grants.

[Claeyt]

stuff

I said I grew up in the lower middle class, didn't I? How is that so much different? The only real difference between Magic's and my stories was that my parents both went back to school. I was born on a farm and eventually both my parents went back and finished their degrees and got better jobs and moved into the middle class around when I graduated high school.

One of the reasons we are the country we are is because of our labor laws. Without them we would be a third world nation and dirt poor.

We weren't dirt poor before labor unions in the US, were we? The common folk might have been, but the country as a whole wasn't. Dem socialist ideas like "labor unions" and "universal healthcare" will bankrupt this country!!!

Yes this country was dirt poor before labor unions. How are the common folk not most of the country as a whole? Dem socialist ideas like "labor unions" and "universal healthcare" have made this country rich and wealthy. Other countries such as Germany, Sweden and Canada have used those ideas to make their countries even wealthier than ours with much better, cheaper, and more available health care for all.

In fact arguably the rejection and prevention of those 2 ideas specifically by the right-wing conservatives have already bankrupted this country because we don't have them implemented as well as other countries do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

[Ikpeip]

I said I grew up in the lower middle class, didn't I? How is that so much different? The only real difference between Magic's and my stories was that my parents both went back to school. I was born on a farm and eventually both my parents went back and finished their degrees and got better jobs and moved into the middle class around when I graduated high school.

It's different because in one version you're middle class, and in the other you're barely scraping by and having to hunt and fish to put food on the table. You're changing your story to have it fit the current narrative you're pushing. You know, like a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-10-17/USA-health-care/50807584/1

If you're serious about cutting health care costs, you ought to be pushing for more competition, pricing transparency, and deregulation:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1205901
http://hbr.org/web/extras/insight-center/health-care/redefining-competition-in-health-care

Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[Claeyt]

It's different because in one version you're middle class, and in the other you're barely scraping by and having to hunt and fish to put food on the table. You're changing your story to have it fit the current narrative you're pushing. You know, like a liar.

We grew most of our own food and butchered animals for meat. We definitely ate fish we caught. I don't think Magic meant he was so poor that the only food they had was what they caught. I think he just meant that it was part of what they ate.

Like I said, I grew up in the lower middle class. To me that means somewhere above the poverty line but a little bit economically stable or those people that are just above the poverty line enough to not get assistance. That's where I grew up.

If you're serious about cutting health care costs, you ought to be pushing for more competition, pricing transparency, and deregulation

keep saying that as the rest of the industrialized world laughs at us and our health care arguments.

I could fill a page with advocate articles in the New England Journal of Medicine but why don't you just google "New England Journal of Medicine" and "Single Payer" instead. I got something like 44,000 hits.

read this again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

[Ikpeip]

Like I said, I grew up in the lower middle class. To me that means somewhere above the poverty line but a little bit economically stable or those people that are just above the poverty line enough to not get assistance.

So you're admitting you don't actually know what it means to be "working poor."

read this again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

I read it the first time you linked it, and found it unpersuasive. Why do you think an opinion piece by a left-wing writer in a left-wing rag with no supporting data is going to be effective?

Please, pontificate how all the data referenced in this report doesn't really count, because you don't like the Fraser Institute.

At every turn in this thread, you've had to result into either attacking the source, misrepresenting data, or concocting fabrications entirely. When cornered, you change the subject until you take too much of a beating there as well. You've still yet to advance a persuasive argument for any of your positions.

One more, just for kicks:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care

Faithfully

-Paul the Paymaster