2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.


Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.




Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I would like blood donation to screen based on risky behavior of all people, and not because a dude is with another dude, one time, or regularly. A woman in what she believes is a monogamous relationship can be at risk from her partner and two men who have only been with each other for a long time and aren't IV drug users are not really a problem. I bet a lot of people have anonymous risky sex (say anal without a condom) and don't admit it when they donate blood and this is why blood is tested, people lie.

That job was surprisingly in retail of all things, and I think they realized retail brings out the shitty in customers and used generous benefits to compensate for douchebaggery.

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Either the test works or it doesn't and banning all gay men, all men who've had sexual encounter's with men and all women who've had... etc. Really, the way STDs work you've eliminated anyone who's had sex with someone who's also had sex with someone else. Ever. Or you test and you let everyone except people who know they're positive give.

I'm impressed that retail turned out so well, most just compensate by hiring new people when the old ones burn out.

They were kind of funny in a couple ways with the health insurance. Birth control was only covered with medical documentation, but that was because Viagra was also. I don't know any woman who was denied birth control with a letter from a doctor and this might have changed to no restrictions. It was quite common on a lot of health plans and I know of some that cover only certain pills and not others and those people go to Planned Parenthood and get what they need. I think the cost of bc monthly is a far better cost than a pregnancy and another dependent for an insurance plan, but like I said, no one was denied with their doctor saying it was medically needed. They also offered Plan B in our pharmacies (when it was still prescription only) and the health insurance covered it which is funny because they didn't cover birth control pills.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

As long as it is possible for the two statements to co-exist there's not a logical problem with the argument, it just comes down to the data to back up the assertion. I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the answer, just the argument.

And srmom did miss the point of my post entirely which was that you can't claim to only care about the logic while making large logical errors. Or rather, you can, but you're being ridiculous. (As is using unionization in apartheid South Africa as an honest reflection of unionization in the US, that just doesn't work.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

I agree the assumptions are unnecessary. However, saying "people can just join the union" or "people can just learn the over-valued trade" isn't logical at all - there are reasonable (and startlingly low) limits to the ability to do this (which is the crux of my argument, and the part that's missing above).

Past a certain point, there isn't any more painting to be done. Yet those painting dollars have still drained the available cash (which is also finite, although admittedly in a much more complex fashion).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I agree the assumptions are unnecessary. However, saying "people can just join the union" or "people can just learn the over-valued trade" isn't logical at all - there are reasonable (and startlingly low) limits to the ability to do this (which is the crux of my argument, and the part that's missing above).

And I was never really saying that either. Although I do think that if people are so jealous of *trade* then they should actually go into it. The reason they're not going into it is probably why the pay rate is so high. Plumbers for example.

Past a certain point, there isn't any more painting to be done. Yet those painting dollars have still drained the available cash (which is also finite, although admittedly in a much more complex fashion).

Of course. However, as I said, it comes down to the data rather than the assumptions we're making.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Although I do think that if people are so jealous of *trade* then they should actually go into it. The reason they're not going into it is probably why the pay rate is so high. Plumbers for example.

Who's jealous of a trade? We are just saying it's ridiculous that Bob the HS dropout makes more painting cars than some of us that are teachers or social workers, etc.

Some of us believe that a lot of the unions have outlived their purpose and are just too greedy (See UAW).

And you telling someone to "Just get a union job than" is no different than me telling a poor working class person to "Go find a better job".

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Of course. However, as I said, it comes down to the data rather than the assumptions we're making.

So you want produced hard data to disprove the null re: microecon theory?

I mean . . .

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Who's jealous of a trade? We are just saying it's ridiculous that Bob the HS dropout makes more painting cars than some of us that are teachers or social workers, etc.

Some of us believe that a lot of the unions have outlived their purpose and are just too greedy (See UAW).

And you telling someone to "Just get a union job than" is no different than me telling a poor working class person to "Go find a better job".

Is it ridiculous if Bob the HS dropout does a better job than you could? You don't have to hire Bob the HS dropout to be your plumber if you don't want to. Generally you're hiring Bob because you think he's experienced enough to do the job right.

I think you think you're arguing against my opinion of unions, which I haven't actually put out here.

It's not "get a union job you lazy bum" it's "if you think that they're paid so much for doing so little why aren't you jumping on that gravy train?" When you say "Bob the HS Dropout" you're pretty much showing your disdain for the person or position despite the fact that most trades are fairly complex and/or have serious drawbacks such as physical labor or dealing with human feces.

It's the same attitude as that of people who talk about welfare queens living high on the hog off TANF, WIC and Food Stamps. They always have some anecdote of someone doing something 'extravagent' or having a nice car on public aid, make assumptions and extrapolate that to the whole. They'd never get rid of all their assets to be poor so they could live off the "government teat" but they talk like that's what the poor people already did.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you want produced hard data to disprove the null re: microecon theory?

I mean . . .

I don't do econ. All I was doing was pointing out the flaws in the argument of someone who claimed to only care about the logic. The only way to move past the philosophical arguments or opinion-based anecdata is to actually support the argument with data. Until then, it is only an opinion, or even a well reasoned position, but without actual evidence to back it up you're not getting further.