2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[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.