posted August 02, 2013 01:34 PM            

My opinion pretty much exactly tracks with this author's:
http://www.newser.com/story/171947/like-it-or-not-we-need-unions-again.html

posted August 03, 2013 05:32 PM            

A straight c/p wouldn't do it justice - too many graphs, etc.

...also...because they've apparently coded their mobile site to disallow text selection

posted August 03, 2013 08:04 PM            

I am dumb about these things, though.

What I get miffed about are teacher strikes that seem to be motivated by greed and squeeze the taxpayers. Like, you only work 9 months per year, teachers, so can you please deal with a high deductable dental insurance policy for once...or whatever?

posted August 03, 2013 10:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
What I get miffed about are teacher strikes that seem to be motivated by greed and squeeze the taxpayers. Like, you only work 9 months per year, teachers, so can you please deal with a high deductable dental insurance policy for once...or whatever?

---

SOME teachers work 9 months a year, many also work summer school...they have no choice in the matter given their finances. Furthermore, their salaries already take into account that they work 9 months a year (and they have the option to take it month by month OR to have the pay spread out over 12 months), and over the years they've continually seen their pay slashed (so many who have worked over 10 years get paid less now than when they first started!) while also getting less tax deductions. It's not unknown (especially teachers unable to swing a summer school position) for a teacher to take a second job to make ends meet (especially when single).

Furthermore, the dedicated teachers work far more than most people, too. In addition to the normal workday there's also special programs, day long meetings, and often HOURS of grading papers almost daily, making calls, etc (one reason they have so little sympathy to kids complaining about their homework). And they don't even get paid for all that overtime. And sometimes they have to take more classes themselves to keep up with standards which costs them and which they're not fully compensated for nor given a pay raise, and I bet about any other professional would be screaming a lot louder over this if they got treated the same.

Granted, there are many bad apples in the school cart, and the better quality teachers will often complain about how the bad teachers get all the same rewards and protections for not working anywhere as hard or competently (though it's usually quiet as those teachers who openly complain often get a paper trail started on them to get rid of them). And as greedy as the union may or may not be, many teachers are barely able to make ends meet, receive less compensation for all the work they do (especially the single mother I met who worked as a teacher as well as taking care of 2 kids...gods, that was sad...), and I doubt they're as greedy as the Republicans and corporations trying to plunder the school budgets for their own pet projects, cronies, tax bennies, etc.

posted August 03, 2013 11:02 PM            

The second article I linked to is an excellent read.

posted August 04, 2013 09:47 AM            

Since Mi`s Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the legality of the law, it is still a large issue.

It was very rare to apply for a job without unions being a condition of employment.

posted August 08, 2013 01:58 PM            

Well, I don't watch movies very often, but good friends of mine urged me to watch North and South. So I did that yesterday.

Skipping the romantic plotline, the movie is about a mill owner in 19th c. England whose workers go on strike. The workers had thought the owner was merely being selfish by not paying them enough; as it turns out, he was paying the best wages he could afford. The strike put the factory out of business and everyone was in danger of starving to death (until a dramatic change of fortune occurred...but I won't spoil the ending.)

I guess that kind of scenario is possible. Of course it seems a far cry from modern America. I've never heard of unions forming at smaller companies.

posted August 08, 2013 03:23 PM            

The average paycheck for a Detroit union-based employee has an all-in hourly paycheck in excess of $140/hour. This includes healthcare benefits, defined benefit plans, insurance and other retirement benefits. It does not include contingency costs satisfying the ambulance chasers.

I'm not pushing to reduce any benefits and I won't shed a tear if the executives have their equity-linked compensation vastly reduced (those stock options are worthless anyway), but it indeed is hurting the competitiveness of Detroit autos relative to other global brands. I'm not talking about Toyota or Nissan or Hyundai or BMW, which all have operations in America. And I'm ignoring all other Detroit based issues like quality and design.

posted August 08, 2013 04:24 PM            

Because, from your comments, it seems like you didn't.

posted August 08, 2013 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mockingbird:
Have you read the article?

It's really worthwhile and expands beyond the direct "boss/employee" sphere.

---

I checked it out and tried to pay close attention, but I get depressed about the existence of these low-paying companies (like McDonald's, whose treatment of animals is disgusting) and it's hard for me to think of fixing problems within them because I want these companies to be punished for their seediness and just go away completely.

I know that is totally unrealistic.

quote:

---

Contributing to this inequality is a new religion of shareholder value that has come to be defined only by "today's stock price" and not by many other less-visible attributes that build long-term economic value.

Like many religions, the "shareholder value" religion started well: In the 1980s, American companies were bloated and lethargic, and senior management pay was so detached from performance that shareholders were an afterthought.

But now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now, it's all about stock performance — to the point where even good companies are now quietly shafting other constituencies that should benefit from their existence.

---

I'm curious about why the author doesn't propose reforming the laws governing the stock market.

The article didn't focus on how the Federal government creates the division of wealth and that's odd to me, since part of the solution, as I see it, lies there.

posted August 09, 2013 06:02 PM            

Isn't it fair to say that the stock market is keyed not only to predictions about how the industry will perform but also to how the taxpayers and Federal Reserve's willingness to monetize the debt provide a safety net for financial institutions?

quote:

---

The only way to limit financial panics is to eliminate government-induced moral hazard, and that means letting failed institutions fail. Whether resolution is carried out by the FDIC or a bankruptcy court is not the crucial question; rather, it is whether that resolution process forces all the losses on the institution’s stakeholders rather than bailing them out with taxpayer funds.

The standard objection to allowing failures is that some financial institutions are allegedly so large or interconnected that their failure causes a breakdown of the credit mechanism, thereby harming the whole economy rather than just transmitting losses that have already occurred. According to this view, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a crucial mistake that initiated the meltdown, and bailing out other financial institutions was a necessary evil to prevent even further chaos. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather than being a cause, Lehman’s failure was merely the signal that time had come for the U.S. economy to pay the price for all the distortions caused by the misguided policies toward housing and risk. Given those distortions, a massive unwinding and restructuring was necessary to make the economy healthy again.

This restructuring required lower residential investment, declines in stock and housing prices, and shrinkage of the financial sector. All of this implied a recession, even without any impact of financial institution failures on the credit mechanism, and the recession meant that lending would contract, even without a credit crunch.

....

To limit future financial crises, policy must first avoid the distortions inherent in the attempt to expand homeownership. This means eliminating the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, the deductibility of mortgage interest, the homestead exclusion in the personal bankruptcy code, the tax-favored treatment of capital gains on housing, the HOPE for Homeowners Act, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (the bailout bill), and the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. None of this is sensible policy.

In addition, policy must end its proclivity to bail out private risk-taking. This second task is difficult, since it requires policymakers to “tie their own hands.” Specific changes in policies and institutions can nevertheless support this goal. The first is avoiding new regulation that makes bailouts more likely. A second is repealing all existing financial regulation, since this would signal markets that they, and only they, can truly protect themselves from risk.

The third and perhaps most important way to reduce moral hazard is to eliminate the Federal Reserve. As long as the Fed exists, it will regard itself as, and be regarded as, the economic insurer of last resort. In a world with perfect information, appropriately humble central bankers, and an absence of political influence on monetary policy, such a protector might enhance the economy’s performance on average.

In the world we live in, none of these conditions will hold consistently, so the potential for policy-induced disasters is large. The U.S. economy prospered for its first 125 years without a central bank. It’s time to try that approach again.

---

posted August 09, 2013 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

It's extremely counterintuitive for taxpayer funds to bail out private enterprise.

---

posted August 10, 2013 08:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Faith, I thought you might like this (I posted it recently, but just in case you missed it...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

---

LOL, you posted that for me months ago and I LOVE it

posted August 10, 2013 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I need to finish The Road to Serfdom.

---

Here's a very short & sweet summary you might like:
http://mises.org/books/trts/

posted August 10, 2013 09:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
How is it counter intuitive?

---