Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
No it doesn't. If you own a grocery store, and you do not employ union labor, unions from OTHER grocery stores will stand outside your store and protest- even if your own employees are perfectly fine not having a union take a percentage of their paychecks. I've seen it with my own eyes in 3 different states. That is not people being able to choose to take a job or not. That is unions engaging in outright bullying and strong arming OTHER businesses.

That's one example of a union abuse. It's not proof that all unions are driving large businesses of the type I specifically described into the dirt.

Texas is a "right to work" state so it's not something I have a lot of experience with, but as I mentioned, Southwest has a union of its own and it seems to be working fine. I have seen first hand the negative effect union busting has on labor though.

Originally posted by Aristotle
No it isn't. It is a leechlike drain on efficiency. The union bosses have no interest in harmony. If things go smoothly, they don't feel useful and fear workers will want to pay less in dues. They deliberately foment dissent and repeatedly make outrageous demands. So, businesses leave. Then the workers are out of a job, and the unions bosses move on to some other town and business and start over. Unions leaders MUST create strife in order to justify their existence and the dues they drain from the workers' paychecks.

I'd like to hear these demands that are supposedly so outrageous. You never get very specific with that accusation. If unions were not necessary, then we would not have had the business abuses of the past. I don't see any evidence that anything has happened to make them obsolete. I don't see any support for your assertion here.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The reason this is clearly false propaganda is pure, cold self-interest.

Aside from the fact that most human beings, even "Horrible Evil CEOs", would not happily engage in slavery, there is no financial incentive to treat people in the manner you claim they are treated. In fact, there is a financial disincentive. People who are treated like slaves are not as productive. That is, after all, the main reason slavery died out as an economic entity in the western world. It just isn't efficient.

In the same breath you say that no one would do this because of self interest and mention how it has been done. According to this logic, China would already be a free and thriving democratic, capitalistic society.

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is arrogant and ignorant to act like the Knight in Shining Armor for these third world workers when they are not forced to work at these factories, and they are in fact better off than before the factory was built there.

It reminds me of a quote from Full Metal Jacket: "Pvt. Eightball: I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

Americans love to think we know what people in other countries want for themselves. We are rarely correct. If those people chose to work in those factories, maybe, just MAYBE, they had enough brains to make a choice that was best for them. Insiting you know better than they do what is best for them is paternalistic and insulting.

Here again I have the advantage of having been to a few other countries. Not India or China, mind you, or really any places that apply directly to the export of jobs abroad, but places like Greece, Turkey, Egypt and so forth. There's no great up swell of support for America because of the positive effects we are supposedly having on the world economy in general.

Also I have repeatedly explained to you the first hand experience I had with the Mexicans I worked with. There are also repeated attempts by various media outlets to try to let people know that not everyone thinks America's way of running things is as benevolent as you seem to be implying.

I just see no evidence that there is this mass of overjoyed third world workers cheering American job creation where they are still left with a low living standard. Maybe if you offered some evidence of how the living standards are increasing or something.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Furthermore, it is not evil to give someone a job that pays 10-100 times what their last job paid (if they had a job at all).

No argument here. I just am pointing out that taking advantage of people, even if you are taking less advantage of them than others, is still not benevolent.

Originally posted by Aristotle
That's always the answer for the loony left. "Well, we abused the business owners here and they ran away, so lets try and get other countries to pass some stupid laws like the ones we passed in the US. Hey, if we get all countries to treat business owners like shit, maybe they won't have anywhere to run! We already ruined our country, lets ruin theirs too!"

That is just crazy. You make the domestic environment inhospitable to business owners, and decide the best course of action is to try to make it equally crappy elsewhere in hopes of luring them back?

That is like a hotel that loses its customers because they stop cleaning the sheets lobbying for a law that bans all hotels from cleaning their sheets. Ever read Harrison Bergeron?

No one is moving themselves to the hospitable third world. They are buying things from people who are running labor camps there, basically. And no, I never read the author in question.

This has to be at least the third time you have ignored that without the U.S. market these third world sweat shops would have no one to sell to, since their own populace is incapable of buying the things that they're making.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Is that really what you think is involved in starting a business? Do you realize that right there, in that one paragraph, you completely divorced yourself from any possible hint of credibility on this entire issue?

Yes, all the hard work. The months or years of 80+ hour weeks with no overtime (often no pay at all), no benefits, no vacations, no sick days, to get a business running. The risk of personal savings (that could result in total financial ruin if the business fails). The sleepless nights lying awake thinking about what you can do to try and make the business successful. The complete and total sacrifice of leisure time for months or years on end. When I started my business, it was 7 years before I was able to take a vacation. The overwhelming majority of new businesses are founded by individuals, with their own money, and their own blood, sweat, and tears to make it work.

I'll give you an example that some Threshers are familiar with. FunkyLAN, the place where we had our ThreshCon event, is a business owned by 3 guys who live here in town. They invested tens of thousands of dollars of their own money on computers, networking equipment, furniture, etc. They have full time jobs they work during the day. At night, they work at FunkyLAN for (so far) no pay. They work 7 days a week, including holidays. Some nights, they work all night so they can host lock-in events. After more than a year, they only occasionally break even for the month. When they do not break even for the month, the owners have to dip into their own savings to cover the bills. They are not even close to recouping their initial investment. They have a handful of employees who get to have a fun job thanks to the entreprenurial spirit of the business owners. This story is not rare, it is typical of the hardships many business owners endure to get their business going.

It is truly insulting that you refuse to acknowledge the real engine of economic growth in our country. People taking risks, working their butts off, and starting businesses is what creates jobs and opportunities for other people.

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html

Small businesses:

• Employ more than half of all private sector employees
• Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.

One third of all small businesses fail in the first 2 years, and half fail in the first 4 years. The employee just moves on and gets another job. The business founder/owner often has to face the loss of his/her savings and the crushing agony of personal failure. Some have to face bankruptcy which haunts them for 14+ years. After a couple years of killing themselves, they are left with nothing to show for it, no savings, and very likely a huge pile of debt.

Now, keep in mind that for every successful business venture, that same entrepreneur most likely endured numerous prior failures.

Your total lack of respect and admiration for people who start businesses is both shocking and dismaying. These people are the engines of growth in the US. They are the backbone of our economy. Without them, we have absolutely NOTHING.

Please. I specifically excepted entrepreneurship of the type you describe, noting that it would actually be easier for them if there were more cash flowing through the economy. I even used the specific example of people who have an amount of money that would allow them to make enough to live on simply by leaving their money in the bank. I doubt a union has bothered you much lately, for example.

Having said that, the man I worked for the last two years is an entrepreneur. He has had good times and bad. The reason he succeeds though is because he knows what he is doing. He opened his business in a field he knew and understood.

A lot of people go into business for themselves poorly prepared for the endeavor. They do indeed lose their shirts. What do they do afterwards? They get normal jobs again. Why are they so destitute after their failures? For precisely the reasons I already laid out - i.e. that too many resources are in the hands of the top few percent, and there is simply no way to recover on the wages most of us are allowed by our present economic setup.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Please stop with the straw men. I did not say it was unfair that the bottom 50% only pays 4% of the taxes. I provided actual statistics that show people in the top 50% pay a higher percentage of taxes than the percentage of income they earn. Thus, they are clearly carrying the bottom 50%. Maybe the bottom 50% should appreciate that instead of demonizing "the rich."

By the way, that top 50% is everyone who makes more than $16,108. That is hardly "rich."

You can't get blood out of a turnip. I don't know what the official poverty line is, but anyone making less than $17,000 has to be close. That's a disturbing statistic in and of itself.

The way I understood it, you were providing these statistics to prove something about what I said about the top few percent paying a large portion of the taxes. I specifically noted that this would not even be possible except that income distribution was hugely disproportional. I think at this point that is something we agree about. We just disagree why it is true.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The only inequality that exists is one that favors the bottom 50%. They earn 14% of the income and pay 4% of the taxes. They are being CARRIED by the top 50%. Someone else is paying their way. Most of this bottom 50% is also drawing benefits from the government that are paid for by the top 50%. But lets just pretend that doesn't exist, right?

The fact that you interpret that fully 50% of people are dirt poor as them being horrible people who are being "carried" by others leaves me wondering where else to go from here. Fully 50% of all humans are more or less worthless? Nothing about how we have our economic model organized has anything to do with that at all?

Originally posted by Aristotle
The reason the top 50% makes 86.19% if the income is becasue they work harder and they care about making responsible choices. They put education and hard work above other frivolities. Do you really want to argue it is a herculean task to get a job that earns $16,108 per year? That is approximately $8 an hour (assuming 2 weeks of vacation).

Here's the thing. A lot of people are happy not working hard and thus not making a lot of money. That is fine. That is their choice. Thankfully, most people who make this decision understand and accept that it was truly their choice. To choose not to care about your education, or not to work hard, and then also complain that you are not in the top 50% income wise is just clueless and ignorant.

Or a Mexican working for less than minimum wage, or a black man stuck in an inner city without the means to get a job anywhere else, or a working mother trying to find a way to both work and raise her kids, or just anyone who may not be that bright.

I tell you, your opinion of people just in general is shocking to me. Do you know any working poor people? They're not THAT lazy and stupid.