Winning: Germans fear huge loss of jobs from US tax cuts

[_cinepro]

Unions is the only answer. But Republicans love slavery almost as much as they hate unions.

Unions only work by limiting the supply of labor and artificially inflating the wages for those who are able to join the union and benefit from their membership. Unions can't be the "answer" for everyone, because there are too many potential workers.

This article shows how it works:

Californians compete for a rare prize: a blue-collar union job paying up to $200,000

In February, for the first time in over a decade, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union will raffle off thousands of part-time gigs working at Los Angeles-area ports. The slots don’t come with benefits or steady hours. But eventually, after putting in years at the docks, some of those part-timers may earn the chance to become unionized longshoremen, who can make as much as $200,000 per year.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2,400 names drawn in the raffle will become “casual” longshoremen.

Although they perform the same work as union members — loading thousands of containers on and off massive cargo ships to keep the ports running on time — they work far fewer hours. And the wait to receive full union benefits can stretch over a decade.

The average casual worker who showed up for weekly shifts earned nearly $31,000 in 2016, according to data from the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents the shipping companies and terminal operators that employ the dockworkers. Full-time union members get paid $161,000 on average, but those with seniority can earn tens of thousands more.

Today, there are part-timers who have been waiting 13 years to get into the union. But the PMA said that for now, there are no firm plans to elevate any of them.

[_Kevin Graham]

Unions only work by limiting the supply of labor and artificially inflating the wages for those who are able to join the union and benefit from their membership. Unions can't be the "answer" for everyone, because there are too many potential workers.

There is nothing artificial about those wage increases, and you're conflating all types of unions with "closed shop" unions. I've never worked for a unionize company but I know the only way employees can get better wages is through collective bargaining. Publicly owned corporations rarely have an incentive to give wage increases to the workers because the BofD and CEO have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

This article shows how it works

I'm fairly certain that's not "how it works." You pull up some weird anecdote from the web and suggest this is the norm. I have no idea what's going on with their raffle for a job, but I know that doesn't exist with AT&T workers. Twenty years ago I worked for Pepsi and I remember the company sent in these anti-Union reps to hold meetings with us for hours and all they did was bad-mouth unions and I never understood why. I didn't even know of anyone working there who was interested in starting a union, but the company was so terrified of the prospect that they went all out with preemptive measures to indoctrinate everyone about how horrible they are, how they take your money and do nothing, etc. They never mentioned the pros of having people negotiate on your behalf for better pay and benefits, job security, safety standards, etc.

This is just common sense that an employer wants there to be an endless supply of ignorant people who are potential workers. People they can take advantage of obviously. But when the workers get together they have negotiating power. This is why wages and wage increases were infinitely better during the time when Unions comprised a large section of America's labor. It isn't just a crazy coincidence that legislation was gradually passed to make it difficult to unionize, while wages stagnated despite production increasing.

[_Kevin Graham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlHVZpNxMM

[_cinepro]

I've never worked for a unionize company but I know the only way employees can get better wages is through collective bargaining.

I'm sorry, but do you really believe that's the only way?

As for "open shops" vs. "closed shops" unions (understandably) hate open shops (as they hate competition of any sort).

There are simply too many workers and too much freedom for those workers to work where they want. Unions can only thrive if they are able to limit the number of workers and limit where those workers can work. There may be certain industries and locations where Unions do less damage than others, but to imply that increasing the prevalence of Unions will be good for anyone other than the chosen few who can get the Union jobs (and the Unions themselves) is facile.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm sorry, but do you really believe that's the only way?

On a scale that affects the nation as a whole? Yes. Otherwise, what do you propose? I haven't heard anything else other than "cut the employer's taxes" which is a gimmick that has been tried over and over and never produces higher wages. The stagnation of wages corresponds to the economic paradigm shift to Reaganomics.

I don't have any experience working for a union, but EA seems to know a lot about them. I remember him talking quite a bit in the past. From what I remember, as a Libertarian he isn't opposed to them and doesn't seem them as the enablers of communism that some seem to think.

[_cinepro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlHVZpNxMM

That's a good video (who knew Robert Reich could draw?), but I don't buy the "oligarch" theory. There are certainly rich people who try and influence politics, but the results would indicate they don't have nearly as much power as people imagine.

[_Kevin Graham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlHVZpNxMM

That's a good video (who knew Robert Reich could draw?), but I don't buy the "oligarch" theory. There are certainly rich people who try and influence politics, but the results would indicate they don't have nearly as much power as people imagine.

Not yet maybe.

[_EAllusion]

My point was that, contrary to what you said, businesses do not simply flock to where ever taxes are lowest. There are a variety of factors that influence business activity in a region. Some of those relate to the existing government services.

You are being simplistic to the point of wrong.

I certainly don't think lowering the corporate tax rate hurts the chances of businesses coming to the US and I don't see how you can deny that higher taxes doesn't drive some away and reduce the number of businesses you can tax at all.

All things being equal, a low tax environment is more attractive to businesses. But all things aren't equal, which is where your simplistic story of lower taxes equating to corporate relocation and investment runs off the rails. For example, robust public education systems, which tend to carry higher tax burdens, are a factor in competition for competitive businesses. So are any number of quality of life issues that relate to government funding. It should be significant to you that the most important centers of commerce in America occur in traditionally liberal areas of the country with traditionally higher tax burdens. You can also look at this trend internationally where countries with higher effective tax rates remain competitive with the US on a per capita basis.

It's not that lower corporate taxes cannot be helpful in spurring economic development. I personally prefer no corporate taxes and part of my argument for that is relative competitive advantages of it. (I also think the costs of taxes being passed on in prices functions as a regressive tax.) But you have to drop the way in which you are selling it because it's just not accurate to think that lower taxes provides the benefits in the way you describe.

[_DoubtingThomas]

and politicians in countries like Mexico don't campaign about more jobs, they campaign about higher wages

Why don't politicians do that here?

Listen, Mexico has a low unemployment rate but it's economy is s***. How do you explain that?

"Unemployment rate held steady at 3.5% in March amid solid private-sector job growth"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexicos-jo ... 1492791161

[_Maxine Waters]

Listen, Mexico has a low unemployment rate but it's economy is s***. How do you explain that?

How do you explain poverty in Latin America?