Protecting white males in the US

Interesting video. I have stated before that we should eliminate race in the question of hiring, firing and scholarships. What is an “African American”? Please look back at my blog about how we fairly “label” everyone. This race labeling does not work today.

All union rights have been created through legislation.

The prevailing thought is that unions are good and that they enhance fairness and increase prosperity. Most politicians would rather be caught in a compromising scandal with Charlie Sheen than publicly advocate reducing the power of unions.

Instead, politicians vociferously support the union interests even if it means bigger deficits. Former New Jersey Governor , Jon Corzine once stood at a union gathering and said: “I will fight to get you a good contract.” He said publicly what many others only say (and frequently say) behind closed doors. The unions support the election of the politician and the politician then fights for a better contract for the union.

All union rights have been created through legislation (state and federal) and their power can be reduced via legislation as well. There is nothing in our constitution that creates union rights. I advocate their constitutional right to assembly (in their non-working hours), their right to free speech, and even their right to not show up for work (as long as they can be fired for dishonest sick days). But governments and private companies should be free to either negotiate with these groups or not. But lately the right to collective bargaining is being heralded as a constitutional guarantee.

So we have several decades of union strength based on the power they were given in various laws. Our schools treat the union movement as a deity and kids are taught about the wonderful benefits of unions. Kind of self-serving isn’t it?

Today the media consistently equates the act of demonizing unions with demonizing the underlying work or the workers. But I can and I do respect the role of a teacher, policeman or firefighter without supporting their right to have more powerful union rights.

In the 1930’s unions were a force for worker safety improvements, which was definitely needed. That was great but that was then. Today this safety function is managed by OSHA (at the federal and state level), and workers compensation legislation. And unions spend few of their resources working on safety issues today.

Today there is primarily one mission of any union: “Give me, give me!”

The unions actually try to make the argument that they help organization efficiency. Does anyone really believe this? Clearly they can inflate wages and compensation to the benefit of their workers. But there is no free lunch. Someone is paying for it and it that someone is all of the rest of us that are not in that union.

In summary:

Unions distort wages at the expense of everyone else and they hurt the productivity of the country.

Seniority systems reduce the incentive for a worker to give his best and make it difficult to keep the best worker when the work force needs to be trimmed.

Unions put private businesses into bankruptcy. The jobs gradually shift overseas.

Unions support liberal candidates that feel no responsibility to negotiate hard with them.
Unions delay adjustments to work rules and compensation as the market demands. They tend to dig in so hard that they drive a business into bankruptcy rather than rapidly facilitating the necessary change. In the private sector the union inflexibility is self-correcting because their victims simply close up shop. But in government and other monopolies (gas and electric companies), the unions gather strength and their employees receive a bigger share of the pie than their non-union neighbors.

The unions make changing anything hard; they require expensive and drawn out negotiations. Instead of making 25 small adjustments during a month, the union requires an expensive process to change a few things during a year-long negotiation. By the time an lenghty negotiation with a private company is completed the company is frequently out of business and their products are being manufactured in China.

Is it any wonder that union membership has dropped so dramatically in the private sector? They simply don’t work well.

Union stats overstate the numbers in the private sector

The difference in the percentage of union members in the public sector versus the private sector is even greater than reported. Recently the public sector percentage has been reported as 36% (it is actually over 41% in the state and local government sector) versus 7% in the private sector.

But the 7% figure in the private sector is inflated. First, the federal government in its bailout of General Motors and Chrysler cut deals that strengthened the position of their unions. If the companies had gone into a traditional bankruptcy without federal support they likely would have been reincarnated as non-union businesses.

Then we have government construction projects that require union labor. In 2009, Obama signed an executive order that allowed federal agencies to require that contractors on large federal projects be unionized.

In other words many of the 7% of “private” workers that are reported as union are really quasi-government.

But alas it is like arguing against apple pie and motherhood. A politician today would rather speak out in support of Muammar al-Gaddafi than say publicly: “The time for unions has passed”.

Today’s economic theory is based on a former “closed economy”.

Much of today’s economic theory is founded on a “closed economy” in which the US operated decades ago. In the good old days, when the government stimulated consumer confidence it resulted in consumer purchases that were usually filled with US manufacturing and production. But today when the government stimulates consumer spending it translates into additional production in China or Japan and only occasionally in the US.

And our government tends to borrow for this stimulation.

So we are using yesterday’s outdated tricks in a different economic landscape.

America’s weakness is not in borrowing, spending and consuming (we are gold medal champion consumers). Our problem is producing enough to meet this growing consumption. We are challenged in producing enough products that the rest of the world wants to buy.

Should we stop subsidizing consumption and start emphasizing production? We could do that via tax treatment, public messages and strive to produce more products that we can sell to the rest of the world.

Dear Abby - My husband has a long record of money problems.

"Dear Abby,



He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest.

Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.

Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslims.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath.

It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

Signed, Lost in DC"
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lost:
Stop whining, Michelle. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. You're getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you. The rest of us are stuck with the bastard for two more years!

Abby

(received from a friend via email)

Cutting spending during an economic downturn

“It’s not a good idea to cut spending during an economic downturn” is the prevailing view from the left. Well what if you were in Greece or Ireland and nobody woul lend you money anymore? They were clearly in a downturn and they had to either cut spending or experience chaos. It is a very inconvenient time for them to cut their spending but they no longer had a choice. They either had to cut spending or go bankrupt.

At that same time our voters are saying “don’t cut my Medicare, don’t cut my Social Security. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.” Time to make the cuts we need to make!

The Republicans are letting us down.

Since making cuts on the House of Representatives expense budget of about $25 million per year - nothing. We continue to spend $4.6 billion A DAY more than we take in. So in 184 years this $25 million per year will have paid for one day’s additional debt. In other words if we find another 67,160 such cuts we will have balanced budget (if we do it now). It will take deeper cuts if we wait another month.

There is much talk in the media about “default” if we don’t increase the debt limit. Virtually no discussion about actually making cuts today. One thing is certain, if we keep the current system of always increasing the debt ceiling, we are guaranteed to default in the future.

It is like a family with $50,000 in debt limit on their credit cards and reaching that limit. If a bank will give them just one more credit card, they will have time to turn things around. Except they never do until they run out of people that will lend to them. They keep facing the same problem each time they reach their increased credit limit. And then at some point, the family needs to borrow simply in order to pay the minimum payments on their credit cards.

The only difference is that our government sets it own credit limit. Our national credit limit can be increased indefinitely until no one will lend us money anymore.

The Republicans have been all talk; they have cut a measly $25 million. Why not cut one little program (say the subsidies to public television, public radio, or the National Endowment for the Arts) today and find one other cut tomorrow and get at the tough and thankless job of cutting each and every day until we have the spending under control? Everyone is talking about needing more time to make the hard cuts that are needed. But the deadline is the means that the Republicans have to insist on fundamental change - NOW. The Republicans need to step up to the plate and block the increase in the debt ceiling.

But alas, it ain’t gonna happen. All talk and no action.