Are Right to Work Laws the New Slavery?

Nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging, they say. And Indiana’s labor unions regard the recently passed Right to Work law that bars them from collecting mandatory dues from workers as a condition of employment as nothing short of a hanging. As far as they are concerned, the law will make it impossible for them to keep their members, effectively spelling their doom. Hence they are thinking up of ever-new and creative ways to dodge the RTW bullet.

There is some reason to believe that they are over-reacting. Investor Business Daily’s Sean Higgins recently reported that there is little evidence of declining union membership in RTW states, perhaps because union bosses are forced to attend to worker needs when they can’t automatically count on their dues. For example, in Oklahoma, that became a RTW state about a decade ago, Higgins found that when the law was being debated, 6.9% of state workers were unionized. In 2011, the rate was 6.4%, a decline of just 7% over the decade. He notes:

That's not good for the unions, but it is far from a disaster. What's more, the drop is close to the 6% decline in union membership nationally over the same period. [The] membership is stable now.

But Indiana unions are taking no chances and recently filed a lawsuit to overturn the law. Among other allegations, the lawsuit claims that the Indiana law violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against slavery for two reasons:

One, it requires dues-paying union members to work alongside non-dues paying personnel, something that it claims is “compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude within the meaning if the amendment.”

This is patently absurd. And Orwellian. For most people, being forced to pay dues for a service one doesn’t want to an organization one can't really control would be closer to slavery. But how is having to work next to people you think are being treated better than you like slavery? I’d feel many things if I had to share breathing space with a schmucky coworker who is paid twice as much as me for half the work: Envy. Rage. Indignation. But would I feel enslaved?  No – because that involves an element of force, like when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to empty your wallet, which is closer to the modus operandi of union bosses.

Two, the suit claims that the law is tantamount to slavery because it compels “unions to furnish services to all persons in bargaining units that it represents, but it may not require payment for those services.” Unions are on more solid ground in this argument. Most people would concede that there is something unfair about requiring them to collectively bargain on behalf of workers who don’t have to pay dues.

But this is a problem of the unions’ own making. They are required to represent all workers in exchange for  monopoly rights over collective bargaining in the workplace. That is the Faustian bargain they made in the Wagner Act. Thanks to the Act, workers who don’t wish to be represented by an existing union because, say, it is inept or corrupt or in bed with the company management, are out of options. They can’t form another union to represent themselves or deal with the company on an individual basis (companies like it this way too, which is why Big Business and Big Labor both supported the Wagner Act.)

RTW laws are designed to give these workers partial relief by at least allowing them to withhold their dues if they are unhappy with their anointed union. This of course opens the door to free riders, which is far from ideal. But the problem is that unions would like the ideal solution even less because it would go something like this: They wouldn’t have to represent non-dues paying workers in negotiations, but these workers would be released to form their own parallel unions.

The upshot would be a multiplicity of unions in the workplace, each aggressively competing with the other for members.

How about it Richard Trumka? Bob King?

I didn’t think so.

My recent commentary on what Indiana's RTW law means for the future of the labor movement.

H/T: Michael Jahr. Go here for Michigan Capitol Confidential's story on the lawsuit.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What's with the left these days? I'm perfectly willing to hate on the right, but the leftoid nonsense lately has been mind-numbingly stupid.

  • ||

    The futile search of the Left for Egalitaropia. They will destroy everything in order to achieve it.

    Which is what egalitarianism requires.

    Ouroboros, Pro'L Dib.

  • ||

    But it doesn't have to be Ouroboros, does it? Would you deny the prominence of the ecotopian, "virtuous poverty" advocates -- including the evil gamboler that dare not comment on its name? Being equally poor is still being equal.

  • ||

    But it doesn't have to be Ouroboros, does it?

    That's the logical conclusion Mr. Bruce. It's the mark of hubris laden fundies who cannot see past their own nose for total control.

    And yes, I will deny any statist gamboling eco-theologist, going so far as going Full Metal Beserk on those who would seek to envelope my livelihood.

  • ||

    There's no denying that Marxist-inspired Leftism fails to deliver the goods on its own terms, and would certainly qualify. However, not all of The Left actually has the lofty goal of creating a wealthy, egalitarian society. Many are quite satisfied with creating an egalitarian society, which isn't self-consuming, merely dumb.

  • ||

    There's no denying that Marxist-inspired Leftism fails to deliver the goods on its own terms, and would certainly qualify.

    Hence, ouroboros. I doesn't matter what the end result actually is, absent total control for its own sake and is self-consuming. You are forgetting even a strictly eglitarian society, the notions of envy and other parts of the human condition will be omnipresent. Try as they might, these Platonic masterminds cannot extinguish those desires.

    Nature v. Nurture.

  • ||

    So, you are asserting that the only truly egalitarian society is a "Harrison Bergeron" one -- excluding, naturally, the Handicapper General? That seems like a rather strained definition, certainly one opposed to common usage. Moreover, is the hypothetically postulated society less egalitarian, the requisite property for it to be a self-consuming cycle? "Virtuous poverty" sounds at least as egalitarian, even if far less desirable. The posited ends matter.

  • ||

    So, you are asserting that the only truly egalitarian society is a "Harrison Bergeron" one -- excluding, naturally, the Handicapper General?

    Yes, that is my assertion.

    "Virtuous poverty" sounds at least as egalitarian, even if far less desirable. The posited ends matter.

    Initially, yes they do for implementation of such a society. There has to be a promise, a carrot on a stick, if you will. Otherwise, who would go willingly into such construct? Absent force, that is. Once achieved, then the posited ends are superfluous at best.

  • ||

    I'm still not seeing how the existence of communes, tribal societies, etc. is compatible with your assertions, unless you believe them to be necessarily less egalitarian than modern societies that successfully exploit the division of labour and the inequalities that accompany it. Is it due to the capriciousness of nature, disease, war, etc., to which individuals in said societies are regularly exposed? Is it the relatively authoritarian nature of so many communal and/or tribal societies? Do you believe that inequalities of wealth generally compensate for other inequalities, instead of intensifying and being intensified by them? My only point is one of logical precision; I don't believe the practical issues to be of any significant difference from what you have stated. Due to that, I'll gladly tender the last word to you.

  • ||

    unless you believe them to be necessarily less egalitarian than modern societies that successfully exploit the division of labour and the inequalities that accompany it.

    Ah, there's the sticking point, and yes to all your queries, as they are for precisely the reasons you cited.

    Do you believe that inequalities of wealth generally compensate for other inequalities, instead of intensifying and being intensified by them?

    They would have to, initially. Then, as more wealth re-distribution takes place, essentially feeding on itself through the emotive reasons I cited, the ouroboros starts eating itself.

    I don't believe the practical issues to be of any significant difference from what you have stated.

    Those indeed make the difference. To Occam further, envy, which is borne of fear. When you have a fearful society of any type, economic manipulation of that society is very, very easy, so force is no longer necessary to matriculate those who wish to achieve that "better" standard of life. Think of it this way: the end goal stays the same, you just re-define the rule as you are getting there, whether you end up a tribe of gamboling idiots or a bunch of IKEA slums.

  • ||

    They have the power (sort of) right now, and their numero uno leader has assraped them all, very, very badly. A lot of their policies are bombing horribly, and that plus Obama is forcing them to either be abject, two-faced lying partisan scum, or actually admit being wrong or lying about a bunch of their core "beliefs" and that Obama is a total shit.

    Since they're partisan scum, they have no integrity, so they of course decided to go FULL RETARD and choose the first option, except for a very few people like Greenwald.

    Denial makes people become indescribably stupid.

  • ||

    They have the power (sort of) right now, and their numero uno leader has assraped them all, very, very badly.

    Yet, they keep going back to the same well. They feel like they have no where else to go.

    Since they're partisan scum, they have no integrity, so they of course decided to go FULL RETARD and choose the first option, except for a very few people like Greenwald.

    Greenwald doesn't suffer from battered spouse syndrome.

  • ||

    They feel like they have no where else to go.

    Fuck them. They made this bed, and now we all have to lie in it. The fuckers all reinforce each other in their stupidity and lies, and they're all culpable.

  • ||

    If "the fuckers" include virtually all of those on the far right, which bends back around to the far left on half of the issues, then you have pretty much nailed it. Mix in the unconcerned and the trendy "moderates," and you have our Great Society.

  • ||

    They made this bed, and now we all have to lie in it.

    Overall, this is sadly true. Which is why prog TEAMS deserve all the abuse they so richly have cultivated.

    they're all culpable.

    Agreed. I have no sympathy, mind you. I'm at the point where I want to hit back. Hard. Since I don't have that option directly, I have made other plans.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If you're going to escape to a parallel universe, could you send me back a copy of the seven season run of Firefly on Blu-ray?

  • ||

    That show really went downhill in season seven.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Look, we all thought that the Book/Inara hookup was a bad idea, and the evil River clone was just Whedon running on fumes, but the rest of that series was fucking gold.

  • ||

    Uh, Hugh, when they spun off A Man Called Jayne was probably the worst moment. I mean, they couldn't tell that a show where Jayne settles down with the mudders in Canton and opens a bar with River wasn't the best idea for a sitcom? I mean, it even had fucking canned laughter, dude.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You'll notice I didn't ask for a copy of that show.

  • ||

    You were the one raving about it when it came out!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Hey, I can be wrong, okay? When they spun Angel off I was like, who want to watch this? Then by season three I was like, hey this is pretty good. Then season four came along and I was all what televised abomination has Joss Whedon wrought upon the world?

    At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, Mr. Furry Vengance.

  • ||

    Look man, you don't know how much they offered me to do that. I couldn't turn it down.

  • ||

    If you're going to escape to a parallel universe

    You mean the one where Episiarch is Brendon Fraiser?

  • ||

    Just so long as he isn't Brendan Fraser. Now that would be freaky. ;-P

  • ||

    Just so long as he isn't Brendan Fraser. Now that would be freaky. ;-P

    Yeah, yeah. :-P

  • Evil Otto||

    You mean the one where Episiarch is Brendon Fraiser?

    That would be a perpendicular universe.

  • ||

    If you're going to escape to a parallel universe, could you send me back a copy of the seven season run of Firefly on Blu-ray?

    How about a UKR beauty instead? They are more plentiful.

  • John||

    Reality is catching up with them. They are getting more and more angry and irrational.

  • Hyperion||

    Easily explained. The progs have run amok for decades without any challenge at all. They even got as far as to start the PC non-sense. Once they started being challenged, they freaked out because they have no answer to logical debate. Challenge them further and they will roll on the ground foaming at the mouth, start chewing off their own feet, and then in a wonderful spectacle to behold, their empty heads will explode like coconuts.

  • John||

    This. I went to the Stossel reception at Reason a few weeks ago. Stossell remarked at how people in his Manhattan neighborhood come up to him and tell him they hope he dies. No kidding. He said that he goes out and speaks to right wing groups and tells them things like his support for legalizing drugs that they strongly disagree with. And they are always polite and engaging even if they don't agree with him. The left in contrast is just fucking batshit insane.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, I have been finding this true for some time now. I post on a lot of political blogs, most that are moderately hostile to Libertarian ideas. While those who claim to be conservatives usually disagree with me, not always, they are typically cordial and polite and will try to logically express their viewoint. On the other hand, the leftists are almost all completely hostile and not even open to debate. If you try to start a debate with them, offering a well thought out counter viewpoint, they immediately launch into personal attacks.

    If we continue to challenge the left, they are going to implode and I am going to revel in the delight of it.

  • Evil Otto||

    Part of it goes with the fact that the people out of power are much more accepting of limitations on govt. I remember some seriously nasty treatment from conservatives back during the Pax Bushica circa 2004, when the liberals were trying to be our friends.

  • ||

    You don't even have to go that far back, Tulpy. Terry Micheal ring a bell? Green party types? Ratfuck?

  • Hyperion||

    There are a couple of greens over at Politico that are RP supporters. Those are probably the only 2 sane green party members in the country. The rest of them are bat shit crazy, agenda 21 types.

  • Hyperion||

    Liberals tried to be our friends? What strange and alien timewarp do you appear from EO?

    I didn't get really interested in politics until the mid point of the 2nd wave of the Bushica invasion, circa 2006.

    When they made me show my drivers license to buy ephedrine, that did it for me. That is when I jumped ship with the GOP and became a raving Libertarian.

  • Evil Otto||

    You missed the liberaltarian movement? Obama and the Dems harping over increasing the debt ceiling in 2005? They were all about states' rights and the Tenth Amendment too.

  • Hyperion||

    I guess I missed it. But I have heard of this story that was passed down by the ancient ones.

  • Hyperion||

    Interestigly enough, EO, one who they say is Tulpa; the 2nd confirmation of my Libertarian transformation, after the ephedrine trauma, was when a guy I knew had agreed to let part of his property be declared a wetland to save on his property taxes. I became immediately suspicious having already decided after my Libertarian enlightenment event, that I did not trust the gubermint at all.

    Well, a few months later I saw this guy and he was going ballistic. Apparently he had planted some ornamental trees and bushes beside a stream running through his property that happened to be on the part he was saving taxes on. Some government employees came out one morning, burnt out his newly planted trees and bushes, and warned him not to plant anything within several yard of the stream again, or he would be heavily fined. The stream had been declared the habitat of an endangered frog.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Serves him right. If you get into be with government, expect to get fucked.

  • ||

    >>If you try to start a debate with them, offering a well thought out counter viewpoint, they immediately launch into personal attacks.

    Like Joe and Shrike and Tony?

  • Hyperion||

    I remember Tony, but haven't seen him here since I started posting again. Joe, I don't know him. Shrike, he seems to be somewhat combative towards Ls and Rs, not sure what his deal is. Told me he is a liberal and not a progressive, but I don't buy it, he seems like a progressive to me. I mean really, the only people I know that hold some really liberal viewpoints are Libertarians. Most who claim to be liberal are statist progressive fuckheads.

  • ||

    Joe was a liberal who came here specifically to argue. His comments verged on being nearly troll-esque. He left this board in a huff shortly after Obama's inauguration because he couldn't defend Obama's actions.

  • robc||

    joe freaked out when we started treating Obama exactly like we treated Bush.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He couldn't handle the non-hypocrisy.

  • juris imprudent||

    I have one particular liberal/proggie blog I like to torment, and I refer to it frequently as Leftboro Baptist Church.

  • Coeus||

    What's with the left these days? I'm perfectly willing to hate on the right, but the leftoid nonsense lately has been mind-numbingly stupid.

    I just ran into another example today.

    But, since then, the number of women killed each year by their partners and exes has hovered around 1,600 - that is, only about 500 fewer deaths per year than in 1976. For men, however, domestic homicides have declined from about 1,600 to 600. In other words, all the increased protections for women, the infrastructure of shelters and hotlines, had done a better job of protecting abusers rather than their victims.

    Yep, it's just a shame that 1,000 fewer men are killed by their wives every year, cause they obviously had it coming. There is not a single comment which debates that paragraph. Those people are every bit the religious zealots that the radical Muslims are. They'll believe any damn thing their "priests" tell them.

  • Evil Otto||

    Trying to wrap my head around that abuser/victim distinction. Are they saying that men are ipso facto abusers and women ipso facto victims? Or are they claiming that the women who were killed in domestic violence were abusers? I don't get it.

  • Coeus||

    The first one. How would you even get the second one out of that?

  • Evil Otto||

    I was trying to find a way to interpret that as something besides femitard crap.

  • Coeus||

    I was trying to find a way to interpret that as something besides femitard crap.

    It's a dem site. Why would you think it would be anything else? I don't even think anything else is possible, at least until the priests tell them otherwise.

  • Coeus||

    They're also saying that all men killed by partners were abusers. Because that apparently is the only reason a woman would kill a man. Doctor Seuss characters have more depth than these people.

  • Evil Otto||

    Unions aren't ideologically leftist, they're just pursuing their own interests.

  • Brutus||

    There are plenty of hard-left unions. CWA? SEIU?

  • robc||

    That is what all rent-seekers say.

  • ||

    Can't they be both? Aren't they often both?

  • Tman||

    When I was 14 I worked at Stop'n'Shop (a Boston chain grocery store) in the produce section part time.

    I had to join the grocers union (or whatever it was called) and pay union dues. So out of the already ridiculously low wages I received, I had to get jacked by a union for benefits that there was no WAY I would ever use.

    Right to work is slavery?

    Fuck you.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, same deal with me. Bagged groceries at a major chain as a kid. UFCW. Could have made the same wage anywhere but had to pony up the dues. Union steward gave me shit because I would take the trash out for the old woman who worked in the deli late every night. She said that they should have a second deli person working with her on that shift to take out the trash since she wasn't physically able. I ignored her and continued to do it anyways. She probably could have gotten me fired but I didn't care and evidently she didn't want to bother. Funny thing is there was a large non-union grocery store chain in town that paid pretty much the same as they did for all positions.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Maximizing employment by minimizing individual responsibilities and punishing those who do not conform. Sounds like a metaphor for how the Left treats the entire economy.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I was in UFCW (*shudders*). I actually saw one of my equals get fired for insubordination, then get his job back with the union. Too bad the policy in the contract about workers not having to do work outside their department was fucking stupid, and in a normal company he should have been fired.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    We also had mustached old union reps coming around all the time and trying to shoot the shit with me too, generally bitching about "corporate" and shit like that. What is it with obsessive union diehards having mustaches?

  • AlmightyJB||

    IU actually think my union steward had a mustach and it was a woman.

  • Brutus||

    As libertarians, we should encourage this sort of thinking, IMO. Can you imagine what other things would be deemed violations of A13 if this caught on, i.e. every mandatory regulation or tax that took a buck from A and gave it to B, as I see it.

  • ||

    Yeah, but there's no way in hell the statists suddenly realize taxes and regulations are bad. Their impulse will be to outlaw ANY transaction that doesn't have a government-appointed mediator, for your own good, of course. It will be Brazil.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If the only way to get and keep members of your organization is through government mandate, you may want to think about just exactly what kind of value you're actually providing.

  • Sevo||

    Put another way, the Berlin Wall wasn't built to keep people out.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Much pithier.

  • Evil Otto||

    What about the Muro Grande?

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, what about that?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Self-reflection from union bosses?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Too much to ask?

  • ||

    Another piece of evidence that unions are vampiric?

  • ||

    Thread winner!

    +1000 internets to you, sir.

  • Nicholas Card||

    Right to Work is not unconstitutional; far from it. In fact, anything but RTW is unconstitutional. The Right to Work is clearly protected under the First Amendment.

    http://govforliberty.blogspot......dment.html

  • ||

    Since I now live in Indiana, and recently escaped the clutches of the UAW in Illinois, I can vouch for the fact that the underground railroad runs in this direction.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "This is patently absurd."

    Racist!

  • Sevo||

    Just for grins, how about some Ptomekin missiles?
    "Analysts say North Korea's new missiles are fakes"
    From the article:
    "But the weapons displayed April 15 appear to be a mishmash of liquid-fuel and solid-fuel components that could never fly together. Undulating casings on the missiles suggest the metal is too thin to withstand flight."
    Now, the real question is whether 'Lil Kim knows that? Who's zoomin' who?
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....317D05.DTL

  • Hugh Akston||

    Those dummies are just to troll the West. Everyone knows that real DPRK missiles are powered by a tank of burning Koreans.

  • Sevo||

    Now they're working on the isotope separation plants to achieve weapons-grade kimchi.

  • ||

    The Koreans already have weapons-grade kimchi. I've eaten it. And then regretted it.

  • ||

    You know that shit is lethal. Verb, not noun.

  • Sevo||

    Takes the glazing right off the porcelain.

  • juris imprudent||

    Good lord man, you sound like one of those effette East Coasters with their bland tastes.

    My introduction to kimchi was with my brother (who first had it with ROKs in Viet Nam); did he tell me to eat steamed rice with it? No, he let me order the fried rice (which the Koreans spice up as well).

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lil Kim say him missle one hundwed pucent fu weal. amewika jus jeawous cause day have small missle.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think the sadest thing is about this story is that they did not feel like it was a complete waste of time and money to bring a lawsuit claiming that RTW is akin to slavery. What the hell does that say about our judicial system?

  • Hyperion||

    That it has been severely compromised by fucktard progressives.

  • ||

    What the hell does that say about our judicial system?

    That the judges are political appointees, vetted by politicians, and thus are likely to give political rulings based on ideology because impartial judges get tossed out by this process?

    And that a lawsuit like this has a shot if it falls before the "correct" kind of partisan judge?

  • Alice Bowie||

    There should be no government intervention into unions.

  • ||

    Yes, and government should stay out of my Medicare!

  • Alice Bowie||

    I thought the Government IS medicare?

  • ||

    The nuance is lost upon you Alice. Think hard about what Mr. Bruce said.

  • Sevo||

    GM,
    Are you going to set a date when the assignment is due?
    Anyhow, Alice, you would be right in your initial claim, but unions wouldn't have the (current) power to *require* employers to negotiate with them absent government edicts.
    If you are arguing that government has no business interfering in private contracts, you got a winner. But I don't think that's what you meant.

  • ||

    Are you going to set a date when the assignment is due?

    One and done.

  • Evil Otto||

    I agree. Let's repeal the NLRA.

  • Coeus||

    Hehe
    Boosh and/or Kakow.

  • ||

    Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: NLRA, Norris-La Guardia, Davis Bacon, etc.

  • robc||

    It RTW was ruled to be a violation of the right to contract (it is) then their might be more pressure to repeal the NLRA. Which also violates the right to contract.

  • ||

    In this corner, the perfect...
    In the other corner, the good...

    FIGHT!

  • Sevo||

    And for more amusement, Sean Pen saves the world:
    "Sean Penn accepts peace prize"

  • Sevo||

    And the reason squirrels nixed some part of the remainder of the post.
    Check your fave AP reseller; he makes an ass of himself and fails to realize he hasn't accomplished anything other than feeling self-righteous.

  • Dingus||

    Tman,

    I had the same situation at S&S in CT and it's what started my road to libertarianism.. I was 14, took the schoolbus to work, earned 4.25 (minimum wage) an hour and had to pay union dues for nothing. Much of my salary would disappear to that and taxes, while I had to spend my time arguing with WIC folks that ice cream wasn't on the list and jug-a-juice didn't contain enough fruit for the government's taste.

  • Tman||

    Yep, that sounds about right. Something like 40% of my check went to unions and taxes.

    Looking back I feel like an idiot for staying as ling as I did.

  • John||

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the....._ruin.html

    Speaking of lefty stupidity. Not growing broke is going to ruin the UK.

  • Sevo||

    "But Britannia has offered up precisely the model that I argued last year would serve as a cautionary tale for American voters of the dangers of cutting a swathe through the public sector at a time when private sector job growth is anemic."

    Yep, that's the problem.
    The solution is obvious: Have the government employ *everyone*!
    They can tax themselves at 110%, meaning they pay themselves and 1/10th of the next guy! Multiplier!

  • John||

    How can anyone be that stupid?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Are they stupid or is this just part of their grander plan to destroy the economy and institute communism?

  • Sevo||

    Nurture or nature; not sure.

  • ||

    Mr. Bruce, here is an ouroboros. (Not John. The linked article.)

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hey John, did you happen to catch Shikha's article earlier today about why repubicans should root for a Romney defeat in November? Reminded me of your comment the other day about the Reason articles four years suggesting that republicans needed to punish the GOP.

  • John||

    Interesting isn't it. Odd that the Democrats don't seem to deserve punishment for selling out on civil liberties and the war.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What I thought was interesting is what she didn't mention. She didn't mention that he supports E-Verify and has opposed the Dream Act and Amnesty. Considering how obsessed Shikha is with immigration, I would have thought that would have been mentioned.

  • John||

    And the record deportations

  • Evil Otto||

    Taking a Dalmia article without a pound of salt was your first mistake.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh I did. I just thought it funny because John had just brought it up a few days earlier.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is Michael Moran one of Paul Krugman's pseudonyms?

  • ||

    It never occurs to these retards that there is no such thing as permanent, on-going growth. Going back into recession isn't an indictment of their so-called "austerity", it's exactly what needs to happen to keep clearing out the system for several more years.

    The recession should have been sharper, and much, much shorter. Could have gotten this whole mess cleaned up in a year.

  • John||

    And it never occurs to them that you are only as rich as the amount of goods and services you produce. Government workers are a luxury. They are not what make you rich.

  • ||

    There are words I would use to describe most government workers. "Luxury" ain't one of them.

  • Coeus||

    But then they'd have to accept that actions can have consequences that aren't punishments imposed by the government. And dat makes der liddle headdies hurt.

  • Evil Otto||

    It never occurs to these retards that there is no such thing as permanent, on-going growth.

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans think perpetual prosperity is possible, and the only thing keeping us from it is _________.

    Leftists merely need to fill in the blank for them.

  • ||

    Put "a lack of copious levels of freedom" in the blank, and I would agree with the first part of that sentence.

    Prosperity with the occasional dip in just how prosperous, but still ...

  • Sevo||

    Gojira|4.26.12 @ 8:46PM|#
    "It never occurs to these retards that there is no such thing as permanent, on-going growth..."
    This ^
    When the securities market was tanking in '08, all the screams were that it proved that the market was a horrible place to trust your retirement, and social security was the only way to make sure you were safe.
    Well, no. Unless you had to sell everything at that specific time, the market really didn't have a lot of effect on any retirement program.
    S/S, OTOH, now is admitted *by the government* to be empty of dough by 2033, and it's a good bet that's a lie.
    ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....risis.html )
    The securities markets have recovered nicely.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Its all a joke anyways on that score of markets vs. defined pensions. Especially for government workers where the government can do extralegal things like not actually put any money in the pension.

    Not putting money into 'defined benefits' pension schemes leaves them beholden to the market to appreciate that much more to make up the difference. I was reading today the State of Illinois is assuming 8.5% asset appreciation year-to-year and they're still $billions$ in the hole.

    To be solvent, you'd probably need to throw another point on that appreciation, ~10% per year. That's Warren Buffett territory performance - as an assumption.

    Its so funny that the defined benefits lovers don't realize their financial vehicle is actually a bunch of politicians trading on margin looking for the big win. Pathetic.

  • Sevo||

    "I was reading today the State of Illinois is assuming 8.5% asset appreciation year-to-year and they're still $billions$ in the hole."

    If a 'private' business claimed that as a justification for their miserly contribution to the retirement fund, the SEC would be on them in a new york minute.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Going back into recession isn't an indictment of their so-called "austerity", it's exactly what needs to happen to keep clearing out the system for several more years.

    What gets me is the sheer economic stupidity or willfull ignorance regarding GPD. Because government spending is part of the equation (we REALLY need to come up with a better indicator on wealth and production), that less government spending necessarily means a lower GDP, and that GPD does NOT have any connotation whatsoever to anything resembling economic growth.

    I consider a GPD that goes down in accordance to lower government spending a healthy thing.

  • juris imprudent||

    If right to work is slavery, maybe they should've tried to unionize Shamu.

  • ||

    I am deeply disappoint in the relative dearth of Orwell references.

    Shape it up, guys. Really.

  • Sevo||

    You're welcome to advance one. Let's hear it.

  • ||

    FREEDOM (TO WORK) IS SLAVERY

    Was that so hard?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    PAYING DUES ARE JOY. (Mao-wellian with the Engrish, cue the accordion).

  • ||

    STRIKING IS LABOUR

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "Right to work" laws are statist market interference. So is mandatory bargaining.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure one of the options isn't "none of the above".

  • 16th amendment||

    The 16th amendment violates the 13th amendment.

  • ||

    If you retired from GM after October 1, 1997, you know that your pension option decision time is coming to a close. On June 1, General Motors announced their plan to lessen their pension liability by approximately 26 billion dollars. This leaves you with the power to choose between a one-time lump-sum payment, continuing with your current monthly payment, or taking a new form of monthly benefit. You need to decide which option you'll go with by July 20, 2012. Before you do, it's important to understand the complexity of each and every option so that you can choose which is best for you. You can watch this informative video which outlines the three available options by following this link: http://youtu.be/32ZRne7AoTQ. Additionally, it's highly encouraged that you seek the advice of a seasoned financial planner..info for more information.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement