The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein Apparently Flummoxed by Why the Rustbelt Rusted
In an otherwise relatively sensible column about the effect of the process of creative destruction on the currently slow growth in the U.S. job market, Washington Post economics columnist Steven Pearlstein makes this odd observation:
I'd also offer a geographic hypothesis. For years, much of the growth in the nation revolved around the movement of people and business from the Rustbelt to the Sunbelt. Before long, a self-reinforcing dynamic took hold where growth begot more growth. As big corporations moved work from Pennsylvania and Ohio, entrepreneurs saw the opportunity to provide the new factories with everything from parts to catering services. Small contractors sprang up to build houses for the employees of all those new ventures, followed by other firms to provide restaurant meals and yoga instruction to all the new inhabitants. Only when the bubble burst did it become clear that all that growth-induced growth had gotten way ahead of itself. The entrepreneurial activity, along with the explosive job growth, came to a sudden halt.
Pearlstein does not appear to wonder why so many companies decamped from the North to the South. People just all of the sudden got a hankering for more sunshine and warmer temperatures? I would like to suggest an explanation in just three words: Right to work.
See maps below as suggestive evidence.
Pearlstein does later opine:
My guess is that the great Sunbelt migration is now ending. There are early signs that the next phase of growth will come in some of the older cities of the north, where wages and prices have been beaten down, along with much of the entrepreneurial instinct.
Maybe. Of course, if the the National Labor Relations Board manages to impose the same failed employment policies that so helped the Rustbelt rust, then I predict that we can look forward to faster creative destruction and more offshoring.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You lie! Your map lies! [Runs away sobbing.]
Aside from the union issue, there’s also the fact that a number of those go-to states are cheaper and less burdensomely regulated.
“Aside fromBECAUSE OF the union issue, there’s also the fact that a number of those go-to states are cheaper and less burdensomely regulated.”
A few of my businessmen friends from South Carolina say with all the shit that state mandates upon the people, personally and economically, it’s still infinitely better than New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware (don’t know any businessmen from New Jersey, however).
Anybody else got personal experience?
“(don’t know any businessmen from New Jersey, however).”
Neither do I . . . at least that’s what I told the grand jury.
North, even Santa’s workshop is laying off.
Hate. Unionz.
Hate. Unionz.
“Hate public employee unions and forced unionism laws.”
There I fixed it for you.
Hate.
it’s okay. Krugman said that everyone in the south is going to die anyway. Live Free and Die. I guess then work will move back north.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..e-and-die/
Well cearly this means we should all be buying up property in Detroit.
At $1 a house, it will be a pretty low risk investment.
Your dollar is as good as gone.
Just don’t send good money after bad money by trying to fix the place up!
In order for a house to be an “investment” there has to be some hope of selling it for a profit.
The comments are a festival of stupid. Pretty entertaining.
It’s the WaPo, what do you expect?
Not content to infect the Intertubes with it’s own special brand of stoopid, WaPo actually prints online comments in the print edition. It’s like some form of Luddite dyskinesia.
I agree that some of them are strongly influenced by stupid, but on the second page there’s this one:
“Number one, this map is misleading as the areas of decreased life expectancy are also generally areas of lower population.
Number two, Krugman sourced this map from Mother Jones, which in turn copied it from the LA Times (which also used a source). Unfortunately both Krugman and Mother Jones fail to reproduce the other map in the LA Times which shows that the life expectancy of men has grown by 4.3 years from 1987 to 2007 with virtually no part of the country showing a decrease. Even for the case of women, there was a 2.1 overall increase in life expectancy from 1987 to 2007. And from the LA Times: “The grim trend is fueled largely by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity, according to Murray and other population health experts.”
Hopefully Krugman pays more attention to the details of his economic arguments.”
Very informative and completely destroyed the validity of the map. The last sentence is a perfect summation…
At least in Texas, that’s a map of counties almost nobody lives in, where one car accident could change the life expectancy statistics.
Same with Florida. A couple of those counties have 15k-30k people.
One of the ones in Texas has a population of 82.
Not 82k, 82.
Yep, Spoonman’s right. In those Red River counties (Texas & Oklahoma), one tornado can change even the political landscape. Of course, the storm’s got to hit the few, sometimes single, county population center (i.e. town) to do that.
People just all of the sudden got a hankering for more sunshine and warmer temperatures?
You can’t entirely dismiss the invention of A/C as a prime mover in the reverse Great Migration of the late 20th century.
Kolohe: True that.
And also the subsidized energy costs making that A/C relatively inexpensive.
And, those big ol’ dams for cheap water.
Cheap Water was an Indian maid I once knew.
Best and most impactful invention in the history of time.
LOLWUT?
Stapler, bitches.
bread slicer.
PVC Pipe and conduit.
Saved more lives then chlorination and has made communications more reliable then tcp/ip.
That’s just propaganda from pro-PVC extremists.
Exactly! What you wanna bet Joshua Corning is on Big Plastic’s payroll?
I have already hired a Pinkerton man to remind you of how clean water comes out of your faucets.
That’s just propaganda from pro-PVC extremists.
I love the smell of Weld On in the morning.
Fire BURN Wheel!
Fire burn wheel made of stone?
Yes, but Fire not burn wheel made of Steel!
Halon fire extinguisher quenches fire.
I’m not getting in a car on wheels in the Texas summer w/out AC. Suck it wheel.
Refrigeration.
Thermostat, biotchez.
Does the history of time include the future?
Fully automated lifelike servant/sexbot.
“It was EARTH! DON’T DATE ROBOTS!“
No, but it does include a picture of dome dude in a wheelchair.
DUCT TAPE!
Printing press
Or the fucking lever
The Colt revolver–first practical repeating firearm.
Binder clip. Or Beer.
beer…
iPads?
FUCK YOU BRANDON.
Porn. Game over.
An old professor of mine convinced me that it was reading glasses.
His argument was that just as most old time scientists and scholars were hitting their prime, they lost the ability to read because their eyes became far sighted. They had to hire a kid to read/write for them.
With glasses they could remain productive.
Interesting idea, but…
Presbyopia tends not to kick in until age 40 or so. Old timey tinkerers probably died of TB in their 30’s due to the old timey lack of treatments.
KoloheYou can’t entirely dismiss the invention of A/C as a prime mover in the reverse Great Migration of the late 20th century.
Interestingly, a recent episode of The History Channel’s How the States got their Shapesdiscussed this same theory. Facts presented included that before 1960’s the most heavily populated cities / metropolitan areas were in the Northeast, Michigan, & Illinois. None of the top 10 population centers in the first half of the 20th Century (i.e. before widespread residential & business A/C) were all in these northern states. By the middle of the second half (approx. 1975 – 1985) cities like Atlanta & Houston were on their way to surpassing the shrinking rustbelt industrial centers.
Clearly this is only the result of union-bashing evil Republicans looking to retaliate against me and Team Blue.
Have some early 90’s electronic music for this summer day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMccMIFN4Oo
What “summer” day? Have you ever been to Seattle?
There are some summerish days in July and August. Usually.
I thought you guys got like 40-50 days of sunshine a year there.
Meanwhile, I won’t see a cloud at home for another 3-4 months.
Seattleites: suckers.
Sunshine is for people who want skin cancer. Owning shorts is also for suckers. I am perfectly happy with my moontan and find our 300 or whatever days of 40-60 degree overcast and slightly raining weather fine, thank you very much!
Does Seattle have the highest suicide rate in the country, or is that just an urban legend?
I always thought they attributed that to the weather. Oh, and they set Twilight up there because those faggoty-ass vampires just loved the weather, what with their Hi-Pro glow or whatever they called that sparkly-skin shit. In the rest of the world, we thought everyone from up there had milky-white skin. Except for all the yellow people that live up there. I mean, come on.
[ends rambling abortion of a comment]
[ends rambling abortion of a comment]
I think you got out just in time.
I think I got out two paragraphs too late.
“Does Seattle have the highest suicide rate in the country, or is that just an urban legend?”
The three explanations I’ve heard:
1. Little sunshine.
2. Non-religious.
3. Grunge rock.
Forks, WA is 140 miles from Seattle. You can’t blame Twilight on us! Also, I can vouch for people of the asian persuasion having a tendency to go less yellow as a result of reduced sunbeam exposure.
As for suicide rate, I’m not sure.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/heal…..hs/CD.aspx
This study seems to indicate King County is not abnormally high for suicides, but it’s also on the King County website. I’m sure they buried the one that showed King County suicides are off the chart.
Furthermore, I dissent with the assumption that all suicides are bad. If Seattle had twice the normal suicide rate and the excess was composed of statists, I would shed no tears.
Does David Fincher really do the lighting design for Washington state? 😉
I wish.
No. Have some face-crushing black metal. The Pentagram Burns
One of my coworkers and I have a tradition of trading electronic songs of the day on Friday. This is an excellent offering. Good taste in music: you haz it.
Why thank you. Grab some similar tunes from these mixes:
http://www.beatsinspace.net/playlists/575
Thanks- I like! I have been into the dubstep lately but can’t forget about the groovy, glitzy goodness.
If you want some gloriously guilty balaeric pleasures you can’t go past AOR Disco:
http://aordisco.blogspot.com/
YES. Quote from that blog (just to make Warty’s head asplode): Even with our edits we always like to embellish them with extra synth parts, pads, vocals, vocoders, percussion etc. Indeed.
Good spotting. Love that smooth, balaeric stuff! 🙂
Dubstep is great.
Dubstep!
Hah hah hah hah ha ha!
Here have some James Blake.
However, I am in fact going to Britney next week with… a client. His choice. And he’s straight.
Have you told him to follow Neil Hamburger on twitter? You know, for all his Brit coverage. 😉
Do all of the Queen’s slaves have such terrible taste in music? You people sicken me.
It’s all the inbreeding. Everybody’s everybody else’s first cousin.
You should see their teeth.
The Big Book of British Smiles
Chipmunks on acid. Grooovvvyyyy…
Here in Texas it has been summer since February.
Yep. I blame Big Business… wait, no, what? It’s sooo hot I have to blame somebody.
As a Native Texans (5 – 6 generations) I can attest that except for the far northern Panhandle counties, we only have 2 seasons Hot & Mild. This Sh#T about “Summer” starting on June 21st (last Monday) is just an archaic patriarchal hold over from the pre-scientific European calendar. It amuses me when MSM commentors whine about “heat” waves at 95 +/- ambient in Chicago, Washingon D.C., Baltimore, et cetera during July & August. Texas gets that as early as February & as late as November.
Course, we do get slowed down when ever the precipitation is freezeing before or while hitting the ground during the “Winter” months of December, January, & February.
Them sneaky Confederates have stolen them d-a-m yankee’s industrial base!
I don’t really see people moving back to the north in droves. There was already mass migration to the South decades before the housing bubble, and there will be again after the economy recovers. More people are staying put in the northeast because they are uncertain about job prospects elsewhere at the moment.
A couple well placed nuclear “accidents” will refill the north’s tax base.
Just saying…
The dangerous government-built nuclear plants are in the Northeast.
Well now! Northeast you say.
Dangerous Nuclear Plant Concerns Cause Exodus to Sunbelt!
That will fly very well! Thanks!
Let’s see, never digging my car out of a snowbank again to slip-n-slide to work vs. five minutes of sweating while the car AC cools down. Which do I choose?
I see your point, but I’ll take the change of seasons in Ohio, and Lake Erie with it’s awesome Kellys Island.
that’s both of me.
If the Confederacy were to secede from the union today, would there be enough of a trade and manufacturing base for them to make it?
Also, how would the Union fare?
IMO, the CSA would be just fine with their oil reserves, improved industrial base, and their agricultural capacity being adequate enough to have balanced trade. I think the Union would have to make some serious adjustments if they wanted to survive.
Thoughts?
Thinkin it’s time to move. South.
Depends on wether its armed conflict, or just re-instituting States Rights.
I can see the States passing a FU! DC legislation. And them going full throttle on removing federal intrusions.
An all out open armed conflict ( non-nuclear ) is constantly replayed by War Gamers. Strategicly and tacticaly Washingtons ability to prosecute a war is the Norths biggest weakness.
I was trying to meet the parameter of “succession!” today. 10 minutes on a Document program. 20 minutes copying and emailing it. Then a vote.
I cant see any possibility of succession in a 24 hour period.
It would be interesting for a state to run an audit and balance federal funds recieved with state funds expended to qualify for them. Include all the funds expended for programs the feds mandate by threatening to withhold funding.
If, as I suspect, the balance is negative, that would certainly encourage a revolution.
Repeal the 17th.
Would Obamacare have passed had the Senate been answerable to their home state’s legislature?
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.
If the states that seceded were able to gain control of the nukes stationed on their territory, I don’t know that there would be an armed conflict in the first place.
Though I imagine the south would win this time around, since Market Labor > Union Labor > Slave Labor.
I thought it was a peaceful secession last time around. The Confederacy didn’t start the war, they just ended their association with the USA.
The Confederacy didn’t start the war
Huh?
Ya, no re-supplying FedGov bases while we are trying to negotiate peacful separation. Especially if they are basically tax-collection bases.
Confederacy: We’re ending our association with you. Kindly vacate the premises?
Union: Nope.
Confedercy: Seriously. It’s been a great run, but it’s over and you guys are operating a fort in Charleston and are collecting taxes without jurisdiction.
Union: Tough shit.
Confederacy: Really? We want to peaceably separate from you. You’re being a baby.
Union: [blows raspberry]
Confederacy: [shoots cannon]
A+
Not arguing that, just pointing out that Washington might not want to antagonize a nuclear power that has a similar level of armament (assuming a good chunk of the military breaks away to side with the secessionists).
Doubly so when they’re mightily pissed at you and have direct, broad access to your territory. Washington is used to fighting wars in other people’s territory, which is one reason we have such tolerance for warmongering here. Hopefully any rebellion, once hostilities began, would try to keep as much fighting as possible on Washington-controlled turf this time around.
West gets to be its own faction this time, right?
Sorry South, but we consider TX and OK western. Don’t get any ideas.
ROTATE THE BORDER: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, N. & S. Dakota, Nebraska! If we’re open and honest about Free Minds & Free Markets Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, & the Yukon would abandon Canada to the Qu?b?cois. Alaska might join, if they can dump Sarah Pallin and her clan.
I’m not sure how the threat of nuclear annihilation changes the equation. If you take that out and just look at total conventional war scenarios my money is on the south. As you note their manufacturing/industrial base has expanded dramatically over the last 150 years, and as before they have a strong edge in warrior ethos.
Not to mention Team Blue States think everything military is icky.
States think now?
It’s also interesting to note (expanding on what you’ve said) on the “warrior ethos”: my job means I travel all the time, and I can say without a doubt that there’s far, far more “ballsy” people in the south (and the central states) than there are in the north. Especially New York.
rural NY isn’t much different than rural Georgia. Same folks, slightly different accents, comparable spelling skills.
5 years ago I was driving in extreme upstate NY, within sight of the St. Lawrence River. I did a double-take when I saw a Confederate battle flag on someone’s flag pole.
rural NY isn’t much different than rural Georgia. Same folks, slightly different accents, comparable spelling skills.
Do they all double-post their comments as well?
/;)
Sean from a purely industrial view the North is screwed. Logisticaly its a wash except for food supplies. The North’s east coast population will starve if the South goes for interdiction as its first priority.
Good to know. How is my employment application coming along?
Well check once Gadhafi’s gold reaches its destination.
You can lift more then 50lbs right?
Easily. I bench 190 and squat 315 (I weigh 159).
Got a mitt?
No, and I’m generally awful at sports that involve dexterous movements and a ball.
Hmm Brute squad for you then!
Next!
No dexterous balling from Sean. Check.
According to an authoritative source, in the future, the US will split into a wonderful part based in the NE, and an evil, neo-Nazi part led by TX. The Israelis will be hired by the NE to save the day since Israel will be about the only country on Earth untouched by the massive use of WMDs. The Israelis will be the world’s leader in the design and production of high-tech weaponry and the most feared and respected mercenaries.
Thoughts?
Huh? Survive?
Any state in the union would do just fine without the federal government minus the need for a military….which of course could be replaced with a NATO type agreement and if done right would be preferable to our federal military which has the tendency to start voluntary wars.
Sounds like Eden
It will all work out fine . . . until the head of the Confederate Air Force, trying to impress friends at a party with his impressive nuclear arsenal, says “hey, y’all, watch this!”
The northeast would likely be fucked–yeah, they can get their fuel through the harbors, but where is their food going to come from? Mexifornia, likewise, since the whole region would rapidly devolve into the same corrupt shithole as Mexico.
I wouldn’t assume the old Confederacy would do so well, though–there are large concentrations of blacks in the urban areas, and you’d likely see pretty severe race wars break out within about 15 minutes of any type of secession. Same thing in Texas.
Now overlay this with total federal spending received vs total federal taxes paid since 1930.
Ah the old Team Blue talking point. Nevermind that the extra “federal spending” in the sparsely populated mountain states and the south is entirely due to the fact that they are the ones hosting federal facilities. Such as military bases, NASA, national parks, etc. All of which are quite rare in the craphole midwest and northeast (Bluetopia).
national parks
I laugh at the South’s national parks
HA!
Conveniently ignoring the 8 decades of government spending on electricity generation.
Was this a rebuttal? I’m well aware that the military, NASA, TVA, etc were deliberately parked in the South, specifically for the purpose of developing it, i.e. the urban north got to subsidize the development of the south, to the asymetric tune of hundreds of billions of current dollars, then finally with jobs and entire industries as the opportunity to utilize newer infrastructure and facilities you didn’t have to build or pay for becomes overwhelming. Scratch a red state and they bleed federal green.
NASA’s launch facilities were parked south due to physics, logistics and safety concerns.
Closer to the equtorial regions which make orbital insertions much more economical. Safety concerns for having flaming debris falling over north Atlantic shipping and fishing areas.
Keeping the facilities on the continential United States addressed security and logistical support requirements.
Boosting the souths economy was a side effect.
The Cape, yeah, but Huntsville, Houston, etc are where they are strictly due to senatorial cronyism. None of these arguments rebut the existence of the continuing macro transfer from north to south undertaken by the feds but merely try to justify it.
Senatorial Cronyism? Wasn’t LBJ Vice President back when NASA’s Houston facilities were built?
Which made LBJ President of the Senate as well as the recent majority leader.
Didn’t Huntsville get picked because the Army flight schools at Ft. Rucker and Redstone Arsenal?
Houston is a different story, but Huntsville actually made a lot of sense, IIRC.
Maybe Huntsville was just a convenient place to stash the nazis.
The federal capital is in the NE. Most of the national media is in NYC. The pundits used as expert commentators are usually from NE Universities. These things give the NE disproportionate political influence.
How is it then that the politically powerful NE gets shafted so badly when federal funds are dispersed? The studies that suggest that blue states are losers and red states are winners in the federal tax dollar lottery don’t pass the smell test. Something about the calculations isn’t right.
In addition, you could overlay it with this:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html
Kind of changes the context of the narrative, doesn’t it?
Don’t worry, organized labor. We are going to correct this trend
Ya, now that you’ve had bad thoughts about Unions in your head, you aren’t allowed to move to the south any more. To do so would be considered “retaliation”.
More work for up North for me anyway.
Maybe Bioshock Infinite will spur an interest in restarting the Pinkertons.
I’m game
It’s hard for me to believe that Montana isn’t a Right to Work state. So much for the myth that that governor of theirs is sympathetic to libertarian ideas.
“Montana has a reputation for being a relatively free
place. However, this reputation is not generally justified.
Alcohol distribution is highly state controlled at
both the wholesale and retail levels. Marijuana sentencing
is extremely harsh. Health-insurance coverage
mandates are somewhat excessive, including
mandatory direct access to specialists. Occupational
licensing is much more prevalent than average.
Asset-forfeiture abuse is rampant, and eminentdomain
reform has been anemic. Arrests for victimless
crimes other than drugs are high. Cigarette taxes
are rather high, and the state has universal smoking
bans. Corporate PAC contributions to candidates
and parties are prohibited. On the positive side,
government spending is low once we adjust for the
temptation of federal grants, but the state has slipped
a bit here since 2007. Taxes are way below average.
Montana’s gun laws are the sixth best in the country.
The state has an open-container law and sobriety
checkpoints but is otherwise relatively friendly
to motorists. Private schools are almost unregulated,
and homeschools only slightly less so. Land-use
planning is almost nonexistent at the state level.”
Just for some extras
Right to Work laws are anti-libertarian.
They prevent the freedom of contract of a business owner who wishes (or negotiates) to only hire union workers.
See, this is what I’m talking about. You guys can’t even get your own philosophy right.
Yes, right to work laws do that, but they also prevent unions from forcing a business owner into a contract, which is WAY more damaging to the whole economy and the indiovidual business owners. Yes, in theory the business owner should have the “right” to contract to only hire union guys, BUT THAT ISN’T HOW UNIONS WORK, it’s RARELY CONSENSUAL, the unions force such a hiring requirement into negotiations where they have the force of law behind them in the first place.
So, because of silly purist theory, you tards end up being AGAINST a law that is clearly the better option in terms of freedom and the economy and property rights.
You can’t even get your own philosophy right
Laws forcing employers to negotiate with unions are also anti-libertarian. It’s not that hard to understand, fuckhead.
Yes, but we already have those laws and they’d be a lot harder to get rid of
in the meantime, you’d think a libertarian would be for minimizing the damage they cause
it’s not that hard to understand, fuckhead
and here I thought you guys were agreeing
WE MUST CLOSE THIS UNION LAW GAP!
So are laws that force an owner to close a shop to non-union employees even though he doesn’t wish to. I think the owner has more flexibility, on balance, in RTW states.
I dont know of any states like that. That is a contract term negotiated between the owner and the union.
yes, but the owner is forced to negotiate with the union in the first place by law.
Get it yet? It’s not hard
Wait, Huh? In Michigan, while I don’t have to be a member of a union, I do have to (by law) pay union “fees” that are (in my case) equivalent to union “dues” even though I do not belong to the union.
Sure, I can opt out of the union, but they take my money anyway. So, what’s your point for the little guy?
Thank you for demonstrating the bizarre logic that led Ron Paul to vote against the anti-Libya-war bill today just like he votes against free trade bills.
What is bizarre about my position? A law restricting contract rights is a law restricting contract rights is a law restricting contract rights.
Fuck you statists who support RTW laws.
Note: RTW laws are about last on my list of things to worry about reversing, even after patent law. I perversly enjoy their existence, but I acknowledge the truth about them.
robc: Having no such employment laws would be best so that if an owner wanted to make union membership a requirement for employment that would be fine. RTW is a second-best alternative.
I agree. In a perfect world, robc is certainly correct, but that perfect world doesn’t exist and we can’t get there in one step.
Incrementalism, however, might land us there eventually.
Incrementalism only works in one direction, I thought New Zealand already proved that.
To be fair, it’s only been tried in one direction.
Yes, and as soon as there is a business owner who wants to only hire union workers, that will be a relevant issue.
You know what really pisses me off? Even the freest states in the country are never consistent — in all of them, there are always several important aspects of economic/personal freedom that will be bad/terrible, even if they’re decent on most things. There’s not even a single state in the entire Union that’s good on everything.
Or am I wrong? Can you guys name a state that’s at least good/very good on everything, even if it isn’t perfect?
Looks like New Hampshire is the best choice.
Except for all the Massholes who keep moving there in droves.
You think we’re bad? Wait until the New Yorkers start choosing you over Vermont for their country house. Then you’re in for it.
That was always the problem with the Free State Project. What if it worked? Then people from less free states would move in. See everything good about it and would then vote for some “minor changes” that would make everything perfect. Not realizing that it was those policies that put their home state in the shape it is.
New Hampshire? Colorado?
Whenever I think of unions I think of a cartoony fat guy gobbling down twinkies yelling “MMMMHMHMMH MORE TASTYCAKES! GIVE ME MY TASTYCAKES!!!” akin to the Robot Chicken “BUTTER! GIVE ME MY BUTTER!” skit
such fatties can be referred to as a “glarbo”, or the proper name “glarbonius”
If it’s a proper name, wouldn’t it be capitalized?
/pedant
“Forced-unionism”? Come seriously on. While there is a point here you make yourself look like an anti-union hack displaying that in the legend.
Also, the RTW argument doesn’t explain why so many information industries also moved to the South and Southwest. Those industries weren’t unionized in the North either.
I suspect improved air conditioning technology and (in AZ and SoCal particularly) water diversion have more to do with it. People have always liked warm winters and sunny skies, they just didn’t want to deal with hot summers and water shortages in the past.
One set of states can vote their shops closed regardless of the owners’ desires, the other can’t. So yes, forced unionism.
“One set of states can vote their shops closed regardless of the owners’ desires”
Whose ass did you pull that from?
See below. States with laws that allow closed shops, even if they are “negotiated” by the membership explicitly violate the freedom of association that robc is in favor of.
No, no, where do you get the idea of what you SAID, that the shop can be put in regardless of the owners desires?
See: Boeing in Washington. Do you really think the Boeing ownership wants to run a union only shop? Why are they trying to build the next factory in a RTW state?
I don’t know what to tell you, Boeing signed a CBA with their union.
http://www.speea.org/Bargainin…..racts/2008 PS contract/2008_2012_PS_Tech_Contract.htm
http://www.speea.org/Bargainin…..racts/2008 PS 20contract/2008_2012_PS_Tech_Contract.htm
Link won’t post…I googled this:
boeing collective bargaining agreement
And it was the third one, copy of the CBA
Closed shops are illegal throughout the US under Taft-Hartley…you’re thinking of union shops, which are very different.
but isn’t “forced-unionism” the case? That is, for factories in states without the right to work laws, some factories are indeed unionized and to start working there you have to join the union and start paying dues?
I think union laws are reasonable to help workers bargain vs. the imbalance of power that would normally be there, but that aspect of the law starts infringing on every man’s freedoms, starts interfering with my life. That’s why I’m not against environmental regulation but I don’t like the light bulb ban.
The people shouldn’t be micro-managed. It’s reasonable to regulate industries/businesses, as doing such commerce already involves a lot of bureaucracy and capital, so it’s not much added workload or cost. But outside of running a business, being a customer or a worker, I shouldn’t be micromanaged in my daily life. It’s annoying.
Running a business, being a customer, and being a worker sounds like daily life to me.
Most jobs in every state are non-union. If you don’t want to join a union, find another job.
I see this is another issue where libertarians adopt a leftist view of employment.
So there are jobs that I do have to join a union, right?
Wouldn’t you find that a little annoying? You see an ad in the paper, you go , interview, etc. Then all of a sudden it’s like “Oh, BTW, you have to join the union and pay dues.” Then you have recalculate what you’re making, etc.
It’s annoying. If I’m applying for a job, I should have the right to just aply for the job, joining the union is an option.
I’ll accept basic union laws, but I’m for right-to-work (unless the owner takes up a union-only contract outside of strike negotiations) from a non-micromanage-my-life aspect. At the very least there should be requirements for notifying if the union is mandatory in employment ads.
Our government should work for us and make our lives more convenient when possible
“At the very least there should be requirements for notifying if the union is mandatory in employment ads.”
I see, you’re the small government type, the kind that wants the government to control the type in job ads.
I lol’d.
Annoyance is not force, however much parents of three-year-olds may disagree.
In any case, there are plenty of other surprises one can find out about a job, that weren’t in the employment ad, during an interview — I trust you don’t want to ban all of those too.
“there are plenty of other surprises one can find out about a job, that weren’t in the employment ad, during an interview — I trust you don’t want to ban all of those too.”
actually yeah within reason
and some places you have to drive really far. Fuck the employers, either tell me what my salary will be minus unions dues on the phone or pay me the fuck back for my fucking time fucking driving. I jhate fucking driving. Fuck you.
If you don’t post that or tell me on the phone when you tell me the salary why isn’t that a form of fraud?
Ditto other things that might be in the ad
you should see all the shit Realtors have to put in ads and have to hand out all the time doing sales or rentals
I’m not a libertarian but even that shit isn’t un-libertarian – it’s basic logic, it’s called full disclosure. If someone deosn’t tell you something pertinent to a transaction it’s fraud.
It’s only fraud if the transaction is completed. You’re thinking of false advertising. Like the old phone company ad says….phone first.
yeah, false advertising, i.e. a form of fraud
and If I drive out there ands THEN they tell me, I’ve already taken a cost, haven’t I? Then they’d owe me
you’re telling me that an employer can be a fucking asshole – that just because he wants to see as many applicants as possible to maximize his choices he gets to fucking lie about the job’s salary? Fuck you. That’s fucking bullshit. Great to know libertarians are for fraud and lying and cheating and scummy business practices./
If the ad says nothing either way about the job being at a union shop, you should follow up on the ad with a phone call if you’re concerned about the possibility. Your unwillingness to research a job you’re applying for is not justification for coercion.
Were they to lie about there being a union shop in the ad or in the follow up phone call, that would be a civil cause of action. I don’t see how it’s fraud since there’s no exchange of value between you and the prospective employer.
Lying != fraud
but if I asked the salary and they told me a number but didn’t subtract union dues that would be fraud
You know, Edwin, you could always ask those questions before you drive out there. And if he refuses to answer them, you can choose to not make the trip. If he misrepresents the conditions of employment over the phone and you make the trip, then he has defrauded you and you would be subject to compensation, IMO.
What you guys are saying represents shitty business practices solely designed to fuck people over for your benefit and seriously borders on fraud
when I build and sell a house, can I say “No, I’m not telling you what building codes I used. And I deny any liability, that’s part of the contract”? How about if something faulkty in the house kills the guy’s kid? Am I still off the hook just because that was part of the contract?
Fuck you and fuck your bullshit knighted property rights and stupid pseudo-logical “consistency” which is anything but and is always horrible
Were I the guy having a house built, I would probably require my builder to meet a uniform code and have that drawn up in the contract. If he does not build to the standard we have contractually agreed upon, I can sue him for recompense.
See how simple that is? And the government is only needed if either party breaks the contract.
I think you are just incapable of removing the government teat from your mouth and/or the government cock from your all-too-willing asshole.
Our government should work for us and make our lives more convenient when possible
????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah that’s right.
Did I ever say I was a libertarian?
I can’t be a libertarian, I’m a reasonable person who can actually follow logic further than 2 steps (as opposed to clinging to half-assed logic to desperately try to make a crappy philosophy work)
So you think govt should coerce other people to make your life more convenient.
I know this is a widely held position, but I don’t think I’ve seen it so baldly stated before.
you believe the same thing if you’re a minarchist
but yes, since we all have to pay taxes the government should work for all of us. If you really don’t like yours, you can try another one in another country, if these minor fucking things are such a fucking atrocity to you, you fucking fuck of a fuck.
just like I’m all for public transportation if they can ever manage to ban unions from public sector jobs and make it actually affordable to the local governments
No, as a minarchist I believe govt should assist me in preventing and punishing those who would coerce me. Not inconvenience me.
But inconveniencing you is a form of coercion, Tulpa! Just like you have a right to health care, you have a right not to be inconvenienced!
Of course, I can’t see any system of regulation not inconveniencing someone, so I guess Edwin’s government just vanished in a puff of that logic he can’t follow more than 2 steps.
Edwin, this comment is so full of fail, I don’t know where to begin.
As a minarchist, I want the government to work for me. I want them to protect us from invasion when called upon. I want them to enforce private property and civil rights. I want them to enforce contracts. I want them to jail criminals, and I want them to act as a constabulatory when I call them.
And public transportation? Fuck that. People can get around on their own without me subsidizing them.
Bullshit, it’s all a matter of scale, I’m just willing to admit it
If you’re not allowed to use forcibly(ish) extracted tax money to stop inconveniences that actually border on fraud, then why do you get to to stop invasions or force or property violations? Why the one but not the other?
You think there are objectively drawn lines but there aren’t.
If there are, then why do libertarians disagree so much?
If you’re not allowed to use forcibly(ish) extracted tax money to stop inconveniences that actually border on fraud, then why do you get to to stop invasions or force or property violations? Why the one but not the other?
Why on God’s green earth would you think I would allow them to forcibly collect taxes to do these things? They need to solicit donations and have bake sales. It’s the way they ran our volunteer fire department in the town I grew up in.*
*That town currently has the same population, but has a paid fire department with a budget around $11m annually and a full time staff of 32 firefighters who average over $80k per year. When they were volunteer, they operated with an adjusted (and donated) budget of $750k per year and had 1 full time employee.
I think union laws are reasonable to help workers bargain vs. the imbalance of power that would normally be there…
I’m sorry, but this needs to be addressed. By “Imbalance of power,” do you mean the imbalance between the people who have invested and risked their own capital into the enterprise and the people who have not?
I never understood why this is not shouted down every time labor unions bring up “imbalance of power” or “unfair playing field.” You don’t like the balance of power? Buy shares and run for the Board of Directors. Or invest your own capital in a new company that competes with the evil exploiters.
Fuck! It’s so frustrating that the “imbalance of power” meme is still treading water.
It’s simple, people with capital have a bargaining advantage over people who can offer only their labor.
If A and B are negotiating for B to work on A’s apple orchard a can hold out much longer. He can eat his apples or pick them himself, B can’t conjure something to pick and sell/eat out of thin air.
“You don’t like the balance of power? Buy shares and run for the Board of Directors.”
Er, the entire point is that workers on average don’t have the capital to do that like investors on average.
Yep, that’s why you want to get capital. At one point A was probably in B’s position, having none.
In any case, why can’t B leave for C’s orchard if he doesn’t think A is giving him a good deal?
“At one point A was probably in B’s position, having none.”
Unless he’s one of the Koch brothers.
“why can’t B leave for C’s orchard if he doesn’t think A is giving him a good deal?”
Sure, this mitigates the imbalance somewhat, but workers as a class still have lesser bargaining power than employers as a class.
“Unless he’s one of the Koch brothers.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*breathes*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You’re aware of how silly you sound, right? What was the capitalization of Old Man Koch’s business? What is it today? Where did that difference come from?
actually A was probably never in B’s position because from the get-go he grew up in a family that had some money in the first place
and even if he didn’t the market for apple orchards is now fully supplied so it’s harder now to start a profitable one, if it’s even possible. People aren’t going to just start buying more apples for no reason.
Employers usually have the upper hand, and you know it.
If you say you disagree, you’re deliberately suppressing your common sense to make libertarianism work. But what you should understand is that if you have to do that, that shows your philosophy is bunk.
and even if he didn’t the market for apple orchards is now fully supplied so it’s harder now to start a profitable one, if it’s even possible. People aren’t going to just start buying more apples for no reason.
Again, not my problem. He can always plant pear trees then, or plums, or invest his capital any way he sees fit.
so you’re admitting employers are in a greater position of power, but no you’re sayiung you just don’t care?
great. Good to know. If you ever wonder why there aren’t more libertarians, that’s a good example.
so you’re admitting employers are in a greater position of power, but no you’re sayiung you just don’t care?
Just so we’re clear here: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING. I don’t give a fuck because it is none of my or the government’s business. Oh, and the same government that fucks up every labor negotiation it touches is the same one that assists douchebag rent-seeking corporations in creating barriers to entry so upstarts can’t compete.
I’m in no way supporting corporations here in the absolute. They can be scumbags as well. It usually occurs when they are holding hands with the government.
yes, and what you’re saying here is stupid
all your babbling about rights don’t mean shit if I get fucked over
I’ve heard libertarians defend Loughner and the right to drunk drive and those “sovereign citizen” guys who shot those cops and the “rights” of paedophiles to fuck little kids
All their theoretical babbling bullshit didn’t change the fact that what they were saying is horrible and disgusting and the same applies here. Your philosophy is ugly and horrible and stupid and disgusting
What actually happens to people doesn’t matter in your philosophy
The reason I’m sort of anti-union is that now it’s gotten out of control bothj with public and private sector unions. With the private sector I’m more worried abvout competeing in the global market, and employment.
But that doesn’t mean that back ion the 30’s such laws weren’t good ideas that helped people out (or at least might have been)
the actual real world is absent from your moral calculus, and that’s fucked up,m and thaty’s why you’re an ascetic, and why people hate libertarians
all your babbling about rights don’t mean shit if I get fucked over
Example, please
I’ve heard libertarians defend Loughner and the right to drunk drive and those “sovereign citizen” guys who shot those cops and the “rights” of paedophiles to fuck little kids
Loughner is a murderer. Drunk driving should be a crime when it results in damage to another person’s property or their person. I’ve never once heard anyone argue in support of any “sovereign citizen” or anyone else who shot a cop. Pedophiles fucking kids without understood consent from the kid are rapists and should be treated as such.
All their theoretical babbling bullshit didn’t change the fact that what they were saying is horrible and disgusting and the same applies here. Your philosophy is ugly and horrible and stupid and disgusting
I agree that what a lot of them were saying is horrible and disgusting…and I embrace the freedom that grants them the right to say it. As far as my philosophy of granting liberty to all people so they can conduct their life as they see fit until that way of life denies another person those same liberties, well if you find that disgusting, that’s too bad.
What actually happens to people doesn’t matter in your philosophy
No. What actually happens to people does matter to me so far as their rights to life, liberty and private property are preserved. As far as their welfare, that’s their own business, as mine is my own. If I choose to help them, it should be through the charities I have consistently donated to over the past decade and not by theft from the IRS under threat of imprisonment from a system of laws that allows 51% of the people to confiscate the wealth of the other 49%.
Fuck off, slaver.
So I’m a “slaver” because I don’t think it’s OK for rich assholes who don’t need to to make their workers work long ass hours in shity dangerous conditions?
Really? is that really anything like enslaving people?
How about the triangle shirtwaist factory disaster? 150 people dead. According to you guys, ain’t shit happened there., Hey fires happen.
Fuck you. None of these policies are anything like enslaving people. If you really think that, then you’re sick in the head.
And if you’re bullshit were so objective, then why did all those libertarinas say those things? huh? If it’s all so objective then why can’t you idiots agree on the details of rights?
So I’m a “slaver” because I don’t think it’s OK for rich assholes who don’t need to to make their workers work long ass hours in shity dangerous conditions?
You’re a slaver because you make the distinction between “rich” and “poor” and want to divvy up their rights according to their wealth and status. Also because you want to use the tyranny of the majority to confiscate wealth so you can have feel-good bullshit social programs like public transportation. IOW, you don’t give a fuck about the 4th Amendment.
And where in this country can an employer “Make their workers work long ass hours in shity (sic) dangerous conditions?” If the worker doesn’t want to work under the conditions of employment, he can walk off the job. If enough people do, the employer will be forced to improve his working conditions to attract employees.
Again, right to association is a two-way street. Nobody is putting a gun to the worker’s head.
Again, right to association is a two-way street. Nobody is putting a gun to the worker’s head.
At least, not since the Pinkertons became just a security company…
all your babbling about rights don’t mean shit if I get fucked over
Democracy isn’t so great when it fucks you, is it?
so you’re admitting employers are in a greater position of power, but no you’re sayiung you just don’t care?
The employer has less to lose than the employee in this particualar negotiation, yes. Outside the unskilled industries that ceases to hold, but we’ll stick with the unskilled example for now.
But anyway, so what? Every negotiation in the universe has one side which has an advantage of this type. Should we ban negotiation?
“Should we ban negotiation?”
Oh STFU.
You lost the debate but you just can’t admit it.
By any fucking human standard where you actually fucking care about people and what happens to them these imbalances of power matter.
Look dumbass, even if they matter, they don’t need, require or deserve government regulation. That’s the part you can’t seem to get through your incredibly thick skull.
Want to help people who are victimized by imbalances of power? Hold a bake sale. Want to piss on everybody because somebody, somewhere might get harmed by an imablance of power? Fuck off and die in a fire.
no, YOU’RE the one who wants to let a few fuck over everyone else. The policies of the 30’s (may have) helped everyone at the slight expense of people who could afford said expense.
I assure you factory owners can afford safety regulations and basic wages (back in the 30’s).
You see, the problem you guys have with everyone else’s opinions, is everyone else aren’t sociopaths. That’s why you idiots can’t get elected.
If 150 semstresses die in a fire, and we’re all like “OK, we’ve clearly got ot mandate fir exits and shit” we understand that it’s clearly not the end of the world.
You disgusting white bread priviliged douches think it’s horrible because you’re actually in the position to be the owner, and you’re sociopaths so you hate the idea.
Whether you were born sociopaths doesn’t change the fact that now you are sociopaths. Yes, a belief system can make you a sociopath. One libertarian told me that Larry Mugrage hjad the right to shoot that kid who crossed his lawn. He believes he has the right to shoot a kid just for walking across his lawn. That’s sociopathic. This philosophy made him a sociopath.
Yes, a belief system can make you a sociopath. You guys are no different.
One libertarian told me that Larry Mugrage hjad the right to shoot that kid who crossed his lawn.
One liberal told me we should take 100% of the money anyone in America makes over $1m per year and all wealth should be confiscated when someone dies.
Because of that one guy”s comment, I can deduct that all liberals are evil statists.
One conservative told me we should take the people in Gitmo and have them drawn and quartered at ground zero and broadcast it live.
Because of that one guy’s comment, I can deduct that all conservatives are masochistic war-mongers.
You’re painting with a pretty broad brush there, Edwin. Try again, asshole.
Yes, a belief system can make you a sociopath.
Socialism has been doing this for more than a century.
And you look to be among the converts.
…and even if he didn’t the market for apple orchards is now fully supplied so it’s harder now to start a profitable one,…
Congratulations,
You just created a new economic fallacy.
Edwin’s “Lump of Apples” fallacy.
As it was in the beginning, it now and ever shall be….
Power without end
Ahhhmen
Ahmen
“If A and B are negotiating for B to work on A’s apple orchard a can hold out much longer. He can eat his apples or pick them himself, B can’t conjure something to pick and sell/eat out of thin air.”
Nope, he can plant stuff in his back yard.
All of which means squat. Yes, people with more money have more choices, and that’s none of the government’s business.
Er, the entire point is that workers on average don’t have the capital to do that like investors on average.
And why the fuck is that my problem or my responsibility. Again, if they don’t like it, change your end of the equation instead of theirs. Oh, and that orchard owner will keep raising his offer of wages until he gets people to pick his apples lest he go bankrupt.
It’s called supply and demand, dingleberry.
If A and B are negotiating for B to work on A’s apple orchard a can hold out much longer. He can eat his apples or pick them himself, B can’t conjure something to pick and sell/eat out of thin air.
If they could pick the apples themselves, why are they even engaged in a negotiation with B? The correct response would be, “Get off my lawn.”
Of course, there’s NOT just one person with capital looking for laborers.
I’d venture a good 95% of the people who are adamantly against free market capitalism believe employers hold monopsonist negotiating power. Shhhh, don’t tell the trolls!
After 200 years, the working class has had ample opportunity to work toward acquiring capital. Instead, they’ve pursued political capital.
Who is in this static “working class” which has existed for 200 years?
Tulpa: May I suggest that right to work is an indicator of a generally better business climate in a state? Lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc.
A lot of jobs are going to China. I guess slave labor is also an indicator of a generally better business climate in a nation as well.
There isn’t slave labour in China, unless by “slave” you mean something other than “someone who is forced to work without pay”.
Last I heard the cities are trying to keep immigrants from rural areas out because they aren’t enough manufacturing jobs to go around. Pretty much the opposite of slavery.
There’s prison labor which is slave labor. And there’s “the government runs the unions and the police and the company and will take you out and break your kneecaps if you don’t stay on shift” labor, which is pretty much slave labor.
These are the Good Old Days
There’s prison labor which is slave labor.
And what percentage of China’s production is generated by prison labor?
.0001% or .0002%
I agree prison labor is deplorable…but thinking that it produces anything substantial compared to what china supplies the world is to live in delusion.
And there’s “the government runs the unions and the police and the company and will take you out and break your kneecaps if you don’t stay on shift”
Ok it is official you are delusional.
In case you have not noticed there are no name brands in china. There manufacturing base is not big companies running the labor force. If an employee has a problem with his/her employer they just move to another shop down the street.
Also in case you have noticed real wages in china have risen to the point that they are comparable to US wages and furthermore their standard of living has increased by leaps and bounds.
Every indicator in China shows that a free labor market works. Why does an employee need a union when he can just walk down the street to get a better wage…or even better open his own shop.
“In case you have not noticed there are no name brands in china.”
I hate to do this to you Joshua…
Bzzzzzt! Wrong.
“There manufacturing base is not big companies running the labor force.”
Outside looking in has a great view. Try thse Rose colored lenses next. It gets even better!
China has a labor population size that dwarfs the rest of the world. Even China cant control it. Which is the fiasco I’m stocking up on popcorn to watch unfold. All that untapped cheap willing hands! YUM!
I agree with that, but that doesnt make RTW laws any less anti-libertarian. And RTW laws are a regulation themselves, so it negates a bit of the indicator.
Right to Work laws are to the benefit of pussy owners who wont stand up to their unions.
As long as the NLRB exists, it’s much harder for them to legally do that (see also: Boeing), so it’s not so much “pussy” as “law-abiding”.
RTW is a shitty law that happens to mitigate a second shitty law.
cynical: Correct.
All an employer is required to do under the act is 1. recognize a certified union and 2. bargain in good faith. Regarding 2 they can shoot down every proposal from the union as long as they do so in good faith.
2. bargain in good faith
bargaining in good faith is to look at an offer without bias…is the union offer better then other offers.
The problem is that you think looking at other offers like say moving the plant somewhere else is not good faith.
In strict ethical terms looking at moving the factory is allowed in good faith bargaining.
Can they fire everybody who joins the union, and hire replacements? In “good faith” of course. Whatver the fuck that means.
No…they can’t do that. They can, however, declare bankruptcy, lay everyone off, sell the plant assets to a shell company, stick the Federal Government with the overgenerous pensions they’ve been promising for the past 10 years, and re-open the plant in Mexico or Singapore or where ever they can ship the plant machinery to.
yes, but it does mitigate it, that’s exactly what I’m saying
and the law it mitigates isn’t going away
better we have the mitigating law, even if it THEORETICALLY restricts the freedom of an employer when he’s not neotiating a strike
RTW laws are only needed to limit Union power. If an employer were able to fire ever last person who decided not to come to work (strike), there would be no need for RTW laws, but there is so much pro union legislation that RTW laws are a necessary evil at this time
The correlation seems strong, true. Though I suspect the causation goes the opposite way from what the original post assumes — ie, states that have very little in the way of industry and employment (as the South and non-California Southwest did a few decades ago) do everything possible to attract businesses.
Note that several of the RTW states in the midwest and northern Rockies were in the bottom half for growth.
and northern Rockies were in the bottom half for growth.
employment in the Northern Rockies = mining and logging.
What do you think the spotted owl, and salmon have done to leasing land for those activities in states that have over 50% federal ownership of land?
There is a reason why China produces all the rare earth materials consumed in the US and Canada produces all our lumber.
+1
we’re slowly going to get pwned on the global economic market unless something changes
seriously, what the fuck do we have to offer the world anymore? What’ve we got, farming and airplanes? that’s pretty much it right?
What can the US offer the world?
Raw Firepower.
We just are not leveraging our invesments in it properly.
Yes, there are many many confounding variables. That’s kind of my point.
Ron Bailey|6.24.11 @ 1:49PM|#
Tulpa: May I suggest that right to work is an indicator of a generally better business climate in a state? Lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc.
As Ron said. The RTW is a proxy for government over reach. It does not prevent Federal Government over reach that can effect a states economy.
I was demonstrating that the confounding variable was still government interference.
But his original argument is that it’s a cause, not merely a proxy. As with most people who dare oppose me in an argument, he’s now walking that back a bit.
As with most people who dare oppose me in an argument.
I suspect you feel epi and me are not most people.
How about cost of living? Allow me to abuse the notion of inflation here. Can you make a map correlating cost of living with loss of manufacturing jobs? When you have inflation, labor demands higher wages to keep up and the cost of commodities goes higher too. Therefore, you lose jobs.
How much you guys want to bet that a smart growth state vs a non smart growth state looks nearly identical tot he right to work map, and the real estate bubble vs no real estate bubble map has a closer correlation with that map then the two maps Ron provided.
Companies race to the bottom.
In other news sky is blue.
Companies race to the bottom.
In MNGs world employing the south is a race to the bottom.
In other news the grass is green.
The South has lower average wages and higher average poverty, hence race to the bottom.
If you like maps:
http://factfinder.census.gov/s…..&-_dBy=040
10 year old statistics
plus they also have lower living costs
plus, maybe we’re not talking about poor people – I’d say that’s a different issue. For the working man, your typical corporate guy or engineer, moving down there is very attractive. You can’t ignore that it’s a better deal for them
I’m going to stay in Jersey because my family is here, I hate heat, and I like the area and the trains and the access to NYC and nice cuisine, plus I don’t know if I’d be comfortable in that different sort of culture.
But otherwise the Southward option is very attractive
Yeah, those figures have changed dramatically in 10 years, Cap’n Pedant.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes……f-america/
Really I still don’t necessarily buy it; I’d want to see the details of their metrics more
and again, I don’t know if I care abouthow poor the poor people are. There are plenbty of schlubs who don’t want to do any work and act like idiots, especially in the South. Here in Jersey we’ve only got white people and black people, but down there they have a lot of people who could more be described as white trash red necks or niggers. Different racial terminology but ultimately the same kind of people. The behavior that they display down there you couldn’t survive on up here.
As Peter Griffin described the South “Isn’t that the place where the black guys are really lazy and the white guys are just as lazy but they’re angry at the black guys for being lazy?”
Or Another one I heard, the rednecks “sit on the toilet all day yelling the N-word at God.”
*the behavior that some of the people display – usually the poor ones
Me: Statistics
Edwin: Those statistics are old!
Me: Current statistics
Edwin: I hate statistics anyway!
dude fuck you I don’t buy it
Places like North Carolina and Texas are growing like crazy and people are moving down there in droves into nice big ass new tract homes in new communities to work at new huge ass corporate parks
I know my own fucking eyes and common sense, ya douche,
blathering about statistics regardless of common sense is a libertarian thing. You’re not as stupid as these feebs, are you?
I lol’d again! Best MNG day in weeks.
ummmmm
MNG when you are stuck in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging.
A libertarian like me should not have to tell a lefty like you that employing poor poeple is a good thing.
Also the south is poor.
In other news dogs chase cats.
Yeah, it’s a massive humanitarian effort.
Yeah, it’s a massive humanitarian effort.
So in order to help the poor one must first have his mind read by MNG to see if his motives are pure.
Fucking brilliant.
But MNG i think you have hit upon pure genius….Not only do you want purity tests but you actively want to stop helping the poor if they are helped without intention.
Now that takes a very special kind of mind to calculate. I congratulate you.
“The invisible hand is evil not because of bad results but because it produces good results mindlessly.”
I applaud you.
I don’t think that’s what he said
It would be implied by that comment but he’s being sarcastic in the first place because he doesn’t see the trend as helping people in the first place
No he was implying the motivation to create jobs in the south was not pure…ie to make a better profit.
He knows the south has always been poor and he knows their poverty rate has dropped and their unemployment has dropped.
He thinks moving factories to poor states is a race to the bottom….the whole discussion was about the motivation of the companies that choose to move.
he doesn’t believe the claim that it helps people in the first place
he doesn’t believe the claim that it helps people in the first place
Giving poor people jobs doesn’t help poor people?
Poor people need welfare not work.
Believing otherwise is just plain racist.
But, but…TRAKTOR PULLZ!!!11!!
low unemployment is the bottom?
I wish (my state) Jersey would hit rock bottom
Companies race to the bottom.
Well, one of them employed you, so you do have a point.
MNG; In free markets, monopsonies fail.
In other news sky is blue.
+1,000!
Last I looked California was RTW, and I have never needed to join a union to work here (A/C guy 25yrs),If they did, I would leave rather than forced unionisation
Ditto. California does require union membership (or at least dues payments) for some government jobs, and does require prevailing wages for government projects, but it’s completely “right to work” in the private sector.
They prevent the freedom of contract of a business owner who wishes (or negotiates) to only hire union workers.
Is this even true? I am not aware of provisions in Right to Work laws prohibiting business owners from hiring union workers. Are there state mandated maximum pay rates? Are businesses prohibited from establishing rigid job classifications and work rules? Are millions of businesses really clamoring for the right to allow adversarial outsiders hundreds (or thousands) of miles away to dictate their wage rates and business practices?
[citation needed]
I am not aware of provisions in Right to Work laws
FTFY
Why don’t you go back to the morning links and share with us some wisdom about Father Coughlin again. You do always run from arguments you lose, don’t you? I’ve long suspected and now know — bad faith clown is bad faith.
WTF is this “run from arguments” thing? I do have a job I have to work on you know, I was on that thread for over an hour before you even peaked up and I replied to you (Coughlin’s isolationism, nativism, bank hate and FDR hate made him beloved by the same swaths of territory that are solidly red today). I can’t sit around all day waiting for you to pop up (or more likely post under one of your many handles).
I mean, how sad are you? “Why won’t you come back and argue with me, waah, bad faith”
Heh. Huff away. See ya, baby.
I figured minge would have argued against the guy from WaPo’s piece simply because he had a Jooish-sounding name. At least he’s making progress in that regard.
It’s cute how the Right overcompensates for its historical tradition of anti-Semitism, isn’t it?
It’s also cute how the left overcompensates for its historical tradition of racism and eugenics, isn’t it?
It’s cute how the Right overcompensates for its historical tradition of anti-Semitism, isn’t it?
Is right wing antisemitism most personified by Eisenhower supporting Israel in the 1950s or by Nixon hiring Kissinger?
JOOS!
Yeah, you follow me around and cry when I don’t play with you and I’m huffing.
Whatever.
Yep, the comment you posted half an hour later, which was a mouse scroll from mine (three or so people down at the time) in the same subthread, and I’m wildly off-base to accuse you of runnin’. Must have been all that work.
Peace, dude.
You’re both dipshits. How’s that?
That was a good comment.
In a right-to-work state, an owner cant run a closed shop.
I didnt say he couldnt hire union workers, but he cant run 100% union, that clause in his contract with the union is null and void.
You mean union shop; closed shop is illegal under federal law.
It shouldnt be. But yeah, I meant union shop.
So, um, what is a closed shop then anyway? I thought a closed shop was one not open to non-union workers.
If you teach in the public school system in California, are you not required to join the union? Every teacher I know out here says they have to join the union. If that isn’t a closed shop, I don’t know what is.
Because the employer has agreed to that you ignorant buffoon.
The “employer” has agreed to that? You mean the California taxpayers have all agreed to that? Guess I missed my proxy vote letter that gave my consent to the state so they could prevent people who did not want to join a union from teaching here.
You goofball, the voters vote the reps in and they act as their agents. You don’t get a vote on everything a company does as a shareholder either.
OK…. but now the people don’t want the unions and you know it…
how about a referedum? Would you be against a referendum just because it might end your unions?
You goofball, the voters vote the reps in and they act as their agents. You don’t get a vote on everything a company does as a shareholder either.
Sweet. So I’ll be able to do the equivalent of selling my stock with the California Tax Board?
I wish they had instruments to do this. I would short the shit out of California, that stock is going straight to zero. I suppose I should add The Unincorporated Man to my reading list now?
But MNG, didn’t you say above that the employer has all the power? So I can only assume that you believe that it’s wrong of them to force employees to join the union. You support the use of laws to correct these types of situations, so wouldn’t you support a law that allowed the employee to choose if they wanted to join or not?
You don’t have to join the union, but you do have to pay the union dues.
That was always a sore point with my father, who taught in California schools for forty years. It wasn’t so much that he was anti-union, it was that the union was run by a bunch of lawyers who never taught a day in their lives. And then he would come home to find a copy of the CTA newsletter bragging about spending his dues on political races.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Brandybuck.
Is their pension union-funded?
In a closed shop the employer can’t hire anyone who isn’t already in the union. These were legal under the 1935 NLRA but were banned by the 1947 Taft-Hartley revision.
In a union shop the employer can hire anyone but they have to join the union within some period of time (and the union can’t refuse entry).
and the union can’t refuse entry
Another anti-libertarian law.
Union shop are pretty much functionally equivalent to closed shop from most people’s perspective, but there is a different there.
Im fine with closed shops. If that is what the owner of the business wants.
In the closed shop, the union could actually control who gets hired. That’s a huge difference.
In the closed shop, the union could actually control who gets hired. That’s a huge difference.
That is slightly different than what you said, you said they hire from current union members. There is a difference between picking from a pool and the union choosing.
But either way, if the owner is cool with that, so the fuck what? Its basically like hiring from a temp agency.
That is slightly different than what you said, you said they hire from current union members.
Yes, and the union can control who gets hired by denying a prospective employee membership in the union.
Actually, RTW means the employer can’t make an agreement with the union to fire anyone who doesn’t join the union within 30 days.
That’s a pretty mild restriction — and of course the elephant in the dining room is the federal NLRA which is much more coercive in the other direction. In a way, you could see RTW as a justifiable use of force to defend against the initiation of force by the feds.
Yes, its a mild restriction. Denny’s being forced to serve blacks is a mild restriction too.
Both were passed in reaction to much worse laws in the other direction. Both are wrong.
The proper use of force is to revoke the original laws.
If a state has a problem with a Federal Law, they should declare it null and void within their state (see Madison, Jefferson and the VA and KY resolutions).
The governor using the state guard to prevent federal enforcement of the law would also be a much more proper use of the law than passing laws that restrict rights in the other direction.
The National Guards are de facto federal military — not going to happen
But the National Guards are de facto federal military. It’s not going to happen.
“the federal NLRA which is much more coercive in the other direction”
Yeah, it forces the employer to…bargain in good faith with a certified union.
The horror!
The problem is that it forces someone to bargain with someone they don’t want to bargain with. Once you do that it doesn’t matter how nice the other restrictions sound.
I see your point, but like the RTW restriction that’s kind of mild in and of itself.
Are millions of businesses really clamoring for the right to allow adversarial outsiders hundreds (or thousands) of miles away to dictate their wage rates and business practices?
No, it only takes one.
Rights are rights, even if Im the only person interested in them.
Fuck the majority.
Arguing which of the real-world situations are better on balance for economic growth points to RTW or non-RTW states….
That sounds very utilitarian to me…I wonder what my view on that is?
No. I have no problem with you advocating for an optimal/more optimum solution, but you CAN have a discussion about which you prefer to live under given the current A & B choice, yes? You don’t seastead to prove your purity, do you?
I dont see why I need to state a preference.
I prefer the RTW laws to be overturned. And the other employement laws.
I live in a non-RTW state, I guess I have made my preference known.
I am NEVER limited to only two choices.
Live or die, robc. Them’s the only two choice you got.
Live or die, robc. Them’s the only two choice you got.
I choose cake.
I choose cake.
Obviously pie was unavailable, because only an idiot would choose cake over pie.
[sits back to watch ensuing pie/cake war]
Cheesecake always wins.
I prefer beefcake.
I can forgive the Post for thinking that nice weather explains all. For a much more lightweight version of this argument, the Sacramento Bee has you covered.
One counterargument: if sunny, warm weather is so important, why are tech firms flocking to San Francisco and its “12 months of foggy, 55-degree days” climate?
Because nerds fear sunlight and the beach. Their havens are dark basement-like buildings with fluorescent lighting and heavy shades drawn tight.
When some moron can come up to you and say, “Ya gotta join the yoonyun, or ya can’t work here no more” that’s forced unionism.
Sure, but if the owner of the company agrees to that term with the union, so fucking what? Its his business, if he wants to negotiate a closed shop, its none of the state’s damn business.
THISITTY THIS
“IF the owner of the company”. Now, what sort of owner would voluntarily subject themselves to such assininity? Exactly. The ONLY reason employers ever have such conditions, is because unions extort them to have such policies. RTW short circuits this whole racket (yes, as in racketeering).
If the employer REALLY does only want union employees, guess what, he can just fire the non-union workers. And guess what else, he can get away with it, because they aren’t unionized.
Goddamn.
Oops, ^twas I, Zuo the magnificent that posted.
Now, what sort of owner would voluntarily subject themselves to such assininity?
Major League Baseball (and other sports leagues).
Without the union, they would not be able to negotiate the free agency rules that they have. A player out of contract would be unrestricted otherwise.
Call me
So libertarians now see firing/not hiring someone as an act of coercion.
Quite the about face, that.
Rights are rights, even if Im the only person interested in them.
Get back to me when Boeing can hire permanent replacement workers for the Renton plant when the Machinists go on strike.
I fully support them being able to do that. The fact that the employment laws are fucked up in 27 different ways doesnt mean Im going to support fuckup #26.
You don’t support killing people, do you? Yet you support killing someone who’s holding a gun to your head.
Unless you’re a complete pacifist, you support force as a counter to force.
The proper way to handle bad legislation is to get rid of it, not to pass more bad legislation.
RTW laws are the functional equivalent of the civil rights legislation.
You end Jim Crow, that is good. Putting in more anti-freedom legilation is bad.
The problem is you are shooting people (business owners) who are perfectly happy with their union shop so dont have a gun to their head (or are holding it themselves).
In MNG World, the only reason employers exist is to hand out paychecks on Friday.
In P brooks’ world employees exist to maximize profits for investors with no interests of their own to be asserted (and especially no interests to be asserted in concert, that’s not right!).
I still can’t support RTW, and neither ought Reason. RTW is interference in the private relationship between employer and union.
Cytotoxic: As other commenters have noted and as I replied above – RTW is is a second-best alternative.
Or as cynical more pithily put it in an earlier post:
RTW is a shitty law that happens to mitigate a second shitty law.
Except the “relationship”, in non-RTW states, is heavily unbalanced in favor of the unions. It condones laborers to join together and extort “the big bad boss” for all he’s worth, and there ain’t a damn thing “the boss” can do about it. See “NLRB” for what happens if he decides he doesn’t want unionized workers.
RTW is interference in the private relationship between employer and union.
As soon as they take their thumb off the other side of the scale, too, I’ll agree.
How about we stop doing either?
Yes, if a bill was passed that eliminated the NLRB and also nullified all right-to-work laws at the same time, that would be fine. But in terms of libertarian outcomes, removing either weight from the balance alone would be worse than leaving them both in place (though the federal NLRB weight could stand to be lightened a bit).
Kevin Carson argues for this. If you scrap the entire NLRA, which prevents wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and other labor tactics, he’d be game for it. I remember this post because I blathered all over the comments. Here’s the link to the post from February:
https://reason.com/blog/2011/02…..ore-powerf
So libertarians now see firing/not hiring someone as an act of coercion.
Errr, huh?
My response exactly. Read your 1:59 post again, you reply button nonconformist.
I would, in fact classify the threat, “Join the union or I’ll tell the boss to fire you” as coercion. Is that in some way surprising? Should I get my dictionary and look up the definition of “coercion”?
Speaking in practical terms, my “right of free association” does in fact encompass a decision to knowingly and of my own free will decline to apply for a job, based on my foreknowledge that I will at some point be inducted into the union as a condition of employment. This has, in fact, been my policy since I first began working.
I hope this has served to further muddy the rhetorical waters.
Should I get my dictionary and look up the definition of “coercion”?
Probably wouldn’t hurt.
Enforcing a contract made with an employer is not coercion. Firing someone is not coercion.
Show me the coercion?
enforcing contracts isn’t coercion?
What if someone changes his mind?
If the basis for libertarianism is consent, then clearly property rights and contracts aren’t enforceable by FORCE.
Any of you Yankees even thinking of moving to Georgia may I suggest you watch Deliverance first?
Welcome to Aintry!
I dunno it might be fun to hear epic banjo duets from inbred re-re kids
Epic + Banjo made me twitterpated
Did someone say Epic Banjo?.
I used to tell people during my exile in the North that movie was an accurate depiction of the entire South. Hey, we’ve got to do something to stem the flow.
Some forms of coercion are more easily resisted or evaded than others, but that does not mean they are not coercion.
The National Guard is federal military — good luck having states attempt to defy the central government by force.
The National Guard is basically federal military. Good luck using it to resist the federal government/enforcement of its laws.
“Why don’t we do that, as well?”
And here’s the libertarian playing stupid “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” technique
you know why
Why, no, I don’t actually know why.
Why don’t you explain it to me.
Firing someone is not coercion.
Threatening to have somebody fired if they won’t join your union is not coercion? Threatening to go on strike if management won’t fire somebody who won’t join your union is not coercion?
Fuck it.
I give up.
There are a great many things that can be set as conditions of employment. If you benefit from a collective bargaining aggrement i have no problem with the notion that you should contribute to the union that maintains it.
My beef is with the whole power of the NRLB to force employers to “bargain” with a union in the first place.
I am also in the camp which believes that “right to work” legislation is contrary to the principle of freedom of association. RTW laws are a poor response to original wrong which is the notion that there is some right to force another entity to “bargain”.
“fuck your bullshit knighted property rights”
Nice to see how much respect you have for those, Edwin.
Where do you live? We’ll come over and raid your fridge and shit in your favorite hat while you tell us how little you think of property rights.
Bullshit false dichotomy
saying there are limits to property rights doesn’t mean saying that there aren’t any whatsoever
you reply button nonconformist.
I endeavour to persevere.
The National Guard is basically federal military — good luck using it to resist federal enforcement
And finally, anyone who uses the terms “irregardless”, “a whole nother” or
“all of the sudden” will be sent to a work camp.