Labor

In Government, Every Day Is Labor Day

If there's a day of the year to notice the paradox of organized labor, Labor Day is it.

|

If there's a day of the year to notice the paradox of organized labor, Labor Day is it.

The paradox is this: even as private sector unionism has declined, public sector unionism is in some ways more influential than ever.

The numbers tell the story. Among private sector employees — the ones who work for for-profit companies or non-profit organizations that are not part of the government — the percentage who belong to labor unions plummeted to a mere 7.5 percent last year, from 23.3 percent in 1977, according to UnionStats.com. By the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics' more restrictive accounting, a mere 6.7 percent of private sector workers were in unions in 2013.

Among government workers, it's a whole different story: 40.8 percent of local government workers — teachers, police, firefighters, librarians — belong to unions, according to the BLS numbers. The public sector rate drops to 35.3 percent (38.7 percent by the UnionStats.com numbers) if you include state and federal employees — postal workers, corrections officers. That's so much higher than the private sector that it's almost a tale of two labor movements — one, in the private sector, that is diminishing to irrelevance, and another, in the public sector, that retains substantial clout.

Public sector unions are so important that it's impossible to tell the story of the big city and state governments without accounting for their influence. It'd be impossible to understand public education in America, for example, without knowing about the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association and the roles they play in electing local government officials and in negotiating contracts with detailed work rules and protections for teachers. Likewise, one can't understand the California state budget without understanding the enormous power of the union that represents that state's prison guards. The power of public sector unions also explains why retired city bus drivers and teachers have generous, guaranteed, taxpayer-funded defined-benefit pensions, while private sector workers and entrepreneurs must save for their own retirements.

Private sector unions, meanwhile, have been reduced from their past role of collecting union dues from workers and negotiating contracts for them to a new and less significant role as minor irritants. Even with a sympathetic press corps and an Obama administration National Labor Relations Board determined to help, for example, the labor campaigns against Walmart and in favor of workers at McDonald's and other fast food restaurants haven't actually resulted in negotiated raises for workers or significant increases in union membership rolls. The unions, having more or less despaired of winning pay or benefit increases for workers via the old fashioned methods of winning union organizing elections and negotiating contracts, have instead aimed to short-circuit that process by using government as an ally, mandating health insurance coverage via ObamaCare and wage hikes via increases in minimum wages.

There's an element of the conservative movement that traditionally has been friendly, or at least not hostile, to private sector unions. Like churches, soup kitchens, or the Heritage Foundation, unions are mediating institutions between the individual and the state. The AFL-CIO and its free trade union allies like Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement, born in the Gdansk shipyard, helped win the Cold War and defeat the Soviet Union, which wouldn't allow unions that weren't controlled by the government.

A similar policy of government-controlled unions obtains in today's Communist China. In the United States, particularly at the local level, we are seeing something that approaches the flip side of that — government that is controlled by the unions. So in Boston, for example, the new mayor, Martin Walsh, had previously been serving as a Massachusetts State Representative while simultaneously earning $175,000 a year as head of the Boston Building Trades Council. And Bill de Blasio's signature initiative as mayor of New York, expanding public pre-kindergarten, not so coincidentally expands the roster of unionized public school teachers.

Ultimately, that's unsustainable, as the more far-sighted municipal leaders realize. In another big Northern city, a Democratic mayor is clashing with unions; the American Prospect reported earlier this year that the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, "has a favorite four-letter word for members of the labor movement."

It's a reminder, for any corporate shareholders temped to take satisfaction in the diminishing role of private sector unions, that for taxpayers and public school parents, every day is Labor Day.

NEXT: World War II Started 75 Years Ago Today, Still Shaping Foreign Policy

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.

  1. …the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, “has a favorite four-letter word for members of the labor movement.”

    Vote.

  2. I thought about joining a union when I worked for the IRS. Yeah, it was a dark time in my life.

    1. I worked for the IRS.

      The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Libertarian Office will now come to order, please.

    2. This is acceptable provided that working for the IRS made you a libertarian.

  3. Sorry for my Salon obsession today, but they have so many dumb posts.

    Here’s one on a Brazilian environmentalist who may be the next president of the country. Spot the contradiction.

    Green groups generally give Dilma Rousseff low scores. But nothing riles them quite like the multibillion-dollar mega-dams that she has pushed in the Amazon, flooding millions of acres of rain forest, displacing indigenous communities, and even causing a spike in carbon emissions.

    As former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s environment minister, Marina Silva opposed the dams. But if elected president, with broader responsibilities, freezing the hydroelectric projects would be a huge decision.

    “It would be very difficult, even if she is elected, to reverse that,” Fleischer says. “Brazil needs electricity and you would not want to be blamed, as [former Brazil President Fernando Henrique] Cardoso was, for causing blackouts.”

    Then:

    If Silva is able to get the economy moving again that could give her more room to maneuver on the environment.

    A stronger manufacturing sector could make Brazil less reliant on exporting commodities such as timber, beef and soybeans that have helped fuel deforestation.

    “Here’s the plan: We’ll cause rolling blackouts which will somehow help manufacturing.”

    1. I was just talking to a Brazilian about that.

      I’ll set it straight for you. Marina is NOT an environmentalist. What she is, is just another in a long line of crooked politicians.

      Stop believing what you read in the newspapers, son.

      1. I didn’t ‘believe it’ since I know nothing about Brazilian politics. I was pointing out a contradiction in Salon’s own argument.

        1. Trust me on this one, I actually do know a little about Brazilian politics. Ok, really, I don’t know anything, but my wife who is a Brazilian lawyer and my son-in-law who is pretty high up in a government job there, well they do know quite a bit about this. But at the moment I’m relying on what a friend there has told me. Marina is sort of the Brazilian equivalent of Charlie Crist. She keeps changing parties at convenience. And so what he is telling me is that people there hate Dilma, and anyone who is NOT Dilma will probably win. Especially since Edwardo Campos bit the dust in that plane crash. The guy was pretty much of a slimeball, RIP, but no great loss for Brazil.

          My wife believes that Dilma will pull this out. She refers to Marina as a communist, and coming from my wife, that is a pretty strong indictment of Marina’s leftist leaning. Marina definitely leans to the left, but she is just pure corruption more than anything and she does have some powerful backers.

          Brazilians as a whole are a lot more naive about politics than Americans are right now. We aren’t far behind them, I mean our choices for POTUS have been shit for decades and I mean, we elected Barak Obama twice. But where I see an awakening here, Brazil is a long ways behind us.

          1. “She refers to Marina as a communist, …”

            Wait, whut? An environmentalist who is really just a commie?

            No. Way.

    2. “If Silva is able to get the economy moving again that could give her more room to maneuver on the environment.”

      People who say shit like this…wow….they really have no understanding of economics. Zero. Zilch.

  4. the new mayor, Martin Walsh, had previously been serving as a Massachusetts State Representative while simultaneously earning $175,000 a year as head of the Boston Building Trades Council.

    How is that even legal?

    I know, I know.

    FYTW.

  5. Sounds like some pretty serious business.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  6. TLDR – let me guess, corruption is involved.

  7. This from the author who lauds brutal working conditions and right-wing military dictatorships. Somehow, Ira, I don’t think today is your day. There’s a reason, Ira, they celebrate Cesar Chavez… Probably something having to do with government handouts.

    https://reason.com/archives/201…..it-company

    1. What? WTF are you babbling about?

      1. That as someone who takes the idea that government should stay out of the lives of its citizens that I don’t care if people freely associate

        1. Out of the lives of its citizens *seriously*

        2. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 5:44PM|#
          “That as someone who takes the idea that government should stay out of the lives of its citizens that I don’t care if people freely associate”

          And in your stupidity, I’ll bet you think that’s an unpopular opinion here.

    2. Fun fact: Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..mmigration

      “I got mine, fuck you!”

      1. Good for him.

    3. There’s a reason, Ira, they celebrate Cesar Chavez… Probably something having to do with government handouts.

      There’s also a reason most of the people celebrating Cesar Chavez are all still dirt poor.

      There might be a connection here.

    4. This from the author who lauds brutal working conditions and right-wing military dictatorships. Somehow, Ira, I don’t think today is your day. There’s a reason, Ira, they celebrate Cesar Chavez… Probably something having to do with government handouts.

      And you celebrate totalitarian left-wing kleptocracies like Venezuela. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten you to say nice things about Argentina as well.

      Poor American Socialist, toiling up here in vile, capitalist America, so far from the utopian pleasuredome of Caracas, Venezuela.

      1. Nah, I look to Denmark, who last year generated 30% of their electrical power from wind energy, for my political inspiration.

        1. Denmark has a smaller population than NYC. Also, their jails are full of Muslims. They won’t say how many, probably out of embarrassment.

          Behold the glory of Multy-Kulty:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVwgVCBJ8o8

          1. Also, grand and glorious Sweden has the fastest growing income inequality in Europe because of high immigration from Somalia and Iraq, and according to the George Soros open Society Foundation only 20% of Swedish Somalis have jobs, compared to 50% of Somalian immigrants to America.

            Do you know how Denmark and Sweden have been successful? They turned themselves into all white, upper middle class gated communities for 50 years and delusionally came to the conclusion that they’d struck gold and figured out how to ‘raise people from poverty.’ But they haven’t. When you actually introduce poverty to the welfare states of Europe in the form of Middle Eastern immigration, you get wild amounts of inner city unemployment and unrest, just like America.

            If America had the same gap between white and non-white residents that Sweden has, American Socialist would be calling us an apartheid state.

            1. “Do you know how Denmark and Sweden have been successful? They turned themselves…”

              So a remote small European country that didn’t participate in slavery should be blamed for having an ethnic composition closer to their ancestors than an ever evolving North American continent? Your comments are Salon quality ridiculous. I believe the rest of Europe is already disgusted with Somali immigrants and Sweden only has so many menial jobs.

              1. …”So a remote small European country that didn’t participate in slavery should be blamed for having an ethnic composition closer to their ancestors than an ever evolving North American continent?”…

                Blamed?
                I’d suggest you go back and read the post again.

              2. What the fuck are you talking about? My point is that the ‘success’ of Sweden and Denmark is the result of no low income immigration and the fact that they had minimal poverty even before they turned into welfare states.

                I don’t know where on Earth you’re getting the idea that I’m arguing Sweden and Denmark should have had slavery. You should probably improve your reading comprehension, boss. My point is simply that socialism is not the reason for Sweden and Denmark’s success.

                1. I don’t know where on Earth you’re getting the idea that I’m arguing Sweden and Denmark should have had slavery.

                  Fun fact: Denmark had a form of serfdom until 1848.

                  1. “Fun fact: Denmark had a form of serfdom until 1848.”

                    KDN, just get a lefty hooked on that giggling twit the Dalai Lama and hit ’em with:

                    “The Dalai Lama, slave owner?”
                    “Its very true. And your right about the Chinese govt using it as propaganda. Lets face it, that all figures of the past had slaves”
                    See, it was, oh, 40 or 50 years ago!
                    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/ (start there; link too long)
                    And why not?
                    “The 14th Dalai Lama was financially backed by the CIA from the late 1950s until 1974, receiving US$180,000 each year.”
                    And since then he’s bought the laughing gas from his endorsement contract for orange dye!
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program

            2. One further comment:
              “Do you know how […] Sweden [has] been successful?”

              Yeah, they made millions upon millions trading with the Nazis, notably for high-grade iron ore and ball bearings long after there was any possible threat of Nazi invasion. And it was all paid for in gold; you can guess where that came from.
              It took an Allied threat of post-war economic isolation in early ’45 before the Swedes FINALLY stopped the flow of ball bearings for those Tigers and Folk Wulfs.
              The joke says the difference between the Swedes and the Norwegians is that the Swedes have better neighbors. There were many people not laughing when that was first told.

        2. HAHAHAHHA. Yeah, a country with 5 million people which is 97% white Europeans, is highly dense and compact, and in which the vast majority of the population lives on the sea is a great comparison to a country like America, which is highly diverse, has 315 million people and in which massive numbers of people live in areas that are landlocked.

          Denmark can get wind power because they stick their wind farms in the ocean and take advantage of massive amounts of wind that come off the Scandinavian peninsula.

          I’d love to hear you explain how America could adopt this as an energy model in Los Angeles.

          Here’s a picture of a Denmark wind farm. Where do you plan to build those in America and how many would you need to power a country of 315 million?

          1. Midwest, Great Plains, some offshore. Nrel estimates that if wind energy was 100% utilized it would generate 9 times more than the current energy consumption of the u.s. That’s why people are doing it– they don’t want to rely on the Bakken Formation, which– you know– is going to run out in two decades or so.

            1. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 6:32PM|#
              “Midwest, Great Plains, some offshore. Nrel estimates that if wind energy was 100% utilized it would generate 9 times more than the current energy consumption of the u.s.”

              And a fucking commie is dumb enough to believe those lies.

              1. Yeah, I know, scientists and their lefty papers on reality.

                1. Currently, renewable energy contributes 9.30 quadrillion BTUs into America’s energy budget. Other sources of energy, together, contribute 93.48 quadrillion BTUs.

                  To make up for the deficit, one would have to scale up renewables to produce 10 times as much as they do now. And that’s assuming current technology allows for it to be scaled up that much.

                  1. “To make up for the deficit, one would have to scale up renewables to produce 10 times as much as they do now…”

                    1. “To make up for the deficit, one would have to scale up renewables to produce 10 times as much as they do now…”

                      Too bad you’re too clueless to understand the limits of scale–as if the intellectually inbred state of academia wasn’t proof enough.

                2. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 6:37PM|#
                  “Yeah, I know, scientists and their lefty papers on reality.”

                  No, greeny liars and their commie useful idjits.
                  That would be you.

                  1. Are you still debating whether CO2 absorbs in the infrared, whether the temperature of the earth is rising, or whether CO2 partial pressures are rising? I just want to know what chapter of my 8th grade science book I should review in “debating” with you.

                    1. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 7:07PM|#
                      “I just want to know what chapter of my 8th grade science book I should review in “debating” with you.”

                      Try reading it and get back to us.

                    2. Which chapter? The one that covers the philosophy of science.

                      Goddamn. How can I debate with someone whose every premise is false and whose conclusions don’t naturally follow from those? It is maddening listening to you exrete your shit.

                      An old Nazi told me once that he only knew of one way to debate with a socialist. “You can’t talk to them! You can only shoot them!”

                      I remember mumbling under my breath ” I guess you would know, motherfucker.”

                    3. Are you still debating whether CO2 absorbs in the infrared, whether the temperature of the earth is rising, or whether CO2 partial pressures are rising? I just want to know what chapter of my 8th grade science book I should review in “debating” with you.

                      Wow, you’re staggeringly stupid. We weren’t even talking about global warming. We were talking about the cost of subsidies and whether or not those subsidies could possibly be paid without obliterating the economy.

                      I mean, if you want to hurl us back into the stone age by essentially eliminating all American capital, then that certainly would stop global warming. It would only do so because of the couple billion people it would murder though.

                      Here’s something you should ask yourself before making an argument: At what cost? I want all wind power: At what cost? How expensive will this be and will it be worth it?

                      You have provided no evidence to suggest it would be worth the gargantuan expense, and I don’t expect you to do so since you aren’t intelligent enough to argue honestly.

                    4. “I just want to know what chapter of my 8th grade science book I should review in “debating” with you.”

                      I like how this is intended to be a slam on the scientific infantilism of your opponents but is really a better analogy of eco-propaganda infesting our school systems.

                      Get ’em when they’re young.

                3. Yeah, I know, scientists and their lefty papers on reality.

                  Tell me, did those scientists do an economic analysis on the costs of those subsidies and see what their proposals would do to the cost of energy or what impact it would have on America’s economy?

                  Oh, what’s that you say, scientists aren’t schooled in every aspect of the debate and the economic cost also needs to be taken into consideration? Scientists aren’t arbiters of all that is true and are actually fallible human beings capable of overlooking major aspects of policy debates?

                  It’s almost like leftists view scientists in a religious sense rather than a rational sense, and don’t consider those things which are beyond the bounds of particular scientist’s training, such as the un-sustainability of massive green energy subsidies.

                  Furthermore, that’s one paper. Given that science is about people advancing their conclusions and then having their conclusions challenged through repeatable testing, you pointing to one paper is a bit like a religious adherent using once Bible verse as proof of God’s desires.

                  1. Irish|9.1.14 @ 6:48PM|#
                    …”Tell me, did those scientists do an economic analysis on the costs of those subsidies and see what their proposals would do to the cost of energy or what impact it would have on America’s economy?”…

                    Yep, just like the folks claiming we need to cut carbons by 25% to avoid, uh, well, some bad stuff that someone thinks is gonna happen, maybe!
                    Those papers ‘on reality’!

            2. Yeah, and how much would it cost to link demand centers to wind farms in the Midwest? That’s a lot of power lines to build.

              The only reason there are any wind farms in the US is because of tax breaks. Wind energy gets 50 times more money in tax credits per kilowatt hour than coal:

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/la…..nt-market/

            3. Yeah, wind power is brilliant. From that radically right wing news source, Der Speigel:

              Wind Power proving riskier than thought.

              Indications are mounting, however, that green capitalism will not be able to meet all expectations. In courts around the country, complaints are mounting from wind park investors who haven’t received a dividend disbursement in years or whose parks went belly up. Consumer protection activists are complaining that many projects are poorly structured and lack transparency. In the renewables sector, fear is spreading that the Prokon bankruptcy — combined with plans for a reduction in the guaranteed feed-in tariff recently released by new German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel — could scare away investors.

            4. From that other fever swamp of Teahadist propaganda, the Economist:

              But costs exploded, too. Subsidies to solar energy rose from ?190m in 2007 to ?3.5 billion in 2012 (an 18-fold increase). Total subsidies to all renewables reached ?8.1 billion in 2012, see chart. Since the government was unwilling to pass the full costs on to consumers, the cumulative tariff deficit (the cost of the system minus revenues from consumers) reached ?26 billion, having risen by about ?5 billion a year.

              This would have been unaffordable at the best of times: ?8 billion is almost 1% of GDP. But as the euro crisis overwhelmed Spain’s finances, reform of the renewable-energy bonanza became inevitable. On July 12th the government unveiled its latest cuts. It lopped ?2.7 billion off the overall bill, of which ?1.4 billion were cuts to subsidies for rewnable energy and ?1.3 billion cuts to other revenues of utility companies. That was on top of the ?5.6 billion cuts that (reckons Acciona, a construction firm) it has already imposed in 2011-13.

              That’s Spain’s experience. 1% of America’s GDP would be $156,800,000 dollars. Spain hasn’t even come close to 100% of its energy from green sources, so in reality the cost to America’s economy of your plan would be something like 40% of America’s total GDP. Yeah, that’s sustainable.

              1. Sorry, that’s not 156 million, it should be 156 billion dollars. Just to give an idea of the monstrously high subsidies American Socialist is talking about.

                1. Irish|9.1.14 @ 6:49PM|#
                  “Sorry, that’s not 156 million, it should be 156 billion dollars. Just to give an idea of the monstrously high subsidies American Socialist is talking about.”

                  Parasites do not care about money; it’s not theirs and as moral cripples, they have no sympathy for you.

            5. There’s also the fact you keep ignoring which is that once renewable energies reach cost/benefit parity with non-renewables, people will start investing in renewable energies without government guidance.

              As a result, the only reason governments would provide subsidies is if parity has yet to be reached and non-renewables are still a vastly better economic bet.

              Wind farms will inevitably happen in America through private investment once the cost of gas and coal gets high enough. It’s therefore pointless from an economic perspective to create wind farms now when they’re economically inefficient, rather than simply waiting for parity to be reached and for private investment to flow in.

              Did the scientists take that into account, or did they ignore it since their paper had nothing to do with the economic aspect of the debate?

              1. “Wind farms will inevitably happen in America through private investment once the cost of gas and coal gets high enough.”

                My favorite conceit of most Progressive programs, it’s not about making their choice cost less, it’s about making alternatives cost more.

            6. Aside from the fact that American wind farms require massive subsidies, what about the birds? Wind farms are extremely lethal to all kinds of birds, and especially to raptors who fly high and slow while looking down. They have no defenses against turbine blades.

              1. dantheserene|9.1.14 @ 7:43PM|#
                “Aside from the fact that American wind farms require massive subsidies, what about the birds?”

                And the Kennedys! Remember how thrilled the entire clan was when they wanted to put turbines off-shore:
                “The Kennedy family’s oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project.”
                Who would ever believe such a thing?!
                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..61047.html

            7. “Nrel estimates that if wind energy was 100% utilized it would generate 9 times more than the current energy consumption of the u.s.”

              That is some of the purest horse shit I have seen in a long time.

              Even assuming could ‘utilize’ wind energy 100%, whatever that means, it would be a disaster. It would alter weather patterns and commies like you would be screaming bloody murder about it.

              Wind farms don’t make money, they cost money. This means they require more energy than they produce.

              1. “Even assuming could ‘utilize’ wind energy 100%, whatever that means,”

                Commie-kid assures us this is from a ‘reality paper’ written by a “SCIENTIST”!, so it has to be true. And I’m guessing it is, the same way most lefty facts are ‘true’:
                If you were to calc the energy content of every breeze through every hurricane that blows somewhere in the US, and assume you have turbines which are 100% efficient in capturing it from all velocities, and you ignore the line losses in transporting it from high-wind to high population areas, and ignore the costs involved, you might come up with a number like that.
                IOWs, the left gets to claim it isn’t a “lie-lie”. So to the lefty ignoramuses of the world, it’s ‘true’!

              2. “Wind farms don’t make money, they cost money. This means they require more energy than they produce.”

                They do? All those morons installing Siemens wind turbines must be losing money hand-over-foot.

                1. american socialist|9.2.14 @ 12:05AM|#
                  “They do? All those morons installing Siemens wind turbines must be losing money hand-over-foot.”

                  Oh, for pete’s sake, you fucking idiot!
                  No, they are not ‘making money’; they are prospering on subsidies. If it were a money-making proposition, you think I wouldn’t have one in the back yard?
                  I cannot believe you are so stupid as to not know that. I KNOW you are stupid, but that level of stupid suggests poking at a keyboard is testing your limits.

            8. Wind farms are raping the landscape and eyes of the American Midwest and achieving nothing but millions of your socialist dollars being siphoned into Chinese pockets.

            9. What we have is being 100% utilized.
              Here’s the skinny on renewables….

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..ind-power/

            10. american socialist:

              Nrel estimates that if wind energy was 100% utilized it would generate 9 times more than the current energy consumption of the u.s.

              Could you cite this?

              Harnessing 100% of wind energy would be capturing all 100% of its kinetic energy, right? Is that really feasible?

              Furthermore, at the point that you’re capturing 100% of the wind’s kinetic energy, aren’t you essentially stopping the wind? Are we now proposing massive weather alteration as sound environmental policy?

    5. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 5:38PM|#
      “This from the author who lauds brutal working conditions and right-wing military dictatorships.”

      Commie-kid! No post without a heapin’ helpin’ of fucking left wing lies!

      1. Libertarians support military dictatorships who shoot their own citizens that are trying to form a union? Who knew? I learn so much from Great Leader Ayn.

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre

        1. Yep, more lies!
          Where’s the support other than in your fevered brain?

    6. I can’t find a single laud in there for brutal working conditions or for right-wing military dictatorships.

      Still , I see your point. What Guatamala and Honduras needed back then was a Hugo Chavez-like figure to rescue them and turn those countries into the socialist cornucopia that we all know it should be.

      Like this:

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/189906/

      1. Suthenboy|9.1.14 @ 6:41PM|#
        …”Like this:”

        You think commie-kid considers opportunity costs?
        Ha; it is to laugh!

  8. “JFKConservative”

    Hi Ira,

    Maybe you should try another subject for your future of capitalism series…

    “What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

    -JFK, conservative

    1. Take your meds, guy.

    2. OK, AmSoc, I’ll bite:

      You are benevolent dictator for life. Tell me about how you would build utopia.

      1. There is a 90% chance that American Socialist’s response will include the term ‘1%ers.’

        1. There is a 90% chance that American Socialist’s response will ‘bite’.

      2. Well, I want what you guys want… Radically less intrusive government, an end to half-trillion dollar defense budgets and a government that stays out of decisions on who I choose to fuck, when I should have a baby, and what substances I put in my body for starters.

        I think the idea that government should stay out of people’s lives should be more than just a right-wing political strategy to get rand paul elected president in 2016 and for Republicans to take over the Senate in 2014. Remember what happened the last time we put those crooks and warmongers in office?

        1. “Radically less intrusive government”

          So, are you in favor of shutting down the IRS? I consider them intrusive.

          1. I’ll offer the EPA.

            1. Any 3 letter agency with do.

                1. Sure. The US isn’t supposed to have a standing army anyway.

                  1. Sure am soc, I like the idea of everyone having access to military equipment.

    3. someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights

      “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
      Bastiat

      1. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
        – john steinbeck

        1. Socialism never took root in American because the poor respected the wealthy risk takers.

          They understood that these people accumulated their wealth not through force and coercion like government, but by providing goods, services and jobs for society.

          Alas, those days are long gone.

        2. american socialist|9.1.14 @ 6:08PM|#
          “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
          – john steinbeck”

          That and the fact that ignoramuses like you are thin on the ground.
          Stupidity isn’t spread that far.

      2. I quoted Bastiat to a prog once. His reply was quotes from 150 years ago are no basis for a “modern” society.

        1. Good grief. Did you try quoting Hayek, then?

          1. This guy was way out there. He couldn’t even admit that there are differences between voluntary actions and involuntary actions. To him, taxes are voluntary because you can choose not to pay and face the consequences.

            Sadly, I have met others who believe the same way.

            1. Well, I suppose breathing is voluntary because you can choose not to breathe and … Dammit!

            2. Sadly, I have met others who believe the same way.

              Me too. Sometimes I think that it boils down to having “might makes right” as your guiding principle. And as a practical matter they are right.

              We libertarian who believe in natural law, as the did the wackos who founded this country, might as well believe in fairies.

              Because in the end, the progressives are right. They can use their beloved government to kill us, and nothing else will happen.

              1. *libertarians*

        2. His reply was quotes from 150 years ago are no basis for a “modern” society.

          Did you tell him that he should be rejecting his Marxist paradigms, then?

    4. But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind

      “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana

      If JFK had been looking around instead of just ahead, he might have caught a reflection from the barrel of Oswald’s rifle.

      someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions

      Because New=Good, amirite?

      their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties

      That’s pretty hilarious seeing as how black people had to wait for the unabashed racist and unreformed New Dealer, LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act (of 1964) signed into law.

      someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad

      Yep, he cared about the people of Vietnam so much that he forced them into internment camps, laid the groundwork for LBJ to send thousands of men to die in the jungles, and defoliated large sections of that country. All because he was losing the political dick-measuring contest with Krushchev.

      In Kennedy’s own words: ” “Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.”

      JFK’s greatness, importance, or even goodness, exists only as a myth in the minds of the Baby Boomers.

      1. “their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs”

        So you want a “less intrusive government” that is involved with the most intimate aspects of their citizenry’s day-to-day lives…

        Cognitive dissonance much?

  9. Like churches, soup kitchens, or the Heritage Foundation, unions are mediating institutions between the individual and the state.

    Beautiful.

  10. Los Angeles: Lonely pro-Israeli protester faces pro-Palestinian mob

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOAudN26_jQ

  11. “It’s a reminder, for any corporate shareholders temped to take satisfaction in the diminishing role of private sector unions, that for taxpayers and public school parents, every day is Labor Day.”

    Hey Ira, no mention of the benefits that unionization has on private sector workers? I mean, the fact that lower and middle class salaries haven’t significantly risen over the past 35 years couldn’t have something to do with the decreasing percentage of workers in unions, but what do I know… I haven’t read the complete works of Murray rothbard yet.

    Has the robot revolution started?

    1. “Hey Ira, no mention of the benefits that unionization has on private sector workers?”

      Yeah, Detroit’s a reg’lar “worker’s paradise”.
      Just keep those lies comin’, commie-kid; you’re a laugh a minute!

      1. I think off-shoring to countries with no labor laws and no environmental laws (and, tended to be communist-ish countries) gave companies a rather unfair advantage and threw off the natural mechanism of the Free Market.

        This is why Detroit, in particular, failed.

        1. Speaking of Detroit. Vice-President Joe Biden was in MotorCity today and he said some words who didn’t pleased Obama and Eric Holder from what I read on this article from National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/…..oel-gehrke

        2. NYC Liberal|9.1.14 @ 7:53PM|#
          “I think off-shoring to countries with no labor laws and no environmental laws (and, tended to be communist-ish countries) gave companies a rather unfair advantage and threw off the natural mechanism of the Free Market.”

          So you think the free market threw off the free market?
          I’ll keep that in mind.

          1. It’s not really a free market if the employer had access to slave labor in 3rd world countries.

            Don’t get me wrong Sevo, it’s definitely ‘out of the box’ thinking. But I don’t believe it is in the spirit of the free market. I believe there was a boundary in the USA.

            1. NYC Liberal|9.1.14 @ 8:06PM|#
              “It’s not really a free market if the employer had access to slave labor in 3rd world countries.”

              Which they don’t, as far as I know.

              1. The following is my opinion:

                A free market must should be a ringed-fence area which includes buyers/sellers and employers/workers.

                Employers need to be able to pick among the workers and be free to hire/fire.

                Workers need to be able to pick among Employers and be free to work/quit.

                Outsourcing is an arbitrage opportunity for the Employer. They exploited the fact that they went out of the range of the established Free Market.

                And, my statement is that this was unfair at the time as it wiped out the American laborer and has caused a salary stagnation for decades in the USA.

                Now, had the employee been able to obtain employment from other countries, then you can argue that the entire world is within the free market.

                The entire world is within the free market for Trade given the diversity of this world. I don’t believe that the free market would work properly for labor. And America has shown this.

                1. You’re welcome to your opinion, but the auto industry was not ‘outsourced’; the US mfgrs were not able to compete as a result of the ‘legacy costs’ granted to the UAW back when there was no competition.
                  Secondly, a free market is free. Arbitrage is always and everywhere a part of the market. And you’re going to have a hard time arguing that US workers don’t have access to foreign employers when you go to say, a Toyota dealer or repair shop.
                  Finally, every idjit arguing about supposed ‘slave labor’ (and I see you didn’t bother to push that lie any further) seems to forget the lower prices paid by US buyers and the ‘race to the top’ as happens in EVERY DAMN LABOR MARKET EVERYWHERE! You see how those poor Japanese and Taiwanese are still working for ‘slave wages’, don’t you?

                  1. You’re welcome to your opinion, but the auto industry was not ‘outsourced’; the US mfgrs were not able to compete as a result of the ‘legacy costs’ granted to the UAW back when there was no competition.

                    This, a million times this. Very little of the loss of American auto manufacturing is due to outsourcing, it’s due to the massive labor costs imposed by unions. GM is paying far more money to people who no longer work there than to current workers. Furthermore, GM actually loses money for every car they sell. The only reason they remain solvent is because of the influx of taxpayer money 5 years ago. In ten years they’re going to need yet another bailout.

                    If it were about ‘outsourcing’ then GM would not have been on the verge of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy implies that the company itself was failing, not that they were outsourcing jobs.

                    This is especially obvious given all the foreign auto manufacturers that manufacture in the south. Why is it that Toyota can turn a profit using American labor but GM can’t?

                    1. You guys are right about GM and that the out-sourcing had nothing to do with it.

                      I kinda went off track.

                      But my intentions were good :

                2. A free market must should be a ringed-fence area which includes buyers/sellers and employers/workers.

                  So your argument is that a free market needs the government to stop all goods at the border? That seems like a market that isn’t very free.

                  1. Not Goods. I think a communist and oppressive 3rd world country can do TRADE with the 1st world.

                    However, I don’t think of the world as a free market when it comes to labor. A 1st world country without labor protection for their people (not that I’m in favor of this) would have labor destroyed by cheap labor outside.

                    1. Okay. I disagree but you’re arguing reasonably unlike certain people named American Socialist.

                      I think an argument could be made regarding the problems caused by a free country trading with an unfree one, ie how can you really say it’s a free economy when one of the countries is a total control economy and the other is free?

                      I’d have to think about that before coming up with an answer, although I think in the case of China you’re off track. Most of the jobs ‘lost’ to China have already been outsourced from China to Africa. Moreover, China isn’t really a total command economy since it’s becoming progressively more liberal, at least from an economic perspective.

                    2. …”A 1st world country without labor protection for their people (not that I’m in favor of this) would have labor destroyed by cheap labor outside.”…

                      Care to support that claim?

                    3. Not Goods. I think a communist and oppressive 3rd world country can do TRADE with the 1st world.

                      Goods are all that exist. Labor is not a commodity that is transferred over some cable. The “slaves” in 3rd world countries aren’t uploading their “labor.” They are making goods and services locally and selling them across borders. The only way to stop labor from crossing borders (which I take to mean prohibiting an American company from owning foreign producers or subsidiaries) is by stopping all trade.

                      I do think globalization is the primary reason nominal wages have risen at a slower rate in the US. Tough titties. That’s not “unfair.” Some workers may make less money, but consumers (that is, just about ALL of us, including the workers) benefit from the lower prices. Oh, and the poor foreigners benefit, too, if you care about them at all.

  12. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ???????????? http://www.jobs700.com

  13. Sebastian . I just agree… Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
    100% free registration——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  14. I believe we all know that New Balance running shoes are becoming “President jogging shoes”, of course, it is definitely not for nothing, and indeed there are many national leaders to wear New Balance running shoes, such as Obama and our country a leader. And it has also become a powerful and hidden advertising, making New Balance running shoes sector heel stations in more steady. Since it is so “favored” Let Xiaobian to be a New Balance running shoes recommend it.
    New Balance running shoes recommended –FRESH FOAM980 Series
    new balance 574new balance outlet
    To talk nb jogging shoes we recommend you first say what FRESH FOAM980 series now. This series of running shoes is the biggest feature: using a unique cellular protection tablets, capsules protect your feet, the main push to bring as wearing shoe cloud-like experience. It also uses a BLPWN RUBBER rubber outsole is 40% lighter than ordinary rubber more flexible, giving you a better shock experience. In addition to superior technological performance, sole combines color ran the concept offers a variety of color for this pair of shoes, give runners more extensive selection.

  15. New Balance running shoes recommended – can be very casual shoes
    new balancenew balance store
    New Balance running shoes to wear in addition to running, but now they frequently appear at the foot of many sister, showing NB running shoes is a pair of shoes for everyday casual wild. As a daily outfit of New Balance running shoes, a lot of the recommended range. Whether on the streets of New Balance Van children 574 series is full of neon fluorescent brightening the California South Coast style 580 series; also, or simple rustic amount of light New Balance 996 series or youth RGB New Balance 574 series and so on, each series has its own features, can also be easily worn alone Tefan Dachu own children!

  16. air max and zoom are NIKE air cushion shoes, there are many consumers confuse these two products, in fact, these two products both have large differences in design and functionality. As air max and zoom to find out which is good, it is a matter of opinion. Because different each consumer preferences, changes in the scope of application, etc., these two shoe design, functional requirements also vary. Here we come from the perspective of a third party, let’s compare these two types of shoes.
    cheap nike air maxNike Air Max
    air max and zoom which is good, of course, is to see the functional role, the design goal. Air max, Nike launched a second air-cushioned shoes, that is, on the basis of air cushion shoes were refitted after air-cushioned shoes. Classic Air series, has no doubt, a strong cushion of the shoe has to make it difficult to forget. And a modified design airmax intensified, starting to play to the role of the mechanism, reducing the maximum movement of the body caused by injury, able to protect the most powerful athletes. air max and zoom compared cushion is definitely a must allow athletes to understand and identify the direction, although not every athlete needs to have the amount of air so strong, but airmax cushion has been to the bottom of the people can not be ignored .

  17. Compared air max and zoom, zoom is Nike’s slim and lightweight cushion series, this range is designed for use mainly basketball shoes, running shoes and training shoes and other series. Compared with airmax, this shoe is more soft and comfortable cushion shoes, flexibility is also very good.Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes, Jordans For CheapNike sneakers After wearing, able to mobilize the most rapid and sensitive element to reflect, in particular, guard, small forward Gordon, especially for wearing this shoe. Simply put, if AIRMAXd cushion is known for strong words, zoom is based on the exquisite sensitivity known. As for air max and zoom which is good, we should look at what the athletes for that section can be determined.

  18. The world’s top luxury brand Chanel introduced Chanel Boy Chanel handbag new, sought after by everyone. Boy Chanel handbag continuation of the latest series of low-key gorgeous Chanel in the past, is Chanel Cruise series. Handbag lambskin fabric, soft and glossy. Metal chain interwoven with leather, triggering an infinite desire for the legendary Chanel. Double C Logo of the locking buckle at the center of the package, highlighting shot pack metallic taste. Designer launched gold, silver and red colors, gold stylish, gray atmosphere stable, warm red, fashion people can choose their favorite color. Clean lines throughout handbags, compact design, low-key and reserved style slightly boy temperament.
    Chanel 2.55 ClassicChanel Handbags

    Boy Chanel boldly demonstrated its maverick side; while at the same time, it also inherited the essence of the brand. Karl Lagerfeld (Karl Lagerfeld) of this “boy-style charm” made ??a new interpretation: “Chanel used men’s clothing lining cloth do dress, she has a very reckless manner so the boy inside Indeed, it is. Chanel’s quite a spiritual Ms. Chanel boy Capel get her rich life full of love, is not difficult to explain why the boy Chanel Chanel bag boy named boy! “

  19. Since the launch of Chanel bags once BoyChanel different color, material, size show people. The gold, silver, and red from ChanelCruise series, a look will be reminiscent of the Velvet Goldmine Christmas Eve.
    Chanel 2.55 ClassicChanel Handbags

    Chanel Boy Chanel bag once since the launch of different colors, materials, size show people. The gold, silver, and red from Chanel Cruise series, a look will be reminiscent of the Velvet Goldmine Christmas Eve, in a lace, Huaqun, the maverick tough line hard not to be the focus, lambskin fabric shine moist, strengthening metallic taste flag bag imprinted surface, strong personality!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.