Should labor unions be disbanded?

Gottlefinger wrote:

<quoted text>
When the titanic (GM, Ford, Chrylser) hits the iceberg, you guys seem to be scooping water into the boat as fast as you can....then complain that there aren't enough life rafts to go around.

Excellant analagy (did I spell that right?). But you forgot to mention the band playing on while the ship sinks....and it is.

4boys-1princess wrote:

<quoted text>

Supply side economics is one of the macroeconomic policies. I hate microeconomics! lol....within this discipline, most economists can't agree on a single thing. There are so many variables to take into consideration when trying to theororize about the macroeconomy or even when trying to do empirical work and come to a conclusion. As an example, macroeconomists can't even agree on what the unemployment rate really means. Beyond that, most can't even agree that is correct unless you factor in discouraged workers and workers who have entered the labor force due to thier spouse loosing their job or the like. Macro is also highly politicized....and I hate politics :) There will never be a consensus in this area which lends to the fact that much of what is studied appears to be very counter productive.
My analysis is founded on microeconomics, more specifically the economics of labor. Unlike macro, the theories in micro are widely accepted. Beyond that, the theories have lead to stylized facts which are widely accepted as well.(Stylized fact is economic jargon for an observation that is seen over and over and over again in empirical work. For example, it is a stylized fact that there is a gender wage gap and men, on average, earn more than women even when characteristics and qualifications are equal) The acceptance of the micro economic theories creates a very productive atmosphere with regards to applied research (usually, the applied research is done in the Agricultural Econ depts at the universities....regular econ departments work almost exclusively on endless, and sometimes meaningless, theories).
Anyways, the foundation of microeconomic theory is based almost exclusively on the firm. When you begin to read any microeconomic book, you will likely be introduced first to the laws of supply and demand which are derived from utility and production functions. There is a distinction between the 'firm' and the 'industry'(the industry is al firms put together). The industry wide supply and demand dictate the entire output and price. Following this discussion, you will begin to learn about the various 'types' of firms including perfect competition, monopolistic competition, monopolies, natural monopolies and oligopolies. While learning these foundations, the concept of equating Marginal Cost (MC) to Marginal Revenue (MR) is really beaten into you. Where these two 'curves' intersect is the optimal point of production for any producer....at this point, your company will realize the most profits. Think about it....if the marginal cost, or the cost to produce the last item, was $2.00 and the marginal revenue (assuming perfect competition this would be the market/selling price) was $3.00, as a producer you would produce this last product because you are able to make money on it. As your MC change (which include all variable costs such as inputs which are not fixed and wages) the profit maximizing production quantity changes.
As it pertains to unions, the affects can be demonstrated by using these simple concepts. I wish I could show you a graph and this would make more sense......but, if you can find a graph of a firm with the MC and MR plotted (if you look, look for a perfectly competitive firm model...probably Wikepedia). When the MC of a firm increases, there is a shift of the MC curve to the left (towards the origin of the graph). With higher costs, the firm is less willing to produce with the given inputs. When the firm produces less, it requires less employees....so now there are less jobs. There is also less of the product on the market now. Going back to the industry wide supply and demand, your supply of the product has been restricted (leftward shift of the supply curve). Less product equates to a higher price.

LOL...this is what I meant by foundation. This is the type of thing that microecon is built off of. Most higher analysis will revert to these foundations. None of it is subjective...it is a system of logical events and mathematics (I've left out the mathematic portion since it is more difficult to understand and difficult to type!)
I hope you go check it out! If you would like, I can always send you a micro or macro book to read, or I can suggest one.

This didn't post correctly. 4B1P, read this first and the other post (starts off LOL) last!

4boys-1princess wrote:

<quoted text>

Supply side economics is one of the macroeconomic policies. I hate microeconomics! lol....within this discipline, most economists can't agree on a single thing. There are so many variables to take into consideration when trying to theororize about the macroeconomy or even when trying to do empirical work and come to a conclusion. As an example, macroeconomists can't even agree on what the unemployment rate really means. Beyond that, most can't even agree that is correct unless you factor in discouraged workers and workers who have entered the labor force due to thier spouse loosing their job or the like. Macro is also highly politicized....and I hate politics :) There will never be a consensus in this area which lends to the fact that much of what is studied appears to be very counter productive.
My analysis is founded on microeconomics, more specifically the economics of labor. Unlike macro, the theories in micro are widely accepted. Beyond that, the theories have lead to stylized facts which are widely accepted as well.(Stylized fact is economic jargon for an observation that is seen over and over and over again in empirical work. For example, it is a stylized fact that there is a gender wage gap and men, on average, earn more than women even when characteristics and qualifications are equal) The acceptance of the micro economic theories creates a very productive atmosphere with regards to applied research (usually, the applied research is done in the Agricultural Econ depts at the universities....regular econ departments work almost exclusively on endless, and sometimes meaningless, theories).
Anyways, the foundation of microeconomic theory is based almost exclusively on the firm. When you begin to read any microeconomic book, you will likely be introduced first to the laws of supply and demand which are derived from utility and production functions. There is a distinction between the 'firm' and the 'industry'(the industry is al firms put together). The industry wide supply and demand dictate the entire output and price. Following this discussion, you will begin to learn about the various 'types' of firms including perfect competition, monopolistic competition, monopolies, natural monopolies and oligopolies. While learning these foundations, the concept of equating Marginal Cost (MC) to Marginal Revenue (MR) is really beaten into you. Where these two 'curves' intersect is the optimal point of production for any producer....at this point, your company will realize the most profits. Think about it....if the marginal cost, or the cost to produce the last item, was $2.00 and the marginal revenue (assuming perfect competition this would be the market/selling price) was $3.00, as a producer you would produce this last product because you are able to make money on it. As your MC change (which include all variable costs such as inputs which are not fixed and wages) the profit maximizing production quantity changes.
As it pertains to unions, the affects can be demonstrated by using these simple concepts. I wish I could show you a graph and this would make more sense......but, if you can find a graph of a firm with the MC and MR plotted (if you look, look for a perfectly competitive firm model...probably Wikepedia). When the MC of a firm increases, there is a shift of the MC curve to the left (towards the origin of the graph). With higher costs, the firm is less willing to produce with the given inputs. When the firm produces less, it requires less employees....so now there are less jobs. There is also less of the product on the market now. Going back to the industry wide supply and demand, your supply of the product has been restricted (leftward shift of the supply curve). Less product equates to a higher price.

Nadia wrote:

<quoted text>
I find that interesting. So the difference between union and non-union was essentially union dues perhaps. As a worker, I would want the security of being in this union as I'm sure (or atleast I hope) most took advantage of. As an Economist, I would be a little skeptical of this scenerio as the norm. I did a study in Germany on thier labor market which is highly unionized and it is nearly impossible to fire even the laziest of employees. The union laws protect there workers beyond the extent which is reasonable. In order for an employer to fire an employee, they must drag the employee to court while still paying that employee benefits for not working. Some 95% of the court cases hear in labor court side with the employee at which point the employer is ruled to pay the now ex-employee a large sum of money for the seperation. Needless to say, this inhibits employers from employing b/c it can be a costly mistake. I'm not sure how hard it is to fire union workers here in the States, but from what I hear, it isn't very easy. It would be nice if unions could provide some sense of security within boundaries to thier employees while maintaining a market wage and benefits.(Which I assume the people in your brother's plant were recieving)
Thanks for sharing!

"The union laws protect there workers beyond the extent which is reasonable. In order for an employer to fire an employee, they must drag the employee to court while still paying that employee benefits for not working."
Maybe a good analogy would be someone accused of a very serous crime and not being allowed legal representation. The basis for at-will employment being an employee can be fired at any time for the wrong reason, any reason or no reason at all.

"There is also less of the product on the market now. Going back to the industry wide supply and demand, your supply of the product has been restricted (leftward shift of the supply curve). Less product equates to a higher price.'
What does it say about the supply side economics that Reagan instituted and this country has been on since?

Good Day,

Seenit -(response to your way back almost 197 posts ago) I understand your position on "politics" but I personally believe that is minute in comparisson to Those who are undesrving earning a raise of the same value as one who works thier tail off. That I believe is just not "right" or "fair". Do you?

Steelie

Seenitbefore wrote:

"There is also less of the product on the market now. Going back to the industry wide supply and demand, your supply of the product has been restricted (leftward shift of the supply curve). Less product equates to a higher price.'
What does it say about the supply side economics that Reagan instituted and this country has been on since?

Watch what you say! I thought you were for unions? The supply side economics is just a 'trickle down effect' consisting mostly of tax breaks for large coroportation and the ultra rich. If supply is restricted, those big corps have no money to trickle down. I'm not aware of the US being run on supply side economics. It's more of a combination of fiscal and monetary policy rather than one or the other. Supply side economics does not have much to do with the micro interpretation of unions though.

Oops, that got posted twice...lol....I apologize. Look at that, I'm monopolizing this entire page!

Steelie wrote:

Good Day,
Seenit -(response to your way back almost 197 posts ago) I understand your position on "politics" but I personally believe that is minute in comparisson to Those who are undesrving earning a raise of the same value as one who works thier tail off. That I believe is just not "right" or "fair". Do you?
Steelie

Steelie, you must be the most polite person on this forum. Good day to you as well :)

Nadia_80 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you admit that union members get 35$ to sweep a floor.....a job that ANYBODY could do. This job is not worth 35$ on the open market. That is the problem with unions. They act as a sort of monopoly withholding employees. A simple lesson in economics: When the supply of labor is held artificially low and people who are qualified for the labor are denied access to said labor, the wages will artificially be held high. These people should be paid their worth.....which does NOT include paying a highschool dropout with very little human capital and general experience 35$ to sweep a floor. This same example can be applied to UAW workers who simply place a screw in a piece of metal.(My mom's friend tells me all about her job detail at GM which is exclusive of this very task.)

boy are YOU mixed up the very thing that got YOU your computer XBOX,PLAYSTATION ,CAR ect ect ect WHINY BRAT your AGAINST?

what an UNGRATEFUL DWEEB you are?
all the while a the EXEC'S made even huger profits.
so over an exec's career how MUCH would you figure they make $$$$$$$$$$150 million?????????200million.
all without haveing to pruduce a single product or miss a single weekend with PAYED for car,food,travel,stock options and any outher discount for they pay le$$ for EVERYTHING because compnies will give them GOLD CARDS with privledges you can't FATHOM..........
BUTit's the UNION WORKER(who puts out product)that's the BLAME for the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMY??????????yea.
that makes $$$cents.

and why shouldn't DROPOUTS be able to make MONEY?what would you like them to ROB you instead??????????
some people need to STOP THIKING........

idunno wrote:

<quoted text>
boy are YOU mixed up the very thing that got YOU your computer XBOX,PLAYSTATION ,CAR ect ect ect WHINY BRAT your AGAINST?
what an UNGRATEFUL DWEEB you are?
all the while a the EXEC'S made even huger profits.
so over an exec's career how MUCH would you figure they make $$$$$$$$$$150 million?????????200million.
all without haveing to pruduce a single product or miss a single weekend with PAYED for car,food,travel,stock options and any outher discount for they pay le$$ for EVERYTHING because compnies will give them GOLD CARDS with privledges you can't FATHOM..........
BUTit's the UNION WORKER(who puts out product)that's the BLAME for the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMY??????????yea.
that makes $$$cents.
and why shouldn't DROPOUTS be able to make MONEY?what would you like them to ROB you instead??????????
some people need to STOP THIKING........

Don't take it personally. The union worker shouldn't be blamed at. It's the union practices that are to blame. Not for the entire economy, just portions. And no, a highschool droppout should not make as much as a college grad. Sure, they should be able to make money but nothing in excess. We shouldn't allow the incentive for people to drop out of high school by offering them a 35$ or even $20 an hour position.

Nadia wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't take it personally. The union worker shouldn't be blamed at. It's the union practices that are to blame. Not for the entire economy, just portions. And no, a highschool droppout should not make as much as a college grad. Sure, they should be able to make money but nothing in excess. We shouldn't allow the incentive for people to drop out of high school by offering them a 35$ or even $20 an hour position.

One reality that keeps getting side stepped. Without the factory worker the rest would have NOTHING. What's a college graduate going to drive when there's no one to build it? What the college graduate going to eat if there's no one to pick it?...or grow it for that matter. What's a college graduate going to wear if there's no one to sew it?

I'm not diminishing the importance of education, don't get me wrong. When it comes to what it actually requires to live, even with a college degree, a college degree is quite useless. Excepting medical that is.

idunno wrote:

<quoted text>
boy are YOU mixed up the very thing that got YOU your computer XBOX,PLAYSTATION ,CAR ect ect ect WHINY BRAT your AGAINST?
what an UNGRATEFUL DWEEB you are?
all the while a the EXEC'S made even huger profits.
so over an exec's career how MUCH would you figure they make $$$$$$$$$$150 million?????????200million.
all without haveing to pruduce a single product or miss a single weekend with PAYED for car,food,travel,stock options and any outher discount for they pay le$$ for EVERYTHING because compnies will give them GOLD CARDS with privledges you can't FATHOM..........
BUTit's the UNION WORKER(who puts out product)that's the BLAME for the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMY??????????yea.
that makes $$$cents.
and why shouldn't DROPOUTS be able to make MONEY?what would you like them to ROB you instead??????????
some people need to STOP THIKING........

Maybe, had you applied yourself in school, you might just be the same exec's that you hate so much. But I'll bet you spent your school years smoking dope and chasing some cheerleaders tail waiting for someone to just hand you everything you think you deserve.

Forgot this one. What's a college graduate going to live in and work in if there's no one to build it?

It's mere perception that makes a college education worth so much more than not. Not the reality of it.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
One reality that keeps getting side stepped. Without the factory worker the rest would have NOTHING. What's a college graduate going to drive when there's no one to build it? What the college graduate going to eat if there's no one to pick it?...or grow it for that matter. What's a college graduate going to wear if there's no one to sew it?
I'm not diminishing the importance of education, don't get me wrong. When it comes to what it actually requires to live, even with a college degree, a college degree is quite useless. Excepting medical that is.

There will likely always be the less educated and positions which demand these people. Even if everybody was educated, then the least educated (perhaps those holding only a high school diploma or a general Associates) would take the place of today's average factory worker. Besides, everything is importable! We don't make most of our own clothing right now, we import more cars than ever before in history, and as the US begins to drop tariffs and quotas, we have been able to import alot more food products at lower costs than before.

I understand were you are coming from though. We should appreciate what the factory workers do for us.

Nadia wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't take it personally. The union worker shouldn't be blamed at. It's the union practices that are to blame. Not for the entire economy, just portions. And no, a highschool droppout should not make as much as a college grad. Sure, they should be able to make money but nothing in excess. We shouldn't allow the incentive for people to drop out of high school by offering them a 35$ or even $20 an hour position.

Okay Nadia, as a former teacher I am going to agree with you on the previous statement. However, as a budding economist :) I will ask, shouldn't people earn what the market will bear? Our economy was once able to support union wages, but the market is now saying it's no longer possible. Is that right? And yes, I would love a book recommendation. This stuff is interesting!

Good Day,

Nadia - Thanks. It is all about the golden rule.

Seenit - valid point. There will be a need for these jobs for a long time to come.

Steelie

Seenitbefore wrote:

Forgot this one. What's a college graduate going to live in and work in if there's no one to build it?
It's mere perception that makes a college education worth so much more than not. Not the reality of it.

LOL....we have neighbors to the south that have a talent for brick laying! They'll come build for us. I don't know about you, but when I invest into something (with actual money....like a stock!) I expect that the investment has a monetary value. In reality, it does. My education was an investment and is currently worth a real value. When I have a company come to me to do a consulting job, they see a great value in my degree b/c I have been specialized in the tools which can create that company more profit. That's not mere perception, my friend, that is reality!

idunno wrote:

<quoted text>
boy are YOU mixed up the very thing that got YOU your computer XBOX,PLAYSTATION ,CAR ect ect ect WHINY BRAT your AGAINST?
what an UNGRATEFUL DWEEB you are?
all the while a the EXEC'S made even huger profits.
so over an exec's career how MUCH would you figure they make $$$$$$$$$$150 million?????????200million.
all without haveing to pruduce a single product or miss a single weekend with PAYED for car,food,travel,stock options and any outher discount for they pay le$$ for EVERYTHING because compnies will give them GOLD CARDS with privledges you can't FATHOM..........
BUTit's the UNION WORKER(who puts out product)that's the BLAME for the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMY??????????yea.
that makes $$$cents.
and why shouldn't DROPOUTS be able to make MONEY?what would you like them to ROB you instead??????????
some people need to STOP THIKING........

I disagree. Some people, like you, need to -start- thinking.

Where in our Constitution does it limit earnings of individuals? Nowhere.

Dropouts can make money, but they have to earn it, just like those who don't drop out. Its just that a lot of people who drop out do so not because they have a passion at something they aren't getting at school, but because they are unmotivated and don't want to do anything. That's probably the type of dropout the person you were responding to referenced. Perhaps if you settled down and turned off Caps Lock, you'd be able to formulate a better post.