Theres about as much chance of good faith bargaining w/o the leverage unions provide as there was when Henry Morton Stanley bargained with Congolese tribal chiefs then sliced off the limbs of those slaves that didn't make their quotas of rubber and ivory. There are already alot of examples of cheap circumventions of good faith employment status, like independent contractors and temporary employess, part time status all inroads to a more management favored share of success distribution in businesses. Of course management never thinks their salaries are too high in comparison.
Look, we don't have to "imagine" what would happen. Let's look at what we actually have. We have several "right to work states" where auto makers are building cars without organized labor. Are they paying these people minimum wage? No, they are not. They are not "bashing the little guy for profit". While it is true they earn less (about 10% less), that is a far cry from the extremes of Upton Sinclair in the Jungle. In return for slightly less wages, they have more jobs, more growth and a stronger over all economy. We don't need to imagine "what if"s", we can look at current data.
Nice stats. I remember when Saturn came to Spring Hill in Tennessee. I lived in Nashville at the time. And I own a Saturn now. I have a question tho, for the sake of education and to remain open minded. Deregulation and the income gap are inversely correlated. Greed nearly crashed our entire system, and many believe it was due to the relaxation of regulation on financial institutions. What is your view on this?
If it were not for "organized labor" and the strides they have made over time, then you, and your father before you, would probably have been child laborers, working either 6 or 7 days a week with little or no benefits or safety standards. Not because you absolutely had to. But because you wanted to survive.
In my opinion, de-regulation is a scapegoat. I absolutely believe in every fiber in my body that the income gap in this country and the disparity of wealth has everything to do with the Federal Reserve and our monetary policy and very little to do with taxes and regulations. On the one side you have people who have assets who benefit from inflation. On the other side you have people who rent assets and borrow money and inflation represents a tax and burden to them. One side pays the other. The poor live in debt to the rich. The poor pay interest to the rich. The more money we print, the more inflation we see and the more that benefits the rich, not the poor. Get rid of central banks and the gap between the rich and the poor gets cuts in half overnight. Here is the thing about greed RCG, greed will take down every man, every man. It has for thousands of years. The only thing that will prevent that from happening are regulations, laws and government interference. In a fair world, where the rich would have to fend for themselves, greed would take them down. The very thing that hurts our society (greed), would be the very thing that brings equality. In the movie "The Dark Knight" the joker alluded to this when he talked about the concept of chaos. Chaos could be defined as a true free market system with minimal laws and regulations. His quote was, "the thing about chaos, is it's fair". What he meant by that was, once you take away the law and order, the special privileges, everyone is truly equal. Chaos treats all equally. The rich have no power in a chaotic system. This is why when you see chaos come to the markets, you see central banks run in and calm things down. Or when riots break out in the middle east, we send in the military. To bring "order" back to the scene. The left thinks regulations and laws and government control is there to protect them, when in reality, it's there to enslave them. I'll leave you with the famous quote: "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes itâs laws" Amschel Rothchilds
The point of my anecdote, which I would have included had I not been in my cups, was that the decision to move a business because of "taxation" may not be because the business is not profitable, or the taxes are too high, but merely because the annual return on capital employed (ROCE) target would not be met, ie. the shareholders are not happy with what they're getting. A private company with the same after tax profit does not have to move, no one is going to get fired.
I like this one better, because it is us. We are impassionate observers for the most part. And the masses intuit this, one reason why I don't talk about what I do when I am not at work, and another reason why I maintain a job, and always will. "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages, will bear its burden without complaint."
I don't know who wrote that (without googling it), but they appear to be unaware of a whole class of people, the ideologues.
The ideologues are necessary. Rush, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, and Matthews do not realize that they in fact contribute to the system, they provide order, as Mav astutely pointed out. Ideologues are emotional and hence transient, all emotional responses are. They will stir a fervor, but they cannot enact any lasting program, because they never have a plan. Obama sucks, okay, we get him out, now what? Ideologues never know. Our system in America is specifically designed to not have a French type situation. The masses will be given enuf bread and circuses to stay happy and uninformed. They will be given just enuf to compete with the peers in their caste system, and nothing more. Anyone who shows exceptional talent to rend the veil will be co-opted and business will go on as usual. Traders are amongst those individuals. But if they attempt to spread their info, they will be ridiculed and ostracized for a variety of psychological reasons.