Why We NEED Unions!

220 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote CollegeConservative:

Cant the individual do that?

No, if they could then unions would have never existed.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Thats a flawed argument your saying that because something existed it should allways exist? If that where true we would still be using horse and buggy.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Why what in this day and age can a union do that I can't as a individual!

If you come back and give me some sort of glib replay then I'll know you don't really care about if we do or don't need unions, you simply are looking to make an argument.

You've proved me right.....

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote CollegeConservative:

Insults are not facts theyWiill noto win arguments

Enough of your pathetic games Pickles. There are PLENTY of facts in my posts. You'll ignore them insults or not. So what do you expect when you come here making an ass of yourself? PRAISE and RESPECT?

(my apologies to everyone else. my intolerance of stupidity often gets the best of me. I'll try to tone it down.)

As the senior fellow resident ass hole, I will thank you if you would not use worse vulgarities than mine.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote CollegeConservative:

Why what in this day and age can a union do that I can't as a individual!

If you come back and give me some sort of glib replay then I'll know you don't really care about if we do or don't need unions, you simply are looking to make an argument.

You've proved me right.....

Jan.........CC proves that stupid never takes a day off in the GOP......

FYI...CC...........There are folks in this country that still use the horse and buggy everyday. Plenty of them throughout my State of Indiana and some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

Why what in this day and age can a union do that I can't as a individual!

More evasions of all the points I raised.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Enough of your pathetic games Pickles.

"Pickles?"

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote CollegeConservative:

Cant the individual do that?

Do you know anything about the history of the labor movement? If you're actually interested, which I doubt, you should get some "books" and read about it.

I'll make it easy for you just look at this Triangle Shirtwaist Fire

If you come back and give me some sort of glib replay then I'll know you don't really care about if we do or don't need unions, you simply are looking to make an argument.

Here's another "good" one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:

Why what in this day and age can a union do that I can't as a individual!

Is this an attempt at schizophrenic humor; how all of your multiple personalities can join forces and bargain collectively with your employer? (that is if anyone is stupid enough to hire you!)

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Why what in this day and age can a union do that I can't as a individual!

Hey CC, even I as a card carrying conservative Republican tip my hat to the PRIVATE unions who improved the working conditions for all of us. By banding together, the unions in the 20's and 30's forced some tremendous changes in the labor laws that we all are benefiting now from.

If you want to agrue that they have gone too far today, perhaps you have a point. But just the threat of unionization keeps non union employers in line.

PUBLIC unions may be a different story since politicians have a bad habit of caving into them to get their votes. After the Wisconsin vote, a very interesting negotiation will be the City of Chicago and the Chicago teachers. The teachers want a 29% raise. Are you kidding me!!!!!!! It is pointed out the average Chicago taxpayer makes $48,000 a year, while the average teacher makes $71,000 a year. And the City of Chicago is broke (all that corruption is expensive). Obama's buddy (Chicago mayer Rahm Emanuel) may very well look at what happened in Wisconsin and hold the line, even letting the teachers strike. It will VERY interesting to see what happens there.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

PUBLIC unions may be a different story since politicians have a bad habit of caving into them to get their votes.

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINT!

#8 of "10 Facts to Win Every Argument on .... the Evils of Public Sector Unions" by Diane Schrader posted 2/27/11 on the NewsReal Blog

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote mauiman58:

The problem with having public unions is that the person paying the bill (the taxpayer) is not well represented at the bargaining table. You end up having career politicians caving into the unions in order to get their votes. Then these very same politians who negotiate these sweet deals for the public unions do not fund the very same pension plans that they negotiated (see Illinois for an example of how that works)!

THESE ARE CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINTS!

Part of #8 & 9 of "10 Facts to Win Every Argument on ... the Evils of Public Sector Unions" by Diane Schrader posted 2/27/11 on NewsReal Blog

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

we didn't bail out gm... they were given a loan... which they are repaying, with interest, so the taxpayers are profitting from the loan to gm.... the same cannot be said for the bank bail out... the taxpayers made sure the cords stayed attached to all the golden parachutes. the right wingers scream about socialism but they were fine to socialize the losses to all the banks that were too big to fail..

kk57's picture
kk57
Joined:
Jun. 12, 2012 10:46 pm
Quote kk57:

we didn't bail out gm... they were given a loan... which they are repaying, with interest, so the taxpayers are profitting from the loan to gm.... the same cannot be said for the bank bail out... the taxpayers made sure the cords stayed attached to all the golden parachutes. the right wingers scream about socialism but they were fine to socialize the losses to all the banks that were too big to fail..

Couldn't agree with you more kk57, the government should not be in the bailout business. And if they do bail a business out, no one should get upset when they impose control on that business, which includes how much all the workers make, including the CEO.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote mauiman58:

PUBLIC unions may be a different story since politicians have a bad habit of caving into them to get their votes.

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINT!

#8 of "10 Facts to Win Every Argument on .... the Evils of Public Sector Unions" by Diane Schrader posted 2/27/11 on the NewsReal Blog

So I take it that you feel that every conservative talking point is 100% wrong? What would say to Rahm Emanuel (Democrat, mayor of Chicago, former Chief of Staff for Barak Obama) about how to deal with the Chicago teachers union that wants a 29% raise? Remember, the City of Chicago is basically broke and running a deficit. You think that if he takes a hard line against them that the union won't try and get someone else in office next election?

Like I said, that will be a very interesting situation.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

Union members over the last 20 years have cut their own throats, they keep voting Democrat no matter how often they work against them.

Case and Point:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/ge-ceo-jeffrey-immelt-the-head-of-obamas-jobs-council-is-moving-jobs-and-economic-infrastructure-to-china-at-a-blistering-pace

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Why_Did_Obama_Choose_Outsourcing_Champion_Jeffrey_Immelt_as_Jobs_Advisor_110208

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2011/10/05/walsh-trashes-jeffrey-immelt-outsourcer-in-chief-of-ge-as-obama-jobs-leader/

Yet many Democrat voters will cast their votes again for Obama despite being unemployed by his policies.

Yet try to get them to vote Constitution Party and they insist that Democrats still represent them. Unreal !!!!!!!!!

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm
Quote kk57:we didn't bail out gm... they were given a loan... which they are repaying, with interest, so the taxpayers are profitting from the loan to gm.... the same cannot be said for the bank bail out...

There seems to be a moral difference here. We HAD to bail out the banks because we foolishly let them get so large that if they failed, they'd take down the economy. GM arguably was a victim of the these banks. When they crashed the economy all demand dried up. To let them go under would have meant the collapse of all those auto parts companies that depended on Detroit. FDR did a similar thing back in the 30's. A local factory that employed over 1000 flew the NRA flag after being bailed out.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote antikakistocrat:

Union members over the last 20 years have cut their own throats, they keep voting Democrat no matter how often they work against them.

And the same hasn't been true with GOP voters?

It's a defect in our braindead and dysfunctional 2 party system. Often citizens are left with the lesser of the evils... because the system often punishes those who vote their conscience by throwing elections to a minority candidate. It's this dynamic that perpetuates the existing parties. Worst, the system is virtually reform proof, set in cement by an antidemocratic Constitution.

What was that you said about the Constitution Party?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

It's a defect in our braindead and dysfunctional 2 party system. Often citizens are left with the lesser of the evils... because the system often punishes those who vote their conscience by throwing elections to a minority candidate. It's this dynamic that perpetuates the existing parties. Worst, the system is virtually reform proof, set in cement by an antidemocratic Constitution.

What was that you said about the Constitution Party?

That unions should seriously look into supporting their local chapter.

There was a time in this country when their was the Whig Party which opposed Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party. Afterwards it was the Whigs and the Republicans. Soon after the Whigs support of slavery the party signed its death warrant. The Republican Party then split into 2 factions, the National Republicans and the Republican Democrats which came to be our current Republican and Democratt Parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm
Quote antikakistocrat:

There was a time in this country when their was the Whig Party which opposed Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party. Afterwards it was the Whigs and the Republicans. Soon after the Whigs support of slavery the party signed its death warrant.

And isn't it a tiny bit of a clue at to the fundemental defects in our system that we've only had ONE new viable political party in the past 170 years or so? The defect IS the Constitution.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

You're taking us way off topic but I think this deserves a response.

Quote antikakistocrat:Yet try to get them to vote Constitution Party and they insist that Democrats still represent them. Unreal !!!!!!!!!

Your precious Constitution Party is bunch of social conservative whack jobs! From their platform
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.
Not all agree. And the Declaration of Independence carries NO weight in law. If it did, we'd not have the antidemocratic Constitution we do.

The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.
I guess the CP never heard of Article 1, Sec 8 where Congress WAS given the power to tax to promote the general welfare.

Congress began immediately to fulfill this obligation with the Mint Act of 1792, establishing a US Mint for producing Gold and Silver based coin, prescribing the value and content of each coin, and affixing the penalty of death to those who debase such currency.
And CP claims to be a pro-life party?

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.

And just what power was granted under the Constitution for government to take sides on a religious matter?

For someone so immersed in conspiracy theories, how about a little history? Do you seriously believe religion, handed the power of the state will recognize the rights of non-believers? Been there, done that. That's why we have a SECULAR government.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

No its the Department that sets standrads forwork places.

The only standards OSHA sets is for Safety and Health. One of the only reasons OSHA exists at all is because unions lobbied for a regulatory entity that could monitor, regulate, and administer safety and health violations and complaints. Unions can only bargain for better safety standards in their contracts and in the legal structure. OSHA is the governmental agency that enforces the contracts and regulations. Both are needed and serve completely different purposes.

That said, I don't think unions are necessary. Unions are only necessary so long as you don't require employees on the board for corporations or require worker owned firms as the primary method of economic organization. You could theoretically eliminate unions in a system like Germany where 51% of the board has to be from the employee roles and a certain portion of that can't be management. You could also theoretically eliminate unions if it was law that you could not own shares in a company unless you worked there and that workers had an absolute right to buy equal shares in a company and the company was democratically run by all employee-shareholders in the company.

There are several methods of democratizing capital. Unions are important in our current organization but personally, unionized workforces are probably the least severe method of democratizing the economy. I would prefer legally mandated worker owned firms, personally.

And what a union can do that you can't are numerous. First off, a union can actually put coercive pressure back on capitalists so that the relationship is not so lopsided and tyrannical. Secondly, unions often implement their own standards on their members which typically leads to higher qualifications for entrance into particular fields. Unions also typically create more egalitarian compensation packages. In some instances this becomes severe like teacher contracts - everyone gets paid exactly the same based on years of work. In other cases, it just means that people (women and minorities in particular) actually get paid the same salary for the same work. The list is long but as someone who continues to assume they know how unions work but clearly have never worked in one or done research beyond Fox News headlines, I hardly think it would be worth it to enumerate them all.

I've said it once and I will say it again - make less assumptions, ask more questions, and recognize the limitations of your perspective and experience.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Isn't mandating worker controlled firms communismassimilating the means of production in to the proletariat?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Quote ah2:You do realize that high wages can never really be the cause of bankruptcy right? The cost of labor is figured into the price of the product. The only way a company goes bankrupt is a bad business model - IE: They don't sell enough of their product to cover their business costs.
I'm having a REALLY hard time following your circular logic. By your reasoning a company can piss money away on ANYTHING because "it's just figured into the price of the product"… and the business model isn't supposed to be concerned at all about costs?

Of COURSE if costs are too high then a company can go under... and labor is one of those costs. Companies are always trying to cuts costs... it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes just to line the pockets of greedy owners, but also to stay competitive. But this cost cutting has a dark side when it seeks others to "subsidize" the cost of production with poor workplace standards, pollution... which is throwing one's garbage onto another's property, child labor, driving down wages etc. This is why we need a level playing field… where ALL employers have the same tax structure, workplace safety standards, minimum wage, pollution standards, etc… so they can't cut in those areas to gain some competitive advantage. And we need it to be easy for unions to organize because they and government are the few forces with the power to INCREASE living standards. Once we have that structure that IMPROVES conditions and wages in the US, we can't allow free trade to become the escape hatch for companies to dump those costs yet import their goods back to the US to undercut companies that stay in the US.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

BLAH BLAH

Isn't about time to stop EVADING issues here? For instance YOU claimed we didn't need OSHA if there were unions. But union membership has gone down from abot 30% to 11-12% of the workforce. So by your "logic" isn't that reason for a BIGGER OSHA?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote ah2:Unions can only bargain for better safety standards in their contracts and in the legal structure. OSHA is the governmental agency that enforces the contracts and regulations. Both are needed and serve completely different purposes.

So you're saying that if there's no union, or if a contract between a company and a union allows unsafe workplace safety... the OSHA has NO legal power to do ANYTHING? From the OSHA website

Under the OSH Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace. OSHA's mission is to assure safe and healthful workplaces by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.
http://www.osha.gov/dep/index.html

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Isn't mandating worker controlled firms communismassimilating the means of production in to the proletariat?

Do you even know what you're saying here? You are talking/typing blither again and again.... blither!

Blither: to talk long-windedly without making very much sense

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Pierpont:

Quote ah2:You do realize that high wages can never really be the cause of bankruptcy right? The cost of labor is figured into the price of the product. The only way a company goes bankrupt is a bad business model - IE: They don't sell enough of their product to cover their business costs.
I'm having a REALLY hard time following your circular logic. By your reasoning a company can piss money away on ANYTHING because "it's just figured into the price of the product"… and the business model isn't supposed to be concerned at all about costs?

Of COURSE if costs are too high then a company can go under... and labor is one of those costs. Companies are always trying to cuts costs... it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes just to line the pockets of greedy owners, but also to stay competitive. But this cost cutting has a dark side when it seeks others to "subsidize" the cost of production with poor workplace standards, pollution... which is throwing one's garbage onto another's property, child labor, driving down wages etc. This is why we need a level playing field… where ALL employers have the same tax structure, workplace safety standards, minimum wage, pollution standards, etc… so they can't cut in those areas to gain some competitive advantage. And we need it to be easy for unions to organize because they and government are the few forces with the power to INCREASE living standards. Once we have that structure that IMPROVES conditions and wages in the US, we can't allow free trade to become the escape hatch for companies to dump those costs yet import their goods back to the US to undercut companies that stay in the US.

ah2 is exactly right. High wages can never bankrupt a company because well before that, if there's not enough money coming in to pay all of the bills then the employees is one of the first places you will cut back.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

But if your workforce is union, there might be language in the contract that guarantees a certain number of hours, regardless of production demands. So you might not be able to cut back as much as you "could." I've heard "stories" of UAW workers showing up to work and doing crossword puzzles all day, I don't know if they're true, but this makes more sense than running the plant making cars that can't be sold.

But at the end of the day it is the fault of management to agree to a labor contract that will make the company unable to pay its bills.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:ah2 is exactly right. High wages can never bankrupt a company because well before that, if there's not enough money coming in to pay all of the bills then the employees is one of the first places you will cut back.

Glad you know what ah2 was talking about because I sure don't.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote chilidog:

I've heard "stories" of UAW workers showing up to work and doing crossword puzzles all day, I don't know if they're true, but this makes more sense than running the plant making cars that can't be sold.

These was the so-called Job Banks.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

May I ask if we need unions so badly why are their membership numbers gone down over the past decades. Also why do members flee when they are not obligated to join?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

You do not have my permission to ask those questions.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:

May I ask if we need unions so badly why are their membership numbers gone down over the past decades. Also why do members flee when they are not obligated to join?

Never really answering questions and always moving the goal post. Doesn't sound like a person interested in a discussion. Which raises the obvious question... why is CC even here? It's certainly not to show off his spankin' new college education!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Because I'm bored and wanna see if I can save any Of y'all from the mental disorder of liberalism.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Because I'm bored and wanna see if I can save any Of y'all from the mental disorder of liberalism.

If you're bored, don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you're going to stay then stop evading discussion.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

May I ask if we need unions so badly why are their membership numbers gone down over the past decades.

You've taken some college courses in business - did they teach/suggest an answer to this question?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sure principle of diminishing returns. Once unions offered a sizeable pay increase to that of which the member pays iN dues. Now we are seeing an inrease in non union compensation and a increase in dues but a decrease in the pay increase from being in the union.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:

Sure principle of diminishing returns. Once unions offered a sizeable pay increase to that of which the member pays iN dues. Now we are seeing an inrease in non union compensation and a increase in dues but a decrease in the pay increase from being in the union.

TRANSLATION= When the political Right is determined to dismantle the financial base of the Democratic Party by going after unions etc, they will suffer. When part of the Democratic Party JOINS the Right and the US enters into free trade agreements with cheap and slave labor nations, predictably unions become LESS effective than in a more protectionist economy.

Gee CC, why didn't you just SAY THAT!

BTW... just WHAT increase is there in non-union compensation? Being a college kid, you DO know how to back up your claims, right? Oh, never mind. You don't go to a real college that teaches clear thinking.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

You don't read my links anyway do why should I bother and I don't see u telling everyone else to cite their sources when it's something u agree with .

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

You don't read my links anyway do why should I bother and I don't see u telling everyone else to cite their sources when it's something u agree with .

More evasions. Perhaps ONE of these days you'll learn how to carry on an intelligent discussion. But by then I'll be dead of old age.

So I take it you can NOT back up your claim. Why didn't you just say that from the start? Which makes me wonder why you even bothered posting it. Oh, that's right... you think anything you believe MUST be true.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

You don't read my links anyway do why should I bother and I don't see u telling everyone else to cite their sources when it's something u agree with .

More pathetic excuses. Am I the ONLY other person in the forum? When you make idiotic claims here, you're doing so to the entire world.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

NoNiño I can but I don't wanna waste mystone to post them and havuntouchedjust ignore their merit and attack me.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Quote CollegeConservative:

NoNiño I can but I don't wanna waste mystone to post them and havuntouchedjust ignore their merit and attack me.

More evasions. Look Cup Cake, I'M not the issue here... it's YOUR choice to come here presumably to have discussions yet you also seem to believe that you can make any idiotic claim you want, never prove it, and never be challenged. Is THAT the standard in that so-called college you claim to attend? In which case you must have a 4.0 average.

Now do you have credible proof of your claims or not? Going once… twice…

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

NoNiño I can but I don't wanna waste mystone to post them and havuntouchedjust ignore their merit and attack me.

I've been reading your posts all over the blog. I have to tell you like a loving friend..... Kid you are in way over your head.

You are being criticizing your because you're arguments are so weak, you provide little or no facts, your specialty is "one liners," you shift everytime you get in a corner due to lack of substance, I can go on and on.

Since you've probably never been in the military or in a situation where someone actually pushes you to improve..... that's what's happening here. Folks are pushing you to improve your arguments and your critical thinking. Stop posting all over the place with those stupid one liners, and focus..... get your information together and stick to one topic at a time.

AND STOP USING YOUR PHONE AND MAKING SO MANY ERROS..... WE CAN'T READ IT AND HAVE TO GUESS AT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY!

You need to do better! Come on..... you can do it!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

NoNiño I can but I don't wanna waste mystone to post them and havuntouchedjust ignore their merit and attack me.

More evasions. Look Cup Cake, I'M not the issue here... it's YOUR choice to come here presumably to have discussions yet you also seem to believe that you can make any idiotic claim you want, never prove it, and never be challenged. Is THAT the standard in that so-called college you claim to attend? In which case you must have a 4.0 average.

As for your claims... WHAT "MERIT"????? Empty claims and illogical arguments deserve no "merit". Unless you are, as I suspect, really a 13 year old who at best is only capable of 4th grade level reasoning.

Now do you have credible proof of your claims or not? Going once… twice…

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote jan in iowa:You need to do better! Come on..... you can do it!

If only that were true. Sadly, there's NO evidence CC can do better.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote jan in iowa:You need to do better! Come on..... you can do it!

If only that were true. Sadly, there's NO evidence CC can do better.

I guess I'm just an optimist. :)

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

Now we are seeing an inrease in non union compensation

Post a link. I'll read it.

It's my understanding that real median wages/compensation have been steadily decreasing since 1972. I don't have a link.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

Quote CollegeConservative:

Now we are seeing an inrease in non union compensation

Post a link. I'll read it.

It's my understanding that real median wages/compensation have been steadily decreasing since 1972. I don't have a link.

Here are some charts that will have to do until I can dig though my own collection

http://kltprc.info/pubs/presentations/2008conference/Crouch_2008conferen...

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distr...

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Currently Chatting

Are Killers Still In Charge Of Our Healthcare?

Malcolm MacDougall is dead, but he left us a really important message before he died.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system