Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 160 of 160
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: UpInequality

  1. #151
    Veteran Member Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    30,970
    Thanks
    18520

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Ah no. I don't have talking points. I just find talking point propaganda tiresome, especially when the mouthpiece is someone capable of so much more.
    Sure you do....UNIONS BAAAAD.
    Thanks from Æthelfrith, OldGaffer and labrea

  2. #152
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,458
    Thanks
    3873

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Provide the reference? (I know you can't)

    Crikey, this is ignorant. I've already told you that public sector workers have higher levels of human capital. They therefore deserve a higher wage. Perhaps you're going to dispute all of the analysis spawned by Gary Becker? Chicago School of economics too left wing for you?

    You've already been told. Unions, in general, only react to rents created by the employer. For the public sector, that necessarily refers to underpayment.

    You made a ludicrous claim. I'm not letting you off the hook. Why can't you defend any of your comments? Perhaps because you're talking bollocks?

    In terms of understanding the economics, unions will differ. Bilateral monopoly will focus more on strengthening bargaining power. The efficient bargain, in contrast, refocuses the union on maximising a welfare function based on both wage rates and employment levels.

    Stiglitz has a valid argument. We know that influence costs are inflamed by a cosy relationship between private and public sectors. Traditionally we were reliant on analysis such as the military industrial complex. The net widened, mind you, when we saw the cosy relationship between government and the financial sector (leading to run amok rents and instabilities in capitalism)

    Note of course you didn't answer the question. Why? Bit obvious really. We're referring to inequalities. Germany twins strong unions and relatively low inequalities. US twins weak unions and aggressively high inequalities. How terribly inconvenient for your whinge.

    Right wingers always see economics as jabber. That's a big reason for their irrelevance.

    Never said they could. They merely defend their members. Wonder who the f-wit was that thought it was a good idea to bring up unions on a thread about extreme inequalities?

    HAHAHAHA! Crikey, think before you type. How many union members are in the top 1%? Hmmmm

    I'm a socialist. Unions are just a crucial part of capitalism. I don't need to celebrate or demonise them. I can just refer to the bleedin obvious: labour market flexibility, spawned by neoliberalism's attack on labour rights, has desperately harmed economic efficiency (as illustrated by productivity gap and the failure to maintain wage growth)

    This is just blubber. Public sector are needed for two reasons. First, government has monopoly power (and therefore can further accentuate underpayment). Second, government suffers from distributed knowledge (and unions provide a vehicle for key information diffusion). Amusingly, that's an application of Austrian economics!
    Eleven splits to the last post. You obviously have too much time on your hands, and I'm being far too generous giving you this much attention only so that you can achieve your catharsis of being an incoherent pedantic dick all the time.

    It was your thread, and your citation whined about non-competitive sales to government. You've suggested unions aren't relevant to the complaint about non-competitive sales to government, which is patently idiotic. And you're claiming non-competitive sales to government are necessary because of government's natural monopoly power? That is hilariously stupid. Government's natural monopoly power is not problematic, because it derives from democratic process. Putting labor cartel monopoly power within government's monopoly power is problematic, as it protects the monopolist labor cartel from the public's scrutiny. Government managers have inadequate incentive to bargain strongly against unions unless the public threatens to vote out pro-union leadership. Pro-union leadership assures ineffective bargaining on management's side of the table. The public's only measure against monopoly pricing of labor is to vote out pro-union leaders, because pro-union leaders won't negotiate effectively against unions.

    Public sector unions are needed for precisely zero reasons. They don't address extreme inequality, if anything they exacerbate it by concentrating in state and local government where regressive taxes usually have to be raised on ordinary taxpayers and ratepayers to pay for their unions' demands and compensate for the damage of chronically abusive policies (e.g. pensions).

    Public unions are destructive, self-destructive parasites that are on the brink of losing their monopoly privileges nationwide. It makes me laugh that leftist economists maintain unconditional allegiance to Big Labor while whining about non-competitive sales to government.

  3. #153
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Eleven splits to the last post. You obviously have too much time on your hands
    You counted the splits? Wow, that's dedication! Let's go for 12

    and I'm being far too generous giving you this much attention only so that you can achieve your catharsis of being an incoherent pedantic dick all the time.
    i.e. You can't respond to any of the economics so you've gone off on one. Get someone to give you a hug!

    It was your thread, and your citation whined about non-competitive sales to government.
    Yep, given the nature of influence costs and how that inflames inequalities. Influence costs isn't analysis specific to the left. Indeed, as you've been informed, its a crucial part of neoclassical analysis. We get to understand how economic inefficiency feeds inequalities.

    You've suggested unions aren't relevant to the complaint about non-competitive sales to government, which is patently idiotic. And you're claiming non-competitive sales to government are necessary because of government's natural monopoly power? That is hilariously stupid.
    Suggesting public sector unions are behind income inequalities of course has no merit. Countries with strong unions also have low income inequality. This is a very obvious point.

    Government's natural monopoly power is not problematic, because it derives from democratic process.
    Try not to abuse terms! This isn't about 'natural monopoly'. This is about your lack of understanding of bilateral monopoly. In that analysis the union does not create rents. They can only reduce rents. Of course you might argue that the analysis is suspect for public sector unions. But I've already given you the alternative and described why it is alien to your attempted argument. If the union factors in employment levels in its bargaining position (a reasonable notion given the characteristics of public sector workers) then overemployment is created. However, this can still be deemed efficient. Perhaps you don't know how? Look up pareto efficiency, using that to understand the difference between economic costs and accountancy costs.

    Putting labor cartel monopoly power within government's monopoly power is problematic, as it protects the monopolist labor cartel from the public's scrutiny.
    This made me laugh. There's no protection from scrutiny. Freedom of information is the clue. Looks like you're randomly choosing vocab in this reply as a means to pretend content.

    Government managers have inadequate incentive to bargain strongly against unions unless the public threatens to vote out pro-union leadership.
    How naive! Historically strikes have often been led by the public sector unions. Why? Already said: incomes policies. Public sector workers are just as likely to suffer underpayment as government attempts to minimise expenditures (and allow expenditures elsewhere, like electoral tax giveaways)

    Pro-union leadership assures ineffective bargaining on management's side of the table.
    Actually you've got the direction of causation all wrong. It tends to be unions reducing demands on government. See, for example, Britain. Strike activity is historically lower when the Labour Party- partially funded by the Unions- is in power.

    The public's only measure against monopoly pricing of labor is to vote out pro-union leaders, because pro-union leaders won't negotiate effectively against unions.
    What makes me laugh is that you're trying to apply this nonsense to a neoliberal US. Labour market flexibility is instead the norm. Not surprisingly that generated the productivity gap and therefore significantly added to inequalities.

    Public sector unions are needed for precisely zero reasons.
    I've already proved this wrong. I even manage to throw in some Austrian Economics to do it!

    They don't address extreme inequality, if anything they exacerbate it by concentrating in state and local government where regressive taxes usually have to be raised on ordinary taxpayers and ratepayers to pay for their unions' demands and compensate for the damage of chronically abusive policies (e.g. pensions).
    Crikey, you do make a lot of bobbins up. There is absolutely zero evidence that unionism increases tax regressivity. Its a ludicrous claim.

    Public unions are destructive, self-destructive parasites that are on the brink of losing their monopoly privileges nationwide. It makes me laugh that leftist economists maintain unconditional allegiance to Big Labor while whining about non-competitive sales to government.
    Your anti-unionism rhetoric is churlish. You have no credible economic analysis. You have no evidence. When asked for evidence you merely go for a 'I don't need evidence' stance.
    Thanks from OldGaffer and labrea

  4. #154
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    5340

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    What is your solution?

    To simply seize the money of the rich?
    i'm not an economist, but I'm thinking that is not the solution. but, changing the system of government might just get us there.

  5. #155
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,458
    Thanks
    3873

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    You counted the splits? Wow, that's dedication! Let's go for 12

    i.e. You can't respond to any of the economics so you've gone off on one. Get someone to give you a hug!

    Yep, given the nature of influence costs and how that inflames inequalities. Influence costs isn't analysis specific to the left. Indeed, as you've been informed, its a crucial part of neoclassical analysis. We get to understand how economic inefficiency feeds inequalities.

    Suggesting public sector unions are behind income inequalities of course has no merit. Countries with strong unions also have low income inequality. This is a very obvious point.

    Try not to abuse terms! This isn't about 'natural monopoly'. This is about your lack of understanding of bilateral monopoly. In that analysis the union does not create rents. They can only reduce rents. Of course you might argue that the analysis is suspect for public sector unions. But I've already given you the alternative and described why it is alien to your attempted argument. If the union factors in employment levels in its bargaining position (a reasonable notion given the characteristics of public sector workers) then overemployment is created. However, this can still be deemed efficient. Perhaps you don't know how? Look up pareto efficiency, using that to understand the difference between economic costs and accountancy costs.

    This made me laugh. There's no protection from scrutiny. Freedom of information is the clue. Looks like you're randomly choosing vocab in this reply as a means to pretend content.

    How naive! Historically strikes have often been led by the public sector unions. Why? Already said: incomes policies. Public sector workers are just as likely to suffer underpayment as government attempts to minimise expenditures (and allow expenditures elsewhere, like electoral tax giveaways)

    Actually you've got the direction of causation all wrong. It tends to be unions reducing demands on government. See, for example, Britain. Strike activity is historically lower when the Labour Party- partially funded by the Unions- is in power.

    What makes me laugh is that you're trying to apply this nonsense to a neoliberal US. Labour market flexibility is instead the norm. Not surprisingly that generated the productivity gap and therefore significantly added to inequalities.

    I've already proved this wrong. I even manage to throw in some Austrian Economics to do it!

    Crikey, you do make a lot of bobbins up. There is absolutely zero evidence that unionism increases tax regressivity. Its a ludicrous claim.

    Your anti-unionism rhetoric is churlish. You have no credible economic analysis. You have no evidence. When asked for evidence you merely go for a 'I don't need evidence' stance.
    A bunch of hyper-theoretical prattle, with intentional misstatement of my comments before responding to them, as usual.

    It is well known that state and local governments have the highest rates of unionism anywhere in the economy, by far, and that state and local taxes and rates are particularly regressive relative to federal. Public utilities have flat rates, consumption taxes are flat rate, and so on. Regressive taxation, a common liberal complaint, references state and local taxes. This means the monopoly premium paid for union labor, which is concentrated at the state and local level, comes from a relatively regressive tax structure. I don't care what analysis you want to refer to that makes it so that unions are only worthy of praise and thanks, the fact is they concentrate in precisely the sectors where their justification is most lacking and where paying customers have the least control over inefficiently higher than market wages.

    Coercive public sector unionism and duty of monopoly representation are nearing their end, and there's potential for new regulation to require union re-election. Were you aware around 6% of current union members have ever actually been provided the privilege of voting for or against unionization? There are positive changes on the horizon regarding union coercion.

    Anyway, I will always laugh when an unwaveringly pro-union liberal pop-economist whines about non-competitive government procurement in a country where unionism concentrates in the governmental sector. It's equally laughable the way you try to intellectualize it all away.

  6. #156
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    A bunch of hyper-theoretical prattle, with intentional misstatement of my comments before responding to them, as usual.
    Again, zero effort to reply to the economics. You ever thought economics is beyond you? Might be a good idea to consider that reality...

    It is well known that state and local governments have the highest rates of unionism anywhere in the economy, by far, and that state and local taxes and rates are particularly regressive relative to federal.
    Refer me to one study that find increased union activity increases regressivity. You've made an error on two front. First, you've assumed regressivity (without providing any analysis into why). That is, at best, disingenuous. Second, you've used that smoke to make spurious conclusion. That is an open assault on the economic approach.

    Public utilities have flat rates, consumption taxes are flat rate, and so on.
    You're not making sense! Do you know what an utility is?

    Regressive taxation, a common liberal complaint, references state and local taxes.
    Naff all to do with unionism mind you.

    This means the monopoly premium paid for union labor, which is concentrated at the state and local level, comes from a relatively regressive tax structure.
    Your argument is essentially 'public sector workers should be underpaid in order to minimise public sector expenditures'. That is essentially a call for economic rents. Its also just a rehash of incomes policy inefficiency.

    I don't care what analysis you want to refer to that makes it so that unions are only worthy of praise and thanks
    I love the honesty here. You don't give a toss about the economics. You simply have an ideological position and you'll throw any post-truth garbage in the mix to support that position. Here it led you to ludicrous union bashing on a thread about extreme inequalities (and, for you, in a country with particularly weak union power)

    ...the fact is they concentrate in precisely the sectors where their justification is most lacking and where paying customers have the least control over inefficiently higher than market wages.
    Note that you use the term 'fact' without being able to support any of your arguments with evidence. A funny definition for fact going on here!

    Coercive public sector unionism and duty of monopoly representation are nearing their end, and th
    ere's potential for new regulation to require union re-election.
    Another abuse of vocab. Coercion would only apply if you could refer to perfectly competitive labour markets. Even then we'd be left to the 'right to manage model' (with employers in control of employment levels, leading to a trade-off with wages)

    Were you aware around 6% of current union members have ever actually been provided the privilege of voting for or against unionization? There are positive changes on the horizon regarding union coercion.
    It amuses me that you refer to coercion in a neoliberal country known for weak unionism and high underpayment. Just shows that you don't care about rent seeking at all. But isn't that true for all conservatives?

    Anyway, I will always laugh when an unwaveringly pro-union liberal pop-economist whines about non-competitive government procurement in a country where unionism concentrates in the governmental sector. It's equally laughable the way you try to intellectualize it all away.
    Let's not forget, he has economic theory and empirical evidence on his side. In contrast you just grunt 'I don't like unions I don't'
    Thanks from res

  7. #157
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,458
    Thanks
    3873

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Again, zero effort to reply to the economics. You ever thought economics is beyond you? Might be a good idea to consider that reality...

    Refer me to one study that find increased union activity increases regressivity.
    Knowing how state and local governments and public utilities collect their revenue requires no academic journal. The labor and tax data are widely available. You are hiding your argument behind demands for academic studies for even the most blatantly obvious and widely understood facts about the public sector. Embarrassingly desperate.

    State and local governments and public utilities (where unionism is vastly more concentrated than any other sector of the economy) mostly charge consumption taxes, flat user fees, and flat tax rates on property. These have long been identified as regressive by the left. Inflating labor costs in those particular areas puts upward pressure on these regressive rates. Why do you pretend not to comprehend any of this?

    You've made an error on two front. First, you've assumed regressivity (without providing any analysis into why).
    I have explained it repeatedly, not my fault you are pretending not to understand. All you have to understand is how progressively or regressively non-Federal public sector entities collect their money.

    That is, at best, disingenuous. Second, you've used that smoke to make spurious conclusion. That is an open assault on the economic approach.

    You're not making sense! Do you know what an utility is?

    Naff all to do with unionism mind you.

    Your argument is essentially 'public sector workers should be underpaid
    Inexcusably stupid comment. You are running away from this. You know state and local governments and public utilities fund themselves with rates that in no way vary by income or wealth, thereby disproportionately burdening the lower incomes, and you know these very sectors are the most concentrated with unionism, bar none. You are twisting and spinning and dodging this problem.

    It amuses me that you refer to coercion in a neoliberal country
    Continue squirming and laughing uncomfortably. There's no disputing the coercive nature of unionism, and it so happens that in this country unionism is most concentrated by far in the sectors that fund themselves by flat rates, which are disproportionately burdensome to the poorest Americans. This is straight out of the liberal playbook and dictionary. Any liberal that touts progressive taxation and "economic justice" cannot simultaneously tout love and adoration for public sector unions, without looking like an absolute dolt.

    Whine about non-competitive government procurement, and then ardently defend rampant public sector unionism that epitomizes non-competitive government procurement. Flat stupid. Stiglitz' should be read as if it were the Democrats.org website.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 11th November 2017 at 09:58 AM.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  8. #158
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    31,075
    Thanks
    24399

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Knowing how state and local governments and public utilities collect their revenue requires no academic journal. The labor and tax data are widely available. You are hiding your argument behind demands for academic studies for even the most blatantly obvious and widely understood facts about the public sector. Embarrassingly desperate.

    State and local governments and public utilities (where unionism is vastly more concentrated than any other sector of the economy) mostly charge consumption taxes, flat user fees, and flat tax rates on property. These have long been identified as regressive by the left. Inflating labor costs in those particular areas puts upward pressure on these regressive rates. Why do you pretend not to comprehend any of this?



    I have explained it repeatedly, not my fault you are pretending not to understand. All you have to understand is how progressively or regressively non-Federal public sector entities collect their money.



    Inexcusably stupid comment. You are running away from this. You know state and local governments and public utilities fund themselves with rates that in no way vary by income or wealth, thereby disproportionately burdening the lower incomes, and you know these very sectors are the most concentrated with unionism, bar none. You are twisting and spinning and dodging this problem.

    Continue squirming and laughing uncomfortably. There's no disputing the coercive nature of unionism, and it so happens that in this country unionism is most concentrated by far in the sectors that fund themselves by flat rates, which are disproportionately burdensome to the poorest Americans. This is straight out of the liberal playbook and dictionary. Any liberal that touts progressive taxation and "economic justice" cannot simultaneously tout love and adoration for public sector unions, without looking like an absolute dolt.

    Whine about non-competitive government procurement, and then ardently defend rampant public sector unionism that epitomizes non-competitive government procurement. Flat stupid. Stiglitz' should be read as if it were the Democrats.org website.
    Please explain how government procurement is non competitive, and what that has to do with unions (within the context of government).

  9. #159
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,440
    Thanks
    994

    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Again, zero effort to reply to the economics. You ever thought economics is beyond you? Might be a good idea to consider that reality...


    Refer me to one study that find increased union activity increases regressivity. You've made an error on two front. First, you've assumed regressivity (without providing any analysis into why). That is, at best, disingenuous. Second, you've used that smoke to make spurious conclusion. That is an open assault on the economic approach.


    You're not making sense! Do you know what an utility is?


    Naff all to do with unionism mind you.


    Your argument is essentially 'public sector workers should be underpaid in order to minimise public sector expenditures'. That is essentially a call for economic rents. Its also just a rehash of incomes policy inefficiency.


    I love the honesty here. You don't give a toss about the economics. You simply have an ideological position and you'll throw any post-truth garbage in the mix to support that position. Here it led you to ludicrous union bashing on a thread about extreme inequalities (and, for you, in a country with particularly weak union power)


    Note that you use the term 'fact' without being able to support any of your arguments with evidence. A funny definition for fact going on here!


    Another abuse of vocab. Coercion would only apply if you could refer to perfectly competitive labour markets. Even then we'd be left to the 'right to manage model' (with employers in control of employment levels, leading to a trade-off with wages)


    It amuses me that you refer to coercion in a neoliberal country known for weak unionism and high underpayment. Just shows that you don't care about rent seeking at all. But isn't that true for all conservatives?


    Let's not forget, he has economic theory and empirical evidence on his side. In contrast you just grunt 'I don't like unions I don't'
    I love your posts on economics. You use the logic model dictated by academic scrutiny. And your economic vocabulary shows that you have the knowledge to back it up.

    Neomalthusian doesn't know much about what he's talking about otherwise he would have used a huge array of arguments showing the decline of unionasation over the past half a century at least.

    I haven't read the whole thread so I can't judge what was said before but there are arguments showing correlation (not necessarily causation) between the decline of unionised labour and the increase in inequality. In layman's terms, I think the question here is what degree of power should unions have within the economy because the German economic might was unleashed by the curbing of union power introduced by the Schroeder government at the start of the 2000s. In turn this increased inequality in Germany, although unions still wield quite some power there.

    There are other examples, like BMW, where worker representatives sit in the Executive Board and have their say in the way the company is run. This is also a hit to the overall power of the united labour movement because BMW workers have no incentive, and are not, to be a part of a nation wide labour union. This fragmentation of the labour movement has been taking place for a long time and is, at least in part, correlated to decreasing power of the workers.

    It is an easy way out to blame the globalisation of world markets for this development. I would say that legislation was quite slow to follow the liberalisation of world markets. I truly believe that you can't introduce free flow of finance while maintaining a tight control on workforce flows. Either you limit both or you allow both (if you are a true liberal). Otherwise you are creating a mercantilist (economic nationalist) time bomb.

  10. #160
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,458
    Thanks
    3873

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    I love your posts on economics. You use the logic model dictated by academic scrutiny.
    "The logic model dictated by academic scrutiny." LOL.

    Neomalthusian doesn't know much about what he's talking about otherwise he would have used a huge array of arguments showing the decline of unionasation over the past half a century at least.
    Why would I use "a huge array of arguments showing the decline of unionization over the past half a century?" I've never not acknowledged the private sector decline as well as the relatively constantly high rate of public sector unionism over the last half century. Not particularly relevant to what's being discussed in this thread.

    there are arguments showing correlation (not necessarily causation) between the decline of unionised labour and the increase in inequality.
    Post #1 linked a commentary by Joey Stiglitz who included non-competitive government procurement in his list of complaints about economic rents. So bringing up government unions, which are fundamentally non-competitive by nature and extremely prevalent in the governmental sector, yet which Joey Stiglitz loves, was irresistible. Not too hard to understand.

    In layman's terms, I think the question here is what degree of power should unions have within the economy
    No, more specifically, what degree of power they should have within our government itself. Unions represent over a third of public sector labor nationwide.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed