Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I don't mind unions forming. I don't mind them demanding higher wages. It is just when they start influecing laws (that would be after the get the right to unionize) they cause trouble becuase the only thing left to help protect their jobs is protectionism.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Um, but you are OK with corporations influencing laws? And unions can influence all kinds of non-protectionist laws. Like those on benefits, for example. Or taxes. Or OSHA-type stuff. Just off the top of my head.

Huh?
 

you must have Sidd on ignore. If you had read his posts you'd know that my practice revolves around an area called "pawn shop litigation." Hardly any pawn shops have in-house guys, only the very biggest do and they generally go with the bigger firms anyway.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

The point I was trying to make is that in general the policies the laws they push don't lead to increased growth. I think I showed that.

I am not pissed about all the regs and enforcement. I just don't like most of the ones the unoins push. Generally they just push for laws that restrict competition.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It is just when the unions start lobbying for laws to protect their jobs. i.e. stopping free trade, telling Costco they can't sell food etc.

By supporting free trade they are supporting growth.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

The problem is that the lawyers benefit from this system and the doctors don't. Why should lawyers want to change the system when it is making them money. The trial lawyer groups are representing the "hacks" and making sure no positive changes are made.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Unions, like businesses, benefit from economic growth. Unions, like businesses, also benefit when Congress passes laws insulating them from the free market. Either you think that business is strangely altruistic, or you think that unions are strangely irrational, or you would rather side with rich people instead of the working man.

Huh?
 

And in this case, I think they had opinions from law and accounting firms.

Huh?
 

Well put Hankie pankie, but the thing is I'm not sure hard time would be much of a punishment. I'm guessing most of those in-house boys would enjoy the opportunity for some roughhouse prison style sex, since they are such whiny little beeyotches!

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Ty is Al Gore's sock?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

When specific corporations or industries try and influence legislation, they are worse than the Unions. Every businessman is for free trade except for his own industry. But in general, organizations that represent the entire business community, like the Chamber of Commerce are generally on the pro-growth side of issues. The time the Chamber can't be trusted is when it comes to worker safety or environmental law.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I don't even remember how this all came up, but wouldn't the unions be a nice balance against the business community (as a whole, and specifically)? In terms of lobbying and campaign contributions?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

without unions most of us wouldn't be here- paid handsomely to waste time. however, yours is an inapt analogy. Corporations in theory exist to maximize efficiency and production. They might not always but usually they try and maximize the profits.

A union, however, must justify its existance contract after contract. Whether more benfits are warrented or affordable doesn't really matter- the Unions want to get more each year.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Unions don't care about overall growth. If the economy is growing, and creating new jobs, that does not help the unions. They need the old jobs not to be threatened. Change is their worst nightmare. Businesses are not altruistic, and when they are out for the own interest the don't push for good laws. It is the Business Community in General that pushes for good law, not because their are altruistic, but it is just generally what is good for the business community is good for America because it is the business community that provides the growth.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Ah, yes, capitalism and democracy, hand-in-hand but without those pesky things like free speech.

I'd suggest you well-funded proponents of free trade argue over the issue rather than attack those who oppose you. The problem, as always, is that every bit of "growth" you advocate comes with costs, and those costs somehow don't get born by those who benefit from the growth. Expect those who pay the costs to be unhappy. Do not expect them to give up their livelihood so that they can worship at the alter of the Free Market. Thus, in order to win your arguments, you may need to accept the idea first that not everyone is worshipping at your altar.

Now why don't you want unions to be able to argue against policies that will hurt many of their individual members again?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I'll bet you know Bilmore.

It's nice to know that all unions are a single monolithic block with a single voice and a single narrow perspective on the world. Luckily the capital "B" Business Community will watch out for us all?