With the passage of the right to work law in Michigan, it's clear that there are no easy answers to protecting the middle class while also protecting a company's right to make money. On the surface, it seems tremendously unfair to make someone pay union dues. If they don't want to pay, that should be OK, right?
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers. In many ways, unions are all that is left in this country in protecting the rights of the individual versus the billions of a corporation and, more importantly, from keeping inequality from getting even worse. We have many states in this country that have had right to work laws in place for years. Wages have not gotten better and the owners have reaped the benefits. They've stagnated and gotten worse so Governor Snyder is mistaken when says this will help workers. It won't.
Of course, the larger picture says that nothing is going to help laborers because of globalization. When you spread free market ideals and capitalism around the world, this is what you get: a giant pool of cheap labor. In the long run, this is a good thing but in the short run, people are having to make do with less money and it really, really sucks for most Americans. Further, it has inhibited our growth economically and made the middle class a vapor of what it once was.
There are no easy answers and I know that I don't have them. My initial thought is we need some fresh, new ideas in place of the old and stale arguments being fought out in Michigan right now. I was absolutely appalled to see the fights that had broken out and the violence, largely instigated by the union protesters and supporters. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of behavior and it only hurts their cause. It's likely going to be worse until some one or several someones put on their contstructivists caps and start answer some questions.
How do we support these laborers who are unintended victims of globalization, if at all? Just tell them to ride it and out it will get better (which it will, eventually)? Remember, that it stands to reason that if people are making less here that some people are making more elsewhere (more, of course, than the absolute shit they used to make). I'm not trying to diminish the exploitation that goes on by MNC's around the world but we shouldn't ignore how they have raised prosperity in many Global South countries. This doesn't help our own laborers, obviously.
And what of the issue of inequality? No doubt, right to work laws make it worse. This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking that so many of the top earners and private firms take advantage of every day. With the fiscal cliff talks going nowhere everyday, this seems unlikely so our march to look more and more like a Third World country is being realized.
I don't know...I really don't. Honestly, I don't think anyone does and that's the problem.
13 comments:
What you don't like it when Dems promise there will be blood? Isn't that the spirited stance they are supposed to take against Republican depravity?
The most searing indictment against unions I've ever read came from someone in a union fed up with union bullshit. Maybe if unions stopped pining for the glory years and started thinking about what makes them relevant now and into the future they could recover some of the ground they've lost.
Similar to the health care issue, however, the problem arises when the people that don't pay then free ride and enjoy the benefits of what the unions do for laborers.
If you start with a premise that is untrue - not much of your argument afterwards has much merit.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/11/michigan-unions-freeloader-myth/
So, what's the difference in unemployment rates between right to work and non-right to work states?
Speaking of other unpleasant truths - too big to fail and <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335398/regardless-you-ll-pay-more-michael-tanner#>health care bill coming due</a>.
Oh, and let's not forget that BOTH of your Senators want to repeal (or at least suspend) the "health device tax" in PPACA.
And, if I don't screw it up like the last post, there is this.
That's a good question, GD. Let's take a look.
The states with the highest unemployment rates (starting with number one) are: Nevada, Rhode Island, California, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Nevada and North Carolina are right to work states. Michigan is sixth so we'll see how those unemployment change now that the law is in effect.
The states with the lowest unemployment numbers are: North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wyoming. All are right to work states.
I can personally attest that the right to work laws haven't affected unions in Iowa. My father in law was very heavy union and people happily and voluntarily pay their dues for the organizational support.
As for the rest, what does this data tell us? I don't think right to work laws are to blame in the cases of Nevada and North Carolina. Nor do I think they are the champions of low unemployment in a place like North Dakota as the oil and gas industry have helped employment there. What do you think, GD?
This is where the federal government could help by eliminating the avenues of rent seeking
I can't believe I missed this one.
You want to use the feds to eliminate rent seeking? By how? Giving them legal, financial and regulatory power? That same legal, financial and regulatory power that makes them the preferred avenue for the same rent seeking you wish to limit?
You want to limit rent seeking you take that power away from the government - not give them more.
You want to limit rent seeking you take that power away from the government - not give them more.
I agree. They have to gut much of the tax law that allows so much rent seeking and simplify the code so wealthy people don't get to skate anymore for free.
I don't believe it, M just took a swipe at Obama. The last Samuelson piece I linked was exactly on this point - that Obama has no interest in actual tax reform, he just wants to raise the highest rate to please his most simple-minded supporters.
I agree.
Rules Mark. Rules. It's the rules that allows the rent seeking that allows the money (or the wealthy skating in your terms).
It's not just the rules about taxes either. It's the rules about regulations. Ever heard about a city limiting the number of allowed taxi licenses? Who do you think that regulation is helping?
And because it's all about the rules - it's about who makes the rules. Who does make the rules by the way? Oh yeah - the government.
What philosophy do you think would be best followed to reduce rent seeking, the one that increase government size, power and budget or the one that seeks to reduce such things?
See, wishing for bigger government and wishing to reduce rent seeking are mutually exclusive positions.
Neither. The problem with conservative dogma is that only allows for these two choices and misrepresents democratic ideology.
In which Mark says absolutely nothing.
Refute what I said.
More or less.
More government or less. More rent seeking or less.
Who makes the rules? How does one rent seek? Does it or does it not require someone to make rules allowing that rent seeking?
Jeez Mark - this is pretty basic stuff here.
I'm not going to refute what you said because I don't disagree with it entirely. More government is not necessarily the answer because that could potentially allow for more rent seeking. But less government isn't the answer either. As we've seen with examples such as Iceland and our own financial markets, when these instruments are left unregulated, near ruin usually follows.
The problem here, GD, is that what we simply need is functioning government, not more or less. A government that actually puts people in jail for breaking basic laws. That would be a start.
Oh look, M is being both a baby and a punk!
Post a Comment