Several years back I would have agreed with your assessment and conclusions. However, post-defund the police and now watching how dems manage the boarder, Afghanistan and abandoning unions... and my opinion of their leadership could be summed up as underwhelmed. And now I hear Bernie and Pelosi talking about spending $3.5 trillion on 'human infrastructure' and it makes me uncomfortable that this too is going to end up another big expensive mess. I don't trust the folks running the democratic party anymore and as someone who used to be a reliable vote for them- well l would sum up my current sentiment as more along the lines of I want off the crazy train.
UNION!
- Thread starter Dominic
- Start date
Several years back I would have agreed with your assessment and conclusions. However, post-defund the police and now watching how dems manage the boarder, Afghanistan and abandoning unions... and my opinion of their leadership could be summed up as underwhelmed. And now I hear Bernie and Pelosi talking about spending $3.5 trillion on 'human infrastructure' and it makes me uncomfortable that this too is going to end up another big expensive mess. I don't trust the folks running the democratic party anymore and as someone who used to be a reliable vote for them- well l would sum up my current sentiment as more along the lines of I want off the crazy train.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Seems you are being influenced by some t-party source. Running with the “defund the police” narrative that was a silly idea that the only place it ever had any traction was in rightwing talking points . . . and then of course your misspelling border . . . which is a legacy project as is Afghanistan. No one has ever left Afghanistan victorious.
I'm not sure if I understand the news correctly, but it looks like China might be the next to try its hand there. That could be interesting (if any news is allowed out of there).
For me, I don't think this is about Trump. It's about how I live here in Manhattan (ground zero for progressivism in America) and I have watched how 'defund the police' made the city less safe with my own eyes. It's about declining union membership numbers, or any sort of plan to ensure we have a strong middle class (other than handouts). It's about watching what's happening in Afghanistan and bracing myself for the beheadings that are soon to follow.
It's all just gotten to be too much for me.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Both trump and Biden have blood on their hands. Our military looks weak and disorganized, our intelligence has failed us. Dark times for sure. Not a failure of party, a failure of our entire military and diplomatic systems. We suck!
I agree. Things are a mess, and they've been a mess for a while now.
Bruddah IZ
DA
@ Bruddah IZ and those looking to cut out meat or at least try and cut back a little. Check out Crush's latest tasty treat brother & sisters. This right here is a stuffed extra big red bell pepper. Topped with avocado, cilantro & my special sauce mixed all togethers. Guess what I stuffed it with Bruddah?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Eggs?
Hell no bro. We dont eat any animals we haven't seen with our own eyes and how they were treated. No bueno bro. Guess again. Look at the crunchy kind of burned ((really my wife's fav part)) part at the top?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Potatoes?
Yes sir. Garlic mashed with onions.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Labor unions didn't bring you this or any other weekend
My father was a Teamster for 15 years. I grew up in a working-class household.
And I don't believe the propaganda for a second.
"The Weekend: Brought to You by Labor Unions," reads the bumper sticker.
I see. So those Third World countries looking to escape poverty and enjoy additional leisure just need...some labor unions?
(What's the point of foreign aid, then? Why don't we just save ourselves the money and just tell these countries to unionize instead?)
Until society grows wealthy enough, all the labor unions in the world can't make it possible to take two days a week off from work.
Can you imagine, in the primitive economies of 300 years ago, agitating for a shorter work week? People would have thought you insane.
With little capital, and with most goods produced by hand, it takes all the labor power all the hours it can spare just to make life barely livable.
That's why people worked long hours in terrible conditions in the past (and why they do in the Third World today). Not because short men with white mustaches and a monocle took delight in oppressing them.
What emancipated people from these dehumanizing conditions were capital goods and the market economy. With workers vastly more productive than before, thanks to the assistance of machines, physical output was multiplied in quantity and quality many, many times over. This greater abundance put downward pressure on prices relative to wage rates, and people's standard of living rose. Their paychecks could buy more stuff now, because there was vastly more stuff in existence.
And at that time they began to opt for more leisure and more pleasant working conditions rather than more cash.
If you ask people who work in sweatshops today if they'd prefer to have (1) more pleasant conditions (or fewer working hours) but (2) less take-home pay, they overwhelmingly say no.
Professor Ben Powell of Texas Tech University actually bothered to ask them. (Imagine that: he bothered to ask, rather than assuming he knew what was best for them!) And 90+% of them said that regardless of what Western do-gooders thought they should want, they preferred the money.
Meanwhile, American workers had the eight-hour-day well before their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe did, and they earned higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height.
So whatever your kids' teachers are crediting unions for, just roll your eyes.
My father was a Teamster for 15 years. I grew up in a working-class household.
And I don't believe the propaganda for a second.
"The Weekend: Brought to You by Labor Unions," reads the bumper sticker.
I see. So those Third World countries looking to escape poverty and enjoy additional leisure just need...some labor unions?
(What's the point of foreign aid, then? Why don't we just save ourselves the money and just tell these countries to unionize instead?)
Until society grows wealthy enough, all the labor unions in the world can't make it possible to take two days a week off from work.
Can you imagine, in the primitive economies of 300 years ago, agitating for a shorter work week? People would have thought you insane.
With little capital, and with most goods produced by hand, it takes all the labor power all the hours it can spare just to make life barely livable.
That's why people worked long hours in terrible conditions in the past (and why they do in the Third World today). Not because short men with white mustaches and a monocle took delight in oppressing them.
What emancipated people from these dehumanizing conditions were capital goods and the market economy. With workers vastly more productive than before, thanks to the assistance of machines, physical output was multiplied in quantity and quality many, many times over. This greater abundance put downward pressure on prices relative to wage rates, and people's standard of living rose. Their paychecks could buy more stuff now, because there was vastly more stuff in existence.
And at that time they began to opt for more leisure and more pleasant working conditions rather than more cash.
If you ask people who work in sweatshops today if they'd prefer to have (1) more pleasant conditions (or fewer working hours) but (2) less take-home pay, they overwhelmingly say no.
Professor Ben Powell of Texas Tech University actually bothered to ask them. (Imagine that: he bothered to ask, rather than assuming he knew what was best for them!) And 90+% of them said that regardless of what Western do-gooders thought they should want, they preferred the money.
Meanwhile, American workers had the eight-hour-day well before their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe did, and they earned higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height.
So whatever your kids' teachers are crediting unions for, just roll your eyes.
The Union Wheel my pal is on. Great guy but he is not free at all. He must fall in line with da boss or else.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Decimating the State Department (and freeing 5,000 Taliban) didn’t help and actually looks quite suspect in light of current events (and the rhetoric that ignores those actions).
Bruddah IZ
DA
"The Weekend: Brought to You by Labor Unions," reads the bumper sticker.
I see. So those Third World countries looking to escape poverty and enjoy additional leisure just need...some labor unions?
(What's the point of foreign aid, then? Why don't we just save ourselves the money and just tell these countries to unionize instead?)
Until society grows wealthy enough, all the labor unions in the world can't make it possible to take two days a week off from work.
Can you imagine, in the primitive economies of 300 years ago, agitating for a shorter work week? People would have thought you insane.
With little capital, and with most goods produced by hand, it takes all the labor power all the hours it can spare just to make life barely livable.
That's why people worked long hours in terrible conditions in the past (and why they do in the Third World today). Not because short men with white mustaches and a monocle took delight in oppressing them.
What emancipated people from these dehumanizing conditions were capital goods and the market economy. With workers vastly more productive than before, thanks to the assistance of machines, physical output was multiplied in quantity and quality many, many times over. This greater abundance put downward pressure on prices relative to wage rates, and people's standard of living rose. Their paychecks could buy more stuff now, because there was vastly more stuff in existence.
And at that time they began to opt for more leisure and more pleasant working conditions rather than more cash.
If you ask people who work in sweatshops today if they'd prefer to have (1) more pleasant conditions (or fewer working hours) but (2) less take-home pay, they overwhelmingly say no.
Professor Ben Powell of Texas Tech University actually bothered to ask them. (Imagine that: he bothered to ask, rather than assuming he knew what was best for them!) And 90+% of them said that regardless of what Western do-gooders thought they should want, they preferred the money.
Meanwhile, American workers had the eight-hour-day well before their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe did, and they earned higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height.
So whatever your kids' teachers are crediting unions for, just roll your eyes.
I see. So those Third World countries looking to escape poverty and enjoy additional leisure just need...some labor unions?
(What's the point of foreign aid, then? Why don't we just save ourselves the money and just tell these countries to unionize instead?)
Until society grows wealthy enough, all the labor unions in the world can't make it possible to take two days a week off from work.
Can you imagine, in the primitive economies of 300 years ago, agitating for a shorter work week? People would have thought you insane.
With little capital, and with most goods produced by hand, it takes all the labor power all the hours it can spare just to make life barely livable.
That's why people worked long hours in terrible conditions in the past (and why they do in the Third World today). Not because short men with white mustaches and a monocle took delight in oppressing them.
What emancipated people from these dehumanizing conditions were capital goods and the market economy. With workers vastly more productive than before, thanks to the assistance of machines, physical output was multiplied in quantity and quality many, many times over. This greater abundance put downward pressure on prices relative to wage rates, and people's standard of living rose. Their paychecks could buy more stuff now, because there was vastly more stuff in existence.
And at that time they began to opt for more leisure and more pleasant working conditions rather than more cash.
If you ask people who work in sweatshops today if they'd prefer to have (1) more pleasant conditions (or fewer working hours) but (2) less take-home pay, they overwhelmingly say no.
Professor Ben Powell of Texas Tech University actually bothered to ask them. (Imagine that: he bothered to ask, rather than assuming he knew what was best for them!) And 90+% of them said that regardless of what Western do-gooders thought they should want, they preferred the money.
Meanwhile, American workers had the eight-hour-day well before their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe did, and they earned higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height.
So whatever your kids' teachers are crediting unions for, just roll your eyes.
My wife and I had some old pals that are both Union Teachers and we dont talk anymore because they think were crazy and rebellious.. My wife still has them as FB pals and we see posts from time to time. The last three weeks they went to Hawaii, out to dinner almost every night and yesterday they got to go to NFL game. Their big cowboys fans. They are living life to the full. Jobs for life, jabs for life and all is good. They do as they are told and do not undermine or question those over them. No open door for them and they are 100% ok with it. They have a combine salary package of $240,000+ a year. Tenure and killer retirement plan. Nice gig for those WHO follow the easy path.
Hmm... thought provoking take on why union membership is shrinking. I don't want to ruin the surprise, but basically it comes down to Union's leaders decision to use union dues to promote progressives 'war' on inequality as opposed to less sexy nuts and bolts labor issues has brought us to a place where less then 40% of American workers say they would vote for a union at their workplace.
www.newsweek.com
The Labor Movement Is 'Woking' Itself to Death
Workers say they want unions out of politics and in the business of supporting them directly. So why not cut them a deal?
www.newsweek.com