I think you hit the nail on the head with Taft-Hartley and OSHA. They are the primary reasons for union decline. I've often thought of unions today as sort of like the civil rights movement. Much of their work is no longer necessary thanks to societal improvements so they end up causing mischief out of a need to feel relevant rather than targeting those small-bore issues which still need attention. To take the analogy a step further, unions currently have some need to clean up their own backyards, sort of like the black community today.
Alex. You are correct. That was a poor generalization on my part and as someone who is less-than-a-fan of unions today I should have chose my words more carefully.
It used to be that companies only treated employees fairly when the unions forced them to. Now a lot of non-union companies, mine included, treat employees well primarily out of a desire to keep the union out. So in that sense unions are just as important as they always were and just as effective. They just don't have the big membership they once did. I often think though that if unions were really sincere about worker rights they would be okay with that.
I hear the complaints though from a lot of union workers who feel like non-union workers are piggy-backing on them. Auto manufacturers are a good example. Toyota workers arguably make good wages because the UAW went on a lot of strikes to get the wages to that level. On the flip side though the non-union employees can be terminated much more easily and have to earn their promotions through merit rather than just shwoing up for work every day. So it's a trade-off and ultimately a fair one...I think.
What, absent unionism, would Welch or Friedersdorf suggest public sector employees do to improve their lives? Or do they just have to take it, to live with less?
The problem with public sector unions is that they hold a disproportional amount of powe because of the nature of their jobs. Trash collectors, for example, are going to get most of their demands because who wants to deal with all of that trash? Now the counter-argument is going to be that this proves their job is important and they should be compensated accordingly, but our compensation system is not set up that way. Fair? I don't know if that is a part of this conversation or not.
Just look at Europe. They have public employee strikes all the time. It is that fear that is bankrupting city governments as they try to keep up with the demands of their employee unions.
If Google would just come up with a tool to manage multiple Gmail accounts through one screen I will buy stock in the company. There are Firefox plugins out there but I work in a IE-only office.
Even using another search engine feels weird, like “No, no — I want to look at the real Internet.”
So true! My mom just got a laptop and was using some weird hybrid search engine that came pre-installed through the manufacturers website. When she refused to let me map Google as her home page I was screaming, "You're not using the internet correctly!"
My history degree was actually heavily tailored towards military history and I still don't feel like I have a full grasp of WWI by a long shot. In some ways I think WWII is easier to understand. With WWI it seems like half the countries involved don't even exist anymore. It can be daunting as hell to understand if you really want to understand the political as well as the military aspects.
I think that the Stimulus may turn out to be the Democrat's Iraq. There has already been a lot of waste, a lot of money going to Democrat pet programs with no job creation. Eventually all of this is going to come to light in a nice, tidy report.
As I said on another blog today, Hoover wasn't hated for causing the Depression...he was hated for failing to end it. "We underestimated how bad the economy was..." sounds like something that might have been said by the Hoover administration just prior to FDR being elected.
Those pictures are incredible aren't they? The weekend I discovered that site I spent at least 3-4 hours staring at them.
My fellow commentors are laying out some very good sources, so i won't bother with my similar reading list from college. I always like to 'color' my historical research with as much primary material as possible. Hence the pictures. I've been reading this site for a year or so.
http://worldwar1letters.wordpress.com/
This guy is slowly transcribing all of the relatives send from the war by one of his relatives. Fantastic material.
I'm interested in how this one goes. I use a lot of Google products now. If the OS is smooth I think I might spring for a netbook and toss the laptop to my oldest who is (gulp) off to college in a couple of years.
I was one of the ones who was excited about Palin initially. I had seen a few interviews with her where she talked about energy policy and she seemed intelligent. She was easy on the eyes. And I thought she was a great way to soak up disgruntled Clinton supporters.
Obviously I have had to re-evaluate my initial opinion.
I won't comment on her intelligence because I think it's too loaded a subject. I won't comment on her conservative Christianity because I think it has been exaggerated. What I will say is that her populist rhetoric, from which I think the main liberal criticisms flow, can be traced back to two sentences in her acceptance speech at the GOP convention last year:
"I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. "
If readers will recall, that line brought down the house. I was watching the speech with several friends and even a few Democrats in the room (lifelong hunters and gunowners) clapped. THAT was the moment that defined the rest of her campaign. She became the populist voice within the McCain camp. Now, I'm not saying it was a smart move in hindsight and it could certainly have been played better. But 5 minutes after that speech the course ahead seemed to be pretty clear.
In all honestly, I don't think Palin herself really knows what she believes in. Time will tell if she can figure that out and get herself in the right place at the right time.
If Erickson collapsed Sweden would probably go into a death spiral. It's my impression (and I stand ready to be corrected) that European economies are typically less diverse the more socialist they are, even if those industries are privately held. As a result the bonds between the government and those industries are incredibly tight as one cannot live without the other.
I agree with everything you said E.D. and would add a couple of additional points of my own: With more regulations comes a closer relationship between elected officials and business as businesses invest in those officials to get special treatment and guidance through the regulatory process.
Also, as regulations get tougher the schemes to make money will get increasingly more complex which means the inevitable busts will be that much more painful (Case A being our current mess).
I was in AZ myself a few weeks ago. (Chinle, AZ is an interesting place to visit.)
The point being, if you're in AZ and your bananas come from Florida...why not from Mexico? It's probably closer. So that sort of renders the point about distance making imports impractical moot.
There are insurance provisions in the US but they don't cover a lot of un-preventable disasters. I'm not advocating the government should normally be into the business of risk-deferment, but when people are depending on a food supply, you have to create incentives for growers.
Where does your produce come from now? You're in Colorado, correct? How many banana trees do you see around there? Oranges? We've come to expect certain vegetables year-round, not just because it's a luxury, but because it keeps us healthier.
When markets close, farmers stop growing. As I said, it's an extremly risky business. Without safety nets, there is little incentive to be a grower. Without subsidies one drought can destroy a farm financially, no matter how well it is run.
E.D. Simply outsourcing our food production to Mexico and Canada would be dangerous. And with a (no pun intended) hungry market in the US depending on foreign-produced food, the profit potential for other countries is enormous.
Nathan, I would say minimal keep-us-from starving or being unfairly pressured by other countries is a fair measure. I'm not advocating all crops be subsidized and believe me, I love imported foods. I just want to make sure we never see a repeat of the 1930's again.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “no manning”
I think you hit the nail on the head with Taft-Hartley and OSHA. They are the primary reasons for union decline. I've often thought of unions today as sort of like the civil rights movement. Much of their work is no longer necessary thanks to societal improvements so they end up causing mischief out of a need to feel relevant rather than targeting those small-bore issues which still need attention. To take the analogy a step further, unions currently have some need to clean up their own backyards, sort of like the black community today.
"
Alex. You are correct. That was a poor generalization on my part and as someone who is less-than-a-fan of unions today I should have chose my words more carefully.
"
It used to be that companies only treated employees fairly when the unions forced them to. Now a lot of non-union companies, mine included, treat employees well primarily out of a desire to keep the union out. So in that sense unions are just as important as they always were and just as effective. They just don't have the big membership they once did. I often think though that if unions were really sincere about worker rights they would be okay with that.
I hear the complaints though from a lot of union workers who feel like non-union workers are piggy-backing on them. Auto manufacturers are a good example. Toyota workers arguably make good wages because the UAW went on a lot of strikes to get the wages to that level. On the flip side though the non-union employees can be terminated much more easily and have to earn their promotions through merit rather than just shwoing up for work every day. So it's a trade-off and ultimately a fair one...I think.
"
What, absent unionism, would Welch or Friedersdorf suggest public sector employees do to improve their lives? Or do they just have to take it, to live with less?
The problem with public sector unions is that they hold a disproportional amount of powe because of the nature of their jobs. Trash collectors, for example, are going to get most of their demands because who wants to deal with all of that trash? Now the counter-argument is going to be that this proves their job is important and they should be compensated accordingly, but our compensation system is not set up that way. Fair? I don't know if that is a part of this conversation or not.
Just look at Europe. They have public employee strikes all the time. It is that fear that is bankrupting city governments as they try to keep up with the demands of their employee unions.
On “tackling brands is tricky, tackling verbs is even harder”
If Google would just come up with a tool to manage multiple Gmail accounts through one screen I will buy stock in the company. There are Firefox plugins out there but I work in a IE-only office.
"
From Moff:
Even using another search engine feels weird, like “No, no — I want to look at the real Internet.”
So true! My mom just got a laptop and was using some weird hybrid search engine that came pre-installed through the manufacturers website. When she refused to let me map Google as her home page I was screaming, "You're not using the internet correctly!"
"
I just keep thinking of Friends "Bing, Bing, the bossman Bing."
On “Book Bleg: The First World War”
My history degree was actually heavily tailored towards military history and I still don't feel like I have a full grasp of WWI by a long shot. In some ways I think WWII is easier to understand. With WWI it seems like half the countries involved don't even exist anymore. It can be daunting as hell to understand if you really want to understand the political as well as the military aspects.
On “the deception of dignity”
I think that the Stimulus may turn out to be the Democrat's Iraq. There has already been a lot of waste, a lot of money going to Democrat pet programs with no job creation. Eventually all of this is going to come to light in a nice, tidy report.
As I said on another blog today, Hoover wasn't hated for causing the Depression...he was hated for failing to end it. "We underestimated how bad the economy was..." sounds like something that might have been said by the Hoover administration just prior to FDR being elected.
On “Book Bleg: The First World War”
Those pictures are incredible aren't they? The weekend I discovered that site I spent at least 3-4 hours staring at them.
My fellow commentors are laying out some very good sources, so i won't bother with my similar reading list from college. I always like to 'color' my historical research with as much primary material as possible. Hence the pictures. I've been reading this site for a year or so.
http://worldwar1letters.wordpress.com/
This guy is slowly transcribing all of the relatives send from the war by one of his relatives. Fantastic material.
http://worldwar1letters.wordpress.com/
"
I concur on Keegan. Man did we have to read a lot of him in college. He's good though.
"
Not a book, but a good companion.
http://www.worldwaronecolorphotos.com/
The blue of the French uniforms astounds me. Clearly camoflage was not yet invented.
On “Google Chrome OS”
I'm interested in how this one goes. I use a lot of Google products now. If the OS is smooth I think I might spring for a netbook and toss the laptop to my oldest who is (gulp) off to college in a couple of years.
On “two thoughts on sarah palin”
I was one of the ones who was excited about Palin initially. I had seen a few interviews with her where she talked about energy policy and she seemed intelligent. She was easy on the eyes. And I thought she was a great way to soak up disgruntled Clinton supporters.
Obviously I have had to re-evaluate my initial opinion.
I won't comment on her intelligence because I think it's too loaded a subject. I won't comment on her conservative Christianity because I think it has been exaggerated. What I will say is that her populist rhetoric, from which I think the main liberal criticisms flow, can be traced back to two sentences in her acceptance speech at the GOP convention last year:
"I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. "
If readers will recall, that line brought down the house. I was watching the speech with several friends and even a few Democrats in the room (lifelong hunters and gunowners) clapped. THAT was the moment that defined the rest of her campaign. She became the populist voice within the McCain camp. Now, I'm not saying it was a smart move in hindsight and it could certainly have been played better. But 5 minutes after that speech the course ahead seemed to be pretty clear.
In all honestly, I don't think Palin herself really knows what she believes in. Time will tell if she can figure that out and get herself in the right place at the right time.
On “localism vs neighborhood-ism”
Without a bridge between the two it seems they will just keep talking past one another.
On “The State of Political Economic Definitions”
I don’t see those massive corporations making decisions about how the governments of Europe are run.
Do you really think they do not have very loud voices in the halls of government?
"
Where's Andrew Jackson when we need him?
"
If Erickson collapsed Sweden would probably go into a death spiral. It's my impression (and I stand ready to be corrected) that European economies are typically less diverse the more socialist they are, even if those industries are privately held. As a result the bonds between the government and those industries are incredibly tight as one cannot live without the other.
"
I agree with everything you said E.D. and would add a couple of additional points of my own: With more regulations comes a closer relationship between elected officials and business as businesses invest in those officials to get special treatment and guidance through the regulatory process.
Also, as regulations get tougher the schemes to make money will get increasingly more complex which means the inevitable busts will be that much more painful (Case A being our current mess).
On “a question for anti-statists”
I was in AZ myself a few weeks ago. (Chinle, AZ is an interesting place to visit.)
The point being, if you're in AZ and your bananas come from Florida...why not from Mexico? It's probably closer. So that sort of renders the point about distance making imports impractical moot.
"
There are insurance provisions in the US but they don't cover a lot of un-preventable disasters. I'm not advocating the government should normally be into the business of risk-deferment, but when people are depending on a food supply, you have to create incentives for growers.
On “The State of Political Economic Definitions”
State-industry co-dependency?
On “a question for anti-statists”
Where does your produce come from now? You're in Colorado, correct? How many banana trees do you see around there? Oranges? We've come to expect certain vegetables year-round, not just because it's a luxury, but because it keeps us healthier.
"
When markets close, farmers stop growing. As I said, it's an extremly risky business. Without safety nets, there is little incentive to be a grower. Without subsidies one drought can destroy a farm financially, no matter how well it is run.
"
E.D. Simply outsourcing our food production to Mexico and Canada would be dangerous. And with a (no pun intended) hungry market in the US depending on foreign-produced food, the profit potential for other countries is enormous.
Nathan, I would say minimal keep-us-from starving or being unfairly pressured by other countries is a fair measure. I'm not advocating all crops be subsidized and believe me, I love imported foods. I just want to make sure we never see a repeat of the 1930's again.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.