4 ms·

and yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship" Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why. And no it's not becau

by _pius 17y ago

and yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship" Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why. And no it's not because of the "liberal media"; it's because unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
The UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues. So does the NEA. Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor.
- _pius 17y ago
  The UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues ... Drops in the bucket compared to what their corporate issue adversaries take in. For instance, the minimum revenues of any Fortune 500 company right now is measured in the billions (profits at around half a billion). Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor. And you can say the exact same thing about corporate interests (both individual corporations and their "unions" of trade associations). The only difference is that corporate interests have literally orders of magnitude more money available to pursue their agenda, as well as a disproportionate set of connections in Washington.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    So individuals (such as George Soros) don't have billions of dollars or a disproportionate set of connections? The UAW and NEA don't have a disproportionate set of connections in DC? Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.
    - _pius 17y ago
      Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. Sure they are. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. You're conflating available capital with actual money needed to win. Suppose we're playing cards. If you've got $100 in your pocket and I've got $1000, I can browbeat you out of the game without spending my whole $1000. I only need to spend until you're out of money or, to mix metaphors, until I've bought up all the TV time and drowned out your contributions with the relevant congress members.
      - _pius 17y ago
        Hard to believe that people actually think that unions have the same amount of money to get their message out as corporate interests. If you believe that, please do downvote me and add a comment letting me know how you've come to that conclusion.
        InclinedPlane 17y ago
        Please rank the following organizations based on their total political contributions (federal and state) in 2008: National Education Association, PG&E Corp, Service Employees International Union, AT&T Inc., Bank of America, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Microsoft Corp, Chevron Corp Bonus points for providing actual donation values. * Spoilers: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
        akgerber 17y ago
        1. Most of those large donors are groups with earnings directly tied to government decisions. 2. Those unions represent an entire class of workers nationwide, while a corporation represents a subset of the market; the contributions of all corporations in an industry combined represent a more relevant number.
Semiapies 17y ago
"Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why" Well, yes - many of the people pushing this argument around the country really like labor unions. "unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda" Interestingly, neither do most corporations. Even the biggest aren't going to throw away their profits and alienate ~40% of US consumers (no matter who they pick) by running billion-dollar political ad campaigns.
- _pius 17y ago
  Well, yes - many of the people pushing this argument around the country really like labor unions. That's just a variation of the "liberal media" argument I already pre-empted. Interestingly, neither do most corporations. Yes they do. At least, the Fortune 100 does. Corporations and their unions (trade organizations) spend exactly what they need to in order to effectively promote their political interests. If unions had more money to spend, you'd start seeing billion dollar corporate campaigns.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "That's just a variation of the "liberal media" argument I already pre-empted." What does the "liberal media" have to do with this? Are you discussing a point or running a partisan script? In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition. Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns.
    - _pius 17y ago
      Are you discussing a point or running a partisan script? Actually, I was going to ask you the same thing. The general argument that "most of the population likes unions, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" and "the media is liberal, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" are both variations on the same tired theme. In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition. Obviously. But talking about "most corporations" in some general sense is so broad as to be practically meaningless for the purposes of this conversation. Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns. You're asserting that without proof. My argument (which, to be honest, should be obvious) is that corporate interests generally have far more money available to them than union interests.

by _pius 17y ago

InclinedPlane 17y ago

The UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues. So does the NEA. Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor.

_pius 17y ago
The UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues ... Drops in the bucket compared to what their corporate issue adversaries take in. For instance, the minimum revenues of any Fortune 500 company right now is measured in the billions (profits at around half a billion). Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor. And you can say the exact same thing about corporate interests (both individual corporations and their "unions" of trade associations). The only difference is that corporate interests have literally orders of magnitude more money available to pursue their agenda, as well as a disproportionate set of connections in Washington.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  So individuals (such as George Soros) don't have billions of dollars or a disproportionate set of connections? The UAW and NEA don't have a disproportionate set of connections in DC? Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.
  - _pius 17y ago
    Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. Sure they are. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. You're conflating available capital with actual money needed to win. Suppose we're playing cards. If you've got $100 in your pocket and I've got $1000, I can browbeat you out of the game without spending my whole $1000. I only need to spend until you're out of money or, to mix metaphors, until I've bought up all the TV time and drowned out your contributions with the relevant congress members.
    - _pius 17y ago
      Hard to believe that people actually think that unions have the same amount of money to get their message out as corporate interests. If you believe that, please do downvote me and add a comment letting me know how you've come to that conclusion.
      - InclinedPlane 17y ago
        Please rank the following organizations based on their total political contributions (federal and state) in 2008: National Education Association, PG&E Corp, Service Employees International Union, AT&T Inc., Bank of America, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Microsoft Corp, Chevron Corp Bonus points for providing actual donation values. * Spoilers: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
        akgerber 17y ago
        1. Most of those large donors are groups with earnings directly tied to government decisions. 2. Those unions represent an entire class of workers nationwide, while a corporation represents a subset of the market; the contributions of all corporations in an industry combined represent a more relevant number.

Semiapies 17y ago

"Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why" Well, yes - many of the people pushing this argument around the country really like labor unions. "unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda" Interestingly, neither do most corporations. Even the biggest aren't going to throw away their profits and alienate ~40% of US consumers (no matter who they pick) by running billion-dollar political ad campaigns.

_pius 17y ago
Well, yes - many of the people pushing this argument around the country really like labor unions. That's just a variation of the "liberal media" argument I already pre-empted. Interestingly, neither do most corporations. Yes they do. At least, the Fortune 100 does. Corporations and their unions (trade organizations) spend exactly what they need to in order to effectively promote their political interests. If unions had more money to spend, you'd start seeing billion dollar corporate campaigns.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "That's just a variation of the "liberal media" argument I already pre-empted." What does the "liberal media" have to do with this? Are you discussing a point or running a partisan script? In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition. Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns.
  - _pius 17y ago
    Are you discussing a point or running a partisan script? Actually, I was going to ask you the same thing. The general argument that "most of the population likes unions, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" and "the media is liberal, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" are both variations on the same tired theme. In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition. Obviously. But talking about "most corporations" in some general sense is so broad as to be practically meaningless for the purposes of this conversation. Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns. You're asserting that without proof. My argument (which, to be honest, should be obvious) is that corporate interests generally have far more money available to them than union interests.