4 ms·

Union membership rate declined from 25% to 15% over that period partly because they kept losing the fight against Reagan. I suspect it was less about Bill Clint

Union membership rate declined from 25% to 15% over that period partly because they kept losing the fight against Reagan. I suspect it was less about Bill Clinton's charisma and more about their overall level of political muscle.

swebs 9y ago
I think it's more about what individuals desire. Now we have people who promote socialism in one breath, but free trade in another. It's somewhat insane that the same people pushing for $15/hour minimum wage are the same as those pushing for unrestricted importing of cheap labor from Mexico.
- mc32 9y ago
  This! I don't know how people square these disparate ideas. It has to be the result of corporate astroturfing in the most effective, insidious and effective manner that has allowed them, corps, to have their cake and also eat it on the backs of so called socialists who took it hook line and sinker.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  I think you may be conflating multiple left wing viewpoints in the US, which ranges from centrist free-trade neoliberal types to democratic socialists. I don't think I've seen anyone push for unrestricted immigration from Mexico either - what seems to have support is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and those who are established and working here. Legal status would provide protection for these workers and students, rather than the vicious cycle of black market labor abuses by companies and abusers who have the threat of life destroying deportation to hang over their heads.
  - mc32 9y ago
    If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets. It's implied in the phrase "people are not illegal" and whenever presenters and other talking heads invariably conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration (when offering reasons to support illegal immigrants they point to the accomplishments of legal immigrants, for example)
    - dashundchen 9y ago
      > If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets. It's hard to argue agianst that when the politician driving the push for the wall wraps it not it policy, or evidence that a wall costing tens of billions of dollars would be effective in reducing migration, but instead racist and xenophobic language. To me the whole "discussion" about the wall is just to create a xenophobic and populist lightning rod, not to bring any serious policy debate to the table. Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like productive ways to discuss immigration? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-pr... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-don... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting-on-immigration-1134990403518 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countr...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
mc32 9y ago
Perot was the Trump of that era. But he was made fun of for being short, having big ears a big nose and a funny accent. The unions should have been behind him 100%, but no, the sheep they were did as their demo bosses bade and voted for Charismaman Clinton.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Perot was not the Trump of that era. He was a 3rd party spoiler candidate. He also ran on a platform of "reining in the deficit" which is, more often than not, an indirect means of wage repression.
  - mc32 9y ago
    On the other hand, he did properly warn people of the giant sucking sound of off-shoring of American jobs. A few things depress wages, an increase in the labor pool and off-shoring, among others.

swebs 9y ago

I think it's more about what individuals desire. Now we have people who promote socialism in one breath, but free trade in another. It's somewhat insane that the same people pushing for $15/hour minimum wage are the same as those pushing for unrestricted importing of cheap labor from Mexico.

mc32 9y ago
This! I don't know how people square these disparate ideas. It has to be the result of corporate astroturfing in the most effective, insidious and effective manner that has allowed them, corps, to have their cake and also eat it on the backs of so called socialists who took it hook line and sinker.
dashundchen 9y ago
I think you may be conflating multiple left wing viewpoints in the US, which ranges from centrist free-trade neoliberal types to democratic socialists. I don't think I've seen anyone push for unrestricted immigration from Mexico either - what seems to have support is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and those who are established and working here. Legal status would provide protection for these workers and students, rather than the vicious cycle of black market labor abuses by companies and abusers who have the threat of life destroying deportation to hang over their heads.
- mc32 9y ago
  If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets. It's implied in the phrase "people are not illegal" and whenever presenters and other talking heads invariably conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration (when offering reasons to support illegal immigrants they point to the accomplishments of legal immigrants, for example)
  - dashundchen 9y ago
    > If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice epithets. It's hard to argue agianst that when the politician driving the push for the wall wraps it not it policy, or evidence that a wall costing tens of billions of dollars would be effective in reducing migration, but instead racist and xenophobic language. To me the whole "discussion" about the wall is just to create a xenophobic and populist lightning rod, not to bring any serious policy debate to the table. Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like productive ways to discuss immigration? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-pr... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-don... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting-on-immigration-1134990403518 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countr...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mc32 9y ago

Perot was the Trump of that era. But he was made fun of for being short, having big ears a big nose and a funny accent. The unions should have been behind him 100%, but no, the sheep they were did as their demo bosses bade and voted for Charismaman Clinton.

crdoconnor 9y ago
Perot was not the Trump of that era. He was a 3rd party spoiler candidate. He also ran on a platform of "reining in the deficit" which is, more often than not, an indirect means of wage repression.
- mc32 9y ago
  On the other hand, he did properly warn people of the giant sucking sound of off-shoring of American jobs. A few things depress wages, an increase in the labor pool and off-shoring, among others.