4 ms·

To reply to the later bit about spin... Fundamentally, the us government is there to represent the interests of the citizens. Or if you go back far enough the

To reply to the later bit about spin... Fundamentally, the us government is there to represent the interests of the citizens. Or if you go back far enough the states, which in turn are there for the citizens. Unless you buy into the idea that really the representative nature of the government is to represent the interests of the wealth elite and make it appear that the people have a say by electing their representatives. Something that I think the 17th amendment/etc tries to clear up... Labor unions are there to represent the interests of labor. Given that the majority of voting age people in the us, fall into the labor category there is a fairly large crossover of common interests between labor unions and general government when it comes to economic issues.

philipov 8y ago
Representing the interests of its citizens is "How it's supposed to work" but the way it actually works is that politicians represent the people who have real influence over getting them elected. That means anyone who isn't very rich or the leader of a big voting bloc has no influence. As I mention in my cousin-comment, our system is set up to reward those who can organize, which the wealthy elite and large corporations are much better at than the population of individuals with divisive identity politics being shoved down their throats by PR companies. Breaking people's ability to organize is why there is such a push to convince us that trade unions are evil.
bsanr 8y ago
I see the logic but still have to dissent. The needs of labor are sometimes at odds with the needs of any given community or the nation as a whole. Pork-barrel spending is a thing, and it has a negative connotation because it's not necessarily good for everyone, even if it can be good for labor. So, some politicians are elected to prevent it, to varying degrees. This is the (a?) way in which the government is not a labor union, even at the conceptual level.

philipov 8y ago

Representing the interests of its citizens is "How it's supposed to work" but the way it actually works is that politicians represent the people who have real influence over getting them elected. That means anyone who isn't very rich or the leader of a big voting bloc has no influence. As I mention in my cousin-comment, our system is set up to reward those who can organize, which the wealthy elite and large corporations are much better at than the population of individuals with divisive identity politics being shoved down their throats by PR companies. Breaking people's ability to organize is why there is such a push to convince us that trade unions are evil.

bsanr 8y ago

I see the logic but still have to dissent. The needs of labor are sometimes at odds with the needs of any given community or the nation as a whole. Pork-barrel spending is a thing, and it has a negative connotation because it's not necessarily good for everyone, even if it can be good for labor. So, some politicians are elected to prevent it, to varying degrees. This is the (a?) way in which the government is not a labor union, even at the conceptual level.