3 ms·

The right to create unions is a fundamental American protection. I realize in our lifetimes we have seen some unions become more of a problem then a benefit.

The right to create unions is a fundamental American protection. I realize in our lifetimes we have seen some unions become more of a problem then a benefit. This is what happens to most institutions as they become too big and "crufty". Sometimes you swing too far in one direction. The system corrects itself. But to trash one part of the constitution while savagely protecting another part is simply unacceptable. Its all or nothing. And so far as protectionism goes. This is just another feeling that I am certain _most_ Americans will start swinging in the other direction on. The next year will see China<->U.S. sentiments on both sides growing very tense. And high taxes? Get this straight: When the FED/Treasury "prints" money, that is a tax!!! And the last 8 years we've seen massive amounts this form of debt.

Prrometheus 18y ago
I have no problem with unions as such. However, I do have a problem when they use their concentrated political power to get themselves government favors at the expense of the rest of the country. Bailouts for failing industries and protectionist measures benefit unions while harming the nation as a whole. They expect the Democratic Party to sacrifice the interests of the nation for their benefit, and it looks like they will get their pound of flesh. In addition, unions have many legal rights outside of a normal, voluntary gathering of people. In many states, they can force new employees of a company to join. Democrats are currently pushing for legislation to eliminate secret ballots for the formation of unions. When employee preferences are no longer secret, they can be coerced and threatened into supporting the union, which should enable Democrats to increase their union base. In addition, unions can force their employers to bargain with them by law, instead of by voluntary agreement by both parties. Federal law prohibits its agencies from paying contractors less than the union price, which is often high above the market price of similar services. It is no coincidence that heavily unionized sectors of our economy tend to be failing, bloated, and stagnant. The big ones are undoubtedly a negative influence on American society. And they undoubtedly run the economic program of the Democratic Party; it surely isn't run by any coherent economic school of thought that I can recognize.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  With regards to unions, the government refused to back the GM-Chrysler loans to build "fuel efficient cars". With regards to Wall St., AIG has received almost $123 billion in government-backed loans. If anything, it seems like the non-union, free market insurance industry is failing, bloated, and stagnant.
- jhancock 18y ago
  Your worlds are clear you do not like how political parties have abused unions. Fair enough. Political parties have abused lots of systems. I'm not a Democrat. I have never been a member of any political party and hopefully never will. You do seem to have in for the Democrats though. Yes, they are in bed with Union officials and people that abuse the intents of a union. And yes, the Republicans are a bunch of rat bastards as well ;). I really think that in lieu of the recent Wall Street bailouts and given who benefited, you should go "hawking" your "Democrats give too many handouts" somewhere else. Its falling on deaf ears. I have never heard either party provide a coherent economic plan. And that goes back to Reagonmics. They've have 20++ years to show that "trickle down" does anything but further stretch the socio-economic fabric. I vote for my perceived integrity of the person. I don't much care whether they swing right or left, as long as they get stuff done and do so with integrity.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    I don't see how "trickle down" has "stretched the socio-economic fabric". I don't want to live in a country with 70%+ top marginal tax rates. That borders on evil. I wouldn't want to live in a country that never had Reagonomics, and neither would a lot of business owners that currently employ our citizens.
    - jhancock 18y ago
      If you google "economic inequality" you will find many resources to educate on how U.S. style economics of the last 30 years have contributed in greater economic inequality, to which most believe is a major underlying factor of social problems. As to your assertion that the rich live in 70% tax brackets, this is quite untrue. The 70% bracket is unfair but few Americans actually find themselves in this bracket. Those in this bracket are high-wage earners, mostly doctors and lawyers, that don't have much outlets for tax reduction. This group is unfairly punished at the moment and it would be wise to fix this problem. If you as an entrepreneur find yourself even remotely close to a 70% tax bracket, I highly encourage you to post something to HN like "Ask HN: Please help me find a tax planner with two brain cells to rub together" ;). There are lots of risks entrepreneurs take. But one reward is great opportunity to reduce tax both as you go and after a big payoff. As to your feeling that you wouldn't want to live in a a country that never had Reaganomics...there are many great Americans (those that created what we have now) that lived before 1980 that do not share your feelings. I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm writing this to provide additional perspective.

Prrometheus 18y ago

I have no problem with unions as such. However, I do have a problem when they use their concentrated political power to get themselves government favors at the expense of the rest of the country. Bailouts for failing industries and protectionist measures benefit unions while harming the nation as a whole. They expect the Democratic Party to sacrifice the interests of the nation for their benefit, and it looks like they will get their pound of flesh. In addition, unions have many legal rights outside of a normal, voluntary gathering of people. In many states, they can force new employees of a company to join. Democrats are currently pushing for legislation to eliminate secret ballots for the formation of unions. When employee preferences are no longer secret, they can be coerced and threatened into supporting the union, which should enable Democrats to increase their union base. In addition, unions can force their employers to bargain with them by law, instead of by voluntary agreement by both parties. Federal law prohibits its agencies from paying contractors less than the union price, which is often high above the market price of similar services. It is no coincidence that heavily unionized sectors of our economy tend to be failing, bloated, and stagnant. The big ones are undoubtedly a negative influence on American society. And they undoubtedly run the economic program of the Democratic Party; it surely isn't run by any coherent economic school of thought that I can recognize.

redrobot5050 18y ago
With regards to unions, the government refused to back the GM-Chrysler loans to build "fuel efficient cars". With regards to Wall St., AIG has received almost $123 billion in government-backed loans. If anything, it seems like the non-union, free market insurance industry is failing, bloated, and stagnant.
jhancock 18y ago
Your worlds are clear you do not like how political parties have abused unions. Fair enough. Political parties have abused lots of systems. I'm not a Democrat. I have never been a member of any political party and hopefully never will. You do seem to have in for the Democrats though. Yes, they are in bed with Union officials and people that abuse the intents of a union. And yes, the Republicans are a bunch of rat bastards as well ;). I really think that in lieu of the recent Wall Street bailouts and given who benefited, you should go "hawking" your "Democrats give too many handouts" somewhere else. Its falling on deaf ears. I have never heard either party provide a coherent economic plan. And that goes back to Reagonmics. They've have 20++ years to show that "trickle down" does anything but further stretch the socio-economic fabric. I vote for my perceived integrity of the person. I don't much care whether they swing right or left, as long as they get stuff done and do so with integrity.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I don't see how "trickle down" has "stretched the socio-economic fabric". I don't want to live in a country with 70%+ top marginal tax rates. That borders on evil. I wouldn't want to live in a country that never had Reagonomics, and neither would a lot of business owners that currently employ our citizens.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    If you google "economic inequality" you will find many resources to educate on how U.S. style economics of the last 30 years have contributed in greater economic inequality, to which most believe is a major underlying factor of social problems. As to your assertion that the rich live in 70% tax brackets, this is quite untrue. The 70% bracket is unfair but few Americans actually find themselves in this bracket. Those in this bracket are high-wage earners, mostly doctors and lawyers, that don't have much outlets for tax reduction. This group is unfairly punished at the moment and it would be wise to fix this problem. If you as an entrepreneur find yourself even remotely close to a 70% tax bracket, I highly encourage you to post something to HN like "Ask HN: Please help me find a tax planner with two brain cells to rub together" ;). There are lots of risks entrepreneurs take. But one reward is great opportunity to reduce tax both as you go and after a big payoff. As to your feeling that you wouldn't want to live in a a country that never had Reaganomics...there are many great Americans (those that created what we have now) that lived before 1980 that do not share your feelings. I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm writing this to provide additional perspective.