4 ms·

"Unions, in the US, are a solid unified voting block that always votes Democrat. That does not happen across groups of millions of people unless their vote is b

by natrius 14y ago

"Unions, in the US, are a solid unified voting block that always votes Democrat. That does not happen across groups of millions of people unless their vote is being bought through benefits and more." Politics aside, this is faulty logic. Unions vote for Democrats because Republicans support policies that make unions weaker. It's a genuine policy difference, and they both have logical arguments.

robomartin 14y ago
No, it's not faulty at all. People tend to favor those who favor them, those who given them things. The example in Argentina was Evita handing blenders and bikes to the people on the streets. The fact that there are those who believe that those policies are wrong is meaningless to the voters. The group will vote for those who give them things, plain and simple. And they will do so even at their own peril. Case in point: How many cities have now filed for bankruptcy protection broken under the weight of pensions that cannot be supported? The only regulatory element in the feedback loop of the whole unionized labor equation is complete and utter failure. Nobody is going to say something like "Wait a minute, who's going to pay for these exorbitant lifetime pensions? Let's scale it back and make them reasonable." No, they'll take and take and take until the goose is dead and no more golden eggs can be produced. This, to some extent, is human nature. Given that, it is only natural that these groups will not support or vote for those who come forward and expose reality. Nobody likes being wrong. It becomes tribal, us vs. them, and all reason is lost. Simple exercise: Hire a gardener for $100 per month to take care of your lawn. Let's say he retires after five years (to speed up the example). Now, by contract, you have to continue to pay him $100 per month for the rest of his life. But, wait a minute. You still need a gardener. No problem, you hire another one at the same $100 per month. The issue is that, now, the same position costs you $200 per month, $100 for the guy doing the work and another $100 for the guy who retired. Repeat that five years later. Now the same position costs you $300 per month. Of course, the gardener's union will favor and vote for those who will keep this gravy train going, regardless of the fact that it is killing the goose. And yes, anyone who dares bring up the reality of what is going on will not only not get their votes, but they'll also be treated to their attacks and ire. The funny thing is that reality and mathematics don't change and eventually the house of cards comes crashing down. This is an over-simplification, but it serves to illustrate one simple reality of the union problem. Democrats give them more and more, and that's why they continue to vote for them. Mathematically, with sixteen trillion dollars in debt this situation cannot continue for too long. We'll see what happens when the music stops. So, yes, people like me are saying: It's time to stop this madness. And, for that, we are hated and ridiculed. That's OK.
- natrius 14y ago
  As far as I can tell, you're fabricating scenarios that match your viewpoint. Feel free to provide citations to show otherwise. Obama-controlled General Motors forced unions to accept cuts to their pensions during the restructuring[1], which is the opposite of the behavior you're describing. Anyway, this clearly isn't the right place for this discussion, but I don't think highly voted incorrect statements should be allowed to stand unchallenged. [1] http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902009,00.html http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902009,00....
  - robomartin 14y ago
    > Obama-controlled General Motors forced unions to accept cuts to their pensions during the restructuring From the very article you linked to, in the very first paragraph: "The plan gives the union's health-care vehicle some promissory notes, plus a 17.5% stake in GM and warrants to purchase another 2.5%" It goes beyond that. The government bailed out GM. That's obvious. We, the tax payers, now own some 500 million shares of the stock. This stock would have to be sold at some $53 per share to just break even. Google it. We are taking a huge loss to benefit the unions. Lastly, one of the reasons GM is doing well is that the government has vectored a ton of business towards GM. We, the tax payers, are buying brand new GM cars at a time when government should be making due with what they have and save us money. This is a secondary and never-ending bailout. Translation: We got your back. Vote for us when the time comes. Using taxpayer money to buy votes. Brilliant. Want backing articles? Fire-up Excel and Google it. Do the math, don't just take in left-wing articles and use them as the truth. Don't take right-wing articles as the truth either. It's amazing how easy it is to clear the bullshit out of some of this stuff if people would just take the time to take paper and pencil and do a little math.

by natrius 14y ago

robomartin 14y ago

No, it's not faulty at all. People tend to favor those who favor them, those who given them things. The example in Argentina was Evita handing blenders and bikes to the people on the streets. The fact that there are those who believe that those policies are wrong is meaningless to the voters. The group will vote for those who give them things, plain and simple. And they will do so even at their own peril. Case in point: How many cities have now filed for bankruptcy protection broken under the weight of pensions that cannot be supported? The only regulatory element in the feedback loop of the whole unionized labor equation is complete and utter failure. Nobody is going to say something like "Wait a minute, who's going to pay for these exorbitant lifetime pensions? Let's scale it back and make them reasonable." No, they'll take and take and take until the goose is dead and no more golden eggs can be produced. This, to some extent, is human nature. Given that, it is only natural that these groups will not support or vote for those who come forward and expose reality. Nobody likes being wrong. It becomes tribal, us vs. them, and all reason is lost. Simple exercise: Hire a gardener for $100 per month to take care of your lawn. Let's say he retires after five years (to speed up the example). Now, by contract, you have to continue to pay him $100 per month for the rest of his life. But, wait a minute. You still need a gardener. No problem, you hire another one at the same $100 per month. The issue is that, now, the same position costs you $200 per month, $100 for the guy doing the work and another $100 for the guy who retired. Repeat that five years later. Now the same position costs you $300 per month. Of course, the gardener's union will favor and vote for those who will keep this gravy train going, regardless of the fact that it is killing the goose. And yes, anyone who dares bring up the reality of what is going on will not only not get their votes, but they'll also be treated to their attacks and ire. The funny thing is that reality and mathematics don't change and eventually the house of cards comes crashing down. This is an over-simplification, but it serves to illustrate one simple reality of the union problem. Democrats give them more and more, and that's why they continue to vote for them. Mathematically, with sixteen trillion dollars in debt this situation cannot continue for too long. We'll see what happens when the music stops. So, yes, people like me are saying: It's time to stop this madness. And, for that, we are hated and ridiculed. That's OK.

natrius 14y ago
As far as I can tell, you're fabricating scenarios that match your viewpoint. Feel free to provide citations to show otherwise. Obama-controlled General Motors forced unions to accept cuts to their pensions during the restructuring[1], which is the opposite of the behavior you're describing. Anyway, this clearly isn't the right place for this discussion, but I don't think highly voted incorrect statements should be allowed to stand unchallenged. [1] http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902009,00.html http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1902009,00....
- robomartin 14y ago
  > Obama-controlled General Motors forced unions to accept cuts to their pensions during the restructuring From the very article you linked to, in the very first paragraph: "The plan gives the union's health-care vehicle some promissory notes, plus a 17.5% stake in GM and warrants to purchase another 2.5%" It goes beyond that. The government bailed out GM. That's obvious. We, the tax payers, now own some 500 million shares of the stock. This stock would have to be sold at some $53 per share to just break even. Google it. We are taking a huge loss to benefit the unions. Lastly, one of the reasons GM is doing well is that the government has vectored a ton of business towards GM. We, the tax payers, are buying brand new GM cars at a time when government should be making due with what they have and save us money. This is a secondary and never-ending bailout. Translation: We got your back. Vote for us when the time comes. Using taxpayer money to buy votes. Brilliant. Want backing articles? Fire-up Excel and Google it. Do the math, don't just take in left-wing articles and use them as the truth. Don't take right-wing articles as the truth either. It's amazing how easy it is to clear the bullshit out of some of this stuff if people would just take the time to take paper and pencil and do a little math.