Are unions feasible today?

Unions are not only feasable they are necessary. The erosion of the middle class is directly attributable to cheap overseas labor and he reduction in the power of unions. There is an oversupply and devaluation of middle class labor caused by the migration of jobs offshore and the lack of negotiating power. Instead of providing raises for workers wealth has accumulted in the top few percentile. One in 7 Americans now lives below the poverty line yet we have more millionaires than ever. Traders churn the capital and residual wealth of yesteryear and invest it in "emerging economies" like China.

In the end we will consume what we produce-and we don't produce much. We import energy and manufactured goods and in the end hope our American-ess will keep us rich. We won't be able to use 20 million barrels of oil a day, have Chinese slaves mke our DVD players and Iphones, while we buy McMansions, drive Hummers, and work at aimless but high paying jobs.

Like it or not we are now in a "global" economy and we need to seriously compete (which we can't and maintain our standard of living) or engage in protectionism.

That last sentence is uncharacteristically optimistic of you. I was anticipating you saying something like "We need to all accept the inevitable and kill ourselves". That would fit your motif.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That last sentence is uncharacteristically optimistic of you. I was anticipating you saying something like "We need to all accept the inevitable and kill ourselves". That would fit your motif.

And your post contributes to the thread how?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master

Americans make enough .

I believe the 1 in 7 Americans now living below the poverty line would disagree

And the Taft Hartley Act needs to be repealed

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I believe the 1 in 7 Americans now living below the poverty line would disagree

Well, I don't think those are necessarily the best metrics. Sure the distribution of wealth is heavily slanted towards a tiny rich majority, but I think standard of living and the comfort of life are a more important indicator of poverty really.

Though shit's ****ed in the US, i'm just saying technically that's more important, imo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I don't think those are necessarily the best metrics. Sure the distribution of wealth is heavily slanted towards a tiny rich majority, but I think standard of living and the comfort of life are a more important indicator of poverty really.

Though shit's ****ed in the US, i'm just saying technically that's more important, imo.

I think you're thinking of relative poverty, which is heavily skewed by income distribution. The poverty line is usually defined as "enough money to live on" or "able to maintain an acceptable standard of living". Internationally the line is $1 a day but in the US the line is much higher because food and rent cost more.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
And your post contributes to the thread how?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're thinking of relative poverty, which is heavily skewed by income distribution. The poverty line is usually defined as "enough money to live on" or "able to maintain an acceptable standard of living". Internationally the line is $1 a day but in the US the line is much higher because food and rent cost more.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Unions are not only feasable they are necessary. The erosion of the middle class is directly attributable to cheap overseas labor and he reduction in the power of unions. There is an oversupply and devaluation of middle class labor caused by the migration of jobs offshore and the lack of negotiating power. Instead of providing raises for workers wealth has accumulted in the top few percentile. One in 7 Americans now lives below the poverty line yet we have more millionaires than ever. Traders churn the capital and residual wealth of yesteryear and invest it in "emerging economies" like China.

In the end we will consume what we produce-and we don't produce much. We import energy and manufactured goods and in the end hope our American-ess will keep us rich. We won't be able to use 20 million barrels of oil a day, have Chinese slaves mke our DVD players and Iphones, while we buy McMansions, drive Hummers, and work at aimless but high paying jobs.

Like it or not we are now in a "global" economy and we need to seriously compete (which we can't and maintain our standard of living) or engage in protectionism.

Never rely on a job to take care of you. Your job is there to pay you for what you did. Companies can't pay for all of that stuff it is too expensive. The days of going to a job and expecting it to take care of you for life are over. Whether someone likes it or doesn't is irrelevant. People need to adjust for the times.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Yea, the erosion of the middle class come from the industries collapsing, which comes from the loss of those big industries from workers who wanted more and produced less. Now there are more competitors in this information age and Americans are being left in the water. Entitlement time is over, and not only that Americans overconsume and over spend without investing or saving, that is why they are in the rut they are in.

Never rely on a job to take care of you. Your job is there to pay you for what you did. Companies can't pay for all of that stuff it is too expensive. The days of going to a job and expecting it to take care of you for life are over. Whether someone likes it or doesn't is irrelevant. People need to adjust for the times.

So you're saying we should just accept the inevitable and become a third world country? Because unless we do something to protect the middle class, and that means protecting jobs, then that's our future. Everybody can't be a business owner.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're thinking of relative poverty, which is heavily skewed by income distribution. The poverty line is usually defined as "enough money to live on" or "able to maintain an acceptable standard of living". Internationally the line is $1 a day but in the US the line is much higher because food and rent cost more.

I think most of those "under the poverty line" stats are using "relative poverty".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think most of those "under the poverty line" stats are using "relative poverty".

Based on what?

In the US the poverty line is tied to food costs not the average national income.

http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf (page 208)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Based on what?

In the US the poverty line is tied to food costs not the average national income.

http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf (page 208)

Based on blind guesses, obviously!

Well, I think that's what they do in Europe anyways.

Does that mean 1 in 7 Americans do not have enough money to get food? Or is Dark Cloud's stat off?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Based on blind guesses, obviously!

Well, I think that's what they do in Europe anyways.

Does that mean 1 in 7 Americans do not have enough money to get food? Or is Dark Cloud's stat off?

This is according to the census bureau. It rates factors such as income, the cost of housing, the cost of food and transportation and increasingly, healthcare.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is according to the census bureau. It rates factors such as income, the cost of housing, the cost of food and transportation and increasingly, healthcare.

Could you link that?

The info I am posting about comes from a news show I watched a couple months ago (not all of my info comes from the internet), on FOX news no less but a little googling turned up this:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/description.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/16/national/main6872133.shtml

There's lots more....just Google "American Poverty" and you'll see what I mean.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Based on blind guesses, obviously!

Well, I think that's what they do in Europe anyways.

Does that mean 1 in 7 Americans do not have enough money to get food? Or is Dark Cloud's stat off?

I'm pretty sure the poverty line is above the level where one is actively dying.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So you're saying we should just accept the inevitable and become a third world country? Because unless we do something to protect the middle class, and that means protecting jobs, then that's our future. Everybody can't be a business owner.

I don't want us to become a 3rd world country, but hating globalization is fruitless. It is going to happen and it is the next big thing. As with all things the ones who adapt to the opportunities survive.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nope people should care for themselves. I'd say everyone should know how to create passive income. Better tax advantages, better overall, and you're producing wealth instead of debt, like most Americans.

I don't want us to become a 3rd world country, but hating globalization is fruitless. It is going to happen and it is the next big thing. As with all things the ones who adapt to the opportunities survive.

Well, I do feel employees should be able to bargain from a point of strength, rather than just being at the mercy of "market forces". I myself have never been a member of a union and at this stage of my life it's pointless for me as an individual as I'm basically set for the rest of my life but I would like to see our country have a more even income distribution than we do now. You are probably right about the globalization thing but once globalization has fully spread and taken hold there will be no middle class, anywhere in the world.....corporations will be able to shift operations at will to wherever labor is cheapest. There might be a couple obstacles to this happening, namely oil and water, but that is for a different discussion. And it might be for the best if the global middle class ultimately disappears because the earth no longer has the resources to support the American lifestyle for America, much less China, India, Brazil, and everyone else who now wants it.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, I do feel employees should be able to bargain from a point of strength, rather than just being at the mercy of "market forces". I myself have never been a member of a union and at this stage of my life it's pointless for me as an individual as I'm basically set for the rest of my life but I would like to see our country have a more even income distribution than we do now. You are probably right about the globalization thing but once globalization has fully spread and taken hold there will be no middle class, anywhere in the world.....corporations will be able to shift operations at will to wherever labor is cheapest. There might be a couple obstacles to this happening, namely oil and water, but that is for a different discussion. And it might be for the best if the global middle class ultimately disappears because the earth no longer has the resources to support the American lifestyle for America, much less China, India, Brazil, and everyone else who now wants it.

People can do things to increase their value in a market, they aren't "forced" to go anywhere and work there. But the assumption that there will be no middle class is a bit extreme. Also look at the poor countries who starve who will no start to have jobs. Also paying people more and more money doesn't mean the money has more value. If everyone gets paid more and more, the cost of everything will go up to.