This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Stunning Difference Between Unionized And Non-Unionized Wages
With the US unemployment rate having become a irrelevant anachronism from a bygone era, indicative merely of the record millions of Americans - increasingly those in their prime working years - who drop out of the labor force every year rather than the slack, or lack thereof, in it, even the Federal Reserve has been forced to admit the favorite BLS metric for generations of economists is now redundant. Instead, it has chosen to focus on a different one: that of wages, which indeed, have gone nowhere fast, and in fact just posted their biggest monthly drop since before the Lehman crash!
However, it appears that the chart above tells only half the story. For the other half we go to a chart in Odey Asset Management's year-end letter breaking down the difference between unionized and non-unionized labor, and which shows something stunning.
This:
Here is Crispin Odey's commentary on the record divergence between wages growth for unionized and non-unionized wages:
"What is interesting is how differently private sector wages are growing in America for unionised labour forces and non-unionised. This suggests that there is huge value in being in a union at the moment, and that non-union private sector workers in the US do not appreciate the negotiating leverage they have with companies. With unemployment falling almost every month at the moment, and currently sitting at 5.6%, there is a risk of a sharp catch-up in this ‘underpaid’ dynamic."
We disagree with the latter, but agree with the former. Because for all the bluster and talk about an imminent wage hike "just around the corner" - talk which has been taking place for the past 5 years without any effect, perhaps it is time for America's politicians, if only those who pander to the wealth and wage inquality populism, to realize just how grotesque the difference between wages for organized labor vs unorganized, has become.
So a simple solution: want to boost US wages across the board? Then just unionize everyone!
PS: we should also note that such an action would open a whole new can of worms and end up with an even more disastrous outcome for the US economy, however since at this point said economy is truly beyond salvage and merely bounces from one Fed-inflated bubble to another, then the most merciful outcome for everyone involved would probably be to accelerate the inevitable hyperinflationary collapse and let the system reset. Because with every passing day that the US, and global, economy continue on their current, centrally-planned course, the more deadly and disastrous said reset will be when it finally does hit.
- 31388 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




So how many cars were recalled at GM. Unionized means higher pay and LOWER quality.
We realize it was at the end of the article, so it clearly demands too much of readers to actually read it, but here is the post script again:
PS: we should also note that such an action would open a whole new can of worms and end up with an even more disastrous outcome for the US economy, however since at this point said economy is truly beyond salvage and merely bounces from one Fed-inflated bubble to another, then the most merciful outcome for everyone involved would probably be to accelerate the inevitable hyperinflationary collapse and let the system reset. Because with every passing day that the US, and global, economy continue on their current, centrally-planned course, the more deadly and disastrous said reset will be when it finally does hit.
Union wage and employment trends follow pretty much the same path as the top 1% or .1%. Income rising exponentially for fewer and fewer. Ultimately wages will rise for only those few who control their markets, who can DEMAND higher and higher wages. If you own a bank, or work for the government, or are lucky enough to be in one of the few remaining professions that can pass all costs on to the consumer without regard to competition, then yes, you are winning. Unions only work within monopolies, of which only government can enable or allow. Go figure.
From Bureau of Labor Statistics:
UNION MEMBERS -- 2014 In 2014, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 11.1 percent, down 0.2 percentage point from 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.6 million, was little different from 2013. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers. The data on union membership are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains information on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over. For more information, see the Technical Note. Highlights from the 2014 data: --Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.7 percent), more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.6 percent). (See table 3.) --Workers in education, training, and library occupations and in protective service occupations had the highest unionization rate, at 35.3 percent for each occupation group. (See table 3.) --Men had a higher union membership rate (11.7 percent) than women (10.5 percent) in 2014. (See table 1.) --Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.) --Median weekly earnings of nonunion workers ($763) were 79 percent of earnings for workers who were union members ($970). (The comparisons of earnings in this release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.) --Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership rate (24.6 percent), and North Carolina again had the lowest rate (1.9 percent). (See table 5.) Industry and Occupation of Union Members In 2014, 7.2 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.4 million workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public-sector workers (35.7 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.6 percent). Within the public sector, the union membership rate was highest for local government (41.9 percent), which includes employees in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. In the private sector, industries with high unionization rates included utilities (22.3 percent), transportation and warehousing (19.6 percent), telecommunications (14.8 percent), and construction (13.9 percent). Low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.1 percent), finance (1.3 percent), professional and technical services (1.4 percent), and food services and drinking places (1.4 percent). (See table 3.) Among occupational groups, the highest unionization rates in 2014 were in education, training, and library occupations and protective service occupations (35.3 percent each). The lowest unionization rates were in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (2.5 percent) and sales and related occupations (3.1 percent). (See table 3.)In other words, it's not union workers versus everyone else; it's government employees versus everyone else.
Its government backed monopolies against everyone else, through direct employment or financial and legal favoritism.
We realize it was at the end of mister potato mouse's comment, so it clearly demands too much of readers to actually read it, but here is the last sentence again:
See table 3.
It's probably all the .gov unions that are driving the increase. Give everyone a big fat check for doing absolutely nothing. All you have to do is sit at a desk and/or watch porn. You really don't have to work at all if you don't feel like it. Work 30 years and retire. What's not to like about that??
How about employee owned instead of unionized?
Or better yet. Unionize on the consumer side and direct all commerce to employee owned substitutes for the big box stores.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" right? get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. "direct all commerce to employee owned substitues" Its all the people trying to 'direct' everything to do with the economy(and everything else, for that matter) thats gotten us into this mess. Its been tried. a lot. its failed, a lot.
I'm not pro-union. I do notice that people who allow professionals to negotiate their employment contracts (movie stars, CEOS, pro athletes, etc) also enjoy better comp packages than most non-union workers. Think on that.
The past few years present an opportunity to revisit the old paradigm on employment, labor, unions, agents, etc.
Do we continue the same old "fight" that unions are American communist cells, or do we (as Americans are best at doing) take the best things from unions, discard the commie bullshit parts, and forge a labor contract process that puts our interests as employees at parity with corporations?
If people and their employees want to form unions, thats fine. I, nor the govt, should have any say whatsoever in that, as it is a contract between a business owner and an employee. I do have a big problem with unions being allowed to make it mandatory to join one as a condition of employment. I have an even bigger problem with public sector unions. Govt employees should not be able to collectively bargain against the american taxpayer.
I would add to the above that I have a problem with government mandating their own construction etc. contracts go to unions(prevailing wage)
They tried that somewhere in Europe. The local butcher, baker, and candlestick maker (along with all the local business owners in a bunch of other industries) all went out of business. On the bright side - everyone can now imported toxic Chinese shit, and pay slightly less for it with their smaller paychecks.
Oligopoly is oligopoly - it doesn't matter who the shareholders are, or if it is legally structured as a non-profit or tax-free cooperative.
How about free markets?
Could we try that for a change?
Ding ding ding!!! Winner!!
Consumer unions and employee owned businesses ARE free-market. We will compete in lassez-faire and win through collaboration. No one will buy or sell unless they play by the rules. http://alt.politics.socialism.democratic.narkive.com/qBr0Ix0n/theory-of-...
Customer unions already exist. It that button labelled FEEDBACK on eBay.
And, of course, you and your committee will be the ones making the rules. All crimes are forgiven if there's a law that say's it's okay.
"Want to run numbers? Illegal! Want to fund education with a lottery? Legal!
"Want to kill people? Illegal! Want to execute criminals, abort a fetus, or put on a uniform while you kill someone? Legal!"
The Nazis legally oppressed many Jews with laws that you will also find on our own books here in the US. Blacks and Catholics in this country couldn't own property, participate in elections, all legal. It was okay because we all played by the rules.
You are a stoopid monkey.
This man - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZBXFeAj5lM -
together with Milton Friedman, crystalized the arguments for free markets as we understand them in their present form.
He has no coherent position on unions, if I can take this video as evidence, since he basically suggests state power be used to "[stop workers from] preventing other workers from working".
It begs several questions about free markets:
1) If a group of individuals exercises their collective power to restrain what would otherwise be 'market behavior', is that market no longer free?
2) If the state intervenes to enforce 'free market principles', is it still a free market?
I personally believe that the notion of a free market is an oxymoron, e.g. it can't exist. It's like Schopenhauer's "wooden iron", it exists as an idea but not in reality. As one example of why I believe this, consider the existence of corporations. Their very existence as an entity is defined by a body of law; their interactions with individuals and governments is regulated in complex ways which constrain or free them relative to the individual who is also subject to laws. Even just taking this one example, we see that the main economic market makers are abstract, legally-defined entities with roles and rights defined by the State!
So how 'free' does a market have to be before it satisfies the criterion for being truly free in the Friedmanian/Hayekian sense?
In my view, free market advocacy is an intellectually lazy default position taken by Americans who just hate government. "I believe in free markets" is an intellectual mask for the following gut instinct: "I think capitalism is kinda cool, and I really distrust governments." How do you free a market where supermassive abstract multinational entities control capital flow? Ironically, the only way to do it is through massive government intervention, OR through a 'reset event'.
But Hayek and Friedman's fantasy of a free market is based on no real historical precedent and is not a self-consistent concept even on its own terms. It revolves around their own very idiosyncratic understandings of history, see the video clip above for Hayek spinning some yarn about "In my ideal society...it would happen this way..." thanks bro. See what happened in Chile, where Friedman was able to realize his social experiments while pretending to non-involvement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpA46YS7P0&index=17&list=PLMTk07rWd6ioF...
Thats a dirty word nowadays. Growing up, unions were a leech on businesses. Now they seem to be the only way to battle corporatism/fascism. They will be more extinct than the middle class is going forward.
Wish I had a clip of the Honorable John Corzine, governor of the Great State of New Joisy, addressing a group of unionized NJ state employees emphasizing how he was fighting hard for their higher wage demands; I forget who was fighting against their wage demands. Probably no one.
most people don't have a problem with it when they hear those types of things for public sector unions and workers. Few people understand that this money comes directly out of their paychecks, money that could otherwise be used to fund their own retirement plans. They also don't understand that each time the economy contracts, the LAST group of people who will "tighten their belts" under difficult economic conditions will be govt workers. They also fail to grasp that the promises they get about how easy it will be to fund these lavish benefits out of existing taxes is based on insanely optimistic growth forcasts, and that they will be the ones asked to pony up and pay much higher sales taxes and property taxes as the govt bleeds its tax base dry to stave off its own looming insolvency
yup. I'm anxious to know how big the hole is going to be in the Alberta provincial budget if oil prices stay where they are. We should have been like Norway with a big rainy day fund. Priemier said the other day to the provincial emplyee's. " now is not the time to come looking for concessions".
Bingo!
A while ago someone on here asked what a paycheck was. I explained that a paycheck is something government employees receive in return for pretending to work.
I stand by that definition.
Correction - gubmint worker bureaucrats idea of job is show up and get paid with betr health insurance, better vacation/holidays/sickdays and better retirement than sucker tax paying working US citizen serfs & peasants . Approximately 20% of them make over $100K.
I was going to say exactly the same thing, thanks!
"In other words, it's not union workers versus everyone else; it's government employees versus everyone else."
Exactly, as I was reading this article I thought it needs to be broken down by private sector versus public sector union. I have friends that are union electrician's. They haven't had a raise on the check in 6 years. Two of them who live in different towns saw 16.5% and 17% increase in their property taxes this year. That's all I need to know to explain the rise in Union Sector Wages.
It's only natural,
like Marge Simpson's blue hair.
I didn't read her hair, either.
Great article and Good point. When and if wages actually kept up with inflation, we'd see substantial inflation in every corner of our society. Right now, most of the people I see buying new stuff are either Gubmint employees [who have been getting 4-5% per year wage raises] and union employees as your article shows.
The private sector Middle Class folks [ all four of them] are significantly poorer as ZH and many other articles have proven.
"So a simple solution: want to boost US wages across the board? Then just unionize everyone!"
Even Better! Just may everyone a gov't employee. Everyone will have a good job and no one will ever get laid off. It worked great in the Soviet Union. Although we probably need to create a few thousand forced labor camps to do the actual work! /SARC
PS: Gov't employees are exempt from Obamacare! /SARC
If this is true; then why doesn't Ford have the same problem ? or Mercedes Benz ?
How much of the quality of any product manufactured today is dependent upon technology rather than labor, and then compare that to ten or twenty years ago. Watch a modern auto plant and see how much actual human skill and diligence is required. Our demands for higher wages is effectively eliminating our jobs. No easy answers except debt, which has always been the easy answer, and its working out beautifully.
Ford and Mercedes don't have the same recall problems because they haven't sold a single car since 2011 with the introduction of the Chevy Volt which has been the only car sold in America since then, you never hear anything about them because they've never been recalled, they don't use energy, they never need service and everybody is so happy with them and that's the reason that gas consumption is down so much, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Everybody should have the opportunity for the self-esteem generated by an assembly line job at a dirty GM assembly plant or in the cube farm bowels of the SS Administration where nobody does anything. Even more-so at the post office.
Fuckin' Awesome, even if I do say so myself.
You're re-volting !!!
I see, ford and MB haven't sold a single car since 2011. Well, that certainly is a rational response to the point I made about the reality of the situation above.
Want to KILL more jobs and/or send them overseas! UNIONIZE!
Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Audi ... all made by proud unionized workers. If you hate unions, don't drive such a car.
Communism for all, it's only fair.
That wages in unionized companies and industries is no secret to anyone. It is why right to work laws and union busting efforts are the first priority of big business sycophants in the right wing of the republican party. Michigan and Wisconsin are just one example of state legislatures making the employment market safer for business.
On the other hand, the fact that I know this makes no difference to me. I own businesses and while I despise the narrow minded hate mongers in the Christian right I do appreciate there efforts to hold down my operating costs. Such fools.
Are your employees unionized?
I have unn-unionized two acquisitions. None of the original companies are unionized and efforts in one were easy enough to deal with. Employment at will law is a wonderful thing.
I really tried to understand your point. I read and re-read your posts several times. Honestly, I did. But I don't know what confused me more? The contradictions, the hypocrisy, or the countless grammatical errors?
Good luck with your maid service/landscaping business.
I'm sure you'll do the right thing and unionize those 'folks' first thing tomorrow mornin' and give'em a raise, right?
Move to Russia if you support the communist movement
I support union busting and union prevention. You need to read better.
Russia is probably more capitalist than USA and Europe now (especially with the new Greek commies).
That's retarded.
You're confusing Fascism with Capitalism just like you've mistaken your elbow for your asshole several times.
The only way a business can pay wages without regard to market value is if they have no competition. Its called a monopoly. Either it is granted to you by government, or you obtain it through market domination, which is against the law. We see market domination that allows above standard wages in areas such as high tech who have early positions in new technology and effectively operate without much competition due to patents and the like. Go open a cabinet shop and try to pay union wages and see how long it lasts. Only as long as you can use government to keep your competitors out, and even still, you will watch your market slowly shrink under the burden of continually rising costs. There is a reason why everything is built like crap today. People are not willing to pay for quality. It costs too damned much and most simply can't afford it.
Its always the "exceptions" who think they are the rule.
This is almost on par with MDB's sarcasm.
Then again, if your comment was actually serious in a non-paid troll fashion, you're a a fucking idiot.
Whatever you do, dont let it escape your notice that non-unionized wages have exceeded unionized far more of the time, except very recently. Coincidentally, it looks like an utterly unsustainable bubble twin to the rest of commandante Obama's bullshit economy. I'd also be really interested in how much of that is federal govt unions because, like you said, the fact that fed gov wages FAR exceed anything resembling reality "is no secret to anyone"
Glad it was pointed out as,"narrow minded hate mongers in the Christian right" since broad sweeping generalizations like this one help everyone understand the importance of dividing the country more which is what the liar in chief wants and has been successfully accomplishing the past 6 years. Hoo-raa.
Glad it was pointed out as,"narrow minded hate mongers in the Christian right" since broad sweeping generalizations like this one help everyone understand the importance of dividing the country more which is what the liar in chief wants and has been successfully accomplishing the past 6 years. Hoo-raa.
Where there is only one union person left in this country, someone at Zerohedge will declare that unions are destroying America.
And when that last union is crushed and no longer exists, someone at ZH will declare that unions destroyed America.
unions were great at one point in time. that time is not our present day.
Can you name an institution, organization, or government that has avoided corruption?
Big churches? Communism? Socialism? The former Republic of the United States?
So unions aren't so noble and pure as when they began. Organized workers and their leaders got greedy just like the businesses and corporations they were formed to counteract.
Maybe they went too far and some of the entrenched leadership are corrupt.
Unions may be bastards but they are our bastards.
Based on the near mirror image of profits vs. wages I would say we need some new ones.
Yeah, but if you actually go to the trouble of explaining reality to them; they'll kick you off with no explanation. they have all been 100% brainwashed; and a few spin cycles too. (reply to medtowng; split off by the crazy page turner on this blog).
First of all in Wisconsin teachers were BEGGING to have a choice to either participate in the teachers union or not. Once the law was passed goving teachers a choise MOST chose to leave the unions becase they were doing nothing for them other than sucking down union dues which were then parlayed directly into the Democrat political machine and union bosses.
Secondly bashing Chrisitians for some weird reason in your incoherent rant adds nothing to the discussion and makes you sound like a bigot.
gubs union, if you can stomach the bs for 8 long lonely hours-you will be one of very few nationwide that get it or read zh...been there done dat and NOT PC. ha...
I live in California. It's been destroyed by 2 elements. Illegals and public sector unions.
PUBLIC SECTOR unions is a contradiction in terms.
They essentially force the taxpayer to subsidize mediocrity and incompetence.
We are being squeezed in a vise between unlimited supply of cheap labor and an unlimited demand of government for funding.
If government is going to subsidize and enable what are effectively illegal monopolies (called unions) then they should tax them double...... as well as the illegals.
Sure, lets give them legal status and a green card...and tax them at double the rate of a legal (not amnesty) citizen. Threat them the same as we used to treat imported goods that were destroying domestic jobs and industries. It was called PROTECTIONISM.
It's amazing how the same people that complain about illegals have nothing to say about how to stop companies from shipping good paying jobs overseas by the millions.
Absolutely positively correct. I recently to a post blaming boomers for just about everything wrong when the real problem is what you just said and some other moron down voted.
The entire calamity is due to the off shoring of production and the good skilled jobs that went with them. That wasn't enough though,,, they whined about not having enough skilled people ( skilled people they had to pay a decent wage) so they did the H1B thing.
Next comes your apparent sticky point,,, the illegals,,, to suck up most of what was left. Americans get the sloppy thirds thanks to their caring government.
They complain about SS and Medicare and the growing hordes getting government handouts. By providing decent jobs to half of those that are now "out of the work force" they would have surpluses. By providing I mean convincing the corporations to return by exiting the trade treaties and re-instituting tariffs. Most will be against this while simultaneously complaining about the problem.
Nope, Their answer is more "education", more food stamps, more HUD houses and so on making Americans nothing more than beggars.
Paul Craig Roberts has been saying exactly this for years and no one pays any mind. Ross Perot had it nailed with the statement "You can hear the giant sucking sound" when talking of NAFTA.
Well this TPP is gonna make NAFTA look like a piker and just like NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA were hailed as big job makers and signed into law so will TPP.
And one still reads posts stating for these lazy butts to get out and work... but they never say where.
!
Everyone in California is illegal. No one there is not an immigrant.
The problem with public sector unions is the taxpayer has no representation. The unions have representation through their union reps and through the government officials they bargain with who want their votes and campaign donations. Public sector unions should be outlawed.
I said about the same thing in a later post. Didn't see yours. Agree . no public sector unions. Only reasonable solution.
Agreed. Even FDR was against public unions.
Yes. A public employee union is a logical impossibility; as I have gone into at some length previously.
Quit yapping and get back to work...someone has to pay for my generous federal govt unionized salary and benefits....and guess whose turn in the barrel it is...yeah, your turn...
There are only two types of unions in the U.S, the government unions and the unions that were bailed out.
But everyone gets a trophy. So why bother working? Get high and bang all day easing down EBT Street.
The only thing more corrupt than a banker is a union boss.
Republican - Democrat
Black - White
Native - Immigrant
Pro-Abortion - Anti-Abortion
Pro-Union - Anti-Union
Just some of the ways TPTB keep their control. They thank you for playing your part.
They keep their power because of an illiterate electorate from 40 years of progressive eduction supported by both Progressive Dems and Progressive Repubs.
You seem pretty literate, only one spelling mistake...
i would have had two! but all the same agreed...
i C what u did their!
Was it a union shop that just smacked the PMs?
One industry ripe for unionization is the healthcare industry. Too many desk jockeys and parasites sucking off the actual providers.
The only fair way to determine what anyone should earn is for government to decide.
They are the smart ones, right?
And the progressive would make sure everyone got exactly what was coming to them, right?
Maybe they could make Maxine Waters the remuneration judge. She's fair, right?
Actually, you misread me. I am no fan of the .gov deciding anything regarding what should be private industry. What I am saying is that I see a lot of unrest and slow boiling unhappiness in this field. It is not something that I want to see as my current livelyhood and soon retirement depend on the good health of it. What I see is a shift of resources from people who actually provide care to managers and datakeepers and govt demanded pencil pushers. It is just what happens when private industry becomes gov't controlled.
You should also care about this because we seem to be on course to become just like the post office, IRS, ss administration or any of your pick of deadweight .gov agencies- lots of wasted resources that could better be used elsewhere. Lots of MDs and RNs spending more time clicking on keyboards than examining and thinking about your best treatment. Just wait until some bureaucrat gets to decide whether you get treated or not...If the IRS can hire vindictive SOBs, so can the other .gov accolytes.
screw the medical system. Grow a garden, eat paleo, avoid medications, do yoga and walk five miles a day untill you die from natural causes. Do you really want to live longer in this shit show
Like Measles?
Your proposal to found the United Federation of Desk Jockeys and Secre-coffeeservers has been duly noted and will be implemented soon.
That's what you meant, right?
... too late, comrade! Brig Brotha is always listenin'
+1!
Walk into any modern Doctors Office... You'll see 3 Doc's and 30 assistants/office helpers/insurance filers.
Mrs Rejected went to see a Dentist, her jaw twice it's normal size and infected. Gave her some pills and scheduled her for an extraction 6 weeks ahead. No one would see her unless she went through the Dentist plan which had to be submitted and approved by the insurance company first.
35 years ago my doctor had one nurse (RN) and a small office. We paid in (shhhhhhhhh) cash and the medical care was far superior to this new modern corporate medicine... And I could get in to see him the same day if necessary.
google dental tourism
No comment.
God knows how people have managed on 1% pay rises with all this deflation.
Why doesn't the government outlaw Christmas sales, Black Friday and buy one get one free offers? Can't they see how much these insideous practices are hurting consumers?
also depends on the union, some unions have no influence
I wonder how many high paying "union" jobs are the result of federal contracting that requires "prevailing wage". Locally we pay $45 / hour for tile grouters that make $16-18 on the open market.
Union vs non-union wage is a superficial analysis. Mome on Tyler, you are better than this.
sschu
I make 150k/yr and I'm broke. No mortgage and no car payment.
That must be quite the coke habit you have then.
Pretty sure if you do the math on cost of living vs expected salary/wage in various other cities you can find a way to get un-broke. That's why I don't live in big cities. The cost of living goes up way faster than the wages.
Quit spending $$ on blow and hookers.
Your balance sheet will reverse.
Used to be that a private sector job paid better and had the same benefits. Then the private sector unions were killed and they did away with that. Now only public sector unions are left.
Don't blame unions for high taxes. Blame the for-profit health insurance industry making medical care so expensive, and zero interest rates for making funding a pension nearly impossible.
Health insurance companies and hospital corporate bureaucracirs are reaping windfall profits courtesy obamacabrecare. Could it be because "wr have to pass it to find out what's in it" was alk but written by their hired gun lobbyists? Nah, i didnt think so. Nah, no way.
So blame the symptoms and not the cause. Okay, gotcha...
i make 15k/ yr and feel free and wealthy, cause i don't give 2 shits what you or anyone thinks, ha...
edit:all true-15k, small mortgage, 24hr/week. no debt slave here. fuck em.
Why don't you try making less if you want to be happier?
Its not being in the union that makes money...its working for the union...the union bosses..they make all the money.....and get huge pensions...
Funny how the plutocrats like to talk about "union bosses", not "banker bosses" and "corporate bosses".
pfffft
WAY ahead of the curve on this one.
Give everyone a guaranteed annual income regardless of work! Now we're ALL in the union no matter what!... comrade...
That would be a much better solution than the insane myriad and overlapping agencies and problems we have who deal with all kinds of aid often with conflicint and overlapping aims. I would greatly favor that approach instead of the clusterf@ck we have today including a much more streamlined and simplifed tax code
Did I mention we all get a minimum 1 million / year and NO MOAR TAXES? WE're SAYYYyyyyyyyved!
Why not just put all of us on Federal pensions and salaries since we all work for the government anyway? That way I can collect six figures for 40 years plus leave my wife and kids death benefits.
The place where you need unions to keep a check on capital (private sector) is at nearly 100 year lows in th US. Labor's income as a GDP was at recorded lows in '13 and I am sure '14 will show much of the same.
The place where we don't need unions (public) we have it at every level with growing levels (its is 15% of the budget this year in Philly) and pegged at completely unsustainable levels in almost every local and state gov't.
what REALLY pisses me of is the freaking IRS is UNIONIZED.
and 90% democratic.
Thank god for municipals, leveraged of course.
And they get to carry (shhhh) guns to be used against those complaining... lol
Most well paying production type yobs are now off shored, China, Mexico, Vietnam. Not much left worthwhile enough to unionize!
Taco Bell, McD's, Wally World ?
usa labor is stuck on stupid. they have been duped into believing right to work laws protect them and unions are bad for them.
a union attempted to organize vw employees somewhere down south. the shop was already getting paid $5 more/hr more than other local autoworkers because of the union back in germany(a labor rep sits on the board of german companies). the union was voted down because the workers did not want to jeopardize their jobs with union demands against management.
labor needs to organize. until they do, labor deserves all the abuse it can take.
You need to re-read the story of Sisyphus.
Until the end comes, enjoy your lopsided racket while it lasts.
The great burden union labor is as much the obscene and absurd work rules as the wages. Twice the baseline costs and half the efficiency. Quite the formula for success! Small wonder the recent report that union membership is reaching new lows every year. Fools never learn.
I've been sayin this for over 17 years. As a retired federal government employee I will tell you one great truth: Government employees at all levels should never be allowed to unionize! No one is minding the store. Government managers who negotiate union contracts benefit when government unions win benefit and wage concessions. Why does this seem so hard to understand. The taxpayer is not at the bargaining table. There is no owner to say enough is enough. I'm shutting down the business.
But the rub with that is that since Clinton/Gore when Gore touted about how they reduced the size of the federal gov't and the number of employees - all they did in the end was just largely source them out to private contractors who cost notably more upfront and provide no real cost savings. Pretty much remained the same although the number of local/state employees actually did take a notable in '08-'12 and has only recently started to climb above '07 numbers.
People get fixated all of the time on the # of the federal employees but it is a relatively small number and it isn't where the big dollars in the budget lie. The other rub is that some of the reddest parts of the US have some of the highest rates of gov't workers/per capita too because people HATE even they don't have local service in their podunk town even if they don't want to pay the high taxes to keep them.
The last figures I saw was that government employees make up more than 50% of total USA workforce. That is not a small number.
In the private sector, the unions only get what companies give.
THE BANKSTERS ARE JUST AS UNIONIZED..... LIBOR & QE 4EVER BITCHEZ!!!!!!
I think the question of why there are fewer unionized workers now just got answered in your chart
Anyone voting against unions is a complete idiot. Flat out stupid, poor at math, too, and a management butt-kisser
I've been working in the private sector for over twenty five years, and my wage growth has been stagnant for over ten years.
What do you for your union that's worth more than the R&D work that I do - which is currently developing alternative energy solutions, synthetic replacements for animal oils, synthetic lubricants, and renewable food sources for the world?
So everyone should be paid .... equally?
That sounds familiar.
Who's funding that gig?
What is the percentage of unionized workers in government or quasi government work? 75%?
It's an incestuous circle. Donate, legislate, negotiate, rinse repeat.
No fucking wonder they're so well paid. It's not rocket science.
Good luck with those pensions.
Unionized goverment workers vs. the productive class. traditional union labor in the US has shrunk continuously, while government union workers has increased steadily.
Who sits across from the bargaining table from the unionized government worker at contract time?
It should be you and I armed to the teeth telling them "Stop here." and "No furthur."
Anytime the SEIU organizes anywhere, they should be mobbed and excoriated by the productive people of this country. They should be margainalized and ridiculed. Fuck public unions. Fuck the teacher unions. Fuck the police and fire unions.
Exactly. Public unions are just a voting machine for entrenched politicians. They are both tics on society.
The final bearer of cost associated with them is not represented.
Rarely mentioned is how all government (Fed,State,Local) / school / most police / most firefighters are union.
What's even better is that they always say how unions are bad for the economy and mundanes.
Have you noticed that these organiztions are freqently playing the "fear" card to blackmail the public to give them more money?
Ah yes, I have been talking for 35 years about union vs non-union.
That we should all join a union. It would not take longe before all the highg paid union wages would drop and equalize out with the increasing non-union wage, so all the workers would then make the same wage. There is not enough money in the system for us all to make the high wage and benefits.
From the sweat of the non-union worker is where a lot of the money comes from to make it possible for the union worker to prosper.
There is no way that we could all unionize and all make the high union wage and the benefits, because a lot of these wages and benifits come from the sweat of the non-unionized workers transferred to the unions via small business or .gov force.
If your are so lucky to get a job selling liquor at a .gov liquor store you make approx 35% more wage + benefits (dental/medical/pension) than If you sell liquor at a private store.
There are a lot of non union workers who make parts these parts are sold to companines that combine these parts with union labour and then sell at inflated prices which is needed to cover the wages and benefits of the union worker.
The worker bees in China make components, these components are shipped to NA and assembled by union workers whereas the slave labour from china allows for the union labor to be possible.
Take the farmer who works his ass off and sells his product for next to nothing, then it's the unionized trucker, butcher and so on that make the money.
What if the farmers unionized, oh no can't let them do that, that would increase the costs too much, and you would not be able to pay the union trucker or butcher.
It is only possible to have unionized workers from the sweat of the non-unionized that pay for it. in most cases by .gov force.
You lost me at "farmer that works his ass off."
GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
$1500 per car, goes towards GM medical plan
Rubber room paying workers becaus ethey have no work and cannot lay them off.
Workers pooled together to purchase bankrupt closing unionized pulpmill
I remember seeing on the news when thy interviewed one of the employees that had worked there for 28 years said" I used to hate to come to work every day before and now that we bought the place I love coming to work"
They have truly turned this mill into a money making viable model of what can happen when you gey rid of the union and the dead beat workers and the attitude that comes with them!
Unionize the US Military and see what that costs the tax payer.
Fat chance! Not when corportations are charging military $700 bucks for a cheap toilet.
Unions are parasites. They look for a host that has a lot of money to suck off without killing it.
They do not make organizations richer. They look for organizations that have a lot of money.
This is why the high correlation between highly paid workers and unions.
Correlation is not causation.
"PS: we should also note that such an action would open a whole new can of worms and end up with an even more disastrous outcome for the US economy, however since at this point said economy is truly beyond salvage and merely bounces from one Fed-inflated bubble to another, then the most merciful outcome for everyone involved would probably be to accelerate the inevitable hyperinflationary collapse and let the system reset."
It's fun and informative to watch your cognitive dissonance, Tyler Durden.
You are aware that the world is in a debt-crisis, you strongly suspect binge-and-purge capitalism is not going to 'clean out the bad debt', and you see the need for liquidity injections ("money printing") in order to overcome the debt-deflation spiral which comes from everyone being unable to spend. Debt jubilee and socialist outpayments like Basic Income offend your American sense of economic justice, and they're kind of just too pinko-commie to really be accepted. You despise the QE programs for the rich which are the same thing for a higher income bracket. Your aware that we have no political will to go after the tax havens.
So you grudgingly allow that maybe, people should be allowed to organize to resist the demands of industry, and to increase the price of labor. Even though this results in [insert anti-union platitudes here]. I much prefer Britain after Thatcher, and the US after Reagan, because only when labor is broken, do we have true efficiency of markets. Social capital is of secondary importance. </sarc>.
But you'll give labor its bargaining power back, because the system is so fucked up that a little wage increase might help us, even though it will destroy us in the end. Because all this ends in a grizzly, inevitable hyperinflationary moment, right?
That's dogma, in my opinion. Hyperinflation is a rare event, and as Mark Blythe points out in this lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM, Germany quickly recovered from the Weimar hyperinflation by 1924, and it was not the Nazi party that did it. The Nazis rose to power as a response to austerity policies in 1933, almost 10 years after the hyperinflationery period was over! This association between the two is a false remembrance.
The paradigm of fiat money-> printing binge -> devaluation -> hyperinflation is not nearly as predominant in history as sound money advocates would have you believe. The British came out of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 with 240% Debt-to-GDP and a massive money creation campaign, and they ascended to colonize large parts of the world for the next 100 years! If currency crisis and hyperinflation played such a dominant role in history, there would be more examples than Weimar, Zimbabwe, Hungary, etc. Also Michael Hudson, Steven Keen, and a number of cutting edge economic thinkers disagree with this thesis. So I'm not just pulling this out of my arse. I used to be a sound money/hyperinflation dogmatist too. Its just not a correct hypothesis.
and what his love for mass immigration?
The discussion really needs to split public sector and private sector unions. Totally different. I always found it odd that left wing voters were pro-union and pro-immigration when they are not quite compatible with their wage aspirations. Dropping the labour supply should be in union's better interests.
it would be nice to call it a unionization issue. but it's not. the problem is that the people have zero actual say in much of anything at all and the government long sold out to corporate interests.
no effective unions here in china, but look at beijing restaurant salaries. Bare minimum for any place is now about $550 per month. No tips... but it includes social insurance, food (meals at the restaurant) and housing (employee dorms). The standard is now 14 months of pay per year (2x pay for year end bonus) and monthly performance bonuses. At any place that's decent, it's about double that. Along with that social insurance comes... medical, pension, housing fund, disability, maternity. That maternity insurance pays for up to 5 months of paid time off. If you have an employer who's in any way decent, they pay you as well during that time (those 5 months of payments come from the government), so you effectively see double pay.
So, in the end, without breaking a sweat, those "slavewage" workers will see about $7700 in cash each year, with all major expenses met and paid for. Tell me now, who are the slaves? With their pathetic tip-based hell? Sure the service is rather hit or miss, but anyone truely GOOD at it, rather than "tips" gets poached by more upscale establishments, where instead of dorm, they get an allowance for rent/mortgage, and pay starts around $1200 a month with greater bonuses and incentives. Waitstaff pulling $20k a year without any significant expenses left to meet is not unheard of at all.
How many restaurant workers in the US, who are not living at mom&dad's home can say the same?
When federal and state tax receipts decline to zip, what is public unions' plan to get paid?
from the article--- "So a simple solution: want to boost US wages across the board? Then just unionize everyone!"
I would like to restate that line for a completely different outcome--- "So a simple solution: want to boost US wages across the board? Then just require by law that every employee (including managers) must have a personal work contract! And said contract must include minimally: provisions for holiday pay, over 40 overtime rates, contracted time period, 15 minute paid breaks every 2 hours, work uniforms provision & upkeep, pay rate,...etc.
These personal work contracts, should be somewhat specific to various industries, there again, the National Labor Relations Board could set about doing a good amount of work, involved in setting-up what a minimal work contract template would look like. (for those that don't read or understand contracts as easily as those that are familiar with contracting, they need a minimal contract that they can understand, & becomes legally binding when agreed upon}
Labor strikes are no longer a result of unresolved grievence, but a legal matter of contract law. This would put the tired & irrelevant Labor Relations Board of government into the business they should be doing...which is settling contract grievences.
As it is now, when there is typically no work contract, or some kind of implied work contract, the real test of a written contract becomes much more clear for both sides of the contract. {the typical 'job application' does not fill the minimal contract that I speak of}
By the way, how come it is considered 'normal' to have a contract between customers & retailers, or mfg. & distribution, or raw resource producers & their customers, corporate boards & top executives...and yet when no written contract exists for workers, it should be seen for what it is: cutthroat practice that harms the dignity and ability of the labor contracted, law abiding citizenry.
Hope that makes sense to you non-union cutthroats, & cutthroat employers that insist on that type of working relationship. Example: Walmart, Schneider Transportation, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Farm workers, Paper mill, Avis Rent-a-car, Mcdonalds.
With your personal work contract in hand, take your grievances directly (no shop stewards or union red tape) to the judgement seat, where it is difficult for the judge to obfuscated the written language of a contract...when it exists.
Every worker, (except for sole proprietors) should have their own personal workers contract with them at all times, when a grievence occurs, they simply whip out their contract and point to the infringement, if that doesn't work...take it to the Labor Board. And vice-versa, when management expects a certain contracted work, and it is not performed properly...it becomes a legal matter, because of the work contract.
wwxx
Unfortunately, the charts above offer no source other than the Odey Asset Management's year-end letter, which offers nothing. This makes this column 100% Tyler Durden BULLSHIT, aka boob food for the bubbas.
Economics 101, the only really scientifically proven text that actually works in the real world.
If everyone who works for a living and those who did for 50 yrs, were to receive an adjustment in their incomes to equal what is now considered a comfortable annual income, say, in the 70K range, adjusted for COL geographically, what would be the consequences, the bad ones, since we already have been told the good one, of such a bold, and aggressive middle class saving move?
Prices for everything the middle classes buy would adjust upwards dollar for dollar, and within two quarters would wipe out ALL that increase, and then some because those who make stuff and sell services would add teeny bit extra for the pot.
Without corresponding increases in productivity measured by genuine time study engineers there is no benefit other than a political one-off that is as useful as another breast on Katie Upton.
If only we could have a community organizer in charge, wages would surely go up......right?