We can tax and redistribute rent to achieve the distributive effect. The unemployment effect doesn't go away, though.
Right, I'm talking net of the unemployment effect it's a benefit. Theoretically tax and spend would be as efficient for distribution. Practically? I'd rather have a higher paycheck in hand.
Which you'd only get if you're not among the unemployed or underemployed :P
there's been a conspiracy theory floating around these boards that corporations are deliberately not hiring in order to put pressure on Obama to grant concessions (or to make him unpopular enough to cause a republican victory).
I say conspiracy theory because there's no evidence to indicate that this is the cause, and that the observable facts are explicable through economic theory, but that's the general idea, I think.
Wow, seriously?
... yeah, that's pretty out there.
The Business Plot was pretty out there too, right?
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Because there is no added benefit of adding additional employees to the payroll in this economic climate.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Still makes it a pain in the ass, and all of them pursuing their short-term interest instead of hiring so that the collective pool of consumer spending goes up and thus they get more money is crippling the recovery.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Which does nothing to disprove the hypothesis set before you. Not to mention you just pointed out that corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Still makes it a pain in the ass, and all of them pursuing their short-term interest instead of hiring so that the collective pool of consumer spending goes up and thus they get more money is crippling the recovery.
Nobody wants to be the first penguin to jump into the water. There might be long-term benefits if they all decided to hire employees first, and worry about consumer demand later, but the first ones to do it incur more of the cost, and don't reap any extra benefits. Furthermore, the benefits are spread thin enough that it is hard to convince the corps to even make the leap into the icy waters of expanded production.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Which does nothing to disprove the hypothesis set before you. Not to mention you just pointed out that corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages.
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
ronya on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Still makes it a pain in the ass, and all of them pursuing their short-term interest instead of hiring so that the collective pool of consumer spending goes up and thus they get more money is crippling the recovery.
Nobody wants to be the first penguin to jump into the water. There might be long-term benefits if they all decided to hire employees first, and worry about consumer demand later, but the first ones to do it incur more of the cost, and don't reap any extra benefits. Furthermore, the benefits are spread thin enough that it is hard to convince the corps to even make the leap into the icy waters of expanded production.
The biggest problem that many of us currently face is that during the period of contraction productivity among the employed shot way up and now many of us are doing the job of 2 or 3 people without an increase in pay. Why hire someone else when I'm doing well enough in 2 roles?
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Still makes it a pain in the ass, and all of them pursuing their short-term interest instead of hiring so that the collective pool of consumer spending goes up and thus they get more money is crippling the recovery.
Yes. That is what Keynes meant by the phrase "paradox of thrift".
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
While corporate heads are assholes (Jamie Dimon was bitching about how mean everyone is to him again this morning), they're also not hiring because of other reasons, as ronya points out.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
Why would you need a "grand conspiracy"? Seriously, think it through - why would all of these lower level peons need to know the details? Especially when you can use economic theory as a smokescreen? I don't think it would take a lot of people to push the matter, as long as they did it in a manner that doesn't trip any red flags.
And if I have to explain to you why employers would see higher unemployment as attractive, then perhaps you should be the one reviewing economic theory. Higher unemployment means lower wages. It also means a more compliant workforce as well.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
I see no other reason to keep them around.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Government does, however, have both an established policy and ethical mandate to engineer an encouragement for corporations to invest. Individual companies may have no responsibility toward individual employment; government does have both responsibility and power to engineer low unemployment.
Which does not, I suppose, play well with a narrative that seeks to identify individual malice and, by punishing it, restore paradise. But such as it is. It is an attitude usually limited to the right nowadays.
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Government does, however, have both an established policy and ethical mandate to engineer an encouragement for corporations to invest.
Union mandates on entitlements would seem to spurn domestic investment, would it not?
The role of a union is to make sure that the workers it represents don't get fucked over by the company, in part by threatening not to work if the company refuses to provide decent wages, job security, a safe working environment, etc. I don't really see how that's extortion. Workers are perfectly willing to do their job if the company will compensate them for it.
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Completly agree with you on that.
Buuuut, companies do exist to make money and sitting on large piles of cash is not earning. Money saved is not money earned. A company possesing cash reserves in a depressed economy should invest it. Its a buyers market and nobody is buying.
It can't be a conspiracy to make Obama look bad, but neither can it really be because Obama "is a socialist" either. Its weird.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Completly agree with you on that.
Buuuut, companies do exist to make money and sitting on large piles of cash is not earning. Money saved is not money earned. A company possesing cash reserves in a depressed economy should invest it. Its a buyers market and nobody is buying.
It can't be a conspiracy to make Obama look bad, but neither can it really be because Obama "is a socialist" either. Its weird.
Why would they necessarily invest it? Inflation is flat and opportunities to earn profits are bleak.
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It's just a matter of leveraging what power there is to be had. And frankly, even unionized any given group of workers still has much less power than the entity that they work for. It's just that they are on a slightly closer level because they are acting collectively.
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
Why would you need a "grand conspiracy"? Seriously, think it through - why would all of these lower level peons need to know the details? Especially when you can use economic theory as a smokescreen? I don't think it would take a lot of people to push the matter, as long as they did it in a manner that doesn't trip any red flags.
And if I have to explain to you why employers would see higher unemployment as attractive, then perhaps you should be the one reviewing economic theory. Higher unemployment means lower wages. It also means a more compliant workforce as well.
Wow. So how many people are you suggesting are in on this Plan, as a ballpark number? And there's, I don't know, drugs in the water to make sure all those pesky small and medium employers play along as well?
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Completly agree with you on that.
Buuuut, companies do exist to make money and sitting on large piles of cash is not earning. Money saved is not money earned. A company possesing cash reserves in a depressed economy should invest it. Its a buyers market and nobody is buying.
Not exactly unexpected in a period of economic uncertainty, though.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Government does, however, have both an established policy and ethical mandate to engineer an encouragement for corporations to invest.
Union mandates on entitlements would seem to spurn domestic investment, would it not?
Entitlements are offered by the government.
Employers often offer pension plans and health benefits to their employees as part of their total compensation package. They are then contractually bound to uphold those terms. If it turns out that the employers made poor bargaining choices when they made those agreements, well, then they will need to re-negotiate with their employees, or use Chapter 11 to restructure. There are other avenues open.
As for 'domestic investment', I guess the premise is that higher wages lead to lower profits, and therefore, less re-investment in the company. But there's always the capital markets to secure funding for investment. Don't know what the ratio between re-investing profits and using the capital markets is, but there are plenty of options for a company to secure funds for an expansion.
dojango on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
How do you explain that?
Usually when negotiations are untenable, the business either agrees to terms and quickly goes under or pulls up stakes to move to a cheaper labor market, causing the union members to lose their jobs.
However, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record that lots of companies are just sitting on immense amounts of money, and still not hiring anybody.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Government does, however, have both an established policy and ethical mandate to engineer an encouragement for corporations to invest.
Union mandates on entitlements would seem to spurn domestic investment, would it not?
I was referring to macroeconomic engineering, actually.
Private-sector unionization is at low levels in the United States and does not, plausibly, present a binding constraint on domestic investment.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
Capital is pretty organized, though. And it isn't going away, since organized economic activity is necessary for much economic output.
You may be overestimating the degree of power which unions actually have on employment under current law. It is difficult for a union to effectively enforce a monopoly on the supply of labour without additional, legal, enforcement.
Union and corporate power is principally via legal lobbying, not economic monopoly.
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
How do you explain that?
Usually when negotiations are untenable, the business either agrees to terms and quickly goes under or pulls up stakes to move to a cheaper labor market, causing the union members to lose their jobs.
Yes, that's the "don't make untenable demands" constraint that discourages unions from making untenable demands.
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
It's not an unfair advantage, it's their ONLY advantage.
WTF do you think organized labour is about? Without the ability to monopolize the labour market, unions have no power and thus workers have little to no rights.
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
Why would you need a "grand conspiracy"? Seriously, think it through - why would all of these lower level peons need to know the details? Especially when you can use economic theory as a smokescreen? I don't think it would take a lot of people to push the matter, as long as they did it in a manner that doesn't trip any red flags.
And if I have to explain to you why employers would see higher unemployment as attractive, then perhaps you should be the one reviewing economic theory. Higher unemployment means lower wages. It also means a more compliant workforce as well.
Wow. So how many people are you suggesting are in on this Plan, as a ballpark number? And there's, I don't know, drugs in the water to make sure all those pesky small and medium employers play along as well?
The problem is that you're assuming that "there must be A Plan." All this takes is an attitude among business leadership that the current political leadership needs to change to create a more "business-friendly" climate. And I would think that this attitude is pretty evident. Once this sense takes hold...well, it becomes an invisible weight that influences corporate decisions. It also becomes a theme in the community as well, so it trickles down to the smaller players. That said, the smaller players are the ones that are most affected by the disjoint, and thus are the ones less likely to buy in. (And the evidence holds on this as well - small businesses are becoming more and more disenchanted with the Chamber of Commerce and looking to form their own lobbies.)
I guess a good way to think of it is the Business Stand Alone Complex.
I hope you're not referring to Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, because I don't know if you've heard, but they ain't exactly doing so great.
As for 'domestic investment', I guess the premise is that higher wages lead to lower profits, and therefore, less re-investment in the company. But there's always the capital markets to secure funding for investment. Don't know what the ratio between re-investing profits and using the capital markets is, but there are plenty of options for a company to secure funds for an expansion.
But why expand in this economy? Just because cheaper labor may be available, if incomes are still reduced and consumer confidence is bottomed out no consumer investment will happen in any meaningful way.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
It's not an unfair advantage, it's their ONLY advantage.
WTF do you think organized labour is about? Without the ability to monopolize the labour market, unions have no power and thus workers have little to no rights.
For the third time today, the company does not exist to provide employment.
And it certainly doesn't exist to provide its employees with protected wages and entitlements that well above and beyond that of most private institutions.
Atomika on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
If the union is demanding more than they are worth, the market will correct for that.
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
How does the market correct for police officers and firefighters and public transportation? I can't refuse to pay for fire service but firefighters can refuse to work.
I hope you're not referring to Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, because I don't know if you've heard, but they ain't exactly doing so great.
As for 'domestic investment', I guess the premise is that higher wages lead to lower profits, and therefore, less re-investment in the company. But there's always the capital markets to secure funding for investment. Don't know what the ratio between re-investing profits and using the capital markets is, but there are plenty of options for a company to secure funds for an expansion.
But why expand in this economy? Just because cheaper labor may be available, if incomes are still reduced and consumer confidence is bottomed out no consumer investment will happen in any meaningful way.
Er, in one of your posts, you referred to 'union-mandated entitlements'. I'm not sure what that means, since an entitlement is a program offered by the government. Unions don't mandate them.
What unions do is establish contracts with employers, and those contracts are (hopefully) better deals than they otherwise would have had if the employees were negotiating seperately.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
dojango on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I hope you're not referring to Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, because I don't know if you've heard, but they ain't exactly doing so great.
As for 'domestic investment', I guess the premise is that higher wages lead to lower profits, and therefore, less re-investment in the company. But there's always the capital markets to secure funding for investment. Don't know what the ratio between re-investing profits and using the capital markets is, but there are plenty of options for a company to secure funds for an expansion.
But why expand in this economy? Just because cheaper labor may be available, if incomes are still reduced and consumer confidence is bottomed out no consumer investment will happen in any meaningful way.
Why take on more workers without productivity gains? This is basic micro here people.
Posts
The Business Plot was pretty out there too, right?
Because there is no added benefit of adding additional employees to the payroll in this economic climate.
This isn't terribly difficult to explain - standard Keynesian flight toward savings, plus several decades of lobbying that have made the tax code favor corporations as savings vehicles for shareholders.
Still makes it a pain in the ass, and all of them pursuing their short-term interest instead of hiring so that the collective pool of consumer spending goes up and thus they get more money is crippling the recovery.
Which does nothing to disprove the hypothesis set before you. Not to mention you just pointed out that corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages.
Nobody wants to be the first penguin to jump into the water. There might be long-term benefits if they all decided to hire employees first, and worry about consumer demand later, but the first ones to do it incur more of the cost, and don't reap any extra benefits. Furthermore, the benefits are spread thin enough that it is hard to convince the corps to even make the leap into the icy waters of expanded production.
... you're proposing a conspiracy theory that must involve, at minimum, thousands of senior managers and HR departments across the United States, and you say the burden of proof is on me? When my explanation springs from mainstream economic theory? Really?
Yes, of course corporations are more than willing to push for legal advantages. Have I ever suggested otherwise? Would you care to elaborate on how these legal advantages translate to stealthily executing a grand plan of 9.9% unemployment in the United States?
The biggest problem that many of us currently face is that during the period of contraction productivity among the employed shot way up and now many of us are doing the job of 2 or 3 people without an increase in pay. Why hire someone else when I'm doing well enough in 2 roles?
Yes. That is what Keynes meant by the phrase "paradox of thrift".
Never attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by simple greed.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Again, companies do not exist to provide either employment or entitlements.
Why would you need a "grand conspiracy"? Seriously, think it through - why would all of these lower level peons need to know the details? Especially when you can use economic theory as a smokescreen? I don't think it would take a lot of people to push the matter, as long as they did it in a manner that doesn't trip any red flags.
And if I have to explain to you why employers would see higher unemployment as attractive, then perhaps you should be the one reviewing economic theory. Higher unemployment means lower wages. It also means a more compliant workforce as well.
I see no other reason to keep them around.
The thing about malice and greed is it's rarely "either/or".
Government does, however, have both an established policy and ethical mandate to engineer an encouragement for corporations to invest. Individual companies may have no responsibility toward individual employment; government does have both responsibility and power to engineer low unemployment.
Which does not, I suppose, play well with a narrative that seeks to identify individual malice and, by punishing it, restore paradise. But such as it is. It is an attitude usually limited to the right nowadays.
Conspiratorial malevolence is a very different thing from being a greedy asshole.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But it doesn't take much of a conspiracy. Which is the whole problem.
Agreed. Which is why I think it's strange to allow unions to assume a role of wage negotiator based on little more than collectivism and what essentially is the professional form of extortion.
Union mandates on entitlements would seem to spurn domestic investment, would it not?
Collective bargaining isn't extortion anymore than a corporation openly musing about leaving a state unless its demands are meant. They're both perfectly legal, perfectly rational means of trying to improve the worker (or the corporation)'s economic situation.
Completly agree with you on that.
Buuuut, companies do exist to make money and sitting on large piles of cash is not earning. Money saved is not money earned. A company possesing cash reserves in a depressed economy should invest it. Its a buyers market and nobody is buying.
It can't be a conspiracy to make Obama look bad, but neither can it really be because Obama "is a socialist" either. Its weird.
It becomes extortion when unions virtually monopolize the labor market for a specific place of employment and then demand wages or entitlements that put the company in financial jeopardy. It's the restriction of employment that gives unions an unfair advantage in negotiations.
Why would they necessarily invest it? Inflation is flat and opportunities to earn profits are bleak.
Sitting on cash is a valid response.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Wow. So how many people are you suggesting are in on this Plan, as a ballpark number? And there's, I don't know, drugs in the water to make sure all those pesky small and medium employers play along as well?
Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? Or does that only work when it's the people in power that are doing things that need rationalized and not for the workaday plebes?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Not exactly unexpected in a period of economic uncertainty, though.
Entitlements are offered by the government.
Employers often offer pension plans and health benefits to their employees as part of their total compensation package. They are then contractually bound to uphold those terms. If it turns out that the employers made poor bargaining choices when they made those agreements, well, then they will need to re-negotiate with their employees, or use Chapter 11 to restructure. There are other avenues open.
As for 'domestic investment', I guess the premise is that higher wages lead to lower profits, and therefore, less re-investment in the company. But there's always the capital markets to secure funding for investment. Don't know what the ratio between re-investing profits and using the capital markets is, but there are plenty of options for a company to secure funds for an expansion.
How do you explain that?
Usually when negotiations are untenable, the business either agrees to terms and quickly goes under or pulls up stakes to move to a cheaper labor market, causing the union members to lose their jobs.
I was referring to macroeconomic engineering, actually.
Private-sector unionization is at low levels in the United States and does not, plausibly, present a binding constraint on domestic investment.
Capital is pretty organized, though. And it isn't going away, since organized economic activity is necessary for much economic output.
You may be overestimating the degree of power which unions actually have on employment under current law. It is difficult for a union to effectively enforce a monopoly on the supply of labour without additional, legal, enforcement.
Union and corporate power is principally via legal lobbying, not economic monopoly.
e:
Yes, that's the "don't make untenable demands" constraint that discourages unions from making untenable demands.
It's not an unfair advantage, it's their ONLY advantage.
WTF do you think organized labour is about? Without the ability to monopolize the labour market, unions have no power and thus workers have little to no rights.
I guess a good way to think of it is the Business Stand Alone Complex.
I hope you're not referring to Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, because I don't know if you've heard, but they ain't exactly doing so great.
But why expand in this economy? Just because cheaper labor may be available, if incomes are still reduced and consumer confidence is bottomed out no consumer investment will happen in any meaningful way.
For the third time today, the company does not exist to provide employment.
And it certainly doesn't exist to provide its employees with protected wages and entitlements that well above and beyond that of most private institutions.
How does the market correct for police officers and firefighters and public transportation? I can't refuse to pay for fire service but firefighters can refuse to work.
Er, in one of your posts, you referred to 'union-mandated entitlements'. I'm not sure what that means, since an entitlement is a program offered by the government. Unions don't mandate them.
What unions do is establish contracts with employers, and those contracts are (hopefully) better deals than they otherwise would have had if the employees were negotiating seperately.
And yes, if there is no incentive to expand, then companies won't do it. I'm just trying to figure out how union activity depresses domestic investment in any meaningful way, which seemed to be what you were claiming.
Why take on more workers without productivity gains? This is basic micro here people.