Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: As Unemployment Rises, Support for Organized Labor...

klip izle | malatya park | youtube | video izle

2010-03-21T07:19:00.461-04:00

klip izle | malatya park | youtube | video izle

электронная почта без регистрации

2010-03-02T13:54:59.871-05:00

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-12T05:47:34.948-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

a correlation of around -.5 is not very significan...

2009-10-06T23:57:44.808-04:00

a correlation of around -.5 is not very significant. If anything there is a weak correlation between the two. This graph conveys barely anything interesting. Find other variables that are more strongly related please! You are better than this 538!

I have a question. When I was in DC and observing ...

2009-09-16T02:16:58.811-04:00

I have a question. When I was in DC and observing the "Teaparty" protest, someone had a shirt that said: "I'd rather be a right wing nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job." It was pretty funny. But my question, as an employed "liberal" without testicles, is, what's the relationship between employment status and participation in these protests? Because my assumption would have been that people are protesting because they're scared of getting laid off and scared about the economy, and that they want to preserve whatever middle-class wealth they have left. Do you have anything on party affiliation and employment status?

For folks interested in the relationship between p...

2009-09-10T04:08:14.284-04:00

For folks interested in the relationship between party/policy preferences and unemployment/inflation, there's a book called The Macro Polity.

Nutshell version: When unemployment is high, swing voters like Dems. When inflation is high, swing voters like Repubs.

Correlation does not equate to causality. Bet you...

2009-09-09T23:36:23.075-04:00

Correlation does not equate to causality. Bet you could plot support for unions against Republican presidents and find a lagging correlation...get that bully pulpit crapping on unions, the support might drop too.

Scapegoating. Historically, when times get tough,...

2009-09-09T16:58:13.080-04:00

Scapegoating. Historically, when times get tough, the lynch mobs come out in full force. Labor unions have always had a tenuous "foreignness" to them (blacks, Hispanics, eastern Europeans); thus, the backlash.

By and large, if something seems like a cultural mystery, look for the racism angle. It points true north.

@JAW: Thanks! That's quite informative.

2009-09-09T14:10:12.301-04:00

@JAW:
Thanks! That's quite informative.

Samuel asked for comparative data from Europe. I ...

2009-09-09T10:28:55.169-04:00

Samuel asked for comparative data from Europe. I found some UK data ("Trade unions have too much power in Britain today" -- agree/disagree) from 1975-1995 a did an analysis similar to Nate's. Controlling for general growth in trade union support in the UK during that period, I fit a regression model that incorporates the time effect and found that the coefficient on “unemployed” is negative (-2.4) as is the case for the US data. Each addition percentage point of unemployment corresponds to a drop of 2.4 percentage points of _net_ support for trade unions in the UK.

Alternatively, using "agree%" as the response (where the statement being agreed with is that "Trade unions have too much power in Britain today") the coefficient for unemployment is 1.3.

. Typical bass-ackwards statistical bullsh*t: Try ...

2009-09-09T09:50:57.448-04:00

.
Typical bass-ackwards statistical bullsh*t: Try turning it reality-wards: The less union support, the more unemployment.

Duh, logic is not graphable, I guess.

Here, try singing it.
.

More constructively, there is an interesting criti...

2009-09-09T09:31:37.618-04:00

More constructively, there is an interesting critique of Nate's analysis here at Lawyers Guns and Money: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/

Bart: You're wrong about studies and union produc...

2009-09-09T09:24:24.849-04:00

Bart:

You're wrong about studies and union productivity. In the biggest picture, in 2002, the World Bank released a report based on more than 1,000 studies on the effects of union and collective bargaining. This report found that countries with high unionization rates tend to have higher productivity, less pay inequality, and lower unemployment, and that overall having a large number of workers represented by unions tends to have a stablilizing and beneifical effect on the country's economy.

For cites to this and specific studies on unions and productivity that you obviously haven't read, see the list of sources in my article, Joseph Slater, "Homeland Security vs. Workers Rights? What the Federal Government Should Learn From History and Experience, and Why, 6 U. PA J. of Labor and Employment Law295, 338-42.

Also, the point about how the market is defined seems to have gone over your head.

You are suffering from "internet hack know-it-all" syndrome: you want to have a right-wing talking point on every subject, but you don't know anything beyond the talking point. Learn or shut up.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/09/bil...

2009-09-09T09:22:19.386-04:00

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/09/bill_moyers_on_obamas_moment.html

False statements, agenda, spin, daily Limbaugh tal...

2009-09-09T05:24:59.371-04:00

False statements, agenda, spin, daily Limbaugh talking points, no source material ~ MPM in a nutshell!

I do not often post here, not being a polling wonk...

2009-09-09T04:37:42.156-04:00

I do not often post here, not being a polling wonk; typically I simply soak up the useful information this blog offers. But when someone posts claims I know to be false, as mid point man has concerning Southwest Air Lines, I feel compelled to respond.

As my moniker indicates, I am a union lawyer. Though I do not represent the unions who have bargaining relationships with Southwest, I know the lawyers who do. These are NOT "company unions" in any sense of the word. While it true that the pilots union is independent of the unions who represent other carriers, that is not the case with Southwest's other unions. For example, the flight attendants and ground crews are represented by the Transport Workers Union (TWU),an AFL-CIO affiliate which also represents workers at American Airlines, United, Northwest and Continental, among others. This information is easily available on the internet; see, e.g. http://www.twu.org/index.php/international/our_history#air

Also though they may be independent, the Southwest pilots union is no pushover. They voted down their last contract and are presently in difficult negotiations due to the Frontier merger. This again is easily available: http://www.project7alpha.com/2009/08/southwest-frontier-airline-merger/

When someone comes on and posts false statements easily identified as such, it becomes obvious they have an agenda more important to them than the truth. We in the labor movement are quite used to these tactics. You want to hate unions, fine, just don't lie about us.

@BDP: An attorney is not a "third party," that su...

2009-09-08T18:55:36.172-04:00

@BDP:

An attorney is not a "third party," that suggests a middleman and that is not the case; an attorney is an employee of the client, not a middle man.

The same is true for a union; the union negotiator is an employee of the union members, not a middle man, and therefore not a third party.

To be a third party, then like all middlemen, the union would be in an adversarial relationship with both his supplier (of labor, meaning the employees) and the buyer (of labor, meaning the business). Middle men make more money when they buy low and sell high. Unions are not middle men buying labor from workers and selling it to a company; thus they are not third parties.

Unions are moe like talent agents; such people do not earn more money by getting the talent to take less; they earn more money by getting the talent more money. They are not middle-men, or third parties, they are hired negotiators on commission that can be fired by the talent.

You don't know what you are talking about; you are just inventing terms and then arguing from your own self-serving definitions. Unions are not third parties, they are hired employees that negotiate contracts and ensure they are enforced. Nobody considers employees "third parties."

Bart DePalma said... You are free to offer and ex...

2009-09-08T18:47:38.118-04:00

Bart DePalma said...

You are free to offer and example
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As you are free to offer source evidence material to back up your spin er talking points. btw, the internet is like the Bible, one can always find source material to back up a bogus/erroneous claim/argument.

take care

jslater said... First, as has been pointed out, y...

2009-09-08T18:00:47.095-04:00

jslater said...

First, as has been pointed out, you have a pre-existing definition of "market" that allows people to join together as employers to bargain but not to join together as employees. There's nothing natural about that...

You are free to offer and example of an industry where non-union employers collude with one another to set a standard set of wages. If such collusion exists, I agree with you that this is a distortion of the employer/employee relationship similar to that created by unions and would probably require unions to remedy. However, in general, compensation packages are not shared between businesses.

Second, there is a good deal of literature suggesting that unions in fact have a somewhat positive effect on productivity. You're obviously unaware of it, which isn't surprising.

Nothing that has been definitvely linked to unionization itself. Generally, unionized companies tend to automate sooner to avoid hiring at union rates. This tends to increase productivity.

Bart: First, as has been pointed out, you have a ...

2009-09-08T17:41:54.099-04:00

Bart:

First, as has been pointed out, you have a pre-existing definition of "market" that allows people to join together as employers to bargain but not to join together as employees. There's nothing natural about that -- in fact, every western democracy grants legal rights for workers to bargain collectively in free trade unions. That's one thing that sets all democracies apart from all dictatorships: free trade unions.

Second, there is a good deal of literature suggesting that unions in fact have a somewhat positive effect on productivity. You're obviously unaware of it, which isn't surprising.

Finally, this thread shouldn't degenerate into what Bart (or any other partisan hack) thinks about unions. Rather, it should focus back on what is causing the drop in public support for unions. I'm thinking it's a general dissatisfaction with the economy.

A market wage is one without any third party union...

2009-09-08T16:36:49.888-04:00

A market wage is one without any third party unions

Arguendo by Assertion. The World According to Baghdad Bart.

That's the title of the book Baghdad Bart is going to write after he's done telling the world how Obama is a socialist.

Tony C. said... @BDP: [T]hat doesn't make a unio...

2009-09-08T16:21:18.444-04:00

Tony C. said...

@BDP: [T]hat doesn't make a union a third-party broker any more than an attorney is a third party broker for their client; union officials work for the people they represent just like attorneys work for the people they represent.

Of course, I am a third party to my client in his relationship with the other party of a case. Like the union, I offer value in exchange for a fee. In the case of a union, that value is an above market wage.

Your definition of "market value" depends entirely upon your theoretical model in which unions are prohibited, making it an entirely circular argument.

Not at all. A market wage is one without any third party unions. Unions do not perform work for the employer and are thus not part of the base employer/employee relationship.

So your entire argument is that if unions were prohibited, people would be paid less, and you want to call that lesser pay "market value."

Not necessarily. Some unions like public employee unions cannot legally strike and thus simply lower their members' compensation without delivering above market wages.

However, in general, private unions do raise the cost of labor or their members soon de-unionize.

Well, I propose a different theoretical model: If unions were mandatory, people would be paid more, and I want to call that greater pay "market value," and thus I say that any unions that do exist will move us closer to market value than we are without them.

Once again, this is an artificial construct imposed by yet another entity outside the voluntary employer/employee relationship - the government.

@BDP: And I could just as easily say that were un...

2009-09-08T16:08:37.805-04:00

@BDP:

And I could just as easily say that were unions prohibited, corporations would be happily and mercilessly endangering and exploiting workers and colluding to use their monopolistic power over the job market to extort free overtime and non-job related services from workers, including sexual services from female workers who were given the choice of compliance or being fired. You conveniently forget that this is the reason unions were formed and given legal standing in the first place, to correct the gross abuses produced by this imbalance of power.

Unions are no more a "protection racket" than are the police, demanding we pay taxes to protect us from crimes -- The gall of those cops! Imagine!

@BDP: The market value of labor is what a particu...

2009-09-08T15:20:33.954-04:00

@BDP:

The market value of labor is what a particular industry must spend to get each additional worker to perform the work of a particular job.

1) Hence my point, which you missed. If the workers are unionized, the industry must spend more to get each additional worker to perform that particular job; thus the union wage IS the market value.

2) A union is not necessarily a dues charging agency and is not necessarily a third party broker; thus a union does not "justify its dues." Some union members choose to pay full time workers or professional negotiators to better organize themselves; that doesn't make a union a third-party broker any more than an attorney is a third party broker for their client; union officials work for the people they represent just like attorneys work for the people they represent.

Your definition of "market value" depends entirely upon your theoretical model in which unions are prohibited, making it an entirely circular argument.

So your entire argument is that if unions were prohibited, people would be paid less, and you want to call that lesser pay "market value." Well, I propose a different theoretical model: If unions were mandatory, people would be paid more, and I want to call that greater pay "market value," and thus I say that any unions that do exist will move us closer to market value than we are without them.

My theoretical phrasing is just as valid as yours; and since it puts a different number on "market value" I claim it proves there is no arbitrary value that represents market value. As always, market value is what you can expect to earn for your work, with or without unions. Unions help set market value, they don't get more than market value.

I find the argument that supports high CEO pay if ...

2009-09-08T14:52:47.245-04:00

I find the argument that supports high CEO pay if it leads to sufficient profit as economically irrational. If CEO is a commodity then the smartest move would be to maximize the investment of CEO dollars. CEO seems to have assumed the aura of celebrity rather than a commodity which will seek the its lowest price. What actually seems to have happened in recent years (decades?) is that the revenue from gains in productivity have been routed to the penthouse instead of the paychecks of those productive workers, hence the increasing difference in income. And that may indeed be the result of unions losing their way, their membership and their strength.