Why Unions Keep Losing

Perhaps you can answer my question for him: Why do health centres employ so many economists?

Debate within economics is a good thing, as I've indicated with reference to pluralism. However, to argue that you shouldn't use economic evidence when referring to economics is obviously absurd.

 

Ahh no. You think it's that way.
When I was in management in Chicago and the contract came up I asked the plant manager if he thought there would be a strike and he chuckled and told me no they would get an x% increase and the contact would be accepted on the third vote. Guess what, the union business managers did their song and dance to the workers coming out if the "negotiations" twice with the "company offer" telling the workers not to accept it that they were "fighting" for them and wouldn't let the company "screw" them and then the third time they fame out and "see what we got for you vote to accept this contract" and they did for the increase the plant manager told me the union would tell them to accept. The union business managers had worked it all out with the owners before the "negotiations" ever began because they didn't want to have to pay strike funds out of their pot of union money that paid for their fancy suits and Cadillacs and fancy dinners. It was the union that screwed the workers not the company.

 

If they do then I can't explain it. Economists aren't any better at forecasting economic performance than the people who hire them. They have proven that over and over.

Debate is fine but the debate isn't against facts or laws, it is against opinions. The debate has no real meaning. It is like politicians debating politics.

 

What was that? How did that work?
He two times I was in a union were right to work states. I didn't want to be in the union but in the first the company only hired "apprentices" and you had to go through the union, probably illegal, and then after I had been there a while and became a leadman tried to get out but kept getting the run around on both ends. The company did it to hold down wages and the union went along to collect the dues. The union even signed a contract without a vote.
The second was ina shipyard and when I hired in said I didn't want to join the union but was quietly told that if I didn't my tires would be slashed in the parking lot or some accident would happen like a bucket if bolts being dropped on my head. So I joined.

 

How are Republicans trying to kill unions?

 

Unions are an anachronism.

Look forward, not backward!

 

LOL....to call your posting a piece of work is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Lets quickly revisit what has been discussed. I jumped into your conversation with someone else where you said "I don't ask for tabloidism. I ask for evidence. That has to be objective and, for this topic, undertaken with appropriate hypothesis testing. "

Knowing full well that the field of economics is a soft science, and seeing that you were improperly calling it objective and containing appropriate hypothesis testing, I correctly stated that "You seem to be confused as to the rigor of soft science versus that of a hard science. Without the ability to isolate down to one variable, economic studies specifically lack the necessary rigor in order to properly and objectively test any hypothesis, which is why economics is all about theory & economic principle, and expressly not about scientific proof."

What has been your response to this? Did you even remotely tackle the predicate of my post which is that economics is a soft science which is also called a pseudoscience? Not even remotely, and in truth, there are countless links to this on google that discuss this precise topic. It is not something that I have made up, economics is firmly entrenched as what is known as a pseudoscience. Instead, you keep doubling down by discussing more economics and feigning condescension because I am not talking about economics. Rent, redistribution of wages, Chicago economist etc....LOL.......Are you kidding me? So when you are caught misrepresenting economic studies as objective and containing appropriate hypothesis testing, your response is to just keep spouting more principles stated in economics? What exactly do you THINK that we are discussing? What is the topic that you are trying to debate? It doesnt make any sense, because your responses have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic that I am discussing, and since I am the one that brought up this particular topic, I know full well what is the topic that I brought up. They say that when one is a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail, but you take that concept to a RIDICULOUS extreme. This is not a debate about economic principles, but you keep pretending that it is, acting as if you throw out yet one more economics principle, that somehow you have accomplished something. It is bizarre. How you think that you are coming across versus how you are TRULY coming across are miles apart.

Even if you reply with a hundred different economics principles, it still does NOTHING to disprove the notion that economics is classified as a soft or pseudoscience. If you are going to bother replying, PLEASE reply to the actual topic and not the delusion that is seemingly floating in your head. Your "hey look, a squirrel !" approach accomplishes nothing.


​

 

Economics is arguably the study of decision-making. It encompasses numerous disciplines, but with its original roots within philosophy and political economy. Now we know that your reasoning is a little sketchy on two levels. First, it is factual that scientists use econometric methods. Second, we're not talking about forecasting here (which actually is a sub-set of the discipline irrelevant to this discussion, be in macro modelling or specific empirical methodology such as VAR).

I'd always be suspicious of laws. The law of demand, for example, is no such thing (and easily broken, as shown yonks back by the likes of Veblen). We know, for example, that behaviour is endogenous. Corporate behaviour deteriorated with neoliberalism. Rent seeking intensified.

 

Your "I don't need economics in an economics debate" is not interesting. I've already smiled at your failure to acknowledge the use of econometrics in health. As you're not prepared to respond to the questions raised or critique any of the economics ideas provided, you're not going to convince. I'm sure you'd be a great salesman elsewhere mind you! God bless

 

Actually Unions are by nature extortionist, and relying on strogarm methods always produces corruption. When workers rights are strongest unions tend to disappear. There is a reason Unions have been in decline since the fifties and why well more than half of all union members in the US are employed by government at one level or the other

 

Try international comparison. Note where unions have been attacked, such as the UK. Note also the shift to a low wage equilbrium coupled with use of zero hour contracts.

 

How does that result in unions losing certification votes?

 

Why compare to something worse? The biggest problem labor has in most countries is stupid government policies that penalize wealth formation and creation and simultaneously limit worker choice and aspirations.

 

You've ignored the point. Its through international comparison that we can see substantial differences in union power (and activity). The UK has adopted neoliberalism, with Thatcherism severely curtailing union rights. The lesson is straightforward. It wipes out worker rights, as illustrated by the true nature of zero hour contracts.

 

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT SPECIFIC ECONOMICS PRINCIPLES, AND IT NEVER WAS. IT IS A DEBATE ABOUT ECONOMICS BEING RIGHFULLY CALLED A PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND HOW YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING ITS METHODS AS ADEQUATE HYPOTHESIS TESTING.

You are hopelessly confused.

 

You're still saying nothing. Of course a thread on unions will require the joint application of economic theory and empirical evidence. And of course, despite econometrics being a standard tool in scientific study, you're not able to offer any genuine critique.

 

You have helped me make my case. I criticize economics as gobbledy gook and you respond with gobbledy gook. I understand the desire to study the economy because the economy is important. But, like psychology it attempts to analyze human behavior which is unpredictable.

 

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT SPECIFIC ECONOMICS PRINCIPLES, AND IT NEVER WAS. IT IS A DEBATE ABOUT ECONOMICS BEING RIGHFULLY CALLED A PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND HOW YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING ITS METHODS AS ADEQUATE HYPOTHESIS TESTING.

You are hopelessly confused.

 

It's not my fault if you don't understand economics. If you did, you'd realise that the other fellow hasn't got a leg to stand on. Even his whinge about pseudoscience makes no sense, given sub-disciplines such as neuroeconomics (which integrates economic psychology and neuroscience). That of course also advertises your knowledge error

 

The gobbledy gook is not entertaining. Save it for someone else.

 

Just knowledge. Nothing obscure mind you. Neuroeconomics is well known stuff. Perhaps also add nudging into the mix to show the folly in your previous argument?

Economics? It's not for right wingers.

 

Tell that to Art Laffer and Milton Friedman.

 

Laffer managed to argue for tax increases (given he didn't realise his curve was multipeaked). Friedman managed to give us monetarism which artificially engineered the worst ever recession in Britain. Of course you also have Pinochet!

 

And you have utterly failed to falsify my claim.

 

Only if you want to ignore the evidence by sticking stinking cheese in your ears!

Thatcherism is a perfect case study. Unions were deliberately crucified. Look at the consequences!