Thread: Right wing wet dream

Originally Posted by RedWolf

And how long ago was this? Times have changed and we have laws in place now to prevent those kinds of things.

not for long.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/2...yssey=nav|head

At last the Missouri Republican General Assembly has come up with a great idea -- repeal the child labor laws.

This proposal not only allows the Republican Party to finally fly its true colors in all their gory (Oops, that should have been glory. Sorry.), but gives the GOP several ways to crow about it. I can hear them now in the campaigns of 2012.

after the republicans are finished busting the unions, they'll be coming after the labor laws next.

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan

Just before you go, thanks for the link.

I hope you read it with an open mind.

Originally Posted by highway234

not for long.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/2...yssey=nav|head



after the republicans are finished busting the unions, they'll be coming after the labor laws next.

If for some weird unexplainable reason politicians decide to try something like, you would have plenty of republicans standing against them. Unions served a purpose once upon a time. But with time came progression. Anyone who would actually try to worsen the labor conditions now for this country would face all kinds of hell from people.

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan

There are laws that cover those things now. At the moment there might be, but if the right has its way you'll lose them. Do you think you should lose them?

Do you see what you're saying in your final paragraph? Public sector workers, who are unionised, have better pay and conditions than private sector workers who are not unionised. What you are apparently calling for is for the public sector to become like the private sector, non-unionised and poorly remunerated. When that's done what's left? What's left is the removal of holidays, occupational heath and safety, pension schemes....See where it can go? That's why I created this thread so people could think about a nation with no unions and see what it would look like.

You only get 14 days vacation a year. That's criminal, but you could even lose that if the right gets its way.

Really??? Nobody is trying to take holidays, lower the minimum wage or compromise safety. I work for a private company with no union. I am payed well, get plenty of paid time off (which I usually don't use) and get 11 paid holidays a year.

I am also the safety officer for my company, and I constantly ensure all OSHA standards are met, plus above and beyond. My company paid for all employee safety equipment, and conducts safety training three times a month!

Fourteen paid days off a year, plus 11 holidays are plenty for the average person. The problem libs have with less time off is it means they have to actually work for a living!

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan

I read that paper from Sherk. Why do American companies have to pass on increased labour costs to consumers? Are they all mismanaged or something? Jeez no wonder you're on your knees economically, you've got idiots running your corporations.

You're proving yourself a simpleton.

A company's goal is to make money, and a well managed one makes as much money as possible. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that if a product costs more to produce, it will correspondingly be need to be sold at a higher price. This seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess for others this is just a complicated concept.

Businesses set their prices to make the most money, since this is in fact their purpose. The optimum, or the equlibrium price, is set where the supply and demand intersects in order to avoid either a surplus or shortage. If the price is set too high, the company will experience a surplus. If the price is set too low, the company will experience a shortage.

How does increased production effect supply and demand? The supply will move up (, or left depending on how you look at it).

You can see in the chart how increased production effects the price. S0 represents the original supply; St represents the supply after the union is implemented. You should be able to see why a business has to raise prices when production costs increase, but I won't take anything for granted .

Let's pretend for a second that an idiot business were to keep it's price the same. In the above supply-demand example, that would mean leaving it at P0. If you were to translate the price of P0 to the supply of St, you can see there would be excess demand. In other words, the company wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. It would experience a shortage and would sell a fewer quantity as well. This not only negatively impacts the business in reduced profits, but also consumers.

This shortage situation happened in the Dirty South in the gasoline market a few years ago. A hurricane broke a gas line, which significantly reduced the supply of gas in the southern states. Gas stations did not adjust, and kept gas prices the same. The result was a shortage. People couldn't get to work, because they're wasn't any gas. Other's just lined up for days waiting for the next shipment. If you were alive in the '70s, you should remember gas lines that were the result of price fixing by the federal government.

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan

Right wing wet dream

An economy without unions to represent workers. Now what would that look like?

i was so expecting PAB and Hasselbeck in a photoshopped demotivational poster.

this thread is such a tease!

Originally Posted by ian

12 year old chldren were doing 14 hour shifts in coal mines before unions.

Apples to oranges.

You don't really think without unions or government regulations that 12 year old children would still be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines? I hope not, because that would be a long explanation - one in which you would doubtfully read.

Originally Posted by cloppbeast

Apples to oranges.

You don't really think without unions or government regulations that 12 year old children would still be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines? I hope not, because that would be a long explanation - one in which you would doubtfully read.

The only reason this practise was stopped was because the unions fought to do so, it is a sad fact that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. Do you really think big corporations which react only to shareholder price give a toss about people? They are entities created solely to maximise profit, welfare of human beings does not enter into their decision making process.

Originally Posted by ian

The only reason this practise was stopped was because the unions fought to do so, it is a sad fact that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. Do you really think big corporations which react only to shareholder price give a toss about people? They are entities created solely to maximise profit, welfare of human beings does not enter into their decision making process.

Caring about people does not instigate good policy.

Originally Posted by ian

The only reason this practise was stopped was because the unions fought to do so, it is a sad fact that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. Do you really think big corporations which react only to shareholder price give a toss about people? They are entities created solely to maximise profit, welfare of human beings does not enter into their decision making process.

You didn't answer my question:

Do really think without unions or government regulations that 12 year old children would still be working 14 hour shifts in coal mines?