Yeah, except that in reality there have been and still are working examples of people voluntarily being able to join unions.
So I’m not sure why you’re so sure you’re right when the real world contradicts your predictions.
1,788 karma · joined April 25, 2011
So I’m not sure why you’re so sure you’re right when the real world contradicts your predictions.
>How is it a bad idea for the union members?
The paradox of this question is that you have to be a union member to get the job. If you have to be a member to work, then you must take what the union will give you and you must pay the union its dues. How is the union incentivized to keep dues down if you have to pay them? How is it incentivized to keep pay up, if you have to pay them?
>Cause the alternative is no union at all.
I’m not sure I follow. You’re saying that unions provide so little value to members that they wouldn’t voluntarily join the union given the option? I would have to agree with you.
>And how, exactly, does the employer being able to choose if they want a union not lead to abuse?
I’m just not sure what you mean here. Can people be abused if they don’t have unions? Can people be abused if they do have unions. Yes and yes.
Again, I get that voluntarily unions can have value, but being forced into a union has little value since there is NO motivation for a union to provide any value when your membership is mandatory.
Imagine if you had to pay Netflix a monthly due just because you had a TV. How hard do you think would Netflix work to get you the best programming it could deliver?
Answer: Not very hard. Sure maybe this alternative world Netflix started with good intentions...if every person who had a TV was forced to pay them money, Netflix could do great things...but then, after a while, the great things stop coming and people keep paying. There is no inducement for performance so performance will decline. These are immutable realities.
So mock my limited, yet actual, experience while you arm chair philosophize about how many people unions have helped in your imagination.
It’s a voluntary system. Anything else is just tyranny.
I’ve only ever had one union job (at a young age) and that told me everything I need to know about unions.
Ultimately if you’re not getting paid what you’re worth, that’s on you. Or you’re wrong about what you’re worth.
I guess our difference is that I’d rather myself to blame for poor negotiating than some union boss, making twice what I make, telling me what I’ll be getting with no ability to negotiate.
I have and my experience was that you will never get paid what you’re worth - if you’re talented.
So if you want to argue that people with less talent can make more money with unions, I would agree... in the short run.
Eventually talent will seek other means and leave the unionized industries. The brain drain will have two negative results, reduced overall productivity and a union demanding more and more for its members who produce less and less.
Ultimately, the company produces worse product and recieves less revenue. Less money to pay the hungry union members who demand even more.
Finally the company says fuck this and moves its production to another country where people will work harder for less.
The whole thing will be blamed on corporate greed and will be used as a rallying call to socialism. ‘Cause that’ll fix it.
It sounds like a bad idea for everyone except the union leaders, but I’ve seen other non-union based agreements like this where companies completely outsourced HR.
As a Union leader though, I now have a rather captive audience where I serve as the gatekeeper to any job someone might want at the company and gatekeeper to any employee the company might want. That seems like a recipe for abuse.
Low and behold, there are lots of examples of abuse by union leaders which a quick google search will show.
1) Does your union represent you as talent or just by your seniority?
2) How much more (or less if you're talented) do you make now because you're unionized?
3) How much are you forced to PAY to the union for the privilege of having your job?
First, when one human kills another human, it's either a legally justified killing or murder. The majority of policy killings are justified and not murder. So that's "what else" anyone who understand the law and the English language would call it...unless you're just trying to stir things up with rhetoric. In that case you'd just use whatever word generates the most outrage ignoring the fact that you've used the word wrong.
As to your second question, I would call that murder. I would absolutely blame the person who called in the swatting, and depending on what happened I would blame the police.
Every police shooting has different circumstances. You can't lump them into one bucket and pass judgement.
There are very few instances of police murdering someone. I never claimed it doesn't happen, but "And since police murders in the US are so common" is just outright incorrect.
Also note, you used the word “murder” wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?
That is a big claim that requires adequate proof to which none was offered.
Besides click bait articles which attempt to suggest everything is caused by GW, there is actually very little evidence to suggest we seen any detrimental effects of GW so far.
"All men are create equal" doesn't mean all people are equal. In fact, we know all people aren't created equal either. Rather, it's the law that must see all people as equal for the purpose of justice.
For the purposes of a doctor, I get what he's saying too, but I would argue that the quality of the patient does matter and that discrimination is good.
Consider, an ambulance roles up to a car accident. The drunk driver that caused the accident killed a mother. The drunk and the woman's 12 y/o child both need emergency care. There is another ambulance 20 minutes out. Who should that first ambulance take to the hospital?
If you say the drunk, I don't want to live in your world.
One more thing. The article states "All people deserve respect". I grew up being told respect is earned, so I can't agree with his sentiment. Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different.
They don’t seem to understand how those two things are mostly incompatible.
Basically, if you’re a flat earther you’re pro brexit and trump. Because “experts” in political science said brexit and trump are bad and you ignored them, you must also be the type of person who ignores hard facts.
It’s a subtle (or not so subtle) put down for anyone who’s politics is right of left.
“Libertarian Socialist”
“Anarcho Communists”
None of this makes sense and I can’t help feel like someone just made this up because it sounded good when they where high.
Not according to the author...
“IQ scores are a measure of a person’s intellectual ability, not the limit of their intellectual potential.”
If the author is right, a mentally disabled person with a IQ of 80 can be a Nobel prize winning physicist, if they only applied themselves.
Which is why I think this author is wrong on all counts.
As you said, he seems to want it both ways...first to say there is no IQ difference, they saying all differences stem from environmental variables which we know to affect races disproportionately.
I’ve played in other company’s ecosystems twice and went out of business both times when I got the boot. One doesn’t actually have a business when relying on another party’s ecosystem, it’s just an illusion. An illusion that ends suddenly and with no recourse.
Questions like: Should I continue to invest in this platform or start moving my viewers elsewhere?
Personally, if I had a following, I’d be getting my branded media site up and running. I’d continue to post teaser content to YouTube, but host my full content on servers I control.
Good ideas come from good people who are a good fit for their role.
Without meritocracy, how do we discriminate? How do we allocate resources?
Do we just fill the ranks with the prescribed amount of identities? Will any warm body do, given they have the right identity? Or do we pick someone with the right indentity based on how much favor they’ve curried?
I’ve also built code generators for myself.
All that said, reading Jordan Peterson’s book has increased my opinion of the Bible and the knowledge about the human condition that it contains, but as an allegory, not a literal history.
Theological debates usually end up with the creationist position being that belief without proof equals faith, there for proof is not desired.
Science is skepticism, religion is unquestionable; the two are opposites.
My assumption is UBI is tax free OR UBI is taxable income but the first $12,000 of income is tax free. Same difference, different language.
Your assumption would be that UBI is taxible...like SS is now. That’s a garbage policy.
If I recall, Rand Paul’s tax plan was that a person filing singly would not be taxed on their first 40K of income. Just about double that for filing jointly. Then there’s a 16% flat tax, no deductions. I personally liked that plan.
300,000,000 - US population
$12,000 - Your UBI amount
Total cost: 3.6 trillion dollars.
Projected US tax collection for 2019: 3.4 trillion. That’s not the US budget, just the amount not borrowed to pay for the budget.
Cost of social programs that UBI would replace (in theory): 2.3 trillion. (SS, Medicare, other). I don’t think UBI could replace SS though.
So you need to increase tax revenues about 33% if you look at it in the most favorable way.
Then, when the bottom falls out for those who needed the full benifit of the programs you replaced, you will either bring those programs back or increase the UBI payment for everyone, which is easy to do because we’d just vote ourselves more money, because money is free.
This is Poe’s law at its finest. I really can’t tell if the author is trolling.
While I realize addicts might be victims of circumstance and not just victims of their own bad choices, at some point we have to prioritize safety.
Are parks for tax payers and their children to enjoy the outdoors safely or are they a place to shoot up? It’s an either or proposition because the two can’t coexist.
Likewise, does systematic tolerance of homelessness yield more homelessness?
Seems like condoning these behaviors encourages more of the same, while at the same time allowing those who partake to push the envelope even further.
Anyone have insight on this? I couldn’t find any studies that measure exactly what I’d like to measure.
Your opinion about fraud is also unsupported. Even the author conceeds she didn’t read the contract, nor did she express any understanding of how her interest rate is set.
Frankly, she still doesn’t seem to understand the basics of how loans work.
“I will have paid nearly $170,000 to my original $95,000 loan.”
The above quote is meant to express her outrage, but it’s meaningless. She’s missing the time component.
I pity her and I think the student loan business is in a terrible state, just remember who the politicians were who got us here and what they said these laws were for.
The road to hell is surely paved with good intentions. Which is why it’s better think selfishly rather than altruistically.