OlasDAlmighty said:
Sorry, I can't cut it up like you did. That is way too complicated at this point, so you'll have to excuse my way of representing this. That is why I don't typically like to cut stuff up, personally. The points are in order of your responses, to simplify.
Point 1:
The issue isn't that they aren't making acceptable wages. The issue they can't deal with is loss aversion, which is simply human nature. All wages are relative to what your wage history is. There is not a definitive number for acceptable for any group, but unions make that number as high as they can so they get more money. Some unions take wages well beyond what the union members make. My buddies father was a union electrician. He was making about $35 an hour back in the 80's. But the unions was getting about $45 an hour for him, meaning that he was representing a total wage of $80 an hour, most of which was taken by the union itself.
Point 2:
Comparing Democracy to Communism, that of course make Democracy perfect in comparison, but we are once again talking reference points, which is the primary thing that keeps people from being rational in any given situation. I would invite you to read
Democracy: The God that Failed as a start. I would also invite you to look at out democracy and tell me how perfect it is and in what way. We are of course getting into the realm of opinion and not fact. But just as a point of reference, Democracy isn't by default the best, and especially not here in America. It's a highly idealized system of government, but it's probably not the be all/end all of political systems. The problem is that it ignores individuals, like unions do. There are socioeconomic political systems that in theory, respect and enforce the individual, such as anarcho-capitalism. In a democracy, the individual is crushed under the wants and desires of their peers. It's the same in the union environment. Just because you get to vote, you have the illusion of choice, but in democracy, one voice is completely inconsequential. If people were rational beings, one voice could sway a crowd, but as it stands, a crowd is far more likely to sway one voice.
Point 3:
To return to my beehive analogy, you are right, they don't fight among themselves. But like minded members of a society do not fight among themselves either. They do fight with other sectors of society who don't have the same goals as they do, however. As one colony of bees competes with other colonies of bees. Union people don't fight among themselves, but they do fight with the rest of society. The queen asks of her workers less than society asks of workers? This is not so. They know no other way, but the queen demands all of their work and that they sacrifice themselves if need be for the hive. And the workers do not have a choice at all. But, they don't have free will. Truthfully, bees are much more rational the people.
But, back to business. The truth is, CEO's are over payed. They don't affect a company as much as they believe, as explained by Leonard Mlodinow in
The Drunkards Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives . This was also expanded on in Danial Kahneman's works. Essentially, the ups and downs in a company as compared to actions of the CEO matches random chance and not skill based activity.
The reason why CEO's are payed so much though is because of transparency. Years ago, the government stepped in and said that CEO pay has to be public. The idea is that if people know about it, the CEO's won't do it. But as Dan Ariely discovered in his research, when people know their dishonest actions are public, they are even more dishonest. And while people try to adjust for knowing someone is being dishonest, they don't ever adjust enough. Not that CEO's are exclusively dishonest, but it's hard to argue they are worth what they are payed as they are not displaying skill as much as random chance of success or failure. But, it's because of transparency that CEO salaries are far far larger than they used to be.
Point 3:
It's not acceptable for me, personally, that if my co workers are unhappy about something but I'm fine with it, that they make me not work because of it. Any sane man would choose employment over unemployment. But Mobs are not rational. They are completely irrational and as such, make choices which they believe benefits them at the time.
Point 4:
Any economist will tell you that reallocation of resources to a place where they can be better utilized is a good move. But there must be places for these people to go to utilize their skills and make a living. If such a a place existed they would have simply left Hostess for the better job, but they instead chose to picket Hostess. No economist would tell you that the loss of 18000+ jobs is a good thing. But, standard economic models are also based off the idea of the rational agent model. It assumes people are rational and will make choices that benefit both themselves and society. But people are not rational and will only make choices that seem good at the time and will not apply rational logic to the situation. An heroine addict will do anything for that next high when the pain of withdraw comes, even if it's better for both them and society if they break the cycle they live in and not get high.
Point 5:
I now that N-E drove this one home pretty well, but I'll reiterate it. You do not have to join a union when you there is a job that is held by union people. You don't have to get embroiled at all. But you must pay union dues and you must go by union contract. But they aren't holding a gun to your head. You don't need to be protected by the union, as you won't be because you are not a union member. You are also free of having any say at all in negotiations and talks about your job and contract. I do not blame people for wanting to be apart of that structure. Union members prosper far above people who are held down by market forces. Most people do not have the personal or emotional fortitude to turn down positions like that when they are offered.
Ronald Reagan said that to get the votes of union workers. And he himself was terrible in the sense that his campaign promises were mere fabrication, as history shows. One of the biggest lies he told was America being free of foreign oil dependence. When he was elected, America imported 45% of it's oil from OPEC nations. When he left the presidency that number went up to about 65%. This was just one of many lies he told. I wouldn't quote that guy if you payed me money to.
I feel like this needs to be said: I'm thoroughly enjoying our debate. I have not meant anything as attacking. I just wanted to say that as I know these things can become heated.
No wonder they are going out of bussiness with garbage like this I'm surprised anyone ever bought any of their stuff
