• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can't believe this police union's viewpoint

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
That is what unions do. It is not what is good for the country, state or municipality. It is about increasing the benefits to their membership.

Shame on the judge. All lives matter. He should have rendered his decision on facts, not emotion.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Everybody wants more money, but not higher prices.

One follows the other like sunset follows sunrise.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Everybody wants more money, but not higher prices.

One follows the other like sunset follows sunrise.

In the late 1800's in this nation, real prices actually fell.

More people increased their wealth because productivity actually rose. More goods faster meant real prices fell. The coal miner actually achieved higher wages through higher productivity (although perhaps not in his own sector.)

Prices vs wages is not a zero-sum game. Increased productivity can literally lead to reduced prices.

Here's how that works. Stand by for a counter-intuitive declaration.

The entire economy runs on the principle "high bid wins." Huh!?!?!? Hogwash, Citizen!! Hold on, hold on. I'll explain.

Say I'm a farmer. Its March. I look at my fields; I have an abundance of dirt, but a scarcity of green beans. I get busy planting, cultivating, weeding, fertilizing, etc. I harvest my green beans and head to market. I drive to market and the Birdseye rep offers me 10 cents a bushel. The Green Giant rep offers me 11 cents a bushel. The Del Monte rep offers me 12 cents a bushel. To whom am I going to sell my green beans? You bet--Del Monte, the highest bidder.

But, Citizen!?! What about when I hire a roofer to replace my roof? Same thing. The price on the roofer's bids is not the bid. The amount of work the roofer bids is the bid. Like the farmer, my dollars are my green beans. How much work is each roofer willing to give me in exchange for how many of my green beans (dollars)? Roofer Jones will do the whole job for $1600. Roofer Smith wants $1800 for the whole thing. Roofer Smith is essentially saying that for $1600 he will only do part of the job, whereas Roofer Jones is saying he will do the whole job. Roofer Jones is offering me more work for $1600 than Smith. The amount of work and materials is the bid.

So, you see? The whole economy runs on "high bid wins."

The thing that drives up prices long term and broadly--not short term; any commodity can go up and down short term--the thing that drives up prices long term and broadly is the supply of money in the system. Money is just like any other commodity--the more there is, the less its worth (make a note of that; certainly the bankers have). The reason for price inflation is not increased wages or even increased productivity. The reason for long term, broad price inflation is the manufacturing of money. The people with the newly-manufactured money have more of it (government contractors) and can offer higher bids.

Raising wages does not automatically lead to increased prices. I can--and have--increased the value of my productivity without forcing my employer to raise prices. Across one twenty-year period, I steadily increased my value to my employer by becoming more skilled and more efficient, and received pay increases. That employer did raise prices, but those price increases were not coincident with my pay raises.
More recently, I received a significant pay increase without my employer raising his prices a penny. I simply demonstrated (without saying a word or asking) that my production was worth way more. That is to say, my employer did the calculations and realized that even if they raised my pay, they were still making a profit--because my productivity out-paced even a significant raise in pay.

So, increased wages and increased prices do not correlate. Productivity can go up, creating more valuable products in the same unit of time, for example the late Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s in this country. Prices actually fell, causing literally a rise in real wages, value of. On the other hand, increases in the supply of money cause price inflation--those people and businesses who first receive the newly-manufactured money have more to bid.

This is all very, very important. Remember where, above, I said bankers certainly understand that money is just a commodity? Buddy, you had better understand this superficial level of economics at least as well as your adversary, or you've had it. You've got to understand it at least as well as the guy taking advantage of you. To the degree you don't, he's got the advantage of you, and can get away with whatever you don't understand. Reader, if you have the least question, please do not hesitate to ask. It really is monumentally important.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Everybody wants more money, but not higher prices.

One follows the other like sunset follows sunrise.

In the late 1800's in this nation, real prices actually fell.

--snipped--
While I understand what you are saying, the part snipped, there is still a major point to be made in my remark.

Interesting that you went as far back as the 1800's to find an example that suited your purpose. No solid, ongoing examples that demonstrate the opposite of my loosely worded contention?

The Great Depression fits my criteria. You couldn't sell your green beans for but a fraction of what they brought yesterday, but you had to get more to pay for your roof 'cause the contractor needed more in order to buy green beans. All of that ignores other causation and is an over simplification, but the shoe still fits.

On a more localized scale, I have seen personally where a union (PSA in Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co) demanded and got pay rate increases after strikes. Merchants, (especially restaurants and other industries affected by the strikes) wanted to have their share of the pie and consequently raised their prices in part to recover some of the missed income that was lost while the strikes were in progress. The domino effect was set in motion in 1967, 1979, and 1999.

IMO - the shipyard union members never really gained a thing after factoring in the length of time needed to recover the lost wages and then paying higher prices after.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2004-05-30/business/0405300002_1_shipyard-work-stoppage-workers
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In 1972 the GM Norwood Ohio assembly plant had a strike that lasted 174-day. From the raise they got due to the strike, it would take almost 2 years to earn back what they lost while being on strike. The plant closed in 1987. Those same workers were upset that they could not find jobs at half the hourly rate they were making.

The assembly workers really had no skills. They were good at putting the same bolt in the same bolt hole all day long. GM started retraining classes that failed. These guys believed they were entitled to an inflated hourly wage for no skills.

Of course as long as we all continue to live in fantasy land using worthless federal reserve notes, dept instruments, we will never really accumulate true wealth.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Interesting that you went as far back as the 1800's to find an example that suited your purpose.

I picked that period because that was the last sustained period in American history where the economy went well largely on its own without massive distortions from central banks, war, government interference, etc. Note that there was no central bank (Federal Reserve) at that time.

The Federal Reserve was founded in 1913. Notice that we've been saddled with recurring booms and busts ever since. The booms come from excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve and its member banks through the issue of credit (loans). The money goes into a particular sector (like housing ala 2003-2008), that sector booms artificially, then crashes and we get a recession. With the Federal Reserve playing its game, the American economy will never have a chance to stabilize and actually out-produce the price inflation caused by so much manufactured money from the Federal Reserve and its member banks.
 
Last edited:
Top