Um.. the spending cuts in FY 2012 are only $21 billion out of $3.6 trillion, or less than 1%. That's going to create a 1.75% drag on the economy?

There's an underlying union issue, but this bill doesn't deal with that. The ransom is the cuts in funding to rural airports only in Dem states.

I don't know much of anything about the National Mediation Board, but I'll gladly say that I think unionization raises standards of living for the working class. As with any institution there are problems, but there needs to be some balancing force against the downward pressure from management.

1 misspoke...it was 1.5%. And it's not necessarily about the spending cuts (as I said) - it's about the whole response to the recession.

Economics Web Note

Maybe we can give that expert $25 billion more in TARP money. I love how throughout the last decade, especially recently, all of these economic "experts" miss everything that actually happens but are still so able to predict the future. Quite a job, I guess weather forecasting school was already full.

Yes, I'm sure you'll complain when my thousands in gains are taxed and the idiots spend that money too. I'm sure it will go to something far less morally reprehensible than my revenue-increasing endeavors solely created by the 'leader(s)' that the American public elected.

Agreed. Unions have become a national embarrassment.

Wish I could disagree on the unions (seeing as I am in one, quite a big one in the Democrats eyes) but I think it is bullshit the NEA exists for any purpose outside of local bargaining and to protect its members from frivolous lawsuits. Anything else they do (and there is a laundry list) is not in the best interest of a lot of members of its constituency. Our district is supposedly open shop but with a 90+% member rate and hard pressure from co-workers and union thugs it really isn't.

I don't really care how much money you make. I'm just going to call you out when you want to present yourself as concerned about what the deficit will do to Americans and also cheer when you get to take money from "stupid people". You're concerned with your bank account, which is fine, but you can't present yourself as a defender of American's financial security.

It is funny when people who claim to be for free markets complain about unions. I guess what they mean is free markets for one side and not the other.

Yeah. If we get rid of unions, stop unemployment benefits, make the bottom half pay more in income taxes, cut Medicare, and cut Social Security, prosperity will be just around the corner!

Obama and the Congress = Morons.

America = Stupider morons.

We are now employees of Corporate America we just don't receive any income.

I assume this is aimed at MBBF? Otherwise you are completely misinformed. I am in a union. I think it serves a great purpose in local bargaining. It does not serve a great purpose when it lobbies Congress and the state legislature on issues that are not shared by all districts. The district I teach in is often screwed money-wise by other poorer districts within Missouri due to the agreements between the NEA and state legislators. Don't really think that is the purpose of a union, do you?

That seems to be an issue between you and your union. They aren't representing your interests.

No shit. Just like most unions do. I know plenty of people in the UAW (in fact I guess 100% of the people who were fired here due to handshake deal in Detriot) who can explain why the AFL-CIO is just a political tool of the Democratic party. I guess only people who vote Democratic should work those types of jobs?

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

Using your collective power to negotiate a better deal is apparently extortion. Remind yourself that next time you hear someone demand a raise or they'll quit.

Employers are free to pay whatever they want. They are free to fire employees whenever they want for practically any reason they want in most states. But if an employee wants to negotiate better pay, that's wrong.

Sorry, free markets work both ways. Company has a right to pay what they want and employees have a right to work for what they want. Sort of sad to see people only want the free markets to work for one side.

Again, that's a problem between the Union and its members. If they aren't looking out for your interests, people should vote in new leadership or not be a part of that union.

Of course they would lobby politicians and particular parties. Companies do this all the time. But again, seems like a case of free markets for one side but not the other.

At one point in my life I worked for Proctor & Gamble. They lobbied for all sorts of shit I found objectionable, but that didn't make me think corporations should be abolished.

I also learned nobody there has a sense of humor about satanism.

Explain to me how industries merging into a oligopolies in any way shape or form represent what "the market can bear"? How many ISPs do you get a choice for in any market? Cell phone providers? Airlines? Rental cars? Heck, right down to how many companies make cereal or detergent when you go to a store?

It's really strange to me that all those things end up having very similar if not identical prices. And one would think that if there were a bit more competition, there would be more choices and more prices. Smells a lot like collusion to me.

Odd coincidence, that?

But if a few employees want to try to stick together, that's the free market getting abused more how?

SI

That's not even a fair analogy because there is almost an unlimited supply of labor. There are limited companies to choose from in an industry. So his views are even more hypocritical.

The problem is at many places you better be a part of the union or crap starts happening to you and your stuff.

Sadly, I think Unions and their political power became more necessary with Citizens United, since it's now established law that the only kind of political speech that really matters is $$$$ and individuals can't hope to compete with corporations unless they pool their resources.

My action as an investor didn't affect America's financial security one bit. I merely made the obvious statement that a bunch of non-leaders in Washington who are an embarrassment to our country made it so obvious that a downturn in the stock market was inevitable that you'd be a fool if you hadn't made a large chunk of change over this past ten days. If the idiots in charge had an iota of intelligence, these opportunities wouldn't be available. But I guess it's easier to blame me than the idiots who are the real problem. Not surprising to see it. Blaming others is the reason politicians put us in this predicament.

Heh. I wonder how many people are actually old enough to get that joke anymore.

And yet this strong faith in meritocracy and entreprenuership doesn't manifest itself in reality, no? Don't you work for a publically owned utility (I may be off - I recall a thread here from you on that regard)? Is it what's good for the goose not good for the gander?


Don't get me wrong - I thing union power in things like education is beyond the pale, and weaker unions would be a good thing overall in the public sector - but it seems somewhat hypocritical for you to complain about this.

I don't know that this has nearly as much to do with unions (or lack thereof) though. By contrast, I'd say it could be more illustrative of a larger dynamic which Bucc was touching on...the higher cost of US labor coupled with the higher standard of living US citizens expect.

If you look at utility companies, ISPs, rental car companies, cereal companies, etc. they all have to use US labor to produce or deliver their product or service, to varying degrees. So, I don't think its any mystery why their pricepoints and business models force them to consolidate to the extent possible so as to reduce (expensive) redundant labor. Given the increasing level of outsourcing of educated positions as well, you're looking at less capable consumers of these products & services...thus driving down their cost to what the consumer market can/will pay. The vicious circle, if you will. (I might argue the cereal example, though, as I believe the costs are much more varied across brands and there is competition there)

Now, its a bit of a sensitive topic but...should a US worker expect to be better paid than a worker in another country? Why should they? I'd argue that they/we aren't entitled to such higher pay but we should be earning it. If that makes sense, then I believe the next logical question is how?

The "how" part is where we need vision & strategy. 2 things our government cannot do because we have knuckleheads at the federal level debating social programs that should be (imho) debated at the state or community level. I firmly hold that if we get these things (to the extent possible) out of the house & senate talking points warfare then the debate is more about ideas for national policies like energy, defense, and technology advancement...and how the US is able to excel at each of these against our competitors and enemies alike.

Wait wait wait wait wait - I thought raising the debt ceiling, even without actual reform was going to AVOID economic catastrophe?

I knew I should not have brought up unions when partisan emotions are running so high - Sorry. It is truly a bias that I have (we all have such things). I am not being hypocritical either. There are no unions, that I am aware of, in my company. The only ones in the whole municipal structure I know of are police and fire. Everyone is and should be an at-will employee, just like most everyone is in my field (IT). If I do not like my pay, my workload or the people I work with/for, I am very much free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. If my experience and skills are in demand, then I would work for someone that wants to hire me. In other words, there is no obligation or right for my (or any) company to keep me employed. Just like I have the freedom to not to choose to work here anymore. If I have not gotten any pay increases (let alone raises) for 3 years (as I have and even net has gone down with increased medical contributions), then it is my choice whether to remain here under those conditions or to go somewhere else. It is unfathomnable to me for any single or group of employees to demand job security and higher wages when a free market does not give you the right to such, esp. over the past few years - only the right to seek higher wages elsewhere. There is an unlimited supply of potential employees in a limited market of employers. The best companies will hire the best employees but I have not chosen to go to such companies because I value other priorities more highly. So I am content staying here with no raises and declining net pay. I am expendable, you are expendable but you are also free to become a free agent if you think you are good enough to get more money (I do not favor long-term contracts in sports). And really the reality that I have to keep working on my skills if I want to stay employed because I can be replaced (they have that right if I am underskilled for my pay scale). Freedom (and free markets) gives you the opportunity to succeed but it also has the mechanisms for failure - they are in proportion of each other. (Finally, regarding our free market economy, we demand low prices as the common benefit to us all, esp. those in the lower income brackets.) Just to be clear, a safety culture is also critical and no one should have to work under unsafe working conditions.

That's all fine and good as to your beliefs, but the question of why a supposed free market would frown on a bunch of free market actors joining together for better bargaining power would be objectionable.

Yah, unions try to exert political force, but this isn't exactly a pure free market and business are doing the same thing on their benefit.

And what if they are not able to get their demands met? Should they then hold the company hostage? Should they hold the US economy hostage (to exaggerate a bit)?


Yeah I know. I do react strongly against the political power the labor unions have had in this county for many, many decades (and many examples to the detriment of the rank/file - e.g., pensions, racketeering). Democrats will not speak out against unions, whether good or bad, because they are a voting bloc, so that's given in an argument like this.

This is why I think the union and oligopoly argument goes hand in hand. Aren't AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint basically "holding consumers hostage" as there are only a couple of providers? United, America, Delta (you even have Southwest but they just bought out the other "low cost" carrier in Airtran to avoid competition). Again, it's no coincidence that the providers all offer service within a few percentage points of each other.

Now let's flip this toward workers. I'm sure no one is going to prevent AT&T from buying out T-Mobile. AT&T will buy them out and significantly cut that workforce so there are more unemployed telecom workers. If you're a telecom worker- that's one less place where you can market your skills to. You've went from only 4 places (so, again, an artificial cap on your value) to 3.

At the end of the day, the consumer loses with higher prices. The workers have one less competitor for their wages. And we wonder why our standard of living is going down. There needs to be some sort upward pressure on wages by workers and allowing them to band together as a force seems like a valid way to do this.

As I see it, you're saying it's ok for companies to band together but not workers? I just don't understand.

SI

The idea of a union may be fine, but they've served their purpose in most industries (safer working conditions primarily) and are now finding things to justify their existence that are getting in the way. When it requires a union guy to PLUG SOMETHING INTO AN OUTLET, things have become absurd, let alone the higher level issues discussed here.

Should a company fire a bunch of employees if their profits are down?

I don't care about unions in any political way. In fact, I've defended what the Governor did up in Wisconsin rather strongly (and took shit on it here from people). I'm more defending the free market idea to work both ways. If companies can hire/fire people at will based on their own interests, an employee should be able to work based on their own interests. I would support a union negotiating for a better deal in the same way I'd support you walking into your boss' office and demanding a better salary and telling them you'll walk without it.

I don't know. I look at teachers in many states that work in an oversaturated market getting decent salaries, pensions, and other benefits. I'd say the unions do a damn good job in that regard.

And we're unable to fire the bad ones...

Not responding to anyone specific, just commenting on unions in general...

I think there's a need/place for unions in some industries, but, not all industries. The main problem I have with unions is, they cater to the lowest common denominator of employee. Plus, the 1950s/1960s union mentality needs a serious upgrade. I've never understood why it always has to be so contentious between labor and management, when both should be striving for the same goal, which is keeping the company viable so you can continue to pay its employees, give bonuses, grow the company, etc...

Well, there are a lot of reasons for pricing within range of each other. Part of that is because they have similar costs & scaling efficiencies; while the other is that their rates are harder to keep private these days. I can tell you on the telecom front...they do not hang out and discuss pricing strategies and in fact, I can say that there is a lot of discussion of what the "other guy" is doing which has little collusion (more like spying).


Absolutely. I'm a fan of competition as it is not just competition for consumers, but competition for workers as well. This has benefited me first hand as well.



I am not personally against the concept of organized labor negotiation.

My only issue is what we've seen practically with things like the auto industry. The large unions tend to form as a counter measure to large corporations/industries when there is an established practice of work. The problem here is that we see concessions given over time to unions that are not financially sustainable just to keep business going. As a result with any massive and unsustainable entity/industry in the US... "too big to fail" factor kicks in and both the union AND the corporation are thereby rewarded for screwing things up because we're reminded how hard they work, how tough the fallout would be to other ancillary businesses, etc, etc, etc.

Take that up with the politicians who put that deal in place. I think everyone here would love to negotiate their own job in a way that they couldn't be fired.

We certainly don't want to encourage education.

Debt ceiling deal to hit grad students hard - Aug. 1, 2011

Isn't that one of the consequences of freedom of association? Of course the company can try to fire all of them.

Best pithy summation of the debt deal that I have heard: We have decided that protecting entitlements is so important that we are going to scrap all of the programs that will help us to grow the economy enough to let us keep paying for the entitlements.

Basically, I don't blame the politicians here for giving the people what they want. I blame the people for wanting such stupid stuff. By making SS/Medicare untouchable, the people have decided that defense, infrastructure, and education will go by the wayside. There are not words for how shortsighted this thinking is. But people are shortsighted. And there isn't a politician out there who will try to talk them out of it.

I can't wait till we are complaining even more about other countries kicking our ass in science.

I'd be all for the German model where employees have seats on corporate boards. I think that would help build a partnership.

I'm okay with this. If I understand it correctly, the cuts are to students in graduate (e.g. post BA) program and the savings ensures Pell grants continues (for lower income kids) in undergrad programs.

I fully believe we should help all students into college or vocational/trade school. After the initial 2-4 years, I'm good with the student being responsible for his own education.

It's important to remember that in many of those situations the trade off was lower salaries for higher benefits. It was only when the company/state stopped funding the pensions at the rate promised that there were problems. NJ is a perfect example. If Whitman and her successors hadn't raided the NJ state pension fund Christie wouldn't have needed to deal so harshly with public employee unions.

I think conventional wisdom says there is some truth in this but would suggest that this is not true in all (e.g. the automotive industry pre-bankruptcy).

I haven't thought too much about the union/capitalism discussion, however I am in the HR systems field and have worked with HR management.

There maybe niche space where unions are still needed, but IMO a pilot, flight attendant, teacher etc. unions are not needed.

After seeing what I've seen happen with a relative's Pell Grant money, you might want to re-think that, at least vis a vis Pell (apparently Pell doesn't do a very good job of taking other funding into consideration, so it becomes essentially "mad money")

In this instance (the changes mentioned in the article) the gov't did what gov't seems to be good at: putting money where it will accomplish the least amount possible.

This is always the case to some extent. But the key is sustainable.

That doesn't sound too bad actually. I don't know anything about the German model, but, does it seem to cut down on the management vs labor struggle?

It's called Co-determination and was started in (West) Germany shortly after WWII.

Co-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you(or anyone else) get to determine when a union isn't needed? Why shouldn't workers have the right to band together to get better salaries and benefits?

Interesting. Thanks for the link. That is definitely a different way to go about things, don't think that corporations would be too big of fans for it here though. :)

I agree that it should be free market on both sides...but then we should be letting them fail as well when they create unsustainable benefits that collapse their company or industry as a result of their negotiations.

The problem is that the information as to the true condition of companies is kept from the workers. That's why I favor the German model. I think workers are more likely to agree to sacrifices if they are a part of the decision making process. I know I'd be skeptical if the college president said we needed to fire ten percent of faculty but refused to show anyone real budget numbers.

My main beefs are their political force (as oppose to collectivicism) and using strike actions, and I agree with Wisconsin too.

I also agree with JPhillips on the model of Germany's co-determinism.

When you phrase it that way, sure the answer is simple. Lets talk about the cons (and pros) of unions.

Pick a union from one of my 3 examples and lets have the detailed discussion.

I don't see why a strike would be bad. They don't feel that the cost of their labor is appropriate, so why would they continue to work under it? People should be free to work for what they want to.

No, people should be free to able to sell their value in the labor force. That's not the same things as being able to demand compensation above minimum wage from one employer. I don't recall your line of work but I cannot (and should not) be able to tell my boss I want a raise and better benefits and then not show up for work until I get those.

Actually you should be able to. Just as your boss has the right to tell you that your services are no longer needed if you don't show up to work (or whenever they want). You determine what you are willing to take for your labor in a free market. If you decide one day that amount isn't suitable for you, there is nothing that says you have to show up to work.

Of course, taking my labor into the free market has been my point. That's still not the same thing as standing outside his/her door and not working until they meet my demands. That's unethical, imo. If they let me walk away then I should be terminated, that is their right - just it is my right to walk away (given notice). But also, they can hire me back, if they want and I should be able to apply for employment at the place I left (unless terminated for cause).

I don't know about a double dip.

Your model allows for a very strong downward pressure on compensation with no balancing upward pressure. What keeps wages from decreasing?

That's why I favor unionization. There needs to be a balancing force pressing upward on compensation. Management won't, and shouldn't be expected to pay out anything more than the bare minimum, but that leads to a society with even greater wealth disparity than we currently have.

I wouldn't argue that there aren't cons. Unions are a human institution and bound to fail at some things. I just think that society will be better if there is a balancing force to work against the downward pressure from management. If not unions, what would you suggest?

I don't even think the company's condition matters, though. If we stop asking for somebody else to hold onto our money and because we can't trust ourselves to save it, invest it, etc. ourselves...and instead get market-based compensation (while managing our own retirement plan...or paying somebody else to do it for us)...we don't have to worry about pension funds running dry, bailouts, and confusing tax loopholes which have to be accounted for indirectly through other means.

Again...just another example, in my simple mind, to restore simple accountability in this country. We always hear we don't have it any more...these types of things are why (imo).

I still feel like if you do that though you're going to have to provide a basic level of competent financial planning for everyone free...otherwise you're going to have people who are incapable of doing it on their own who don't have the ability/resources to learn how to do it themselves who are going to end up destitute and relying on the public one way or the other.

Changing the attitude from "a pension" to "a pool of money for you to invest and be responsible for yourself" is also a MASSIVE shift in mindset...the public at large isn't going to go for that easily, or likely even at all.

As much as I think modern unions are full of too much garbage, the concept of a union is very much congruent with capitalist ideals. The link to socialism is all about big business trying to play into the red scare for profit in the 50's/60's.

Guilds, professional groups, unions, you name it, for quite some time people recognize the value in consolidating and controlling supply to get negotiation value. Primarily because most humans don't mind cheap substitutes, quality rarely wins out over quantity, and entities with massive stockpiles can starve out any individual to force them to negotiate at a disadvantage.

I think a group should be allowed to form a union, conduct a strike, and prevent MEMBERS from working (with an option to sue those who cross the strike line as a contract violation preferably). I think all of the illegal tactics and traits of today's unions should be strictly punished, people have a right not to join a union that many unions just don't seem to appreciate. Particularly when said union is not doing its best by the workers to begin with.

What is unethical about it?

Yeah...pretty sure that as long as I'm not on private property I can stand wherever the fuck I please and carry whatever the fuck I want...can also obstruct people frankly...as long as I don't physically assault them.

The bulk of Americans don't have substantial retirement accounts and don't have the spare income to create them.

Its worked that way from the beginning of currency. Its only been a (relatively) recent thing to offer. I get what you're saying but I don't think the shift in mentality would be that difficult at all.

I'd also bet that the very people who would have issues and need financial guidance are the same people who don't have it today. Most construction workers, daily laborers, and service jobs (i.e. the part time types). They don't get this today either so I don't know that there is anything that changes. By contrast, I'd say that the average worker who has a pension knows enough about such matters to go seek the financial advice necessary.

Well, there's the Average American, and then there is the American w/ Retirement Account (or pension of some sort).

The person that would be impacted would be the person with a pension or some such guarantee later in life. Rather than accepting such benefits, why not just take the risk out of this equation and have market based wages which dont include (potentially) bogus benefits? That's where the spare income comes from.

Huh??

"It's worked that way from the beginning of time" doesn't mean a thing when you look at how things have been done in the past few generations, which is where people's expectations are formed. "Gee...this is how it used to be in the 1700's" is no comfort to someone whose parents and grandparents had Social Security.

And I don't understand your point about how the people without financial advice who would need it don't have it today...I think you're missing my point. My point is that they don't have financial advice today, but they're also not managing their own chunk of Social Security $$ (which many of them are over-dependent on for their retirement). They may have some minor investments themselves, but those are likely largely ancillary/overly simplistic. Social Security is a pension in the sense that they're not managing it...they know what they're going to get, and they don't NEED to manage it, because the government does that. So they just collect the check - without worrying about the investment mix that got it there.

If we change the system and hand them a lump sum they're all going to need much more financial planning advice to get them to that end goal, or that money is all going to evaporate in the vast majority of cases (and then they'll end up getting medical treatment in hospital emergency rooms and eating rice and beans for 20 years after retirement).

It strikes me at this point that you're essentially arguing for a massive subsidization of business for financial advisors or big wirehouses/insurance companies with the capability of offering TDFs (target date funds) to people who don't have the capability/sophistication of creating their own financial plans themselves. In that sense what you're arguing is just a big giveaway to large firms (many of whom are the same people who received a fuckload of TARP money) as well as a few small firms (the market would, make no mistake about it, be dominated by the large firms).

DT...you're talking SS. I'm talking about pensions and the benefit deferral vs just negotiating sustainable wages (as in the types typically associated with unions such as UAW). My point is that rather than have an unsustainable pension (among other benefits) negotiated, collapse the company/industry, and then need a bailout...they should simply negotiate this compensation upfront so it (a) doesn't disappear into thin air when the employee retires & (b) the company doesn't have to make large gambles of future earnings. Because in my view...the company should not have to present its financial capability to employees...just as employees dont need to do present this to their company unless there are pertinent reasons...such as an accountant must have access to company financial info and some employees must drive company vehicles.

I've already stated that SS/Medicare (in my mind) belong at the state level so that they can be more appropriately financed & managed.

I don't think I understand what you're proposing.

Oops - didn't realize we were on different pages there.

Point still stands to a lesser degree. A lot of those corporate pensions are in structures where the company provides a significant amount of basic financial planning/makes the options easier to understand for lay-people. If you remove the companies role from that then who is going to give that advice to the workers for no out-of-pocket cost?

Apparently I must be having a different discussion than everybody else. :)

The last page-ish has been about unions, good/bad, or whatever. So my take was that the negotiations that occur between unions and corporations are not healthy as the lead to unsustainable agreements, and cited the GM/UAW issues as an example.

To which your response was that they were promised these pensions (which act as a form of compensation as the funding is some split between employer/employee). To which my submission was that they should negotiate for such benefits upfront to gain higher wages rather than (potentially) vapor-benefits as this can be managed more predictably. Not so much an argument against unionizing, more a question of the practicality of such a benefit.

Or...atl least that's the conversation I'm having in my head. :lol:

Considering that only 12% of US workers are in a union (in the private sector, only 7%; and in IT, 5%), I would say the upward pressure has been there despite most of US workers not being in a union (if one believes the government's average wage index - and you chart it out up to 2008 - the last two years don't count).

My understanding is that wages have been stagnant(adjusted for inflation) for the bottom 50% for about thirty years. The rich are getting much richer and the rest of the country is stuck.

I thought you had broadened your idea to Social Security.

Did you adjust for inflation? Because if you do, wages have been steadily decreasing not increasing

SI

No, I'm just talking about unsustainable negotiations (unionized or other) that end up resulting in massive bailouts or defunct industries because the cost to produce something is just too high. Not (necessarily) a union example, but light manufacturing/assembly is an industry that has all but gone as well imo because of the cost of labor.

I think SS/MCare can be run effectively and sustainably at the state level. Not an instant switchover as I've said before, but a gradual transition would be pragmatic imo.

I don't think I have all the answers by any means...but I do think there is a fundamental disconnect between the "ruling class" and the rest of the country. So the more directly accountable we can make them, the better off we'll be. As we see, "winning" between the political parties does not benefit the populace as a whole. So we need to change the motivating factors to be more representative of the voting base.

Let's be clear on what I am talking about:
1. There are roles for unions in some segments.
2. Unions are not needed in many other segments ... generalized as areas where the industry is mature, normal steady-state, lots of competition etc.
3. I do believe there is a role for government (some may say big) to protect, enforce (and yes, bailout when the system fails)
4. I don't believe the free market works all the time for all the people.
5. I don't believe the market is efficient all the time and is "more efficient" for some people than others

With that said, I break out unions into provided 2 main services (1) total compensation negotiations (e.g. payroll, benefits, retirement etc) and (2) work environment (e.g. data privacy, sexual harassment, job security etc.).

As a substitute, the free market should largely dictate this with government/judicial intervention if necessary (granted, the definition of necessary is relative).

I think your argument is that employees banding together to form a union is free market. My counter is the act of forming a union may be free market, the results of a union (e.g. job security) is not.

For work environment, I have implemented systems to accomodate unions (including work unions in EMEA). They are overly cumbersome, promote complacency and inefficiency etc.

I think the 2 typical poster child examples are the auto and teacher unions.

Blame the Citizens United decision.


I'm sure this will happen for a lot of the candidates. With a little ingenuity anybody, domestic or foreign, can give any amount to a candidate and have it all remain anonymous.

Okay. We are really crashing now.

This is in reference to the whole Teacher tenure, union talk last page. :D

Dow ended down 512. Fantastic!

So I don't follow politics all that closely, but it seems to me Obama hasn't done squat since he took over. Seems we may very well be in worse shape now than we were and he hasn't delivered on any of his promises.

Random stock market type question that I figured I'd put in here given the events of today and an argument at work. Are you able to take out the original contribution to a Roth IRA at any time tax AND penalty free if you are under the retirement qualified age (or whatever they call it)?

Thanks - we couldn't find a good answer for this due to vague wordings all over the place.

Here's a place with a decent flow chart and explanations:

Roth IRA Withdrawal Rules

No, you have to pay a 10% penalty unless it meets one of the exceptions.

Thanks...

From that site, as well as other places I have looked into now:

The most important thing to know is this: Contributions (that is, the money that you put into your Roth) can come out at any time, free of taxes and penalties.

I like Matt Damon, ready for the next movie.

Are you sure about that? I thought the 10% penalty is for contributions you take out.

Yeah, I've spent more time researching on the various investing sites. Here's from Etrade:

Flexibility to withdraw original contributions tax-and penalty-free at any time, for any reason

He has delivered on his promises. I get not everyone agrees those kept were a good thing ...

1. Moved us out of Iraq and more into Afghanistan
2. Healthcare
3. I give him some credit for stabilizing the market/economy at the beginning of his term. I also acknowledge Bush gets some credit also. This, obviously, is not to say he has fixed the economy.
4. Said he would go into Pakistan to take out OBL if they had an opportunity.
5. Don't ask don't tell
etc.

Here's a link, don't know how reputable.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

Thanks for the link and response Edward.

I guess my question is what has really changed with healthcare?

Not too much yet--the big changes start to kick in about three years down the road (exchanges, mandatory purchase of health insurance).

Which can be changed before they ever go into effect by lawmakers. It's nothing but promises until it actually happens, just like taxes. The Bush tax cuts are supposed to end next year, but the Republicans are already acting like it's a given they'll stay. I'd be very surprised if more than 30-40% of Obamacare actually goes into effect. A repeal at some level is more likely given that 2012 does not look like a good election for Democrats at the national and state level.

To say Obama hasn't done squat is just strange. He's passed a good deal of things.

I doubt that there will be much of any repeal at all of the ACA. Especially if, and I believe he will, Obama wins re-election in 2012.