Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Brain -> Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 12:38:38 AM)

Strong unions are the answer to America's political and economic problems. Let me rephrase that. Strong unions are the answer to the world's political and economic problems.


Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class

Speaking on the topic, “Unions and Inequality,” Krugman noted the percentage of workers in unions declined from a high of 35 percent in the mid-1950s to today’s level of 12 percent. As a result, the United States has “lost something that’s essential to maintain a decent society.” Krugman attributes the nation’s worsening economic inequality in large part to declining unionization and the erosion of legal protection of workers’ freedom to choose unions and bargain. He cited a finding that one-third of the difference in the rise in earnings inequality between the United States and Canada is attributable to the much faster rate of decline of unionization in this country. In fact, he says even this dramatic finding Krugman explained that when a high percentage of workers are in unions and workers’ freedom to choose unions is protected, there is an “umbrella” effect in which all workers, union and nonunion, benefit. He cited work by economists Peter Temin and Frank Levy, who found that for a generation after World War II, the so-called “Treaty of Detroit” between the UAW and General Motors Corp. set standards for workers throughout the U.S. economy. (The Treaty of Detroit refers to the landmark contract the UAW negotiated after the war that has since been seen as the crowning achievement of the midcentury labor movement, with the largest automakers agreeing to generous benefit and compensation packages.) The bottom line, says Krugman:

To have a middle class society, you need a strong union movement.

Krugman also took issue with corporate spinners and extremist politicians who blame the steep decline in unions on the alleged loss of interest by workers in joining unions. Rather, Krugman says, the biggest culprit has been a hostile political environment that aided and abetted an aggressive, often lawless anti-union, anti-workers’ rights offensive by many of the nation’s employers. Corporate anti-union strategies that blossomed in the 1970s were given government approval in the 1980s Reagan era. This lethal combination has been “extremely effective in blocking unionization,” Krugman noted. He cited Bush era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions, such as the 2006 ruling that expanded the definition of supervisor, as an example of how government has put its thumb on the scale against workers’ rights.


The importance of strong unions and protections for workers’ rights extends far beyond wages, health insurance, pensions and justice on the job, Krugman noted. Unions provide a crucial counterweight to the power of money in political campaigns. They also have a significant impact on the political consciousness and political participation of their members and their families. Krugman cited political science research that found voter participation would be 10 percentage points higher among people on the bottom two-thirds of the income ladder if the proportion of workers in unions had not declined since the 1950s. Krugman, who has been dubbed “the most important political columnist in America” by the Washington Monthly magazine, concluded that the decline in unionization was caused largely by political factors, and it can be changed through political action. Polling indicates 53 percent of nonunion U.S. workers want unions today, but employer intimidation—aided by a hostile political climate and ineffective labor laws—prevents workers from exercising their free choice to form unions. Restoring workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain would change the political complexion of the country in a positive way. Krugman ended his presentation this way: We’ve become a country where the interests of workers are hardly represented at the table. And that’s got to change.


http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/01/07/paul-krugman-strong-unions-create-a-strong-middle-class/



[image]local://upfiles/392475/AC48DA9578B8430D8B42D7EC4087DC38.jpg[/image]




DarkSteven -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 5:33:14 AM)

I agree with Krugman that unions help keep the middle class strong.  However, the very climate that permits unions to exist does the same thing.  In other words, if unions are allowed to form and to thrive, the climate is already decent for the middle class.  The fact that overseas labor is so attractive is one real issue, and the attractiveness of products produced overseas is another.  Both cause labor to shift offshore, and they also weaken demand for local labor, which is critical to unions' viability.

In other words, I disagree with his notion that this is caused largely by political factors.  I contend that it is caused largely by economic factors, which in turn enable those political factors.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 8:30:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I agree with Krugman that unions help keep the middle class strong.  However, the very climate that permits unions to exist does the same thing.  In other words, if unions are allowed to form and to thrive, the climate is already decent for the middle class.  The fact that overseas labor is so attractive is one real issue, and the attractiveness of products produced overseas is another.  Both cause labor to shift offshore, and they also weaken demand for local labor, which is critical to unions' viability.

In other words, I disagree with his notion that this is caused largely by political factors.  I contend that it is caused largely by economic factors, which in turn enable those political factors.



Im not sure if you meant the reverse in your last sentence, or perhaps youre just not noting the next step in the feedback loop. Its political factors that create the economic environment that send (many) jobs offshore.

But I agree, it is the environment permitting unions, not the unions themselves, that create opportunity. That is clearly shown by the right to work states, where the middle class is thriving despite a much lower union presence. Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.




DarkSteven -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 8:48:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Im not sure if you meant the reverse in your last sentence, or perhaps youre just not noting the next step in the feedback loop. Its political factors that create the economic environment that send (many) jobs offshore.



Hmmmm.  I consider it purely economic that overseas labor is cheaper.  Evidently, your position is that the wage disparity is due to political conditions.

You have a point... I had not considered WHERE the disparities came from.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 10:22:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Im not sure if you meant the reverse in your last sentence, or perhaps youre just not noting the next step in the feedback loop. Its political factors that create the economic environment that send (many) jobs offshore.



Hmmmm.  I consider it purely economic that overseas labor is cheaper.  Evidently, your position is that the wage disparity is due to political conditions.

You have a point... I had not considered WHERE the disparities came from.



Yes...lots of inputs into the feedback loop, and you can't isolate any of them. I was referring more to taxes and regulation on the political end but there are certainly government inputs into the wage disparity as well.




juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 10:34:34 AM)

This thread is a little bit like "water is wet"....




provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 12:34:20 PM)

[/quote]

Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.

[/quote]

Krugman is not a Marxist. No economist - as off base as the discipline has become - would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist. He, along with the other witch-doctors, are hell bent on unifying the microeconomics of the neoclassicals with the macro economics of Keynes.





juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 12:38:26 PM)

quote:

would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist.


You are right, Krugman is not a Marxist

But there are many economists that are




provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 12:47:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist.


You are right, Krugman is not a Marxist

But there are many economists that are


Name one respected economist that is a Marxist...

No serious economist would even consider labeling themselves as a Marxist. Even progressive stalwarts like Samuelsson, Stiglitz, Sachs, Krugman, et. al. distance themselves from it.




provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 12:49:05 PM)

(doublepost)




juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:00:20 PM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists

I know a couple from academic circles whom I do not want to name on a BDSM site




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:00:50 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine



Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.



Krugman is not a Marxist. No economist - as off base as the discipline has become - would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist. He, along with the other witch-doctors, are hell bent on unifying the microeconomics of the neoclassicals with the macro economics of Keynes.




You are wrong, he's a died in the wool Marxist. Read his books and columns. Change the dates and locations and Marx himself could have written them. To prove youre wrong: JO agrees with you.




mnottertail -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:15:59 PM)

ad hominem and hasty generalization.




provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:21:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists

I know a couple from academic circles whom I do not want to name on a BDSM site


Linking me to a wikipedia article on a subject that you know nothing about further proves that you don't understand this. Not one economist in that list would be taken seriously by anybody, including Krugman. Marxist economics is just an abortive, makeshift, ideological facade to act as a subterfuge for rational discussion on economics. I'm not saying that certain people don't believe in those garbled theories, but NO serious economist at a respected institution would even consider affiliating themselves with that jargon.




provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:25:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine



Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.

Krugman is not a Marxist. No economist - as off base as the discipline has become - would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist. He, along with the other witch-doctors, are hell bent on unifying the microeconomics of the neoclassicals with the macro economics of Keynes.

You are wrong, he's a died in the wool Marxist. Read his books and columns. Change the dates and locations and Marx himself could have written them. To prove youre wrong: JO agrees with you.


Again, you're wrong. You should read his columns. Find me ONE SINGLE SOURCE where Krugman shines a positive light of Marxist economics.

Paul Krugman on Marx:

"I say phooey. Sure, Marx wrote about economic upheavals; so did lots of people. What he never managed to do was offer either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism). By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much of a contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy. Or as John Maynard Keynes more elegantly put it, "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion--how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and through them, the events of history."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/17/247057/index.htm




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:29:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine



Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.

Krugman is not a Marxist. No economist - as off base as the discipline has become - would ever be caught dead being labeled as a Marxist. He, along with the other witch-doctors, are hell bent on unifying the microeconomics of the neoclassicals with the macro economics of Keynes.

You are wrong, he's a died in the wool Marxist. Read his books and columns. Change the dates and locations and Marx himself could have written them. To prove youre wrong: JO agrees with you.


Again, you're wrong. You should read his columns. Find me ONE SINGLE SOURCE where Krugman shines a positive light of Marxist economics.

Paul Krugman on Marx:

"I say phooey. Sure, Marx wrote about economic upheavals; so did lots of people. What he never managed to do was offer either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism). By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much of a contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy. Or as John Maynard Keynes more elegantly put it, "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion--how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and through them, the events of history."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/17/247057/index.htm



Of course he denies it. Do you think the NYT is anxious to have a contributor who is an admitted Marxist? READ HIS THEORIES.




juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 1:32:39 PM)

Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected"

You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so.

There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science.


Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé.

Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw




mnottertail -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:14:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Of course he denies it. Do you think the NYT is anxious to have a contributor who is an admitted Marxist? READ HIS THEORIES.


Yet you have no trouble quoting and backslapping Commies when you don't think anyone is looking, trotsky. If it shares your brand of politic.

You're a real Gus Hall. 




rulemylife -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:20:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I agree with Krugman that unions help keep the middle class strong.  However, the very climate that permits unions to exist does the same thing.  In other words, if unions are allowed to form and to thrive, the climate is already decent for the middle class.  The fact that overseas labor is so attractive is one real issue, and the attractiveness of products produced overseas is another.  Both cause labor to shift offshore, and they also weaken demand for local labor, which is critical to unions' viability.

In other words, I disagree with his notion that this is caused largely by political factors.  I contend that it is caused largely by economic factors, which in turn enable those political factors.



Im not sure if you meant the reverse in your last sentence, or perhaps youre just not noting the next step in the feedback loop. Its political factors that create the economic environment that send (many) jobs offshore.

But I agree, it is the environment permitting unions, not the unions themselves, that create opportunity. That is clearly shown by the right to work states, where the middle class is thriving despite a much lower union presence. Krugman, as a Marxist, must bring everything down to the level of the worker vs management.



There you go Willbeur.  Bravo!  [sm=applause.gif]

Just call him a Marxist and you win the debate.




juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:24:05 PM)

Especially when he doesn't seem to understand protectionism does not equate communism[8|]




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875