Quote of the Day
Man is least himself when he talksin his own person.
Give him a mask,
and he will tell you the truth.
Oscar Wilde
The State of the Union Is Sluggish
A dull speech, most of which we've heard before. Just a few notes:
- Obama likes to have his cake and eat it, too. To give an example: he took credit for increasing domestic production of oil and gas, but he also plugged ending tax subsidies for the (the mostly small, independents) oil and gas industry and boosting them for alternative energy subsidies. "Climate change is a fact." Climate change, if it exists, may reflect factors beyond our control, and it's difficult to envision a real solution from a policy perspective.
- He continued to stubbornly maintain what this blog calls the "77-centers", claiming there is widespread discrimination against women in compensation. I've discussed this allegation many times; when you control for factors like experience, hours, occupation, marital status, etc., this all but disappears. In fact, with women largely dominating college graduations and the higher income associated with college education, in a number of cities, single college-educated women actually have a comparative advantage.
- More income inequality rhetoric, plugging away on the economically-illiterate minimum wage, increases to unemployment compensation. More economic populist nonsense bashing corporate greed, the fact that he wants to take away money from corporations which would prefer to invest in more productive technology and their employees and "invest" it in government-administered training programs, etc.
- Obama is still pushing for the same policy focuses from his first year in office: "investments" in infrastructure, green energy, and education.
Facebook Corner
(Illinois Policy Institute). Defenders of public-sector unionism argue that it reduces costs and improves quality by ensuring “labor peace” — or, avoiding strikes and creating a happier, better-trained workforce
It seems that some people don't understand that unions and union membership is necessary in our society... otherwise there would be nobody in the middle class.. at all. The wealthy corporations would pay only the minimum wage to everyone so as to pay higher profits to their stockholders. There would be no limits to work hours, no overtime pay, no vacation days, no holidays, no sick days, no pension for anyone. If you don't have those benefits, then brother (or sister) you NEED to join a union! And in the case of government employees, the same situation would exist... without unions and the ability to collectively bargain with the legislature and govenor.
Lets keep in mind that Union members represent only about 17% of the workers (taxpayers) in Illinois. It's hard to picture the unions controlling the other 83% of the taxpayers in the state. Those state employees that have been targeted by certain political groups are also taxpayers. Some of us also forget that the state employee unions represent taxpayers (their members) in meetings with the administration that wouldn't give a raise or benfit to anybody except themselves without pressure from the collective power of union members. If non-union labor activity was "the way to go" then why are more and more groups of workers choosing to establish unions to represent them? The bulk of the problem in our state is the legislature... where instead of taking care of their existing obligations, they have time and time again "borrowed" money from the state pension system so as to fund the various pet projects of the legislature. IF the legislature had not borrowed all that money, the state pension system would never have gotten off the track. I know I've drifted from the original topic to pensions, but to me, they are interconnected. A pension is an important part of a worker's compensation... when one has been agreed upon in advance. Without the collective power of the unions, what do you suppose would have happened to state employee pensions last year. What we need is more collective bargaining, not less!
Libertarians accept the concept of voluntary associations, including unions, but not the kind of crony Big Unions protected by the government.
[Discussant] is an ineffective apologist for special-interest unions. First, unions and collective bargaining had nothing to do with the rising middle class. DiLorenzo and others point out that unions are laying claim to advances afforded by the investment of capitalism, including a higher standard of living (e.g., families relied less on child labor for survival as household income rose with productivity; legislation simply locked in some reform already taking place in the private markets). If you look at any rapidly developing economies, e.g., China and India, the rapidly growing middle class during our lifetimes has had more to do with liberalizing their economies than emerging power of unions.
Second, union memberships are declining across the board and at the lowest ratio in decades. Third, for most of the populace, pensions are a thing of the past; most of my past employers have offered 401K's. Not too many private-sector workers have the generous benefits or job security in public sector employment; the fact that the tax and spenders unions support didn't squirrel away enough money for public sector pensions shifted the burden on future taxpayers unfairly. The unions didn't service their members well by letting their legislative cronies fail to protect pensions through inadequate funding on an ongoing basis. The idea that the 1 in 6 workers are public-sector taxpayers are paying their fair share is laughable. The other workers produce real goods and services, and the taxes paid by public workers don't begin to pay the freight; the fact they have a vested interest in public policy expenditures speaks for itself.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series
Roy Orbison, "You Got It"
