Sunday, September 4, 2016

Disappearing Unions mean disappearing Wages.

Republicans rule by pure ideological theory, thinking whatever does go wrong can be explained by blaming outside liberal policies. And there will never come a time when Republicans won’t find some way to find, even create, something that sounds horribly liberal.

It works wonders for Republicans; they made failure and hard times a plus that gets them votes. That oddly makes their constituents end up resenting the actual victims of free market GOP policy.

Scott Walker even said the sharp bitter public divide over policy makes us better and stronger. He wasn’t kidding if you're a Republican trolling for votes and a lifetime in office.

Act 10 and right-to-work promises to feed the resentment and detachment people feel over government policy, keeping wages low or lower, all the while helping Republicans stay in power. The fact that wages are stagnant at the same time Republicans brag RTW is actually raising pay is all you need to know about the lack of critical thinking on the right. It's all BS.

The Economic Policy Institute’s latest report: “Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing,” tells us what Democrats have been saying all along. "Key findings from our report include the following:"
1. For nonunion private-sector men, weekly wages would be an estimated 5 percent ($52) higher in 2013 if private-sector union density (the share of workers in similar industries and regions who are union members) remained at its 1979 level. For a year-round worker, this translates to an annual wage loss of $2,704. For the 40.2 million nonunion private-sector men the loss is equivalent to $2.1 billion fewer dollars in weekly paychecks, which represents an annual wage loss of $109 billion.

2. For nonunion private-sector men without a bachelor’s degree or more education (non–college graduates), weekly wages would be an estimated 8 percent ($58) higher in 2013 if union density remained at its 1979 levels. For a year-round worker, this translates to an annual wage loss of $3,016. As a benchmark, consider that the wage loss from increased trade with low-wage nations (Bivens 2013) among non–college graduates is estimated to be 5 percent.

3. For nonunion private-sector men with a high school diploma or less education, weekly wages would be an estimated 9 percent ($61) higher if union density remained at its 1979 levels. For a year-round worker, this translates to an annual wage loss of about $3,172.

4. For 32.9 million full-time nonunion women working in the private sector, weekly pay would be a total of $461 million more (and roughly $24.0 billion more per year) in 2013 if unions had remained as strong as they were in 1979.

5. Union decline has exacerbated wage inequality in the United States ... Earlier research (Western and Rosenfeld 2011) shows that union erosion can explain about one-third of the growth of wage inequality among men and about one-fifth of the growth of wage inequality among women from 1972 to 2007. 

6. At least for middle-wage men, the impact of the erosion of unions on the wages of both union and nonunion workers is likely the largest single factor underlying wage stagnation and wage inequality.
For everyone but Republicans, our vanishing union presence is bad news for a U.S. economy that is 70% dependent on consumer demand:
That presence has vanished throughout much of the private sector, rendering unions unable to exert the same political, economic, and cultural influence over the working lives of average Americans, union and not.
Here are a few easy to read charts, just click to enlarge:


  1. Math is not a liberal plot, and it is a FACT that the average American did better when unions were stronger, the rich and corporate actually paid taxes, and we protected against offshoring.

    You wanna talk about "FREEEE-DUM", Baggers? How about allowing workers the freedom to form groups to demand better wages and benefits (AKA UNIONS), so they are not destitute and at the mercy of amoral business owners.

    Oh, apparently Scott (never worked a real job in my adult life) Walker isn't interested in that type of freedom. Funny that

    Jake formerly of the LP

  2. So trying to use reason, facts and logic with the Walker supporters is a waste of time.

    If they believe that the $3 to $5 that they save in property taxes each year is better than losing $50 to $60 in wages each week then there is no hope in talking sense to these people.

  3. Jake, go ahead. Form groups. Nobody is stopping you. bang on your drum and chant your ignorant head off.

    The average american did better when he was free to pursue his or her dreams without the government regulating or taxing him or her to death.

    The brain dead libtards did better when they didn't have to think too hard.

  4. I've lived in Wisconsin well over 50 years and I never ran into anyone who blamed the state for keeping them from pursuing their dreams. What BS, what victimhood.

    For your information, most us living here were aware of the taxes and loved the state. It's was because of whiners like you and Walker who wanted to bring southern austerity to Wisconsin. Thanks.