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:

Minnesota Democrats go on offense, expand unions, hope to increase minimum wage.

I asked State Sen. Jon Erpenbach and Rep. Dianne Hesselbein if they could start a trend, go on the offensive for once, and promise to restore so much of what we lost under the Walker Authority. That's all.

I can't remember their answer, and that's what troubles me. These guys are fighters, yet...

Without a strong agenda, backed by an uncompromising philosophy, what alternative do voters have? If they're not happy with Scott Walker's failed policies and lousy jobs record, do they even know what choices are out there? Can they say, "let's see if the Democratic plan will work?"

Fat chance of that. But luckily, Democrats here might be able to take some inspiration from our Minnesota neighbors, who aren't wasting any time:

MPR: Minnesota has emerged as one of the few places where unions are faring well. Democrats hope they're creating a bulwark in a more hostile world. ‘There's been a general war on anyone who is working class and has a union by trying to take union rights away,’ [said] Democratic Rep. Michael Nel. 'Here in Minnesota maybe we're ahead of the curve in pushing back.' But Republicans see dire consequences ahead, including a possible business backlash."

The Legislature may give labor a longtime priority -- the right to organize home day care workers and personal care attendants, which would help rebuild union membership. Lawmakers could make the state's minimum wage the highest in the nation at nearly $10 an hour and are poised to require hospitals to regularly report staffing numbers, a victory for nurses union.

Other bills would cut public subsidies to organizations that engage in lockouts, force companies to pay unemployment for up to three years during lockouts, and would help unions organize hotel workers and those in other buildings erected with public aid. "The war on public workers is finally over,'' said state parks and trails worker Connie Andrews. "You're not being targeted. You're not being blamed.'

We’re there, Americans are giving up; ‘Just be glad you have a job!!!’

For a while, collective bargaining gave workers  a little skin in the game, and an important voice in their workplace.

But the Republican and corporate campaign to vilify and belittle unions and labor has turned the public against those profit draining employees.

Breaking the American workers spirit appears to be working, as demonstrated below by the average working family’s comments below.

I’m hoping this heartbreaking example isn’t becoming the prevailing attitude by many.

WSJ: REEDSBURG: As a bagger at the Viking Village Foods grocery store here, Thane Rogers sees firsthand the importance of a job. In less than a year, the 17-year-old senior-to-be at Reedsburg High School has seen his hours reduced, meaning he doesn't have as much money for gas and spending money when he's hanging out with friends.

But it's better than nothing, and he cherishes his job where he works 10 to 12 hours a week for $7.25 an hour. "Some of my friends aren't able to get a job," Thane said. "So I make do with what I've got."

That's an attitude Thane's parents, Phil and Emily Rogers, wish more Americans would adopt … "We have this idea that we'd rather be unemployed and promote our master's degree and tell them we're worth $70,000 a year and we'll wait till we make that salary," said Emily Rogers. "Let's hire the whole group of people in between and have them help out with services we need," she said — even if it's bagging groceries. "We need people to get back to work doing something."

If Americans don't catch on and see what's happening, that it doesn't have to be this way, than I feel horrible for my young sons. This wasn't what I picture for them and their future families.

Marc Levin's HBO documentary Hard Times shows us people trying to find work and the crushing consequences of joblessness. Michael Smirconish:

The Latest Minimum Wage Info, and the U.S. Race to the Bottom.

A little wonky, but a good look at how the U.S. is racing to the bottom with low wages and dwindling benefits. 

Center for Economic Policy Research, (who’s numbers go much deeper than the CBO’s), has released three short issue briefs on the minimum wage, all demonstrating in various ways that the current level is too low. In the first, CEPR Senior Economist John Schmitt makes his point rather directly with the title: "The Minimum Wage Is Too Damn Low." It shows that the minimum wage is now far below its historical level by all of the most commonly used benchmarks – inflation, average wages, and productivity.

In the second paper, John and his co-author, CEPR Research Intern Marie-Eve Augier, look at "Affording Health Care and Education on the Minimum Wage." They find that the current minimum wage looks even worse when compared with two kinds of purchases strongly associated with a middle-class standard of living or the ability to move up to the middle class: a college degree and health insurance. In 1979, a minimum-wage worker had to work 254 hours in a year to pay the cost of tuition at a public four-year college, but 923 hours in 2010. Similarly, in 1979, a minimum-wage worker had to work 329 hours to in order to pay for a family health insurance policy, but 2,079 hours in 2011.

Finally, the third paper, "Low-wage Workers Are Older and Better Educated than Ever" co-authored by John and CEPR Research Assistant Janelle Jones, makes the point that today's low-wage workers are older and better educated than in the past, and that, all else equal, older and better-educated workers earn more than younger and less-educated workers. Had the minimum wage risen in step with low-wage workers' age and educational attainment, it would be at least 9 to 14 percent higher than is suggested by simply adjusting the federal minimum's historical peak level to keep pace with inflation.

Uh Oh, Government Workers do Make More than Private Sector? But the Devils in the Details.

After looking over the Facebook page of conservative talker Vicki McKenna, I found this revealing  “doh” moment:

Vicki McKenna: CBO: one more study showing government workers paid more than private sector workers.”

Ah, but there's a reason for that. One thing, if she and here Facebook flunkies would take the time to read the stories they link too, I wouldn't have to waste my time correcting them. Here's my response to her:

Read the story. If you think the federal government should start hiring teens and young adults, with little or limited educational experience, then you'd be making a lousy business decision. The story clearly states: "Federal workers tend to be older, more educated, and more concentrated in professional occupations than private-sector workers." Think that would make a big difference? Anyone stumped on this one?

Here's the chart McKenna and her envious fellow "race-to-the-bottom" warriors can't wait to use against those seeking a society with higher wages. CBO: