Is it any coincidence that the decline of unions is associated with the decline of this country?

None whatsoever. The decline in unionization is what is responsible for the loss of earnings power. When union participation dropped wages stagnated. There is a delay in the effect caused by the existence of multi-year labor contracts. Countries which still have strong unionization show less disparity in the distribution of wealth.

Before tax, weekly wages of non-supervisory private sector workers in America today are below levels achieved in the early 1960s, and stand nearly 17% below their peak in 1972. Workers are now earning only 83 cents of every dollar they earned more than 35 years ago, while their productivity has increased a dramatic 80%. This is the central explanation for the explosion in corporate profits and the growing income gap in America, and the reason workers in America still believe the economy is moving in the wrong direction. All polls show that it is a big part of the reason why Republicans lost control of Congress.

The reason for this decline in wages and shift upward in the distribution of income are several -- but can be boiled down to unbridled pro-corporate globalization, and the right-wing attack on unions and workplace and job market protections.

In 1972, at the peak of real wages, union membership in the private sector stood at nearly 28%, whereas it is now below 8%. Today, 25% of American workers earn a wage that puts them at or below poverty, and the minimum wage is a third lower in value than it was in 1968.

##

I'm a firm believer that our economy thrives as it's working class does. During our hay days the Unions did ask for a bit more than they should have. I believe that they realized concessions were necessary to keep the company thriving and Union workers today for the most part get paid half of what they did thirty years ago. Workers know who the hand that feeds them is but these people still have a huge disdain for any type of Union. These same people ( upper tier mgt. CEO's, COO's etc.) are making substantially more at the same time the Union workers have taken cuts. Yet they claim it's the Unions that are unreasonable. The upper ten percent wage earners (using that term very loosely) are making 273% more than they did ten years ago while the entry level people on the shop floor are making $14/hr and pay for many of their benefits. So that's roughly $28k/yr straight time. That's not a whole lot of money these days and still people complain about the Unions and give you their stories of people making $120k/yr for pushing a broom. It is their obligation to make Unions sound sinister. We lose the Unions and you'll see that rate drop to $10/hr. And the company is always facing dire straits because of the Unions of course. It's never management, engineering or sales fault just those damn over paid Union thugs, Meanwhile Toyota makes Camry's in Kentucky and have a positive cash flow GM can only dream about. They are UAW workers by the way. What's wrong with this picture? For one thing, the highest paid CEO of all the Japanese companies (as of a couple of years ago) pulled in $1 million/yr. It is the disparity of income levels that have created much to the lack of profits but again they still point their fingers at the broom pusher who makes $120k/yr. The lack of certainty and ones expendability is also a stress and contributes to the slow economy. Whereas, in Japan, again as of a few years ago workers were promised a job for life. I know Japans economy is hurting too but much of that is our fault also. We need Unions, otherwise we will be stripped of more and more money and they could pretty much do anything they want with us.

That's the problem with economically driven issues, people tend to stop being objective when something they don't like is made weaker, (union jobs) and when they decide to apologize for the corporate bottom line, they just pile on.

Things that are perceived as weak are easy targets to malign or marginalize.

Union-bashing is now even easier and harder to justify since it's membership is less than 10%.

How do regressive's justify their malfeasance towards unions based solely upon tired regurgitated

false narrative associations and various liberal straw-man insinuations?

They don't have to, because if your intended audience already agrees with your agenda, it's not hard to sell a false narrative when all selective ears and minds are already sold on the false association narrative before a single lie is spoken.

Correlation, not causation. We lost the jobs that were heavily unionized for one (manufacturing). The manufacturing sector traditionally is what created the middle class with good paying jobs.

Globalization happened, we couldn't compete with the near-slave labor of Asia and we started losing those jobs. The American industrial worker was just paid too much to even begin to be competitive. Breaking the Unions was probably an attempt to free up the ability of corporations to set wages.

In our situation we have only three options: 1) Innovate new areas we can't outsource and that pay well 2) hope Asian workers start demanding better wages/hours/benefits or 3) reduce the standard of living of most American workers.

Reagan chose number 3. The other 2 are hard.

Keep in mind, the decline is relative. Wall street was doing fine. As was big business. It was the middle class, the poor and small business that suffered.

As for the recession, that's another deal altogether I don't feel like typing out. There are a lot of reasons we're falling behind.

*IMPORTANT EDIT*

This is very complicated stuff. Attempts to simplify it are usually wrong or just an attempt to mislead or lie. Democrats and Republicans both do it.

*edit*

Let me get this straight: you're actively trying to recruit brain power to think incorrectly? what for? You've already got the real answer? why do you need a lie to back it up?

No coincidence. This was Reagan's plan, he was the "new sheriff in town" and he aimed his gun at the unions, which he did. He murdered unions and he gave corporations the advantage. Come on he started the trend of appointing ex Wall Street corporates. He started it with Don Regan.

So yeah, instead of being sad over his death (which was about 5 years ago if I'm not mistaking?), we should have partied, but the damage he did only started the decline which at this point it is irreversible.

Quite the opposite of coincidence, it's causal: fewer union jobs = decline in working Americans's quality of life.

Germany's heavily unionized and has a strong econ and little off-shoring.

Fewer hi pay, hi-benefit union jobs = a low wage society: much reduced spending = much higher unemploy = much less home ownership & a lower quality of life, kinda exactly what we have now in the wake of Cheney's Great Recession and the massive looting of working Americans by the plutocrats.

Yes it is a coincidence. The Japanese crushed us in industries that were dominated by unions, because the price of our cars was higher and they weren't even that good. Unions abused their power and ripped all of us off.

RE: I am not saying that unions were the only reason we lost our competitive edge, but they were at least 50% responsible. I am also not saying they are 100% of the reason we are overseas either, but again they are least 50% responsible. The lower wages were definitely a strong incentive to outsource, but American businesses didn't want to have to do it. Why would you want to go to a foreign country, speak their language, deal with their government, and train workers that don't speak English unless there is a strong incentive to do so. There are still companies that manufacture her in the US.

You are looking at this the wrong way. Unions pushed manufacturing out of this country Getting rid of union jobs. It was unions that killed themselves and manufacturing in this country.

Yes.

Just as you could draw connection between the rabbit populations of Texas and the state of the economy.

When Rabbit populations peaked in the 1950's the country was at it's highest point of economic power. Today, the Texas Rabbit populations at their lowest and so is our economy.

This sounds like there is more of a connection between the Rabbit population of Texas and the economy of the US than the Unions.

I propose, that in order to save the economy of this country, we need a concerted effort to increase the rabbits of Texas. This is a far sounder plan than anything a Libby could ever conceive of in their wildest dreams.

We use to have a say in our destiny and now most of us no longer do. It's sad that so many have been convinced to give up the right to have a say in their destiny.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii160/emal2me/p...