Which is why unions fight tooth and nail agaisnt the unionization of their own employees. Simple principle, if Unionization were for the benefits of the worker, then the union representatives would unionize themselves. It's clearly not beneficial to the worker, but it is beneficial to the unions - which is why the Unions try to make it so that the rank and file have no say.
This is why the unions are attacking governor Walker, for severing the automatic paycheck deductions for public union members. They know that if the rank and file actually sees the money in their pocket, that they are going to keep the money.
The concept of firing people to keep the bottom line, and keeping only productive workers is anathema to government bureaucracy. This is why people want to change the system they are fed up paying for the bureaucrats.
Competitiveness is profitability - competitive businesses make a profit where the free market works.
Then the solution is to reduce the size of the government so that the benefit accrued by essentially bribing government officials is reduced. The problem isn't the business, but the red tape created by the government which inhibits competition. I've seen it in the businesses that I work for - you want to get any actual work done, you have to spend about 50 percent of your time negotiating with the bureaucrats. It's really frustrating.
Think of it as conservation of money. Value cannot be created or destroyed - merely changed.
They can increase the money supply by adding zeros, but they cannot increase the value of the currency. Any increase in the money supply will provoke the inverse force of inflation to keep the value at exactly the same as it was.
Inflation is good for the debtors, and bad for the creditors, which is why the government likes it. It means that the money it used to borrow stuff from before is worth less than the money they have now.
Deflation on the other hand is the enemy for governments, because it rewards thrift, economy, and destroys debtors. This is why the governments panicked when gas prices dropped 50 percent. I remember that - those were fun times. My bills were slashed in half! It was great!
But alas, it wasn't to be and they screwed us all by 'saving' the debtors with the thrifty. Now its' 2012, 4 years later and we're still suffering even worse now because what was held from before is now gone.
As opposed to the current community organiser who has a powerful incentive to reward his croneys (look at the Czars?)
Heck if it's between a CEO and Obama, I know who I'm choosing. Obama has been great - if you happen to be on the gravy train. Otherwise you're screwed.
Oh, which is why Granholm was ridiculed as an objective failure. Which is why the leadership of Detroit has resulted in the halving of the population of the city?
I don't think you're being objective here. Michigan has had terrible leadership, and Detroit has been even worse. At least the CEO and businessman has Michigan running on a fiscally sound basis that will pay dividends in the future.
Well, the problem is that austerity is now inevitable, thanks to government largesse. It didn't have to be that way, but because Obama's spent all the seed corn, now the government has to get back on a sound fiscal footing. The sooner they do so, the easier it will be to turn back.
Wasn't it Obama who made the comment about gun owners and Christians as 'bitter clingers'. Heck, I know the administration sees Catholics as vermin too - hence their attacks on Dolan and the Catholic church in America.
I see no evidence for your statement that CEO's see working people as livestock. I see plenty that the state and the bureaucrats do.
Guys like with Fanny and Freddy? Last I checked that's where the Obama stash has gone - to prop up his banker friends. That's why folks like Barney Franks are still in congress and not in jail.
You're right, but you're aiming at the wrong folks. This administration is not interested in punishing any of those responsible for the lending - it's protecting them because the Obama administration has been part of this from day one.
Do you think Jefferson endorsed one making a career of state business? No. All of them had their own property, their own responsibilities both before and after they left office. Term limits act as a break on those who would exploit the people for their own gain, and act as a check on the power of congress.
This is why every edition of congress opposes term limits because it's not in their best interest. Which is why we get people who serve in congress for 60+ years.
Which is a good thing.
Nonsense, if the incumbant cannot run, that gives the people more not less say
Heh, not so. Only if you assume what you are trying to prove. One can accomplish quite a bit as a two-term representative. Look at Polk who did in one term more than most presidents do in two.
Most conservatives are not employers. Most conservatives are employees.
What we want is:
A decent job where we can earn enough to support our families without relying on government assistance.
Right to work legislation, restores the constitutional relationship between we the people and the state. A person should not have to get permission from a union to begin employment. A person should be able to seek whatever employment they wish, and stay employed without having to pay a bounty to a union.
States with right to work are doing much better in this recession than states with unions, because unions are killing the states they are in. A dirty little secret is that businesses are constrained by market forces on labor demand. They cannot drop their pay because they will not get the workers that they need.
The other dirty secret is the biggest beneficiaries of killing right to work laws, are the public union employees who get multiples of the minimum wage. In effect, they are voting for their own benefits. But who cuts their checks - the same people who are trying to get jobs but can't. So the public unions are cutting their own throats by opposition to right to work laws.
This is why Wisconsin did not have to lay off teachers - they were able to cut their massive costs sufficiently so that they could retain the ones they had. The unions were happy to screw the low level teachers (folks like me), so that the ones with seniority could keep their benefits. Who cares about the future so long as you get yours then. Rather then firing the ones who were costing the most, they would fire all the cheap and young ones.
Low wages >>> No wages.
Not so. Look at the dirty little secret about worker constraints. There are not enough skilled workers in America. America is starving for workers right now, but can't get them because of the red tape walls that government throws up to prevent them from doing so.
Right now, the workforce is the same size it was in 1983.
