The Rand Formula

[Stoker]

Contrast Canada's relativelty robust economy with that of the U.S., land of free-market opportunity, and your argument falls flat on its face.

As of last year, the U.S economy was growing at a rate of 3.1% and an unemployment rate of 6.2%..........Canada on the other hand has a growth rate of 1.6% and an unemployment rate of 7.7%............

And all this when Americans think their economy is in "trouble" and Canadians think their's is doing good..........Who's argument fell on it's face?

[Hjalmar]

BD

My claims are self evident. No hard data required for that. Hard data comes from surveys and other peoples opinions. A lot of what I post is my opinion. You and I agree to disagree. Can you not accept that? You are free to attack my postings and I am free to attack yours.

You have been screaming for hard data here since day one. It likely will never be forthcoming. But you're free to voice your opinions.

[Black Dog]

BD

My claims are self evident. No hard data required for that. Hard data comes from surveys and other peoples opinions. A lot of what I post is my opinion. You and I agree to disagree. Can you not accept that? You are free to attack my postings and I am free to attack yours.

You have been screaming for hard data here since day one. It likely will never be forthcoming. But you're free to voice your opinions.

Well, you know what they say about opinions....

If they were true, offering up some compelling economic data (that's hard evidence) should be easy as pie. Yet you can't do that. Which is fine inasmuch as its your opinion. But if your opinion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it damages your credibility and that of your opinion. So you hide behind your argument being "self-evident".

I mean, my "opinion" could be that the sun revolves around the earth. But that opinion wouldn't stand up very olng in the face of the compelling hard evidence available.

As of last year, the U.S economy was growing at a rate of 3.1% and an unemployment rate of 6.2%..........Canada on the other hand has a growth rate of 1.6% and an unemployment rate of 7.7%............

Canada's GDP (% real change pa)

2000: 5.26

2001: 1.92

2002: 3.28

2003: 1.71

US GDP (% real change pa)

2000:3.66

2001:0.51

2002: 2.19

2003: 3.12

You're numbers are correct, but teh U.S. has gon ethrough a great deal of economic upheaval. More relevant to the argument at hand, though, is labour costs:

Canada

Labour costs per hour (USD)

2000: 16.04

2001: 15.80

2002: 16.02

2003: 18.47

USA

Labour costs per hour (USD)

2000: 19.76

2001: 20.60

2002: 21.33

2003: 21.83

[Hjalmar]

But if your opinion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it damages your credibility and that of your opinion. So you hide behind your argument being "self-evident".

Why should a persons opinion have to stand up to scrutiny? And why would a persons opinion damage ones credibility? Your credibility with me hasn't been damaged, but following your argument, it would have been.

I think the time has come for union supporters like yourself to come to grips with the real world today. I don't think you have any idea how many people are putting down labour unions today. And you should hear what they are saying about them. And I agree with them and I publicize it. In other words I'm speaking out for the silent majority. I do it on a voluntary basis.

Data that I post comes from reliable sources. If you don't want to believe it that is your choice. Have you heard of Lord William Rees Mogg and James Dale Davidson? Most of my information comes from their writings in "Blood in the Streets", "The Great Reckoning" and their latest book "The Sovereign Individual".

[Hjalmar]

In 1991, after they had already largely abandoned the classic Swedish model of the postwar years, the social democrats were voted out of office. The new conservative government appointed a commission of seven non-socialist economists "to analyze the economic crisis in Sweden and to suggest ways to solve it." Turning Sweden Around" documents the revenge of the iron law of wages. It finds an unemployment rate of 14%, public sector spending running at an unsustainable rate of 70% of Gross Domestic Product, a fall from arguably first among

industrialized nations in GDP per capita to 14th, a strong inflation bias, recurrent budget deficits, and severe financial and building crises.

In its six sophisticated, well-written, and mathematically accurate chapters "Turning Sweden Around" repeats again and again one central and pervasive theme: Swedish wages are too high ! To compete in international markets, Sweden must produce goods at competitive prices, which means paying less to workers (either directly or indirectly, through taxes).

The main theme of "Turning Sweden Around" is not a surprise. it is common sense...it is the teaching of plain old fashioned classical micro-economics...it is a conclusion mandated by the constitutive rules of modern society.

That historical experience revealed the limitations of the Swedish model is not a surprise. What is surprising is that in the 1950s and 1960s so many people believed that the Swedish model was sustainable and generalizable to the rest of the world. What needs to be explained is the specious credibility of the illusions it engendered.

Common sense says that as a general rule, with limited exceptions, high wages cannot be sustained in an open economy because global competition will require producers to cut costs, and therefore wages.

[Guest eureka]

"Self-evident!" The "Silent majority!" Other such obfuscation. Tell me, have you studied under Leo Strauss the philosophical master of the new "communications of the neo-libs? You paractise the same eristic style of argument that he taught.

US unemployment at 6.2 % is an historic high for times that are not recessionary. 7% or so, in Canada is failrly low. The difference in those rates does not reflect economic performance but the structure of the economies.

Then, you suggest that there is work for all seasonal workers when their season ends. You say that these "facts" are from reliable sources and are your opinion presumably based on your reliable sources. Could you enlighten all those who are looking for these jobs with information as to where these available jobs are and what they are?

You might be better served in the formulation of your opinions if you broadened your base of reference. A couple of books by idologues of the new "Right" does not provide you with a sound argument. When those apologists invoke "common sense" as a support for their narrow, and not empirically based ideas, be very sceptical. "Common sense" in complex matters is the crutch of the mass of those who cannot understand their subject.

[Cartman]

Lazy me...who is in power in Sweden right now? I thought the right enjoyed only a few years in gov't. Could be mistaken.

[August1991]

Canada

Labour costs per hour (USD)

2000: 16.04

2001: 15.80

2002: 16.02

2003: 18.47

USA

Labour costs per hour (USD)

2000: 19.76

2001: 20.60

2002: 21.33

2003: 21.83

One could just as easily use these (very short term) stats to show that American workers have a higher income.

The fact of the matter is that the unions in Canada are now largely concentrated in the public sector. Public sector unions are in effect monoplies paid through our taxes. One can easily imagine what this leads to.

All unions are cartels. They restrict supply and raise prices to make a monopoly profit. This leads to numerous problems but I'll mention just one: bureaucracy. The complexity of employment in the public sector lies in stark contrast to the ease of employment decisions in the non-unionized private sector. The public sector requires endless meetings, job descriptions, organization charts, restructuring, re-restructuring, priority lists, labour tribunals, red-circling and so on. Even the vocabulary is boring. This is a Soviet path to stagnation.

[maplesyrup]

I probably need a history lesson but my take on what happened is first there were corporations which were created to exploit on behalf of the corpoate executives, and then came the unions to attempt to cut down on the exploitation of corporations, on behalf of the employees.

I agree that unions can overdo it, however my preference is that unions focus and work aggressively on unionizing the employees in private industry including the 7/11s, etc., as difficult as that may be.

Has anyone here heard of someone named Saul Alinsky?

Reveille For Radicals:

[maplesyrup]

Hjalmar......here is a paragraph from the above article:

When he was 12 years old, one of Saul's friends was beaten up by three Polish kids. "So naturally we went on the hunt and found a couple of Poles." But the police arrived, arrested them all, and took them to the station where they were claimed by furious mothers. On their way home, Alinsky's mother took him to the rabbi who lectured him about misbehavior. Saul defended himself, "So we beat them up. That's the American way. It's also in the Old Testament: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Beat the hell out of them. That's what everybody does." The rabbi answered, "You think you're a man because you do what everybody does. Now I want to tell you something the great Rabbi Hillel said, 'Where there are no men, be thou a man.' I want you to remember that."

And your quote:

I don't think you have any idea how many people are putting down labour unions today. And you should hear what they are saying about them. And I agree with them and I publicize it. In other words I'm speaking out for the silent majority. I do it on a voluntary basis.

When you suggest the silent majority or whatever, so what? Since when does that make it right?

The only thing that tells me is we need a labour oriented TV network to offset the BS with the suits agenda on the corporate networks.

[Hjalmar]

eureka

Then, you suggest that there is work for all seasonal workers when their season ends.

No, that is not what I said. But you have managed to twist that around somewhat so as to make it look

ridiculous. Here is what I said "There is work for anyone who wants to work. If you cannot find employment you create your own. If you are unable to do that then you raise and grow your own food." The wording may not be exact but the meaning is similar. To say that I said "There is work for all seasonal workers" as compared to " There is work for anyone who wants to work" is a bit of a stretch.

By the way, your postings remind me of another poster that frequented another forum of mine a few years ago -- did you change your nic?

[Cartman]

I said "There is work for anyone who wants to work. If you cannot find employment you create your own. If you are unable to do that then you raise and grow your own food." The wording may not be exact but the meaning is similar. To say that I said "There is work for all seasonal workers" as compared to " There is work for anyone who wants to work" is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think there is a serious shortage of work, but surviving on the rewards for that work is an entirely different matter. That is why people often work 2-3 jobs and often do not have time to spend with their kids if they have them. One can only stretch time and money so far. You should read/watch "Nickel and Dimed".

Creating your own work often requires capital that is hard to obtain. Growing your own food is a great idea, but it also assumes access to resources that may be in short supply (i.e. money, land, time and knowledge). Not impossible, but not as easy as you suggest. One still requires money for rent and other bills though.

The only thing that tells me is we need a labour oriented TV network to offset the BS with the suits agenda on the corporate networks.

I like this idea.

[Hjalmar]

An old Chinese folk wisdom holds, "Of all the thirty-six ways to get out of trouble, the best way is -- leave."

In the Information Age, that Oriental wisdom will be easily applied. If operations become uncomfortable due to excessive demands in one location, it will be far easier to move. Indeed, it will be possible in the Information Age to create virtual corporations whose domicile in any jurisdiction will be entirely contingent on the spot market. An overnight increase in the degree of attempted extortion, either by labour unions or governments, could lead to the activities and assets of the virtual corporation fleeing the jurisdiction at the speed of light.

The growing integration of microtechnology into industrial processes means that even those firms that still deal in manufactured products with great economies of scale are no longer as vulnerable to the leverage of violence as they once were. An example illustrating this point is the collapse of the United Auto Workers union's lengthy strike against Caterpillar, which was called off in the waning days of 1995 after almost two years. Unlike the assembly lines of the 1930's, today's Caterpillar plant employs far more skilled workers. Pressed by foreign competition, Caterpillar farmed out much of the low-skill work, closed inefficient plants, and spent almost $2 billion computerizing machine tools and installing assembly robots. Even the strike itself helped spur labor-saving efficiencies. The company now claims to need two thousand fewer employees than when the walkout began.

[Hjalmar]

When you suggest the silent majority or whatever, so what? Since when does that make it right?

I believe the will of the majority counts in this country -- be it right or wrong.

[Hjalmar]

In a global economy everyone must compete and this includes governments as well when it comes to taxation. Our society today is very mobile and the ambitious, the educated, the go-getters, the people with a strong work ethic and our most productive people will simply make their exit. They will flee to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. In other words our most desired citizens will not be around to fund governments who's taxes are not competitive. There-in lies the death of the welfare state as we have come to know it. The province of Alberta will always have a good fiscally responsible government because their government policies have attracted this type of voter to the province

[Hjalmar]

The most urgent need in the new millenium will be to increase the payoff from accomplishment. The countries that will best adapt to this new revolution are those with the most productive citizens -- Switzerland, and some Asian countries come to mind. Rather than penalize the successful, and making it more difficult to become and remain affluent, a rational government policy would aim for the opposite result. It would reduce taxes, income re-distribution, and guarantees against failure that are the essence of the welfare state. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. Education today needs to focus on training people to produce income rather than to re-distribute it.

[Stoker]

I believe the will of the majority counts in this country -- be it right or wrong.

VERY GOOD POINT!!!

I wonder, if put to a national referendum, if the majority of Canadians would be in favor of some form of right to work laws...........Out here on the west coast, I'm sure most people that rely on BC Ferries would have loved to throw the workers out on their collective (pun intended) asses during their last strike.

[Cartman]

I wonder, if put to a national referendum, if the majority of Canadians would be in favor of some form of right to work laws

No, people had the chance to try and institute such sick policies and they told Harper to "stick it". Deal with it!

QUOTE 

I believe the will of the majority counts in this country -- be it right or wrong.

The majority is not always right. If that were the case, then why bother having governments at all? You could just hold a series of issue polls every week. It would be very accurate and economical. At one point in time, I suspect that a majority of Germans supported Hitler, that a majority of Americans supported slavery, that a majority of Europeans supported anti-Semitism and that a majority of men supported women being barefoot and pregnant (see where I am going with this?). Just because the majority supports prejudice and/ or discrimination doesn't make it right. Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

So, no...not a "VERY GOOD POINT!!!"

[Stoker]

No, people had the chance to try and institute such sick policies and they told Harper to "stick it". Deal with it!

I don't remeber that being part of the Conservative platform.....was it even?

And what's sick about it? 75% of working Canadians are not in a union.........are we all sick also?

The majority is not always right. If that were the case, then why bother having governments at all? You could just hold a series of issue polls every week. It would be very accurate and economical. At one point in time, I suspect that a majority of Germans supported Hitler, that a majority of Americans supported slavery, that a majority of Europeans supported anti-Semitism and that a majority of men supported women being barefoot and pregnant (see where I am going with this?). Just because the majority supports prejudice and/ or discrimination doesn't make it right. Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

So, no...not a "VERY GOOD POINT!!!"

Go read his quote again:

I believe the will of the majority counts in this country -- be it right or wrong.

And in this case, I've yet to see what the majority is doing wrong........regardless, this is a democracy, and until you get a majority of Canadians sold on your idea of a workers paradise......deal with it!

As has been asked many times, if Unions were so great, why isn't everybody part of one?

[maplesyrup]

As has been asked many times, if Unions were so great, why isn't everybody part of one?

Because they have been brainwashed against them.

I just saw a Canadian Olympic athlete complaining about how all the negative media attacks on the Canadian athletes affects their performance. I agree with her, just like I agree that all the negativity directed against unions on the corporate TV networks impacts on people.

Let's stop being so silly, eh!

[Stoker]

Because they have been brainwashed against them.

That sounds like something a patient up at River View would say when asked what he or she thought about the world........."They're all crazy, I'm the only sane one left"

[August1991]

Because they have been brainwashed against them.

That also explains why eastern Europe is no longer Communist. American corporations managed to brainwash people from Warsaw to Bucarest into believing that socialism is bad.

Leftists too often confuse symbol and reality.

[maplesyrup]

Nonsense, no one is proposing totalitarianism here, just a level playing field.

[maplesyrup]

MERE TOLERANCE IS NOT ENOUGH

Excerpts from Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky

The American people were, in the beginning, Revolutionaries and Tories. The American people ever since have been Revolutionaries and Tories regardless of the labels of the passed and present. Regardless of whether they were Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free Soilers, Unionists or Confederates, Populists, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, or Progressives. They have been and are profiteers and patriots. They have been and are conservatives, liberals, and radicals.

The class of radicals, conservatives, and liberals which makes up America's political history opens the door to the most fundamental question of what is America? How do the people of America feel? It is in the feeling that the real story of America is written. There were and are a number of Americans -- few, to be sure -- filled with deep feeling for people. They know that people are the stuff that makes up the dream of democracy. These few were and are the American radicals and the only way that we can understand the American radicals is to understand what we mean by this feeling for and with people. Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and other learned students call this feeling "identification" and have elaborate and complicated explanations about what it means. For our purposes it boils down to the simple question, How do you feel about people?

Do you like people? Most people claim that they like people with, of course, a "few exceptions." When the exceptions are added together it becomes clear that they include a vast majority of the people. It becomes equally clear that most people like just a few people, there kind of people, and either do not actively care for or actively dislike most of the "other" people.

You are white, native-born, and Protestant. Do you like people? You like your family, your friends, some of your business associates (not too many of them), and some of your neighbors. Do you like Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Mexicans, Negroes, Puerto Ricans, and Chinese? Do you regard them with the warm feeling of fellow human beings or with a cold contempt symbolized in Papists, Micks, Wops, Kikes, Hunkies, Greasers, Niggers, Spics, and Chinks? If you are one of those people who think of people in these derogatory terms, then you don't like people.

The more I hear about this Alinsky guy the more I like about him!

[Hjalmar]

No, people had the chance to try and institute such sick policies and they told Harper to "stick it". Deal with it!

"Right to work" laws was never part of the Conservative platform. Quite frankly, I wish it would have been. A lot of people would have supported it. I believe legislation like that would have to take place at the provincial level since labour laws fall within their jurisdiction. Can you imagine, if as much as one province opted for such laws, the impact it would have.. That province would become a magnet and people from all walks of life would be flooding their borders... other provinces would likely have to follow suit.

Nonsense, no one is proposing totalitarianism here, just a level playing field

A level playing field for all workers MS? I would support that.