Are labor unions beneficial to society, or parasitic?

Whining Department

click here to post your own bitch against free trade in this webpage.

A Bitch Against Free Trade from S. John McCormick

smccormick@oemgroup.com

I just read your article on geocities. If I had the time to answer each of your points I would, but have only time for one, maybe central to your theme. You say that it's American to be paid what you're worth and if your value goes down that's the price of capitalism. I am capitalist but I also realize that without laws to protect people, capitalism would enslave the world.

Capitalism is only as good as the country it is practiced in. You say it's the market that determines the worth of an individual. That's a euphemism for saying the Chinese worker determines what you're worth. So if you value life at the same level as the Chinese government, continue on your course. Your grandchildren . . . maybe even your children will end up down that river.

A good example of globalist influence on American laws is the effect trade has had on the unions. When you declare 'free trade' with countries that outlaw unions, it is de facto outlawing unions in your country. As sure as a stone sinks in water, jobs will shift to where the wages are less. Over time, it will eventually cause unions to disappear. Without unions we move back to JP Morgan days -- child labor, subsistance wages and record poverty.

Capitalism does not have a soul, it is NOT self-governing. Its underlying theme is 'anything for a buck'. When you import goods, especially with borrowed money, you import a piece of the exporter's society, its laws, values and the value the exporter puts in it, i.e., human labor.

The word 'globalization' is self-defining. By definition, you can't be American if you're a Globalist. Globalists see the world without borders. In a completely interdependent world borders mean nothing. Without borders there is no sovereignty. Being an American means putting America first.

S. John McCormick, BSA MBA

---

Freetrader's response to the above:

"You say that it's American to be paid what you're worth and if your value goes down that's the price of capitalism. I am capitalist but I also realize that without laws to protect people, capitalism would enslave the world."

Of course laws are needed to protect people. But we don't need laws to dictate what people should be paid for their services. The best protection to both buyers and sellers is that each individual should be free to choose whether to buy or sell something (including labor) and at what price. The best rule is for each individual to be free to accept or refuse any offer, without interference from any third party, such as the state (or a union or a gang of thugs).

"Capitalism is only as good as the country it is practiced in."

The above rule, of protecting individual free choice, will make any country a better country.

"You say it's the market that determines the worth of an individual. That's a euphemism for saying the Chinese worker determines what you're worth."

Yes, if you're a factory worker, and anyone can do that factory work, then your value is very low, as long as all you do is that factory work. Your potential value might be much higher, but as long as your only realized value is in that low-level work that anyone else can do, then it is a very low value. That is just a fact of life, with or without China. (Further, without China our standard of living would be lower.)

"So if you value life at the same level as the Chinese government . . . Your grandchildren . . . maybe even your children will end up down that river."

If my grandchildren do very low-level low-value work that anyone else can do, then their value will be very low, and they won't be entitled to much. Today's American factory and textile workers are very low-value workers who are mostly overpaid, because they are worth even less than the low wages they are now being paid. Whatever "river" they end up in is what they deserve. They are not entitled to any more than what they have earned, or what they have produced, and if they are easily replaceable, then they have earned very little. Let them earn more by becoming more valueable and more productive and less replaceable.

"A good example of globalist influence on American laws is the effect trade has had on the unions. When you declare 'free trade' with countries that outlaw unions, it is de facto outlawing unions in your country."

Only crybabies need fear competition from poor countries. We don't need unions whose only purpose is to whine and protect their members from having to compete in the marketplace. Unions that are for grown-ups who want to compete and serve consumers have nothing to fear from foreign competition and cheap labor. Cheap labor and competition benefit all consumers. The purpose of the marketplace is to serve consumers, not provide entitlements to uncompetitive crybabies who need a "job" to keep them out of mischief.

"As sure as a stone sinks in water, jobs will shift to where the wages are less. Over time, it will eventually cause unions to disappear."

Not the ones for grown-ups. Only the crybaby unions will disappear. Which is just as well.

"Without unions we move back to JP Morgan days -- child labor, subsistance wages and record poverty."

No, unions did not eliminate child labor and poverty and low wages. Most workers gained higher wages because the value of their labor increased. That higher value gave them real increased bargaining power, and employers had to pay them higher wages in order to retain them. Unions generally were formed AFTER the wage incomes had already increased. Also, the need for child labor decreased as the free market produced higher incomes and higher living standards for most people. Child labor is not necessary when the living standard is high. Unions did not produce any of the wealth, but came into existence only after the living standard came up, as a byproduct of the prosperity.

PROSPERITY PRODUCES UNIONS, NOT VICE VERSA.

"Capitalism does not have a soul, it is NOT self-governing. Its underlying theme is 'anything for a buck'."

Just clichés that a Pavlovian dog (or parrot) could be trained to spew out.

"When you import goods, especially with borrowed money, . . ."

The money we pay for imported goods is no more "borrowed" than the money we pay for domestic goods. The truth is that there is too much credit buying in the U.S., whether for domestic or imported products. That is a different topic. Those consumers who live within their budget and restrict their consumption to what they can afford are entitled to have access to the imports. It is perverse to punish them (restricting their choices) simply because other consumers are irresponsible and spend beyond their means.

". . . you import a piece of the exporter's society, its laws, values and the value the exporter puts in it, i.e., human labor."

We haven't imported anything of those societies that was bad for us. However, some of them have imported some of our values, e.g., China, which is slowly moving in the direction of free enterprise and human rights. And without their contact with U.S. capitalism, there would have been no student Democracy movement in China.

"The word 'globalization' is self-defining. By definition, you can't be American if you're a Globalist."

You can't impose your definition of "American" onto all the rest of us. My definition is better than yours. My "America" is one based on merit and competition and the idea that everyone should earn their own way, without being subsidized, and should have to serve consumers and be entitled to nothing without earning it. That's a better definition than yours.

"In a completely interdependent world borders mean nothing. Without borders there is no sovereignty. Being an American means putting America first."

You win the spewing-out-meaningless-clichés contest.

---

Rebuttal from McCormick

Your 'debunking' needs debunking. If you look cloesely at what you have written you are basically agreeing with my conclusions regarding unregulated and unchecked capitalism. However, I must point out that you should take a history class or two. Unions were created to offeset the power of the Corporation. To say that they came into existence as the result of prosperity is simply the biggest line of pure bull I have ever heard in my lifetime!

You obviously have no respect for the truth in the debunking. Do you think people like paying dues? You've already agreed that there is no place for a 'soul' in capitalism so how can you believe that wages were increased out of the goodness of the corporate 'heart'.

You say we're better off if the Chinese have the right to trade freely. Then I guess you would agree that the 27% tariff on our auto parts to China is not a good thing? But should we do nothing to even this imbalance?

If the Chinese government decided its workers should be housed in work camps then should we do the same to compete? or at the least condone this by importing goods that were produced in the camps because they are produced at less cost? If you answer yes to these questions you are an elitist who has no respect for a man's labor. You and your offspring are doomed to live in a society that represents the worst that America has to offer without any of its redeeming qualities.

Your dishonesty shows again when you say we influenced the Chinese for the good and they have had no effect on us. Just look at your attitude toward a man's labor -- looks Chinese to me!

You didn't debunk anything. You just spewed out your opinions. You presented no facts. Only opinions that were not based on facts. Your globalist attitude proves you are not the traditionally admired American. The American that uses his heart and soul to determine what is just and ethical, not the 'anything for a buck' attitude that permeates your arguments. I think you need spiritual help.

S John McCormick

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---