Rich get richer from fewer labor unions

A study by the International Monetary Fund tracked three decades of income and found that as unionization declined, the wealth of the richest 10 percent in advanced countries showed a continuous increase.
More specifically, the study’s authors found that when researching income levels during the period of 1980-2010, the decline in unionization explained about half of the rise in incomes for the richest 10 percent, and half of the increase in the Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality).
The authors said traditional research has argued that the rise of inequality in advanced economies can be attributed to skill-based technology changes – such as new technology displacing workers – and globalization. They found that these developments led to some inequality changes at different rates and magnitudes, but not enough to account for the consistent increase in inequality that was being measured.
This situation will destroy America one day. I don't want to live in society with such a great inequality. As millions do not want.
So there are two questions:
How to prevent the progress of it?
Or how can we change our society?

 

one bus company bucking the global ceo matrix system i see
http://www.thehoopsnews.com/2015/03...ion-joins-teamsters-union-over-wages-dispute/

 

Glad you asked. I have the answer. Eliminate the regulations that prevent people from working for themselves to build their own empires. Democrats claim to care about the poor, but they do not. They simply want the vote of the poor. So, they keep them in poverty, thus making them dependant on the government for aid. They pass regulations that only the wealthy corporations can afford. Farmers get cheap mexican labor, and tax breaks for hiring them. The mexicans get government aid for their food and shelter. The democrats get their votes. The corporations have little competition from small business, so they're happy, as well. And the politicians are happy because they can continue to steal money from people through taxes to expand the government to hire more people, to steal more of thier money from taxes. Eventually they steal so much from the people they are too poor to support the economy.

 

So let's give them unions. Think about it, a poor person might not necessarily be given the educational means to improve his own capital, which is needed to get those higher paying jobs. So why not give them the opportunities through a union? Running a union might not be glamorous but it does show people that this person has leadership potential. Since it has ties to the government as well, it can be a good stepping stone onto a political path. It's a lobbying group and if laws can be put in place that the union wants, then the poor do have the means to do better in life.

 

lol, Yeah, regulations are stopping the poor *shaking head*

The inability of conservative policies to EVER work is the sham here Bubs

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.

 

Shaking your head is not an effective rebuttal. You'll have to do better than that.

 

Actually, what you seen in action over the last 100 years is progressive policies. You see where we are now.

 

You missed the point. Without the burdensome regulations, a person does not NEED a college education to succeed. College is a scam. Regulations require degrees, which forcefully increases demands, allowing them to increase prices, which they can get since the government offers loans which increases the debt for students in two ways. Artifically inflated prices, and a loan payment, then taxes on top of all that.

 

What's that, to your false premise? If we followed conservative economic theory the US would look like a 3rd world nation like the US was before PROGRESSIVE policies built the worlds largest middle class. Of course conservative policies (think low taxes for the "job creators", "free trade", etc) are pushing that middle class down

 

Yeah, better think again Bubs



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

 

Yet 75% of US don't have degrees? Your entire premise is BS. What no regulations YOU support would do is make US look like China (think the US 100+ years ago) or Texas where things blow up, and Corps aren't held accountable!

 

Progressive ideology all comes to a disastrous head eventually.

 

Wrong "O"

The rich are getting rich because they are smarter.

It's called nature.

As far as America goes,

the fact that obama never misses a chance to help out his

Wall Street buddies is another big reason the rich are getting richer.

Where is the outrage for this from the liberal hypocrites?

Not a peep as far as I can see.

Today's unions are not our fathers or grandfathers unions,

today's unions are composed of America hating socialist who want to destroy America as we know it.

It never ceases to amaze me how jealous progressive liberal socialist are.

They despise the rich because of their own inability to further themselves due to their own shortcomings.

The more Rich people there are, the better it is for everyone, it's just common sense, that

like all common sense the left denies.

All on the progressive left would love to be rich, but the cold hard truth is

most of them don't have the brains to get there.

 

Who said anything about a college education? Education here just means skills, whether blue collar or white collar, an education means that a person has some sort of skill. What you're doing is just moving the goalpost. We're talking about unions, not college educations.

 

The first thing we can do is financially protest and now is the perfect time to do it.
Americans have about 20 trillion in retirement accounts. Obama's MyRA scam launched last year and will soon become mandatory takes your savings and invests it into Treasury bonds. 18 Trillion in debt and they think we arent able to handle our own funds.
Pay their penalty and take out your savings before it becomes mandatory and they decide how much you can have every month. Put it into hard assets that cant be confiscated through taxation or inflation. The MYRA gives a person less interest than actually keeps up with inflation so you lose ppi on that money monthly.
The derivative bets of the banking sector (TBTF) now stands at 1.2 QUATRILLION DOLLARS. They know that after allowing the banks to determine their own value on their assets to borrow against that they are over leveraged many times more than the globes entire asset value.
At the G-20 last year they passed laws that make our deposits in these banks "loans" instead of FDCA backed deposits. Why did they do that. Because investments can be lost and deposits were supposedly guaranteed by a completely under funded insurance company (FDCA)
Right now silver is at 73.25/1 ratio to gold. Historical averages and the bases of our original gold backed currency it was set at 16/1. We have used 80% of the above ground silver since the tech bubble started. Moving money out of their grasp and into an option that they have no control of is their biggest gfear and the reason for the blatant manipulation of the metals market through paper gold billion banks.
Get out of the system.
Cick to enlarge:

 

An education does not mean someone has skills, just a piece of paper proving they could sit through class and get above failing grades.

 

Education here doesn't mean a classroom setting, it means learning of skills a person has. I can go to school and learn how to be a better writer yes, just in the same way as me going into the field and learning how pipes work. Either way, I received an education.

 

Those are YOUR words. You said a person may not have the educational means. Education is schooling, which is not required to learn a trade. A person can learn a trade from another experienced person. Or, a person could run their own business without an education, were it not for burdensome regulations. Licenses, fees, and Certification, which is nothing more than forced 'education', which requires more expense.

 

Where did I bring up College?

Education does not mean school, right.

.

Right. How does this debunk what I said?

You are aware that businesses also force people to have skills as well right? In fact, businesses want the government to regulate these things because it means that the workers they have, will be the best at what they do. If not, then the business would have to pay for the education, which just drives up the costs for everyone else.

 

The context of your statement concerning 'educated' denotes the insinuation of an institution, as you are well aware. You marxists are clever with your subversive tactics, but they will not get by me I assure you.
Businesses want regulations but it is not for what you claim of having the best people. It is to eliminate competition, and guarantee the sustenance of an expensive educational system via 'certification'. How much would advanced education cost were it not required? Much less, I assure you.

 

What regulations are those?

Republicans have all kinds of excuses. When do they plan to represent Americans?

 

I'm a moderate with collective Anarchist leanings. Marxism just wants too much government for my tastes, but thanks for the personal insult. Mostly because people who have to rely on personal insults don't have an argument at this point.

No they don't. That expensive education means that they're going to have to jack up wages because the skilled labor is going to need it. They want low costing education just like anyone else.

Once again, advanced education is not what we're talking about. You don't need a college degree to be able to write down the alphabet. Education exists everywhere, businesses like it, and so do workers.

 

As unions lose influence so working people lose their ability to effectively bargain. This sees workers in a position where they have to accept whatever the employer offers. Now I'm very much in favour of collective bargaining within businesses rather than across industries. The wellbeing of the business and the employees are dependent on each other. Take away the ability to bargain effectively and wages will go down while profits go up. Generalise that situation across an economy and you're asking for trouble.

 

I read the report. All it shows is that since 1980, income inequality has increased, and unionization has decreases, and then they claim the income inequality is due to decreased unionization. That's all.

Total BS.

Population also increased since 1980, I can just as validly claim that the increase in income inequality is due to the increase in population. Or the increase in greenhouse gas. Or the decrease in crime rate.

Why the IMF is taking a pro-union stance is the real question.

 

Wrong!
That is supply and demand of labor. Cut immigration, and a smaller labor pool will increase wages automatically.