CROSS-POSTED COMMENT TO “Monopsony Takes Center Stage”
by Marshall Steinbaum at ProMarket:
“employer power and its consequences for labor market outcomes has been a distinctly minority concern in the economics profession for quite a while”
POLITICS (meaning dump Trump) WILL PUT ANTI-MONOPSONY POWER ON EVERYBODY’S FRONT BURNER IF ONLY FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICAL ADVANTAGE (good enough for labor as long as we get what we want):
NYT’s Nate Cohn: Trump won by trading places with Obama:
“Just as Mr. Obama’s team caricatured Mr. Romney, Mr. Trump caricatured Mrs. Clinton as a tool of Wall Street” … “At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better among white voters without a college degree than Mitt Romney did in 2012 — by a wide margin.
Agenda: Dems to get loudly busy rebuilding labor union density state by progressive state and not so progressive states. Republicans will have no place to hide.
Agenda for most regressive states (20) — that bar some or most gov employ bargaining: BINDING ARBITRATION can be asserted to be a First Amendment protected right — to challenge states that bar state government entities from bargaining with their employees. First Amendment protects right to organize unions — but courts say does not compel govs to bargain because too weighted in too many ways in favor of employees. But, cannot leave high and dry if there is a third way — not with First Amendment rights at stake — not when binding arbitration is sort of the definition of a process that seeks to fairly re-balance union/government bargaining.
And only takes court action; not massive organization.
For more progressive states: if widespread state laws already criminally barred employers from using market power to muscle collective bargaining of any description (firing organizers and joiners) — IOW against monopsony in the labor market — and for the first time ever Congress was considering NLRA type legislation via setting up union certification processes — said theoretical Congress might not happen to include any criminal level enforcement of its new law for a variety of possible reasons — might want to see the results of various state enforcement schemes, etc. — and might decide to leave criminal enforcement solely to the states (at least for a time).
Which is to say would be an exact legal parallel to states, today, making union busting a felony — no worry at all about crossing federal preemption should occur at all. The state laws I envision today would protect any employee or ad hoc bargaining group — not just those attempting to organize under federally prescribed rubrics — to reassure, again, would be no clash with federal preemption.
The New Conservative Legal Movement vs. the Old Conservative Legal Movement: This is an incredibly important, and extremely welcome, development, especially because some very big names in the Old Movement are now actively—and in one instance, stunningly—part of the New Movement.
I’m betting that this blog post, featured on the Post’s Opinions web page, spells the death knell for Sessions’ confirmation.
There are, clearly, some really, really important silver linings to the wakeup call that is the Trump/Ryan/McConnell juggernaut. The left and the libertarian right both are seriously waking up.
Trump, of course, thinks it’s still the 1980s/’90s in all respects except that Russia thing—thus his heavy stocking of his administration with circa 1988 Republican extremists. Except for that Russia thing.
Turns out, though, that this isn’t the 1980s or ‘90s, after all. Had Clinton figured that out, she be about to become president. There’s something about that early-boomer generation that prohibits recognition of that. For Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, it was always be that era. So this general election played out in a time warp. And the Trump administration plans to, as well.
Just a few days ago I tweeted that it’s pretty darn obvious that Trump expects to be blackmailed or bribed by Putin concerning the huge loans and investments of Russian oligarchs to the Trump Organization.
The report also says what also was damn clear: During the campaign, there were regular communications between Trump surrogates and Russian intermediaries.
Excuse me, but I do think we’re talking treason here. In any event, Trump will be ousted quickly. Lucky Pence. And lucky us.
Here’s what I learned, Sammy, and what you should have learned, too: That the final polls before the election, post-Comey-letter, showed Clinton winning the popular vote by virtually the percentage that she won the popular vote; that the polls taken just before Comey showed Clinton with a narrowing lead in PA, MI and WI, a decrease that corresponded to the releases of the leaked Podesta emails and to Trump’s sudden cries of “Drain the swamp!”
According to fivethirtyeight, the poll averages on Oct. 27, the day before Comey, Clinton had a lead of about 2% in several of the states she lost by tiny margins. A couple of days before the election, a poll of MI showed a dead heat and Clinton’s own polls suddenly showed a “softness” and did Trump’s, which is why both of them suddenly scheduled campaign events there for the day before the election, Clinton’s with Obama near Detroit. In FL, which had begun early voting weeks before, Dems were leading Repubs by a small margin by Oct. 28. On election day, the polls were showing a dead heat.
Trump won FL by 1.3%, PA by 1%, WI by .07% and MI by .02%. Suffice it to say that thee all were comfortably within those polls’ margins of error.
Yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll has a margin of error of 3.3%.
Forgot to mention: There were no polls for president taken in WI, post-Comey. Even Clinton’s campaign didn’t poll there, feeling comfortable with their narrowing-but-decent (obviously outdated) lead there.
The story was reported from the outset as unverified. Is THAT what you’re saying was debunked? That it was unverified?
Wow, Krasting. If unverified means debunked, the alt-right generally, and Donald Trump in particular, spew nothing BUT debunked stories.
And to think I’d thought that only the stories that actually WERE debunked–e.g., thousands and thousands of Muslims standing on NJ rooftops on 9/11 and cheering; Hillary Clinton and John Podesta running a child sex ring out of a popular D.C. pizza restaurant–were debunked.
Turns out I was wrong!
Krasting, why is it that the winger-right has such difficulty recognizing and understanding standard dictionary-definition meanings of common English language words?
” . . . why is it that the winger-right has such difficulty recognizing and understanding standard dictionary-definition meanings of common English language words?”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Ooookay. Washington Post: Trump said this morning that many states “did get it right” by voting for him and those states would have better jobs, security and veterans services.
He also warned companies not to move jobs out of the country from states that voted heavily for him.
Sooo, I’ll be (probably) the first to point out that the Supreme Court in the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), held that there is a fundamental constitutional precept prohibits the federal government from treating states unequally.
It also likely violates the First Amendment’s speech and association protections and the Fifth Amendment’s “equal-protection component” under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
But … whatever.
(Actually, I already tweeted this earlier, so I probably did beat out everyone else on these points.)
Beverly, That is seriously impugning the work and social contribution of Lewis Carroll. Joseph Goebbels would be more to the point that you’re trying to make. Or possibly George Orwell in an indirect manner through Winston Smith.
OK boys and girls. Time to sharpen our pencils and write a not to Anderson Cooper regarding his disastrous interview with Kellyann Conway. Who was the interviewer and who the interviewee. More to the point Cooper should be reminded that good journalism requires a pair of euphemistic testicles. She had him on the ropes over the CNN publication off the Englishman’s security dossier. Not once did Cooper have the thoughtfulness to point out CNN’s significant contributions to Trump’s electoral victory by having his so called surrogates on their “bi-partisan” panels, all of whom did nothing but lie through their teeth about every issue. An incredible poor showing on Cooper’s part. Maybe that was still a part of CNN’s behind the scenes support of Trump. They need to protect a good profit center.
Lewis Carroll was a story teller with a vivid imagination and incredibly knack for turning the world on its head. Trump is just a liar. That Joel wants to conflate the two is an insufficient rationale for suggesting some connection between Carroll and Trump. As I said, Joseph Goebbels is the best choice for comparison.
If you bother to read the thread, you’ll discover that I never conflated Lewis Carroll with Trump. I didn’t say anything at all about Trump. My comment was a response to Bev’s comment about the “winger right.”
Please pay attention, particularly when you attack someone who is on your side, m’kay?
Joel, I see your point and won’t argue the detail. It is likely that Carroll meant the reference to the misuse of words as a critique of political talk iin his own time. Or maybe more generally than just politics. The winger right, which Trump apparently can teach a thing or two, has distorted our reality and has received an overabundance of assistance from all forms of the media. My point regarding Anderson Cooper and CNN takes the same perspective. It is disheartening to watch the process in action in the hands of such incompetence.
CROSS-POSTED COMMENT TO “Monopsony Takes Center Stage”
by Marshall Steinbaum at ProMarket:
“employer power and its consequences for labor market outcomes has been a distinctly minority concern in the economics profession for quite a while”
POLITICS (meaning dump Trump) WILL PUT ANTI-MONOPSONY POWER ON EVERYBODY’S FRONT BURNER IF ONLY FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICAL ADVANTAGE (good enough for labor as long as we get what we want):
NYT’s Nate Cohn: Trump won by trading places with Obama:
“Just as Mr. Obama’s team caricatured Mr. Romney, Mr. Trump caricatured Mrs. Clinton as a tool of Wall Street” … “At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better among white voters without a college degree than Mitt Romney did in 2012 — by a wide margin.
” … Mr. Obama] would have won Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin each time even if Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee had been severed from their states and cast adrift into the Great Lakes.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html
Agenda: Dems to get loudly busy rebuilding labor union density state by progressive state and not so progressive states. Republicans will have no place to hide.
Agenda for most regressive states (20) — that bar some or most gov employ bargaining: BINDING ARBITRATION can be asserted to be a First Amendment protected right — to challenge states that bar state government entities from bargaining with their employees. First Amendment protects right to organize unions — but courts say does not compel govs to bargain because too weighted in too many ways in favor of employees. But, cannot leave high and dry if there is a third way — not with First Amendment rights at stake — not when binding arbitration is sort of the definition of a process that seeks to fairly re-balance union/government bargaining.
And only takes court action; not massive organization.
For more progressive states: if widespread state laws already criminally barred employers from using market power to muscle collective bargaining of any description (firing organizers and joiners) — IOW against monopsony in the labor market — and for the first time ever Congress was considering NLRA type legislation via setting up union certification processes — said theoretical Congress might not happen to include any criminal level enforcement of its new law for a variety of possible reasons — might want to see the results of various state enforcement schemes, etc. — and might decide to leave criminal enforcement solely to the states (at least for a time).
Which is to say would be an exact legal parallel to states, today, making union busting a felony — no worry at all about crossing federal preemption should occur at all. The state laws I envision today would protect any employee or ad hoc bargaining group — not just those attempting to organize under federally prescribed rubrics — to reassure, again, would be no clash with federal preemption.
For musings on what else and how to dump the Trump boys by banging the drum loudly for labor see here (work in progress):http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html
ENCOURAGING ADDENDUM
National Review executive editor (of all persons) Reihan Salam sees Trump as potentially the end of the Reagan era: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/will_donald_trump_be_fdr_or_jimmy_carter.html
The New Conservative Legal Movement vs. the Old Conservative Legal Movement: This is an incredibly important, and extremely welcome, development, especially because some very big names in the Old Movement are now actively—and in one instance, stunningly—part of the New Movement.
The stunning instance concerns Old Movement activist Supreme Court litigator Michael Carvin. I just about fell over when two weeks ago I read this article by NYT Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/us/politics/charged-a-fee-for-getting-arrested-whether-guilty-or-not.html?_r=0
No way to adequately explain how thoroughly disorienting, and how awesome, that is.
The case that Carvin is involved in is from MN, but Liptak also discusses another case, Nelson v. Colorado, that the Supreme Court already had agreed to hear, and was argued there yesterday. Scotusblog’s account of the argument might as well be titled “The Times, They Are A Changin’”, in this respect:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/argument-analysis-justices-skeptical-colorados-approach-returning-payments-defendants-whose-convictions-reversed-appeal/
The other current instance of New Conservative Legal Movement vs. Old Conservative Legal Movement is reflected in this blog piece in today’s WashPost by libertarian-right staple Ilya Somin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/10/the-senate-should-just-say-no-to-jeff-sessions/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.623d224f426f
I’m betting that this blog post, featured on the Post’s Opinions web page, spells the death knell for Sessions’ confirmation.
There are, clearly, some really, really important silver linings to the wakeup call that is the Trump/Ryan/McConnell juggernaut. The left and the libertarian right both are seriously waking up.
Trump, of course, thinks it’s still the 1980s/’90s in all respects except that Russia thing—thus his heavy stocking of his administration with circa 1988 Republican extremists. Except for that Russia thing.
Turns out, though, that this isn’t the 1980s or ‘90s, after all. Had Clinton figured that out, she be about to become president. There’s something about that early-boomer generation that prohibits recognition of that. For Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, it was always be that era. So this general election played out in a time warp. And the Trump administration plans to, as well.
But they may not get away with it.
Don’t bet what you can’t afford to lose on Sessions being rejected.
BREAKING NEWS: “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him”: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
Just a few days ago I tweeted that it’s pretty darn obvious that Trump expects to be blackmailed or bribed by Putin concerning the huge loans and investments of Russian oligarchs to the Trump Organization.
The report also says what also was damn clear: During the campaign, there were regular communications between Trump surrogates and Russian intermediaries.
Excuse me, but I do think we’re talking treason here. In any event, Trump will be ousted quickly. Lucky Pence. And lucky us.
Meanwhile, Jack, in light of the Quinnipiac poll released today, I do think Sessions is a dead duck:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2415
Bev,
Haven’t you learned your lesson about polls?
BEV – 12 hrs later and the CNN story has been junked as more “Fake News”. Are you going to back off on your words about treason?
Oh, and did you really want to wager on Sessions? If so, name your terms.
Here’s what I learned, Sammy, and what you should have learned, too: That the final polls before the election, post-Comey-letter, showed Clinton winning the popular vote by virtually the percentage that she won the popular vote; that the polls taken just before Comey showed Clinton with a narrowing lead in PA, MI and WI, a decrease that corresponded to the releases of the leaked Podesta emails and to Trump’s sudden cries of “Drain the swamp!”
According to fivethirtyeight, the poll averages on Oct. 27, the day before Comey, Clinton had a lead of about 2% in several of the states she lost by tiny margins. A couple of days before the election, a poll of MI showed a dead heat and Clinton’s own polls suddenly showed a “softness” and did Trump’s, which is why both of them suddenly scheduled campaign events there for the day before the election, Clinton’s with Obama near Detroit. In FL, which had begun early voting weeks before, Dems were leading Repubs by a small margin by Oct. 28. On election day, the polls were showing a dead heat.
Trump won FL by 1.3%, PA by 1%, WI by .07% and MI by .02%. Suffice it to say that thee all were comfortably within those polls’ margins of error.
Yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll has a margin of error of 3.3%.
What a ridiculous comment, Sammy.
Forgot to mention: There were no polls for president taken in WI, post-Comey. Even Clinton’s campaign didn’t poll there, feeling comfortable with their narrowing-but-decent (obviously outdated) lead there.
Whoa, Krasting, I missed that. Do provide a link to that debunking.
Bev – Provide a link? There are so many! Surprised you missed it.
How about the NY Times? Are you okay with the Times as a source??
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/buzzfeed-donald-trump-russia.html?_r=0
The story was reported from the outset as unverified. Is THAT what you’re saying was debunked? That it was unverified?
Wow, Krasting. If unverified means debunked, the alt-right generally, and Donald Trump in particular, spew nothing BUT debunked stories.
And to think I’d thought that only the stories that actually WERE debunked–e.g., thousands and thousands of Muslims standing on NJ rooftops on 9/11 and cheering; Hillary Clinton and John Podesta running a child sex ring out of a popular D.C. pizza restaurant–were debunked.
Turns out I was wrong!
Krasting, why is it that the winger-right has such difficulty recognizing and understanding standard dictionary-definition meanings of common English language words?
” . . . why is it that the winger-right has such difficulty recognizing and understanding standard dictionary-definition meanings of common English language words?”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Ooookay. Washington Post: Trump said this morning that many states “did get it right” by voting for him and those states would have better jobs, security and veterans services.
He also warned companies not to move jobs out of the country from states that voted heavily for him.
Sooo, I’ll be (probably) the first to point out that the Supreme Court in the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), held that there is a fundamental constitutional precept prohibits the federal government from treating states unequally.
It also likely violates the First Amendment’s speech and association protections and the Fifth Amendment’s “equal-protection component” under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
But … whatever.
(Actually, I already tweeted this earlier, so I probably did beat out everyone else on these points.)
Precisely, Joel. Precisely.
I’ve said all along that Lewis Carroll’s Trump’s ghostwriter. He’s also the alt-right’s.
Beverly, That is seriously impugning the work and social contribution of Lewis Carroll. Joseph Goebbels would be more to the point that you’re trying to make. Or possibly George Orwell in an indirect manner through Winston Smith.
OK boys and girls. Time to sharpen our pencils and write a not to Anderson Cooper regarding his disastrous interview with Kellyann Conway. Who was the interviewer and who the interviewee. More to the point Cooper should be reminded that good journalism requires a pair of euphemistic testicles. She had him on the ropes over the CNN publication off the Englishman’s security dossier. Not once did Cooper have the thoughtfulness to point out CNN’s significant contributions to Trump’s electoral victory by having his so called surrogates on their “bi-partisan” panels, all of whom did nothing but lie through their teeth about every issue. An incredible poor showing on Cooper’s part. Maybe that was still a part of CNN’s behind the scenes support of Trump. They need to protect a good profit center.
Jack, Lewis Carroll wrote the Alice in Wonderland books, which Joel quotes from. His point was exactly apropos of Trump/Conway.
Lewis Carroll was a story teller with a vivid imagination and incredibly knack for turning the world on its head. Trump is just a liar. That Joel wants to conflate the two is an insufficient rationale for suggesting some connection between Carroll and Trump. As I said, Joseph Goebbels is the best choice for comparison.
@Jack,
If you bother to read the thread, you’ll discover that I never conflated Lewis Carroll with Trump. I didn’t say anything at all about Trump. My comment was a response to Bev’s comment about the “winger right.”
Please pay attention, particularly when you attack someone who is on your side, m’kay?
Joel, I see your point and won’t argue the detail. It is likely that Carroll meant the reference to the misuse of words as a critique of political talk iin his own time. Or maybe more generally than just politics. The winger right, which Trump apparently can teach a thing or two, has distorted our reality and has received an overabundance of assistance from all forms of the media. My point regarding Anderson Cooper and CNN takes the same perspective. It is disheartening to watch the process in action in the hands of such incompetence.