The story of globalization from a US point of view continues. Here AB reader Denis Drew is highlighted at DeLong’s website:
Brad DeLong asks ‘what did PK miss?’
Comment of the Day: Dennis Drew: GLOBALIZATION: WHAT DID PAUL KRUGMAN MISS?: “I’m always the first to say that if today’s 10 dollars an hour jobs paid 20 dollars an hour…
…(Walgreen’s, Target, fast food less w/much high labor costs) that would solve most social problems caused by loss of manufacturing (to out sourcing or automation). The money’s there. Bottom 40% income take about 10% of overall income. “Mid” take about 67.5%. Top 1%, 22.5%. The instrument of moving 10% more from “mid” to the bottom is higher consumer prices arriving with the sudden reappearance of nationwide, high union density (see below for the easy application). The instrument of retrieving the “mid’s” lost 10% is Eisenhower level confiscatory taxes for the top 1%.
Jack Kennedy lowered max income tax rate from 92% to 70% to improve incentives (other cuts followed). But with the top 1% wages now 20X (!) what they were in the 60s while per capita only doubled since, there will be all the incentive in the world left over while we relieve them of the burden of stultifying wealth. 🙂
The new blue Congress (if it manages to get itself elected by standing for nothing — I wouldn’t bet on it if Trump takes a fall and Pence reapplies intelligence to Republican chicanery) has merely to mandate union certification and re-certification elections at every private workplace; one, three or five year cycle, plurality rules on the latter. Not my idea:
Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule? Andrew Strom — November 1st, 2017 https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/
That guy really knows what he is talking about.
IN what world is there any chance whatsoever of the GOP doing anything that might possibly help unions?
Take a wild guess at what parties controlled these states. This kind of thinking is just another example of the foolish notion that trump was elected because of his appeal to the working man. Yeah, he appealed to the white working man, and for those few white working men who actually were stupid enough to think he would help them, they have been shown it was total bs.
Somehow this guy thinks that the GOP sponsored Employee Rights Act is a sign the GOP wants to help labor. It is the opposite:
” Yesterday, House Republicans took the first steps in a sweeping attack on worker rights. The House Education and Workforce subcommittee held a hearing on three anti-worker bills, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, the Employee Privacy Protection Act, and the Employee Rights Act. These bills show congressional Republicans’ efforts to use the voter suppression playbook to attack unions: While none of these bills makes unions illegal, they all take steps to make it more difficult to form them, which in turn makes it harder for workers to ensure they can share in their employers’ gains. The most egregious of the three bills is the misleadingly named Employee Rights Act, which would further rig the system against workers attempting to join together at work. Among other provisions, the bill would also require that a union win a majority of all workers eligible to vote in the election, not just a majority of the workers that do vote in the election. By that standard, each of the bill’s cosponsors would have lost their own elections.”
Well I’m glad you’re on our side anyway. “The new blue Congress ” “The new blue Congress ” “The new blue Congress ” — in case you didn’t notice.
Trump won by trading places with Obama: Obama played (played) the progressive black guy against Wall Street Romney; Trump played (played) the blue collar hero against Wall Street Hillary. Bernie would have kicked both Repub behinds easily. “[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”
It may be a while before Trumpies find out it’s all bs. Better for the Dems to be for something real — that really restores middle class economic (bargaining) — and — political power. Late dean of the Washington press corps David Broder said that when he came to DC in the fifties all the lobbyists were union.
* * * * * *
Let’s break this down — just to be technical; to be precise on exactly what the bills mean (not making any argument). Certification does not make a union (like licensing a union) — it only makes the union the exclusive bargaining representative in that workplace. Voluntary recognition means the employer can grant exclusivity. So we don’t get sloppy.
As for majority of all who could vote or dragging out certification (been done to state government employees who courts say lack full constitutional freedom of association) that’s so wildly regressive even in this climate that it could never be imposed (bill was up last May).
* * * * * *
Legally mandating cert and recert elections at every private workplace would be so sublimely easy …
Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Andrew Strom — November 1st, 2017
A new blue congress needs 60 in the Senate. Even if that happens it does not matter with the current pos in office.
Nothing will ever make the gop do anything for labor. That is written in stone as deep as lowering taxes on the rich.
Mmm. The 60 rule can be changed. We are talking about a giant change in the foundation of our society here — I think we can change the rule. Especially when our legislators catch on and want to “lead” the change. 🙂
In any case it’s the right issue to keep the blue wave getting bigger and bigger.
The super-majority vote was never meant to be. A “previous question” motion was all that was intended to end debate until Aaron Burr struck it from the rules because it was never used. The Super Majority (except for certain instances) It can be changed with a simple-majority vote. McConnell will not do it as he knows what will happen.
As I have heard a number of times senators in the Majority know that being in the minority is possibly 1 election away. Doing away with the filibuster would mean that after that election the minority party would be as powerless as the minority party in the house and mean that for example today, the congress might pass a bill making (as they used to be in the UK) unions a conspiracy in restraint of trade and allowing anti trust to break them up.
Even where anti-trust legislation is aimed — like prohibiting doctors to combine to bargain with hospitals (unless employees) — it should be nixed by the First Amendment when market power is in balance, like doctors bargaining with Blue Cross I would presume.
The Senate is too undemocratic as it is — with Alaska with 600,000 men, 100,000 women, 100,000 black bears and 30,000 Grizzlies (more like an outpost than a state) having the same two senators as California with 40,000,000 people and 30,000 black bears ( wonder where they hide).
I would say similar to you as I said to Lyle. The Senate is the way it was meant to be as determined by the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution. The House would be representative of the population of each state and the Senate was meant to equalize each state in lieu of population. The issue is not the Senate representing by population, it is the House which no longer represents by population. The congressional districts were not meant to have an average population of 700,000. I would also invite you the say as I did Lyle to go back and read what I wrote Will the Rein of Witches Pass?”
If each congressional district was at the population I suggested (the Constitution says less), Trump would never have been elected, Gerrymandering would not exist, and you and Lyle would not be so worried about having a Repub Senate and President.
Since the constitution requires that a state must consent to have non equal representation in the constitution, and you have to get 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution and a number of them are small population wise short of a revolution it won’t happen.
Recall that in 1787 the concern was to prevent mob rule ala what happened 2 years later in France.
No. Congress decided to limit the House to 435 Representatives. The Constitution already calls for a representative per a certain number of citizens. It certainly is not 700,000. Will The Reign of Witches Pass?”
“What was the intent of the early framers of the Constitution?” The bill passed by the House in 1789: required there be at least one Representative for every 50,000 people. At the current population level of approximately (now greater) 300 million people, that formulation would require a minimum of 6,000 congressional districts and representatives. Thirty-Thousand Org. would also argue there is no need for Representatives to be in Washington DC. They could be at regional centers, in their own state capitals, or districts using WebEx, etc. to meet nationally. Things have changed a bit since 1789 making participation far easier and from greater distances.”
That is from the article I wrote. It is a fact.
But the senate is different, so you can increase the size of the house as you please” that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Article 5 of the constitution.
You made a general statement previously. I just enhanced it and you have enhanced it again.
This comment from Article 5 has to do with each state having the same Senate representation regardless of population and shall have 2 Senators per state. The House shall be represented by population with each Congressional District being of similar size and not like Wyoming with 586,000 in its Congressional District, Montana with over 1 million in its Congressional District, and California being under-represented by 14 Congressional Districts using Wyoming’s population as the basis. If anything the more populous states are under represented as I presented in “Will the Rein of Witches Pass?”
Maybe we should start “transitioning’ towards popular vote for everything starting with presidential elections. Then we could go to congressional districts across state lines — actually easier than senate “districts” because everybody’s close-by connected to each other. Then, when we get use to that we can transition to equal population senate districts. Country is getting smaller and smaller and more assimilated in our high tech world.
Again, the Senate is not the issue. The House is the issue. DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION WITHIN EACH CONGRESSINAL DISTRICTS WHICH MAKE UP THE HOUSE. Your high tech argument gives good reason to do so and have more representation by Congressional Representatives meeting regionally, meeting and voting nationally by telecommunications. The popular vote for electing a president ignores the issue.