"Significance"? lol okay. Simple is not a good thing when it's meaninglessly vague. Way to not have a point.

"I woulda then questioned whether an unskilled worker with essentially nil bargaining power can truly enter employment 'voluntarily' even if it were informed and consented, given, you know, reality."

Haha you call free men slaves based on the artificially low standard of living you impose upon them. Your logic is, since they're already slaves, why not control them even more. That's hysterical.

"Yes, you were very clear. You argued for _free market_, so excuse me for understanding it in the definition sense and not in the sense that you use it."

I've already responded to how ridiculous what you're saying is. You'd call me a hypocrite for advocating freedom but supporting laws against abortion. Like you said, I was very clear. I was not advocating some sort of bullshit academic "purist" position or lawlessness, yet that's the only thing you've responded to. Good job, you've missed the point. It'll be right here waiting if you ever choose to respond.

"What trend? The trend that unionized industries are failing? You musta missed the part where I told you that industries fail for a variety of reasons. Are you disagreeing that there were other reasons those industries were failing?"

You failed to offer an explanation of why heavily unionized industries have higher failure rates than other industries. Pointing to other determinants of success that non-heavily-unionized industries also have to deal with does not explain the discrepancy. Point missed and not actually responded to again! Nice try on this one, though. You're making progress!

"You musta also missed the part where I said let the market figure out a sweet spot between unionization and non-unionization."

Wait, now you're agreeing with me? Because markets don't force people to pay union dues, or employers to negotiate with unions (which many of their employees don't even want to belong/pay dues to) on wages. Elected officials being bribed with forced union dues isn't part of the market; the power these elected officials bear breaks the market, it doesn't operate within it.

I'm glad I've convinced you that markets would do better than this cronyism, corruption, and theft from society as a whole!

"I didn't disagree because I think it's very possible that corruption occurs in unions, just like how corruption is highly likely anywhere corruption can make additional gains. You continue to hold the unjustified bias that unions are the cause of all our problems. That's simply not true. You are shrouded in your heavy bias, which you clearly demonstrated when you had no idea why the Twinkies unions striked in the first place. Much of the argument up to this point has been trying to get you to admit it's not all the unions' fault."

I've never made any claim that unions are the cause of "all our problems." You made that up. If you'd like to discuss this topic, though, you might want to respond to things I've actually said and arguments I've actually made. I merely pointed out that unions frequently cause significant problems. You didn't disagree with this. I merely explained how the problems they cause raise the cost of products and decrease the standard of living across our whole society, which of course hurts the poor the most. You didn't disagree with this either.

Of all my explanation of the systemic problems caused by unions in our society, you literally didn't dispute any of my claims or explanation. Our disagreement apparently boils down to you claiming "well I don't think they don't do that much harm." You you don't dispute any of my arguments or explanation of how they do us massive harm. You don't offer examples or explanation of how they benefit us. You just reference the poorest, unskilled workers, and ignore the fact that they're hurt the most by artificially (corruptly) increased costs of living.

Apparently you're arguing that unions help the poorest by extorting more for them to live off of than they cost the poorest by raising the cost of living.

They bakers union striked because it wanted more money and benefits. What part of that statement is wrong? Please advise.

"You argued for a "generally free market" but you refused to define the parameters. You've yet to answer my question from post #115 "Completely remove minimum wage or set minimum wage to, say, $1.25 per day?""

I'd love to school you in that debate, but it's not really on-topic here. I'm just advocating free markets over the corruption that is forced union dues and the corrupt legislators that union bosses buy with those dues. Whether I think minimum wage should be lowered or removed because it prices out young and entry-level jobs is irrelevant. I've not made any such argument here. You seem to be unaware of what I've posted here altogether.

"Incorrect. From my post #115 "If there is extortion going on, there ought to be laws against it." #117 "Also, no one is defending mandatory fees." Tell me, how have I "completely" ignored it?"

I'm glad we agree! It's weird how easily you accept a position which would be the end of unions while making vague claims that they benefit the poor. Presumably you're completely unaware that unions rely on coercion, force, and the threat [lawful] violence to exist!

"How is it a surprise if you already know what's going to happen? Please be more logical "

I know only that I will be surprised. I guess that may diminish the surprise to some extent, but it certainly doesn't negate it! All I know is that I have no idea. That doesn't mean I have much of an idea.

Wanna try that again in English? You mention "logic" in incoherent sentences.

The point is that, as long as oil is cheaper, it'll still be used, regardless of cost. We'll just pay that cost.

I literally can't even tell what you're trying to say or what you disagreed with. "Without it...." Without what? Without oil? What scenario is that? What are you talking about?

It's more than 24% when you consider the many layers of taxation priced into the products you buy.

You aren't just taxed on bread. You're taxed on the land that produced it. The labor that produced it. The water that produced it. That permits to produce it. The gasoline to transport it. The labor that transported it. The land that sold it retail. The labor that sold it retail. Etc.

And there are plenty more I'm forgetting.

Because every layer (and more) of economic activity is taxed, the actual amount of the fruits of our labor which is ultimately stolen for government expenditure is far more than just state+federal income taxes +SS and other deductions.

This, like the actual details of Obamacare and our healthcare system in general, is a subject I'll bring up often; but literally nobody who disagrees with my libertarian leanings will ever comment on or dispute in any way: Our cost-of-living is insane, and we don't get a whole lot of quality-control for the money. I'm not suggesting I want to live a whole lot of other places with lower cost-of-living, but the fact is that many aren't all that bad and have costs-of-living that are a fraction of ours. And bringing up this fact has nothing to do with choosing here nor there: The point is that we're doing all kinds of things wrong, and we'd all get more for our money if we fixed those things.

Our cost of living isn't as high as it is because we have super quality controls on the safety of everything we buy. Frankly, those standards tend to be horrendously [un]enforced anyway. The Affordable Care act is one contributing piece of horrible legislation to our ridiculous cost of living and the decreased standard of living it forces on us.

But nobody will talk about the Affordable Care act specifically, or our cost of living. Because they don't know the facts surrounding these things when you get down to a specific level with actual facts and basic logic like "taxing it 40% more doesn't make it cheaper." So they retreat to talking points and faith in their political leaders, who they've raised to positions of faith because they're godless and scared of the idea of life in a godless universe without some authority--government--given limitless power to make the natural world fair and utopian.

Who is against exploring other options? I literally have never heard anyone argue against other sources of energy.

Your sarcasm clearly implied you think something should be done. That you provided absolutely no specifics is not my problem. You made the clear implication. If you don't have the confidence to elaborate, that speaks for itself.

You're glossing over the fact that tens of millions of people can't hold their jobs with bicycle transportation. And that literally every single physical thing you purchase was transported with internal combustion engines.

These are kinda big deals to ignore. Without cars and trucks, you could buy a fraction of the things you buy and they would cost more. And most people would have to find new work. You have absolutely no comment on the effects of what you propose. Sweet.

"Okay, so now you change your stance to a _generally_ free market?"

Nobody here advocated some extreme position against all labor laws, such as those concerning child labor and safety. I'm done being trolled.

"In terms of letting free markets determine pay for unskilled labor, the natural tendency is for wages to decrease to subsistence levels. This is true even in generally free markets, except instead of to subsistence levels, it's towards the minimum wage, whatever that is. Workers at that level of pay cannot consume or consume much. I think that's bad for a healthy economy."

Then why have heavily unionized industries all shrunk in past decades and so many companies in them gone broke? Are US airline an automotive industries doing well? No. They employ far less people than decades ago and they're STILL going broke. You have literally no knowledge of this topic, just faith in theories which are purely propaganda to get your support for tyrants who want more control over you and your money. No wonder you refused to engage me on ANY of the content of this thread.

"I think it's counter productive to lower our standards just because standards are lower elsewhere."

When the cost of living is artificially high because of corruption and theft, removing corruption and theft to lower the cost of living (and thus increase standards of living) is not lowering our standards. As always, your statements are bizarre as if you're having a completely separate conversation than is the subject of this thread.

"Except no one is forced to join unions in the first place..."

Too bad this is factually wrong and exposes your complete ignorance on the topic. In most of the USA union membership and dues are mandatory to work in unionized industries.

I can respect that people argue that unions do more good than I give them credit for. But you literally have no knowledge of this topic. Some other time.

"I'm asking you to sort out the inconsistency between hiring whoever you want, yet be limited by the age of a potential hire. Also, age of the worker was but one of the concerns I raised. The others being unhealthy environment, long hours, and low pay."

Literally no one here is arguing against child labor laws or common-sense safety requirements. You're focusing solely on this straw-man position (that we MUST be against these common-sense laws if we support generally free markets) over and over and over again, because you refuse to address what's actually been said.

I've been very clear. I've explained things at length. If you have no interest in responding to what I've said in any way, I'm not going to be trolled and continue to humor you.

What's so bad about the pay that free markets produce, even for unskilled labor? The poor in America live better than 90% of the rest of the world--the only reason it's not more obvious is the excessive cost of living in America. I've already pointed this out. It's fact that America's poor are high earners relative to rest of the planet. It's a fact that our cost of living is very high relative to the rest of the planet. Yet you have no absolutely response? Good talk.

"Okay. Let me ask again, are only union leadership capable of abuse and senior managers devoid of possibility of abuse? In other words, are you saying an elected person is incapable of corruption?"

What part of "one is freely chosen by free people and the other forcibly takes from all of society" don't you understand? There's absolutely no comparison between their roles in society. You couldn't tell the difference between Stalin's tax collectors and volunteers feeding the starving in the street.

Bad managers can be removed by the shareholders who employ them. Bad managers can be removed by the consumers whose business keeps them employed (if they choose the undesirable managers' competitors). Free markets protect from abuses by bad management.

Can any of the same be said for union leadership, whose dues are forced from employees? No. Can any of the same be said for union leadership, whose protection of lazy workers raises the cost of doing business, raises the cost of products, and reduces the standard of living of all of society? No.

You're not making an argument that there's any comparison. You just keep asking "Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons? Can't we draw comparisons?"

No. We can't. I've explained why repeatedly. If you desire to make an argument, go for it. Otherwise, why keep repeating the spam?

Awww, I lost a lovely post!

To recap:
"Is that sufficient to answer your questions?"

No. Not remotely.

Example:
"I think you're not understanding the context in which I bring child labor up. I brought it up as an attack on free market labor, something you've said multiple times should be the alternative to current practices."

So what? It happens under communism. It's a morality thing. Nobody here is arguing against child labor laws, so what does it have to do with free markets? Nothing. I think you're not understanding that you're not making any point by bringing it up repeatedly.

Lovely example:
"You've mentioned more than once the corruption of union leadership and how these union leaders are abusing their positions to benefit themselves. How do you think abuse came into being? Are only union leadership capable of abuse and senior managers devoid of possibility of abuse? Obviously, excessive abuse from either will lead to a poor company, so why not let the market determine what the sweet spot is between union and company?"

You're trying to parallel union bosses with managers. What? It's just bizarre. It's nonsensical. It's such a ridiculous over-simplification that it means absolutely nothing.

Managers are chosen by shareholders (free people) to produce profit. Because many shareholders hire many managers and these people and their organizations compete with one another for customers, the result is higher quality and lower prices. Society wins via the free market.

Union heads extort money out of their members (forced to join) and society (forced to pay for union inefficiency/waste) via laws passed/supported by legislators they continually bribe with a portion of that money.

Yeah, nice parallel. I see it so clearly now. Obviously we need a balance between corruption/coercion and freedom!

Important to what?

No context = No point.