I've decided on a new tactic.

THEY:  So you want child labor, huh?

ME:  Sure.

       No, not really.  But you were gonna BS anything I said, and when I said "No" you had a set speech about how I was a liar or a dupe and really wanted it.
       So I said yes, to make you stutter, and show people what you REALLY look like when you're mad. 
       From now on, when you don't act like that, we know you're faking.

"Semantics. I said free market."

You're the one quibbling over semantics. What's your point? You're still refusing to address anything I've said.

"I hold reservations against free market, not freedom."

Free markets are defined by freedom. Care to elaborate? You're still refusing to address anything I've said.

"You advocate free market. I'm pointing out that free market will lead to regression of centuries of human progress."

Where did you point that out? Where are your arguments and explanations? You've literally never attempted to do so in this thread. I've questioned your unsubstantiated assertion, but you're, again, refused to address anything I've said.

You're claiming that unions are responsible for more than a little progress, decades ago? I keep asking you to commit to ANYTHING, but you refuse.

You're claiming that, even though unions represent only a small portion of people in America, they're somehow responsible for working conditions? I keep asking you to commit to ANYTHING, but you refuse.

"For starters I disagree the CEO should run away from his duties just because he has the freedom to do so. "

So what? What are you advocating? Laws regarding such conduct? Government running business? You're not proposing an alternative.

"Similarly, I don't think a worker should sleep on the job just because he has the freedom to."

So what? What are you advocating? Are you agreeing that some unions do harm to society by protecting (thus promoting) laziness?

"Secondly, I disagree that unions only harm. "

Some of us have accepted that unions helped some workers decades ago, but are pointing out the massive harm many do today. You are the one who seems to be advocating the all-or-nothing view that unions are flawless and do no harm, though you never disagreed with a word I said in my lengthy explanation of how they do harm.

"I'm accusing the free market system of allowing child labor, because historically, in the absence of enforced government regulation, that's exactly what happened."

And communists force child labor to this day. And murders happen in both free and slave societies! What does this have to do with unions?

You're literally disputing nothing I've said. You just repeatedly bring up child labor as if humanity's immorality is somehow an argument that unions help most people (who aren't in unions and have nothing to do with them) and don't, often, harm society as a whole for the benefit of union leadership and lazy members. What?

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!

Einstein, you import Belgian lager...? Stupid. Belgian ale definitely sensible.

"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?

that we MUST be against these common-sense laws
if we support generally free markets

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

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.

I'm confused. Are you talking about a free market or a generally free market here? If you're talking about a generally free market, how much interference in your opinion, should be allowed? Completely remove minimum wage or set minimum wage to, say, $1.25 per day?

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.

As for our poor living better than 90% of the rest of the world, so what? Either 90% of the world suck or we are doing something right, or both. I think it's counter productive to lower our standards just because standards are lower elsewhere. I think it's wrong to doom our people to lower living standards because the rest of the world hasn't caught up.

As for cost of living, what do you want me to reply with? You already responded to yourself. Yea, our poor earn more in absolute dollar amounts, yea our cost of living is higher. Developed nations have a higher threshold of poverty than undeveloped nations. And?

What part of "one is freely chosen by free people
and the other forcibly takes from all of society"...
No. We can't. I've explained why repeatedly.

Except no one is forced to join unions in the first place and union leaders are elected democratically. If there is extortion going on, there ought to be laws against it. If there are election frauds, there ought to laws to deal with it. Oh wait, there are such laws. The government suspected foul play in a Teamster local election in Ventura County and then proceeded to make them do a re-election. Yes, I know you think such regulations are wasteful. I disagree. I think it's overall beneficial to give unskilled laborers collective bargaining power that they otherwise wouldn't have individually.

So can we draw a parallel? Yes. Then let the market sort it out.

Kemp,

I love learning. When you point out my follies I am happy, because I get to learn something new. And apparently, you get a dose of superiority fix. So let's try again.

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

"free market", as defined by dictionary.com is "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." You advocated free market, so I can only assume you are advocating it in whole, as defined. As I said in post #110, "I'm not saying YOU are pro-child labor. I'm asking you to sort out the inconsistency between hiring whoever you want, yet be limited by the age of a potential hire." Perhaps it will be fruitful for you to define your terms, especially when you're not using them in the sense that they are defined.

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...

Companies go broke for a variety and combination of reasons. You of all people should know that. If said failing company had unions, and a corrupt union at that, then the corrupt union would be 1 contributing factor, not the sole factor. I hope this concept is clear to you. If not, I'd more than happy to elaborate on it. Your blindly pushing all blame on unions is a reflection of your own bias. You have to be objective.

Besides, even if the union is the main contributing factor, so what? The company goes out of business and their competitors move in. Other unionized workers see the threat of bankruptcy and become more inclined to make concessions with management, thus lowering labor cost. The market handles this beautifully. Isn't this what you've been advocating the whole time?

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.

So, unions are violating the Taft-Hartley Act and forcing memberships for the last 65 years?

Also, no one is defending mandatory fees.

> Simon wrote:

>

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

"free market", as defined by dictionary.com is "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." You advocated free market, so I can only assume you are advocating it in whole, as defined. As I said in post #110, "I'm not saying YOU are pro-child labor. I'm asking you to sort out the inconsistency between hiring whoever you want, yet be limited by the age of a potential hire." Perhaps it will be fruitful for you to define your terms, especially when you're not using them in the sense that they are defined.

Perhaps the inconsistency is explained in that the free market only succeeds with the caveat that the individual has the capacity to make the choice?  Because the benefits of a free market tend to operate under the assumption that an actor is rational (although there are economists who will make the argument that, on the aggregate level, such basic concepts as the law of supply and demand still operate even with irrational buyers), it makes sense to put exceptions in instances where an individual clearly has no capacity to make said market decisions, similar to how we wouldn't allow a person with a serious mental debilitation to manage their own IRA account.

Zarf wrote:

Perhaps the inconsistency is explained in that the free market
only succeeds with the caveat that the individual has the
capacity to make the choice?

Yes I'm aware of informed consent and I was waiting for Kemp to say it. 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.

Kemp wrote:

It's not inconsistent for me to want markets to be relatively
free, relatively meaning with restrictions things on child labor
and poor safety practices.....

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.

But I'm glad we finally got that cleared up and removed those hurtles. Aren't you?

I mentioned a trend. You offered no alternative
to it or comment on it at all, just some pretentious
language as if I'm a simpleton. Awkward, considering
you're the one ignoring what's posted, not offering
alternatives of disagreeing with anything specific.

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

People are forced to pay union dues....

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.

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?"

In any event, the dues are the important part,
which you completely ignored.

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?

My language was admittedly technically inaccurate

Is that an apology?

It's a surprise, because I know it
won't be anything in this post!

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

I haven't had a twinkie in years, but suddenly the moment I heard Hostess was closing I got a craving.  I still haven't been able to satisfy it

That's your diagnosis to everything!

@kemp, I'm too lazy to point out some things in your post #122. So let's just leave it at the point where you mentioned unions have more benefits than what you give them credit for