Hope. Change.

Those are my words going into November 2012.

The fact is absolute: There is change taking place. Those who have profited from the status quo – primarily large unions – are lashing out. I predict they won’t survive.

Take a moment to read this post from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Here’s the video he attached from DeclarationEntertainment.com. Notice the argument this is a fundamental change in human society, not just politics. This explains our situation so very well.

Comments

  1. “Those who have profited from the status quo …”

    Public union members? You mean the ones that earn between 8% less (if you believe my side) to 10% more (if you believe your side) than their their private sector counterparts? See, I would have assumed this would be the uber-rich who have seen their share of the total pie balloon in the past 30 years.

  2. No, the public unions. You know. The paid hierarchy that’s happy to be profiting off you, too. Maybe calling it “the machine” will make it more recognizable.

  3. The future is the absence of human labor.
    I am not clear why people don’t understand that the end game of industrialization is to produce all the goods with either labor or machines, whichever is cheaper.
    John Henry would never win a race with TrackLayer 2.0 as his opponent.
    We call it ‘productivity’ but its real name is ‘people replacement’.

  4. J. Strupp says:

    “Those who have profited from the status quo – primarily large unions – are lashing out.”

    There seems to be an assumption in this country that unioized labor holds more power than they actually do. We’ve been de-unionizing for the better part of 30 years and the clout that unions have held on public interests these days is largely overstated.

  5. Exactly right reasonable.

    Check out the link in #11 here

    http://fairlyconservative.com/2011/02/28/what-the-unions-really-want/

    And those nonhuman based increases in productivity exert the same pressures as an increase in population for the labor supply.

  6. We have been de-unionizing. Now it’s time to de-unionize the public sector.

    Thanks for your opinion. It’s just that.

  7. “Thanks for your opinion. It’s just that.”

    You are in for a rude awakening over the next decade:(

  8. Foo, if I’m wrong and Mr. Strupp’s opinion is accurate then, “the clout that unions have held on public interests these days is largely overstated.”

    That wouldn’t make me sad at all, in fact, it would be good news, so I doubt the awakening would be rude.

  9. Unions can be as useful for the labor component in helping to define “subsistence” on the way down as they were on the way up.

    Why are unions gaining ground in China?

  10. Because China is 70 to a 100 years behind us in industrializing. China is larger, so it wouldn’t even surprise me if the statement “unions are gaining strength worldwide” is an accurate one.

    I would bet unions are on the increase in India, too. So, let’s ship the union bosses to those countries so they can still have a job and leave the US alone. 🙂

  11. “Because China is 70 to a 100 years behind us in industrializing.”

    Seriously?

    Make your case?

  12. Yes, seriously. The wording isn’t as good as it could be. Maybe “China is 70 to 100 years behind the US in creating an urbanized workforce” would be better. “Industrializing” tends to bring up the mental image of a Model T assembly line, but a computer chip assembly line is really the same thing. While my original statement stands, if you think of it in terms of moving the workforce out of the agrarian economy and into cities, it’s the very same thing we did from 1890 to 1940 or so.

    I was under the impression the concept of China’s growing urban workforce was understood by most. This video does a good job of describing the changes in society. China’s behind us on the timeline. Unions are increasing China just like unions increased in the US during our urbanization.

  13. My wife is Chinese.

    I have relatives who live/work in China that I talk to nearly everyday.

    Maybe you should watch another video.

  14. I gave you a link on the migration of the Chinese workforce from rural to urban locations. That didn’t do anything for you? It wasn’t a slam. The comment doesn’t in any way infer the Chinese are backward. It is what it is. They’ve moved into cities more recently than the US. We’re on our way to decentralizing our workforce while they are centralizing. That centralization is why unions are increasing in China.

    Perhaps you weren’t interested in a real discussion. I was looking forward to your making a case opposite mine.

  15. I apologize Cindy.

    “I was under the impression the concept of China’s growing urban workforce was understood by most.”

    I took that personally.

    I would love to have a real conversation.

    I do have to run now.

    I think it is helpful to think about this in terms of a supply/demand relationship for labor and a allocation/distribution of resources puzzle.

    Later:)

  16. Sorry back. I really thought the concept was generally accepted.

  17. Um, I’m pretty sure unions are outlawed in China. Besides the 1 official union, which is pretty much synonymous with the government.

  18. Cindy, I would maintain that China’s phenomonal groth is due to decentraliztion of idustry and commerce.

    Look at the last 15 years. They have allowed a tremendous amount of development and investment into the capital component outside of overt government control.

    jimspice, I will find some references later that are more specific to unions but here’s a glimpse of the tone right now.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/MC08Cb02.html

    Sound familiar?

  19. Decentralization from government control, but centralization of workforce. We may be fighting over apples and oranges here.

  20. J. Strupp says:

    “Cindy, I would maintain that China’s phenomonal groth is due to decentraliztion of idustry and commerce. ”

    And taking advantage of the Clinton administration’s strong dollar policy in the early 90’s and China’s currency manipulation thereafter. You can’t talk Chinese growth without talking trade imbalances foo.

  21. “We may be fighting over apples and oranges here”

    I think you are correct.

    Sounds like you are referring to consolidation/growth relative to plant/equipment?

    It was more about individual choice in allocation of capital/investment for me.

    The productive mix ranges from Upton Sinclair to Huxley there.

    jimspice, good read. And you are correct about the one “legal” union.
    The paper talks about the workaround they do for that.

    http://www.clb.org.hk/en/files/File/research_reports/Labour%20Conflict%20Report%20final.pdf

    “You can’t talk Chinese growth without talking trade imbalances foo.”

    What’s your take on whole concept of Chimerica?