i see this thread as a gathering for people who have two things in common.

- people that are broke
- people that didn't plan for their future

Most people i know ain't waiting for their stimulus.

This post was edited by StopBeingStupid on Mar 9 2021 03:00pm

Those Nazis clearly learned nothing from the based on true events depicted in Beerfest.

I am not broke. My wife and I are investing 20% of our pre-tax income into our 401k and 20% post-tax income into the market.

I am for stimulus even if I don't get it. Although I'll take it if its offered and it will go into further investment.

return of sunnyvale.

I never said or implied that it did. I was simply pointing out that it's a government intervention which is by definition, anti free-market.

and you said that replying to a post that disagreed with a statement claiming american beer was superior.

and i said it's absurd to argue american beer shouldn't be judged based on what a majority likes and consumes, but based on the best examples you could come up with, in this case a list of craft beers and fruit punches, voted for by some beer hipsters online.

that's as dumb as demanding: "please, don't judge american healthcare by the mess it is in general, judge it by the excellent plans that some well-paying jobs come with." come to think of it though, that's probably exactly what you would argue in this case, so maybe i should consider it less of a defence of shitty beer, and more of a general logic fail...

its just a misconception. people think unions are anti free market, because they dont get what a free market is. its freedom from govt intervention, not intra market forces. its the same issue people have with free speech when they confused cancel culture as anti first amendment, its not.

too many people dont get that the constitution just protects us from the gubment, not each other.

This is 100% false. Unions DID weaponize exclusivity contracts in this manner, because it's not the "Walmart Union" or the "Kroger Union" or the "7/11 Union". It's the "Retail Worker Union" or the "Carpenters Union" or whatever else. The single union caters to a huge pool of businesses. Thus, if a union wants to bankrupt a specific business, for whatever reason, be it lobbying from a competitor to give them an edge, the union is a shareholder in a competitor, or any number of other potential "conflicts of interest" which are perfectly legal, then they have the power to do so.

The only "true" benefit to a union in the first place, for a business, is an immediate trained labor pool. The union assumes the training costs and worker placement obligation. Effectively, when they were big in the private sector, they fulfilled the task that temp agencies exist for today. Except that with the temp agency, the ultimate goal is to eventually get the temp worker a permanent position with one of it's clients. With the Union, as an employee of that union, you tend quite frankly not to give two shits less about the employer.

Once again, you don't know fuckall about private sector unions OR why they failed and have long been considered a serious evil by the majority of laborers and businesses alike. You don't even seem to understand the inherent evil in public sector unions and how they hold the taxpayer hostage in the worst protection scam ever perpetrated against the American People.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 9 2021 03:11pm

Man I love how your position is contradictory on every level. If a union is "big in the private sector, when they fulfilled the task that temp agencies exist for today" then that is an amazing argument against right to work because unions are filling a needed hole in the free market basically akin to a private business.

Additionally, "just providing a trained and immediate labor pool" is an absolutely bonkers benefit. That's insanely valuable, probably more valuable than any specific business which is why they may have had a ton of power.

If the union is a shareholder in the businesses it runs then that's a clear conflict of interest. You should probably sue them for it or start your own union where you write into the contract that the union can't have such explicit conflicts of interest. Free market and all.



You're going way off your original train of argument because there is no world where right to work isn't government interference. Maybe it's interference to correct other interference, but no matter how you swing it it's government interference.

Line 1: There's no contradiction. A temp agency is not a union. They're a place that employers go when they're seeking trained labor. If the employer doesn't like the specific employee, they can "fire" them at any time. The employer has no obligation to continue paying for shitty employees who can't fulfil their duties. As an employee of the temp agency, it's then the temp agency's job to find you another position, or also fire you, depending on what you did to earn dismissal. With a labor union, the employer cannot directly fire you at all unless incredibly specific conditions are met. And very very rarely are "productivity levels" included as conditions in collective bargaining agreements. Yet Tenure almost always is. Odd, eh?

Line 2: Also false. The average profitability turnaround for an established business to train their own employee is 6 months. As long as the turnover rate of the business falls above that line, the business stays profitable simply training their own employees. However, when a starting out business needs the labor "to start" and all labor of that specific type is already employed by a union, then the new business is forced to deal with the union, thus giving the in-road for exclusivity contracts that can ultimately lead to business failure, and the inability to transition to a free market labor pool.

Line 3: It is not illegal for a union to hold shares in a business it supplies labor for. Nor has it ever been. That it's a conflict of interest is obvious. There's no anti-trust laws that prevent unions from investing in companies, however, nor is there any law that prevents unions from fucking over the competitors of those they own shares in. And if you're under an exclusivity contract, as a business owner, you cannot hire alternative labor. Doesn't matter if there's a "new union".

Line 4: Right to work is not government interference, right to work is the natural order. The basis of right to work is simple. You walk onto a ranch, offer your labor, they give you a job at the agreed upon price. As time passes, you request raises, they provide or they don't. If at any point they no longer want to pay you, or you no longer want to work for them, you can leave, or they can fire you. The *only* aspect of right to work laws that involve "government interference" are those that broke the exclusivity bindings of union contracts, in order to break the union monopoly on labor pools, and allow laborers free bargaining rights, rather than forcing them to go through unions to get jobs.

Again, you do not know what you're talking about.