According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2005 and 2006 unions lost 326,000 members - 274,000 on private payrolls and 52,000 in government employment.
As a result, the percent of the total workforce that belonged to unions fell from 12.5 in 2005 to 12.0 in 2006. On private payrolls it fell from 7.8 to 7.4 percent and in government employment it fell from 36.5 to 36.2 percent.
This is just one more indication that the working people of America are rejecting unionism.
"The State of the Unions in 2008: A Profile of Union Membership in Los Angeles, California and the Nation" shows unionization rates nationwide rising half a percentage point over the 2007 level, to 12.6 percent of all U.S. civilian workers in 2008. The rate rose one-tenth of a percentage point between 2006 and 2007. Prior to that, the last time U.S. unionization rates registered an increase was in 1979.
"This is good news for organized labor," said Ruth Milkman, lead author of the report and outgoing director of the UCLA labor institute. "It shows that despite an extremely hostile environment, unions can grow."
And seeing as this is about Presidential politics...
" Senator Obama has set another record in fund-raising, with the campaign reporting it raised $US66 million last month and added another 500,000 donors."
Give him a job as a fund raiser then, him an his people seem to know where all the money is hiding, or being scalped. Is it a case of "easy come easy go" with his supporters??
I'd still like to know where many of these contributions are originating from. Seems some very serious questions have been raised, but the media is keeping it on the down low.
Amidst all that union high living, have you reached any conclusions on the proper role of government in the US? Perhaps, what are the limits of Federal power? If "unbridled capitalism" is so awful, what do you propose the Feds do to bridle it? And where in the Constitution would that power arise? Perhaps, from GWB's extra-constitutional powers you detest.
Capt KAOS, just to back up my last post, see here.
The Democrats through overconfidence have thrown away their lead and support except in their Liberal heartland, whether 8 years of Bush will still deliver the the White House is no on a knife edge.
Actually, it's from their editorial board. A slight but significant distinction.
More from Rupert's rag.
Quote:
MOST POPULAR OPINION THIS WEEK
1. Opinion: Obama Can't Win Against Palin
2. Opinion: The Hunt for Sarah October
3. Opinion: Miles to Go
4. Opinion: Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin
5. Opinion: Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
Their headlines today sing a slightly different tune.
"Ironically, a free-market-loving Republican administration is presiding over the most ambitious intrusion of government into the market in almost anyone's memory. But to what end? Bailouts, subsidies, and government insurance won't help Wall Street because the Street's fundamental problem isn't lack of capital. It's lack of trust.
The sub-prime mortgage mess triggered it, but the problem lies much deeper. Financial markets trade in promises -- that assets have a certain value, that numbers on a balance sheet are accurate, that a loan carries a limited risk. If investors stop trusting the promises, Wall Street can't function.
...
What to do? Not to socialize capitalism with bailouts and subsidies that put taxpayers at risk. If what's lacking is trust rather than capital, the most important steps policymakers can take are to rebuild trust. And the best way to rebuild trust is through regulations that require financial players to stand behind their promises and tell the truth, along with strict oversight to make sure they do. "
For those across the seas that aren't familiar with Professor Reich
Pardon me but I see Paul Krugman is on the telly. See y'all later.
Did I say he was unbiased ? I did imply he was right. Let me just say it. I think Robert Reich is right about this -- and a lot of other things.
Tell me CP, do you think that the major factor at play here is trust ?
"If what's lacking is trust rather than capital, the most important steps policymakers can take are to rebuild trust."
Would you like to argue with the premise ?
Did I not provide you with enough information to form an unbiased opinion about Mr. Reich's opinions ? A link to his blog. A liink to his Wikipedia entry. In a two-second search of his site I found this:
Quote:
Barack Obama has laid out a bold plan for reforming the economy and redirecting foreign policy -- a plan whose boldness is directly proportional to the scale of the problems we face. On Thursday night he restated it in detail. As someone who has had a very modest role in developing it, and who served as a cabinet officer under Bill Clinton and therefore knows something about public policy and about the challenges we face, I can attest to the appropriateness and boldness of Obama's plan.
It's all there. I haven't made you go digging around on Google trying to find out who's funding who -- Exxon behind an anti-global warming paper, the Olin/Schaife/Coors money behind some Republican think tank -- I've provided it all for you. All it takes is one click.
Quote:
Perhaps, what are the limits of Federal power?
Pay close attention this week, GF. You might just find out what the limits are -- or aren't.
BTW, I'm not running for President. You can toss all the bait out that you would like. I'm not biting.
You get to choose -- just like I do. I don't assume either candidate is a perfect fit with your idea of government.
Don Brown
You have repeatedly alluded to how you think the US government should be established and that FDR is a great president, etc. That implies a certain cast as to the legitmate powers and authority of government, ours and others. My simple question is not whether you are running for president, but what type of government, its limits, powers and organization, would be preferable to you? You keep dodging and weaving, perhaps because you know that your seeming preference for socialism is roundly rejected by the vast majority of Americans. To use Bill Buckley's phrase, you refuse to answer for the same reason baloney rejects the meat grinder!
GF
Quite correct, I find both candidates not to my total liking, but since the Democrats keep presenting worse candidates, I find that I hold my nose and vote for the less than perfect option. As did the US public in 7 out of the last 10 elections and 18 of the last 26 elections since 1900. Grover Cleveland was the last Democrat President that didn't make us wince upon speaking.
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 16th September 2008 at 11:45.
Ah, now I understand. Thanks for rephrasing. Within the framework of our Constitution, I'm for what works -- regardless of the labels. I believe I have citied two previous examples from Europe that seem to work better than America's. America's low ranking on the HDI -- I believe -- is mostly due to its lack of universal health care. I don't advocate copying any particular country's model -- I advocate addressing the problem. Europe seems to have a couple of models that work better than ours. It's worth a look at least. I note that Japan and Australia are also ranked higher. Europe isn't the only place we should look.
"The results for the households at the bottom of the income distribution are astoundingly good, especially in contrast to the mean-spirited neglect that now passes for American social policy. The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.
Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."
There are many other considerations of course but it's time America stopped thumping its chest long enough to take a good, long look at itself in the mirror. It's the welfare of its citizens that counts. Not taxes, not ideology and not Empire.
I hope that clarifies things for you and helps explain why I'll be voting for Obama.
You remember Obama talking about people in small towns hanging onto their guns and religion?
Well, you'll be glad to know he doesn't really despise small town America; sometimes he's almost magnanimous about it........
Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood: The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.
"If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily," Obama said. .......
"The mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector were made legal only as a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which former Senator Phil Gramm, R-Texas, pushed through Congress just hours before the 2000 Christmas recess. Gramm, until recently co-chair of the McCain campaign, also had co-authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which became law in 1999 with President Bill Clinton's signature. That gem, which Gramm had pushed for years with massive financial industry lobbying, destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies. Those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community, and no wonder we have witnessed an even more rapid and severe meltdown in housing values than during the Great Depression."
Quote:
"McCain served as chair of Gramm's abortive 1996 presidential campaign, and Gramm returned the favor, providing critical support for McCain with the hard-line Republican base, including the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. It was assumed in the business press that Gramm was the front-runner to be Treasury secretary in a McCain Administration. Gramm left his role as the top economic person near McCain only after he made an embarrassing statement blaming the current economic downturn on "whiners," an awkward reference to the victims of his disastrous legislation."
And just for all the times I've had the word "Socialist" thrown at me as if it somehow negated the need for the thrower to think...
Quote:
"Amazingly, the turmoil in the housing market, which has led to the socialization of the nation's revered homeownership market in a massive expansion of the role of big government, has apparently not troubled McCain's conservative supporters. As I said, ignorance is bliss, and evidently not just for the newbie Palin."
Your banking system is being "socialized" right before your very eyes -- by a Republican Adminnistration. I don't think our medical system will be too far behind.
I hope and pray that we actually just provide universal health insurance. Despite the invective use of "Socialist" -- I believe in private industry. I simply want the honest businessman to succeed and I want the dishonest ones driven out of business. The only way to do that is to provide effective government regulation -- which is all I've ever asked for.
Here's what should keep you up at night. The Republicans -- who think that government is the problem -- have been busy destroying the Government for 27 years. For better or worse, that same Government is now running the housing market. You'd better hope their aren't too many Michael "Good Job Brownie" Browns and Marion "I won't sign a contract we can't afford" Blakeys in the Government. I assure you there are too many of them...you just better hope there aren't too too many of them -- or the contractors that they've hired to run your Government.
Linear Mode
