Dems again trying to attack Right to Work...

[K Frame]

Among the many things they hate, Dems hate right to work laws, so they're trying once again to float a labor law that would dramatically reduce right to work provisions in an effort to prop up unions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/democrats-reintroduce-pro-act-labor-rights-bill-during-covid-pandemic.html

[RoadKingLarry]

Even as a soon to be former union thug I don't really have a problem with right to work laws.
I do like the idea of employers getting smacked down hard when they violate labor laws and abuse employees. Particularly I'd like to see individuals held criminally liable for some of the more egregious cases I've seen.
I wouldn't mind a more formal definition of what constitutes a "contractor". Not hard to find cases of employers playing fast and loose with that to the detriment of the contractor.
Most of the rest of that proposal is socialist garbage.

[Boomhauer]

Call me crazy but I want less government between my employer and me, not more.

[RoadKingLarry]

Call me crazy but I want less government between my employer and me, not more.

Generally I agree with that. Leave .Gov mostly out of the mix but there needs to be a big stick applied to employers that violate the law and abuse employees and the only legal source to apply such a walloping is .Gov in some form.

When I was in high school I worked at a local chain restaurant as a pizza cook. The manager and area manager decided it was OK to force employees to clock out and finish end of day cleaning off the clock if we weren't done by a certain time. I wouldn't play that game. Got into several heated discussions with the manager and one of his assistants over the issue. In the end I walked out just before a Friday evening rush. Filed a complaint with the state wage and hour people and drew unemployment off of them for 2 months till I shipped out for boot camp. Dad worked for the state employment commission at the time so I did have a bit of an inside track.
The business did get investigated and got a bit of a fine. Personally I believe the manager level people that committed the offense should have also been criminally liable.

[Brad Johnson]

Generally I agree with that. Leave .Gov mostly out of the mix but there needs to be a big stick applied to employers that violate the law and abuse employees and the only legal source to apply such a walloping is .Gov in some form.

"Stick" = U.S. Dept of Labor and most state Depts of Labor / Workforce Commissions. They tend to frown on shenanigans like you posted. I personally witnessed Texas come down on an employer like a pissed off mama cow for a forced-clockout infraction. Zero punches pulled. Nothing criminal that I recall but the financial penalties were significant and all the employees got back pay.

From what I've seen, a lot of non-enforcement can be tracked back to non-reporting. People are scared to say anything because they fear retaliation or stigma.

Brad

[K Frame]

"Even as a soon to be former union thug I don't really have a problem with right to work laws."

WHY DO YOU HATE SOCIALIST AMERIKA, YOU CAPITALIST RUNNING DOG?

[just Warren]

The best way to increase the benefits to labor is through protectionism.

Raise up those tariffs such that it is uneconomical to export to us.

Therefore, if you want to sell here you must produce here.

A lot of manufacturing would then locate itself within our borders.

That will create so many jobs that there will be a massive and chronic labor shortage.

Which means that to get people to work for you you are going to have to treat them better.

Higher pay, better working conditions, better perks etc.

And that means is that the more exploitative employers will lose their workers to less exploitative employers.

And along with the power of employers would go the power of labor unions and the need for labor regulators.

And politicians would lose an issue to pontificate upon and use to make promises with to appeal to the electorate. 

But since politicians don't like to give up the means of causing excitement among voters they would not likely ever let this happen.

[Hawkmoon]

The best way to increase the benefits to labor is through protectionism.

Raise up those tariffs such that it is uneconomical to export to us.

Therefore, if you want to sell here you must produce here.

A lot of manufacturing would then locate itself within our borders.

That will create so many jobs that there will be a massive and chronic labor shortage.

Which means that to get people to work for you you are going to have to treat them better.

Higher pay, better working conditions, better perks etc.

And that means is that the more exploitative employers will lose their workers to less exploitative employers.

And along with the power of employers would go the power of labor unions and the need for labor regulators.

And politicians would lose an issue to pontificate upon and use to make promises with to appeal to the electorate. 

But since politicians don't like to give up the means of causing excitement among voters they would not likely ever let this happen.

Nah. That would never work. It makes too much sense.

[AZRedhawk44]

The best way to increase the benefits to labor is through protectionism.

Raise up those tariffs such that it is uneconomical to export to us.

Therefore, if you want to sell here you must produce here.

A lot of manufacturing would then locate itself within our borders.

That will create so many jobs that there will be a massive and chronic labor shortage.

Which means that to get people to work for you you are going to have to treat them better.

Higher pay, better working conditions, better perks etc.

And that means is that the more exploitative employers will lose their workers to less exploitative employers.

And along with the power of employers would go the power of labor unions and the need for labor regulators.

And politicians would lose an issue to pontificate upon and use to make promises with to appeal to the electorate. 

But since politicians don't like to give up the means of causing excitement among voters they would not likely ever let this happen.

That only works if you aren't at the mercy of those wishing to export to you.

China wishes to export to the US.  China buys US Bonds at a rate that props up 40% of the FeGuv's annual operating budget.  China won't buy those bonds, and will aggressively call their outstanding bonds due, if the US applies tariffs to Chinese imports to the US.

This is similar to US involvement in the Paris Climate Accords, IMO.  With that though, the law of diminishing returns is a bigger issue.  The US has some of the cleanest factories and power plants in the world.  Browbeating them more into even cleaner production results in a significant cost to production (which is passed on to consumers in higher energy or commodity prices).  But, instead of browbeating the US into a super-high-tier of clean energy... browbeating China into a modest increase in clean energy has a lower over-all cost per ton of CO2 or per kilowatt-hour produced.  But that works much like a tariff, in that those Chinese goods now have a slightly higher mark-up on their cost of production.  Adding that to transportation across an ocean, and US domestic manufacturers get a reprieve from competition.

[MechAg94]

The best way to increase the benefits to labor is through protectionism.

Raise up those tariffs such that it is uneconomical to export to us.

Therefore, if you want to sell here you must produce here.

A lot of manufacturing would then locate itself within our borders.

That will create so many jobs that there will be a massive and chronic labor shortage.

Which means that to get people to work for you you are going to have to treat them better.

Higher pay, better working conditions, better perks etc.

And that means is that the more exploitative employers will lose their workers to less exploitative employers.

And along with the power of employers would go the power of labor unions and the need for labor regulators.

And politicians would lose an issue to pontificate upon and use to make promises with to appeal to the electorate. 

But since politicians don't like to give up the means of causing excitement among voters they would not likely ever let this happen.

Another thing that might help is to reduce the tax and regulatory cost of labor the US.  There is a reason employees control their head count very tightly and hire contractors and part timers, even non-union companies.  Employees are a major direct cost in taxes and admin in addition to liability and medical.  I would guess that a good portion of that cost could be eliminated without significant reduction of benefits to employees.  Politicians and interest groups wouldn't like those changes. 

[cordex]

China wishes to export to the US.  China buys US Bonds at a rate that props up 40% of the FeGuv's annual operating budget. 

I don't think your numbers are correct.

[sumpnz]

I don't think your numbers are correct.

Ok, say AZR44 is off by a factor of 4, and it’s only 10%.  Does that really change his point?  If we go all protectionist and China simply stops buying our bonds in retaliation our fed.gov financial house of cards will be getting quite a breeze.  If they start calling bonds (assuming they can), or even just dumping them, it’ll quickly become a hurricane.

[cordex]

Ok, say AZR44 is off by a factor of 4, and it’s only 10%.  Does that really change his point?  If we go all protectionist and China simply stops buying our bonds in retaliation our fed.gov financial house of cards will be getting quite a breeze.  If they start calling bonds (assuming they can), or even just dumping them, it’ll quickly become a hurricane.

He's right that getting protectionist with China will result in economic downsides, I was just pointing out that China holds less than 5% of US debt, and the relationship between outstanding treasuries and annual operating budget is ... not quite as advertised.

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't think your numbers are correct.

You're right.

China owns about 15-20% or so of total foreign US debt.  Any given year they buy 25 to 100 billion more debt.

The point was over-extreme, but the principle stands.

[just Warren]

The US does not need to sell Treasuries to fund itself.

It doesn't matter how much China (or anyone else) owns or buys.

It gives them no power over us. Having Biden as a puppet does, but not owning Ts.

[MillCreek]

This works great up to the point that the rest of the world stops buying items from the USA.  Seattle (coughBoeingSoyBeansApplesWheatcough) is keenly interested in exports.

[sumpnz]

The US does not need to sell Treasuries to fund itself.

It doesn't matter how much China (or anyone else) owns or buys.

It gives them no power over us. Having Biden as a puppet does, but not owning Ts.

At the current, and foreseeable, rates of spending and taxation the loss of ability to sell Treasuries would cripple the government and tank the economy.  Which, as long as that remains the case, gives large foreign buyers of our debts substantial influence over our policies and affairs.

Unfortunately it’s not like changing that with a snap of the fingers is without major problems.  While ripping off that bandaid might be the best long term tactic, the short term upheaval makes that political suicide.  Best we could hope for would be a lengthy process of spending stasis and letting the economy grow to the point that we had surpluses sufficient to actually retire large amounts of the debt.

The alternative is hyperinflation such that a typical house would cost billions.

Or collapse, civil war, and descent into tyranny.

[just Warren]

The US government can create as much money as it needs, whenever it wants, and for whatever purpose, out of thin air by declaring it so. Who is going to tell it "no"?

It therefore has no need to borrow back the very dollars it previously created.

Owners of Treasuries, whoever they may be, therefore have no power over the federal government just because they own those assets.

If they own a compromised politician that's another issue.