More striking

[Jhhnn]

Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But with skyrocking health care.... I wish I had a union at my side fighting for health befits and pension plans.

You need a really good plan or you will never be able to afford to go to the doctor. I almost think it's not even worth it to hold down a job anymore.

Employee demand for health benefits drives up the cost of care resulting in an endless cycle.

Once again, nationalized health insurance FTW. Spread the costs across the economy instead of screwwing responsible employers while giving the deadbeats a free ride.

Reducing the upfront price of a good only increases the demand.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Cable companies were deregulated years ago. Price has been going through the roof since then.

That's not true in NJ. Prices have been stable for the past 5 years, any increase in the premium services has been due to an increase in the number of channels you get. More bang for your buck.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Cable companies were deregulated years ago. Price has been going through the roof since then.

That's not true in NJ. Prices have been stable for the past 5 years, any increase in the premium services has been due to an increase in the number of channels you get. More bang for your buck.

You haven't been around long enough to see the difference the de-regulation made. More bang for the buck = crappy channels added at MY expense with no option to get rid of them other than to cancel the whole service. Cable rates have went through the roof since de-regulation.

2nd, no comment that cable is not reglated since you suggested that it is?

 

[Stunt]

Unions had their time, these days they do far more to hurt the average worker/consumer than many understand.

We have both union and non-union facilities in our division; the non-union plants are more efficient (in terms of cost) and the workers get paid more (through profit sharing incentives, not hourly wage).

Unions support and endorse incompetence; this is their core dysfunction.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But with skyrocking health care.... I wish I had a union at my side fighting for health befits and pension plans.

You need a really good plan or you will never be able to afford to go to the doctor. I almost think it's not even worth it to hold down a job anymore.

Employee demand for health benefits drives up the cost of care resulting in an endless cycle.

Once again, nationalized health insurance FTW. Spread the costs across the economy instead of screwwing responsible employers while giving the deadbeats a free ride.

Reducing the upfront price of a good only increases the demand.

Ah, the moral hazard argument again. That is just plain BS wrt healthcare. Going to the doctor isn't fun and doesn't gain you anything if you go when it isn't necessary. If there was a benefit to be derived from excess medical attention then the moral hazard argument might have validity. In reality, the moral hazard argument is just a moralistic sounding excuse to justify prolonging the life of a failed health insurance system.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Unions had their time, these days they do far more to hurt the average worker/consumer than many understand.

We have both union and non-union facilities in our division; the non-union plants are more efficient (in terms of cost) and the workers get paid more (through profit sharing incentives, not hourly wage).

Unions support and endorse incompetence; this is their core dysfunction.

I tend to agree. Unions (especially their leaders) have become like politics...it's all about the power....screw the people that they represent....with the exception that politicians work "for" the corporations while unions work against them.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: Thump553They would get the 26 weeks of unemployment comp under current law anyway.

No they wouldn't. Local courts have ruled they are ineligible for UI benefits cuz they are voluntary strikers, not laid of employees.

 

[Jhhnn]

More disinformational hogwash from Zendari-

"They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating."

Might try reading up on Labor Laws, and how they've changed over the years, particularly once the so-called conservatives started to have their way.

Not that it apparently matters to you, you'll obviously believe whatever you want, regardless of the evidence...

Who the hell was your babysitter, anyway- Rush on the Radio?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How long does it take for Union issues to be settled? What about when Unions strike for more than the employees are worth and it hurts the company? Alcoa here almost shut down, the UAW are getting paid ridiculous amounts and are bankrupting Ford and GM.

Look I highly agree with workers rights and more power to enforce the laws and rights that workers have, but just read the article above. That company is facing a much bigger problem than some employees not getting a lunch break.

And who is going to enforce these workers rights you write about? Who is going to give them increases to cover inflation? Who's going to give them guarantees of health care benefits? Do you think the Govt is going to enforce the laws? This govt has been opposing any increase in the minimum wage, has curtailed overtime and is been working labor. So what practical course does labor have? Unions are their only hope in this system.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Cable companies were deregulated years ago. Price has been going through the roof since then.

That's not true in NJ. Prices have been stable for the past 5 years, any increase in the premium services has been due to an increase in the number of channels you get. More bang for your buck.

Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Cable companies were deregulated years ago. Price has been going through the roof since then.

That's not true in NJ. Prices have been stable for the past 5 years, any increase in the premium services has been due to an increase in the number of channels you get. More bang for your buck.

Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

That's what I could have guessed. Also, no mention on the claim that cable companies are government regulated when, in reality, they were deregulated in the early 90's. :laugh:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

What happened to the more bang for the buck in N.J. and your claims of regulated cable? Buwhahahahahah!!! Flip-flopper---flip-flopper!!! :laugh:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There's actually no difference between unions holding corporations hostage, and the price charged by monopolist companies like cable-providers (i.e. in areas without real competition). Both are inefficient, but neither will actually bankrupt a company or a person; they simply usurp benefits that in a free market would accrue to the other party (profits for a corporation, consumer surplus above the competitive cost of consumption, for customers of monopolies).

1 is regulated. 1 is not. That's all the difference in the world.

Regulated monopolies can combine huge economies of scale with something approximates competitive pricing, and for that reason are sometimes a good market structure.

But you only have to look at the price difference in cable markets between areas with and without competition to see that the regulation isn't having any effect.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

Why does he need 2 extra channels? How does the cable company have the wisdom to say that a few extra channels are 'worth' a price increase, and then impose that on everyone?

If there were a competitive market, this would not be possible.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

What happened to the more bang for the buck in N.J. and your claims of regulated cable? Buwhahahahahah!!! Flip-flopper---flip-flopper!!! :laugh:

You are getting the best bang for the buck. Due to the advent of sattelite and its increasing popularity there has been some competition in the industry.

Sattellite offers hundreds and hundreds of channels, cable companies are trying to compete.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Bvllshit - in 2000 my bill for basic cable in NJ was $28.50, in 2005 it is over $46.00. You call that stable?? I have maybe 2 or 3 additional channels n 2005 which I don't watch.

This is not bang for your buck - this is price gouging by monopolies.

Sheeple like you make me sick.

You have plenty more than 2 channels. Your problem if you don't watch them.

Any increase in pricing is only due to the free market, and a comparable pricing to sattelite.

What happened to the more bang for the buck in N.J. and your claims of regulated cable? Buwhahahahahah!!! Flip-flopper---flip-flopper!!! :laugh:

You are getting the best bang for the buck. Due to the advent of sattelite and its increasing popularity there has been some competition in the industry.

Sattellite offers hundreds and hundreds of channels, cable companies are trying to compete.

So at first, you claimed prices weren't going up because of competition and the industry was regulated. Now you say that it's OK because prices are going up because you're getting 100's of channels (with most being crap) because increased competition is the best bang for the buck. Change the story there little man...change the story. 😀

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Why does he need 2 extra channels? How does the cable company have the wisdom to say that a few extra channels are 'worth' a price increase, and then impose that on everyone?

If there were a competitive market, this would not be possible.

If it was not worth the price increase, some individuals would stop buying cable, as the price increased to an area beyond their willingness to pay, and company revenue would decrease.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: zendari
If it was not worth the price increase, some individuals would stop buying cable, as the price increased to an area beyond their willingness to pay, and company revenue would decrease.

Or perhaps there is no alternative to switch to so its all or nothing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: zendari
If it was not worth the price increase, some individuals would stop buying cable, as the price increased to an area beyond their willingness to pay, and company revenue would decrease.

Or perhaps there is no alternative to switch to so its all or nothing.

Why would an individual pay a higher price for a good he values at a lower price?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: zendari
If it was not worth the price increase, some individuals would stop buying cable, as the price increased to an area beyond their willingness to pay, and company revenue would decrease.

Or perhaps there is no alternative to switch to so its all or nothing.

Why would an individual pay a higher price for a good he values at a lower price?

Because he has no choice if he wants to continue watching television at all. Just because channels are added doesn't make it the best bang for the buck. Adding channels without the option to not choose them (and not pay for them) is only a ploy to extract more money out of the consumer by the cable companies.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
Why would an individual pay a higher price for a good he values at a lower price?

Because he has no choice if he wants to continue watching television at all. Just because channels are added doesn't make it the best bang for the buck. Adding channels without the option to not choose them (and not pay for them) is only a ploy to extract more money out of the consumer by the cable companies.

Then I would venture to guess he values television much higher than it at first appears. There must be some price at which the individual would choose not to purchase televion. Clearly he hasn't reached it and is still better off in the deal.