-[LABOR LAW] JOURNALS-

-as of [19 SEPTEMBER 2024]

.

-‘formation’ of a ‘network’ of ‘government officials’ responsible for ‘occupational assignments’-

.

“brain drain”

(movement of ‘human capital’ from ‘poor nations’ to ‘rich nations’)

(another reason for ‘1 world government’)

i warned all of you YEARS AGO about the negative repercussions of government intervention in labor markets.  

now look at what’s happening in the auto industry!

we won the war.  the anti-discrimination battle is over.  

we must repeal those laws now and move forward as a nation…

.

B

felt pressure

r ads by a socialist totalitarian government

(highly unlikely in amerc)

the american government regulates unions and collective bargaining, child labor, minimum wage, immigration, and licensing of “professionals” (ie doctors, lawyers).  all of these laws have a substantial effect on the nation’s economy…

(*slave revolt*)

“national labor relations act of 1935”

guarantees rights of employees to organize unions and bargain collectively with employers…

prevents discrimination against employees on basis of their union status…

requires employers to permit elections in which employees decide whether to unionize…

requires employers to bargain “in good faith” with unions…

(this law is redundant:)

the US Constitution already guarantees the right to organize…
(“right of assembly”)

a union can attempt to bargain collectively with an employer or hold an election without government permission.  

and the law does not require the employer to accept all contracts from a union.  

so in essence an employer can deem any contract ‘unacceptable’

What does ‘bargaining in good faith’ really mean?

Let’s ask the NLRB

The NLRB is an organization that determines what is in “good faith”.

*you can guarantee that the NLRB will instinctively side with the employee*

For ‘third way’ government workers are just as jealous of employers as the employees are

So when employers refuse to bargain with unions and hires replacement workers, the NLRB comes marching in and relishes its newfound governmental power to seek out its revenge on the schoolyard bully employer.

And then we wonder why our businesses are moving overseas at such high rates!

forget the cold war.

there is no greater showdown between capitalism vs. communism than the existence of a union within a capitalist system

The unions exist for one basic reason:

to secure higher wages for all members through collective bargaining.

And capitalist forces undermine this objective, as marginal workers can opt out of the union in exchange for lavish treatment from employers (resistance peer pressure for divine rewards).

conversely (or maybe not so conversely) in a communist system a marginal human unit can undermine the collective goal in the name of self-interest and reap mucho rewards from the brainwashed sheep

(think Stalin).

The black sheep must either self-destruct or ascend to infinite glory.

(I remember lubrecht trying to bust me on an allegedly plagiarized paper regarding a 19th century labor riot at a coal mine)

.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 –>

creates federal minimum wage

initially set minimum wage of a quarter an hour

($3.26 in 2004 dollars)

.

Federal minimum wage has currently reached level of $7.25 an hour, meaning that the real minimum wage has gone up by over 100% over the years.

(states also set minimum wages, sometimes at level above federal minimum wage)

FLSA forbid employment of workers under the age of 14
(and set restrictions on employment of 14-15 year olds)

(there are also similar state laws dating from the Progressive Era of 1900-1920)

Until the late 1800s, US had virtually no immigration regulation.

During the early 1900s, some immigration regulation was enacted.

Several notorious acts were passed against specific immigration groups

(such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882).

Overall, immigration was barely regulated by today’s standards.

Immigration rates grew higher.

In the early 1920s, Congress enacted a quota system based on national origin.

This reduced immigration dramatically through the 1950s

(and American dough begins to settle).

In the mid-1960s, further modification of immigration law gradually eliminated the quota system and simply set limits on numbers of overall immigrants.

Over the past several decades, immigration law has evolved.

The granting of the right to US immigration is based on

family connections,

labor market skills,

or refugee status.

Currently, the total amount of legal immigration is modest by historical standards

(roughly 1.3 the rate relative to population of the early 20th century)

The economic implication of government labor regulation is the setting of limits on supply of labor.

As any good economist knows, this means that the equilibrium price for labor (wages) are increased.

This is good for those who end up employed at the ‘artificially’ (used in the sense of ‘not capitalistically pure’) high wages.

It’s not so good for those who end up unemployed as a result of artificially high wages

(as higher wages subsequently reduce demand for labor)

Labor market regulation also reduces the ‘efficiency’ (‘divine capitalistic purity’) of the labor markets.

If the regulation does not specifically address some externality / market failure that needs correcting, than a policy-induced increase in the price of labor (read “minimum wage”) causes an inefficient substitution of capital for labor (or substituion of high skill workers to cover range of low skill workers, who are subsequently fired).

So we must ask ourselves, what market failure do we actually correct when we set an arbitrary minimum wage?

When we restrict the flow of workers to jobs?

When we set age limits on the people that can be employed?

When ‘we’ (the people) vaguely warn the government that it must ‘bargain in good faith’ with unions and set this wishywashy wording into law?

*god returns from dinner to talk to babysitter about what happened*

“Were wages too low?

Were there too many workers and not enough jobs?

(than why do immigrants keep coming here?

are they stupid?

or misinformed?

i’d say more like relentless

(in an ugly animal sort of way)

Were our workers too young and immature?

Were those naughty employers ignoring the unions again?

The government licenses professionals to ensure a standard of quality care.

But as I’ll try to explain later on, even this may be better left in privatized hands.

Advocates of labor market regulation claim to aim to improve the distribution of income (by impacting wages) and protect the interests of minors (with child labor restrictions).

Slow down, you’re telling me the government is intervening in the labor market in order to redistribute wealth?

A plan with the goal of Robin Hood redistribution of wealth should focus solely on those with little to no income

(*sigh*, *gazes out window* propping up the useless yet again. and then we complain when we wait in those long lines at Disney World. but aren’t the lines part of what it’s all about? anyways…)

It’s not unions that have been responsible for wage growth over the past century, it’s technological progress, fools!

These unions get all the credit for improving the economic status of labor.

To be fair, unions are also unreasonably villainized by greedy captain of industry Ayn Rand-reading types as inflaters of labor costs.

High wages in wealthy countries mainly reflect high education + lots of skilled workers.

All of this chatter is meant to outline the proposition that unions may not be as important as we think they are.

So we should the government guarantee protection of them?

Are we propping up the useless yet again?

I’m sure the government doesn’t enjoy dealing with those rascally public sector unions, does it?

See how it feels!

It is not the responsibility of the policymaker to determine whether unions are worthwhile.

It is the responsibility of the policymaker to ensure that the government remains a neutral arbitrator in battles between employer + employeee

(*cue painting of master + slave with God as ultimate judge*)

Therefore, I say repeal this “bargaining in good faith” nonsense.

This only restricts the sole employers response to union action, akin to tying a powerful general’s hands behind his back while his troops loot his barracks.

(cherubic angel: “god won’t be happy, guys”)

Unions are permitted to exist.

That’s all the rights that the government should grant them.

They are free to attempt to bargain collectively with the employers who want to bargain with them.

Then it is up to the free market (read: “God”) to determine whether it is in a marginal worker’s best interest to join a union (read: “cult”) or remain loyal to his employer (read: “parent”)

(*cue short film of joga as union leader*)

Unions do reduce transaction costs, allowing individual scattered worker voices to filter into a single strong voice, facilitating that magical process known as “collective bargaining”

Now we invent “generational collective bargaining”

The government enacted child labor laws so that parents wouldn’t force their children to work for the good of the household

(effectively preventing parents from pimping their children to the man).

Now parents that would otherwise do this without the existence of a law aren’t fit to be in custody of children.

Unions support child labor laws because they reduce supply of low-skill labor

(although you never know about these child prodigies).

Child stars/entertainers are the quintessential American Dream stories of the plight of child laborers.

But it doesn’t always turn out so bad.

Just look at Ron Howard for pete’s sakes.

Guys made a lotta movies, a lotta lotta movies!

The unions really have nothing to worry about.

The dumbass adults won’t lose their jobs to the smartass children, as compulsory school-attendance laws + public schools ensure that the child becomes a slave to the state anyway.

Parents make terrible decisions for their children all the time.

Setting them to work isn’t exactly the worst thing to do, especially in this age of comfortable complacency.

And so what?

Is it the government’s job to make sure that parent’s don’t screw up their children’s lives?

You really want to run down that slippery slope?

That slope ends when all newborns become wards of the state, mind you.

If more children worked at early ages, then the manboy armies we currently see would be replaced by a more well-adjusted labor force.

Children would earn money, establish lifelong contacts, and gain practical work experience.

The capitalist system teaches a child that actions do have consequences.

If you don’t perform up to snuff, you get fired and the next best applicant gets your job.

Public schools provide a communist manifesto to children / millions of students fail to learn required materials (for all intents and purposes) but get promoted to the next grade nonetheless.

It’s better for children to be earning money after school hours than burning out their brains with homework.

Besides, it’s only the most motivated of middle / high school students who actually devote any substantial time to homework.

The rest of the j class junkies are off playing video games, watching television, and hanging out with friends.

They may as well be getting paid to flip burgers

(sure beats filming pranks in which they throw things at the very workers whose jobs they should be taking / cue ‘Fire in the Hole’ segment + Hauer cackle)

Child labor laws will only help the unfortunate child who is burdened with a parent who will force him to work against his/her will (and if that is the case, that’s the least of the child’s problems).

Child labor laws adversely affect those financially struggling families who (with the child’s consent) wish to have him/her work a few hours a week to bring in extra income for the family.

Why forbid them this option?

What would happen if the United States allowed unlimited immigration?

The increase in labor supply (and associated decline in wages) would be enormous for certain sectors, that’s for sure.

Therefore immigration policy has a substantial impact on the nation’s economic status.

.

effects of immigration –>

Increased total output

(because of increased work force)

Decreased output per capita

(because of increased population relative to work force)

Lower Wages

Higher returns to capital

Improved welfare for immigrants

Labor groups oppose immigration because it lowers wages

(same reason captains of industry and their Wall-Street Journal citing cronies support immigration)

.

Fundamental problem of ‘immigration law‘ –>

Natives bear cost / foreigners reap benefits

Furthermore, it’s our low-wage workers who lose the most from immigration

(as they compete for jobs with immigrants and the increased labor force leads to lower wages for all)

If one adopts a “Spaceship Earth” anti-nationalistic outlook, then unlimited immigration can be justified on humanitarian grounds

(as this outlook does not distinguish between “foreigner” and “native”, but simply sees an ever-migrating labor force pushed by invisible hands of supply and demand).

Governments sprang from tribal policemen and armies.

Do you REALLY value a marginal American life over a marginal “foreigner” life?

Isn’t the American more likely to be narcissistic and pushy?

Think about it.

People are people.

Let’s not get hung up on groups.

The continental shift could happen at any moment and the groups could change.

Learn to love humanity as a whole and don’t you dare wave your flags in my face.

There is a strong argument for immigration on humanitarian grounds, but there will be an adverse effect on some natives won’t there?

What immigration restriction really does is create yet another black market.

And black markets destroy societies.

A black market rewards liars and enriches murderers.

And all the while honest non-violent taxpayers are burdened with the significant costs of border control.

Despite current immigration restriction, there is continued illegal immigration into the United States in significant rates.

We mustn’t forget that this is a country of immigrants.

Or that immigration has a beneficial effect on overall productivity.

Or that immigration fosters healthy competition and introduces alternative ideas / approaches / business models / products to a society.

When there is no native supply, immigration can provide.

I have a dream that someday in the near future the United States will open its borders.

I dream that every other nation will follow the US lead and open their borders.

I dream of one world order.

Immigration is an externality that arises from the primal territorial nature of humans.

Let’s move beyond this jingoistic stumbling block and realize that we’re all in this together.

With one world order, there would be no need for an army

(except to defend against extraterrestrial attacks). The current armies could merge to become a benevolent ‘world police’ force (made up of loser former jocks). There would be no need for “foreign aid” as we know it, allocations would be made where global taxpayers need the most help.

(one danger of opening borders is ‘brain drain’ whereby all smartypants from other countries flock to US and leave their native countries with all the dummies)

I say “so what?”.

Let the dummies enjoy each others’ company and let the smart folks build the kingdom of heaven on earth.

In another generation, they’ll be our pets.

moral of this rant:

don’t dismiss the welfare of immigrants because they weren’t born within the same arbitrary boundaries you were born in.

(sure a lot of immigrants can be unassimilating annoying bastards, but many more have something worthwhile to contribute to this great land)

(do you?)

*return to imperialist roots*

.

.

👈👈👈☜*“LABOR LAWS”* ☞ 👉👉👉

.

.

💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘

.

.

*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*

.

.

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥