Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "friendlyjordies"
channel.
-
62
-
44
-
36
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Unions are a useful counterweight to corporations (or even rich individual owners, but the regular legal system usually has an easier time witht them than it does with corporations), but they also have their issues and need kicking back into line (and sometimes splitting up) periodically when they start getting too powerful... ... ... of course, the corporations need the same treatment under the same conditions, and reach that point more often.
New Zealand's rather well known for having pretty solid worker protection laws and systems in place and being generally progressive-left-ish on the whole most of the time, so it might be rather surprising to learn that unions here are VERY limited in what they can legally do, with most of their more powerful methods of forcing their desires on employers actually being flat out illegal.
... This after decades of restrictions on them being reduced.
Turns out when you shut down the entire country's economy for an extended period over whether or not a single freezing works will hire an extra worker whose sole job is to clean the Other workers' tea mugs so they don't have to use a few seconds of their break doing it themselves, you become rather... unpopular.
It says something when the strike breakers are widely considered not to be the bad guys in an event like this. But yeah... people kind of liked not having the economy implode entirely due to all international and a substantial chunk of internal trade being shut down (in a country where the economy at the time consisted almost entirely of exporting food and raw materials (mostly mutton and wool at the time, I believe) and importing Everything Else)... and as bad as that sounds, the specifics actually made it worse.
Basically, your unions have to be kept in line just as much as your corporations, media, religions, and political parties do. They're all necessary (well, any given union, corporation, political party, etc. might not be, but entities of those types are), but they're also all power structures, and entities which can come to weild disproportionate amounts of power to the detriment of both citizenry and state. Consequently, it is necessary that they be kept in line by well writen and well enforced laws and regulations... and thoroughly kicked into submission when they start causing damage rather than fixing/preventing it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andrewntoth1 well, they don't hurt the exporter Directly, though the resulting reduced sales don't exactly help said exporter either. Same with the importer, and everyone else in the chain.
Fun extra bonus: the US dollar is loosing value as well due to all the shenanigans. this has... functionally the same effects as tarrifs do on things sold to the USA. But it makes things sold By the USA more competitive! ... ... except the USA doesn't actually export all that much physical stuff, it turns out (that trade deficit existed in the first place for a Reason), and tariffs on importing the materials needed to make the things it does export drive Those prices up too, wiping out the advantage they Should have. And, of course, a very large portion of the cost of buying anything from the USA is Shipping Costs, which ... Well, last I saw Trump was introducing... I think it was some sort of tax? on any ship belonging to a fleet that contained any ship that was made or registered in China.
China, for reference, builds most of the worlds' ships, and is also one of the easier non-sketchy places to register a ship (where ships are registered has basically nothing to do with who owns them and what they're used for in practice, only who gets to handle the legal and financial proceedings in the event that everything goes wrong). So if that goes through Shipping Costs on goods going to and from the USA, already Very High depending where you live, Also go UP...
all great fun.
1
-
1
-
@basillah7650 shockingly enough, a single payer, government run system actually results in the medicines costing less in the first place than they would otherwise... and then the tax payer covers a decent chunk of that reduced price, yes... of course, the specifics of the systems vary from place to place, but in most of them you either don't need health insurance on top of your taxes, or it's quite a bit cheaper and pays out a LOT more reliably than in the USA, and either way it's not tied to your Job, so you can, if need be, quit without losing your coveage (though, of course, you may eventually run into problems paying your premiums, depending on exactly how that works where you are).
Amusing quirk of the US health system: half the reason so many things cost so much is that the insurance companies screw over the health care providers just as much as they do they customers, so the health care providers jack up the prices so that the times they can manage to nail the insurers to the wall and get them to actually pay up cover all the times said insurers just flat out refuse to pay even when they absolutely should. ... yeah, if the insurance companies weren't such scum bags many parts of the American health care system would be Cheaper... on paper. In practice it wouldn't actually be that much cheaper most of the time because the insurance companies would actually be paying 4 times instead of paying 4 times as much once (which might affect the polices and payments of individual customers in some fashion).
Oh, and apparently quite a few places, in at least some parts of the USA, will actually give you a discount down to something much closer to what the particular service they provide Should cost if you pay them directly, without involving the insurance companies (and presumably before you leave the premesis), because they don't have to deal with that whole mess. ... of course, for larger and more expensive matters that's not much help, but for the lower end of things it can be a big deal.
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I suspect it doesn't actually matter who gets elected, it's more that right before an election it's too late for the current government to Start doing anything about them, and then after the election, well, having been seen to have fixed the problem (by way of the supermarkets lowering the prices again), the party in power gets most of the benefit they were going to get either way, and the problem is now less bad and so drops down the priority list again... I suspect the supermarkets have got pretty good at judging how far they have to reign it in to drop far enough down the list that the government never actually gets around to them due to all the other, more urgent problems they have to deal with. But the supermarkets can't Quite get away with doing that Every election, or that would become an issue that needed dealing with in its own right... so they pick the ones where, again, bigger problems will dominate the campaign.
Or something along those lines.
Because, honestly, a National government is always going to favour the supermarkets over the general public unless it's got to the point where food riots are looking likely, so you'd expect a different pattern if it was about getting a favourable government in rather than just exploiting the electoral cycle to make a quick extra buck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1