Obama Adviser Summers: Unions Cause Unemployment

Reader Comments
Back to blog

It's helpful to remember that although De-unionization began under Ronald Reagan with the firing of the nations air traffic controllers, it accelerated under Bill Clinton in the 90's after he pushed NAFTA through. Under Bill Clinton, the rise of temporary agencies began and union manufacturers heading for Mexico and China,skyrocketed. I, myself, spending 20+ years as a union steelworker went through two union plant closings in 1998 and 1999, not under Bush.

Cheryl of OH 9:09AM February 02, 2009

Ah, yes. The Great State of Hypothetical. The reason these guys resort to making up a state is because the antiunion arguments don't work in the real world.
The primary causes of our unemployment problem are Republican politicians and greedy, amoral business managers.

jimatmadison of WI 12:14AM February 02, 2009

Let's see. The people who make a produce usually can't afford to buy it, since they are on the lowest level of trickle down from the producer's profits.
The people who sell the produce usually can't afford to buy it, for much the same reason, they are the bottom of the retailer's profit trickle down.
These are the people who would be in unions. So explain again how their wages cause the producer or the retailer to fail economically?

Marnie of VA 6:21PM February 01, 2009

Let's see. The people who make a produce usually can't afford to buy it, since they are on the lowest level of trickle down from the producer's profits.
The people who sell the produce usually can't afford to buy it, for much the same reason, they are the bottom of the retailer's profit trickle down.
These are the people who would be in unions. So explain again how their wages cause the producer or the retailer to fail economically?

Marnie of VA 6:21PM February 01, 2009

Operative words in that quote:
"High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate "
The competitive market rate - translate that to "If we can pay someone less, we will, regardless of what effect it has on the economy, families, long-term well-being of our employees, etc. etc. - because what matters is the bottom line."
Which is just one reason that people feel the need to unionize in the first place.
Have a read - here's what gets done to avoid that:
http://dbacon.igc.org/Unions/02ubust1.htm

Mark of NY 9:24AM February 01, 2009

As Muser pointed out, we have seen a decline in economic growth happening simultaneously with the decline of the percentage of the union workforce. I think it's interesting that Pethokoukis hasn't called attention to the fact that, during the same decades mentioned, executive pay has skyrocketed. Why doesn't he suggest that CEOs and presidents stop asking for more money? For all the gripes about Obama's (purported) socialist agenda, so many conservatives don't consider the plans that the heads of corporations have succeeded in bringing about for the redistribution of wealth for them. Minimum wage has been kept down for many years with only increases about every decade or so. The purchasing power of the working poor continues its downward spiral. John McCain didn't mind voting against a minimum wage increase because he owed too many favors to the corrupt plutocracy that held this count in its icy grip for the past eight years.
There's also the BS about companies getting rid of American jobs with the flimsy excuse, "The unions made us do it." That was possible a justification for moving to the south, but what about the factories that moved to the south and then after that moved south of the Rio Grande? Apparently paying southerners half a union wage didn't satisfy the companies' greed enough. Some of them, of course, skipped moving the the southern US altogether and went straight to Central America or Asia. How can people who defend companies that do things like that call themselves patriots?

Nova teacher of VA 10:18PM January 31, 2009

Looking at the numbers of hypergrowth in last paragraph above, and knowing that the percentage of union workers in the private sector has been steadily falling since 1980, we could reasonably argue that "hypergrowth" was best when we had more union workers (the 80s), was less good as we lost some more of them (the 90s), and almost non-existent since 2000 with the least union workers and an anti-union president (Bush).
We could also conclude that "hypergrowth" seems to have waned in proportion to how many tax cuts we passed. This most recent decade has seen the lowest tax rates on corporations, cap gains and high earners in recent history. Where went the "hypergrowth"? How come?

Muser of NM 2:58PM January 31, 2009