Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Bombardier to sell 120 planes to NETJETS???

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbman
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 53

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Economics 101 theory is great...problem is (as was briefly mentioned earlier in this thread) the real world RARELY works exactly the way an economics textbook says it should.
 
G4,

Unions are coercive? If I have time I will search for the sections of Wealth Of Nations I posted up on this board about 5 or 6 years ago concerning this.

The only places on earth that don't have Unions are Totalitarian states. Is this what you want?

Thats called living in the past. Take a look at union members per capita 60 years ago vs. now. Match that up with worker quality of life vs. now. Make sense? :)
 
Thats called living in the past. Take a look at union members per capita 60 years ago vs. now. Match that up with worker quality of life vs. now. Make sense? :)

Living in the past? That was the good old days! :laugh:

Sorry, nothing has changed. Adam Smith had it right. The employer possesses the Lion's share of the leverage... and therefore the coercive power.

We are financial ants by comparison. They can squash us anytime they want.

If this company fails, I am in the poor house ... and they are still millionaires. Billionaires. Thats leverage.
 
Last edited:
Living in the past? That was the good old days! :laugh:

Sorry, nothing has changed. Adam Smith had it right. The employer possesses the Lion's share of the leverage... and therefore the coercive power.

We are financial ants by comparison. They can squash us anytime they want.

If this company fails, I am in the poor house ... and they are still millionaires. Billionaires. Thats leverage.

This, my friends, is why we still need unions. Management is united in their cause. Employees need to be united to create a balance. A good union guards the interests of both the company and the employees and is certainly needed in our screwed-up industry.
 
G4,

Unions are coercive? If I have time I will search for the sections of Wealth Of Nations I posted up on this board about 5 or 6 years ago concerning this.

The only places on earth that don't have Unions are Totalitarian states. Is this what you want?


The coercion comes when a company has invested billions in infrastructure and the union says it will shut it all down unless the company does mostly what the union wants. As for Adam Smith, his Invisible Hand is what works to keep pay and prices and supplies balanced and fair, as he so eloquently explained in Wealth of Nations.
As for unions and Smith,
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary."
I am enjoying this immensely, guys!
 
If the "invisible hand" were allowed to work here in the U.S., then we'd all be getting paid $2/day wages like they do in China and India. Be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it...
 
Conspiracy against The public to raise prices. Now you are talking Creature from Jekyll island.

How capitalists conspired to enslave the American people by creating the federal reserve.

Read that book and World without Cancer ... then tell us how much Capitalists love price competition.
 
when a company has invested billions in infrastructure and the union says it will shut it all down unless the company does mostly what the union wants.

if they treat their employees properly they have nothing to worry about.

would you take a nice steaming ******************** on 1 billion dollars?

think about that.
 
Yup, it was the UAW's fault that GM management made a business decision in the mid-90s to concentrate focus on more-profitable trucks & SUVs, relegating their cars to undesirable designs with poor drivetrain reliability. Fast forward to the mid-late 2000s when fuel prices make 15mpg in a Tahoe undesirable in a daily driver and 25mpg in a compact or sedan is uncompetitive with Hondas & Toyotas that have better design & reliability (to say nothing of efficiency). Of course, that's to say nothing of a generation of car buyers who were growing up when GM made really crappy cars and their parents switched to Toyotas & Hondas for reliability, and won't ever consider owning a domestic vehicle.

Yeah, the laborers really screwed the pooch on that one.
 
I disagree. Look at what the unions did to the railroads and General Motors.

As a former union pilot and current union railroad employee I would like to hear further about this.

Care to elaborate?



Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
When/if you find yourself up against a union buster in a few years who was beat up on the playground and had a pilot for a step father, you'll be glad you have a union.

What management does, doesn't always make business sense . Remember 2005!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom