What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[derspiess]

I am quite surprised that a man who is so proud of his own eloquence would make such elementary level mistakes such as telling a grieving widow that his late husband "knew what he was signed up for"

That's what Hat Lady said Trump said.  And he may have stumbled over his words, as he always does, but I don't think he meant it the way Hat Lady construed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/gold-star-families-trump-cnntv/index.html

[Grey Fox]

I think the situation was better when he didn't call military families. We should go back to that.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's what Hat Lady said Trump said.  And he may have stumbled over his words, as he always does, but I don't think he meant it the way Hat Lady construed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/gold-star-families-trump-cnntv/index.html

?   With respect to Mr. Gross, he wasn't on the conversation with the Johnson family, not sure how he is in a position to comment.

But this is a problem of Trump's creation.  If he had done the normal thing, got out in front, apologized for any misunderstanding - the story would have gone away.  But Donald doesn't apologize to anyone for anything, so instead he doubles down, calls people liars and makes threats.

All which feeds into the more obvious conclusion - that he is an SOB who cares about nothing and no one other than himself.

[Valmy]

I miss the good old days of James Buchanan.

[crazy canuck]

They go together. Well paying jobs emerged out of decades of labor activism, and struggles, made more threatening to capitalists from the sheer concentration of men in a single space. The atomisation of the workspace,  both literally and figuratively, has undermined old union habits, and the subsequent decades of delegitimization of collective action has eroded the capacity to negotiate in the service industry.

I agree that they go together.  But labour activism is only part of the story of why working conditions changed and one of the reason why union movements struggle to define their relevance today.  I would argue that legislative reforms which regulated working conditions and safety requirements also played an important role.

While it is undeniable that collective bargaining won important workers rights, wages and benefits many of those gains became available to all workers through regulation of the entire workforce.

I say they emerged out of massive pent-up demand, a booming economy, and an absence of foreign competition.

That must be why the wages, benefits and working conditions were so amazingly good in Britain during the industrial revolution.  No need for unions or governmental regulation.  The market will provide!   Or not.

[derspiess]

I think the situation was better when he didn't call military families. We should go back to that.

Agree.

[derspiess]

All which feeds into the more obvious conclusion - that he is an SOB who cares about nothing and no one other than himself.

Agree.

[grumbler]

You have so much missplaced trust in ownership of the early industrial age. They would have killed us all working if they had the chance.

You have so much misplaced trust in the legends created by the trade union movement.  the fact of the matter is that, while the unions struggled valiantly to better the conditions of their members, it was the increase in jobs (and the subsequent competition for labor) that ended the horrors of the early industrial era.  Unions only became successful when they were no longer badly needed. It was the change in the economy that got workers more money and better conditions, not the unions.

[grumbler]

I think the situation was better when he didn't call military families. We should go back to that.

The situation was better when presidents didn't talk about how they dealt with grieving families, as those families deserved privacy.  Trump put on his cleats before walking on those eggshells.  He simply does not even recognize that there are things about which one cannot, in any good conscience, boast about.

[Admiral Yi]

What role do you see for labor activism?

Contributing to the stagflation of the 70s then the shrinking and/or death of several industries later as foreign competition came on line.

[crazy canuck]

I think the situation was better when he didn't call military families. We should go back to that.

The situation was better when presidents didn't talk about how they dealt with grieving families, as those families deserved privacy.  Trump put on his cleats before walking on those eggshells.  He simply does not even recognize that there are things about which one cannot, in any good conscience, boast about.

Well said

[crazy canuck]

You have so much missplaced trust in ownership of the early industrial age. They would have killed us all working if they had the chance.

You have so much misplaced trust in the legends created by the trade union movement.  the fact of the matter is that, while the unions struggled valiantly to better the conditions of their members, it was the increase in jobs (and the subsequent competition for labor) that ended the horrors of the early industrial era.  Unions only became successful when they were no longer badly needed. It was the change in the economy that got workers more money and better conditions, not the unions.

One of the difficulties in assessing the successes of the early union movements is determining what influence they had on the legislative changes which regulated working conditions.  The unions claim a significant degree of credit for causing those legislative reforms and they claim that as part of their success.

[Admiral Yi]

You have so much missplaced trust in ownership of the early industrial age. They would have killed us all working if they had the chance.

First, we were talking about the post war period, not the early industrial age.  Second, what does trust have to do with anything?  Wages are determined by supply and demand, not the niceness of the people hiring.

[DGuller]

I agree that US unions were largely a malignant force, and even some of their apparent successes came at the expense of destroying the future for their host industries.  However, unions do seem to be successful in countries like Germany, and probably a significant contributor to dramatically lower income inequality compared to US.

What's the key difference?  Are German unions doing something that US unions do not do?  Or do German unions likewise mortgage the future of their industries like the US unions did in the fifties, and the bills just haven't come due yet?

[Valmy]

The relationship between US Unions and management was always extremely adversarial and hostile...or at least that is the reputation. In Germany both sides seem to get along better.