Written by M. Harrison | 03 January 2008

Working Man Blues: The Decline of Unionization

by Matt Harrison, on the market

America's unions are mighty proud of their long and successful history, and rightly so. The past achievements of collective labor bargaining have resulted in many landmark achievements for workers. And while unions today continue to do excellent work on behalf of the working man, they face a far less rosy future.

Besides the self-admitted dangerous scarcity of educated union members, the union as an institution faces several other difficulties in the 21st century labor market. Many new industries, such as internet blogging, find themselves poorly disposed to unionization, despite earnest collectivist efforts. Even unions' traditional strengths, such as securing guaranteed benefits, are being eroded in the dynamic labor market. While unions try to figure out how to wrangle quality dental care and a 401(k) out of greedy capitalists whose last interest is complying with those demands, the best option for many workers in such a situation is to simply find another job that offers better benefits, thus using the market to replace the union.

Written by M. Harrison | 02 January 2008

Rebuttal: Peter Dreier & Kelly Candaele
If logic were a salary, would the minimum wage put The Nation magazine out of business?

The article

In two so-called "red" states that favored George W. Bush on November 2, voters also overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to raise the minimum wage by one dollar, to $6.15 an hour.

Kerry might have taken more votes away from Bush in Florida if he had embraced the minimum-wage campaign, as many labor and progressive activists urged him to do. But he inexplicably ignored the issue. It is imperative that Democrats and progressives start a nationwide debate that frames economic justice as a moral issue. Not only would this be the right thing to do. It would seem to be a winning electoral issue.

Written by M. Harrison & Justin Hartfield | 02 January 2008

The Unwelcome Conversation
PI Destroys the Socialist Fallacies of Berkeley Professor George Lakoff
PI Symposium + Rebuttal

M. Harrison: George Lakoff is a UC Berkeley linguist who believes he knows the reason why Democrats have been losing elections as of late. This reason, as he astutely realizes, is that the American liberals are not controlling the political conversation. That is to say, they are not getting the American people to talk about the things they want to talk about - and the conservatives are. Beyond that, however, he is mostly full of logical fallacies and socialist sophistries. So we decided to drop in on his conversation with the UC Berkeley News to set him straight.

Berkeley News: How does language influence the terms of political debate?

G. Lakoff: Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

Written by M. Harrison | 02 January 2008

To Regulate Or Not To Regulate
Parody of Act III, Scene 1 in Shakespeare's Hamlet

To regulate, or not to regulate: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of lesser fortune,
Or to take arms against a free economy,
And by opposing end it? To tax: to help;