There were comments about the impact of unions that reminded me of what I first read in places like the National Review. in the late 1960s… That (oh dear) prices/costs will go up and so we will have less product and even may see a tragedy for the starting writer (oh my, the poor beginning writer).
There were comments about the impact of unions that reminded me of what I first read in places like the National Review. in the late 1960s… That (oh dear) prices/costs will go up and so we will have less product and even may see a tragedy for the starting writer (oh my, the poor beginning writer).
Puhleaze!
And I write this as someone who was happy when Reagan broke the Patco strike. But haven’t even conservatives learned the basic rules of economics that only grant the benefits of the unseen hand of the market place when buyers and sellers are equal?
They are not. Individual sellers of labor are not remotely equal in power to the buyers - meaning giant international firms who are more concerned about censorship in China than their workers.
Are conservatives unable to learn? If so, please learn the following - there are no simple answers. So unions are frustrating and even sometimes destructive, but they are necessary. We tried doing it without regulations and unions. The 1913 silk strike in Paterson NJ helped destroy Paterson’s silk industry but it was an industry in flux - so on the downslide. Child labor, dangerous workplaces and dirty rivers were all a product of the marketplace untrammeled.
So streaming got silly - like the big fins on late 1950s cars. We never needed Peacock, etc etc. But with the big content providers cutting the easier costs (which are the writers - they need actors for each minute) well the writers are doing what is necessary. There will in the end be less content anyway, much like there are fewer newspapers and fewer minor league teams.
There were comments about the impact of unions that reminded me of what I first read in places like the National Review. in the late 1960s… That (oh dear) prices/costs will go up and so we will have less product and even may see a tragedy for the starting writer (oh my, the poor beginning writer).
Puhleaze!
And I write this as someone who was happy when Reagan broke the Patco strike. But haven’t even conservatives learned the basic rules of economics that only grant the benefits of the unseen hand of the market place when buyers and sellers are equal?
They are not. Individual sellers of labor are not remotely equal in power to the buyers - meaning giant international firms who are more concerned about censorship in China than their workers.
Are conservatives unable to learn? If so, please learn the following - there are no simple answers. So unions are frustrating and even sometimes destructive, but they are necessary. We tried doing it without regulations and unions. The 1913 silk strike in Paterson NJ helped destroy Paterson’s silk industry but it was an industry in flux - so on the downslide. Child labor, dangerous workplaces and dirty rivers were all a product of the marketplace untrammeled.
So streaming got silly - like the big fins on late 1950s cars. We never needed Peacock, etc etc. But with the big content providers cutting the easier costs (which are the writers - they need actors for each minute) well the writers are doing what is necessary. There will in the end be less content anyway, much like there are fewer newspapers and fewer minor league teams.