unpopular42

> they created $900 in value

No. The company had created this value. If it was just the employee, I invite the employee to try quitting and creating this value without the company. It is bound to fail.

The rest is invalidated by this faulty assumption in the beginning.

> Fine

I can't say I read 100% of this. But it seems to show: - Unions claim to be beneficial. What a surprise - U.S. Democratic party claims unions, who give them a lot of money are beneficial. Another surprise! - Some authors rely on correlation to claim causation. Good luck.

> Please show me some sources that show unions hurt employees.

Have a look at your own links, for instance the last one. Reduced competitiveness of the business is bad for employees. Reduced income inequality is bad for everyone who is willing to work hard. Massive corruption. Waste of money and resources on nonproductive activities. Difficulties firing people who don't perform. Do I need to go on?

> how hard every company fights

This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers

> from the amount workers were underpaid

No, workers are paid in full long before buybacks happen. Shareholders are usually paid last.

> the evidence that they are extremely beneficial to workers Could you please cite the evidence?

> While the CEO owns a couple private jets and the company initiates another billion dollar stock buyback Unlike the union leader, the CEO isn't working for you, so that private jet isn't coming out of your pocket, unlike the previously mentioned luxury car

The article wants to convince you in something and naturally the visuals are adjusted to help that goal. Have a look at the raw data if you like.

So far, as much as I can see, the current climate models do not predict absolutely anything in advance, but are used to explain things afterwards to show that anything is caused by co2.

> So we should just hope this all away?

No, absolutely not!

> But where that starts is legislation.

No, absolutely not! Where it starts is invention and invention is currently severely hindered by regulation, alarmism and skewed incentives. Why would a bright mind work on nuclear physics if you can make more money as a lawyer?

Imagine regulatory asphyxiation disappears. Imagine energy tech gets its own Moore's law. Imagine cheap abundant energy, say 10 orders of magnitude from now in a few decades. Heating up or cooling down the planet at will doesn't sound impossible then.

Because the current climate spending is extremely inefficient and stupid. For example, if we put all this effort into making more energy, e.g. making nuclear actually work, we could soon make the climate do what we want, not the other way around.

And of course anything the government gets involved in will get screwed up, so just stop screwing it up and let the bright people do what they are passionate about.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's not like you have more than one

Did we also panic in 2014 that was above average by a similar margin? I just can't remember

> are you really asking me to explain why skin color is part of a demographic

No, I didn't ask that.

Now you are just lying and calling names. I'll try one more time before I give up.

The original author wrote the word "white", not me. There are many ways to segment a population - that's demographics. Having "white" as the segmentation criteria and claiming that it affects whether the demographic is biased for an interview sounds very racist to me.

Your opinion that this argument is in bad faith or in order to fuel something is not supported by any facts and is therefore irrelevant.