# A Question: The rich and the middle class **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2011, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431 "2011-02-24T08:12:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/101 "2011-02-26T05:20:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Exactly. Ever since then thing in WI got rolling I’ve been thinking about the rhetoric about the tax cuts at the end of last year. Conservatives are eager to defend 10% increase on the union boogy man almost ignoring the fact that these really are middle class working families, but just a few weeks ago, raising the tax rates 4% on the wealthy was inconceivable. I don’t quite understand the argument. yes, it’s as if all they care about is protecting the economic interests of the wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/102 "2011-02-26T05:30:12Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Just a few observational responses. Disregard at your leisure: > > Good luck holding up CA as an example. I have no sympathy for anyone in California. They have been a liberal mecca for decades. Funny how that works. Would the old cliche i"they are now lying in the bed they made" seem appropriate? :rolleyes: > . The liberal Mecca whose Federal taxes go to propping up the budgets of the welfare red states that get more from the Fed than they contribute. Funny how conservatives bitterly oppose taxing the rich but are happy to supplement their budgets with money taken from a rich state. California would be thriving if it weren’t carrying the load of _several_ red states on its back. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/103 "2011-02-26T05:44:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Consider what happens in a private sector job when a recession hits - layoffs occur, and the people who are laid off are typically the ones who provide the least amount of value to the company. :dubious: Says who? I’m constantly reading warnings like [this one](http://humanresources.about.com/od/layoffsdownsizing/a/downsizing.htm) in business publications that indicate that layoffs are often badly designed and badly implemented in terms of the company’s well-being: > [@](#): > > Ineffective methods of downsizing abound. Downsizing malpractices such as those that follow are common; they are also inefficient and very dangerous. […] > > Most corporate attorneys will advise laying off employees on a last-hired, first-fired basis across all departments. […] > > Using a layoff solely as a cost cutting measure is utterly foolish: throwing away valuable talent and organizational learning by dumping employees only makes a bad situation worse. Yes, I see how a well-designed layoff can minimize the damage to the workforce, but what makes you think that most layoffs are well-designed? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > So the work force shrinks, but the people left have higher average productivity, making the company leaner and stronger. Then when the economy comes back, jobs open up and the company brings in fresh blood to fill the gaps. This churning process over time increases the average ability level of all the workers in the company. > > But in a seniority system, that doesn’t happen. What happens is that when a recession hits (assuming the government doesn’t just borrow money to keep everyone employed), the youngest workers are let go, because they have the least seniority. The average quality of the workers doesn’t increase - but the average age does. Then when the economy recovers, more young teachers are hired. At the end of that process, the average quality of teachers is no better than it was before. As usual, **Sam** , your tendency is to assume that everything in a private or less-regulated system will in practice work the way it’s supposed to, while everything in a public or more-regulated system will in practice fail. Hiring and firing practices in private-sector jobs? They will work successfully to retain the best employees. Evaluation and promotion practices in public-sector jobs? They won’t work successfully to retain the best employees. Case closed. No valid evidence offered, just anecdotes based on a deep conviction that markets intrinsically work and government intrinsically doesn’t. Never mind that we can all find innumerable counterexamples in our own experience, where private-sector layoffs in a company ditched good employees in favor of crappy ones and people rose to the top based on qualities other than merit. You’ve decided _a priori_ that markets by their nature work successfully and government doesn’t. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > In my personal experience, my favorite teachers were the young ones. They were the ones who were still idealistic, who had the energy to go the extra mile for the kids, who still remembered what it was like to be a kid, and who didn’t yet have families of their own pressing on their time. This seems to me extraordinarily, and unintentionally, significant. What you’re basically saying here is that the work we expect teachers to achieve successfully is incompatible with having a full personal/family life of their own, and that the conditions we expect them to work under are such that only the young and inexperienced are naive enough to be idealistic and self-motivated about the job. Based on your recounting of your experience, it sounds as though we do need to change something about public school teaching, but I’m not sure it’s the tenure system. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/104 "2011-02-26T06:05:00Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > This isn’t even remotely true, and it has been pointed out to you in other threads. I’ll assume that you just don’t look at the links you are provided with when they debunk your assumptions. > > [Here is a list of contributions from public sector unions in 2010. The largest was the National Education Association with $3.6M. Three other public employee unions spent over $1M on lobbying last year.](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=P04&year=2010) > The top five public sector employee unions spent just under $9M on lobbying last year. > > [The last place organization on the list of the top 20 spenders on lobbying last year was Pfizer, who spent $107M.](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s) The 20th biggest spender on lobbying Congress spent 11 times as much as the five biggest public employee unions combined. > > The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, hardly a friend of public employees, spent nearly $750M by itself on lobbying. The list of spenders of over $100M on lobbying is full of defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and the health care industry. > > Your assumptions on spending on lobbyists are not only wrong, but they are wrong by orders and orders of magnitude. This is one of those articles of faith on the right that isn’t in the same zip code as the truth. You might want to read your own cite a little closer. That list of political spending was from 1998-2011. Thirteen years, not last year. And unions aren’t represented on it because that list is of the kind of spending they aren’t allowed to engage in. So It’s more complicated than that. The list I was looking at was the ‘Heavy Hitters’ list at openSecrets: [Heavy Hitters](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A). On that list, the #3 all-time heavy hitter for political donations is the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. [**Campaign’s Big Spender**](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html) > [@](#): > > \*Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays > \* > The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending. > > The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. > > “We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. “But we don’t like to brag.” Is that clear enough for you? Also in the top 20: Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers National Education Assn Laborers Union Teamsters Union Carpenters & Joiners Union Service Employees International Union American Federation of Teachers Communications Workers of America United Auto Workers Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union You also have to add in PAC spending. [Top PAC spenders in 2010](http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?cycle=2010&Type=R&filter=P): ```auto PAC Name Total Expenditures ActBlue $60,367,858 Service Employees International Union $53,996,710 EMILY's List $33,038,014 Moveon.org $29,049,999 American Crossroads $25,817,254 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Emp $19,510,238 American Federation of Teachers $19,060,206 National Assn of Realtors $16,031,376 Teamsters Union $15,150,627 National Rifle Assn $13,974,099 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $13,858,727 McCain-Palin Compliance Fund $13,498,867 Laborers Union $10,249,170 United Auto Workers $10,195,560 Free & Strong America PAC $8,675,546 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $8,528,140 Communications Workers of America $8,398,565 Senate Conservatives Fund $8,339,708 Operating Engineers Union $8,230,475 Club for Growth $8,031,493 ``` Then there are the 527’s - another organizational type that spends money on political campaigns. By far the biggest 527 in 2010 was the SEUI, contributing $17,621,408. In fact, unions were the top three 527s. but the SEIU [dwarfs everyone else](http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.php). It’s a complex topic because various campaign regulations prevent some groups from contributing in one way, so they have to find another. In addition, this is only _federal_ political spending. The labor unions spend big at the local and state levels as well, whereas a lot of the other organization and companies that donate federally don’t necessarily have much state representation. Add it up, and the picture looks a lot different than the one you’re presenting. In total, in 2010 the SEIU alone [spent 85 million dollars on political campaigning](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243785248026055.html). Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU is the most frequent visitor to the White House. From the linked article: > [@](#): > > Record spending by the Service Employees International Union to help elect President Barack Obama has paid political dividends but extracted a financial toll. > > Officials say the fast-growing union spent $85 million during the campaign season last year, and that it was well worth it: The Obama administration has appointed union officials to top posts and is backing legislation to make it easier for workers to organize. > > “SEIU is on the field, it’s in the White House, it’s in the administration,” SEIU President Andy Stern said in a video to members to mark the Obama administration’s first 100 days. These guys are proud of the fact that they gave a ton of money to elect Obama, and were rewarded with top White House positions. That’s pretty disgusting. I can imagine what you’d be saying if ‘SEIU’ were replaced with “Haliburton”. So the SEIU and AFSCME alone spent $172 million dollars in just the last election cycle. They were the two biggest political spenders in 2010. And we haven’t even added in the NEA or the American Federation of Teachers or any of the other public unions. Then there’s the non-spending contributions - organizing workers to help with campaigns, sit ins, protests, etc. Get out the Vote campaigns using workers as free labor. Oh, and one other thing - most of the other lobbyists and contributors give to both sides of the aisle, so their influence tends to be balanced a bit. The public unions give almost exclusively to Democrats. The Democrats in turn fight tooth and nail to get more perks to the public unions. It’s a corrupt process given that the money the unions raise for Democrats is money the Democrats raised for them. It’s a racket - The Dems give more money and benefits to the unions, and the unions put a percentage of it aside and kick it back to the Democrats to help them get re-elected. If Republicans had a revolving-door scam like that going with conservative organizations, you guys would be having kittens. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/105 "2011-02-26T06:10:03Z")
**Kimstu** : When talking about economics and policy, we’re talking in generalities and on the margin. Of course not every firing situation is the right one. Of course there are badly managed companies. But _in general_, systems that attempt to retain and promote based on merit will over time maintain a work force of higher productivity than one that bases HR decisions on seniority alone. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/106 "2011-02-26T07:14:16Z")
wait a sec… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/107 "2011-02-26T08:02:16Z")
**Sam** , that same Open Secrets cite seems to contradict what you’re claiming here. For instance, [here’s](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.php?cycle=2010&ind=P) their assessment of the relative weight of labor and business in contributions: > [@](#): > > The money labor unions give is usually just a fraction of the money that business gives. The UAW, for example, gave $2.1 million in the 2008 election cycle, while the automotive industry contributed $18.6 million. In 2008, labor spent $40.5 million on lobbying. The list of [lobbying by ranked sector](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=c) seems to bear out that general conclusion. In 2010, for example, the Labor sector overall accounted for only about $47 million in lobbying while various business/industry sectors ranked at several hundred million apiece. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > So It’s more complicated than that. The list I was looking at was the ‘Heavy Hitters’ list at openSecrets: Heavy Hitters. Maybe this explains the apparent discrepancy, because that list seems to be about expenditures for **political campaigns** , not lobbying in the sense of paying lobbyists. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > You also have to add in PAC spending. Top PAC spenders in 2010: Again, you’re cherry-picking a particular type of spending there, namely their **total** expenditures. If you look instead at the PACs’ actual contributions to candidates, you get a different-looking list, headed by the National Association of Realtors, Honeywell International, and AT&T. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > In fact, unions were the top three 527s. but the SEIU dwarfs everyone else. Yeah, but the total expenditures of all the 527s together in 2010 didn’t add up to the lobbying expenditures of more than a couple industry sectors. In short, your original claim that “the public employee’s unions are the biggest lobbyists in Washington” is sounding pretty disingenuous, and I think **Lamar** was right to call you on it. Yes, there are certain types of political spending in which labor in general and public employees’ unions in particular outspend other sectors and groups. But AFAICT, they are not the biggest political spenders **overall** , and they certainly are nowhere near the biggest **lobbyists** , if we define “lobbying” the way our Center for Responsive Politics source does. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/108 "2011-02-26T08:11:47Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > But in general, systems that attempt to retain and promote based on merit will over time maintain a work force of higher productivity than one that bases HR decisions on seniority alone. Do you disagree? Moving goalposts alert: we’re talking only about **layoffs** here, which is where the strict seniority-alone criteria apply, AFAIK. You’re now attempting to conflate layoffs _per se_ with vaguer concepts like “basing HR decisions” and “attempting to retain and promote”. The purpose appears to be to insinuate that teachers unions use seniority as the **sole** criterion in **all** their HR decisions, including “attempts to retain and promote” in general. And I’ll need to see a cite before I believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/109 "2011-02-26T09:29:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **Sam** , that same Open Secrets cite seems to contradict what you’re claiming here. For instance, [here’s](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.php?cycle=2010&ind=P) their assessment of the relative weight of labor and business in contributions: > > The list of [lobbying by ranked sector](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=c) seems to bear out that general conclusion. > > In 2010, for example, the Labor sector overall accounted for only about $47 million in lobbying while various business/industry sectors ranked at several hundred million apiece. > > Maybe this explains the apparent discrepancy, because that list seems to be about expenditures for **political campaigns** , not lobbying in the sense of paying lobbyists. > > Again, you’re cherry-picking a particular type of spending there, namely their **total** expenditures. If you look instead at the PACs’ actual contributions to candidates, you get a different-looking list, headed by the National Association of Realtors, Honeywell International, and AT&T. > > Yeah, but the total expenditures of all the 527s together in 2010 didn’t add up to the lobbying expenditures of more than a couple industry sectors. > > In short, your original claim that “the public employee’s unions are the biggest lobbyists in Washington” is sounding pretty disingenuous, and I think **Lamar** was right to call you on it. It seems that the sticking point here is what constitutes ‘lobbying’. I meant it in the general sense of influencing government and policy, where you’re apparently taking the literal description of it as defined in current statutes. But the real question is whether or not the unions have political power, not what particular legal category their influence falls under. And once again, Lamar’s cite doesn’t even show what he says it does, because the chart he said was for spending in the last election cycle was in fact spending since 1998. And he specifically mentioned the Chamber of Commerce as an example of how much more private interests are spending over the unions. But in fact in the last election cycle two unions spent more on the election than did the Chamber of Commerce. > [@](#): > > Yes, there are certain types of political spending in which labor in general and public employees’ unions in particular outspend other sectors and groups. But AFAICT, they are not the biggest political spenders **overall** , Yes, they are. Let me repeat from my cite: > [@](#): > > The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending. Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > and they certainly are nowhere near the biggest **lobbyists** , if we define “lobbying” the way our Center for Responsive Politics source does. I don’t know how they define it, so no, that’s not the standard. Let me define it if the term is getting in our way - “Using money and influence to change the direction of government in favor of your special interest.” The underlying question is one of political power though methods other than democratic vote count. That means money spent on formal lobbying activity, campaign donations, ad spending in support of a particular party or candidate, etc. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2011, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/110 "2011-02-26T11:07:02Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The difference is that spending cuts do not have deadweight losses. This is just wrong. A deadweight loss is a loss to the size of the economy because someone lacks the funds to purchase something at market price he would have with more money. Cutting middle-income workers’ salaries removes purchasing power from those with incentive or desire to purchase goods and services–possibly more in fact than the taxes required to protect those salaries. If you’re really concerned about deadweight loss, you should be for progressive wealth tax & redistribution; it’s the rich who are likely to fail to spend in favor of saving. In any case, we don’t especially need a yachtmakers’ economy. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/111 "2011-02-27T17:26:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > yes, it’s as if all they care about is protecting the economic interests of the wealthy. Uhm, weren’t tax rates on the rich much higher in the 1950s? How bad did the rich have it back then? All that’s been argued in this thread by conservatives is that we shouldn’t tax the rich, but we should cut spending. We can’t ask the rich to sacrifice anything more but we’re asking everyone else to. Someone please show where the rich are being asked to sacrifice _anything_ in this economy? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/112 "2011-03-01T18:22:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It seems that the sticking point here is what constitutes ‘lobbying’. I meant it in the general sense of influencing government and policy, where you’re apparently taking the literal description of it as defined in current statutes. > > But the real question is whether or not the unions have political power, not what particular legal category their influence falls under. > > And once again, Lamar’s cite doesn’t even show what he says it does, because the chart he said was for spending in the last election cycle was in fact spending since 1998. And he specifically mentioned the Chamber of Commerce as an example of how much more private interests are spending over the unions. But in fact in the last election cycle two unions spent more on the election than did the Chamber of Commerce. > > Yes, they are. Let me repeat from my cite: > > Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? > > I don’t know how they define it, so no, that’s not the standard. Let me define it if the term is getting in our way - “Using money and influence to change the direction of government in favor of your special interest.” The underlying question is one of political power though methods other than democratic vote count. That means money spent on formal lobbying activity, campaign donations, ad spending in support of a particular party or candidate, etc. [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php](http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php) [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2010&lname=N00&id=](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2010&lname=N00&id=) [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=P&year=2010](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=P&year=2010) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/113 "2011-03-01T19:09:59Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Uhm, weren’t tax rates on the rich much higher in the 1950s? How bad did the rich have it back then? > > All that’s been argued in this thread by conservatives is that we shouldn’t tax the rich, but we should cut spending. > > We can’t ask the rich to sacrifice anything more but we’re asking everyone else to. Someone please show where the rich are being asked to sacrifice _anything_ in this economy? I’m not seeing any argument between us, Le Jacq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/114 "2011-03-02T01:52:48Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php](http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php) > [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2010&lname=N00&id=](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2010&lname=N00&id=) > [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=P&year=2010](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=P&year=2010) You didn’t read your own cites very carefully, did you? For that matter, you didn’t read my posts very carefully either. Oh hell, let me help you out. From your first cite: > [@](#): > > However, business contributions tend to be overstated. Because CRP uses employer/occupation information to categorize donors, and because just about everyone works for a business, contributions from members of labor unions and ideological groups are often classified under business. So really, that chart is, “Labor vs _everyone in America who works for a business_, including union members who give individual contributions.” Unions are only 12.5% of the population. Heavily over-represented, aren’t they? There are other problems with your cites as well, but hopefully that will get you started. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/115 "2011-03-02T09:04:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I’m not seeing any argument between us, Le Jacq. Wasn’t trying to differ. I was grousing. At the time I was boiling mad at having seen that Bank of America paid zero in taxes but yet made $4 billion off this crisis. Yet there are right wingers out there saying they’re overtaxed. Yet we’re cutting spending for everyone else. WTF. No, I have no beef with your points. I’m just pissed off at the rape and pillage being inflicted by the rich. Some of my clients - there are a lot of millionaires in this area - have this attitude, and I’ve actually dropped one or two of the most egregious bastards just so I didn’t have to hear them whining about paying taxes that they are almost fully _sheltered_ from while hating on people who lost their jobs and are sick and in need of health care. ARGH. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/116 "2011-03-02T18:10:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You didn’t read your own cites very carefully, did you? For that matter, you didn’t read my posts very carefully either. > > Oh hell, let me help you out. From your first cite: > > So really, that chart is, “Labor vs _everyone in America who works for a business_, including union members who give individual contributions.” > > Unions are only 12.5% of the population. Heavily over-represented, aren’t they? > > There are other problems with your cites as well, but hopefully that will get you started. Yes, I’m sure that individual donations from union members really ramp up the level given by unions to well over the five percent of total contributions that the actual unions are responsible for. Maybe they even get it into double figures. Whether unions are overrepresented or not, let’s look at things via the prism of yout own mteric, which is “Using money and influence to change the direction of government in favor of your special interest.” And to anybody not ridiculously ideologically blinded, that means business contributes vastly more money than anybody else to get lawmakers to see their side of things. And the results of that money are as clear as day for anybody to see! Business gets exactly what it wants while unions are marginalised, can’t get any legislation they favour (like card check) passed and are an irrelevant sideshow in the lawmaking/labour policy process compared to every other major economy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/117 "2011-03-02T18:41:11Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Yes, I’m sure that individual donations from union members really ramp up the level given by unions to well over the five percent of total contributions that the actual unions are responsible for. Maybe they even get it into double figures. Whether unions are overrepresented or not, let’s look at things via the prism of yout own mteric, which is “Using money and influence to change the direction of government in favor of your special interest.” > > And to anybody not ridiculously ideologically blinded, that means business contributes vastly more money than anybody else to get lawmakers to see their side of things. And the results of that money are as clear as day for anybody to see! Business gets exactly what it wants while unions are marginalised, can’t get any legislation they favour (like card check) passed and are an irrelevant sideshow in the lawmaking/labour policy process compared to every other major economy. It is hard to grasp sometimes, but the fact is that conservatives as a rule do not subscribe to the ethic of fairness. Liberals might be OK with a balance between the influence of labor unions/the middle class and that of the conservative welathy elite, but conservatives see ANY ability by the labor unions/the middle class to influence the political process as inherently WRONG. All power should belong to the wealthy conservative elite, to which they belong or wish they belong, and any other influence must be destroyed. Hence the attack on labor unions. In much the same way, when the Bush Administration was in power, with Fox News its lapdogs and most of the mainstream media following along, they went after NPR big time. NPR was a tiny voice in the wilderness, but it was not following in the pantheon of media lapdogs, so it had to be destroyed. Fortunately, they could not manage that. But they sure tried. Do not ever expect conservatives to notice that they have the overwhelming advantage. To them, that is part of what being a conservative is all about, which is why the 60s and 70s are still as a red-hot poker in their brains. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431/118 "2011-03-02T22:17:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It is hard to grasp sometimes, but the fact is that conservatives as a rule do not subscribe to the ethic of fairness. And yet fairness is the cornerstone of a civilized society. At some point those who cringe at the idea of fairness need to confront this. If fairness is such a bad word what is the point of a society? If we’re going to go by survival of the strongest/fittest, then why not just go back to the jungle and live like animals? Why don’t liberals nail the Republicans to the wall on this? > [@](#): > > Liberals might be OK with a balance between the influence of labor unions/the middle class and that of the conservative welathy elite, but conservatives see ANY ability by the labor unions/the middle class to influence the political process as inherently WRONG. All power should belong to the wealthy conservative elite, to which they belong or wish they belong, and any other influence must be destroyed. Hence the attack on labor unions. It’s a corollary to the whole survival of the fittest/strongest meme: the golden rule, those who have the gold make the rules. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-the-rich-and-the-middle-class/572431.md?page=5)