Labor unions hurt the economy!

"Taxes will raise prices of merchandise, but not dramatically, because other competing businesses would try to stay at a low price." Yes taxes will raise prices of merchandise a lot over time. Hope you like math. you spend 350$ a week, under a non taxation sales tax zone. Under the unions you pay 385$, a 10% sales tax. Now lets look at this over a one year time period. 350*52= 18,200$ 385*52= 20,020$ That is a large =increase, especially for lower class families. If the poor knew that they could ave that much then they would hate unions. Also unions decrease competition. How? When you raise prices i.e. union wages then they will hire less people. So lets take easy numbers again. you have 250,000 workers, you need to pay them 8$ an hour= that's 200,000 dollars an hour. That's a lot. Under a union 250,000 workers 10$ an hour= 2,500,000 Look, a 500,000 dollar increase. Some company's cant afford that This is economics 101, more cost = less jobs, less money and job = poorer company, which = less competition, because they need to save money to keep their existence not spend it to be better then eir neighbor. "After a more substantial pay, the government was able to hire better teachers, resulting in better test scores. " How does higher wages make more jobs? Please explain, because that defies logic. More cost makes less jobs. So how does higher wages lead to hiring better teachers? "Unions didn't mess up GM and Chrysler; it was because they couldn't sell enough cars!" Toyota has selled 11.0% pf the worlds auto mobiles, 8,557,351 cars. GM sold 10.9%, ,476,192 cars. That is to close to blame it on the cars. It was the wages. I japan there are less unions and stuff like that, leading to you can pay your workers less, in America you must pay them more. I dislike the minimum wage, but the unions make a minimum wage into a median wage. 8$ to 20$. That raises costs that is a 250% increase in costs. http://en.wikipedia.org... "You keep on saying how job unions are bad, how they effect the economy badly, but what could we do without them? Car companies, food companies, shoe companies, all of the need job unions to make things. How could we live without teachers, firemen, and policemen? Millions of jobs in the country would be lost!" This is a fallacy, these jobs aren't union created. In right to work states these people can work without a union, and they still exist. You say unions make these jobs, it is not the unit is the industry. Also since wages rise and as I have stated harm the economy then the price rise then jobs decrease. It is ECONOMICS! Killing unions wouldn't kill the jobs, they would stay there, and it would make more jobs come into existence. "We need unions to pay most of our taxes, since they gain lots of money, they also have to pay lots of taxes. Without them, our taxes would be many times higher to maintain security, welfare, transportation, etc." This debate is annoying, you don't understand economics, maybe I don't, but you certainly need to see the whole picture. Unions don't make JOBS the things you stated don't coincide with UNIONS. ALL OF WHAT YOU SAID HERE WAS OFF TOPIC! Sorry to say. Our taxes raise die to unions. We already pay for all of what you listed, duh, the unions are an extra add on. So we pay all of that plus unions, or if labor unions died then it would be all of that minus unions.... It is simple. Jobs: Lower investment obviously hinders the competitiveness of unionized firms. The Detroit automakers have done so poorly in the recent economic downturn in part because they invested far less than their non-union competitors in researching and developing fuel-efficient vehicles. When the price of gas jumped to $4 a gallon, consumers shifted away from SUVs to hybrids, leaving the Detroit car makers unable to compete and costing many UAW members their jobs. Economists would expect reduced investment, coupled with the intentional effort of the union cartel to reduce employment, to cause unions to reduce jobs in the companies they organize. Economic research shows exactly this: Over the long term, unionized jobs disappear. Consider the manufacturing industry. Most Americans take it as fact that manufacturing jobs have decreased over the past 30 years. However, that is not fully accurate. Chart 1 shows manufacturing employment for union and non-union workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs fell by 75 percent between 1977 and 2008. Non-union manufacturing employment increased by 6 percent over that time. In the aggregate, only unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared from the economy. As a result, collective bargaining coverage fell from 38 percent of manufacturing workers to 12 percent over those years. (1) Unions Cause Job Losses The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent.[32] One prominent study comparing workers who voted narrowly for unionizing with those who voted narrowly against unionizing came to the opposite conclusion, finding that newly organized companies were no more likely to shed jobs or go out of business.[33] That study, however--prominently cited by labor advocates--essentially found that unions have no effect on the workplace. Jobs did not disappear, but wages did not rise either. Unless the labor movement wants to concede that unions do not raise wages, it cannot use this research to argue that unions do not cost jobs. (1) Ignore their []'s. So in conclusion it decreases jobs. Next round my case will be devote to taxes, and its explanation such as the one above abut destruction of jobs, like all the stuff above. http://www.heritage.org... (1)