Maggy broke the unions over here years ago thank goodness, yet we still have shorter working weeks and better conditions than the Unions in the States are able to extort by their bully-boy tactics.

We NEED something to stand in between us and the company owners.

Also guess how much someone is paid for or even provided for during their maternity leave in the US? It is an easy answer.

I do believe it is time to bring back the ultimate transport solution...Zeppelin airship , no more ports and canal fees...Just the import tax... No need for huge bulky shipping containers...Streamlining the air operation with keeping a steady supply to hungry Ewoks everywhere...

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions.

Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs.

I do believe it is time to bring back the ultimate transport solution...Zeppelin airship , no more ports and canal fees...Just the import tax... No need for huge bulky shipping containers...Streamlining the air operation with keeping a steady supply to hungry Ewoks everywhere...

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions.

Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs.

One has to wonder, though, about slightly-heavier-than-air, using dirigible tech in limited amounts to make a craft lighter, lowering fuel consumption and boosting range.

Death to the Union! er Death to all Unions

There needs to be some reforms but trust me, without unions work conditions and wages in America would be horendous. And I mean Bad.

You may not see the benifits they have done for us but you enjoy it every day.

So remember it takes two sides for a strike to be resolved, the Unions are not the Bad Guys, their just Fox New's Scapegoat.

Unions served their purpose and have become pointless in this time and age.

Maggy broke the unions over here years ago thank goodness, yet we still have shorter working weeks and better conditions than the Unions in the States are able to extort by their bully-boy tactics.

That's stupid. You're stupid.

Unfortunatly for you that's a fact old son. Maggy took the unions appart and saved Brittish industry in the process.

I don't think it's right to throw around the accusation of stupidity around here, so maybe Major Tom needs to get back to Ground Control.

But, if Maggie busted the unions and the United States did not, why does the UK have nearly three times the trade union density* that the United States does? The fact is that the unions in the US gradually withered away rather than being busted.

It seems be true that American Unions are much more likely to go on strike than British unions are, but does that also have something to do with the comparative adversarial nature of labor relations in the US compared to Britain?

*From OECD: Trade union density corresponds to the ratio of wage and salary earners that are trade union members, divided by the total number of wage and salary earners (OECD Labour Force Statistics). Density is calculated using survey data, wherever possible, and administrative data adjusted for non-active and self-employed members otherwise.

Maggy broke the unions over here years ago thank goodness, yet we still have shorter working weeks and better conditions than the Unions in the States are able to extort by their bully-boy tactics.

That's stupid. You're stupid.

Unfortunatly for you that's a fact old son. Maggy took the unions appart and saved Brittish industry in the process.

I don't think it's right to throw around the accusation of stupidity around here, so maybe Major Tom needs to get back to Ground Control.

But, if Maggie busted the unions and the United States did not, why does the UK have nearly three times the trade union density* that the United States does? The fact is that the unions in the US gradually withered away rather than being busted.

It seems be true that American Unions are much more likely to go on strike than British unions are, but does that also have something to do with the comparative adversarial nature of labor relations in the US compared to Britain?*From OECD: Trade union density corresponds to the ratio of wage and salary earners that are trade union members, divided by the total number of wage and salary earners (OECD Labour Force Statistics). Density is calculated using survey data, wherever possible, and administrative data adjusted for non-active and self-employed members otherwise.

Who do you think you are, some kind of historian specializing in modern Europe?!

Unions served their purpose and have become pointless in this time and age.

That seems like a horrendously foregone conclusion. I would agree that in a well-functioning economy, with solid labor relations, unions are not necessary. But that is not the sort of country we live in. At this moment, the United States could greatly use some more unionization.

I grew up in the Netherlands, where unions and employers as well as the government are able to cooperate much better than these do in the United States. Obviously, it's not a utopia - and it has been declining - but it does seem to work a lot better than it does in the United States.

I'm trying to remember which European car company it was that basically refused to open a new factory in the US unless it's workforce unionized. Their experience was that unionized labor was simply happier, better, more productive than non union labor.

This confused the heck out of the States trying to lure the factory by slashing the right of Labor to organize...

Unions served their purpose and have become pointless in this time and age.

That seems like a horrendously foregone conclusion. I would agree that in a well-functioning economy, with solid labor relations, unions are not necessary. But that is not the sort of country we live in. At this moment, the United States could greatly use some more unionization.

I grew up in the Netherlands, where unions and employers as well as the government are able to cooperate much better than these do in the United States. Obviously, it's not a utopia - and it has been declining - but it does seem to work a lot better than it does in the United States.

The default here seems to be "us vs them" as opposed to "Let's figure this out"

I'm trying to remember which European car company it was that basically refused to open a new factory in the US unless it's workforce unionized. Their experience was that unionized labor was simply happier, better, more productive than non union labor.

This confused the heck out of the States trying to lure the factory by slashing the right of Labor to organize...

I think that was Volkswagen.

I don't think it's right to throw around the accusation of stupidity around here, so maybe Major Tom needs to get back to Ground Control.

But, if Maggie busted the unions and the United States did not, why does the UK have nearly three times the trade union density* that the United States does?

For the record PewPewPew was the one throwing around accusations of stupidity, not me.

Sure, we have a generation of people from the 60s and 70s who never left the unions after the days of the three day week and the closed shop. That does not mean the unions have any power remaining, just that they are a social club for the working class. Even the Labour Party, which was founded by the unions, practically abandoned them to get elected (See: Blair, Tony). Unions over here simply cannot act like a protection racket in the same way we see the unions in the States do. They operate under very strict control, no simpathy strikes or such and soon there will be laws to prevent the calling of strikes by a majority vote that only polls a minority of the membership. The last meaningful industrial action in this country was the miners strike back in the 80s. We have our unions under control.

So great is his faith that mere facts will not shake it.

So great is his faith that mere facts will not shake it.

If you have some facts to counter those I've brought to the table feel free to bring them forward like Mikael did. So far all I've seen from you is pointless insults.

I don't think it's right to throw around the accusation of stupidity around here, so maybe Major Tom needs to get back to Ground Control.

But, if Maggie busted the unions and the United States did not, why does the UK have nearly three times the trade union density* that the United States does?

For the record PewPewPew was the one throwing around accusations of stupidity, not me.

Sure, we have a generation of people from the 60s and 70s who never left the unions after the days of the three day week and the closed shop. That does not mean the unions have any power remaining, just that they are a social club for the working class. Even the Labour Party, which was founded by the unions, practically abandoned them to get elected (See: Blair, Tony). Unions over here simply cannot act like a protection racket in the same way we see the unions in the States do. They operate under very strict control, no simpathy strikes or such and soon there will be laws to prevent the calling of strikes by a majority vote that only polls a minority of the membership. The last meaningful industrial action in this country was the miners strike back in the 80s. We have our unions under control.

Oh, you're quite right about the slander. My bad. I got my wires (ie. quotations) crossed. For the record, I was cognizant that I was defending you (the one making the Maggie argument) from the one calling you stupid.

Regarding unions, Audio Weasel has it right that the United States has a much more hard-knuckled us-vs-them atmosphere. Other countries have that much less.

While you're right that British labor unions seem to be 'under control', and that they do not have the upper hand, that doesn't mean that powerful unions are necessarily bad for business. Scandinavian and Austrian unions are as powerful as they come, and those countries have pretty productive industrial sectors. At any rate, they have positive trade-in-goods balances (which neither the US or the UK have) as well as low rates of wealth and net-income inequality. This is even the case for Denmark, which is very prone to labor strikes.

So, I don't think you can make the case that neutered or domesticated unions are the reason for the better working conditions.

For what it's worth, one of the things I greatly appreciate about this forum is that the main concern (SW toys) seems to inspire some rather erudite conversations, everything from being aware of another culture's New Year to the differences between labor laws in the US and UK. Yes, we see insults and petty behavior. But in so many other internet forums or comment sections that is all there is. I feel like here I not only occasionally learn something beyond SW but witness some genuine conversation. And frankly, I think that's pretty rad. Granted I can't keep up with the math-wing because a perpetual condition of M.A.D. exists between myself and maths, but still.

So for you guys/gals who bring life experience, wisdom, and substantial conversation, thanks. It makes this more than a gaming forum and is appreciated.

who do you think you are some kinda jedi?

Mind tricks don't work on american people...

Only money!

No money

No parts

No deal.

And nobody else will have a t52 I can promisa you dat eh?

So great is his faith that mere facts will not shake it.

If you have some facts to counter those I've brought to the table feel free to bring them forward like Mikael did. So far all I've seen from you is pointless insults.

Just leave the milk though.

Regarding unions, Audio Weasel has it right that the United States has a much more hard-knuckled us-vs-them atmosphere. Other countries have that much less.

While you're right that British labor unions seem to be 'under control', and that they do not have the upper hand, that doesn't mean that powerful unions are necessarily bad for business. Scandinavian and Austrian unions are as powerful as they come, and those countries have pretty productive industrial sectors. At any rate, they have positive trade-in-goods balances (which neither the US or the UK have) as well as low rates of wealth and net-income inequality. This is even the case for Denmark, which is very prone to labor strikes.

So, I don't think you can make the case that neutered or domesticated unions are the reason for the better working conditions.

It's also a factual statement that the decline in political power for US labor interests in the last four decades correlates in time with a period of relatively stagnant wages despite reliable annual increases in productivity, as well as an exponential increase in inequality of both income and wealth.

Union power in the US is as low today as at any point since the Great Depression, and that coincideswith a massive redistribution of wealth. You can argue that some other set of causes is exclusively responsible, or you can argue that (e.g.) a steadily rising Gini coefficient isn't meaningful because reasons, but absent some pretty strong evidence I don't see any particular reason to believe that bringing unions "under control" should be regarded as a good thing.

Regarding unions, Audio Weasel has it right that the United States has a much more hard-knuckled us-vs-them atmosphere. Other countries have that much less.

While you're right that British labor unions seem to be 'under control', and that they do not have the upper hand, that doesn't mean that powerful unions are necessarily bad for business. Scandinavian and Austrian unions are as powerful as they come, and those countries have pretty productive industrial sectors. At any rate, they have positive trade-in-goods balances (which neither the US or the UK have) as well as low rates of wealth and net-income inequality. This is even the case for Denmark, which is very prone to labor strikes.

So, I don't think you can make the case that neutered or domesticated unions are the reason for the better working conditions.

I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Unionisation outside the UK and the U.S. is limited at best (and most of that is facts gleened to take the mick out of French unions). The Scandanavian and Central European nations are culturally very different from the UK and the U.S. though. Much more socialist than capitalist.

At any rate, my point was not so much that unions are per se damaging to industry, but that unions like those we had over here in the 60s, 70s and 80s and those the U.S. has now do more harm than good and that despite the fact we have far weaker unions than those in the U.S. we have better working conditions than they get across the pond. There are doubtless sociopolitical reasons for this (I feel that we are for example far better at holding our politicians to account than is the case in the U.S.) but the fact remains that had we not neutered our unions in the 80s Brittain would not have an industrial sector at all. The closed shop, everybody out as a result of someone ranting in the car park without so much as the thought of a vote mentality **** near broke this country.

I do believe it is time to bring back the ultimate transport solution...Zeppelin airship , no more ports and canal fees...Just the import tax... No need for huge bulky shipping containers...Streamlining the air operation with keeping a steady supply to hungry Ewoks everywhere...

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions.

Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs.

One has to wonder, though, about slightly-heavier-than-air, using dirigible tech in limited amounts to make a craft lighter, lowering fuel consumption and boosting range.

Cost per ton per mile to ship something in US dollars-

Rail. -.03

Water (river or intl)- .10

Truck- .37

Air- 4.63

As you can see, air is MUCH MUCH more expensive per mile. And we're talking a few tons of new minis. At 6500 or so miles, the end user cost would go up dramatically.

Just leave the milk though.

I am genuinely intrigued to know if you actually remember school milk? I do. It was invariably warm and, at best, slightly sour. I did not mourn it's passing in the slightest. I would however have missed Mr Whippy ice cream quite a lot.

It's also a factual statement that the decline in political power for US labor interests in the last four decades correlates in time with a period of relatively stagnant wages despite reliable annual increases in productivity, as well as an exponential increase in inequality of both income and wealth.

Union power in the US is as low today as at any point since the Great Depression, and that coincideswith a massive redistribution of wealth. You can argue that some other set of causes is exclusively responsible, or you can argue that (e.g.) a steadily rising Gini coefficient isn't meaningful because reasons, but absent some pretty strong evidence I don't see any particular reason to believe that bringing unions "under control" should be regarded as a good thing.

I agree with most of that, but we've also seen gini coefficients rising in heavily unionized countries. That's more of a global phenomenon. While it's certainly not my field of research, I'd say that that is largely a function of the shift towards finance becoming an increasingly dominant part of national income - and the US and UK area real exemplars in this regard, because they have outsize financial sectors. Finance is not labor intensive, and therefore labor can't make demands to get a share of the pie.

I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Unionisation outside the UK and the U.S. is limited at best (and most of that is facts gleened to take the mick out of French unions). The Scandanavian and Central European nations are culturally very different from the UK and the U.S. though. Much more socialist than capitalist.

At any rate, my point was not so much that unions are per se damaging to industry, but that unions like those we had over here in the 60s, 70s and 80s and those the U.S. has now do more harm than good and that despite the fact we have far weaker unions than those in the U.S. we have better working conditions than they get across the pond. There are doubtless sociopolitical reasons for this (I feel that we are for example far better at holding our politicians to account than is the case in the U.S.) but the fact remains that had we not neutered our unions in the 80s Brittain would not have an industrial sector at all. The closed shop, everybody out as a result of someone ranting in the car park without so much as the thought of a vote mentality **** near broke this country.

While the French certainly seem to be the standard bearers when it comes to striking, I think that taking the mick our of the French (I thought 'mick' referred to the Irish, but I may not be up on my ethnic slurs) may be foregone. Also, labor unionization in France is even lower than it is in the United States. The strikes that we see in France, I think, are not so much labor unions as producers unions (such as farmers or fishermen) striking against changing commodity market conditions, rather than changing labor market conditions.

Regarding what happened in the 80s was a matter of political choice. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Scandinavians had a different culture than the British in that regard. Socialism and capitalism are not descriptions of culture to begin with, though I take your point. Britain and the United States were actually the leaders in bottom-up social organizing in the 19th century. At some point that went away, whereas in the Scandinavian countries that remained. I don't know enough to concretely say why that is, but the Thatcher/Reagan eras were the death-knell of social solidarity in the UK/US.

It's doubtlessly the case that industry needed to be structurally renewed in both the US and the UK in the 70s and 80s, but that doesn't mean that the social solidarity systems needed to be gutted. That was a political choice at the time, one that I believe was in error. Anyway, I wouldn't attribute the saving of British industry to Thatcher's structural reform policies, unless you consider that manufacturing being halved as a share of GDP since Thatcher's time in office is some sort of 'saving' that I have never heard of since Vietnam. ("We had to destroy the village in order to save the village.") By contrast, while the United States' proportional manufacturing base has also declined, it has declined less than Britain's manufacturing sector has. (Also, in absolute aggregate, the US manufacturing sector remains the size of China's and India's combined.) Then there's the Scandinavian comparison. Again, proportionally speaking, the Scandinavian countries' economies have larger manufacturing bases than either Britain or the US do.

In sum - unions didn't kill manufacturing. I understand that it's a happy talking point by right-wing politicians to blame economic problems on union thugs, but that doesn't mean that there is much evidence for it in a comparative perspective.

I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Unionisation outside the UK and the U.S. is limited at best (and most of that is facts gleened to take the mick out of French unions).

While the French certainly seem to be the standard bearers when it comes to striking, I think that taking the mick our of the French (I thought 'mick' referred to the Irish, but I may not be up on my ethnic slurs) may be foregone.

"Taking the mick" is short for "taking the mickey", which is a bowdlerized version of another phrase meaning to poke fun at somebody.

(I have British and Australian friends.)

I do believe it is time to bring back the ultimate transport solution...Zeppelin airship , no more ports and canal fees...Just the import tax... No need for huge bulky shipping containers...Streamlining the air operation with keeping a steady supply to hungry Ewoks everywhere...

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions.

Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs.

Also they tend to be inflammable.

For what it's worth, one of the things I greatly appreciate about this forum is that the main concern (SW toys) seems to inspire some rather erudite conversations, everything from being aware of another culture's New Year to the differences between labor laws in the US and UK. Yes, we see insults and petty behavior. But in so many other internet forums or comment sections that is all there is. I feel like here I not only occasionally learn something beyond SW but witness some genuine conversation. And frankly, I think that's pretty rad. Granted I can't keep up with the math-wing because a perpetual condition of M.A.D. exists between myself and maths, but still.

So for you guys/gals who bring life experience, wisdom, and substantial conversation, thanks. It makes this more than a gaming forum and is appreciated.

I learn new words on these forums, words like erudite. Granted, I may not remember these words forever or ever apply them in actual conversation but I learn them nonetheless.

I do believe it is time to bring back the ultimate transport solution...Zeppelin airship , no more ports and canal fees...Just the import tax... No need for huge bulky shipping containers...Streamlining the air operation with keeping a steady supply to hungry Ewoks everywhere...

I was gonna bring up Crimson Skies if you didn't. One of my favorite fictions.

Far-fetched air piracy aside, ever since that game came out, I've wondered why Zeppelins couldn't revolutionize the shipping industry. I know they come with a host of logistical challenges, but it doesn't seem that any are insurmountable.

As I understand it, it's an aerodynamic issue (caveat: I am not an aeronautical engineer, and it's been years since I talked to one about blimps and zeppelins). Basically, a structurally feasible envelope for whatever lighter-than-air gas you're using adds mass and creates drag, which means that in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft it takes more thrust to accelerate the same cargo, which means higher fuel costs.

One has to wonder, though, about slightly-heavier-than-air, using dirigible tech in limited amounts to make a craft lighter, lowering fuel consumption and boosting range.

Cost per ton per mile to ship something in US dollars-

Rail. -.03

Water (river or intl)- .10

Truck- .37

Air- 4.63

As you can see, air is MUCH MUCH more expensive per mile. And we're talking a few tons of new minis. At 6500 or so miles, the end user cost would go up dramatically.

Are you proposing a rail line from China to the US West Coast, I agree!