And they were all kind of odd and I don't mean because they were obviously bright and skilled, but they'd been hanging around older people so much they were like awkwardly premature adults. They saw kids their own age much like an older teen would see a bunch of brats and at the same time they didn't really fit in with the older ones either.
That was me. They held me back academically because I couldn't relate to my peers, and I didn't fit in with the older kids either. I also spoke to adults on their level (and sometimes with a better vocabulary), which caused its own set of problems.
If I knew I had a really bright kid I think I'd worry less about reaching his full genius potential and more on not raising a Sheldon.
This is the key. Socialize your kids, even if they don't want it. They don't want to eat veggies either, but it's still good for them.
But they aren't buying a product, they are providing one-- the output of their labor.
That depends on whose point of view you're looking at. From the employee's point of view, yes. From the employer's point of view, they are the one paying money for something, which makes them the consumer. Therefore, labor (or you could argue skills and time) is the product employees are selling.
If one feels that their labor is worth more than what their employer is paying, they are free to move within the market and see if they can find another purchaser of their labor at their preferred price.
And if the purchase of their labor can be arranged through a third party, is that third party not also a market force?
all the union does is distort the price for labor
If indeed the union is a market force, then its price for labor is not a distortion--unless the union is the only market force on that side of the equation, i.e., a monopoly. If it is not a monopoly, it is simply another competing provider of the product. The union can charge more for their product because it has been upgraded (much like a staffing company) by a guarantee of a certain skillset.
Now take all of the above with one caveat: I'm talking about laboratory conditions. In the real world, unions get monopolies, they're corrupt, they protect the lazy and unskilled, distort the job market, yada yada yada. But employers aren't any better. Before unions, they abused and distorted the market. Child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, and safety standards all come from union efforts. Until unions began asserting some power in the marketplace, employers were the monopoly, and the market value of labor was low wages for long days and shitty working conditions. Even with all the progress made, to this day employers will still find a way to screw you over if it's good for the bottom line and legal, or if not legal, the penalties cheap enough.
Unions are like any other group of people in that they can easily become corrupt. However, corporations are groups of people too. I'm not saying fighting corruption with corruption is the way to go, but you can at least level the playing field, as TheGratefulNet said.
I've never understood the free market argument against unions. Unions are a *function* of the free market. They fit in the role of consumers (of employment) who want to have some control over the product they buy (the work they do). If the free market provided everything the employees need/want, no one would want to unionize.
Except that they downgrade your photos.
I realize I'm still a n00b (I read
Circumcision of males, I think, somewhat robs us of the fullest sexual experiences, as is similarly argued on female circumcision.
I will not discount the possibility that a male circumcision results in decreased sexual enjoyment, but female circumcision results in little to no sexual enjoyment.
HOLY MACRO!