I really don't understand why you think there's anything sinister about unions donating money to Democrats...or at least why it's any more sinister than big business donating to Republicans. They advocate different policies, and of course they'll receive money from different groups of people who favor those policies.

Maybe the clue is in your statement about "which group in this country swings the most weight politically". But how do you reconcile the assertion that unions have a lot of political power with declining union membership and influence? And if unions wield so much power, why did Republicans have a stranglehold on Washington for so long? Look at the results. Too many contradictions in your assertions.

Your response about "Middle Class Squeeze" tempts me to bring up Disraeli. The key chart in the paper wasn't about the employment rate, it was about declining standards of living and the exacerbation of the gap between top and bottom. You seem to have studiously ignored that one and rooted around until you could find some stats that might look better, and ended up with the least meaningful data set. Raw employment rate reveals nothing about standard of living or the quality of the jobs. Put the employment rate together with standard-of-living data, on the other hand, and the conclusion is inescapable: Downward mobility. Maybe 100,000 more people are employed than ten years ago (and 150,000 less than the peak in '01), but clearly those are poorer jobs.

"Wonder why they started the graph in 1997?" I dunno, why didn't they start the graph in '87 or '77 or any other arbitrary year? Actually, there are good reasons, though they wouldn't occur to somebody always looking for the negative. Simple readibility is one, since the 10-year segment chosen has an interesting curve, while the preceding ten years were a simple generally upward slope (through the Clinton years [I couldn't resist]). Another, and deeper, reason is that the nature of the economy has changed over time, and the farther back you go, the more the comparison becomes apples and oranges. In the most recent ten year slice at least you're comparing a similar mixture of occupations.

You get today's NitPicker award:

If there's anything in here about white-collar workers, I must have missed it. Casino dealers?

Got me there, Tom, I wrote: "about union growth in white collar and previously nonunionized segments of the labor force.", so I guess I'm guilty of inappropriately using the phrase "white collar". Oh, and the picture shows the card dealer wearing a shirt with a black collar. Bad, bad, me! But the article was certainly about the growth of unionization of "non-traditional, service jobs". Which supports the not-very-risky prediction I made earlier about the times being ripe once again for unions to gain power.

I'm sure Ms. Decker has a very impressive resume and is well though-of, but what does that have to do with a performance bonus? That article was two fiscal years ago, September 01, 2005. Her bonus this fiscal year was cut a token 15% after "the stock had its biggest decline since 2000" and "Yahoo's sales growth fell to slowest pace in five years". Do you understand what a performance bonus is supposed to reward? How is her large bonus any more justified than the bonuses given to all the other executives whose company's fortunes and stock pricess have declined? One more time: a performance bonus is supposed to award actual performance. Get it?

Ah well, not that I expect to change your mind, nor should you expect to change mine. I think I've stated my position fairly well, and to continue would only take us down one of those long inconclusive branches of less and less substance. There will be other debates.