Unions Explained | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 02:12:47 PM

So, your claim is that US is an open economy, and the rest of the world is not, and by extension, US not being able to sell our products to other countries is why we have wage and unemployment problems?

Its a big part of the problem.

I actually think the libertarian economists like Tyler Cowen identify a lot of other serious problems. US society is going to have a lot of unemployed people for the foreseeable future. Find a way to provide for this economic dead weight is a challenge that no politician dares to address.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

So, your claim is that US is an open economy, and the rest of the world is not, and by extension, US not being able to sell our products to other countries is why we have wage and unemployment problems?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 01:34:35 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 28, 2012, 12:21:46 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 11:31:21 AM

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going. For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result. Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

What do you mean other markets need to be open? I thought the problem was that for 30 years US kept their markets somewhat closed, where we exported stuff but limited imports, and other countries didn't have much of a market at all, but now suddenly for the last ten years the whole global market opened up, and we are forced to compete in an open market?

Hmmm. The US has always been one of the most open markets in the world. Go to China and try selling them US made goods and see how far you get before you get arrested. Then try the same in reverse. It won't take you long to see which is the open economy and which is behind a wall of protective laws.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 28, 2012, 12:21:46 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 11:31:21 AM

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going. For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result. Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

What do you mean other markets need to be open? I thought the problem was that for 30 years US kept their markets somewhat closed, where we exported stuff but limited imports, and other countries didn't have much of a market at all, but now suddenly for the last ten years the whole global market opened up, and we are forced to compete in an open market?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 11:31:21 AM

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going. For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result. Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 28, 2012, 10:17:20 AM

Our society will always have a huge percentage of people who are unskilled. It also has a percentage of people who inherit huge advantages including wealth. There is nothing right and proper about making the poor poorer and the rich richer. You are confusing what is possible with what is desirable.

On a purely selfish basis, take a look at countries or states with poor worker protection and compare them to the rest of us. Within the US, the anti-union states leech off the pro-union states. Worldwide, the better the protection for workers, the more prosperous the country. Even if you are happy for the poor to be reduced to begging, its in your own interest to make sure you live in a country where it doesn't happen.

Agreed, with two caveats:
1) Countries that don't have any unions or minimum wage laws (India, China, Russia, Brasil) used to have a lot of poor people, but now, despite having a large wealth divide, they are the fastest growing economies in the world, and their population of poor is shrinking. Adjusted for living expenses,in some cases they are better off than people living here.

2) The system we have here may not be sustainable. National debt is increasing, and that's only in part due to unnecessary military spending. Depending on how exactly the drain to support a minimum wage level and consequent unemployment is handled, we will either run out of borrowing power leading to the situation in Greece, or will severely stifle our economic growth and get surpassed by those other developing nations. We will become the country of unskilled labor, and ours won't even be cheap. Our only saving grace with those nations is that the corruption level in developing countries is still sky high.

So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 28, 2012, 09:48:21 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 28, 2012, 02:40:10 AM

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour. To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down.

It is right and natural that their wages be screwed down. If there was a need for unskilled labor, it would pay higher. If it pays too little, people would look for ways to avoid that job and get better ones. To argue that keeping wages artificially high is to imply that, as Boss said, some people people don't need jobs or income at all, and worse, to imply that its OK to be mediocre and without any skills or education, because you'll still do fine without them.

Our society will always have a huge percentage of people who are unskilled. It also has a percentage of people who inherit huge advantages including wealth. There is nothing right and proper about making the poor poorer and the rich richer. You are confusing what is possible with what is desirable.

On a purely selfish basis, take a look at countries or states with poor worker protection and compare them to the rest of us. Within the US, the anti-union states leech off the pro-union states. Worldwide, the better the protection for workers, the more prosperous the country. Even if you are happy for the poor to be reduced to begging, its in your own interest to make sure you live in a country where it doesn't happen.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 28, 2012, 02:40:10 AM

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour. To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down.

It is right and natural that their wages be screwed down. If there was a need for unskilled labor, it would pay higher. If it pays too little, people would look for ways to avoid that job and get better ones. To argue that keeping wages artificially high is to imply that, as Boss said, some people people don't need jobs or income at all, and worse, to imply that its OK to be mediocre and without any skills or education, because you'll still do fine without them.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 05:38:47 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 04:54:43 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 04:51:57 PM

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily. De-unionise the workplace. Push down wages. There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

Are you generalizing our something? How can a software developer make $50 an hour and a car mechanic make $12 an hour if there is a surplus of both, and worse, the latter is usually in a union and the former isn't?

Or is your whole premise that only those workers, who do menial, usually low priority or unnecessary, work are the only ones who deserve to have their wages artificially held high because... so that those cheap unnecessary jobs can continue to be done because... instead of those workers seeing that those jobs are crap, they pay crap, and these workers are better off spending their union time and money on learning a more valuable skill set?
[/quote]

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour. To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 04:54:43 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 04:51:57 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily. De-unionise the workplace. Push down wages. There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

Are you generalizing our something? How can a software developer make $50 an hour and a car mechanic make $12 an hour if there is a surplus of both, and worse, the latter is usually in a union and the former isn't?

Or is your whole premise that only those workers, who do menial, usually low priority or unnecessary, work are the only ones who deserve to have their wages artificially held high because... so that those cheap unnecessary jobs can continue to be done because... instead of those workers seeing that those jobs are crap, they pay crap, and these workers are better off spending their union time and money on learning a more valuable skill set?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 04:51:57 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 03:04:47 PM

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily. De-unionise the workplace. Push down wages. There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 03:04:47 PM

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 03:04:47 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:37:14 PM

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line. Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers. If you are interested in modern libertarian thinking, Tyler Cowan's "Great Stagnation" adds a lot of data as to what is driving wages down and why there is no relief in sight.

Since we are agreed on the facts, can you now see why I regard your saying you want to get the union wage but not pay the union due as freeloading?

That's the thing, I don't want union wage. Moreso, the union wage is still lower than my personal value. I'm only here until I finish my degree. And yes, I understand, they did stuff for me. Stuff I didn't ask for, and didn't need, and then forced me to pay for it. Stuff like forcing the state to raise everyone's salary by 3% when the state is struggling financially, and then forcing everyone to pay monthly dues that used to be voluntary, which add up to a sizeable chunk of that 3% for many employees, and then since the state will have to make up that money later anyway, creating a situation where everyone will eventually be forced to pay for that raise with state taxes. My state is living on borrowed money right now. So in the end, all they got me was nothing.

Also, can you understand why we think a lot of union employees are freeloading?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 03:04:47 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:37:14 PM

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line. Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers. If you are interested in modern libertarian thinking, Tyler Cowan's "Great Stagnation" adds a lot of data as to what is driving wages down and why there is no relief in sight.

Since we are agreed on the facts, can you now see why I regard your saying you want to get the union wage but not pay the union due as freeloading?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:37:14 PM

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line. Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:10:55 PM

Quote from: Rassah on February 27, 2012, 02:03:31 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 01:45:53 PM

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer. The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum. The workers best interest is served by not being screwed. The union exists to help the worker.

Question: what do you believe the wage minimum is? I.e. how do you believe a minimum is determined?

Starvation. If you can afford 1 calorie more than it takes to feed a single man, you are earning more than the minimum an employer can get away with.

Why would someone work for only 1 extra calorie a day if a competing company can offer more then? Are you essentially throwing away the entire competition for valuable skills in a free market away, or believe that everyone, even those with useless skills, should get a high wage?

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:23:28 PM

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.

Do you believe the price of everything, like milk, bread, clothing, haircuts, etc will be pushed down and down too, or is there a"union" of sorts keeping prices of those things art a certain level? Or do you not consider labor to the the same as any other valuable good or service?

I'm trying to understand if there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2012, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:23:28 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising. The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth.

Wages have increased. Employment has decreased.

The cost-of-living has gone sky high. It's not wages to be blamed but our whole controlled economic paradigm and the restrictions placed upon innovation. It's not a problem to work for only $50 a month, if your food costs are only $10 or so a month.

In a truly free market, businesses will compete for the best workers with rising wages that contrast with lower-quality workers that will work for less.

Please keep in mind that truly poor and starving people don't buy much. That creates little profit for businesses. You're implying people are irrational animals and that only a wise, virtuous elite can show us the way.

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line. Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/opinion/14brooks.html

"The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially."

You can search around - the fall in the percentage of unionised workers and the fall in wages are strongly correlated.

Jon

donator

Activity: 98

Merit: 12

No Gods; No Masters; Only You

Quote from: Hawker on February 27, 2012, 02:23:28 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising. The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth.

Wages have increased. Employment has decreased.

The cost-of-living has gone sky high. It's not wages to be blamed but our whole controlled economic paradigm and the restrictions placed upon innovation. It's not a problem to work for only $50 a month, if your food costs are only $10 or so a month.

In a truly free market, businesses will compete for the best workers with rising wages that contrast with lower-quality workers that will work for less.

Please keep in mind that truly poor and starving people don't buy much. That creates little profit for businesses. You're implying people are irrational animals and that only a wise, virtuous elite can show us the way.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising. The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth.

Jon

donator

Activity: 98

Merit: 12

No Gods; No Masters; Only You

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

Topic: Unions Explained (Read 3343 times)