3 ms·
And probably because it's easy to see how thoroughly unionization has thrashed other industries.
by jcnnghm 17y ago
And probably because it's easy to see how thoroughly unionization has thrashed other industries.
- raganwald 17y agoWhile simultaneously the American economy grew and grew and grew in the greatest era of prosperity in the history of the world. Point: Unionization distributed wealth across the economy, building a consumer society and accelerating growth. Counter-point: The economy was growing so much for other reasons that it succeeded in spite of unionization. Discuss.
- Alex3917 17y agoBecause of the teachers union the general population is dumb and uneducated. Because of the automotive unions, we have no decent public transportation. And because of the doctors union, large swaths of the population have no access to healthcare and doctors have so little critical thinking ability that it takes on average seven years to diagnose a disease. Is it possible that unions made wealth more equally distributed and thus increased growth? Yes. However, using unions to increase distribution of wealth is pretty much worst imaginable way to do it.
- camccann 17y agoAll the more reason why the industry ought to wise up before unionization starts to look like the better option anyway. Abusive management and powerful unions are a lose-lose situation for everyone. It's basically the double-defect equilibrium in the prisoner's dilemma, which is where short-sighted self-interest so often leads.