24 ms·

> and had worse means of getting it. Easy. It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then, there were that many fewer college educated peopl

> and had worse means of getting it. Easy. It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then, there were that many fewer college educated people, and that's 36 years behind the current level of automation technology.

c0nducktr 10y ago
Additionally, declining union membership means current workers have less ability to bargain for better wages.
- __jal 10y ago
  This is a big thing that, oddly, a lot of folks in my cohort (~40s) are unwilling to admit. You don't have to like unions to admit they benefited workers. In fact, the money spent on the destruction of unions points to it - why bother if they didn't help workers? The post-WWII bargain, where productivity growth was split, is gone and not coming back. Whether there's a way to give workers a voice again or not is an interesting question. Of course, if the class differential gets too big, there's always the pitchfork and torch route, which I don't think anyone (OK, most sane people) wants.
hiram112 10y ago
>It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then This is very true. I know the big US car unions ended up screwing both the employees and employers, but have you ever wondered what would have happened in the 60's or 70's, had the line manager come over and told his assembly line team that they were going to not only be fired next month, but if they wanted a severance, they'd have to train their replacement recently imported from the third world? I can guarantee you that there is a good chance this mgmt. team would probably end up dead or severely injured soon afterwards. Today, the same circumstances elicit, at most, a few angry comments on some online media forum. We've been conditioned well by out masters.
- mjevans 10y ago
  They also had a far less connected society where surveillance was /much/ less common and far more easily spotted. I imagine the reasonable chance that someone snapping figured they could get away with it, particularly in a close knit group that routinely went fishing or hunting together and would say that's exactly where they were at the time something happened; was /much/ higher back then. Also today everyone knows that someone else will just be hired to do the same thing. Today when some kind of correction does happen it'll either be approved from on high by those seeking to avoid an old-school revolution, or it will be a bloody zerg-rush.
- marincounty 10y ago
  "We've been conditioned well by out masters." That sentance said it all. I was taught that unions were just o.k., even by my own father, who was a union construction worker. He liked to fashion himself as a starch conservative. One night, I had enough him, and I said, "Dad--you realize unions are a very liberal construct?" My father, "Oh, not really son. These guys(his co-workers) are very conservative, and they vote for conservative candidates." Me, "but dad, these conservative politicians hate unions." My father, "Son, you just don't get it." I didn't want irritate him, so I ended the conversation. So many of his buddies would put down politicians who literally set up his union. I didn't get it. I think it was something about living in America at the time? We were spoiled, and didn't realize we were about to get the carpet pulled from our feet--slowly. I don't know if it was our horrid public educational system, or something else, but so many Americans just took unions, and availability of good paying jobs, in all sectors of the economy for granted. Just work hard, and you will succeed in the U.S.. We even took education for granted. My father thought going to college was a waste of time. We noticed products made overseas we o.k. In quality, and price. We allowed unions die. They were usually in another state anyway. It's not affecting me? I went to college, and graduated in the 80's. It's been a down hill ride. I can't blame the system for all my problems. I had some health problems that really hobbled me for years. I just don't see the opportunities I took for granted years ago. I hope things change. I really don't like this gig economy.
carsongross 10y ago
> It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then Yes, but we have been told that international free trade benefits us all. Do you disagree? > there were that many fewer college educated people, Yes, but we have been told that education is the key to our future, and a more educated workforce should be able to produce more and better goods for us all. Do you disagree? > that's 36 years behind the current level of automation technology. Yes, but automation was what dragged us out of the stone age and through the industrial revolution. It has, at times, apparently made us vastly richer. Do you disagree? I don't say all this to be a dick (well, OK, kind of) and I agree to some extent with each of your points, but I think there is a larger issue at the root: debt. I find Steve Keens analysis compelling.
- forthefuture 10y ago
  > We have been told that international free trade benefits us all. If you have 10 jobs paying people $10, and replace them with 50 jobs paying people $1, but keep the prices of the products the same; 10 people now don't have jobs, and 50 people each don't make enough money to buy any products. You've increased productivity 5x and cut costs in half but all of the gains go to shareholders. > A more educated workforce should be able to produce more and better goods for us all. Same as above. > Automation...has, at times, apparently made us vastly richer. Same as above. > I think there is a larger issue at the root: debt. It's the same issue. Debt is just another thing to rent to poor people.
  - carsongross 10y ago
    I largely agree with your points. I was making the point that "polite intelligent society" does not. On debt, you really should read Keen. He has the only predictive economic model I've seen that actually works, and debt is the crucial factor.

c0nducktr 10y ago

Additionally, declining union membership means current workers have less ability to bargain for better wages.

__jal 10y ago
This is a big thing that, oddly, a lot of folks in my cohort (~40s) are unwilling to admit. You don't have to like unions to admit they benefited workers. In fact, the money spent on the destruction of unions points to it - why bother if they didn't help workers? The post-WWII bargain, where productivity growth was split, is gone and not coming back. Whether there's a way to give workers a voice again or not is an interesting question. Of course, if the class differential gets too big, there's always the pitchfork and torch route, which I don't think anyone (OK, most sane people) wants.

hiram112 10y ago

>It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then This is very true. I know the big US car unions ended up screwing both the employees and employers, but have you ever wondered what would have happened in the 60's or 70's, had the line manager come over and told his assembly line team that they were going to not only be fired next month, but if they wanted a severance, they'd have to train their replacement recently imported from the third world? I can guarantee you that there is a good chance this mgmt. team would probably end up dead or severely injured soon afterwards. Today, the same circumstances elicit, at most, a few angry comments on some online media forum. We've been conditioned well by out masters.

mjevans 10y ago
They also had a far less connected society where surveillance was /much/ less common and far more easily spotted. I imagine the reasonable chance that someone snapping figured they could get away with it, particularly in a close knit group that routinely went fishing or hunting together and would say that's exactly where they were at the time something happened; was /much/ higher back then. Also today everyone knows that someone else will just be hired to do the same thing. Today when some kind of correction does happen it'll either be approved from on high by those seeking to avoid an old-school revolution, or it will be a bloody zerg-rush.
marincounty 10y ago
"We've been conditioned well by out masters." That sentance said it all. I was taught that unions were just o.k., even by my own father, who was a union construction worker. He liked to fashion himself as a starch conservative. One night, I had enough him, and I said, "Dad--you realize unions are a very liberal construct?" My father, "Oh, not really son. These guys(his co-workers) are very conservative, and they vote for conservative candidates." Me, "but dad, these conservative politicians hate unions." My father, "Son, you just don't get it." I didn't want irritate him, so I ended the conversation. So many of his buddies would put down politicians who literally set up his union. I didn't get it. I think it was something about living in America at the time? We were spoiled, and didn't realize we were about to get the carpet pulled from our feet--slowly. I don't know if it was our horrid public educational system, or something else, but so many Americans just took unions, and availability of good paying jobs, in all sectors of the economy for granted. Just work hard, and you will succeed in the U.S.. We even took education for granted. My father thought going to college was a waste of time. We noticed products made overseas we o.k. In quality, and price. We allowed unions die. They were usually in another state anyway. It's not affecting me? I went to college, and graduated in the 80's. It's been a down hill ride. I can't blame the system for all my problems. I had some health problems that really hobbled me for years. I just don't see the opportunities I took for granted years ago. I hope things change. I really don't like this gig economy.

carsongross 10y ago

> It was harder and less acceptable to use international labor then Yes, but we have been told that international free trade benefits us all. Do you disagree? > there were that many fewer college educated people, Yes, but we have been told that education is the key to our future, and a more educated workforce should be able to produce more and better goods for us all. Do you disagree? > that's 36 years behind the current level of automation technology. Yes, but automation was what dragged us out of the stone age and through the industrial revolution. It has, at times, apparently made us vastly richer. Do you disagree? I don't say all this to be a dick (well, OK, kind of) and I agree to some extent with each of your points, but I think there is a larger issue at the root: debt. I find Steve Keens analysis compelling.

forthefuture 10y ago
> We have been told that international free trade benefits us all. If you have 10 jobs paying people $10, and replace them with 50 jobs paying people $1, but keep the prices of the products the same; 10 people now don't have jobs, and 50 people each don't make enough money to buy any products. You've increased productivity 5x and cut costs in half but all of the gains go to shareholders. > A more educated workforce should be able to produce more and better goods for us all. Same as above. > Automation...has, at times, apparently made us vastly richer. Same as above. > I think there is a larger issue at the root: debt. It's the same issue. Debt is just another thing to rent to poor people.
- carsongross 10y ago
  I largely agree with your points. I was making the point that "polite intelligent society" does not. On debt, you really should read Keen. He has the only predictive economic model I've seen that actually works, and debt is the crucial factor.