4 ms·

By definition, a person using a union to extract above market wages (I.e. rents) is a rent seeker. He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you t

By definition, a person using a union to extract above market wages (I.e. rents) is a rent seeker. He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect?

coldtea 10y ago
>By definition, a person using a union to extract above market wages (I.e. rents) is a rent seeker. The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance. So it's just circular reasoning. In the real world "market wages" also reflect power struggles, and in those power struggles those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation. Unions help balance those power struggles to the (much more numerous) worker's side. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something. Not to mention that the rich are the ultimate rent-seekers, especially in this stage of the economy. And "too big to fail" to top. >He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect? Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. Then there's racism (doesn't even apply in this context), nepotism (as if union members hire their siblings?), cronyism (ditto), etc.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2015/12/minority-workers-sue-operating-engineers-union-028979 http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2015...
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That's just an example of a specific union. Not a general characteristic of unions, which have welcomed black, hispanic and asian workers as far back as the 1915 or so -- at a time when repression and racism was so systematic that there were even state and federal laws against specific minorities.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance...Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers. ...those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation. You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. In contrast, cartels of wage payers are illegal, and the media is rarely favorable to their interests. But in the rare cases when wage payers form a cartel, this too is rent seeking. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something. I'd suggest once you finish reading the definition of rent seeking, you might also consider reading Ayn Rand. You might be shocked to discover that all of her heroes are productive workers.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance (...) "Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers." Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay. >You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. You seem even more confused. First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers". By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely. If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that. Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong). The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have. Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.

By definition, a person using a union to extract above market wages (I.e. rents) is a rent seeker. He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect?

coldtea 10y ago

>By definition, a person using a union to extract above market wages (I.e. rents) is a rent seeker. The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance. So it's just circular reasoning. In the real world "market wages" also reflect power struggles, and in those power struggles those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation. Unions help balance those power struggles to the (much more numerous) worker's side. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something. Not to mention that the rich are the ultimate rent-seekers, especially in this stage of the economy. And "too big to fail" to top. >He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect? Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. Then there's racism (doesn't even apply in this context), nepotism (as if union members hire their siblings?), cronyism (ditto), etc.

bradleyjg 10y ago
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2015/12/minority-workers-sue-operating-engineers-union-028979 http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2015...
- coldtea 10y ago
  That's just an example of a specific union. Not a general characteristic of unions, which have welcomed black, hispanic and asian workers as far back as the 1915 or so -- at a time when repression and racism was so systematic that there were even state and federal laws against specific minorities.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance...Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers. ...those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation. You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. In contrast, cartels of wage payers are illegal, and the media is rarely favorable to their interests. But in the rare cases when wage payers form a cartel, this too is rent seeking. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something. I'd suggest once you finish reading the definition of rent seeking, you might also consider reading Ayn Rand. You might be shocked to discover that all of her heroes are productive workers.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance (...) "Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers." Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay. >You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. You seem even more confused. First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers". By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely. If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that. Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong). The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have. Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.