6 ms·

>I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United St

>I don't subscribe at all to the race to the bottom concept honestly. I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! And for the economic example, this: >but this effect happens with almost anything that is produceds and requires labor just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. >So basically advocating for the restrictions in name of pay, is advocating for higher nominal salaries for less goods. That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_Uni...

conanbatt 9y ago
> I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! People fought and died for to expand christianity in the world as well. How can you not believe in god? There are many things about the era of unions and worker rights that to my personal level, require a scrutiny I dont have the understanding and knowledge to disentangle. The increase of wealth and people's welfare might as well have happened in spite of worker's rights movements. Also, the greatest terrible thing about that era was that the state was participant in the oppression ,by using violence against workers. (At least it was so in argentina). Thats a great case for unionization, but not for workers rights, since the oppressor is the one that puts the rules. The United States has some of the most rudimentary worker laws in the developed world, yet many jobs (like soft dev) tout great benefits like paid leave, extra pto etc. What increases worker well-being is the creation of wealth, not the mandatory legal requirements for it. > just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. That's pretty much an opinion, and software is not everything out there. > That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. I dont see how it would be opposite. Lower worker times means lower production, which means lower goods and services to consume. No matter what you do with the currency, reducing production makes the whole poorer. There are some arguments around this topic like reasonable work-times increase productivity and spending and all that, and they are believable to a certain extent, but the basic mechanic has to be the before mentioned. To be honest, I always perceive that issue as a problem of perception of distribution. In a system of 10 workers, where each has the same output, if one of them were willing to work 60 hours over 40, he would make relatively more than the other workers and that causes a perception of inequality humans are inherently against. The 40 hour worker now also thinks(correctly) that his wage would go up if he could force the 60 hour guy to work 40 hours. But he believes this is good for him, which it isn't, because even he would be relatively worse, he would be absolutely better. In economics, what you dont see often has a more profound effect that what you can see.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Just out of interest, how many consecutive 60 hour weeks have you worked? If I recall correctly, the longest stretch I've done of 60+ hour weeks in a metal fabrication workshop is 12. The longest stretch of 50+ hr weeks I've done is in my current job in a metal fabrication workshop is about 5 months. I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Not many, even though I had the opportunity to do so multiple times, I chose (and still choose) not to work those kind of times. > I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks. This phrase implies that you are comparing mandatory 40-hours to mandatory 60-hours, which is not the line of argumentation. The line of questioning is that people should be forced to never work 60 hours. It is a proposal of restriction, with the argument that the lives of workers would be better if so. And I argue that is not true.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  You're operating in such a simplified view of "economics" so as to be totally useless. And there's also some extreme bias here, you admit to not having the a good understanding of the workers rights movement but you believe that workers got better of in spite of the movement? What's that saying about an open mind but not too open? I really urge you to expand your view of the labor market into one that takes into account real world elements like frictions, coercion, monopsony power of employers, imperfect information and hell maybe some economic history. What you are talking about just is not the real world.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    There isn't even a clear consensus with professional economists today on this topic, let alone what it meant 80 years ago. It requires some very strong research to back up that the workers rights movement achieved the results unions claimed. One of the greatest advancements in worker well being in the US was done by Ford pioneering well paid and well rested employees. I live in a country that had a certain amount of economic prosperity and it has been under clear economic crippling since the last constitutional amendment that expanded workers rights. Coincidence or causality? It's very hard to say, but the fact that union leaders are richer than CEO's and company founders makes the whole thing suspicious. Modern unions definitely sell a lot of kool-aid.

conanbatt 9y ago

> I don't get how you can not. Workers fought and died[0] for the protections the United States enforces. Why do you think that is? Because they were tired of racing to the bottom! People fought and died for to expand christianity in the world as well. How can you not believe in god? There are many things about the era of unions and worker rights that to my personal level, require a scrutiny I dont have the understanding and knowledge to disentangle. The increase of wealth and people's welfare might as well have happened in spite of worker's rights movements. Also, the greatest terrible thing about that era was that the state was participant in the oppression ,by using violence against workers. (At least it was so in argentina). Thats a great case for unionization, but not for workers rights, since the oppressor is the one that puts the rules. The United States has some of the most rudimentary worker laws in the developed world, yet many jobs (like soft dev) tout great benefits like paid leave, extra pto etc. What increases worker well-being is the creation of wealth, not the mandatory legal requirements for it. > just isn't correct. For example, one of the other top comments in this thread is specifically about how gig labor probably won't work well for most software. That's pretty much an opinion, and software is not everything out there. > That's a pretty interesting assertion. I could just as easily say the opposite. I dont see how it would be opposite. Lower worker times means lower production, which means lower goods and services to consume. No matter what you do with the currency, reducing production makes the whole poorer. There are some arguments around this topic like reasonable work-times increase productivity and spending and all that, and they are believable to a certain extent, but the basic mechanic has to be the before mentioned. To be honest, I always perceive that issue as a problem of perception of distribution. In a system of 10 workers, where each has the same output, if one of them were willing to work 60 hours over 40, he would make relatively more than the other workers and that causes a perception of inequality humans are inherently against. The 40 hour worker now also thinks(correctly) that his wage would go up if he could force the 60 hour guy to work 40 hours. But he believes this is good for him, which it isn't, because even he would be relatively worse, he would be absolutely better. In economics, what you dont see often has a more profound effect that what you can see.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Just out of interest, how many consecutive 60 hour weeks have you worked? If I recall correctly, the longest stretch I've done of 60+ hour weeks in a metal fabrication workshop is 12. The longest stretch of 50+ hr weeks I've done is in my current job in a metal fabrication workshop is about 5 months. I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Not many, even though I had the opportunity to do so multiple times, I chose (and still choose) not to work those kind of times. > I genuinely cannot understand your argument in favour of 60 hour weeks. This phrase implies that you are comparing mandatory 40-hours to mandatory 60-hours, which is not the line of argumentation. The line of questioning is that people should be forced to never work 60 hours. It is a proposal of restriction, with the argument that the lives of workers would be better if so. And I argue that is not true.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
You're operating in such a simplified view of "economics" so as to be totally useless. And there's also some extreme bias here, you admit to not having the a good understanding of the workers rights movement but you believe that workers got better of in spite of the movement? What's that saying about an open mind but not too open? I really urge you to expand your view of the labor market into one that takes into account real world elements like frictions, coercion, monopsony power of employers, imperfect information and hell maybe some economic history. What you are talking about just is not the real world.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  There isn't even a clear consensus with professional economists today on this topic, let alone what it meant 80 years ago. It requires some very strong research to back up that the workers rights movement achieved the results unions claimed. One of the greatest advancements in worker well being in the US was done by Ford pioneering well paid and well rested employees. I live in a country that had a certain amount of economic prosperity and it has been under clear economic crippling since the last constitutional amendment that expanded workers rights. Coincidence or causality? It's very hard to say, but the fact that union leaders are richer than CEO's and company founders makes the whole thing suspicious. Modern unions definitely sell a lot of kool-aid.