5 ms·

>Consumers are workers. This is circular logic, isn't it? It's like saying McDonald's should only pay workers $3 an hour because I, some uninvolved person who

>Consumers are workers. This is circular logic, isn't it? It's like saying McDonald's should only pay workers $3 an hour because I, some uninvolved person who happens to be a worker elsewhere, would like a cheaper hamburger. That's not pro-worker, that's pro-hamburger. If the question is about a fair playing field between bosses and workers, I don't understand what a strike inconveniencing people has to do with it.

conanbatt 9y ago
It isnt, because not all workers can unionize. In consequence, unionized get the better on non unionized. The artificial increase of wages has the same effect that the artificual increase of profits
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  > It isnt, because not all workers can unionize. Yes they can.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    They cant, for multiple reasons. But even if you believe what you said, all workers dont unionize. Thats an empirical fact. So while they dont all unionize, still some workers eat others.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      For multiple reasons. Which you don’t list.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        State often limits who can unionize. For example in argentina, police and firemen cant unionize. In the us maybe the military cant ( but the can in argentina!) Second some jobs are easier to unionize than others due to geographicalities. Farmers in the us have below minimum incomes. Their effective unionization has no limit on how much wages they could get. But because its impossible to be cohesive with small numbes and large distances it doesnt happen. Unions form successfully by their capcity to limit supply. Anything that can be imported breaks unions. Anything that cant helps them. Thats why teachers, cops, garbage and transport are unions in the us, but electronic manufacture isnt. Hope this is enough!
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        Farmers unions exist. Police and fire brigade unions exist. Manufacturers unions exist. Did you know that unions have been illegal in various countries at various points of time? People still unionised and fought to have it made legal. It isn’t always easy, but any worker can unionise. You seem to be confusing possibility with activity.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse. Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        > Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The barrier to entry for unionizing is a lot lower than getting rich and hiring a servant. That is not a comparable situation. Incredibly poor labourers and rich professionals alike unionize. > you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly. We have completely voluntary unionism in my industry and people join the union voluntarily. You seem to have a _very_ skewed view of unions that only takes the negatives. My union (Professionals Australia) takes a pragmatic view to labour relations. I resigned from my previous union because they didn't take that view and focussed on short-term gains for only a subset of their members.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Trade unions are the easiest example of monopolization of labor. I bet you a bitcoin they either lobby to require professional degrees to excercise labor or give out their own. Tell me if i should give you an address.
    - mcny 9y ago
      I agree with you to some extent. I want costs to go lower. To that end, unions are a barrier. However, why isn't executive pay also a barrier? Why can't we ever talk about it? I think there is no reason why our corporations should pay millions of dollars to the CEO and I think it should be illegal to be compensated for being on a board at all. Imagine the cost savings that could be translated to either the shareholders as dividends or the consumers as lower prices or both!
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        I think ceo compensation is another topic, but its very important to understan that CEO compensation does not come from workers, it comes from investors. If you could effectively limit what CEO's make, the savings will go into the stock and investors, it will not raise wages, because wages are not set by CEO pay. Think of the effects of a maximum wage in an economy. It cannot possibly help workers. It will definitely help investors/capitalists/employers.
        JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        A crock. If the CEO gets a bonus, and everybody else no raise and some layoffs, how exactly can that be called compensation from investors? Wages and bonuses are set by CEO decree. And they, across the board, set them as low as they can get away with so they hit their quarterly numbers and get their bonus.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Im guessing that you think that all wages come directly from capital, so there is a limited pie of wages that can be given out. So when a CEO makes a lot of money, he has to be taking more from that limited fund and not allowing others to get it. But its not really true: wages are paid by the production of the worker himself. In a farm with a landowner, an apple picker picks 10 apples and pays 20% on the landowner. That is, his wage is 8 apples. A guy comes in picks 100 apples. By the same rate, he would earn 80 apples, or the wage of 10 common apple producers. By the same nominal rate, he would earn 98 apples. The common producer has a lot to envy on that person, and might make a case for him getting 8 apples, 80 apples or less than 98 apples. But in any case whatever he lobbies for will go to the landowner, because the landowner already has lots of people that pick 10 apples and pay 2. CEO pay is agreed in a market, and albeit there are interesting governance issues, it is truly drawn from investors. Personally I do believe investors are getting stiffed. ITs just not the solution to increase wages.

conanbatt 9y ago

It isnt, because not all workers can unionize. In consequence, unionized get the better on non unionized. The artificial increase of wages has the same effect that the artificual increase of profits

jackvalentine 9y ago
> It isnt, because not all workers can unionize. Yes they can.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  They cant, for multiple reasons. But even if you believe what you said, all workers dont unionize. Thats an empirical fact. So while they dont all unionize, still some workers eat others.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    For multiple reasons. Which you don’t list.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      State often limits who can unionize. For example in argentina, police and firemen cant unionize. In the us maybe the military cant ( but the can in argentina!) Second some jobs are easier to unionize than others due to geographicalities. Farmers in the us have below minimum incomes. Their effective unionization has no limit on how much wages they could get. But because its impossible to be cohesive with small numbes and large distances it doesnt happen. Unions form successfully by their capcity to limit supply. Anything that can be imported breaks unions. Anything that cant helps them. Thats why teachers, cops, garbage and transport are unions in the us, but electronic manufacture isnt. Hope this is enough!
      - jackvalentine 9y ago
        Farmers unions exist. Police and fire brigade unions exist. Manufacturers unions exist. Did you know that unions have been illegal in various countries at various points of time? People still unionised and fought to have it made legal. It isn’t always easy, but any worker can unionise. You seem to be confusing possibility with activity.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse. Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        > Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The barrier to entry for unionizing is a lot lower than getting rich and hiring a servant. That is not a comparable situation. Incredibly poor labourers and rich professionals alike unionize. > you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly. We have completely voluntary unionism in my industry and people join the union voluntarily. You seem to have a _very_ skewed view of unions that only takes the negatives. My union (Professionals Australia) takes a pragmatic view to labour relations. I resigned from my previous union because they didn't take that view and focussed on short-term gains for only a subset of their members.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Trade unions are the easiest example of monopolization of labor. I bet you a bitcoin they either lobby to require professional degrees to excercise labor or give out their own. Tell me if i should give you an address.
  - mcny 9y ago
    I agree with you to some extent. I want costs to go lower. To that end, unions are a barrier. However, why isn't executive pay also a barrier? Why can't we ever talk about it? I think there is no reason why our corporations should pay millions of dollars to the CEO and I think it should be illegal to be compensated for being on a board at all. Imagine the cost savings that could be translated to either the shareholders as dividends or the consumers as lower prices or both!
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I think ceo compensation is another topic, but its very important to understan that CEO compensation does not come from workers, it comes from investors. If you could effectively limit what CEO's make, the savings will go into the stock and investors, it will not raise wages, because wages are not set by CEO pay. Think of the effects of a maximum wage in an economy. It cannot possibly help workers. It will definitely help investors/capitalists/employers.
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        A crock. If the CEO gets a bonus, and everybody else no raise and some layoffs, how exactly can that be called compensation from investors? Wages and bonuses are set by CEO decree. And they, across the board, set them as low as they can get away with so they hit their quarterly numbers and get their bonus.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Im guessing that you think that all wages come directly from capital, so there is a limited pie of wages that can be given out. So when a CEO makes a lot of money, he has to be taking more from that limited fund and not allowing others to get it. But its not really true: wages are paid by the production of the worker himself. In a farm with a landowner, an apple picker picks 10 apples and pays 20% on the landowner. That is, his wage is 8 apples. A guy comes in picks 100 apples. By the same rate, he would earn 80 apples, or the wage of 10 common apple producers. By the same nominal rate, he would earn 98 apples. The common producer has a lot to envy on that person, and might make a case for him getting 8 apples, 80 apples or less than 98 apples. But in any case whatever he lobbies for will go to the landowner, because the landowner already has lots of people that pick 10 apples and pay 2. CEO pay is agreed in a market, and albeit there are interesting governance issues, it is truly drawn from investors. Personally I do believe investors are getting stiffed. ITs just not the solution to increase wages.