5 ms·

Here it is https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality

grandmczeb 9y ago
The link you posted only analyzes the relationship after 1980. It also doesn't compare multiple sources of inequality. That's not evidence for "union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s" Here's another study (that actually cites the one you linked) covering the same time period and shows multiple other factors having greater impact. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  No it absolutely doesn't. "Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs." Emphasis mine. That ^^^ was literally the first reason given in the article. The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Institutional support (donations, political support, control of voting blocs, policy research, etc.) behind those policies (e.g. raise minimum wage) comes from unions whereas the policies do the opposite (e.g. lower minimum wage) come from business lobbies and high net worth individuals - who have opposing interests.
  - grandmczeb 9y ago
    It's true that a decrease in labor power has probably contributed to rising inequality. That's not what you stated though; "It's a factor" and "it's the most important factor" are separate points. If you read the study I linked, you'll see that in advanced economies globalization and the skill premium have had roughly the same or larger impact as changes in labor institutions (which is a much bigger category than just "union power"). Regardless, both studies only show effects after 1980, not before. > The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Organized labor frequently advocate for policies that benefit their members at the expense of non-members (for example, licensing requirements) with ambiguous or detrimental affects on inequality. You use the example of minimum wage, but that's an ambiguous example too; we have some evidence that a high minimum wage actually decreases total low wage worker earnings[1], but a small increase (at least in the US) would probably be beneficial. To quote from the study I linked earlier "Stronger labor market institutions could increase unemployment rates, reduce the wage differential between high skill and low-skill workers, and affect the labor share of income. The overall impact on income inequality, however, can be ambiguous: they increase unemployment, which tends to raise inequality, they can reduce wage dispersion, which tends to lower it, and they increase the wage share, which can have an ambiguous effect on inequality" To be clear, it might be true that a decrease in labor power would be associated with policy that increases inequality but that's a non-obvious conclusion. [1] https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >If you read the study I linked, you'll see that in advanced economies globalization and the skill premium have had roughly the same or larger impact The paper you linked was not studying that. It was not measuring the impact of union density on inequality whereas the study I linked to had a methodology for measuring the two, correlating them and teasing out a causal impact. Your paper was simply going over the various issues surrounding inequality and talking about them. The other stuff you mentioned is a combination of wrong and not relevant to this topic. Incidentally, that stuff about licensing requirements being "the bane of every worker's existence" that you read about can typically be traced back to lobby institutions that are linked to Charles and David Koch (e.g. CATO). They started publishing "research" and press releases about the onerousness of stuff like hairdresser regulation in the 90s and early 00s after some of the brothers' high profile fights with the EPA. Isn't it fun to learn where your propaganda comes from and why? :)

The link you posted only analyzes the relationship after 1980. It also doesn't compare multiple sources of inequality. That's not evidence for "union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s" Here's another study (that actually cites the one you linked) covering the same time period and shows multiple other factors having greater impact. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

crdoconnor 9y ago
No it absolutely doesn't. "Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs." Emphasis mine. That ^^^ was literally the first reason given in the article. The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Institutional support (donations, political support, control of voting blocs, policy research, etc.) behind those policies (e.g. raise minimum wage) comes from unions whereas the policies do the opposite (e.g. lower minimum wage) come from business lobbies and high net worth individuals - who have opposing interests.
- grandmczeb 9y ago
  It's true that a decrease in labor power has probably contributed to rising inequality. That's not what you stated though; "It's a factor" and "it's the most important factor" are separate points. If you read the study I linked, you'll see that in advanced economies globalization and the skill premium have had roughly the same or larger impact as changes in labor institutions (which is a much bigger category than just "union power"). Regardless, both studies only show effects after 1980, not before. > The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Organized labor frequently advocate for policies that benefit their members at the expense of non-members (for example, licensing requirements) with ambiguous or detrimental affects on inequality. You use the example of minimum wage, but that's an ambiguous example too; we have some evidence that a high minimum wage actually decreases total low wage worker earnings[1], but a small increase (at least in the US) would probably be beneficial. To quote from the study I linked earlier "Stronger labor market institutions could increase unemployment rates, reduce the wage differential between high skill and low-skill workers, and affect the labor share of income. The overall impact on income inequality, however, can be ambiguous: they increase unemployment, which tends to raise inequality, they can reduce wage dispersion, which tends to lower it, and they increase the wage share, which can have an ambiguous effect on inequality" To be clear, it might be true that a decrease in labor power would be associated with policy that increases inequality but that's a non-obvious conclusion. [1] https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >If you read the study I linked, you'll see that in advanced economies globalization and the skill premium have had roughly the same or larger impact The paper you linked was not studying that. It was not measuring the impact of union density on inequality whereas the study I linked to had a methodology for measuring the two, correlating them and teasing out a causal impact. Your paper was simply going over the various issues surrounding inequality and talking about them. The other stuff you mentioned is a combination of wrong and not relevant to this topic. Incidentally, that stuff about licensing requirements being "the bane of every worker's existence" that you read about can typically be traced back to lobby institutions that are linked to Charles and David Koch (e.g. CATO). They started publishing "research" and press releases about the onerousness of stuff like hairdresser regulation in the 90s and early 00s after some of the brothers' high profile fights with the EPA. Isn't it fun to learn where your propaganda comes from and why? :)