3 ms·

Yes, but the idea that labor and company are splitting a same pie and that with organized labor you will increase that pie is a veiled labor theory of value. It

Yes, but the idea that labor and company are splitting a same pie and that with organized labor you will increase that pie is a veiled labor theory of value. It goes contrary to other concepts like increasing profits , increasing capital investment, increasing wages, etc. > The Economist and the FT often say things which are considered "radical" by popular economic discourse standards, because their readers are interested in what's actually happening while the popular discourse is extremely dogmatic and driven by the right. I do not mind, but the economist is an economically liberal news source and Unions(as they are known by the public) are enemies of liberal economics. I hope Unions don't make a comeback.

pjc50 8y ago
> but the idea that labor and company are splitting a same pie and that with organized labor you will increase that pie is a veiled labor theory of value. It goes contrary to other concepts like increasing profits , increasing capital investment, increasing wages, Eh? Increasing wages is exactly what we're talking about here. For any given firm, after accounting for external costs there is a quantity of money left over which may be re-invested, given out as wages in some distribution (how much to the CEO?), or returned to investors. Some re-investment may also be in the employees in the form of training or retention perks. Exactly how this is distributed is up for questioning. > Unions(as they are known by the public) are enemies of liberal economics I think the point of the Economist is that this is a political view, and that it needn't be this way: Germany is always cited as a country where it works differently. Having adversarial relations with the union is a choice. A leader can also choose to consult them on mutually beneficial changes in working practice.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > A leader can also choose to consult them on mutually beneficial changes in working practice. For sure, I believe people should unionize if they want to, but should be given no special benefits for doing so. Argentina has constitutional level protections for unions, they cant be jailed, etc. They own soccer clubs, and threaten politicians families and cant be incarcerated, while also having highest and increasing poverty and lower employment.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "For sure, I believe people should unionize if they want to, but should be given no special benefits for doing so." Why is it fair for the company to be given special benefits for incorporating, but not for labor?
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      The equivalent legal protection of a union for a company would be monopoly licenses, and mandatory consumption of services and goods of a specific company. They are not comparable sets of protections. Plus, unions can also incorporate, but the legal protections asked by unions are not of legal organization, but of protection from other workers or coercion to employers.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Wrong. Incorporated companies get a number of tax breaks, a lot benefits that allow them to act as one, just like a union. Again, asking for unions to not have their protections is equivalent to saying that you don't want labor to have any protections.
gowld 8y ago
Why would workers or customers (aka society) care a whit for "increasing profits"? How is "increasing wages" contrary to splitting the pie?
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Great that you mentioned workers and customers as the same group. They arent! Unions work against consumers. For example, by asking for tariffs. So if you care for consumers, you have to again be against the objectives of unions, that increase the cost of goods and favor restriction. Nobody needs to care for the profits of private businesses, and that is both in positive and negative terms: trying to enhance them by artificial and opressive laws will lead to bad outcomes, and trying to punish them and take away from them will also do so .

pjc50 8y ago

> but the idea that labor and company are splitting a same pie and that with organized labor you will increase that pie is a veiled labor theory of value. It goes contrary to other concepts like increasing profits , increasing capital investment, increasing wages, Eh? Increasing wages is exactly what we're talking about here. For any given firm, after accounting for external costs there is a quantity of money left over which may be re-invested, given out as wages in some distribution (how much to the CEO?), or returned to investors. Some re-investment may also be in the employees in the form of training or retention perks. Exactly how this is distributed is up for questioning. > Unions(as they are known by the public) are enemies of liberal economics I think the point of the Economist is that this is a political view, and that it needn't be this way: Germany is always cited as a country where it works differently. Having adversarial relations with the union is a choice. A leader can also choose to consult them on mutually beneficial changes in working practice.

conanbatt 8y ago
> A leader can also choose to consult them on mutually beneficial changes in working practice. For sure, I believe people should unionize if they want to, but should be given no special benefits for doing so. Argentina has constitutional level protections for unions, they cant be jailed, etc. They own soccer clubs, and threaten politicians families and cant be incarcerated, while also having highest and increasing poverty and lower employment.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "For sure, I believe people should unionize if they want to, but should be given no special benefits for doing so." Why is it fair for the company to be given special benefits for incorporating, but not for labor?
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    The equivalent legal protection of a union for a company would be monopoly licenses, and mandatory consumption of services and goods of a specific company. They are not comparable sets of protections. Plus, unions can also incorporate, but the legal protections asked by unions are not of legal organization, but of protection from other workers or coercion to employers.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Wrong. Incorporated companies get a number of tax breaks, a lot benefits that allow them to act as one, just like a union. Again, asking for unions to not have their protections is equivalent to saying that you don't want labor to have any protections.

gowld 8y ago

Why would workers or customers (aka society) care a whit for "increasing profits"? How is "increasing wages" contrary to splitting the pie?

conanbatt 8y ago
Great that you mentioned workers and customers as the same group. They arent! Unions work against consumers. For example, by asking for tariffs. So if you care for consumers, you have to again be against the objectives of unions, that increase the cost of goods and favor restriction. Nobody needs to care for the profits of private businesses, and that is both in positive and negative terms: trying to enhance them by artificial and opressive laws will lead to bad outcomes, and trying to punish them and take away from them will also do so .