3 ms·
I think you have an idealized view market forces. Offshoring was a way to break the back of unions in the US by seeking out unorganized, cheap labor overseas. T
by jtr1 8y ago
I think you have an idealized view market forces. Offshoring was a way to break the back of unions in the US by seeking out unorganized, cheap labor overseas. The power dynamic remains the same, the people who owned capital wanted more profit than could be made in the US. We agree on that much, but your version of the story strips out all of the agency from the equation.
At any rate, I don't think labor shortage is an adequate counterweight to wage suppression. Wages are beginning to inch up, yes. But cyclical economic crises ensure that the unemployment rate never goes so low as to require the kind of meaningful wage increases that would counteract the trends we're talking about. Look at the op-eds in the Wall Street Journal -- wage increases are seen as a huge liability and a reason to pull back on investment. Better to throw out a couple of one-time bonuses to keep the mobs from revolting.
This isn't some starry-eyed optimism about the working class. Wages are negotiated by the balance of power between management and labor.
- kazen44 8y ago> Wages are negotiated by the balance of power between management and labor. wages are not determined between management and labor, but between the owners of means to produce and its labourers. Most managers are also labourers and are just as much on payroll as a factory worker is, they just have authority over other workers. The class conflict has always been between those who own the means and gain money through passively using this and those who do the actual labour. this dynamic still has not changed in the past 150 years, and i doubt it will change.
- jtr1 8y agoThis is a good clarification to my shoddy wording. Thanks
- emodendroket 8y agoTo an extent, but there is a reason why unions don't let middle managers be leaders in the union.