23 ms·
But worker pay won’t go up unless there’s a shortage of workers. This is orthogonal to worker pay.
by h4b4n3r0 8y ago
But worker pay won’t go up unless there’s a shortage of workers. This is orthogonal to worker pay.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWorker pay goes up with unionization and collective bargaining without needing a tight (usually temporary) labor market. Otherwise, we end up in a highly cyclical economic condition where employment conditions are tolerable during tight labor markets, but are downright terrible when there is a surplus of labor (note only recently, with unemployment near 3.9%, the lowest unemployment rate since 2000, that employers are considering usually undesirable candidates [criminal records, no college degree, etc]). Why is this undesirable? Simple. Lower and middle class workers drive the economy with their consumption. If they don't have stability, they don't spend. If they don't spend, the velocity of money through the economy decreases. You want workers to feel comfortable spending, and the only way to do that is by giving them stability along with a fair wage.
- h4b4n3r0 8y agoSure. I’m just saying worker pay issue is largely orthogonal to stock buybacks or tax cuts. It’s not like, all things being equal, the revenue would be spent on workers anyway.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago> It’s not like, all things being equal, the revenue would be spent on workers anyway. It's possible it would be if it was more tax advantageous to pay workers then to pay out profits as buybacks through the most recent tax cuts. Clearly, taxes matter in corporate decision making, as large multinationals were keeping their cash offshore as long as possible, waiting for a tax holiday.
- h4b4n3r0 8y agoHence the “all things being equal” qualification.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoJust being verbose to remove ambiguity from the conversation. Better than misunderstandings.
- hueving 8y agoWorker pay will not go up with unionization if there is not a somewhat tight labor market with that skillset. Otherwise the employer can just layoff everyone in the union and start with unencumbered employees elsewhere.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- RandomInteger4 8y agoSure, because that's exactly what happened when unions gave us the the 5 day 40 hour work week and numerous other worker's rights, right? Child labor just disappeared on it's own right? Social security, workplace safety, overtime ... all just magically appeared, correct? Because maybe, again, just maybe, I'm being dense, but I don't think "skillsets" were ever a limiting factor for those who spearheaded unionization. "skillsets" are a facet of the bourgeoisie labor market, which I say as a firm capitalist. It's always been those at the bottom who have fought for worker's rights.
- antidesitter 8y ago> Child labor just disappeared on it's own right? No. It took capitalism—more precisely, the resulting accumulation of human wealth and technology—for child labor to disappear. It disappeared when it became economically unnecessary for children to work: http://atlanticsentinel.com/2011/01/did-government-end-child-labor/ http://atlanticsentinel.com/2011/01/did-government-end-child... I am continually surprised by the number of people who seem to be under the impression that the default state of nature is one of abundance rather than scarcity. Why do you think children had to work in the first place?
- RandomInteger4 8y agoChildren worked in factories because they were easier to exploit and the families who were getting exploited were desperate enough to send their children to work, because it was legal. How about actually thinking through the logic of the situation from the actors involved rather than basing your opinion on assumptions and nonsense.