4 ms·
The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think: > [Freeman and Medoff] showed that contrary to popular belief, u
by mcphage 8y ago
The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think:
> [Freeman and Medoff] showed that contrary to popular belief, unions actually decreased racial wage disparities.
> A recent paper by economists Henry Farber, Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko and Suresh Naidu concludes that unions were an important force reducing inequality in the U.S. [...] The authors find that as unionization rises, inequality tends to fall, and vice versa. Nor is this effect driven by greater skills and education on the part of union workers; during the era from 1940 through 1970, when unionization rose and inequality fell, union workers tended to be less educated than others. In other words, unions lifted the workers at the bottom of the distribution. Black workers, and other nonwhite workers, tended to benefit the most from the union boost.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> The article addresses racial injustice directly, although not in the direction that you think: First, the claim that this benefited "black and other nonwhite workers" is completely unsubstantiated by the actual Farber paper. But secondly, that is not "addressing racial injustice". The people who weren't deported and didn't have their land forcibly seized by union members[0] benefited economically, yes, but that was never the question. And pretending it is misses the entire point. [0] which was permitted under California law, after the Exclusion act