3 ms·

I'm not sure where to begin with this, since your perspective is contrary to all economic evidence. Have you been aware that real wages have not been rising wi

I'm not sure where to begin with this, since your perspective is contrary to all economic evidence. Have you been aware that real wages have not been rising with productivity since the 70's? Inequality has also risen massively. You may be in a comfortable position in your job, but a very large proportion employed people in the US are not financially secure. Folks forget now, but the existence of a large middle class in the US is due to reforms pushed by the labor movement in the first half of the 20th century.

indigochill 8y ago
Honestly not trying to make an argument for/against unions (my own stance is I'd be totally fine with fully voluntary unions), but in isolation this comment doesn't seem to contradict the above comment's point about unions having outlived their usefulness. On one hand, it's great the labor movement pushed for reforms in the first half of the 20th century. But we're in the first half of the 21st century now and as you point out, real wages haven't kept up with productivity and lots of people are financially insecure. So has the labor movement been slacking for the past ~50 years? Of course, there's a whole lot more to financial insecurity than labor compensation, but you seem to be arguing for unions being one part of the answer to that. But we have unions, so where's the disconnect?
sintaxi 8y ago
> Folks forget now, but the existence of a large middle class in the US is due to reforms pushed by the labor movement in the first half of the 20th century. Exactly the opposite. Unions started forming after WW2 which is when the middle class began its decline.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  The organized labor movement began in the 19th century.
wernercd 8y ago
Contrary to all economic evidence? Unions don't represent me. What "evidence" is there besides that? As a fiscal conservative republican/libertarian - unions do not represent anything about me. At all. People being "not financially secure" doesn't mean that a Union represents their needs. Those are two separate - if related - issues. "folks forget now" you seem to be ignoring one of my main points: Many Unions out live their usefulness. There are points where Unions are great - and some of those points do exist today. I think Unions are important with regards to government agencies, for example - because the "employer" is massively disconnected from the lower level employees and in many aspects not accountable. But the vast majority of Unions get created... maybe full-fill a purpose... then continues to exist as a detriment. A bureaucracy that exists unto itself and stops representing the worker and instead becomes another detached entity that's, for all intents and purposes, a net negative and a drain on a company. IE: The auto industry. You show me a union that factors in their base and covers the entire spectrum - and not 100% one party or political ideology... and we can begin talking about how a Union could or would represent all it's members...

indigochill 8y ago

Honestly not trying to make an argument for/against unions (my own stance is I'd be totally fine with fully voluntary unions), but in isolation this comment doesn't seem to contradict the above comment's point about unions having outlived their usefulness. On one hand, it's great the labor movement pushed for reforms in the first half of the 20th century. But we're in the first half of the 21st century now and as you point out, real wages haven't kept up with productivity and lots of people are financially insecure. So has the labor movement been slacking for the past ~50 years? Of course, there's a whole lot more to financial insecurity than labor compensation, but you seem to be arguing for unions being one part of the answer to that. But we have unions, so where's the disconnect?

sintaxi 8y ago

> Folks forget now, but the existence of a large middle class in the US is due to reforms pushed by the labor movement in the first half of the 20th century. Exactly the opposite. Unions started forming after WW2 which is when the middle class began its decline.

Apocryphon 8y ago
The organized labor movement began in the 19th century.

wernercd 8y ago

Contrary to all economic evidence? Unions don't represent me. What "evidence" is there besides that? As a fiscal conservative republican/libertarian - unions do not represent anything about me. At all. People being "not financially secure" doesn't mean that a Union represents their needs. Those are two separate - if related - issues. "folks forget now" you seem to be ignoring one of my main points: Many Unions out live their usefulness. There are points where Unions are great - and some of those points do exist today. I think Unions are important with regards to government agencies, for example - because the "employer" is massively disconnected from the lower level employees and in many aspects not accountable. But the vast majority of Unions get created... maybe full-fill a purpose... then continues to exist as a detriment. A bureaucracy that exists unto itself and stops representing the worker and instead becomes another detached entity that's, for all intents and purposes, a net negative and a drain on a company. IE: The auto industry. You show me a union that factors in their base and covers the entire spectrum - and not 100% one party or political ideology... and we can begin talking about how a Union could or would represent all it's members...