3 ms·

>Because all these ideas (regulation, minimum wage, laborisation, etc) protect existing workers and harms lower skilled or newcomers, foreigners, minorities, et

>Because all these ideas (regulation, minimum wage, laborisation, etc) protect existing workers and harms lower skilled or newcomers, foreigners, minorities, etc Classic retcon argument, which sums up why we can't have nice things any more. Don't unionize it might hurt foreigners or minorities! Almost as good as Hillary Clinton's observation that breaking up the big banks won't end sexism or racism. So like ... why bother I guess? We can all be serfs who strive towards antiracism and antisexism while under the oligarch heel?

hippich 8y ago
Not talking about some abstract ideas. Me personally, as a foreigner, with an unrelated degree, with low language skills, shaky immigration status, flexibility to pick where to give up something to get a job benefited tremendously. To put it another way - being able to allow being exploited allowed me to secure a better future. Without this ability, I would unlikely to have a life as good as I have it now. Today I am in the position where labor union, some mandatory certification, would be a benefit to me. But I do remember where I started and would hate the idea of having barriers to get into this job. But my kids, or grandkids, if they will be in IT, probably forget these hurdles and will happily vote for regulation/laborisation/certification/etc.
- hoaw 8y ago
  It isn't a particularly good idea to build something on survivorship bias. For everyone who got into computers and found a booming industry there were people who were into something else which didn't boom, or never got he chance to be into something in the first place. There are talented people who should but can't get into the tech job market, working lowly IT jobs or in other ways aren't doing so well. Undue regulation can be bad, but providing a way for people to do something isn't. By saying that something shouldn't be formalized you essentially being protectionist as well. Just from organized rather than unorganized competition.
  - hippich 8y ago
    I agree with that, where I got a life chance someone else probably did not get a pay raise or got fired. Now the question is what is fairer, can it be more than zero-sum game, and is there a set of regulations that will make everyone benefit.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. Except maybe short term looting interests of top tier capitalists. Even Henry Ford understood this. High labor costs are why people want to live in the US in the first place; it sure ain't the food or the beautiful architecture.
      - briandear 8y ago
        > Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. False. China wouldn’t have grown to be such a powerful economy if their labor costs were high. The average Chinese is better off than they were 30 years ago. As far as why people want to live in America? That one is easy: opportunity. Try to start a business in India. Now, try to start that same business in the US. That diff is why people want to be in America. A narrow example, but very illustrative. France has higher labor costs than the US as a percentage of revenues, but the US consulate in Gaungzhou had lines around the block for immigrant visas while the French consulate does not. Switzerland has higher labor costs than the US, but their consulate in Bogota is practically empty, while the US consulate is swamped. It isn’t the labor costs, it’s the opportunity.
        yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
        >China wouldn’t have grown to be such a powerful economy if their labor costs were high. The average Chinese is better off than they were 30 years ago. This is the best defense of sweatshop labor, to be sure, but it’s hardly got legs in the end. First, “better off” bares defining, and “average” plays a big role in your claim. China is less homogenous than ever before, of course. It’s social make-up is a tremendous mystery for the most part. Second, are we assuming average Chinese would not be “better off” now than they would be without rabid labor abuse by the billions and free global trade? That’s a heavy assumption to make. Third, China is a world leader now in a way that it was not 30 years ago. China itself is a world power, and to only measure the “better offness” of the Chinese would be to completely discount the global nature of the stage in which China operates... The average American is not better off now, and America’s industrial business with China is obviously an important consideration in why. And, of course, does China impact the quality of lives in other countries? (hint: yes)
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  What union actions have you been seeing that would impede this kind of onboarding story today?
anth_anm 8y ago
Using identity politics to divide the working class is a well practiced maneuver. It's why a lot of leftists decry identity politics while still recognizing intersectionality and fighting for the rights of various groups.
int_19h 8y ago
There's ample historical precedent of unions in US being anti-minorities and anti-immigration. It may be a far fetched worry in this climate (although given electoral demographics, I wouldn't be so sure), but it is a legitimate one. Here's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Exclusion_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Exclusion_League Here's a recent example of unionized workers exhibiting racism: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/i...

hippich 8y ago

Not talking about some abstract ideas. Me personally, as a foreigner, with an unrelated degree, with low language skills, shaky immigration status, flexibility to pick where to give up something to get a job benefited tremendously. To put it another way - being able to allow being exploited allowed me to secure a better future. Without this ability, I would unlikely to have a life as good as I have it now. Today I am in the position where labor union, some mandatory certification, would be a benefit to me. But I do remember where I started and would hate the idea of having barriers to get into this job. But my kids, or grandkids, if they will be in IT, probably forget these hurdles and will happily vote for regulation/laborisation/certification/etc.

hoaw 8y ago
It isn't a particularly good idea to build something on survivorship bias. For everyone who got into computers and found a booming industry there were people who were into something else which didn't boom, or never got he chance to be into something in the first place. There are talented people who should but can't get into the tech job market, working lowly IT jobs or in other ways aren't doing so well. Undue regulation can be bad, but providing a way for people to do something isn't. By saying that something shouldn't be formalized you essentially being protectionist as well. Just from organized rather than unorganized competition.
- hippich 8y ago
  I agree with that, where I got a life chance someone else probably did not get a pay raise or got fired. Now the question is what is fairer, can it be more than zero-sum game, and is there a set of regulations that will make everyone benefit.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. Except maybe short term looting interests of top tier capitalists. Even Henry Ford understood this. High labor costs are why people want to live in the US in the first place; it sure ain't the food or the beautiful architecture.
    - briandear 8y ago
      > Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. False. China wouldn’t have grown to be such a powerful economy if their labor costs were high. The average Chinese is better off than they were 30 years ago. As far as why people want to live in America? That one is easy: opportunity. Try to start a business in India. Now, try to start that same business in the US. That diff is why people want to be in America. A narrow example, but very illustrative. France has higher labor costs than the US as a percentage of revenues, but the US consulate in Gaungzhou had lines around the block for immigrant visas while the French consulate does not. Switzerland has higher labor costs than the US, but their consulate in Bogota is practically empty, while the US consulate is swamped. It isn’t the labor costs, it’s the opportunity.
      - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
        >China wouldn’t have grown to be such a powerful economy if their labor costs were high. The average Chinese is better off than they were 30 years ago. This is the best defense of sweatshop labor, to be sure, but it’s hardly got legs in the end. First, “better off” bares defining, and “average” plays a big role in your claim. China is less homogenous than ever before, of course. It’s social make-up is a tremendous mystery for the most part. Second, are we assuming average Chinese would not be “better off” now than they would be without rabid labor abuse by the billions and free global trade? That’s a heavy assumption to make. Third, China is a world leader now in a way that it was not 30 years ago. China itself is a world power, and to only measure the “better offness” of the Chinese would be to completely discount the global nature of the stage in which China operates... The average American is not better off now, and America’s industrial business with China is obviously an important consideration in why. And, of course, does China impact the quality of lives in other countries? (hint: yes)
erikpukinskis 8y ago
What union actions have you been seeing that would impede this kind of onboarding story today?

anth_anm 8y ago

Using identity politics to divide the working class is a well practiced maneuver. It's why a lot of leftists decry identity politics while still recognizing intersectionality and fighting for the rights of various groups.

int_19h 8y ago

There's ample historical precedent of unions in US being anti-minorities and anti-immigration. It may be a far fetched worry in this climate (although given electoral demographics, I wouldn't be so sure), but it is a legitimate one. Here's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Exclusion_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Exclusion_League Here's a recent example of unionized workers exhibiting racism: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/i...