3 ms·

>>What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the gre

by moate 8y ago

>>What if you're better than the majority of "us". I can negotiate a better deal for myself than they can get or justify; now I subsidize the group for "the greater good". Yes. This is also how insurance works. Also, statistically speaking, most people aren't better than the majority. The union then yolks the top half to make things better for the majority. People see this as unfair because they think they somehow got to be better than the majority solely by themselves and with no gains provided by others in their field. This is a way to help your sector directly. Also, a rising tide lifts all ships, so it's also possible that you earn more in the union model than when employees were pitted against each other. Less money goes to share prices, sucks for them. There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. I would argue that unions aren't as common in the white collar sector because most office workers don't fully understand the unions because they're 2+ generations removed from someone who may have been involved in one.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Even if capital's share of income is increasing (I believe it has increased slightly), it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogenous mass, and gives it a greater share of income, will do anything but increase distortions being imposed on the economy. Interventions need to be more intelligently formulated and targeted than what the simplistic ideological narratives promoted by rent-seeking labor unions advocate.
- moate 8y ago
  >>As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Such as? >>What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. Capitalism is based on the idea that this has to happen in order for a business to function. I don't believe this to be the only way. >>it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogeneous mass That does't tend to be how unions work. Some go with specific rates based on seniority, some simply require wage floors or ranges based on title. Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Unions are only a blunt tool if you let them be. Collective bargaining is only bad if you feel you're the specialist exceptional boy, which Western culture encourages but statistics point out are rare.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>Such as? * Property values appreciating due to zoning restrictions constraining supply growth. This is the finding of a recent analysis that got significant attention: https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra... * Increasing regulations resulting in suppression of competition and rent-extraction by an elite: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upward-redistribution-of-income-are-rents-the-story http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upwar... * An increase in occupational licensing. 5% of occupations in 1950 required an occupational license. Today it's 29%. A higher prevalence of occupational licensing also contributes to inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidence_on_the_effects_of_occupational_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidenc... >A study from the Mercatus Center showed that occupational licensing can lead to greater income inequality, with each step needed to open a business leading to an additional 1.4% of national income going to the top 10% of earners. >>Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. That is a deeply flawed Marxist understanding of economics. The $200 increase in company revenue is not solely due to the workers. If it were, the investors wouldn't be needed. The investment made by the investors is contributing enormous value, which is why investors are valued. >>That does't tend to be how unions work. Any rule that is broadly applied to the economy and regiments how labor is to interact with employers is going to be making simplifying assumptions about groups of workers/employers that treat them as homogeneous masses which would benefit from some set of cookie-cutter rules relating to some matter, be it collective bargaining, or union membership, or union dues. An economy is far to complex to regiment with labor laws. >>Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Regimentation does not help the masses. Mandatory minimum employment benefits like health options seem beneficial superficially, but in actuality they prevent individuals from negotiating the optimal trade off in benefits that maximize their well-being. You don't increase the net pool of wealth in society when you make benefits mandatory. I might prefer a higher wage over guaranteed paternal leave. It's a trade off. One benefit has to come at the expense of another. Employers have a finite amount of wealth they can expend on labour. Mandatory benefits are a case of treating individuals in society as cookie-cutter cut-outs, and applying a set formula to all of them. It's central economic planning, and it's destructive.

by moate 8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>There is absolutely an imbalance between the rates being paid to western white-collar workers and the value they create for their companies. If there wasn't, we wouldn't continue to see stockholder shares increase and growth in income inequity. What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Even if capital's share of income is increasing (I believe it has increased slightly), it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogenous mass, and gives it a greater share of income, will do anything but increase distortions being imposed on the economy. Interventions need to be more intelligently formulated and targeted than what the simplistic ideological narratives promoted by rent-seeking labor unions advocate.

moate 8y ago
>>As for the growth in income inequality, there are many other possible explanations besides a free market in labor being inherently unfair to workers. Such as? >>What do you mean by "stockholders shares increase"? You're saying shares increasing in value is a sign that there's an imbalance between wages paid to workers and value created by them? Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. Capitalism is based on the idea that this has to happen in order for a business to function. I don't believe this to be the only way. >>it doesn't follow that a cookie cutter intervention that treats labor as one homogeneous mass That does't tend to be how unions work. Some go with specific rates based on seniority, some simply require wage floors or ranges based on title. Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Unions are only a blunt tool if you let them be. Collective bargaining is only bad if you feel you're the specialist exceptional boy, which Western culture encourages but statistics point out are rare.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>Such as? * Property values appreciating due to zoning restrictions constraining supply growth. This is the finding of a recent analysis that got significant attention: https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra... * Increasing regulations resulting in suppression of competition and rent-extraction by an elite: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upward-redistribution-of-income-are-rents-the-story http://cepr.net/publications/reports/working-paper-the-upwar... * An increase in occupational licensing. 5% of occupations in 1950 required an occupational license. Today it's 29%. A higher prevalence of occupational licensing also contributes to inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidence_on_the_effects_of_occupational_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing#Evidenc... >A study from the Mercatus Center showed that occupational licensing can lead to greater income inequality, with each step needed to open a business leading to an additional 1.4% of national income going to the top 10% of earners. >>Quick answer: Yes. If I create $200 worth of value for my company, and I'm paid $100 dollars and the other $100 is given to the company coffers, I'm underpaid relative to the value I create. That is a deeply flawed Marxist understanding of economics. The $200 increase in company revenue is not solely due to the workers. If it were, the investors wouldn't be needed. The investment made by the investors is contributing enormous value, which is why investors are valued. >>That does't tend to be how unions work. Any rule that is broadly applied to the economy and regiments how labor is to interact with employers is going to be making simplifying assumptions about groups of workers/employers that treat them as homogeneous masses which would benefit from some set of cookie-cutter rules relating to some matter, be it collective bargaining, or union membership, or union dues. An economy is far to complex to regiment with labor laws. >>Some simply bargain for benefits that help the masses (grievance resolution, healthcare options, etc). Regimentation does not help the masses. Mandatory minimum employment benefits like health options seem beneficial superficially, but in actuality they prevent individuals from negotiating the optimal trade off in benefits that maximize their well-being. You don't increase the net pool of wealth in society when you make benefits mandatory. I might prefer a higher wage over guaranteed paternal leave. It's a trade off. One benefit has to come at the expense of another. Employers have a finite amount of wealth they can expend on labour. Mandatory benefits are a case of treating individuals in society as cookie-cutter cut-outs, and applying a set formula to all of them. It's central economic planning, and it's destructive.