3 ms·

> The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions. You could say similar th

by ardy42 7y ago

> The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions. You could say similar things about authoritarian governmental forms. Like democracy, unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes.

syshum 7y ago
>>>Like democracy, Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. >>unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes. In theory that is true, but that largely depends on the size of the union, and the size of the company the union is negotiating with. I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business
- ardy42 7y ago
  > Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. Citation most certainly needed. While democracy is admittedly imperfect, it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. The only plausible theory that supports your claim is that all decisions in democracies are made to benefit some corporate/financial elite, but the election of Trump rather than Clinton (which none of these elite groups wanted) is pretty strong and straightforward evidence against that. > I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business Maybe it was true that union was wrong in that case (your story is far too vague to verify), however it's plausible other unions were right in other, similar cases. Typically, management's priority is to be as generous as possible to the shareholders, not the workers. > "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for My comment was a pretty straightforward observation that people with power tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, tend put far less weight on the interests of those without the political power to influence them, and a solution is to spread political power more widely. How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there, and if you're going to to that, you're not worth talking to.
  - syshum 7y ago
    >Citation most certainly needed. One of the More Recent and referenced ones I am aware of https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. >it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. If people in a democracy were really free what control we see today would not even be possible. It is but with the grace and consent of the government do people have freedom. That is inverse of how it is suppose to be, where by the government is formed on the consent of the governed. When we have teenagers in Wisconsin being threaten with arrest for disorderly conduct for an Instagram post I think we can safely say we have transitioned into an Authoritarian form of governance, that is just one of 1000's of examples I can cite > How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments.
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. I read the abstract, and that doesn't seem to contradict what I said, which was "...democracy, ...give[s] a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes." I didn't say it'd always give the people the biggest seat, just a bigger one than they'd have otherwise. Furthermore, even if that study is correct, it would have a big blind-spot, since I can't imagine that it covers policy that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests" would want but was never pursued by the government because it would be so contrary to public desire (and thus would never show up in any empirical data set). It's quite plausible that elite/business interests dominate certain areas of policy most of the time (probably the smaller and more technical types), but are overridden occasionally but in a big way by the public when it comes to certain large policy changes. >> it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. > Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." > I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments. Don't do that, please.
cloverich 7y ago
That's true but the difference is companies can compete and go out of business, and generally rely on willful consumption of their products.

by ardy42 7y ago

syshum 7y ago

>>>Like democracy, Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. >>unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes. In theory that is true, but that largely depends on the size of the union, and the size of the company the union is negotiating with. I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business

ardy42 7y ago
> Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. Citation most certainly needed. While democracy is admittedly imperfect, it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. The only plausible theory that supports your claim is that all decisions in democracies are made to benefit some corporate/financial elite, but the election of Trump rather than Clinton (which none of these elite groups wanted) is pretty strong and straightforward evidence against that. > I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business Maybe it was true that union was wrong in that case (your story is far too vague to verify), however it's plausible other unions were right in other, similar cases. Typically, management's priority is to be as generous as possible to the shareholders, not the workers. > "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for My comment was a pretty straightforward observation that people with power tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, tend put far less weight on the interests of those without the political power to influence them, and a solution is to spread political power more widely. How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there, and if you're going to to that, you're not worth talking to.
- syshum 7y ago
  >Citation most certainly needed. One of the More Recent and referenced ones I am aware of https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. >it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. If people in a democracy were really free what control we see today would not even be possible. It is but with the grace and consent of the government do people have freedom. That is inverse of how it is suppose to be, where by the government is formed on the consent of the governed. When we have teenagers in Wisconsin being threaten with arrest for disorderly conduct for an Instagram post I think we can safely say we have transitioned into an Authoritarian form of governance, that is just one of 1000's of examples I can cite > How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. I read the abstract, and that doesn't seem to contradict what I said, which was "...democracy, ...give[s] a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes." I didn't say it'd always give the people the biggest seat, just a bigger one than they'd have otherwise. Furthermore, even if that study is correct, it would have a big blind-spot, since I can't imagine that it covers policy that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests" would want but was never pursued by the government because it would be so contrary to public desire (and thus would never show up in any empirical data set). It's quite plausible that elite/business interests dominate certain areas of policy most of the time (probably the smaller and more technical types), but are overridden occasionally but in a big way by the public when it comes to certain large policy changes. >> it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. > Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." > I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments. Don't do that, please.

cloverich 7y ago

That's true but the difference is companies can compete and go out of business, and generally rely on willful consumption of their products.