5 ms·

Let's assume your premise is correct. Then it could also mean that there hasn't been any working combination of capital and labor that didn't depend on labor be

Let's assume your premise is correct. Then it could also mean that there hasn't been any working combination of capital and labor that didn't depend on labor being exploited. I don't believe this to be the case, but your assertion actually validates the necessity of labor unions, not undermines them.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Your assumption is that all non-union labor is being exploited.
- acituan 6y ago
  That's not my assumption, as I explicitly stated. I wanted to show the possibility of a union-favorable explanation of the OPs premise. In case you are curious about my actual assumption; I think there are a lot of externalities that are not priced-in in the contract, which will naturally favor the more organized side, which happens to be capital than labor most of the time. I don't know if exploitation is necessarily the right adjective for every case, but I believe there is a large potential for asymmetry in untracked disutility an individual can get out a transaction with their employer.
  - creddit 6y ago
    Huh? If you aren't assuming that then how does this fall out: "Then it could also mean that there hasn't been any working combination of capital and labor that didn't depend on labor being exploited." Is it not your assumption because of the so-called weasel words "could mean"??
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      No, because they already rejected the premise that came before "Then"
      - creddit 6y ago
        He says “assume industries where unions have gained strongholds have ended up as failed industries” (paraphrasing). Then he says this implies that no model of industry has succeeded without labor exploitation. That doesn’t follow strictly from the original premise so it must have an implicit assumption built in which is that non-union labor is exploitative. Maybe I’m being stupid but I don’t see how else this works out. Can you expand to help me understand what I’m missing?
        acituan 6y ago
        I could have been clearer, you are right. I was trying to engage in a thought experiment. In union = failure axiom, there can be contradicting explanations as to why. My OP implied “unions make things fail” (and I assumed due to commonly assumes reasons like inefficiency), I construed the idea that “unions might be exposing a dependence on exploitation”. I don’t necessarily ascribe truth value to either premise, just wanted to expand the possibility of explanations. I wasn’t clear on that, apologies for the confusion.
- grawprog 6y ago
  To be fair, when I know Union workers doing the same job as me are being paid nearly twice as much with medical benefits, sick time, regular raises, proper safety equipment, regulated working hours etc. It's kind of hard not to feel a bit exploited by comparison.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Meanwhile, how many non-union software developers do you know who don't have medical benefits or sick time? It's the nature of the occupation rather than the presence of a union that determines those things in the long term. And if you go and unionize workers in an industry where the workers can't command that kind of premium, the next thing that happens is the company goes out of business or moves its operations to Mexico or similar, and then how are the unionized workers doing on the unemployment line?
    - vkou 6y ago
      > the next thing that happens is the company goes out of business As long as the company pays its owners more than their lowest-paid employees, it can afford to pay their employees more, without going out of business. There's plenty of profitable firms that can't just pack up and move to Mexico.
      - karpierz 6y ago
        Not exactly. Its owners could always pack up and work elsewhere. Or in the case of capital, invest elsewhere. You have to beat the alternative option.
        vkou 6y ago
        What is going to stop wherever they pack up to go to from organizing in a similar manner? Does the factory that the employees work in also disappear if the owners pack up and leave? Why would things be any different for the owners, under new ownership? Plenty of profitable businesses can afford to pay employees more. The fact that they are profitable is testament to it. They choose not to, because their employees don't have enough leverage in the employee-employer relationship. Unions change that.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Your assumption is that all non-union labor is being exploited.

acituan 6y ago
That's not my assumption, as I explicitly stated. I wanted to show the possibility of a union-favorable explanation of the OPs premise. In case you are curious about my actual assumption; I think there are a lot of externalities that are not priced-in in the contract, which will naturally favor the more organized side, which happens to be capital than labor most of the time. I don't know if exploitation is necessarily the right adjective for every case, but I believe there is a large potential for asymmetry in untracked disutility an individual can get out a transaction with their employer.
- creddit 6y ago
  Huh? If you aren't assuming that then how does this fall out: "Then it could also mean that there hasn't been any working combination of capital and labor that didn't depend on labor being exploited." Is it not your assumption because of the so-called weasel words "could mean"??
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    No, because they already rejected the premise that came before "Then"
    - creddit 6y ago
      He says “assume industries where unions have gained strongholds have ended up as failed industries” (paraphrasing). Then he says this implies that no model of industry has succeeded without labor exploitation. That doesn’t follow strictly from the original premise so it must have an implicit assumption built in which is that non-union labor is exploitative. Maybe I’m being stupid but I don’t see how else this works out. Can you expand to help me understand what I’m missing?
      - acituan 6y ago
        I could have been clearer, you are right. I was trying to engage in a thought experiment. In union = failure axiom, there can be contradicting explanations as to why. My OP implied “unions make things fail” (and I assumed due to commonly assumes reasons like inefficiency), I construed the idea that “unions might be exposing a dependence on exploitation”. I don’t necessarily ascribe truth value to either premise, just wanted to expand the possibility of explanations. I wasn’t clear on that, apologies for the confusion.
grawprog 6y ago
To be fair, when I know Union workers doing the same job as me are being paid nearly twice as much with medical benefits, sick time, regular raises, proper safety equipment, regulated working hours etc. It's kind of hard not to feel a bit exploited by comparison.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Meanwhile, how many non-union software developers do you know who don't have medical benefits or sick time? It's the nature of the occupation rather than the presence of a union that determines those things in the long term. And if you go and unionize workers in an industry where the workers can't command that kind of premium, the next thing that happens is the company goes out of business or moves its operations to Mexico or similar, and then how are the unionized workers doing on the unemployment line?
  - vkou 6y ago
    > the next thing that happens is the company goes out of business As long as the company pays its owners more than their lowest-paid employees, it can afford to pay their employees more, without going out of business. There's plenty of profitable firms that can't just pack up and move to Mexico.
    - karpierz 6y ago
      Not exactly. Its owners could always pack up and work elsewhere. Or in the case of capital, invest elsewhere. You have to beat the alternative option.
      - vkou 6y ago
        What is going to stop wherever they pack up to go to from organizing in a similar manner? Does the factory that the employees work in also disappear if the owners pack up and leave? Why would things be any different for the owners, under new ownership? Plenty of profitable businesses can afford to pay employees more. The fact that they are profitable is testament to it. They choose not to, because their employees don't have enough leverage in the employee-employer relationship. Unions change that.