4 ms·

That unions can be bad is not news to anyone. But what's clear is not having unions is much, much worse. A simple comparison of wealth vs union membership tells

That unions can be bad is not news to anyone. But what's clear is not having unions is much, much worse. A simple comparison of wealth vs union membership tells it all: https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1369433256907710470/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1369433256907710470/photo...

busterarm 6y ago
I wouldn't exactly take Robert Reich's word for it...It's not so clear at all. There's plenty of other variables to consider here and he just graphed two of them. Corporate taxes were much higher. Also it looks like share of income going to the top 10% hasn't really changed much at all in the last 100 years. 40% +/- 10%. That needle hasn't moved very far.
- slantedview 6y ago
  Not his graph. It comes from an EPI report: https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-collective-bargaining/ https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-collective-ba...
  - busterarm 6y ago
    It's still just cherry picking 2 variables to graph together that may or may not be related. Correlation != Causation.
    - slantedview 6y ago
      If you care to read the article you'd find links to a more detailed study that demonstrates the exact portion of income inequality that is known to have been caused by de-unionization.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        That's not how this works. There's no study here showing how they were able to discount all other variables and show a provable link between A and B. This is data cherry-picked to support a conclusion and published by a lobby group (a pro-union one and publihed on labor day, no less. It's flashy!). You may agree with said conclusion, but this is research presenting a theory not a proof. There is no causation being shown here. It's a possible theory, but that is all that it is.
gruez 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/925/ https://xkcd.com/925/
_-david-_ 6y ago
Do you have any proof that the lack of unions is causing the top 10% to make more? There are variety of different things that started in the 50s such as outsourcing to cheaper countries.

busterarm 6y ago

I wouldn't exactly take Robert Reich's word for it...It's not so clear at all. There's plenty of other variables to consider here and he just graphed two of them. Corporate taxes were much higher. Also it looks like share of income going to the top 10% hasn't really changed much at all in the last 100 years. 40% +/- 10%. That needle hasn't moved very far.

slantedview 6y ago
Not his graph. It comes from an EPI report: https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-collective-bargaining/ https://www.epi.org/publication/labor-day-2019-collective-ba...
- busterarm 6y ago
  It's still just cherry picking 2 variables to graph together that may or may not be related. Correlation != Causation.
  - slantedview 6y ago
    If you care to read the article you'd find links to a more detailed study that demonstrates the exact portion of income inequality that is known to have been caused by de-unionization.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      That's not how this works. There's no study here showing how they were able to discount all other variables and show a provable link between A and B. This is data cherry-picked to support a conclusion and published by a lobby group (a pro-union one and publihed on labor day, no less. It's flashy!). You may agree with said conclusion, but this is research presenting a theory not a proof. There is no causation being shown here. It's a possible theory, but that is all that it is.

gruez 6y ago

https://xkcd.com/925/ https://xkcd.com/925/

_-david-_ 6y ago

Do you have any proof that the lack of unions is causing the top 10% to make more? There are variety of different things that started in the 50s such as outsourcing to cheaper countries.