5 ms·

It means the system is asymmetric. The "masters" can collude to reduce wages, can ask for government assistance to weaken worker unions. But workers don't seem

It means the system is asymmetric. The "masters" can collude to reduce wages, can ask for government assistance to weaken worker unions. But workers don't seem to have the same rights.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The fundamental problem with labor unions is that they're stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer when the real threat is capital's corruption of the political system. Consider where the wages of labor go. The major expenses are housing, taxes, transportation and healthcare. Housing is artificially scarce. Zoning prevents new construction in areas with high demand, benefiting capital (i.e. landlords) who get higher rents. People who can't afford the higher rents have to live further from the city, increasing their transportation expenses (more money for Big Oil). Workers pay taxes but instead of going to some kind of UBI or anything else that would benefit workers, or just letting workers keep more of their money, most of it goes to things like the F-35 and buying the votes of retirees in the important swing state of Florida by enacting benefits which are really handouts to Big Pharma. And healthcare regulations are passed to make healthcare more expensive, i.e. more profitable, because of regulatory capture. There's nothing in there that a labor union can solve by negotiating employee compensation with Walmart or Amazon. Because the problem is artificial scarcity, corruption and waste. At scale, if you negotiated everyone a raise, prices would just go up. Because everyone is still bidding on artificially scarce housing and paying for wasteful government programs and suffering the effects of regulatory capture. But even when unions do try to lobby for something, it's typically just things to increase their own institutional power (e.g. trying to get Uber drivers into a union which is once again only negotiating employee compensation) instead of doing anything about the real problems that are sucking workers dry.
- mulvya 5y ago
  > capital's corruption of the political system Capital is a measure of power. Capital's "corruption of the political system" is use of that power. I'm not sure it's coherent to conceive a world where Capital retains its power but not use it to shape the people and instruments that manage society.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Money in politics isn't a homogeneous threat in every country, so its power can very well be contained. So its power isn't an inevitability at all.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The fundamental problem with labor unions is that they're stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer when the real threat is capital's corruption of the political system While in the US there has been much work by capital to undermine union political effectiveness to achieve that, it is not true, even in the US, that unions are stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer without engaging with capital’s political influence.
- rland 5y ago
  The cost of living stuff is a different issue. If you’re operating a factory, you want housing, healthcare, etc to be cheap, so that you don’t have to pay your workers as much. If you’re a tiny group of people coming up with new ways to financialize housing, healthcare, etc. you want exactly the opposite. I think of this division as something like “Industrial” vs “Financial” capital. Part of the reason the old labor movement isn’t relevant any more is that we don’t actually make stuff any more. “Industrial” capital is not at the seat of power any more. The real problem with today’s unions is that the counterparty has changed. The people who are making houses expensive aren’t at the table negotiating with the unions; they have no employees! Unions are fighting the shrinking ghost of “Industrial” capital. The reason for this shift is geographic. The stuff that actually gets made is made (under a yoke of hellish cruelty) at the periphery. There, housing is cheap! But the profits flow back here unevenly, to a tiny group of holders. And hence we are dominated by financial capital. This is also the origin of the red/blue divide, roughly speaking: One is the local “Industrial” concentration and one is global “Financial” concentration. The third bloc, labor, were only really relevant when labor actually had a relationship (with the leverage inherent to that) with the dominant form capital. Now the two groups have predictably been crushed: the local concentration of capital and the union. They’re both sitting at the wrong table.

It means the system is asymmetric. The "masters" can collude to reduce wages, can ask for government assistance to weaken worker unions. But workers don't seem to have the same rights.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

The fundamental problem with labor unions is that they're stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer when the real threat is capital's corruption of the political system. Consider where the wages of labor go. The major expenses are housing, taxes, transportation and healthcare. Housing is artificially scarce. Zoning prevents new construction in areas with high demand, benefiting capital (i.e. landlords) who get higher rents. People who can't afford the higher rents have to live further from the city, increasing their transportation expenses (more money for Big Oil). Workers pay taxes but instead of going to some kind of UBI or anything else that would benefit workers, or just letting workers keep more of their money, most of it goes to things like the F-35 and buying the votes of retirees in the important swing state of Florida by enacting benefits which are really handouts to Big Pharma. And healthcare regulations are passed to make healthcare more expensive, i.e. more profitable, because of regulatory capture. There's nothing in there that a labor union can solve by negotiating employee compensation with Walmart or Amazon. Because the problem is artificial scarcity, corruption and waste. At scale, if you negotiated everyone a raise, prices would just go up. Because everyone is still bidding on artificially scarce housing and paying for wasteful government programs and suffering the effects of regulatory capture. But even when unions do try to lobby for something, it's typically just things to increase their own institutional power (e.g. trying to get Uber drivers into a union which is once again only negotiating employee compensation) instead of doing anything about the real problems that are sucking workers dry.

mulvya 5y ago
> capital's corruption of the political system Capital is a measure of power. Capital's "corruption of the political system" is use of that power. I'm not sure it's coherent to conceive a world where Capital retains its power but not use it to shape the people and instruments that manage society.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Money in politics isn't a homogeneous threat in every country, so its power can very well be contained. So its power isn't an inevitability at all.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The fundamental problem with labor unions is that they're stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer when the real threat is capital's corruption of the political system While in the US there has been much work by capital to undermine union political effectiveness to achieve that, it is not true, even in the US, that unions are stuck on negotiating with capital as an employer without engaging with capital’s political influence.
rland 5y ago
The cost of living stuff is a different issue. If you’re operating a factory, you want housing, healthcare, etc to be cheap, so that you don’t have to pay your workers as much. If you’re a tiny group of people coming up with new ways to financialize housing, healthcare, etc. you want exactly the opposite. I think of this division as something like “Industrial” vs “Financial” capital. Part of the reason the old labor movement isn’t relevant any more is that we don’t actually make stuff any more. “Industrial” capital is not at the seat of power any more. The real problem with today’s unions is that the counterparty has changed. The people who are making houses expensive aren’t at the table negotiating with the unions; they have no employees! Unions are fighting the shrinking ghost of “Industrial” capital. The reason for this shift is geographic. The stuff that actually gets made is made (under a yoke of hellish cruelty) at the periphery. There, housing is cheap! But the profits flow back here unevenly, to a tiny group of holders. And hence we are dominated by financial capital. This is also the origin of the red/blue divide, roughly speaking: One is the local “Industrial” concentration and one is global “Financial” concentration. The third bloc, labor, were only really relevant when labor actually had a relationship (with the leverage inherent to that) with the dominant form capital. Now the two groups have predictably been crushed: the local concentration of capital and the union. They’re both sitting at the wrong table.