3 ms·

> Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? Most unionized labor in the US was outsourced during the deindustrialization of the USA. More than 6 m

> Is it that there was more growth in non union fields? Most unionized labor in the US was outsourced during the deindustrialization of the USA. More than 6 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the US between 2001 and 2010 (representing approximately 1/3 of all manufacturing jobs). So yes: non union fields are growing, mostly because unionized jobs were busted by companies shipping production overseas. The jobs that "replaced" the good labor of industry are mostly poverty wage service jobs which require very little training. As there's little investment per-worker Unions have effectively 0 bargaining power: Scabbing a strike is simple when you only need 2 hours of training to do their jobs. Funnily enough the USA manufactures more goods than ever in its history, accounting for ~6 trillion USD of our GDP in 2019.

taeric 5y ago
But this really doesn't feel to be talking to my question. Local building of infrastructure isn't really offshoreable, is it? Such that I get a ton of things were shipped overseas. Not entirely clear that explains why building locally is so expensive. Your last line indicates that robotics and other large scale industrialization can be pointed at. We manufacture more with far fewer resources? But, back to my hypothesis that i would love to see shot down. Is the only labor left in large unions in a position that they are in the critical path of building? (Note, that if true, the answer isn't necessarily to bust unions, but to expand their base significantly. I could easily believe that their funds have been starved such that they aren't growing due to so much money being funneled away from them.)