26 ms·

> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization. I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage

> It's possible we'll see a generational wave of unionization. I fully expect this to happen. Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation. They have every right to be angry, and I think they are collectively starting to realize that they have a lot of power to change the status quo. At the risk of veering into politics, I'm also not sure how this will change the current tribal political lines. Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. Whoever figures out how to capture this massive constituency is set up for a powerful future.

jdavis703 5y ago
If the trend continues as you posit, I would expect private-sector unions to become a non-partisan alignment, similar to how social security is sacrosanct in US politics. Most unions form at places that are genuinely terrible workspaces where workers have legitimate reasons to hate the boss. As unions become mainstream at places like Starbucks I would expect folks agitating for worker power to less radical.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  It might, but they would have to be big enough to break the "conservative" alignment of resource extractors, religious fanatics and rich people. It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  - skrtskrt 5y ago
    Outside of Bernie and a few others, the days of Democrats having many nationally significant politicians that are truly pro-union are pretty much gone. I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore. Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do? The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate? The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will. It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
      - skrtskrt 5y ago
        I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through. And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts. Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.
        skrtskrt 5y ago
        It is obviously a matter of willpower. The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff. "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time. If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority. It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  I don't think that will be the case for social security for much longer. The trust is on the path to running dry over the next 10-15 years and benefits will need to be cut. Romney recently breached the idea of raising retirement age for current workers. Frankly I'm shocked by how few young workers realize how bad of a deal they're getting with the current system
  - cwmoreiras 5y ago
    The only way social security will "run dry" is if Congress lets it die.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Politically, no, that is not simple.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.
        briHass 5y ago
        Careful there; this is typically when the sob stories start about how one is NOT "upper middle class" when making $150K (more than double the median household income), because they live in expensive areas, etc. One saw a similar outcry when the TCJA removed the ability to deduct SALT taxes for effective income levels around that amount. The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.
Taikonerd 5y ago
> Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. I saw an op-ed from a conservative magazine on this exact theme: [1]. The author basically says, "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?" 1: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans-should-support-the-amazon-labor-union-effort/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans...
- ATsch 5y ago
  I think that question pretty much answers itself, especially if one looks at voting demographics by income. The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality. (perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)
  - refurb 5y ago
    The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality. I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
    - Bilal_io 5y ago
      No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so. https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0 https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0
      - refurb 5y ago
        Well that was amazingly dishonest of you. He said he loves the “poorly educated”, he never said “dumb”, you did, which I think says more about you than Trump.
closeparen 5y ago
Higher wages cannot make it any more possible for N+1 people to have N large plots of land close to the city center.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > large plots of land This assumption that you've smuggled in begs the entire question
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Isn't that the american dream? Owning a nice house with large living spaces for a complete family, amenities such as pools and outdoor areas, garage with at least two cars? There's a reason people living in small standardized modular pods in extremely dense skyscrapers is a staple of cyberpunk dystopias.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      As the perfect complement to the parent comment, you're conveniently ignoring the qualifier "close to the city center". No part of the American dream has ever claimed the suburban paradise to be in the middle of Manhattan. It's a contradiction by definition. To go on a bit of a tangent, this is what bugs me so much about the housing conversation. People take fragments of thoughts and stitch them together into belief systems that are trivially incoherent. I'd be happy to live and let live if these people didn't also vote....
      - closeparen 5y ago
        Close to the whole problem is that “city center” the development pattern ends at very short radius from the center in most metro areas (New York excepted), while “close to city center” the geographical fact continues on for several more miles that are currently developed as the suburban dream. Most cities have a downtown core, and even some high-density housing in that downtown core, but so little of it that you can walk the whole thing in a few minutes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bushbaba 5y ago
Sadly I suspect unionization to backfire. It won’t fix the housing issue and could lead to a similar predicament as police and teachers unions. Protecting corrupt and bad employees
pmorici 5y ago
High housing prices aren't the result of stagnant wages and rising wages will only cause housing to become more expensive (more money chasing the same housing stock) unless something is done to boost supply. Unions don't fix this, they might make it worse on the margins. Unionization is a mixed bag. The UAW has been in the news recently for a seemingly never ending parade of union leaders being sent to jail for corruption.
- marricks 5y ago
  How many empty houses are there in the US, millions? How many luxury condos are being built and sit unoccupied? It seems like people always come out of the woodwork to explain how rising wages aren’t helpful and are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses).
  - cscurmudgeon 5y ago
    Why deny basic laws of supply and demand? Almost all economists agree low supply of homes is a factor. https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-rising https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-risin... https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-record-low/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-... https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796605 https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796... Supplies are hitting record lows. There will always be millions of temporarily vacant homes in a country the size of the US as people move in and out of homes. Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from?
    - Epa095 5y ago
      >Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from? He did not say that though... He commented that many got built, but withouth any indication of why. You read it as him claiming that 'someone is asking them'. I read it as a reflection on the uneven distribution of wealth (which unions can help with).
tikiman163 5y ago
Neither side can really claim it, but both will half heartedly do so.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation Yes, and the pandemic brought a brief moment of dignity (but not safety) to the low paid service workers who make our society operate. They went from the butt of cruel jokes to “essential workers” and “heroes” overnight. It is very, very hard to force people back into undignified circumstances once they’re had even a taste of being treated like a person. Veering into my own pet theories, I think that the social aspect of who is and is not allowed to be treated like an actual person is a highly underrated factor of unionization pushes. It often costs companies little to nothing financially to treat their employees like actual people, but it feels good to those on top of the office hierarchy to abuse and belittle those they see as their social inferiors. They ignore the risks of this behavior at their own peril.
- formerkrogeremp 5y ago
  I don't know about dignity. Ask any nurse, doctor, grocery worker, restaurant worker, etc. how they feel about being called a hero. Calling us that to exploit our sense of duty or compassion. Giving us pats on the back and "bonuses" if that amounting to half a week of rent or food. We won't just stop at being actual people. We'll keep on organizing and quitting and lying flat or whatever we need to do to get our share.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    That is what has felt so hollow to me over the past two years. I'm not an "essential worker", so I've been looking at this from the outside, but it's felt so gross seeing all the "hero" framing with all the "huge thanks", but without anything tangible to go with it. How about we pay people more? Maybe give more paid vacation? Maybe find ways to make these jobs more attractive so more people will want to do them and relieve some of the pressure on the people who have gotten nothing but "thanks for being a hero" for the duration of the pandemic?
    - formerkrogeremp 5y ago
      At this point, everyone I know has quit or just works way less than they used to. Compassion fatigue is awful. At this point, everything is just a job to most people, and we will all become disloyal mercenaries in healthcare and service industries. Yes, more pay, vacation, and not being physically or verbally abused would be nice. Nurses and doctors and residents should not be physically abused while on the job.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This is still true for young people in countries with strong unions, So it might be more of an effect of the population pyramid inversion.

jdavis703 5y ago

If the trend continues as you posit, I would expect private-sector unions to become a non-partisan alignment, similar to how social security is sacrosanct in US politics. Most unions form at places that are genuinely terrible workspaces where workers have legitimate reasons to hate the boss. As unions become mainstream at places like Starbucks I would expect folks agitating for worker power to less radical.

Spooky23 5y ago
It might, but they would have to be big enough to break the "conservative" alignment of resource extractors, religious fanatics and rich people. It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
- skrtskrt 5y ago
  Outside of Bernie and a few others, the days of Democrats having many nationally significant politicians that are truly pro-union are pretty much gone. I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore. Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do? The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate? The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will. It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
    - skrtskrt 5y ago
      I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through. And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts. Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.
        skrtskrt 5y ago
        It is obviously a matter of willpower. The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff. "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time. If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority. It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
throwaway6734 5y ago
I don't think that will be the case for social security for much longer. The trust is on the path to running dry over the next 10-15 years and benefits will need to be cut. Romney recently breached the idea of raising retirement age for current workers. Frankly I'm shocked by how few young workers realize how bad of a deal they're getting with the current system
- cwmoreiras 5y ago
  The only way social security will "run dry" is if Congress lets it die.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Politically, no, that is not simple.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.
      - briHass 5y ago
        Careful there; this is typically when the sob stories start about how one is NOT "upper middle class" when making $150K (more than double the median household income), because they live in expensive areas, etc. One saw a similar outcry when the TCJA removed the ability to deduct SALT taxes for effective income levels around that amount. The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.

Taikonerd 5y ago

> Normally this kind of movement would be a strength of the left. But lately the right has become quite populist, so maybe this plays in their direction. I saw an op-ed from a conservative magazine on this exact theme: [1]. The author basically says, "if we're claiming to be the party of the working class, shouldn't we be in favor of this?" 1: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans-should-support-the-amazon-labor-union-effort/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/republicans...

ATsch 5y ago
I think that question pretty much answers itself, especially if one looks at voting demographics by income. The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality. (perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)
- refurb 5y ago
  The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality. I find this a funny criticism considered when Trump won a big swath of non-college graduates (presumably blue collar workers) he was ridiculed for having the “dumb” vote.
  - Bilal_io 5y ago
    No, he was ridiculed for [loving] the dumb vote, because he said so. https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0 https://youtu.be/Vpdt7omPoa0
    - refurb 5y ago
      Well that was amazingly dishonest of you. He said he loves the “poorly educated”, he never said “dumb”, you did, which I think says more about you than Trump.

closeparen 5y ago

Higher wages cannot make it any more possible for N+1 people to have N large plots of land close to the city center.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> large plots of land This assumption that you've smuggled in begs the entire question
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Isn't that the american dream? Owning a nice house with large living spaces for a complete family, amenities such as pools and outdoor areas, garage with at least two cars? There's a reason people living in small standardized modular pods in extremely dense skyscrapers is a staple of cyberpunk dystopias.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    As the perfect complement to the parent comment, you're conveniently ignoring the qualifier "close to the city center". No part of the American dream has ever claimed the suburban paradise to be in the middle of Manhattan. It's a contradiction by definition. To go on a bit of a tangent, this is what bugs me so much about the housing conversation. People take fragments of thoughts and stitch them together into belief systems that are trivially incoherent. I'd be happy to live and let live if these people didn't also vote....
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Close to the whole problem is that “city center” the development pattern ends at very short radius from the center in most metro areas (New York excepted), while “close to city center” the geographical fact continues on for several more miles that are currently developed as the suburban dream. Most cities have a downtown core, and even some high-density housing in that downtown core, but so little of it that you can walk the whole thing in a few minutes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bushbaba 5y ago

Sadly I suspect unionization to backfire. It won’t fix the housing issue and could lead to a similar predicament as police and teachers unions. Protecting corrupt and bad employees

pmorici 5y ago

High housing prices aren't the result of stagnant wages and rising wages will only cause housing to become more expensive (more money chasing the same housing stock) unless something is done to boost supply. Unions don't fix this, they might make it worse on the margins. Unionization is a mixed bag. The UAW has been in the news recently for a seemingly never ending parade of union leaders being sent to jail for corruption.

marricks 5y ago
How many empty houses are there in the US, millions? How many luxury condos are being built and sit unoccupied? It seems like people always come out of the woodwork to explain how rising wages aren’t helpful and are solution must always seem to involve paying for more things (this cases houses).
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  Why deny basic laws of supply and demand? Almost all economists agree low supply of homes is a factor. https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-rising https://econofact.org/why-and-where-are-housing-prices-risin... https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-record-low/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/homes-for-sale-hit-... https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796605 https://www.barrons.com/articles/may-housing-starts-51623796... Supplies are hitting record lows. There will always be millions of temporarily vacant homes in a country the size of the US as people move in and out of homes. Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from?
  - Epa095 5y ago
    >Nobody is asking developers to build only "luxury condos". Where did you get that from? He did not say that though... He commented that many got built, but withouth any indication of why. You read it as him claiming that 'someone is asking them'. I read it as a reflection on the uneven distribution of wealth (which unions can help with).

tikiman163 5y ago

Neither side can really claim it, but both will half heartedly do so.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Younger folks today are the unlucky beneficiary of years of wage stagnation and home price inflation Yes, and the pandemic brought a brief moment of dignity (but not safety) to the low paid service workers who make our society operate. They went from the butt of cruel jokes to “essential workers” and “heroes” overnight. It is very, very hard to force people back into undignified circumstances once they’re had even a taste of being treated like a person. Veering into my own pet theories, I think that the social aspect of who is and is not allowed to be treated like an actual person is a highly underrated factor of unionization pushes. It often costs companies little to nothing financially to treat their employees like actual people, but it feels good to those on top of the office hierarchy to abuse and belittle those they see as their social inferiors. They ignore the risks of this behavior at their own peril.

formerkrogeremp 5y ago
I don't know about dignity. Ask any nurse, doctor, grocery worker, restaurant worker, etc. how they feel about being called a hero. Calling us that to exploit our sense of duty or compassion. Giving us pats on the back and "bonuses" if that amounting to half a week of rent or food. We won't just stop at being actual people. We'll keep on organizing and quitting and lying flat or whatever we need to do to get our share.
- kelnos 5y ago
  That is what has felt so hollow to me over the past two years. I'm not an "essential worker", so I've been looking at this from the outside, but it's felt so gross seeing all the "hero" framing with all the "huge thanks", but without anything tangible to go with it. How about we pay people more? Maybe give more paid vacation? Maybe find ways to make these jobs more attractive so more people will want to do them and relieve some of the pressure on the people who have gotten nothing but "thanks for being a hero" for the duration of the pandemic?
  - formerkrogeremp 5y ago
    At this point, everyone I know has quit or just works way less than they used to. Compassion fatigue is awful. At this point, everything is just a job to most people, and we will all become disloyal mercenaries in healthcare and service industries. Yes, more pay, vacation, and not being physically or verbally abused would be nice. Nurses and doctors and residents should not be physically abused while on the job.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

This is still true for young people in countries with strong unions, So it might be more of an effect of the population pyramid inversion.