4 ms·

The impact on tech worker wages is probably negative because unionization is associated with lower profits. Especially for tech workers who derive the majority

The impact on tech worker wages is probably negative because unionization is associated with lower profits. Especially for tech workers who derive the majority of their income from equity. Highly unionized countries do not tend to have a higher per-capita income across all socioeconomic demographics when compared to the US. It's not clear that unionization is an overall net positive for higher income individuals.

kennywinker 5y ago
Indeed. Granting a one group small ownership stake swings some of their allegiances towards ownership and away from labour. I would ask myself what cost that small slice of ownership you’ve been granted (play on words intended) comes at to the people around you. To me it doesn’t seem very different from buying off union leaders. Are you that easily bought? I.e. maybe supporting unions leads to a smaller gap between your tech salary, and a warehouse worker. That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate, and have more energy to put into their communities, etc.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable, but worst of all it's simply inaccurate. I support the right to unionize regardless of whether it benefits me personally. It seems the area where you and I differ is that my commitment to telling the truth regarding the various economic ramifications is more important than my political ideology.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I do have a political ideology, but so do you. My overarching point as been to insist that socio-economic class, consumer and worker separation, and stock granting are as political ideas as worker solidarity and class consciousness. But you’re calling that untruthful, and ideologically motivated, and disgusting rhetoric, so I guess we’re probably done
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      I'm calling out your projections. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate blind guesses about me. None of what you're saying is correct, as a simple matter of fact. I encourage you to take a break and think about your perspective. If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. Nothing about me is relevant when it comes to objective facts such as the way unions impact economies.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ABCLAW 5y ago
        >If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'. The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate" Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.
        throwaway09223 5y ago
        No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.

kennywinker 5y ago

Indeed. Granting a one group small ownership stake swings some of their allegiances towards ownership and away from labour. I would ask myself what cost that small slice of ownership you’ve been granted (play on words intended) comes at to the people around you. To me it doesn’t seem very different from buying off union leaders. Are you that easily bought? I.e. maybe supporting unions leads to a smaller gap between your tech salary, and a warehouse worker. That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate, and have more energy to put into their communities, etc.

throwaway09223 5y ago
Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable, but worst of all it's simply inaccurate. I support the right to unionize regardless of whether it benefits me personally. It seems the area where you and I differ is that my commitment to telling the truth regarding the various economic ramifications is more important than my political ideology.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  I do have a political ideology, but so do you. My overarching point as been to insist that socio-economic class, consumer and worker separation, and stock granting are as political ideas as worker solidarity and class consciousness. But you’re calling that untruthful, and ideologically motivated, and disgusting rhetoric, so I guess we’re probably done
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    I'm calling out your projections. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate blind guesses about me. None of what you're saying is correct, as a simple matter of fact. I encourage you to take a break and think about your perspective. If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. Nothing about me is relevant when it comes to objective facts such as the way unions impact economies.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      >If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'. The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate" Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.
      - throwaway09223 5y ago
        No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.