8 ms·

>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return f

>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence that things in this regard are really any different for the majority of people. For example, this [1] FRED historical data series shows layoff rate to be extremely flat for 20 years. BLS used to track some series also that were flat for as far as I can find data. Here's [2] a slightly different dataset that is flat back to 1967. Any solid evidence that things have ever been any different? > In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization. Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. EDIT: 2 more datasets [3,4], back to 1919, still pretty flat. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 [3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR [5] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-unions https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-...

manyfriends 4y ago
> Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced: “The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.” Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state… Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment. Well…except for every single country where this has been the case. It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
  - manyfriends 4y ago
    Seems like speculation / projection. If your argument about unions and extremism was supported, you’d expect to see a correlation between high union membership and “extremism”. If anything, countries with high union density (Sweden, Iceland, Finland) seem to have fewer extremist parties than low union countries like the United States, The Philippines, and Poland. In the United States, the long-term decline in industrial union power, as also seen in Great Britain during the Thatcher “union-busting” era, has presided over an increase in extremism. So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism. Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old. What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      > Again, you cited a paper claiming… I cited no such thing but merely pulled an opinion out of my backside. I’m really just saying that maybe it isn’t such a good idea to intentionally restrict young people from the job market because they have the exact same right to meaningful employment as anyone else.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state No, this is never a good thing. No welfare state replaces the lost income - it may reduce the pain but does not remove it. Otherwise those people would not be unemployed - they'd be retired. And especially for the young - each year lost is a year behind for wages their entire life as they lag in raises, promotions, skills, and opportunities. I'm not sure why you think this is a good thing. I've never heard anyone ever claim it, and I've read and worked with econ stuff a long, long time. Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper about the claim you made? Did you read it in econ literature? > overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries These only accrue to those in the union at the detriment of others not in the union and consumers at large. Unions reduce employment, have slower employment growth, and raise costs, which is borne by society. A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production. Some examples: [1] " We find that unions adversely affect unemployment rates and the growth rates of gross state product (GSP), productivity, and population, while increasing the rate of wage inflation. The impact on the employment growth rate is negative but not significant." [2]: "We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth." [3]: Lists data for many countries and many time periods about how union shops have lower employment growth. I could go on and on. So while there are benefits to union members, it comes at a cost to those not in the union, to economic growth overall, to employment rates and employment rate growth, and wage inflation (thereby eating up the gains of union wages to begin with). The literature is pretty clear on these effects. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0 [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3 [3] https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184.pdf https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184...

manyfriends 4y ago

> Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced: “The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.” Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.

UncleEntity 4y ago
> Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state… Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment. Well…except for every single country where this has been the case. It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
- manyfriends 4y ago
  Seems like speculation / projection. If your argument about unions and extremism was supported, you’d expect to see a correlation between high union membership and “extremism”. If anything, countries with high union density (Sweden, Iceland, Finland) seem to have fewer extremist parties than low union countries like the United States, The Philippines, and Poland. In the United States, the long-term decline in industrial union power, as also seen in Great Britain during the Thatcher “union-busting” era, has presided over an increase in extremism. So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism. Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old. What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Again, you cited a paper claiming… I cited no such thing but merely pulled an opinion out of my backside. I’m really just saying that maybe it isn’t such a good idea to intentionally restrict young people from the job market because they have the exact same right to meaningful employment as anyone else.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state No, this is never a good thing. No welfare state replaces the lost income - it may reduce the pain but does not remove it. Otherwise those people would not be unemployed - they'd be retired. And especially for the young - each year lost is a year behind for wages their entire life as they lag in raises, promotions, skills, and opportunities. I'm not sure why you think this is a good thing. I've never heard anyone ever claim it, and I've read and worked with econ stuff a long, long time. Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper about the claim you made? Did you read it in econ literature? > overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries These only accrue to those in the union at the detriment of others not in the union and consumers at large. Unions reduce employment, have slower employment growth, and raise costs, which is borne by society. A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production. Some examples: [1] " We find that unions adversely affect unemployment rates and the growth rates of gross state product (GSP), productivity, and population, while increasing the rate of wage inflation. The impact on the employment growth rate is negative but not significant." [2]: "We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth." [3]: Lists data for many countries and many time periods about how union shops have lower employment growth. I could go on and on. So while there are benefits to union members, it comes at a cost to those not in the union, to economic growth overall, to employment rates and employment rate growth, and wage inflation (thereby eating up the gains of union wages to begin with). The literature is pretty clear on these effects. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0 [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3 [3] https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184.pdf https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184...