6 ms·

> 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 mis

> 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
  > A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production. I appreciate your citation of those papers, but I feel that this is an unjust comparison -- unions raise wages for workers even outside of their industry, whereas industrial monopolies frequently depress wages and raise prices for the benefit of a privileged few (generally executives and large shareholders). Unions are, historically, a reaction to that power imbalance of industrial monopolies, and attempt to counter diminished bargaining power. Unions increase economic equality, while industrial monopolies decrease it. This reminds me of the debate over universal healthcare -- critics asserted that it decreased labor force participation, and was therefore a failure, when others argued was that it was evidence of its success--as people who wanted or needed to quit their job, such as those also acting as a caretaker, but previously didn't yet qualify for medicare, could finally retire. Abolishing slavery also increased unemployment, as do raising interest rates -- the youth unemployment rate is a single data point to be balanced with other economic indicators that at the end are simply tools to tell a story about the prosperity of a society. Unions density, low poverty rates, and high wages are correlated across not just states but the entire world.

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
> A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production. I appreciate your citation of those papers, but I feel that this is an unjust comparison -- unions raise wages for workers even outside of their industry, whereas industrial monopolies frequently depress wages and raise prices for the benefit of a privileged few (generally executives and large shareholders). Unions are, historically, a reaction to that power imbalance of industrial monopolies, and attempt to counter diminished bargaining power. Unions increase economic equality, while industrial monopolies decrease it. This reminds me of the debate over universal healthcare -- critics asserted that it decreased labor force participation, and was therefore a failure, when others argued was that it was evidence of its success--as people who wanted or needed to quit their job, such as those also acting as a caretaker, but previously didn't yet qualify for medicare, could finally retire. Abolishing slavery also increased unemployment, as do raising interest rates -- the youth unemployment rate is a single data point to be balanced with other economic indicators that at the end are simply tools to tell a story about the prosperity of a society. Unions density, low poverty rates, and high wages are correlated across not just states but the entire world.