3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>I feel that this is an unjust comparison It is not a comparison, unjust or otherwise. A union is precisely a monopoly on labor. That is the point of a union. If you google, this is a common definition in economics on what a union is. Are you claiming a union is not a monopoly on labor? Are you claiming that this labor monopoly does not have features of a monopoly? Upsides and downsides? In fact, in order for unions to exist in the US, they had to be specifically exempted from anti-trust laws. The original anti-trust law, the Sherman Act, was used against unions, so future laws had to specifically allow the monopoly of a union. So yes, a union is exactly and legally and economically a monopoly. > Unions increase economic equality You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal? Unions change who gets what, at major cost to many people, making some of them incredibly poorer. There is simply no free lunch here. Forming a monopoly on labor will have effects - getting more money for those in the monopoly is not going to raise all boats - and that monopoly and those in it will try to hold their income, at the expense of immigrants, of those outside the group, of society at large. So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted. So yes, unions can raise pay for those in it, may have some ripple effects to others, but you cannot ignore basic economics and what losses are caused elsewhere. If you're going to ignore well sourced, peer reviewed evidence, and not provide solid counter evidence other than your continued opinion, there is really little left to discuss.
- manyfriends 4y ago
  > So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted The literature you posted demonstrated no such thing. Again, you're now making expansive claims that are interpretations well beyond the scope of these papers, using "first principals" and "common sense" -- they show that unions increase wages at the cost of slightly raised unemployment among certain groups. There is no free lunch, but unions eating lunch at the expense of shareholder profits is absolutely a good thing and the point. Their affect on consumer prices was not demonstrated by your literature, but I assume you're going to make the same false libertarian argument against "minimum wage" -- that it raises some consumer prices and unemployment, and therefore, should be abolished (in spite of the massive evidence that's shown that it's been radically effective at lifting people out of poverty while having little effect on both)? Your blanket condemnation of unions is ideological. > Unions Reduce Inequality. You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal? Ok, here's a source that supports that unions actually increase productivity, that's about 20 years more recent than the source you posted. "In total, results suggest that right to work laws work as intended, increasing economic inequality indirectly by lowering labor power resources. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067 Union Density Effects on Productivity and Wages "Accounting for selection effects and the potential endogeneity of unionisation, the results show that increasing union density at the firm level leads to a substantial increase in both productivity and wages. The wage effect is larger in more productive firms, consistent with rent-sharing models." https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627 https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627 "Decompositions based on public-sector earnings indicate that increases in union density have produced inequality that is 29 percent below what it otherwise would have been" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago

ChrisLomont 4y ago

>I feel that this is an unjust comparison It is not a comparison, unjust or otherwise. A union is precisely a monopoly on labor. That is the point of a union. If you google, this is a common definition in economics on what a union is. Are you claiming a union is not a monopoly on labor? Are you claiming that this labor monopoly does not have features of a monopoly? Upsides and downsides? In fact, in order for unions to exist in the US, they had to be specifically exempted from anti-trust laws. The original anti-trust law, the Sherman Act, was used against unions, so future laws had to specifically allow the monopoly of a union. So yes, a union is exactly and legally and economically a monopoly. > Unions increase economic equality You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal? Unions change who gets what, at major cost to many people, making some of them incredibly poorer. There is simply no free lunch here. Forming a monopoly on labor will have effects - getting more money for those in the monopoly is not going to raise all boats - and that monopoly and those in it will try to hold their income, at the expense of immigrants, of those outside the group, of society at large. So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted. So yes, unions can raise pay for those in it, may have some ripple effects to others, but you cannot ignore basic economics and what losses are caused elsewhere. If you're going to ignore well sourced, peer reviewed evidence, and not provide solid counter evidence other than your continued opinion, there is really little left to discuss.

manyfriends 4y ago
> So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted The literature you posted demonstrated no such thing. Again, you're now making expansive claims that are interpretations well beyond the scope of these papers, using "first principals" and "common sense" -- they show that unions increase wages at the cost of slightly raised unemployment among certain groups. There is no free lunch, but unions eating lunch at the expense of shareholder profits is absolutely a good thing and the point. Their affect on consumer prices was not demonstrated by your literature, but I assume you're going to make the same false libertarian argument against "minimum wage" -- that it raises some consumer prices and unemployment, and therefore, should be abolished (in spite of the massive evidence that's shown that it's been radically effective at lifting people out of poverty while having little effect on both)? Your blanket condemnation of unions is ideological. > Unions Reduce Inequality. You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal? Ok, here's a source that supports that unions actually increase productivity, that's about 20 years more recent than the source you posted. "In total, results suggest that right to work laws work as intended, increasing economic inequality indirectly by lowering labor power resources. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067 Union Density Effects on Productivity and Wages "Accounting for selection effects and the potential endogeneity of unionisation, the results show that increasing union density at the firm level leads to a substantial increase in both productivity and wages. The wage effect is larger in more productive firms, consistent with rent-sharing models." https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627 https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627 "Decompositions based on public-sector earnings indicate that increases in union density have produced inequality that is 29 percent below what it otherwise would have been" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x
- ChrisLomont 4y ago