5 ms·

Mate just look at labor laws and protections in the US vs Europe. Unionizing and striking is super effective for workers.

by epups 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago
If you try and connect those two sentences with a well laid out argument you might find it less clear than you think. There is a high correlation between people doing well and people who don't spend any time going on strike. Possibly in a world where the only difference between the US and EU was whether people went on strike that would be a workable position, but there are other differences. Quite a lot of them.
- epups 4y ago
  There is a vast academic literature on the topic if you are truly interested. Here is just one such study [0]. The argument is in any case very simple. In countries where unions were historically powerful, especially in the post-war period, workers have collectively extracted several concessions, such as higher pay, better working hours and paid leave. In the United States itself, it is a demonstrable fact that unionized workers earn, on average, much better than nonunion ones, among other benefits [1]. [0] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585411 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-workers-report-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor...
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Is that study even relevant? It just observes that Europeans work less than Americans. The question is hours vs pay. There are people on HN who can easily work 0 hours a week and thrash the earnings of the Europeans and Americans combined because they own capital. You're looking for these people to find a marginal tactical advantage by throwing away efforts to secure a meaningful strategic one. That is foolish. I'm telling you, I've read a lot of literature on the subject. There is no way I'm going to go on strike, it is ineffective and I'll end up worse off. Almost literally none of the people who are going to out-earn me are doing it by striking, and if anyone manages it that is one crazy fluke! It is a strategy for people who are already losing economically and may as well flail on the way down in case it helps. If people have time to organise they should organise to achieve good & sustainable results. Everyone could be a winner here.
    - epups 4y ago
      If you reduce the question to the narrow field of your own professional life, then of course you can make any claim whatsoever. Furthermore, I disagree strongly with your principles. We need to help people who are already losing economically, not the opposite. Doing otherwise leads to a broken society in which I have no desire to live in, even if I could personally earn 2x or 3x more there. I'm very glad the guy who picks up my trash has a union and leads a decent life, with access to education, healthcare and reasonable working hours.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        > We need to help people who are already losing economically, not the opposite. We could try helping them by pointing out effective strategies and encouraging the ineffective to adopt them? You can't help someone who is adopting a failing strategy. If you push them ahead, their strategy will pull them behind. Someone who adopts an effective strategy in todays world is basically guaranteed to do well economically. Someone who adopts striking as a strategy is probably flipping a coin as to if they can even hold their wages steady. They've been trying for centuries, it doesn't work. If it worked there'd be evidence of it by now. Saving money and investing, angling to control capital works. The gap between the two strategies is overwhelming. Anyone who encourages striking as a strategy is undermining the welfare of the poor. It is a destructive strategy that wastes time with huge opportunity costs.

Mate just look at labor laws and protections in the US vs Europe. Unionizing and striking is super effective for workers.

by epups 4y ago

Mate just look at labor laws and protections in the US vs Europe. Unionizing and striking is super effective for workers.

roenxi 4y ago

If you try and connect those two sentences with a well laid out argument you might find it less clear than you think. There is a high correlation between people doing well and people who don't spend any time going on strike. Possibly in a world where the only difference between the US and EU was whether people went on strike that would be a workable position, but there are other differences. Quite a lot of them.

epups 4y ago
There is a vast academic literature on the topic if you are truly interested. Here is just one such study [0]. The argument is in any case very simple. In countries where unions were historically powerful, especially in the post-war period, workers have collectively extracted several concessions, such as higher pay, better working hours and paid leave. In the United States itself, it is a demonstrable fact that unionized workers earn, on average, much better than nonunion ones, among other benefits [1]. [0] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585411 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ma.20.3585... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-workers-report-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor...
- roenxi 4y ago
  Is that study even relevant? It just observes that Europeans work less than Americans. The question is hours vs pay. There are people on HN who can easily work 0 hours a week and thrash the earnings of the Europeans and Americans combined because they own capital. You're looking for these people to find a marginal tactical advantage by throwing away efforts to secure a meaningful strategic one. That is foolish. I'm telling you, I've read a lot of literature on the subject. There is no way I'm going to go on strike, it is ineffective and I'll end up worse off. Almost literally none of the people who are going to out-earn me are doing it by striking, and if anyone manages it that is one crazy fluke! It is a strategy for people who are already losing economically and may as well flail on the way down in case it helps. If people have time to organise they should organise to achieve good & sustainable results. Everyone could be a winner here.
  - epups 4y ago
    If you reduce the question to the narrow field of your own professional life, then of course you can make any claim whatsoever. Furthermore, I disagree strongly with your principles. We need to help people who are already losing economically, not the opposite. Doing otherwise leads to a broken society in which I have no desire to live in, even if I could personally earn 2x or 3x more there. I'm very glad the guy who picks up my trash has a union and leads a decent life, with access to education, healthcare and reasonable working hours.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      > We need to help people who are already losing economically, not the opposite. We could try helping them by pointing out effective strategies and encouraging the ineffective to adopt them? You can't help someone who is adopting a failing strategy. If you push them ahead, their strategy will pull them behind. Someone who adopts an effective strategy in todays world is basically guaranteed to do well economically. Someone who adopts striking as a strategy is probably flipping a coin as to if they can even hold their wages steady. They've been trying for centuries, it doesn't work. If it worked there'd be evidence of it by now. Saving money and investing, angling to control capital works. The gap between the two strategies is overwhelming. Anyone who encourages striking as a strategy is undermining the welfare of the poor. It is a destructive strategy that wastes time with huge opportunity costs.