3 ms·

This is demonstrably untrue - looking at the tech industry for example. Salaries are enormous with no unions. You shouldn’t state opinions as fact.

uoaei 4y ago
I think you've misinterpreted GP. Tech salaries started high, and that is mostly a scarcity problem. The market will correct that in due time without labor organizing because the profits go to the owners, not the workers. The owners are the ones who decide what happens with the profit (reinvestment, their employees' wages, their own wages, etc.).
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Yes, with a powerful union you can restrict entry so there are fewer workers. The workers who are allowed in get a better deal. The people who are kept out by the union suffer and the consumers suffer through lower production and higher prices.
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    No need for that. The golden c64 generation will start with early retirements in a few years. Younger generations have less interest in IT (on average) and will yield fewer and fewer tech workers.
    - barry-cotter 4y ago
      What I describe is the mechanism by which unions increase wages for their members. It would be good if you could explain what you were trying to say and its relevance.
      - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
        Less workers means scarcity and implies better wages and conditions.
        barry-cotter 4y ago
        Yes. You get less workers by restricting entry. That reduces output but increases union workers bargaining power, making society generally poorer but the members of the union richer.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    It's not necessary to restrict the number of workers - only to refuse to work if the owners allocate too little of the resulting profits back to the workers. This is in fact the whole point of a union.
kaibee 4y ago
This greatly depends on which part of the 'tech' industry you're in. Yes, if you're at the top, salaries are enormous, but uh, vast majority of people in 'tech' are not receiving enormous salaries.

uoaei 4y ago

I think you've misinterpreted GP. Tech salaries started high, and that is mostly a scarcity problem. The market will correct that in due time without labor organizing because the profits go to the owners, not the workers. The owners are the ones who decide what happens with the profit (reinvestment, their employees' wages, their own wages, etc.).

barry-cotter 4y ago
Yes, with a powerful union you can restrict entry so there are fewer workers. The workers who are allowed in get a better deal. The people who are kept out by the union suffer and the consumers suffer through lower production and higher prices.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  No need for that. The golden c64 generation will start with early retirements in a few years. Younger generations have less interest in IT (on average) and will yield fewer and fewer tech workers.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    What I describe is the mechanism by which unions increase wages for their members. It would be good if you could explain what you were trying to say and its relevance.
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      Less workers means scarcity and implies better wages and conditions.
      - barry-cotter 4y ago
        Yes. You get less workers by restricting entry. That reduces output but increases union workers bargaining power, making society generally poorer but the members of the union richer.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  It's not necessary to restrict the number of workers - only to refuse to work if the owners allocate too little of the resulting profits back to the workers. This is in fact the whole point of a union.

kaibee 4y ago

This greatly depends on which part of the 'tech' industry you're in. Yes, if you're at the top, salaries are enormous, but uh, vast majority of people in 'tech' are not receiving enormous salaries.