3 ms·

The idea of a hypothetical unrestricted market that would exist if not for unions or other such groups is a false premise, because the economic environment also

by Bakary 4y ago

The idea of a hypothetical unrestricted market that would exist if not for unions or other such groups is a false premise, because the economic environment also has very specific material and societal conditions attached to it, most of which favor the employer. A capital owner can lobby, make use of the legal system, concentrate power and strategy, create oligopolies, hire enforcers, all at a scale unimaginable to the individual worker. The latter is pressured by survival in the present, and has their bargaining power diffused across their group. It's not plausible to claim that these industries died because of unions. Do you sincerely believe that jobs would not have been delocalized to far cheaper countries in either case? Even if we take the argument at face value, and claim that the rent-seeking is real and not just one of the only methods available to tip back the scales for the workers, it's really nothing compared to the rent extraction by the owners. Why do you think they fund think tanks and parts of the media, respond so forcefully to unionization efforts, and constantly try to focus the attention of workers against other workers?

ETH_start 4y ago
>>the economic environment also has very specific material and societal conditions attached to it, most of which favor the employer. None of those restrict any one's negotiating rights. You're employing a common argument for restricting negotiation rights: argue that due to systemic conditions, a free market cannot exist, and thus there is no harm in imposing restrictions on contract liberty. It's a superficially plausible argument but completely baseless when you consider any real world example. >>A capital owner can lobby, make use of the legal system, concentrate power and strategy, create oligopolies, hire enforcers, all at a scale unimaginable to the individual worker. A capital owner lobbying, and successfully instituting a law restricting negotiating rights, would indeed violate rights, and if it were to happen, we would be right to oppose such a law and work to have it repealed. Oligopolies meanwhile are extremely rare, and if they do emerge, there are tools available to the state to fight them. None of the possibilities you cite justify instituting a blanket restriction on the negotiating rights of employers. >>Do you sincerely believe that jobs would not have been delocalized to far cheaper countries in either case? Yes in many cases I think the industries would have expanded domestically, because the US had a growing advantage in supply chain proximity, natural resource availability, infrastructure and the skill level of its labor force. >>Why do you think they fund think tanks and parts of the media, respond so forcefully to unionization efforts, and constantly try to focus the attention of workers against other workers? In New York City alone, public sector unions receive $38 billion a year in compensation. As a political bloc, unions are arguably the most powerful. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/26/why-new-york-is-in-trouble--290304-public-employees-with-100000-paychecks-cost-taxpayers-38-billion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/26/why...

by Bakary 4y ago

ETH_start 4y ago

>>the economic environment also has very specific material and societal conditions attached to it, most of which favor the employer. None of those restrict any one's negotiating rights. You're employing a common argument for restricting negotiation rights: argue that due to systemic conditions, a free market cannot exist, and thus there is no harm in imposing restrictions on contract liberty. It's a superficially plausible argument but completely baseless when you consider any real world example. >>A capital owner can lobby, make use of the legal system, concentrate power and strategy, create oligopolies, hire enforcers, all at a scale unimaginable to the individual worker. A capital owner lobbying, and successfully instituting a law restricting negotiating rights, would indeed violate rights, and if it were to happen, we would be right to oppose such a law and work to have it repealed. Oligopolies meanwhile are extremely rare, and if they do emerge, there are tools available to the state to fight them. None of the possibilities you cite justify instituting a blanket restriction on the negotiating rights of employers. >>Do you sincerely believe that jobs would not have been delocalized to far cheaper countries in either case? Yes in many cases I think the industries would have expanded domestically, because the US had a growing advantage in supply chain proximity, natural resource availability, infrastructure and the skill level of its labor force. >>Why do you think they fund think tanks and parts of the media, respond so forcefully to unionization efforts, and constantly try to focus the attention of workers against other workers? In New York City alone, public sector unions receive $38 billion a year in compensation. As a political bloc, unions are arguably the most powerful. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/26/why-new-york-is-in-trouble--290304-public-employees-with-100000-paychecks-cost-taxpayers-38-billion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/26/why...