4 ms·

The market is not being "disrupted" in any genuinely innovative sense, the employees are merely having their bargaining power undermined. The real solution her

The market is not being "disrupted" in any genuinely innovative sense, the employees are merely having their bargaining power undermined. The real solution here is sectoral collective bargaining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining

eru 4y ago
Why is that a solution? If people don't want to work for UPS at the conditions and wages that the market can bear, they can move jobs. It's good for people to be able to enjoy cheap shipping.
- djrobstep 4y ago
  The conditions and wages that the market can bear aren't some physical universal constant that exist in a vacuum - they are a product of labor market laws and regulations. > It's good for people to be able to enjoy cheap shipping. Yes, that's why sectoral bargaining laws are so important - they force firms to compete on genuine innovation and efficiency, rather than undercutting pay and working conditions.
  - _skel 4y ago
    No amount of laws and regulations will make it possible to sustain jobs that the market participants are not willing to pay for -- not unless the government starts paying the wages of employees at uncompetitive firms to keep them from losing their jobs.
    - djrobstep 4y ago
      Did you even read what I just wrote? Package delivery still exists in countries with sectoral collective bargaining. No government payments are involved - all that's different is industrial bargaining laws. The companies are competitive - they just compete on actual efficiency rather than undercutting worker pay and conditions.
      - eru 4y ago
        What do you mean by 'actual efficiency'? Whatever companies in an economy with sectoral collective bargaining can do to cut costs and increase revenue is also available to companies in economies without sectoral bargaining.
        djrobstep 4y ago
        It might be "available" but the focus and outcome will be different. Suppose there are two delivery firms: - Firm A develops innovative delivery routing software that cuts delivery costs by 20%. -Firm B is rubbish at software, but really good at underpaying workers and getting away with it, such that they reduce costs by 30%. Without sectoral collective bargaining and stronger labour rights more generally, Firm B will win. But the better outcome for workers and efficiency is for A to win.
        twblalock 4y ago
        Firm B would be pretty easy to compete with, because it would end up with the worst human capital out of all of the firms, and a firm with better people would find a way to add value that Firm B could not. Amazon is definitely not Firm B, although I suspect that is what you were driving toward. Amazon has invested more in being competitive than any other company it competes with in almost every area, and despite the nonsense you read in the media, it offers above-average pay and benefits in the industries it is involved in. Despite that, all warehouse and delivery jobs suck and are dangerous, but that says a lot more about those jobs than it does about the company.
        djrobstep 4y ago
        You seem oddly defensive of Amazon. Do you work for them? In any case, you've missed the point. If Amazon is competitive and better than others on pay and conditions as you say, sectoral bargaining would be good for them, because it would stop them getting undercut by worse employers. > Firm B would be pretty easy to compete with, because it would end up with the worst human capital out of all of the firms, and a firm with better people would find a way to add value that Firm B could not. This is obviously not true. Plenty of companies pay terribly and get away with it, and plenty of companies thrive because treating employees badly is their primary innovation. Uber, for instance, has found success through paying "employees" effectively below minimum wage.
    - eru 4y ago
      Eh, you can force people to pay more for labour with regulation. The result is just a drop in demand for labour.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  > they can move jobs If they could, they would.
  - eru 4y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Humans are not ideal gas particles bouncing around in a frictionless canister. Aggregate unemployment rate says very little about the difficulty of finding stable work that pays enough to support a small family, or of the high switching costs involved generally with changing jobs.
      - eru 4y ago
        Sure. The aggregate data says that in aggregate 96.5% of people who want a job, have a job.

eru 4y ago

Why is that a solution? If people don't want to work for UPS at the conditions and wages that the market can bear, they can move jobs. It's good for people to be able to enjoy cheap shipping.

djrobstep 4y ago
The conditions and wages that the market can bear aren't some physical universal constant that exist in a vacuum - they are a product of labor market laws and regulations. > It's good for people to be able to enjoy cheap shipping. Yes, that's why sectoral bargaining laws are so important - they force firms to compete on genuine innovation and efficiency, rather than undercutting pay and working conditions.
- _skel 4y ago
  No amount of laws and regulations will make it possible to sustain jobs that the market participants are not willing to pay for -- not unless the government starts paying the wages of employees at uncompetitive firms to keep them from losing their jobs.
  - djrobstep 4y ago
    Did you even read what I just wrote? Package delivery still exists in countries with sectoral collective bargaining. No government payments are involved - all that's different is industrial bargaining laws. The companies are competitive - they just compete on actual efficiency rather than undercutting worker pay and conditions.
    - eru 4y ago
      What do you mean by 'actual efficiency'? Whatever companies in an economy with sectoral collective bargaining can do to cut costs and increase revenue is also available to companies in economies without sectoral bargaining.
      - djrobstep 4y ago
        It might be "available" but the focus and outcome will be different. Suppose there are two delivery firms: - Firm A develops innovative delivery routing software that cuts delivery costs by 20%. -Firm B is rubbish at software, but really good at underpaying workers and getting away with it, such that they reduce costs by 30%. Without sectoral collective bargaining and stronger labour rights more generally, Firm B will win. But the better outcome for workers and efficiency is for A to win.
        twblalock 4y ago
        Firm B would be pretty easy to compete with, because it would end up with the worst human capital out of all of the firms, and a firm with better people would find a way to add value that Firm B could not. Amazon is definitely not Firm B, although I suspect that is what you were driving toward. Amazon has invested more in being competitive than any other company it competes with in almost every area, and despite the nonsense you read in the media, it offers above-average pay and benefits in the industries it is involved in. Despite that, all warehouse and delivery jobs suck and are dangerous, but that says a lot more about those jobs than it does about the company.
        djrobstep 4y ago
        You seem oddly defensive of Amazon. Do you work for them? In any case, you've missed the point. If Amazon is competitive and better than others on pay and conditions as you say, sectoral bargaining would be good for them, because it would stop them getting undercut by worse employers. > Firm B would be pretty easy to compete with, because it would end up with the worst human capital out of all of the firms, and a firm with better people would find a way to add value that Firm B could not. This is obviously not true. Plenty of companies pay terribly and get away with it, and plenty of companies thrive because treating employees badly is their primary innovation. Uber, for instance, has found success through paying "employees" effectively below minimum wage.
  - eru 4y ago
    Eh, you can force people to pay more for labour with regulation. The result is just a drop in demand for labour.
nerdponx 4y ago
> they can move jobs If they could, they would.
- eru 4y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Humans are not ideal gas particles bouncing around in a frictionless canister. Aggregate unemployment rate says very little about the difficulty of finding stable work that pays enough to support a small family, or of the high switching costs involved generally with changing jobs.
    - eru 4y ago
      Sure. The aggregate data says that in aggregate 96.5% of people who want a job, have a job.