3 ms·
I’m all for unionizing, but most people lack the balls/will/whatever you want to call it. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the banks owns their car
by gymbeaux 4y ago
I’m all for unionizing, but most people lack the balls/will/whatever you want to call it.
Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the banks owns their cars and homes, so it’s much harder to unionize now than it was in the 1800s.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoYep. And most employees who make more than most don't see a problem and don't see the need to organize. If corporate workers had any sense, they'd quit megacorps and form tech worker-owned co-ops to capture the value that they generated rather than let is slip by. Working-class French know how to strike.
- gymbeaux 4y agoBy the time the SWEs need to unionize it will be too late
- thworp 4y agoYou know, software engineers at FAANG earn enough money after a few years that 10 of them could seed a nice capital base for a startup. Yet they don't do that en masse, preferring instead to take (and risk!) investor's money instead of their own. All the while pulling a regular salary regardless of the company's financial health. It might be that outside of Marx's text that were already dubious in the 1800s people know that "surplus value" is a BS one-dimensional concept that totally disregards time-value, risk appetite and a preferrence for stable income vs moon-shots.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> form tech worker-owned co-ops to capture the value that they generated rather than let is slip by. Lawyers have it good. They’re the smart ones. They made it illegal to own a law firm unless you’re a lawyer. Because “shareholders vs clients would be a conflict of interest”. No more so than other industries! Bridge designer or aerospace engineers vs shareholders seems an even greater conflict of interest than lawyers. Engineers should create the same arrangements for their own work. Instead of trying to be a “staff” engineer at a big tech company you’d try to be a partner at a tech firm…
- NVHacker 4y agoWhat you want to call it is belief in the free market system. You cannot want free markets and unions in the same time, can you ?
- schmorptron 4y agoAren't unions, once they're formed, just participants in the free market who wield market influence? The other participants in the market will just have to compete with the unions for better conditions to get the labor they need.
- gymbeaux 4y agoNobody making below $10M/year believes in the "free market system". I don't want free markets, I want unions.
- bsder 4y ago> Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the banks owns their cars and homes, so it’s much harder to unionize now than it was in the 1800s. What makes you think unionizing and striking was ever easy? https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/homestead-strike https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/homeste... https://www.iup.edu/library/departments/archives/coal/unions-and-mining/remembering-the-1906-strike-for-union-in-windber-pennsylvania.html https://www.iup.edu/library/departments/archives/coal/unions...
- gymbeaux 4y agoI don't think it was easy in the 1800s, I think it was easier. Now people are very materialistic, and in debt. Most of us need cars to live. We'd have to give up more now, to strike and unionize, than we did in the 1800s I think.