4 ms·

There sure is! Here's a recent review: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 It's a pretty consistent finding among labor econ

There sure is! Here's a recent review: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 It's a pretty consistent finding among labor economics researchers that firms have monopsony power over workers. > What's left to fight for? The issue isnt whether they're well paid according to your subjective criteria. It's the ratio between how much the worker is paid and how much they produce for the firm. I talk about the "bargaining power ratio" concept here[1], but the microeconomics 201 concept is the ratio between marginal product of labor and pay can be thought of as the bargaining power ratio. If across the board workers have a low ratio, then they have a systematically low bargaining power, and unions would improve that. [1] https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hire-a-real-estate-agent/ https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hi...

Alupis 4y ago
I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. I'm also not sure we can be confident that most agree these are problems at all - if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company, you are too easily replaced. The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?
- GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
  You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it: > Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check? Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?
  - slackdog 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - undersuit 4y ago
      What insult?
      - slackdog 4y ago
        [flagged]
        undersuit 4y ago
        Sealioning is an action. They are not being called a sea lion. This accusation is a insult?
        slackdog 4y ago
        The accusation of bad faith is an insult.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I have personal experience with three unions in my area. All of which fit my description very accurately. > You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion. I asked for evidence, and received complaints that cannot be addressed by unions and links to pro-union think tanks that unsurprisingly argue unions are a net-positive force. A Union isn't some magical thing that solves all problems. Ultimately it's an organization that puts itself above all other organizations, which includes the businesses they work with and even their own Union Members. Your local grocery store Union is probably actively engaged in forcing-out young people unless they fork over a portion of their scrawny wages to the Union for nothing in return.
    - mustacheemperor 4y ago
      >There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion From what I can read a user provided you with evidence, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, fulfilling your original request for data showing unions are a net benefit in modern times. This evidence counters your assertion that unions are a net negative, so it does come across as "pro-union" in the extent it disagrees with your stated anti-union viewpoint. You have dismissed that evidence entirely on the basis that it is "a link to a pro-union think tank". That link goes to a 16 page PDF summarizing abstracts from a wide body of industry research, so I guess you have also dismissed all of those papers. So on one hand you bring 3 examples of anecdotal evidence, and on the other hand a user provided a summary document itself linking many additional sources of research. You have declared the source non-credible by default, and then insisted nobody will provide evidence to disagree with you. Reading this thread to try and grow my own perspectives, as I do on hackernews, I have to say I have gained little to no material information about why your view on this issue is justifiable. I don't think you're being fair to the users who are engaging you on your points, either, and I think that's costing this discussion any chance at producing useful insight.
      - VHRanger 4y ago
        Also, the 2nd author on the NBER paper is David Card [1] a Nobel laureate for his work in empirical labor economics research, for what that's worth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card
- VHRanger 4y ago
  > I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. Unions increase worker bargaining power. If worker bargaining power is low, it solves that > if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company The amount of skill has nothing to do with it. Only your marginal product of labor and the ratio of your pay to it > you are too easily replaced That would affect bargaining power, correct > The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Not particularly. For instance, low skilled job are also easily replaceable. Walmart is hiring just as well as Starbucks or Target. So why is the balance struck at this wage point? The issue is that there are relatively few firms offering a ton of the low skilled jobs. The firms are forming an effective union (oligopsony for the technical) which suppresses wages. > Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. [Citation needed] Public sector unions (eg. police unions, teachers unions) tend to be terrible, because the government doesn't face profitability pressures like companies do. Some private sector unions have been inefficient (eg. Detroit auto workers in the 1990s) but that's also often because the sector itself is immune to competition (chicken tax for auto workers). Other private sector unions for instance are much better at ensuring labor norms are respected. All in all it's hard to go against David Card's (author in NBER review paper above) opinion on the matter of labor economics

Alupis 4y ago

I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. I'm also not sure we can be confident that most agree these are problems at all - if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company, you are too easily replaced. The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?

GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it: > Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check? Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?
- slackdog 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - undersuit 4y ago
    What insult?
    - slackdog 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - undersuit 4y ago
        Sealioning is an action. They are not being called a sea lion. This accusation is a insult?
        slackdog 4y ago
        The accusation of bad faith is an insult.
- Alupis 4y ago
  I have personal experience with three unions in my area. All of which fit my description very accurately. > You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion. I asked for evidence, and received complaints that cannot be addressed by unions and links to pro-union think tanks that unsurprisingly argue unions are a net-positive force. A Union isn't some magical thing that solves all problems. Ultimately it's an organization that puts itself above all other organizations, which includes the businesses they work with and even their own Union Members. Your local grocery store Union is probably actively engaged in forcing-out young people unless they fork over a portion of their scrawny wages to the Union for nothing in return.
  - mustacheemperor 4y ago
    >There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion From what I can read a user provided you with evidence, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, fulfilling your original request for data showing unions are a net benefit in modern times. This evidence counters your assertion that unions are a net negative, so it does come across as "pro-union" in the extent it disagrees with your stated anti-union viewpoint. You have dismissed that evidence entirely on the basis that it is "a link to a pro-union think tank". That link goes to a 16 page PDF summarizing abstracts from a wide body of industry research, so I guess you have also dismissed all of those papers. So on one hand you bring 3 examples of anecdotal evidence, and on the other hand a user provided a summary document itself linking many additional sources of research. You have declared the source non-credible by default, and then insisted nobody will provide evidence to disagree with you. Reading this thread to try and grow my own perspectives, as I do on hackernews, I have to say I have gained little to no material information about why your view on this issue is justifiable. I don't think you're being fair to the users who are engaging you on your points, either, and I think that's costing this discussion any chance at producing useful insight.
    - VHRanger 4y ago
      Also, the 2nd author on the NBER paper is David Card [1] a Nobel laureate for his work in empirical labor economics research, for what that's worth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card
VHRanger 4y ago
> I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. Unions increase worker bargaining power. If worker bargaining power is low, it solves that > if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company The amount of skill has nothing to do with it. Only your marginal product of labor and the ratio of your pay to it > you are too easily replaced That would affect bargaining power, correct > The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Not particularly. For instance, low skilled job are also easily replaceable. Walmart is hiring just as well as Starbucks or Target. So why is the balance struck at this wage point? The issue is that there are relatively few firms offering a ton of the low skilled jobs. The firms are forming an effective union (oligopsony for the technical) which suppresses wages. > Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. [Citation needed] Public sector unions (eg. police unions, teachers unions) tend to be terrible, because the government doesn't face profitability pressures like companies do. Some private sector unions have been inefficient (eg. Detroit auto workers in the 1990s) but that's also often because the sector itself is immune to competition (chicken tax for auto workers). Other private sector unions for instance are much better at ensuring labor norms are respected. All in all it's hard to go against David Card's (author in NBER review paper above) opinion on the matter of labor economics