3 ms·

If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the quality of public services would be improved by paying people more, not by giving unions more po

by tomp 4y ago

If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the quality of public services would be improved by paying people more, not by giving unions more power? If so, I agree 100%. Another viable alternative is to reject socialism (central planning) and embrace markets (e.g. I see no reason why janitors, garbage collectors and even teachers (giving parents actual school choice) couldn’t be employed by private corporations that compete to perform a public service.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Socialism !== central planning. Perhaps you were thinking of communism. Sure, you can simply privatize everything, and use taxpayers money to line the pockets of private shareholders. Taxpayers don't like that much, so in that kind of system people tend to oppose public services in general. And it involves the government handing out contracts for everything, which inevitably leads to corruption.
jzb 4y ago
I'm saying that people deserve a living wage, etc. If that can happen organically without unions, great. Unions / collective bargaining is a path to achieving good wages and working conditions, because employers (public and otherwise) tend to worsen those things over time without workers having a closer to equal bargaining position. "Markets" have aggressively sought every way possible to get labor as cheaply as possible. The idea that privatizing public services is going to make things better for anyone other than the shareholders / owners of those companies is not only ridiculous in theory, it's proven to be false in practice. One only need look at private prisons, private hospitals, private healthcare, and (as I referenced before) the NC DMV for evidence of this. Many of the license plate agencies and such are privately run, and they're worse for it.

3 ms·

If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the quality of public services would be improved by paying people more, not by giving unions more po

by tomp 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago
Socialism !== central planning. Perhaps you were thinking of communism. Sure, you can simply privatize everything, and use taxpayers money to line the pockets of private shareholders. Taxpayers don't like that much, so in that kind of system people tend to oppose public services in general. And it involves the government handing out contracts for everything, which inevitably leads to corruption.
jzb 4y ago
I'm saying that people deserve a living wage, etc. If that can happen organically without unions, great. Unions / collective bargaining is a path to achieving good wages and working conditions, because employers (public and otherwise) tend to worsen those things over time without workers having a closer to equal bargaining position. "Markets" have aggressively sought every way possible to get labor as cheaply as possible. The idea that privatizing public services is going to make things better for anyone other than the shareholders / owners of those companies is not only ridiculous in theory, it's proven to be false in practice. One only need look at private prisons, private hospitals, private healthcare, and (as I referenced before) the NC DMV for evidence of this. Many of the license plate agencies and such are privately run, and they're worse for it.