4 ms·

>There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being slaves, corporations were hiring Pinkertons and killing people. It was actual war. So

>There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being slaves, corporations were hiring Pinkertons and killing people. It was actual war. So Unions were the outcome. Pinkertons were brought in when unions set up picket lines, and then beat up or killed any worker who crossed it. Unions call replacement workers "scabs" to dehumanize them, so that they can rationalize brutalizing them. It was always a racket, and dominated by Communists and organized crime from the very beginning.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
But why were there picket lines? I don't think people were taking that risk, and dying, in order to extract rent, to merely get paid more. They were forced by working conditions and limited options. Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. If there is no option to leave, one must try to improve the current situation. Unions were the outcome. In other cases, like current more modern solution, the government pays welfare to makeup difference in wages between corporate pay, and the amount needed to allow people to eat. But, if Unions are Socialist and bad, and Welfare is Socialist and bad. What is next option? If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. Hence why Socialism is the end state of Capitalism, because Socialism is just another way to keep the poor : 'kind of ok enough to not violently revolt.'. Socialism is the way Capitalist's put a Band-Aid on the population to keep them from revolting. Socialism and Capitalisms aren't opposites.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >But why were there picket lines? Because of greed. There was no justification for using violence to coerce employers into paying them above market wages. >Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. The evidence clearly shows that these people who striked were not contrained in employment option from some imagined monopoly held by a corporate cartel on jobs offered. >If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. People were not starving. Millions were migrating to the US because its free market economy was providing unprecedented wages. Wages doubled for unskilled labor between 1870 and 1900 despite this massive influx of new workers. The answer was to not tolerate violent strikes, and not buy into the strikers' unfounded claims of being victims.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think the word 'greed' is making too much of a moral judgment. Companies are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Unions are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Why is one morally superior to the other? Also.-- Not all greed. During industrial revolution, in factory jobs. It was not uncommon to have a hand chopped off in an press, or any dozens of injuries. If you lost a hand, and can't work, and your family starved, then what. Fighting against those conditions is not 'greed'. You might retort, in a free market, workers could just leave. But that doesn't work if all jobs are the same. Leave one factory to got to another, both are unsafe? You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Also, think you are missing how power dynamics work. This short video on 'the implication' helps explain the relationships that exists within corporations (boss-employee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo EDIT> DO have to add. I am pretty biased toward unions as they were needed during Industrial Revolution. Some did later morph and become problems. And in modern context, maybe Unions aren't the answer, but we need something to push back against wide spread wage suppression. It is crazy that people can have full time jobs, and still be on welfare. That is Corporations benefiting by the government making up the difference, and allowing the corp to profit more. But, if you just cut people off, they starve and revolt. So what is answer.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >>Why is one morally superior to the other? Neither is superior to the other. But when anyone, from any group, argues for laws suppressing the free market rights of others, they are abusing others. People do this when in corporations, and when in unions, and I condemn them the same either way. It just so happens that almost all unions do this, because unions have almost no power without suppressing the free market rights of others. >>You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Again, the evidence shows that people were not locked in factory towns: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-defense-of-the-company-town.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in...

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

But why were there picket lines? I don't think people were taking that risk, and dying, in order to extract rent, to merely get paid more. They were forced by working conditions and limited options. Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. If there is no option to leave, one must try to improve the current situation. Unions were the outcome. In other cases, like current more modern solution, the government pays welfare to makeup difference in wages between corporate pay, and the amount needed to allow people to eat. But, if Unions are Socialist and bad, and Welfare is Socialist and bad. What is next option? If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. Hence why Socialism is the end state of Capitalism, because Socialism is just another way to keep the poor : 'kind of ok enough to not violently revolt.'. Socialism is the way Capitalist's put a Band-Aid on the population to keep them from revolting. Socialism and Capitalisms aren't opposites.

ETH_start 3y ago
>But why were there picket lines? Because of greed. There was no justification for using violence to coerce employers into paying them above market wages. >Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. The evidence clearly shows that these people who striked were not contrained in employment option from some imagined monopoly held by a corporate cartel on jobs offered. >If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. People were not starving. Millions were migrating to the US because its free market economy was providing unprecedented wages. Wages doubled for unskilled labor between 1870 and 1900 despite this massive influx of new workers. The answer was to not tolerate violent strikes, and not buy into the strikers' unfounded claims of being victims.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think the word 'greed' is making too much of a moral judgment. Companies are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Unions are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Why is one morally superior to the other? Also.-- Not all greed. During industrial revolution, in factory jobs. It was not uncommon to have a hand chopped off in an press, or any dozens of injuries. If you lost a hand, and can't work, and your family starved, then what. Fighting against those conditions is not 'greed'. You might retort, in a free market, workers could just leave. But that doesn't work if all jobs are the same. Leave one factory to got to another, both are unsafe? You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Also, think you are missing how power dynamics work. This short video on 'the implication' helps explain the relationships that exists within corporations (boss-employee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo EDIT> DO have to add. I am pretty biased toward unions as they were needed during Industrial Revolution. Some did later morph and become problems. And in modern context, maybe Unions aren't the answer, but we need something to push back against wide spread wage suppression. It is crazy that people can have full time jobs, and still be on welfare. That is Corporations benefiting by the government making up the difference, and allowing the corp to profit more. But, if you just cut people off, they starve and revolt. So what is answer.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >>Why is one morally superior to the other? Neither is superior to the other. But when anyone, from any group, argues for laws suppressing the free market rights of others, they are abusing others. People do this when in corporations, and when in unions, and I condemn them the same either way. It just so happens that almost all unions do this, because unions have almost no power without suppressing the free market rights of others. >>You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Again, the evidence shows that people were not locked in factory towns: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-defense-of-the-company-town.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in...