3 ms·

This is written from the perspective of rent-seeking unions who benefit from laws that suppress people's right to freely contract in labor negotiations, and mus

This is written from the perspective of rent-seeking unions who benefit from laws that suppress people's right to freely contract in labor negotiations, and must vilify the principles of a free society through conspiracy theories about "neoliberalism" and "corporate greed" to maintain public support for the legal arrangement. The last 50 years of wage growth stagnation comes solely down to a declining rate of productivity growth, which in turn is caused by a marked decrease in market liberalism, most pronouncedly in the housing market: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388 >We quantify the amount of spatial misallocation of labor across US cities and its aggregate costs. Misallocation arises because high productivity cities like New York and the San Francisco Bay Area have adopted stringent restrictions to new housing supply, effectively limiting the number of workers who have access to such high productivity. Using a spatial equilibrium model and data from 220 metropolitan areas we find that these constraints lowered aggregate US growth by 36 percent from 1964 to 2009. Most people rarely hear alternative narratives like the above to the one presented by unions for the cause of economic stagnation because the news media we depend on to inform us about the world is also fully unionized, e.g. all New York Times journalists are members of the NY Times Guild [1], with its writers and journalists benefiting from the exploitive arrangement of market restrictions granting their union a negotiating monopoly. [1] https://nytimesguild.org/ https://nytimesguild.org/

bjoli 3y ago
Labour productivity has been developing faster than wages for the last 50 years. This is the same in most western countries, regardless of union influence. But: erosion of collective bargaining is positively correlated with higher income inequality an greater wealth inequality, also when disregarding the lowest quartile. How do you mean that there has been a decline in market liberalism? I am pretty sure that the US market especially could need both one and two regulation pushes with regards to reigning in the influence of huge corporations and strengthening labour rights. I think blaming unions for brain-dead housing policies is disingenuous. What needs to be done is government programmes for increased building, just like last time a lot of houses were built (at least in my home country). Otherwise no new housing will be built that will lower the prices of the current market. I don't even understand how you believe the role of the unions can be so big.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >>Labour productivity has been developing faster than wages for the last 50 years. This false claim was popularized by the EPI, which is funded by unions. The reality is that worker compensation has almost perfectly tracked labor productivity: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag... Comparing productivity with one measure of inflation to compensation using another measure of inflation is the way the EPI produced its false claims, as the above article explains. >>How do you mean that there has been a decline in market liberalism? Increase in regulatory compliance costs. Increase in the percentage of occupations requiring a license. Increase in the size of the Code of Federal Regulations. Increase in the percentage of GDP constituted by government spending. Increase in the number of regulatory agencies. Increase in regulatory restrictions on housing development, particularly in the highest productivity economic zones.

bjoli 3y ago

Labour productivity has been developing faster than wages for the last 50 years. This is the same in most western countries, regardless of union influence. But: erosion of collective bargaining is positively correlated with higher income inequality an greater wealth inequality, also when disregarding the lowest quartile. How do you mean that there has been a decline in market liberalism? I am pretty sure that the US market especially could need both one and two regulation pushes with regards to reigning in the influence of huge corporations and strengthening labour rights. I think blaming unions for brain-dead housing policies is disingenuous. What needs to be done is government programmes for increased building, just like last time a lot of houses were built (at least in my home country). Otherwise no new housing will be built that will lower the prices of the current market. I don't even understand how you believe the role of the unions can be so big.

ETH_start 3y ago
>>Labour productivity has been developing faster than wages for the last 50 years. This false claim was popularized by the EPI, which is funded by unions. The reality is that worker compensation has almost perfectly tracked labor productivity: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag... Comparing productivity with one measure of inflation to compensation using another measure of inflation is the way the EPI produced its false claims, as the above article explains. >>How do you mean that there has been a decline in market liberalism? Increase in regulatory compliance costs. Increase in the percentage of occupations requiring a license. Increase in the size of the Code of Federal Regulations. Increase in the percentage of GDP constituted by government spending. Increase in the number of regulatory agencies. Increase in regulatory restrictions on housing development, particularly in the highest productivity economic zones.