8 ms·

> "I’ve been working here for 40 years and I haven’t received a raise in 10 or 12 years" > "We made a lot of concessions in 2008, but now it’s 2023 and inflati

> "I’ve been working here for 40 years and I haven’t received a raise in 10 or 12 years" > "We made a lot of concessions in 2008, but now it’s 2023 and inflation is skyrocketing, everything is through the roof, and we’re just asking for something back. We didn’t even ask for more than we had before." > "We are defending our way of life, trying to get enough money to take care of our families and stay in the middle class. They work hard here, six days a week, 10 hours a day. We don’t see our family, and we have to work longer hours to earn the same as what we did 20 years ago" I suspect that a lot of Americans are watching their standard of living decline and seeing their kids have to struggle in ways they never had to at that age. It's no surprise that employees will try to fight to keep what they have, and it'll be interesting to see how much more effective unionized workers are at that. I imagine that a lot of companies are terrified that if these unions succeed it will lead to the creation of new ones for non-union employees looking for the same thing.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
The fact that the automaker CEOs (and even POTUS) were putting out statements that they didn’t believe a strike was imminent only to turn around and see 150k workers authorize the strike says a bit about their mindset.
thegrim33 3y ago
How the system is supposed to work is that if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail. This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  Why is that how the ‘system is supposed to work’? Who decided that?
  - esarbe 3y ago
    I think, they are arguing from a deregulated/free market capitalist perspective. Supposedly workers can freely chose to whom they sell their working capacity and thus can negotiate a fair share of the value created. I personally don't see that working, at least not with strong union laws or even complete syndicalisation of all means of production; the global worker pool and the mobility of companies (vs. the immobility of workers) gives companies just too much of an edge in this negotiation (at least outside of bourgeoisie knowledge workers). As evidence I point to the decoupling of company earnings vs. labor income share since the 1980ies.
- troupo 3y ago
  That system only exists in libertarian dreams. In reality new companies don't just pop up out of nothing overnight. And especially in the US, where labor protections are nearly non-existent compared to the rest of the developed world, the new companies tend to he worse than the ones before them. See: gig economy. See: Tesla's record with unions.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Are these not the highest-paid autoworkers in the world? Besides, VinFast is happy to pop up a factory. Been seeing a lot more VinFast SUVs on the road recently.
    - troupo 3y ago
      This is news from this year: --- start quote --- A Ford Motor Co. battery plant expected to create 2,500 jobs in Michigan will pay an average salary of $45,136 a year with most workers earning $41,600, according to estimates shared with lawmakers. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2023/03/new-ford-plant-to-pay-average-of-45000-falling-below-state-median-income.html https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2023/03/new-ford-plant... --- end quote --- Median income in Michigan is 62 000 dollars [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/INC110221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/INC110221
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Are these not the highest-paid autoworkers in the world? Because no American should be allowed to complain about unfair treatment until they are being treated as poorly as the slaves used by automakers in other countries. Let's all race to the bottom!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Says who? That’s a childish and destructive line of thought. No surprise it’s common in tech.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company. I guess I don't see that result as a given. It seems at least as (probably more) likely that if an automaker falls it'll be taken over by another entity that could be even more hostile to workers.
- js8 3y ago
  "if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail" That's what they did, it's called a "strike".
  - underseacables 3y ago
    A strike is not leaving the company. A strike is refusing to work until demands are met.
    - js8 3y ago
      Indeed. Strike is kinda nicer, you're giving the company the option to reconsider their bad decisions, instead of killing them instantly.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        A bit less biased, a strike is more like allowing the company a chance to make a deal with their employees before they quit. Whether the decisions were bad is a matter of opinion, and it's not a given that union employees quiting in mass would kill the company instantly. (personally I do agree the auto companies have acted in bad faith and would be screwed if these workers all quit, but we'll ever see that happen to know for sure)
        js8 3y ago
        I am not biased, just snarky. (The killing and other setup for the rebuttal came from the parent post.) But I am also a socialist. I think the reverence for the capitalist class in the U.S. is unhealthy, and it permits lot of CEOs to be a-holes and wannabe dictators. I think Americans who are worried about unions destroying companies, you should look at Germany. They give unions a seat at the board, so that everybody is aware how the profits are split, and to see whether compensation is fair or not. I think socialism can be distilled down to a really simple question (and that's when I really got Marx). If you want to start a new project, say building a genius invention, or an art piece, or just do something useful for the world, whatever it is. Why would you ever want an employee (a subordinate) instead of a coworker (a peer)? Is there any other reason than to control them? Why do you want to be "bossy"? And once you answer that no, I don't want to order people around as subordinates, just to cooperate with them as my peers, then socialism is just technicalities how to make it happen.
- malfist 3y ago
  Ah yes, the famous "If you're too poor to work that job, just quit" argument. Companies can pay below subsistence wages longer than you can eat out of the job market.
  - sgregnt 3y ago
    Better than no work
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- autoexec 3y ago
  > How the system is supposed to work is that if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail. That's impossible. They're "too big to fail". Bush bailed them out with $7.4 billion in tax payer money, and later Obama did the same with tens of billions. However things are "supposed to work" for failing businesses that exploit their workers, in the real world it's all a very different story.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Bush bailed out GM and Chrysler.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      The employees of which are currently on strike. However you feel about the auto bailouts, there's no reason to think that the US would allow them to fail today.
- newobj 3y ago
  Bless your heart
- evil-olive 3y ago
  the right to strike has been protected by US law for almost 100 years [0] your opinion about "How the system is supposed to work" is ahistorical and not based in reality. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o...
  - colpabar 3y ago
    Not for railroad workers! https://archive.ph/j6gW8 https://archive.ph/j6gW8
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Have you had a look at the southern border lately? The working class is forced to compete with illegal immigrants.
  - jlmorton 3y ago
    Have you looked at the hospital maternity wards and high schools lately? It seems they just keep pumping out new kids that will compete with workers for a zero sum slice of the economic pie. All these high schools graduates are coming to take our jobs
    - autoexec 3y ago
      With how US birthrates are trending, maternity wards aren't looking like much of a threat these days, and those high schools graduates will demand minimum wage, paid overtime, FMLA, safe working conditions, and all the other things entitled to them under the law. Illegal immigrants cannot demand these things, and can be exploited in ways that American workers cannot, making them much more attractive to companies. I can compete on relatively even ground with an American high school graduate, but I can't compete with what is basically slavery.
      - jlmorton 3y ago
        All those folks entering at the US Southern Border are making asylum claims, and asylees are granted work permits, including while their cases are pending, allowing them to work for most any industry (with some restrictions). What you're describing is certainly a real issue, but it can solved in its entirety by simply providing visas, or even work permits.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  That's difficult in practice, because existing companies can standardize on pay, and unlike software it's difficult for new competitors to emerge due to the capital- and infrastructure-intensive nature of the auto industry making it candidate for a natural monopoly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
  - piotrkaminski 3y ago
    > it's difficult for new competitors to emerge Counterpoint: Tesla, Fisker, Rivian, Lucid, Faraday Future, not to mention all the new Chinese brands that I don't follow. Difficult maybe but far from impossible, and not at all a natural monopoly.
    - troupo 3y ago
      Your "counterpoint" is companies that took quite some time and money to establish and are well known for their anti-labor practices. From Tesla's union-busting tactics and labor protection violations to Rivian's unsafe working conditions.
      - piotrkaminski 3y ago
        So are you saying that car-making is a natural monopoly solely because of the unions? <half-joking>
        troupo 3y ago
        No, I'm saying that it's very hard for competitors to emerge in this space, unions or no unions. Tesla took 5 years to produce its first car, and another four years to produce a second one. And it took them 17 years to break even: https://www.statista.com/chart/26705/yearly-net-income-and-revenue-of-tesla/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26705/yearly-net-income-and-r...
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Seems like you both agree that it's difficult for new competitors to emerge. It's great that a very small number of extremely rich people managed to to gain some kind of entry into the industry, but that's not exactly compelling evidence that the barriers to entry don't disadvantage competition. Especially considering that I really only see Tesla's cars on the road and they are few and far between compared to the cars I see made by the entrenched "big three". Even with the efforts of billionaires, it's a massive uphill battle.
- klyrs 3y ago
  How the system is supposed to work is that people are supposed to exercise their first amendment right of free association. Corporations of this scale were never "supposed to" exist.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    I don't think our system was really designed with a maximum corporation size in mind, though it's irrevocably pretty safe to say the system wasn't designed to include many of the public policies that allow such large corporations to stay in business. Take away tax breaks, subsidies, and the concept of "too big to fail" and I can't imagine companies could ever get to the size of a modern auto manufacturer, tech company, bank, etc.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company. Ah yes, like the non-union, non-shitty Tesla, right? "Tesla ran over worker rights, again, US labor judge finds" * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763141
- voisin 3y ago
  Why is it “supposed” to work that way rather than collective action for better pay like we are seeing?
pc_edwin 3y ago
These companies are gonna die and they will become cautionary tail for the future. Ford's situation is particularly interesting because until Tesla, they were the only major US automaker to never go bankrupt. Their taking in massive losses (EV transition) and their balance sheet looks very ugly. Also as an aside, it will also be a early warning signal for all these companies. It will provide an entire cohort of CEOs with the mandate to invest heavily in automation to bridge the gap. You how the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for"
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  Also btw "die" is a matter of perspective. The shareholders will be wiped out, a huge chunk of the management core will replaced and probably a massive layoffs. Oh and their pensions wiped out (can't have pensions without a company to pay for them). FAFO
- louwrentius 3y ago
  Ford himself was at least smart enough to understand that if you pay your workers well they buy your own product. If you (any company) automate those people away (yeah right) who can afford their product? Queue the fantasy about UBI but maybe it’s better if companies would pay their workers their fair share of wages. Or dare I say it: we disband the notion of private ownership of the means of production and give that ownership back to the people.
  - sgregnt 3y ago
    > Or dare I say it: we disband the notion of private ownership of the means of production and give that ownership back to the people. Lets be explicit about this lunutism kills millions of people, directly and indirectly, collapses on itself and then hopeful is salvaged by hardcore capitalism.
    - louwrentius 3y ago
      Sounds like I should have issued a trigger warning. May I recommend informing yourself as absolutely nothing you wrote is true.
adingus 3y ago
I hope the next generation at least builds the guillotines
voisin 3y ago
Were automakers significantly less profitable 40 years ago, such that labor had a larger share of revenue and was able to earn enough for a single-income family to live comfortably, or why does it seem so much more like everyone is struggling today? I haven’t looked into this at all, but I suspect it has something to do with the financialization of the economy and that as the dollar was devalued and interest rates came down, labor took on more debt to maintain and expand its lifestyle and this debt just grew and grew, funding more of the lifestyle and companies didn’t “need” to keep wages growing the same way. My thinking on this is that everyone of a certain age seems to talk about how people didn’t really have much debt in the 50s, 60s. Small mortgages, no such thing as credit cards or car loans. So companies had to pay enough for people to live on without any debt supplementing their lifestyle. But now everyone just binges on debt in lieu of fighting for higher wages. Another related concept: when education loans became a big thing, tuition skyrocketed because colleges no longer had to have the discipline to keep tuition affordable without debt.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Were automakers significantly less profitable 40 years ago I'll go out on a limb and say that the disparity between how much money the few folks at the top of the auto industry made vs the average worker probably wasn't as wide. If workers have been forced into debt and yet still can't live as well as households used to with just one breadwinner, I'm not sure how much of that is due to a lack of will to fight and a willingness to accept debt. Certainly the weakening and undermining of unions and the worker's ability to fight effectively has had some impact. In any case, workers need to accept that they'll need to start fighting a lot harder in whatever ways they still can because clearly they won't be treated fairly otherwise.
  - voisin 3y ago
    > I'll go out on a limb and say that the disparity between how much money the few folks at the top of the auto industry made vs the average worker probably wasn't as wide. This seems like a culture war red herring because it often translates to “CEOs shouldn’t be paid so much” which distracts from the fact that workers should be paid a lot more. The gap can be closed from either direction of course, but I rarely see the anger directed anywhere but “fat cat executives overpay themselves”. I could care less if a CEO makes $100m a year if the average employee was able to still give a good life to his family on one income!

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

The fact that the automaker CEOs (and even POTUS) were putting out statements that they didn’t believe a strike was imminent only to turn around and see 150k workers authorize the strike says a bit about their mindset.

thegrim33 3y ago

How the system is supposed to work is that if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail. This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company.

nickthegreek 3y ago
Why is that how the ‘system is supposed to work’? Who decided that?
- esarbe 3y ago
  I think, they are arguing from a deregulated/free market capitalist perspective. Supposedly workers can freely chose to whom they sell their working capacity and thus can negotiate a fair share of the value created. I personally don't see that working, at least not with strong union laws or even complete syndicalisation of all means of production; the global worker pool and the mobility of companies (vs. the immobility of workers) gives companies just too much of an edge in this negotiation (at least outside of bourgeoisie knowledge workers). As evidence I point to the decoupling of company earnings vs. labor income share since the 1980ies.
troupo 3y ago
That system only exists in libertarian dreams. In reality new companies don't just pop up out of nothing overnight. And especially in the US, where labor protections are nearly non-existent compared to the rest of the developed world, the new companies tend to he worse than the ones before them. See: gig economy. See: Tesla's record with unions.
- junofan 3y ago
  Are these not the highest-paid autoworkers in the world? Besides, VinFast is happy to pop up a factory. Been seeing a lot more VinFast SUVs on the road recently.
  - troupo 3y ago
    This is news from this year: --- start quote --- A Ford Motor Co. battery plant expected to create 2,500 jobs in Michigan will pay an average salary of $45,136 a year with most workers earning $41,600, according to estimates shared with lawmakers. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2023/03/new-ford-plant-to-pay-average-of-45000-falling-below-state-median-income.html https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2023/03/new-ford-plant... --- end quote --- Median income in Michigan is 62 000 dollars [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/INC110221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/INC110221
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Are these not the highest-paid autoworkers in the world? Because no American should be allowed to complain about unfair treatment until they are being treated as poorly as the slaves used by automakers in other countries. Let's all race to the bottom!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 3y ago
Says who? That’s a childish and destructive line of thought. No surprise it’s common in tech.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
> This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company. I guess I don't see that result as a given. It seems at least as (probably more) likely that if an automaker falls it'll be taken over by another entity that could be even more hostile to workers.
js8 3y ago
"if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail" That's what they did, it's called a "strike".
- underseacables 3y ago
  A strike is not leaving the company. A strike is refusing to work until demands are met.
  - js8 3y ago
    Indeed. Strike is kinda nicer, you're giving the company the option to reconsider their bad decisions, instead of killing them instantly.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      A bit less biased, a strike is more like allowing the company a chance to make a deal with their employees before they quit. Whether the decisions were bad is a matter of opinion, and it's not a given that union employees quiting in mass would kill the company instantly. (personally I do agree the auto companies have acted in bad faith and would be screwed if these workers all quit, but we'll ever see that happen to know for sure)
      - js8 3y ago
        I am not biased, just snarky. (The killing and other setup for the rebuttal came from the parent post.) But I am also a socialist. I think the reverence for the capitalist class in the U.S. is unhealthy, and it permits lot of CEOs to be a-holes and wannabe dictators. I think Americans who are worried about unions destroying companies, you should look at Germany. They give unions a seat at the board, so that everybody is aware how the profits are split, and to see whether compensation is fair or not. I think socialism can be distilled down to a really simple question (and that's when I really got Marx). If you want to start a new project, say building a genius invention, or an art piece, or just do something useful for the world, whatever it is. Why would you ever want an employee (a subordinate) instead of a coworker (a peer)? Is there any other reason than to control them? Why do you want to be "bossy"? And once you answer that no, I don't want to order people around as subordinates, just to cooperate with them as my peers, then socialism is just technicalities how to make it happen.
malfist 3y ago
Ah yes, the famous "If you're too poor to work that job, just quit" argument. Companies can pay below subsistence wages longer than you can eat out of the job market.
- sgregnt 3y ago
  Better than no work
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
autoexec 3y ago
> How the system is supposed to work is that if they aren't getting paid what they think they should, then they leave that company and let it fail. That's impossible. They're "too big to fail". Bush bailed them out with $7.4 billion in tax payer money, and later Obama did the same with tens of billions. However things are "supposed to work" for failing businesses that exploit their workers, in the real world it's all a very different story.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Bush bailed out GM and Chrysler.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The employees of which are currently on strike. However you feel about the auto bailouts, there's no reason to think that the US would allow them to fail today.
newobj 3y ago
Bless your heart
evil-olive 3y ago
the right to strike has been protected by US law for almost 100 years [0] your opinion about "How the system is supposed to work" is ahistorical and not based in reality. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o...
- colpabar 3y ago
  Not for railroad workers! https://archive.ph/j6gW8 https://archive.ph/j6gW8
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Have you had a look at the southern border lately? The working class is forced to compete with illegal immigrants.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  Have you looked at the hospital maternity wards and high schools lately? It seems they just keep pumping out new kids that will compete with workers for a zero sum slice of the economic pie. All these high schools graduates are coming to take our jobs
  - autoexec 3y ago
    With how US birthrates are trending, maternity wards aren't looking like much of a threat these days, and those high schools graduates will demand minimum wage, paid overtime, FMLA, safe working conditions, and all the other things entitled to them under the law. Illegal immigrants cannot demand these things, and can be exploited in ways that American workers cannot, making them much more attractive to companies. I can compete on relatively even ground with an American high school graduate, but I can't compete with what is basically slavery.
    - jlmorton 3y ago
      All those folks entering at the US Southern Border are making asylum claims, and asylees are granted work permits, including while their cases are pending, allowing them to work for most any industry (with some restrictions). What you're describing is certainly a real issue, but it can solved in its entirety by simply providing visas, or even work permits.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
That's difficult in practice, because existing companies can standardize on pay, and unlike software it's difficult for new competitors to emerge due to the capital- and infrastructure-intensive nature of the auto industry making it candidate for a natural monopoly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
- piotrkaminski 3y ago
  > it's difficult for new competitors to emerge Counterpoint: Tesla, Fisker, Rivian, Lucid, Faraday Future, not to mention all the new Chinese brands that I don't follow. Difficult maybe but far from impossible, and not at all a natural monopoly.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Your "counterpoint" is companies that took quite some time and money to establish and are well known for their anti-labor practices. From Tesla's union-busting tactics and labor protection violations to Rivian's unsafe working conditions.
    - piotrkaminski 3y ago
      So are you saying that car-making is a natural monopoly solely because of the unions? <half-joking>
      - troupo 3y ago
        No, I'm saying that it's very hard for competitors to emerge in this space, unions or no unions. Tesla took 5 years to produce its first car, and another four years to produce a second one. And it took them 17 years to break even: https://www.statista.com/chart/26705/yearly-net-income-and-revenue-of-tesla/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26705/yearly-net-income-and-r...
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Seems like you both agree that it's difficult for new competitors to emerge. It's great that a very small number of extremely rich people managed to to gain some kind of entry into the industry, but that's not exactly compelling evidence that the barriers to entry don't disadvantage competition. Especially considering that I really only see Tesla's cars on the road and they are few and far between compared to the cars I see made by the entrenched "big three". Even with the efforts of billionaires, it's a massive uphill battle.
klyrs 3y ago
How the system is supposed to work is that people are supposed to exercise their first amendment right of free association. Corporations of this scale were never "supposed to" exist.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I don't think our system was really designed with a maximum corporation size in mind, though it's irrevocably pretty safe to say the system wasn't designed to include many of the public policies that allow such large corporations to stay in business. Take away tax breaks, subsidies, and the concept of "too big to fail" and I can't imagine companies could ever get to the size of a modern auto manufacturer, tech company, bank, etc.
throw0101a 3y ago
> This will open up opportunities for other companies that pay better and aren't shitty to take over from the broken company. Ah yes, like the non-union, non-shitty Tesla, right? "Tesla ran over worker rights, again, US labor judge finds" * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763141
voisin 3y ago
Why is it “supposed” to work that way rather than collective action for better pay like we are seeing?

pc_edwin 3y ago

These companies are gonna die and they will become cautionary tail for the future. Ford's situation is particularly interesting because until Tesla, they were the only major US automaker to never go bankrupt. Their taking in massive losses (EV transition) and their balance sheet looks very ugly. Also as an aside, it will also be a early warning signal for all these companies. It will provide an entire cohort of CEOs with the mandate to invest heavily in automation to bridge the gap. You how the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for"

pc_edwin 3y ago
Also btw "die" is a matter of perspective. The shareholders will be wiped out, a huge chunk of the management core will replaced and probably a massive layoffs. Oh and their pensions wiped out (can't have pensions without a company to pay for them). FAFO
louwrentius 3y ago
Ford himself was at least smart enough to understand that if you pay your workers well they buy your own product. If you (any company) automate those people away (yeah right) who can afford their product? Queue the fantasy about UBI but maybe it’s better if companies would pay their workers their fair share of wages. Or dare I say it: we disband the notion of private ownership of the means of production and give that ownership back to the people.
- sgregnt 3y ago
  > Or dare I say it: we disband the notion of private ownership of the means of production and give that ownership back to the people. Lets be explicit about this lunutism kills millions of people, directly and indirectly, collapses on itself and then hopeful is salvaged by hardcore capitalism.
  - louwrentius 3y ago
    Sounds like I should have issued a trigger warning. May I recommend informing yourself as absolutely nothing you wrote is true.

adingus 3y ago

I hope the next generation at least builds the guillotines

voisin 3y ago

Were automakers significantly less profitable 40 years ago, such that labor had a larger share of revenue and was able to earn enough for a single-income family to live comfortably, or why does it seem so much more like everyone is struggling today? I haven’t looked into this at all, but I suspect it has something to do with the financialization of the economy and that as the dollar was devalued and interest rates came down, labor took on more debt to maintain and expand its lifestyle and this debt just grew and grew, funding more of the lifestyle and companies didn’t “need” to keep wages growing the same way. My thinking on this is that everyone of a certain age seems to talk about how people didn’t really have much debt in the 50s, 60s. Small mortgages, no such thing as credit cards or car loans. So companies had to pay enough for people to live on without any debt supplementing their lifestyle. But now everyone just binges on debt in lieu of fighting for higher wages. Another related concept: when education loans became a big thing, tuition skyrocketed because colleges no longer had to have the discipline to keep tuition affordable without debt.

autoexec 3y ago
> Were automakers significantly less profitable 40 years ago I'll go out on a limb and say that the disparity between how much money the few folks at the top of the auto industry made vs the average worker probably wasn't as wide. If workers have been forced into debt and yet still can't live as well as households used to with just one breadwinner, I'm not sure how much of that is due to a lack of will to fight and a willingness to accept debt. Certainly the weakening and undermining of unions and the worker's ability to fight effectively has had some impact. In any case, workers need to accept that they'll need to start fighting a lot harder in whatever ways they still can because clearly they won't be treated fairly otherwise.
- voisin 3y ago
  > I'll go out on a limb and say that the disparity between how much money the few folks at the top of the auto industry made vs the average worker probably wasn't as wide. This seems like a culture war red herring because it often translates to “CEOs shouldn’t be paid so much” which distracts from the fact that workers should be paid a lot more. The gap can be closed from either direction of course, but I rarely see the anger directed anywhere but “fat cat executives overpay themselves”. I could care less if a CEO makes $100m a year if the average employee was able to still give a good life to his family on one income!