3 ms·

And is there a reason to not move to Mexico even without an union? Labour will be cheaper anyway, what's stopping a company from milking the local population f

by piva00 3y ago

And is there a reason to not move to Mexico even without an union? Labour will be cheaper anyway, what's stopping a company from milking the local population for as much as possible, paying as low as possible and when people start to get fed up with it and they just move it to Mexico? There's no rational basis for this fear of unions, what you fear is globalisation itself, it's already happened, and it was caused by USA-exported economics ideology since the 80s in the form of neoliberalism.

mc32 3y ago
Break even points —just like outsourcing development. At some point it makes sense to offshore and at some point you want to keep some work stateside. It’s about tradeoffs. There is a point where it makes economic sense to send that work to Mexico.
- piva00 3y ago
  Again, if we are considering the original comment I replied to about medium-term vs long-term, a move offshore to Mexico will always make sense in the long-term unless Mexican labour becomes as expensive as USA. Considering break even points it will always make sense to move out, reasons to not move are the local incentives in the form of tax breaks and invested capital in factories, if the consideration is only about labour (which the take on unions making it easier for the move) it always make sense to move, regardless if it's a unionised workforce or not. Non-unionisation only delays this inevitability by allowing the company to milk the employees for a little longer, in the long-term it will eventually pack up and move if the incentives are not maintained (again in the form of tax breaks or if the company has recently re-invested in existing facilities). To me, again, the fear of globalisation's side-effects is not a good excuse to promote a lack of worker solidarity, it only makes workers more powerless since at some point in the long-term the break even point is reached, without an union there's no collective force to pushback a company's decision to move their production somewhere else with cheaper labour, at least with an union there will be a conversation and negotiation around it.
  - mc32 3y ago
    One of the problems with the Union-Company relationship is that it's not long-term symbiotic. A union is apt to milk the cow dry. A company will put up with a union as long as it has to but not longer. It's a contentious relationship. It need not be. The relationship could be more cooperative, but it isn't. Cooperative unions are seen as weak and accommodating. Companies that voluntarily unionize are at a disadvantage --they are less flexible and will eventually lose out to the non-unionized company, unless there is some kind of regulatory capture going on. We could kind of have our cake and eat it too if we became more protectionist and also modified the Union-Company relationship to be less contentious. If we prioritized the good of the American worker and society (to the disadvantage of other world economies) Wealth would be less unevenly distributed. Total wealth would decrease and efficiency would be reduced, but very likely we would have a happier American society but also likely a poorer international worker. Of course, this would also require strict immigration weighted more on ability rather than simple willingness to work for cheap.

by piva00 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

Break even points —just like outsourcing development. At some point it makes sense to offshore and at some point you want to keep some work stateside. It’s about tradeoffs. There is a point where it makes economic sense to send that work to Mexico.

piva00 3y ago
Again, if we are considering the original comment I replied to about medium-term vs long-term, a move offshore to Mexico will always make sense in the long-term unless Mexican labour becomes as expensive as USA. Considering break even points it will always make sense to move out, reasons to not move are the local incentives in the form of tax breaks and invested capital in factories, if the consideration is only about labour (which the take on unions making it easier for the move) it always make sense to move, regardless if it's a unionised workforce or not. Non-unionisation only delays this inevitability by allowing the company to milk the employees for a little longer, in the long-term it will eventually pack up and move if the incentives are not maintained (again in the form of tax breaks or if the company has recently re-invested in existing facilities). To me, again, the fear of globalisation's side-effects is not a good excuse to promote a lack of worker solidarity, it only makes workers more powerless since at some point in the long-term the break even point is reached, without an union there's no collective force to pushback a company's decision to move their production somewhere else with cheaper labour, at least with an union there will be a conversation and negotiation around it.
- mc32 3y ago
  One of the problems with the Union-Company relationship is that it's not long-term symbiotic. A union is apt to milk the cow dry. A company will put up with a union as long as it has to but not longer. It's a contentious relationship. It need not be. The relationship could be more cooperative, but it isn't. Cooperative unions are seen as weak and accommodating. Companies that voluntarily unionize are at a disadvantage --they are less flexible and will eventually lose out to the non-unionized company, unless there is some kind of regulatory capture going on. We could kind of have our cake and eat it too if we became more protectionist and also modified the Union-Company relationship to be less contentious. If we prioritized the good of the American worker and society (to the disadvantage of other world economies) Wealth would be less unevenly distributed. Total wealth would decrease and efficiency would be reduced, but very likely we would have a happier American society but also likely a poorer international worker. Of course, this would also require strict immigration weighted more on ability rather than simple willingness to work for cheap.