3 ms·

> of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any

> of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well. The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.

bumby 2y ago
>If the labor market functioned correctly See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions. I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.
slow_typist 2y ago
Labor markets are difficult. If low wages go down further, people will offer more Labor, not less, and your microeconomic equilibrium goes out of the window very quickly. Also, while demand for work is not monopolistic per se, the employer has usually a structural advantage when closing a contract with a single employee, and in some industries only a few very big employers compete on the labor market. If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.

bumby 2y ago

>If the labor market functioned correctly See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions. I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.

slow_typist 2y ago

Labor markets are difficult. If low wages go down further, people will offer more Labor, not less, and your microeconomic equilibrium goes out of the window very quickly. Also, while demand for work is not monopolistic per se, the employer has usually a structural advantage when closing a contract with a single employee, and in some industries only a few very big employers compete on the labor market. If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.