5 ms·

This is a really out of touch answer because it goes off for a paragraph on an unrelated economics topic that also makes the writer similarly uncomfortable to t

This is a really out of touch answer because it goes off for a paragraph on an unrelated economics topic that also makes the writer similarly uncomfortable to the reality that unions are often bad before finally bringing it back around to relevance in the last sentence, which misses the point. Of course someone is going to have the cost somewhere. That it can be shareholders in the situation where there is monopsony without causing other pricing ripple effects is entirely the point of why a union may be doing good in that situation. In pretty much every other situation that could apply to the specific dock workers situation from the article, a union is doing zero good to actively doing harm via price manipulation on labor costs.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>Of course someone is going to have the cost somewhere. unions also exist because employees are almost always where the cost goes if corporations have a choice. lower wages, less hours, or straight up cutting staff while forcing remaining staff to work harder under duress. you can cynically call unions "blame shifting", but everyone is simply playing their best cards, since loyalty is not longer a center ideal for a modern company.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Of course everyone is playing their best cards. The question is which cards are good and which cards are bad for society and the union card is clearly bad because it is exercising market power (by withholding all labor) to artificially push labor prices higher. You guys act like corporate abuses are bad and labor abuses are virtuous when you should be against both because both are the same damn thing: Market power abuse.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Well if we consider the government as "managers of society", they require an educated populace stimulating the economy that they collect taxes from. They have to balance it with company taxes, but at the extreme of all automation, "society" suffers in this lens. Previous means of automation managed to create jobs and boost productivity to unseen levels, but I think we're approaching the physical version of "speed of light" on how productive we can get in manufacturing by vertically optimizing. So automation will soon start to remove jobs instead of add them. >You guys act like corporate abuses are bad and labor abuses are virtuous In a general concept, yes. Because corporate abuses always benefit the people who need the money the least for survival. That's a pretty hard notion to shake. Likewise, you can consider civil disobedience (which strikes are) "bad", but we only get there due to the former happening for too long. When it's easier to collectively walk out than to petition your representatives to give society a living wage, that's says a lot about "society"

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>Of course someone is going to have the cost somewhere. unions also exist because employees are almost always where the cost goes if corporations have a choice. lower wages, less hours, or straight up cutting staff while forcing remaining staff to work harder under duress. you can cynically call unions "blame shifting", but everyone is simply playing their best cards, since loyalty is not longer a center ideal for a modern company.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
Of course everyone is playing their best cards. The question is which cards are good and which cards are bad for society and the union card is clearly bad because it is exercising market power (by withholding all labor) to artificially push labor prices higher. You guys act like corporate abuses are bad and labor abuses are virtuous when you should be against both because both are the same damn thing: Market power abuse.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Well if we consider the government as "managers of society", they require an educated populace stimulating the economy that they collect taxes from. They have to balance it with company taxes, but at the extreme of all automation, "society" suffers in this lens. Previous means of automation managed to create jobs and boost productivity to unseen levels, but I think we're approaching the physical version of "speed of light" on how productive we can get in manufacturing by vertically optimizing. So automation will soon start to remove jobs instead of add them. >You guys act like corporate abuses are bad and labor abuses are virtuous In a general concept, yes. Because corporate abuses always benefit the people who need the money the least for survival. That's a pretty hard notion to shake. Likewise, you can consider civil disobedience (which strikes are) "bad", but we only get there due to the former happening for too long. When it's easier to collectively walk out than to petition your representatives to give society a living wage, that's says a lot about "society"