67 ms·

>Translation: everyone who wasn't an auto worker would be slightly poorer. I think the theory is that if all workers were unionized, they would be able to nego

• logicchains 13y ago
  >I think the theory is that if all workers were unionized, they would be able to negotiate for a larger share of the profits that are currently taken by the owners of capital. How would them negotiating for a larger share of the profits be a good thing when they were already taking enough of a share of the profits to drive auto companies into bankruptcy? >You are assuming a world where the union has absolute power; The role of a union in a market system is to negotiate with the owners of capitol. If you have laws where only union members are allowed to work in auto factories, or that non-union members aren't allowed to work there, then the unions do have absolute power within those industries. >It's important to at least understand what your opponent is trying to say. I understand what they're trying to say. I'm just responding that paying auto workers more would not result in a net benefit to the middle class. If as the parent's scenario implies there is nowhere else for manufacturers to find labor (which implies no outsourcing), then for every increase in automobile prices that's brought about by increases in auto workers' wages, that means less resources available for car buyers to spend on other things. Unions in the American style cannot make the pie bigger, they can only divide it differently. More pie to unionised workers hence means less pie for everyone else (including the other workers who now can't find work as auto makers can afford fewer employees as they have to pay them more).
  • lsc 13y ago
    >I'm just responding that paying auto workers more would not result in a net benefit to the middle class. If as the parent's scenario implies there is nowhere else for manufacturers to find labor (which implies no outsourcing), then for every increase in automobile prices that's brought about by increases in auto workers' wages, that means less resources available for car buyers to spend on other things. There is another party to the transaction, the owners of capital. Generally speaking, pro-union people argue that capital is in too strong of a negotiating position, and the workers need to unionize to negotiate against the owners of capital. If capital takes less profit, in theory, you can have lower prices and higher wages. Yes, in the real world, it's messier than that. But, in all real-world business deals, yes, there is surplus value, but who gets that surplus value? But the bit you are missing here, I think, is that the owners of the capital are a third party, and the more profit they take, the less surplus value is left for consumers or workers. (I'm not saying that eliminating profit would be a good thing, or even that minimizing profit is a good goal. I'm just saying, there are three parties to that negotiation. Three parties negotiating over that surplus value.) you said: >Unions in the American style cannot make the pie bigger, they can only divide it differently. Which is exactly the point. Joining a union is very much the equivalent of hiring a lawyer (or other professional negotiator) to negotiate a business deal for me. So yes, there is a conflict of interest. but there is /always/ a conflict of interest when trying to decide who gets the surplus value.