Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families • Hacker News Board

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#51

Post by avvvv » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

constantcrying wrote: post #23

jollofricepeas wrote: post #5

This is basic economics. The rise of income and wealth inequality is directly tied to the weakening of collective bargaining, corporate consolidation and globalization. Source: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions... . Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests.

>Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests. This is only true if you yourself do not possess greater bargaining power by having certain rare skills, that are in demand. Which is why the report shows that higher educated people benefit far less.

That's very deluded and short-sighted. More often than not, investors and shareholders hold more weight in large companies than whatever you can bring to the table. Not to mention skills that are rare often don't have huge markets, otherwise there'd be colleges teaching it in a degree and it'd be no more rarer than other skills, don't you think?

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#52

Post by avvvv » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 4:02 PM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #21

mullingitover wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions: join us, let's increase our bargaining power together and improve all our economic situations. Anti-union workers: No. Also anti-union workers: Look at these union workers making more money than us, at our expense.

That's not a contradiction. Unions can and often do become just as dysfunctional as any other kind of government. People abuse their power and force out those that won't go along with it.

So do companies. What's your point?

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#53

Post by edmundsauto » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 4:56 PM UTC

constantcrying wrote: post #23

jollofricepeas wrote: post #5

This is basic economics. The rise of income and wealth inequality is directly tied to the weakening of collective bargaining, corporate consolidation and globalization. Source: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions... . Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests.

>Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests. This is only true if you yourself do not possess greater bargaining power by having certain rare skills, that are in demand. Which is why the report shows that higher educated people benefit far less.

I don’t think this is true - the development of the baseball players union in the 1970s is a quite strong counterpoint. I’d be interested how you think about that?

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#54

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:16 PM UTC

magnetowasright wrote: post #45

dantheman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of unionized workers in the united states are government employees. The union protects the incompetent, shields them from responsibilities, and argues against the public interest. Public sector unions are corruption and a plot against the citizenry.

Being that powerful, think of what unions could do for everyone else! Hell yeah!

[deleted]

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#55

Post by juanani » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:17 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#56

Post by throwaway11460 » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:18 PM UTC

nickburns wrote: post #42

constantcrying wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall bargaining power is greater, sure. But the relative power isn't. They can always just leave and work somewhere else, a union literally does not have that option. As an individual it is far easier to negotiate of you have an in demand skill. Which is obvious if you look at the study in the OP. College educated people benefit far less from unionization, they can negotiate for their own.

spoken like a fairly recent grad. an ambitious young person's perspective. you will eventually learn that you are beyond expendable in this world, despite how 'skilled' or adept at 'negotiating' you believe yourself to be (or actually are for that matter). we all are. what you fail to see yet is that you are not more skilled nor more adept than 'The Man.' and you're characterizing yourself as being anything 'more' th…

Both can be true at the same time.

Companies both treat senior engineers as expendable and will fire them on a whim - while paying them whatever they dictate and rehiring them few months after the layoffs for 1.5x compensation.

I'm happy being expendable. It means I can just pick up my things and go somewhere else whenever I please - any place I go has some spot for me and will pay me many multiples of the national average wage.

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#57

Post by washadjeffmad » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:26 PM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #12

jollofricepeas wrote: post #5

This is basic economics. The rise of income and wealth inequality is directly tied to the weakening of collective bargaining, corporate consolidation and globalization. Source: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions... . Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests.

> The rise of income and wealth inequality is directly tied to the weakening of collective bargaining That would make sense, but the data in the article do not seem to be cooperating. 1917-1950: Union membership up 3X. Top 1% share of income reduced by 2/3rds. Looks like a causal relationship! 1950-1980: Union membership is reduced by 1/2. Top 1% share of income... is reduced by 8/10ths? Huh. 1980-2020: Union members…

When the geese come in, you can buy these little concrete coyotes that keep them from colonizing everything and crapping everywhere. In general, it takes just a year or two until they completely avoid the area, and it lasts for about a (goose) generation.

I'm sure there's a parallel in there about beating back the rentseekers and vulture capitalists.

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#58

Post by CuriousCosmic » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #29

redeeman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporate profits are unpaid wages. what about corporate losses then?

A lot of leftist argue for worker owned businesses. Wouldn't that mean that losses would effectively be owned by the workers?

What do you think happens when a company is losing money?

It's not like the shareholders are just eating that loss out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead there are layoffs, cancelled projects, and pay cuts. All of those are workers bearing the cost of the losses.

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#59

Post by washadjeffmad » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:44 PM UTC

constantcrying wrote: post #23

jollofricepeas wrote: post #5

This is basic economics. The rise of income and wealth inequality is directly tied to the weakening of collective bargaining, corporate consolidation and globalization. Source: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions... . Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests.

>Unionized workers are the only real backstop against corporate interests. This is only true if you yourself do not possess greater bargaining power by having certain rare skills, that are in demand. Which is why the report shows that higher educated people benefit far less.

Let's map that opinion to higher ed, where we can agree there's a high concentration of education:

https://www.aaup.org/programs/collective-bargaining

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/labor-uni...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graduate_student_emplo...

Highly educated people (and I'm including more than terminal degree holders) may be more reluctant to join unions out of a misplaced sense of self-sufficiency and pride, or a perceived association with "class issues", despite constant pressure and complaints about their individual compensation.

Re: Union households tend to have $100k more in wealth than nonunion families

#60

Post by MichaelZuo » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:45 PM UTC

avvvv wrote: post #49

willcipriano wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Independent from that. Jobs that require more skill or jobs that are more difficult have to offer more to get people to work for them. Raise the bar at the bottom and all wages will go up, otherwise workers will "demote" themselves. This is a distinct effect from prices raising and workers asking higher wages to counteract inflation (if they could do that why aren't they?).

Then everyone gets to benefit, no? All developing nations have far lower wages than the west, but that's often offset by lower living costs. But try to buy something out of the international market and you'll quickly feel envy. If there is an issue with higher wages then I don't see it

Nobody would benefit because if fast food workers start at 80k, then a basic hamburger would start at $20. And an iPhone pro would start at $2000.