Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

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

#61

Post by washadjeffmad »

malermeister wrote: post #16
mbostleman wrote: post #4

At the expense of other families not a party to the monopoly.

I'm sorry you're choosing to let corporations exploit you instead of fighting with us for better wages. But that's kind of on you, not on us.

People can have bad individual experiences with unions. A not very pro-union friend ("They're not all good, you know.") told me about her early career as a typesetter, how she taught herself how to repair the linotypes and letterpresses, the difficulties after unionization, and their shop's eventual shuttering. She felt that the union had taken things over and then failed them.

When I asked her how the hell non-computerized typesetting was even still a job in the 80s, she looked kind of thoughtful for a minute and just said "huh".

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

#62

Post by CapstanRoller »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #60
avvvv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument doesn't match reality. We don't need hypotheticals here:

McDonalds workers in EU countries earn significantly more than their US counterparts, yet a Big Mac costs the same of just a few pennies more.

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #40
silverquiet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers the world over earn much less than Americans. It's why I've always told American developers to be careful what they wish for when it comes to remote work. But it might just be possible that there's more to life than money.

>But it might just be possible that there's more to life than money. There is yes, but a house is still paid in money.

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by cityofdelusion »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #61
malermeister wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you're choosing to let corporations exploit you instead of fighting with us for better wages. But that's kind of on you, not on us.

People can have bad individual experiences with unions. A not very pro-union friend ("They're not all good, you know.") told me about her early career as a typesetter, how she taught herself how to repair the linotypes and letterpresses, the difficulties after unionization, and their shop's eventual shuttering. She felt that the union had taken things over and then failed them. When I asked her how the hell non-compu…

The world is shades of grey, not black and white. My only experience with union work is as a non-union developer brought in to fix the software of union government developers. They were legitimately terrible at their jobs, unable to code anything or be useful outside of QA work. I made significantly more money than their capped government salaries as well. The flip side is their job, healthcare, and families were much more secure than mine.

I’m fine with people being lifted up, but it’s very frustrating when your coworkers carry no burden and do nothing. I have no idea about other industry, but in government it’s so hard to let people go that no one bothers to even start the paperwork, they just hire non-union contractors to do the actual labor. Worst of all worlds.

This is average middle America, not a tech hub in any way. I’m a fairly average dev.

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

#65

Post by willcipriano »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #60
avvvv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A hamburger meal is already $20

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

#66

Post by MichaelZuo »

CapstanRoller wrote: post #62
MichaelZuo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument doesn't match reality. We don't need hypotheticals here: McDonalds workers in EU countries earn significantly more than their US counterparts, yet a Big Mac costs the same of just a few pennies more.

>… yet a Big Mac costs the same of just a few pennies more.

What? Do you not know how to check Big mac prices online in other countries?

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

#67

Post by constantcrying »

willcipriano wrote: post #36
constantcrying wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also known as inflation.

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?).

No, it isn't distinct from inflation. Higher wages necessarily means increased cost for product, leading to an overall increase in cost.

This is exactly what inflation is.

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

#68

Post by nobodyandproud »

throwaway11460 wrote: post #56
nickburns wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> I'm happy being expendable. > It means I can just pick up my things and go somewhere else whenever I please.

You are conflating expendability with redundancy.

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

#69

Post by forgotmyinfo »

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.

Ah yes, as everyone knows, "having a trillion dollars" is famously no match for "being able to code".

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

#70

Post by toasterlovin »

willcipriano wrote: post #36
constantcrying wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also known as inflation.

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?).

FWIW, I think you have this exactly backward. It’s higher incomes at the top that drive higher incomes at the bottom. Low skill workers in developed countries make more because they are part of what is essentially a labor cartel: there are certain jobs which can only be performed by, e.g., an English speaking person who understands the American cultural context and who is physically located in America. And restricted immigration and language barriers prevent competition from new entrants. So as more people are pulled into high skill, high pay work, incomes for even low skilled people go up, because their competition decreases and overall wealth in the society, ie wealth available to pay for their time, increases.
Post reply on HN