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

As unions decline, inequality rises

epi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#151

Post by civopsec »

MoreSEMI wrote: post #98
goodpoint wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a problem with correlation vs causation in the article’s logic No, there isn't. The causation is self-evident, and also unsurprising since it's the whole point of unions.

I think stating that something is self-evident is not a helpful argument. First, it seemingly isn’t or else parent would not have posted as such. And secondly, something being self evident is only used when you want to describe an axiom because you cannot prove otherwise.

Saying that something is merely a “correlation” (not a causation—and implying that this other thing is) and saying that something is “self-evident” are both arrogant statements when you just end up saying, hey, look at this narrative that I like instead.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#153

Post by danuker »

kaputmi wrote: post #12

I have mixed feelings about unions. On one hand – should workers be able to associate freely and bargain collectively against employers? Yes! But, should some groups of workers be able to impose on everyone that they must join their association in order to be a worker at X company, or an actor, or something? No, I don't see why.

A company should be able to set different salaries for unionized vs. non-unionized workers.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#154

Post by 2devnull »

Zeyka wrote: post #3

I will never understand how some working class Americans can be against unions, maybe they just see themselves as embarrassed millionaires that would want to crush their workers to squeeze money out of them? It's probably my European brain, but I cannot understand how someone, say Jerry, 60 year old factory worker from idaho, can be against unions...

You don’t know many working class Americans or you could ask them. I do and have and they report exploitation and misaligned incentives. Unions are like corporations, they can have poor leadership with goals that are incongruous with the goals of the members. Union dues can feel like you pay a lot of your hard earned cash to just have your money siphoned off to a politicians that literally hate you. But usually they have agreed that in general it’s good that unions exist. Better to have them around than to not have them, in the abstract.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#155

Post by scarmig »

soco wrote: post #80
dzink wrote: post #25

World War II was a much bigger reason and a cause for this. There is a problem with correlation vs causation in the article’s logic. I’d argue the unions were a bi-product of a historically rare moment in time vs cause of equality. The market bust and global world war increased taxation, demand for workers, and value of each worker in the early 40s. Much more importantly, for a few decades after WWII all other global…

Re. unions: especially in the Eastern Europe I don't think unions deserve to be called like that "unions". They were just facades for the "communist" political power to reach into every corner of worker's lives. Unions real meaning is negotiation power against the employers, and you must agree there was exactly zero of this in the EE. Might have been something before communism took over, but after WW2 there was no un…

> after WW2 there was no union left worth their name behind the iron curtain.

Solidarność.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#156

Post by danuker »

TexanFeller wrote: post #105

Do China and similar powers have pervasive unions? If the rest of the wold doesn't, unionizing in the US may be a very temporary victory as union demands encourage even more offshoring and automation. We compete globally now. Globalization may be the bigger source of inequality in the first place.

Globalization moves money to people most in need of it (i.e. developing countries with cheap labor/resources).

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#157

Post by geysersam »

MoreSEMI wrote: post #98
goodpoint wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a problem with correlation vs causation in the article’s logic No, there isn't. The causation is self-evident, and also unsurprising since it's the whole point of unions.

I think stating that something is self-evident is not a helpful argument. First, it seemingly isn’t or else parent would not have posted as such. And secondly, something being self evident is only used when you want to describe an axiom because you cannot prove otherwise.

As someone who lives in a country were unions were one of the major political forces during the 20th century, the impact they had on the social and economic development is truly self evident and mostly (overwhelmingly so) positive.

Of course, the GP might be from a country with another experience.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#158

Post by wpietri »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #91
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any current data on that? I think it was true of the "Reagan Democrat" variety of union worker in the 1980s, but I suspect it's an outdated stereotype now. For example, SEIU, one of America's largest unions, represents a lot of immigrants and is strongly pro-immigrant: https://www.seiu.org/justice-for-immigrants/

The only reason blue collar workers' unions changed their tune is because they were unable to stop the flow of illegal immigration. On the other hand, restricting H-1Bs and green cards is a battle that many think they can win.

It is disappointing to ask for data and get more unsubstantiated opinion.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#159

Post by dash2 »

js8 wrote: post #92

To everybody who thinks this is just correlation and not causation - read the post properly. They mention: "Labor unions both sustained prosperity, and ensured that it was shared; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms." And give a link to a study. This result has been seen across countries, and is the CAUSAL link you're looking for.

Mr Always-grumbles-about-correlation-studies reporting in here. Maybe it's a nice causal study, but the jump from "moderates compensation of top executives" to "reduces equality across the whole income spectrum" is a big stretch.

Update: also, I went and scanned the linked article (because I'm that type). They're credible authors, but they themselves explicitly say: "In reporting correlations between unionization and managerial pay, we are not necessarily able to establish whether unions cause differences.... We try a variety of strategies to understand these issues, however each is imperfect."

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#160

Post by BigRedDog1669 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #78
faitswulff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically you’re being downvoted by the same folks who would benefit from unions. American Twitter employees, for instance, would have done a lot better with European labor protections. European Twitter employees probably have a sizable comeuppance on the horizon.

If the European standards are so good, where are all of the influential European tech companies? To properly weigh all of the tradeoffs, you might consider asking if those Twitter jobs would even emerge in the European system and if there's a link between European labor standards and the lack of influential European tech companies. Europe is a large market that is filled with many capable and educated technology work…

Good company to work for is not the same as big company everyone is talking about on hacker news. Those are two different things. Why should people optimize for computer nerd prestige? I might not care to work for Amazon, Microsoft, etc. Influential can be a bad thing if they are negatively influencing society.
Post reply on HN