As unions decline, inequality rises • Hacker News Board

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#211

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

Devasta wrote: post #63

mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.

Rupert Murdoch has sway because he owns the most watched news network in America. He could give away all his money tomorrow and his sway would stay the same because he controls a major news network.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#212

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

jessehattabaugh wrote: post #185

surement wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? prices are largely based on supply and demand, not some vague notion of "deserve"

> prices are largely based on supply and demand Then we'd better unionize before AI starts doing all the easy stuff

How would unionizing prevent you from being replaced by a machine? Striking isn't a threat when you not being there is what the company is going for anyway.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#213

Post by klyrs » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #69

formercoder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t understand the push for white collar tech employees to be in unions. It’s my understanding that in most union jobs, compensation and benefits are strictly based on time in role, not performance. I try and excel in my role and others are less interested in doing so. I should be promoted faster and compensated higher.

A union is a democratically-run tool. Every tech employee I talk to hates the idea of compensation being based purely on time in role, why would they democratically vote for that to be the rule?

There's two ways to unionize: roll your own, or UaaS. Rolling your own requires a lot of work, time in committee meetings, and has a risk that you'll overlook common issues or flub negotiations due to inexperience. But there's a lot of flexibility, and it can be done on the cheap. A lot of people pick the second option: a big union can send a rep, draft a contract, negotiate with your employer, etc., in exchange for the dues it pays its employees with.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#214

Post by whiddershins » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

susanasj wrote: post #142

I think this is a good article for tech workers to read to provide perspective on our place in the tech economy (particularly Americans): https://organizing.work/2020/12/there-is-something-missing-f... particularly this part: > Early on in my own career in the industry, I felt guilty about making a “good” salary. Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? Of course, I don’t — they deserve a lot m…

This is an intrinsically Marxist framing.

Even if inequality is rising, so is wealth overall. That’s what Marx misestimated, although it wasn’t his most grievous error.

Poor people in the United States are far richer than rich people of 150 years ago.

I am personally willing to accept the he existence of some billionaires if that’s the price we pay for all this wonderful ness.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#215

Post by subpixel » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #169

susanasj wrote: post #142

I think this is a good article for tech workers to read to provide perspective on our place in the tech economy (particularly Americans): https://organizing.work/2020/12/there-is-something-missing-f... particularly this part: > Early on in my own career in the industry, I felt guilty about making a “good” salary. Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? Of course, I don’t — they deserve a lot m…

| Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? My tech salary, adjusted for inflation, is almost exactly what my RN mother was making when she was my age. Maybe our salaries aren't that extraordinary, they're just the only ones that have kept up with inflation. Don't feel guilty about a tech salary, feel angry others been left behind.

Only a hundred years ago, a bunch of immigrants from places like Germany or Spain or Italy could arrive in New England (including New York City), perform manual labor, provide for their families on one income, and pool their additional money to _build whole buildings_ as social or fraternal clubs.

That really puts things into perspective for me.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#216

Post by Aunche » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

susanasj wrote: post #142

I think this is a good article for tech workers to read to provide perspective on our place in the tech economy (particularly Americans): https://organizing.work/2020/12/there-is-something-missing-f... particularly this part: > Early on in my own career in the industry, I felt guilty about making a “good” salary. Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? Of course, I don’t — they deserve a lot m…

>when our industry is producing oligarchs like Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, it means that they are profiting from the things that tech workers produce

The workers that built the foundations of these companies received stock options or RSUs over a decade ago and reached FATFIRE territory as well. Had they unionized, the companies they worked for wouldn't be able to reinvest as much money into growth, which would be compounded by a lack of external investors. In that case, they would lose to an unionized competitor.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#217

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #7

Many people don't want equality... especially those who see themselves as superior.

I want society to get richer. I want poor people (in all nations including China, India, and Vietnam) to earn more money. This is not the same thing as wanting equality.

In that sense, no I do not support economic equality. Jeff Bezos owning 10% of Amazon worth $X billion does not effect my life in any way. If he owned 50% or 0.001%, instead my life would still be the same.

I'm not sure why I need to be upset about that.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#218

Post by musictubes » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

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 say you will never understand why some American working class workers oppose unions. Well then I guess you will need be able to convince them otherwise. If your starting point is that the union experience is obviously a good one and you must be stupid to not see that, you have lost any chance of a serious conversation. People have reasons for feeling the way they do. Dismissing them as falling for propaganda is once again just calling them stupid.

I'm an American and I admit to having a very negative view of modern unions. When the word union comes up I immediately think of:

1) The Teamsters and their ties to organized crime 2) Police unions that shield officers from consequences 3) Teacher unions that prevent awful teachers from being fired 4) Ridiculous rules around duties on film/theater sets 5) The UAW is seen by many former workers as letting them down. Many other people feel the UAW bears some responsibilities for plant closures. 6) As supermarkets in my area started to unionize the service noticeably suffered. 7) Several friends were Verizon workers and felt that they were screwed by their union. 8) It is common for unions to fund candidates that many workers do not like.

If someone like myself has a negative view of unions it is up to people like yourself to change that perception if you want unions to gain traction in the US. Distrust of unions in the US are not always (usually?) driven by ignorance or propaganda. Unions themselves have done a very good job of alienating workers.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#219

Post by underbrush » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #204

underbrush wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take your reasons, which are really more opinions, and insert "free speech" instead of "unions" (after the appropriate changes) and you might understand why people would disagree.

How does "free speech" reward seniority, protect underperforming colleagues, prevent negotiating individually, etc?

That is why I said make the appropriate changes.

- I don't want free speech because it is unfair to award lazy thinking free riding off established publications.

- I don't want free speech because it is often exploited by terrorists.

- I think people should be free to say things but I don't think it should grant them special protection from the government.

etc.

It isn't an exact comparison but that also isn't the point.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#220

Post by Swizec » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

subpixel wrote: post #215

michaelchisari wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? My tech salary, adjusted for inflation, is almost exactly what my RN mother was making when she was my age. Maybe our salaries aren't that extraordinary, they're just the only ones that have kept up with inflation. Don't feel guilty about a tech salary, feel angry others been left behind.

Only a hundred years ago, a bunch of immigrants from places like Germany or Spain or Italy could arrive in New England (including New York City), perform manual labor, provide for their families on one income, and pool their additional money to _build whole buildings_ as social or fraternal clubs. That really puts things into perspective for me.

"provide for their families" was also a much lower standard than it is now. Back then having a good life (for immigrants at least) didn't mean a large house in the suburbs and 3 cars, it meant an entire family of 5 sharing 1 bedroom and walking everywhere. A pair of jeans was a multi generational investment. If your family could afford one bicycle, you were living large.

This was unimaginable wealth compared to what was available back home. You had all 3 meals and even meat! Meat! The luxury.

sauce: I'm from one of those European countries where 1 in 6 people emmigrated between 1880 and 1920. Literature from the time (that we read in school) contrasts the local situation with the riches of America as reported by people who sent letters.