As unions decline, inequality rises • Hacker News Board

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#231

Post by tgv » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

wallawe wrote: post #74

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...

If this is your take, you're not being honest about the downsides of unions. Here is a list of reasons for not wanting a union[1]: - I want my underperforming colleagues to be fired quickly. It's unfair and annoying that laggards are protected and free riding off their colleagues' (my) effort, and it leads to ineffective orgs. - I don't want seniority or rank to be rewarded. It's unfair to young people (me) who are m…

tldr: I think I can get more money, and screw the rest.

You’ve proven the point about inequality.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#232

Post by jmyeet » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

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…

> The rise in middle class ...

The "middle class" is a myth and is a propaganda tool for creating dissent. There are really only two classes:

1. Capital-owners. Think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc; and

2. Workers. This is anyone who trades their labor for an income. This covers everyone from the janitor to LeBron James.

The idea of the "middle class" is to create a division between them and the "lower class". The "middle class" often look down on the "lower class" and lump those who might rely on welfare, etc. The "lower class" will be blamed for many of society's ills.

The truth is there is no division. What you think of as the "middle class" and "lower class" are exactly the same and have way more in common than to the Musks, Bezos's and Buffett's of the world.

Billionaires have class solidarity. The dire situation of stagnant real wages and skyrocketing cost of living is largely a result of workers not having class solidarity.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#233

Post by runarberg » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #110

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…

You really need to squint at the sun to conclude that. As money interests have become more politically powerful, it’s harder and harder for employees to organize. You can get fired at Walmart if 4 people are caught talking to each other. It’s easy to rag on unions, but usually that’s a surface complaint ignoring the factors causing it. Even globalization is an example. There’s nothing etched in stone that says we nee…

There is also the fact that the so called “globalization” enabled the free flow of capital, but not the free flow of workers. Meaning it created geographically sanctioned low-labor zones for the capitalist class to exploit, while enforcing strict border controls such that international solidarity between workers of the world could never form.

This is an explicit policy choice by the ruling class, and has proven awfully convenient for the owning class.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#234

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

rubyn00bie wrote: post #130

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…

> World War II was a much bigger reason and a cause for this. I'm going to stop you right there because that shows you're quite literally making this up based on feelings or beliefs. You're totally misrepresenting the history of labor unions. Labor unions were on the rise all throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/the-history...

This backs up that labor unions grew a lot during the war and continued growing after the war.

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

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#235

Post by ncr100 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:08 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…

+1 Worker-Unions-conversation-point for using "oligarch" in a comment. /jk

The comment about "used to feel bad about making a lot of money" hits home for me, when I compare my wages to other family members who're struggling. Thanks for the perspective, it helps open me up a bit more about this.

Great information in the link, too - helps to consider whether and how a Union might be attractive, under various workplace circumstances.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#236

Post by Aunche » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:10 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.

That has more to do with the cost of building than a lack of pay. When you don't account for higher education, buildings, and healthcare, Americans are significantly richer than they were in the past. The problem is that politicians don't bother to address the underlying perverse incentives that are the root causes of these rising costs. They can win elections just fine by throwing money at the symptoms, even though they cause even more long-term pain. Until these root causes are addressed, most of the money squeezed from employers is simply going to go to the rent seekers in areas. The most clear example of this is tech salaries going to Bay Area landlords.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#237

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

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.

My theory is unions thrive when there's a labor shortage, so workers will get paid more just because there's a labor shortage, decreasing inequality. If there's a labor glut, the union model falls over because it can't maintain its monopoly, and executives pat themselves on the back for lowering production costs, even though it was mostly driven by the macro environment.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#238

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #87

bombolo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes for example an immigrant that is under threat of being deported might want a more level playing field.

Historically, unions in the United States have been strongly anti-immigrant because they were seen as competitors who lowered wages. Anyone who has been on HN long enough has seen the undercurrent of anti-H-1B sentiment whenever the topic comes up and a union would bring that nastiness and racism out to center stage. No, no immigrants in tech are going to want to vote for a union because a lot of its members think im…

It's not racism to oppose policies that lower my salary

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#239

Post by TaylorAlexander » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #227

Swizec wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The quality of living a family in the suburbs has today is like what a rich person a hundred years ago would have. I see people with houses, multiple brand new cars, TVs in every room, and who take a vacation at least once a year complain about the economy their entire life.

The fact that some people don’t know how well they have it is not evidence that everything is fine.

Watch a few news reports on poverty in America and you will see that a decent percentage of working adults live with their entire family in a small cramped apartment, can’t afford any vacation, and likely can’t afford emergency medical care if it comes up.

And even those people in the suburbs with all those TVs could have more financial security and work fewer hours if our economy was more fairly arranged.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#240

Post by tbrownaw » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

7sidedmarble wrote: post #207

tbrownaw wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"deserve" doesn't exist. What does exist is "what price makes the market clear". Assigned moral worth or whatever "deserve" is trying to get at has nothing to do with economics.

Why shouldn't we have ethical opinions about the economy?

So, things like "functioning markets are good" and "price-fixing is bad"?