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

241–250 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#241

Post by xboxnolifes »

underbrush wrote: post #219
leereeves wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poi…

You're right, it's not a comparison at all.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#242

Post by edent »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #168
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…

One of the memes that you frequently see in the upper middle class left-leaning tech worker circles is that anything less than a worker co-op is ultimately an organizational structure that is inequitable and exploitative to its labor force, leading to negative externalities for society at large. I'm 100% ignorant of the history of labor and of all philosophical dialectic around it, but I would love to form an opinion…

The traditional view is that "The workers control the means of production".

Suppose you built a successful small company but, suddenly, every employee quit at once. Could your business carry on the next day? Could it survive until you hired and trained replacements?

If the answer is "no" then you have made the case that employees both deserve to share in the business's success and will probably be incentivised by co-owning the company.

Does the janitor deserve as much of the profits as the CTO? Well, what premium do you put on your other employees not getting sick, or injuring themselves?

(Wasn't there a case where a Google chef made a fortune from stocks? Much to the chagrin of some?)

The opposite argument is that those who risk capital are the only ones who deserve the reward. Without investment, a company can't launch or grow. Workers are an operational cost - they are paid for labour and no more deserving of reward than the electricity company. Both provide a service but neither takes a risk.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#243

Post by mftrhu »

dantheman wrote: post #56
Zeyka wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's fair enough, but it's not like workers in the USA have a lot of protections or are getting fairly compensated for their work. So unions, whether compulsory or not, still benefit them in one way or another.

I mean Americans are paid far more highly than Europeans, so I don't see how this is correct.

Are they, really?

How did they end up not having enough cash on hand to cover minor emergencies, then? How are they going bankrupt over healthcare costs - even when insured through their job - while having to worry about not being able to take a day off?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#244

Post by MoreSEMI »

geysersam wrote: post #157
MoreSEMI wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, fair point from an individuals view. But considering that its known that unions are a controversial opinion, it would still seem rash to state its obviousness.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#245

Post by TaylorAlexander »

tbrownaw wrote: post #184
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…

"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.

I phrase things like this: the lack of real labor power through unions or ideally worker cooperatives leads to bad deals for workers. It would be in the interest of workers to build collective power and demand better compensation or start their own cooperatives to guarantee higher pay and benefits.

This has to be said because collective action necessarily requires convincing a lot of people to do it. But either way this language avoids the claim of right and wrong and simply focuses on the fact that workers today get a bad deal due to poor bargaining power.

It’s also not just about markets. The federal government places severe restrictions on what organized labor can do to advocate for itself: Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 Aka “Taft-Hartley Act” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#246

Post by Devasta »

missedthecue wrote: post #211
Devasta wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When people talk about wealth, they generally include assets such as the companies owned.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#247

Post by blululu »

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…

Not trying to start a flame war, but the Japanese are an example of an economy where unions work really well. Their constitution and labor laws were largely written by New Deal Democrat inflected occupation forces who set up labor rights that Detroit fought against (somewhat successfully) for years. Some have even gone to suggest that the competitiveness of their auto industry stems from the fact that labor is effectively a fixed cost and a controlling stakeholder so the incentives to improveme process align nicely. This isn’t a pro/con union position it is more of a nuance that some unions are better than others and the historical/legal context for unions shapes that effecitvness. Unions can be a positive force but they can also be a negative force. A one sided account for them being good or bad is just too simplistic to be credible.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#248

Post by mftrhu »

bartart wrote: post #165
pjmlp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving goal posts, but yeah, Europe lacks a SV with venture capitalists raining money on every crazy idea, with Tony Stark like feudal lords pushing their minions to sleep in office with promises of free drinks and pizza, hoping to capitalize on the startup being sold. Thankfully.

I am curious, is putting up with the occasional self-obsessed ceo not worth it? For example Tesla has a market value greater than every European carmaker combined, having gone from approximately 0 annual car deliveries to over a million in just a few years while revolutionizing electric travel. Or with space x developing reusable rockets that have utterly transformed the industry. These companies will contribute to e…

No. They keep whatever actual wealth they might end up creating - if and when they even manage that - and the only thing that trickles down from them is their ego.

I prefer not being subject to their whims.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#249

Post by 33955985 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #193
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.

Not only inflation but with debt. You can do extremely well with just a Bachelor’s in CS. Professions like nursing, medicine, law, even business have had their earning potential sapped by larger and larger costs of education. And degrees past Bachelor’s are less well supported by financial aid schemes.

If there is one “tech disruption” I hope actually sticks is the death of credentialism and the rise of proof of ability by doing. I have only a bachelor’s in a liberal art(!) and working in tech has opened up so many doors for me, in teams where nobody cared where I went to school and my lack of a master’s was met with curious shrugs.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#250

Post by slg »

tbrownaw wrote: post #184
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…

"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.

This is only true if you think "economics" and "capitalism" are the same thing.
Post reply on HN