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

281–290 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#281

Post by AnimalMuppet »

edent wrote: post #242
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Neither view will do.

The company can't succeed without the workers. The company also can't succeed without capital. Both deserve to get a cut of the rewards.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#282

Post by ClumsyPilot »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #245
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.

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 t…

People who go on about markets pretend that power dynamics and behavioural economics don't exist.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#283

Post by kelseyfrog »

JasonFruit wrote: post #263
kelseyfrog wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been my experience as well. It's pure reactance psychology. From the first paragraph of the wiki page > Reactance is an unpleasant motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when an individual feels that an agent is attempting to limit one's choice of response and/or range of alternatives. When I think about the peop…

You say "loves freedom" like it's a bad thing.

"Loves freedom" isn't as clear of a maximum of utility as it's sometimes made out to be. Again, the association with those of high reactance strong.

I'm fully aware that there will be attempts to naturalize "freedom loving." That's the interesting thing about psychology and I suppose in this case sociology, particulars are often universalized into a neurosis. It's funny how this pattern holds.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#284

Post by nec4b »

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?

Do you have ethical opinions for example about Newton's laws in physics? Or do you accept them for what they are?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#285

Post by candyman »

Seems like less regulation and less government leads to greater efficiency. The rich get richer often because of government loopholes. Carried interest is a simple one but in the 77,000+ pages of the tax code the rich have the resources to use lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes. Anyone getting a W2 has very limited wiggle room on avoiding the tax bite.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#286

Post by nec4b »

edent wrote: post #242
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#287

Post by pclmulqdq »

edent wrote: post #242
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

In most cases, they do co-own the company, through stock and options grants. Particularly so for the early employees who are not replaceable.

At Google's scale, everyone is replaceable, including Jeff Dean, Sundar Pichai, and everyone else who you think is "instrumental."

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#288

Post by acdha »

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.

Not even close. That rich person had servants, could go on lengthy vacations, etc. and most likely they had substantial passive income.

The key thing to understand is the difference in how precarious those situations are: that affluent suburbanite has some shiny things but their cash flow is much higher than their wealth. A TV in every room is a rounding error on the $11k/year each of those new cars costs on average, and over the course of someone’s working life that kind of thing makes a huge difference in net worth.

The American healthcare system factors into this significantly: if your income depends on showing up to work daily, all of that can go away with a single health incident which leaves you unable to work. A truly rich person is considerably more likely to be able to ride something like that out.

Similarly, retirement is a source of stress for many Americans. Having given mortgage processors and car companies millions of dollars over your life won’t help you much then.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#289

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jmyeet wrote: post #232
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 div…

I am a worker. I am also a capital owner, though on a small scale, from investing the surplus of my pay for my labor.

I am far from alone. And the existence of people like me kind of blows up your neat theory.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#290

Post by ClumsyPilot »

whiddershins wrote: post #214
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.

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

There is no material improvement in wealth over the past 20 years, but inequality has grown.

Wealth is produced by innovation, and greater concentratuon of wealth will lead to less innovation.

Post reply on HN