As unions decline, inequality rises • Hacker News Board

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#331

Post by acdha » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:15 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #310

acdha wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The rich people of the past had no internet, cars, air travel, or much health care by modern standards. The average 2022 American is vastly better off materially. What they had was social status, and I think that's more what you're talking about. Social status is incredibly important for humans, so I understand focusing on it. But since it's pretty much a Zero Sum Game, nothing much changes there.

Commercial aviation was just getting started, yes, But a rich person in 1922 had luxury rail travel, boats, cars, horses, etc. Most importantly, they had time: air travel is important for most of us because having a paltry couple weeks per year means people try to do things like weekend trips which couldn’t otherwise work. If you’re truly rich, you have a lot more margin for having other people do the unpleasant trips for you or adjusting schedules to suit your comfort.

Health care is the biggest differential - wealth can buy you out of a lot of lifestyle factors but a hundred years ago was just before the dawn of the antibiotic revolution. That part is true, but it isn’t a factor of rising incomes and given how many Americans have stress, lower quality of life, and experience severe financial strain due to healthcare costs I don’t think it’s attributable to higher incomes.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#332

Post by danaris » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:20 PM UTC

Zeyka wrote: post #46

bombolo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They think "oh no my lazy coworkers might get a bigger bonus!" rather than realising that their boss is the former lazy coworker. Basically the american idea that deserving people (aka myself) will magically prevail.

But that's the thing, meritocracy isn't a thing, and saying no to more protections (from unions or from pro-worker laws) just doesn't make sense. Granted there was some things I didn't know about how unions worked in the US, which I learned more about in this thread, but the same questions remain for pro worker and worker protection laws, why do Americans oppose them so much.

> meritocracy isn't a thing, and saying no to more protections (from unions or from pro-worker laws) just doesn't make sense

You know that, and I know that, but the right wing has been pushing anti-union, anti-worker, pro-corporate propaganda for several decades now. That propaganda also dovetails with the preexisting Protestant work ethic and labor theory of value that have been pretty solidly in the American consciousness since...well, basically before its founding as a country.

All that combined means that for people who aren't raised in a progressive, pro-union environment, and who don't encounter such an environment until their belief systems are fairly well-established, the default background noise is pretty much "Unions? Why would you need that, you pansy? Real Men are islands unto themselves, work hard, and are paid exactly what they're worth for that work. That's how you know the poor deserve to be poor!"

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#333

Post by scarmig » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:24 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #255

scarmig wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx didn't predict that capitalism wouldn't generate wealth. On the contrary, he believed it was the most economically revolutionary structure the world had yet devised and would create untold wealth. That's entirely consistent with the world we see. To be very specific, where he fell short was predicting a secular decline in the rate of profit. This wasn't a crazy error--most early economists also believed it--but…

He's referring to marx belief in the "tendency for the rate of profit to fall" which is literally objectively wrong and the opposite of it is accepted within economics. This is the accepted explanation, which implies that the rate of profit rises over time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem Btw, marx predicted that capitalism is inevitably destroyed due to tendency for the rate of profit to fall. I b…

I'd emphasize not only that there have been advances in theory but also in, more importantly, the empirical evidence. Marxism is a scientific theory in the sense that it can be falsified, and if you look at the rate of profit over time in most countries and periods, the evidence very strongly falsifies Marxism. Even if someone refuted Okishio, Marxism makes predictions about capitalist economics that simply aren't consistent with the world we see.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#334

Post by ljw1001 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:26 PM UTC

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.

Only management should be able to impose their will on employees and should be able to do so without competition. On the job, and during their “free-time”.

More seriously, imagine where not everyone is required to be in the union and think about how easy it then becomes for management to manipulate the environment to the detriment of union employees until the union is wiped out.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#335

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:27 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #287

edent wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I imagine the steelman version of the argument here is: yes, they do own part of the company, that portion of upside and control is so minuscule that it's almost insignificant. And thus we're back to needing unions to advocating on behalf of workers so that they get to own a bigger slice of the pie.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#336

Post by nec4b » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:29 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #324

nec4b wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

>> This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise).

I commend you for knowing logical fallacies. Though it would be even better if you were able to demonstrate those fallacies instead appealing to your own authority.

>> A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

I agree. Unfortunately, some people here claim developers working for google are entitled to their share of google's profits and carpenters working for said developers are not entitled to a share of profits from what those developers earn.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#337

Post by geraldwhen » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:30 PM UTC

KevinGlass wrote: post #325

klipt wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to "walk everywhere" is itself a kind of luxury nowadays, because there are limited walkable cities in the US and they have all become very expensive. It's often actually much cheaper to live somewhere in the suburbs where you can't walk everywhere, because everything is designed around cars.

The fact that everything is designed around cars is one of the invisible nooses around the neck of America. When you look around and notice that everything is covered in cars, that's hard to unnotice. All those cars, roads, parking lots, highways, box stores, mile of sewer and water pipe, cost a staggering amount and are going to start costing a lot more to maintain over the next decade as systems age out and need re…

Nobody wants to live in apartments. Maybe 20-something’s with no prospect of family, but that’s it.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#338

Post by RhysU » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:32 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #288

themitigating wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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.

Yes, but there are long-term disability insurance policies available for purchase that largely remove that risk. It's a cost, of course.

And, at least in the US, there are public programs that provide disability coverage already figured into one's taxes: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#339

Post by rexpop » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:37 PM UTC

KevinGlass wrote: post #325

klipt wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to "walk everywhere" is itself a kind of luxury nowadays, because there are limited walkable cities in the US and they have all become very expensive. It's often actually much cheaper to live somewhere in the suburbs where you can't walk everywhere, because everything is designed around cars.

The fact that everything is designed around cars is one of the invisible nooses around the neck of America. When you look around and notice that everything is covered in cars, that's hard to unnotice. All those cars, roads, parking lots, highways, box stores, mile of sewer and water pipe, cost a staggering amount and are going to start costing a lot more to maintain over the next decade as systems age out and need re…

It disturbs me that your comment is "greyed out," whatever that means: you're speaking an obvious truth. The car-scale of American infrastructure is an impediment to physical health; it's an impediment to social capital, and therefore to democracy and to mental health, as well. It funnels us down restricted, commercial avenues--pun intended. It's physically dangerous, it's chemically toxic, it's ecologically destructive, and it's damned expensive to maintain!

It's obvious when I visit a city / countryside with poor transit and pedestrian infrastructure how much more I suffer. It's so damned obvious, it's the first thing that screams out to me right when I land / pull in / ride up.

I can't understand what literate person would take issue with the core of your assertions.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#340

Post by JasonFruit » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #283

JasonFruit wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me put it in a less-fun way: "high reactance" is in this context just another way of saying "values freedom". Describing it using a wording that expresses psychologically-educated disapproval verbally pathologizes that preference, but it doesn't constitute a supported value judgment. In neither of your comments have you offered any support, so just like my "loves freedom", it remains an empty weasel-word.