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

361–370 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#361

Post by bombolo »

MoreSEMI wrote: post #127
bombolo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would the CEO be my enemy? I studied some basic economics. The goal for a player seems to be to obtain the maximum, giving the least. For his very role, the CEO will pay you the least amount he can get away with. Ok he won't think of a few dollars or cents, because it's not worth to think about it… but when you negotiate your salary he would give you a negative raise if he could get away with it. And during nor…

Would you not try to do something similar in working as minimally as possible for the pay? Does that make someone a bad person? Everyone tries to min-max life. Doesn’t make them enemies or bad people, it just makes them…people.

Yes of course I'm doing the same. I'm not saying CEO should be put to death… I'm saying that people have to understand their natural allies are people in their same situation.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#362

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #293
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you employ multiple workers, either directly or through your investments, to be able to sustain yourself through profits? You are the perfect example - someone who's managed to squairrel away a tiny fraction of the capital pie and now imagines himself to be in a different class. Just because you now own a sandwind does not you a capitalism make.

My IRA and 401K aren't quite enough to sustain me, yet, but I'm getting there.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#363

Post by pjmlp »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #264
pjmlp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, lets remove those from my list. Spotify, SAP, Skype, Unity, Sitecore, OutSystems, Vodafone, ...

Even though it was founded in Denmark, Unity is a US HQ company now, and Vodafone is basally a body shop now mostly (what's their latest successful product?). Plus, naming 6 random European tech companies doesn't prove anything. Every country has tech companies. How many exactly doesn't really matter in this comparison, what matters is revenues and market cap. Consider that the US tech sector is worth significantly m…

Well they need the money to make up for being left alone to care for themselves.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#364

Post by Spooky23 »

Aunche wrote: post #357
Spooky23 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me how globalization has improved conditions in the Congo?

Companies don't want to invest in a unstable and corrupt country. Even so, the rapid rise in HDI of the DRC aligns with the growth of their exports. You seem to be implying that colonization is synonymous with globalization, but let me dispel this notion. The problematic part of colonization were the protectionist aspects of it. The Congolese were unable to compete for the same administrative positions of that the Be…

I didn’t say that.

I said that globalization is an example of money driving policy at the exclusion of all else. High minded bullshit about resource extraction making your life better is similar to the bullshit narratives used as justification of colonialism.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#365

Post by UncleMeat »

nec4b wrote: post #298
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans design the system in which the market operates. Obviously one cannot make an appeal to change physics.

We design car and planes just as well with physics.

And if somebody makes a shitty car that contains an extra bomb that randomly explodes and kills people we tell them that's a shitty car. We don't blame physics.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#366

Post by bombolo »

yucky wrote: post #149
Zeyka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 One of many examples I can give to disprove this as I'm sitting here watching Croatia & Morocco in the World Cup, is looking at some of the contracts some of these players get from their clubs. Wide disparity and definitely seems to be based on a meritocracy. Taken further, why are none of these fans in the stands, many of whom who also play for fun not equally compensated or even compensa…

> So now that we've established that meritocracy is obviously a real thing

We have? Because… a football match was played? What did it prove exactly?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#368

Post by bombolo »

ww-picard-do wrote: post #347
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.

You are being very patronizing. Other people in this thread have given reasonable explanations for not liking unions. You are free to disagree, of course, but being smug about it is rude.

Like the one "office workers don't need unions because meritocracy"… if you think that's reasonable… I can only think of it as reasonable if you start from made up facts to reach the conclusion.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#369

Post by RhysU »

acdha wrote: post #348
RhysU wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

Which somewhat reduce that risk. People on SSI are usually struggling, not affluent, and actually getting those benefits can be a struggle for people with conditions less clear cut than, say, losing limbs. I’m not saying they’re not worth having but again that there’s a big gap between someone being rich and a middle-class worker with decent active income.

Definitely, the SSI application process can be onerous. It is meant for people who can do no job not just their pre-incident job.

Definitely, SSI is not a full-time job income. That's why a worker with decent active income should look into private, long-term disability insurance.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#370

Post by vladvasiliu »

rexpop wrote: post #341
geraldwhen wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The post to which you're responding said nothing about apartments. Do you mind connecting a few dots for those of us less well-versed in the presumptions of your milieu?

The post didn't explicitly say "apartment", but it said:

> Living in a semi-crowded city, near your family and friends, should be the default, cheap option.

What kind of dwelling, apart from apartments, are there in a "semi-crowded city"? They may not be high-rises, but even if it's a "multi-family house", it's still "apartments". There's only a (usually thin) wall separating your room from your neighbor's. This is one of the main aspects people typically hate about apartments.

Post reply on HN