Live data from Hacker News

As unions decline, inequality rises

epi.org

391–400 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#391
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...no. Better players make more money (due to meritocracy). Do you think the better players should make the same as the worst players?

> Better players make more money Well you define "better players" as "those making more money"… so in the end you are proving your statement via tautology. Which is meaningless. In any case, even admitting that meritocracy in football works (it probably doesn't)… so what? Most workers aren't professional football players.

I feel like you're trolling, or just setting up a strawman since the argument has been lost. But in good faith, I'll try one more time.

"Better players" are defined by production on the field. That better play on the field then results in higher contracts for the better players. I'm not defining better players by the size of their contracts. Players who never perform well won't get the biggest contracts. Which is meritocratic, by definition.

   > Most workers aren't professional football players.
No, but it's just one of many examples that proves there are people who significantly outperform their peers. The idea of rewarding them more as a result of better performance is what a meritocracy is.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never said that just like no one said "oh no my lazy coworkers might get a bigger bonus!". You seem to insist on mischaracterizing what people say. Why?

> I try and excel in my role and others are less interested in doing so. I should be promoted faster and compensated higher.

I was referring to this comment.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#393
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in Detroit. It was a place where a high school diploma could get you a secure job that would support a middle class family. It’s all changed and Detroit is now half the size it once was while cities like Houston and Austin have grown tremendously. Why did that happen? Did corrupt unions kill the goose that laid the golden eggs? Or was it poor management of the automotive giants that a…

There was a combination of factors. I suggest reading the book "On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors" for some starting information. But for some information upfront, in the 1950s GM had become the largest automotive company in the world, buying makes from all over the world with the money they made from their contracts with the U.S. government during World War II and the subsequent money from their core U.S. divisions within the Sloan Ladder. GM had seen Volkswagen as a threat, but only Volkswagen thanks to their quick proliferation during the 1950s at the lower end of the market. To them the French were essentially making toys, the Spanish would never make anything worthwhile under Franco, the Italians had already gained a reputation for extremely fragile and temperamental cars, and the Japanese were producing enclosed golf carts. Only the British and the Germans were a threat, but by the mid 1960s British automotive manufacturing was nosediving, and German cars were still divided into economy and ultra luxury with almost nothing in between thanks to slow post war recovery and targeting the U.S. upscale market.

During the 1950s the U.S. had invested huge amounts of money into Japanese manufacturing in order to have a cheap place to outsource labor to, and as a good will gesture after what happened during World War II. The Japanese, taking technology from American manufacturers, started making their own advancements. By the late 1960s they were on-par with the Americans in ingenuity, but lacking in quality. This applied to everything from their radios to their cars. At the same time, the Japanese yen was inflated compared to the dollar, making it a good idea to export Japanese goods to the U.S. so that Japanese companies could then trade in U.S. dollars internationally. The goods were cheaper to manufacture and import, and it made companies like Matsushita and JVC quite a lot of money they'd use in the 1970s. Toyota and Nissan were also picking up on this, selling the Toyota Crown and Corona in the U.S. as lower cost luxury options and the Nissan Bluebird (as the Datsun 510) as a cheaper alternative to European sports sedans.

In the U.S., by 1965, GM had a majority control of every market. They had done this by essentially siloing every division and making them work on their own, with their own funds, with no collaboration between divisions without executive permission. Permission which was often not granted. This worked fine for the European and Australian divisions like Vauxhall and Holden, but it was starting to strain the U.S. divisions. Then in 1968 three disasters occurred simultaneously for GM. Semon "Bunkie" Knudsen defected to Ford. Chrysler began courting Mitsubishi for captive imports of cheaper Japanese cars. And Lee Iaccocca perfected the personal luxury coupe with the upcoming 1970 Ford LTD and Lincoln Continental Mark IV, the dominant car template of the 1970s.

In 1973 you had a massive recession thanks the the 1973 OPEC Crisis and the 1973 Stock Market crash. These new huge vehicles that Iaccocca had gotten the U.S. addicted to were suddenly much more expensive to buy and run thanks to being opulent and thirsty. Ford was not immune to this, despite the success of the Lincoln Continental and Mercury Grand Marquis. This worked in Chrysler's favor however, as they had both the Dart in the wings and their captive Mitsubishis. Chevrolet meanwhile had blown public trust with the Vega in 1970 thanks to it rusting on the dealer's lots and destroying it's engine within the first month of ownership. Then once again they took a hit with the 1971 Pontiacs and Buicks, both of which were poorly received due to polarizing styling and issues like the trunks filling with water thanks to a ventilation engineering oversight. Chrysler had misread the market with their 1968 styling, and it took costly changes to slowly update the body dies to be in line with industry styling by 1973.

This primed the Japanese manufacturers to swoop in and take over. Datsun struck first, with the B210 and the 720 taking spots in the economy car and mini truck markets that the Big Three had ignored. Honda hit next with the Civic CVCC, capitalizing on the 1973 OPEC Crisis to provide a fuel efficient vehicle to panicking Americans who weren't satisfied with the disappointing Ford Pinto and Dodge/Plymouth Aspen/Volare twins. Toyota came in last, but strongest, introducing the third generation Corolla and reworking the Celica slightly for 1976 to fit American tastes. With the combination of Americans scrambling for smaller and more fuel efficient cars, the weak Japanese yen compared to the dollar, cheaper Japanese manufacturing due to automation, and cheaper Japanese steel thanks to being untreated and of thinner gauge, Japanese cars sold like crazy after 1973 and spread from California all the way to the East Coast.

This of course caused the Big Three to panic. GM tried several times to fix the Vega and it's siblings, only managing to make just as bad a car each time in the Monza and then the Cavalier. The 1980 X cars were a disaster, with the Chevrolet Citation and it's sisters driving customers away from GM for life. The failed 1985 downsizing of the full sized cars under Ed Cole's direction left every division's cars looking like clones of eachother both inside and out. And finally the dilution of the Oldsmobile brand by naming every car Cutlass killed their last golden goose. The GM10 "W-body" cars, meant to come out by the 1984 model year and engineered to the standards of the 1980 Honda Civic, ended up five years and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget when they arrived in 1988 as 1989 model years.

Ford disregarded the 1970s oil crises almost entirely, continuing to bank on large personal luxury coupes to keep them afloat. A token gesture was placing the Mustang on the Pinto platform for 1974 and playing it up as a baby Thunderbird rather than the performance heavy brute it was in the 1960s. By 1978 these tactics had nearly bankrupted the company, forcing a scramble to the Fox platform as they quickly downsized everything and killed vaunted nameplates to scrub any ill will from the brand. Were it not for the continued sales of the Lincoln Continental Mark V and the development of the Tempo and American Escort, Ford might've followed the path of AMC in the 1980s.

Chrysler was... Chrysler. They were up and down like a spring as they had always been. They suffered through 1973, suffered the failure of the Aspen and Volare, suffered the death of their profit ensuring muscle cars due to rising insurance costs and the fuel crisis, and suffered having to sell an ailing Rootes Group and essentially leaving the European market. But before they sold the Rootes Group they filched a rather interesting piece of technology in the Talbot Horizon. A car which they reverse engineered into the Dodge Omni, the basis of the K-Cars that Lee Iaccocca would champion and eventually pervert throughout his stay at Chrysler during the 1980s. As such Chrysler was the best positioned to survive the 1980s.

But then we come back to Europe. To the already small, fuel efficient, high quality cars that GM had thought no threat in the 1960s. If, during the 1970s, GM had brought over vehicles such as the Opel Rekord and Vauxhall Astra, they would never have had to waste money developing the Vega, the Monza, and the Cavalier. The cars already fit the market GM was targeting. The same was true of Ford. If Ford had brought over the Ford Escort, Taunus, and Granada, they wouldn't have had any need to develop the Pinto, Tempo, and Fairmont. Detroit was too insular and xenophobic to take the option that would have saved them. An option they would inevitably end up adopting thirty five years later anyways.

Detroit died for a number of reasons. But the main reason was the pride of Ford and GM.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compare to 30 years ago instead. Wealth in terms of being able to buy property is decreasing in many countries, which can be more significant than any increased ability to buy consumer gadgets (that will spy on you). And the countries with less wealth inequality don't in principle have less wealthy common people.

Nah [0]. If you live in a NIMBY hellhole you can always move somewhere more affordable.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#395
post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better players make more money Well you define "better players" as "those making more money"… so in the end you are proving your statement via tautology. Which is meaningless. In any case, even admitting that meritocracy in football works (it probably doesn't)… so what? Most workers aren't professional football players.

I feel like you're trolling, or just setting up a strawman since the argument has been lost. But in good faith, I'll try one more time. "Better players" are defined by production on the field. That better play on the field then results in higher contracts for the better players. I'm not defining better players by the size of their contracts. Players who never perform well won't get the biggest contracts. Which is mer…

Italian players are paid a lot and italy didn't even qualify… are you still insisting on the correctness of your easily disproved theory?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#396

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…

This is a really good question, and there isn’t a clear answer. I’m only answering this from the left point of view though, so take it with a pinch of salt. Traditional labor theory can make arguments for both, if you put in most of the work, then you deserve most of the benefits. However the case for equal pay is also solid, especially if the fruits of labor are abundant. How much does 5 million give you that 1 mill…

Workers can bank their paychecks and walk away at any time. They would deserve more of the benefits if they bore more of the risks of failure, like investors are doing.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#397
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.

> To everybody who thinks this is just correlation and not causation - read the post properly.

A quick glance at the chart and one could also show a link between federal income tax rates and executive compensation.

If you are taxed 73% you simply don’t have any incentive to “increase inequality” — you pay someone to show your income as a lot less than it really is. The real irony is the Reagan tax cuts resulted in more revenue because it just wasn’t worth the trouble to dodge paying taxes anymore.

Correlation, causation, lies, statistics, who knows?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#398
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in Detroit. It was a place where a high school diploma could get you a secure job that would support a middle class family. It’s all changed and Detroit is now half the size it once was while cities like Houston and Austin have grown tremendously. Why did that happen? Did corrupt unions kill the goose that laid the golden eggs? Or was it poor management of the automotive giants that a…

> Did corrupt unions kill the goose that laid the golden eggs?

Yes, go look up % of costs going to labor for the USA automotive industry back during the glory days of Detroit. The only reason it worked at all was there wasn't a fraction of the global competition.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#399
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All great points. To add: As someone who's worked blue collar jobs, it is all too common for unions to protect assholes from getting fired. This leads to a hostile work environment created by the "high seniority" workers. Something I don't like whenever these discussions come up is the condescending tone, from white collar workers. "Don't these poor people know what's good for them????" Working class people are capab…

Poor people? I think rich techies are crazy - or rather, badly misinformed- not to start a union. Exhibit A of poorly informed: grandparent poster seriously thinking he has more individual bargaining power against trillion dollar corporations than a collective bargaining agreement would. Exhibit B: grandparent poster thinking collective bargaining _must_ entail many aspects like seniority based compensation that are…

> Tom Brady is in the NFL players association. Tom Cruise is in the Screen Actors guild.

You think that has anything to do with their compensation? Tom Brady has won how many Super Bowls? Tom Cruise has had how many blockbuster movies?

The opposite should be true if unions were the great equalizers, no single actor/athlete would be making hundreds of millions a year and all of them would be making enough to buy a house in Beverly Hills.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#400
post #390
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if someone taxed you an absolute amount that would leave 50% of your countrymen penniless? And they denied you tax breaks, like the child credit, that they grant themselves? And then that same 50% vilified you to boot?

I would be absolutely fine, because I was on 3x the national average income . I would not go onto national television and act like earning way more than anyone else made me a modern suffragette.

Nobody said "not fine". You mentioned "economically disadvantaged". Such a person person literally is disadvantaged in some economic ways. Not all. Not most. But some.
Post reply on HN