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

51–60 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#51

Post by bombolo »

mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

So you are saying there is nothing wrong with a country where a few own everything and everyone else doesn't even have access to healthcare?

> In fact, people try to flee countries who implement that sort of resource allocation.

Yes, rich people, lol. People who GET access to things like housing and healthcare remain.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#52

Post by throw0101c »

mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

> What does inequality mean in this context?

Everything going to the top, and nothing going to those on the bottom.

> The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor.

Seems like your examples also have things going to the people at the top.

A comment from a few years ago that I saved:

> If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation.

> However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome? […]

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#53

Post by thepasswordis »

lilactown wrote: post #48
thepasswordis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

My dad and my grandpa worked for unions for decades, and they are the hardest working people I know and take great pride in that.

Good! I’m not saying you cant be a hard worker and also in a union, or even that a pro work union couldn’t exist.

I’m saying my experience with unions is that they’re anti work, and pro PMC.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#54

Post by ohCh6zos »

bombolo wrote: post #43
atsuzaki wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see it in the comments of this thread, even.

Yep, like the people who say they are better than their coworkers and say unions would make them compensated less… USA propaganda succeeded… they don't even realise the enemy is their CEO.

Why would the CEO be my enemy? A specific CEO maybe but that is a very broad claim to make.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#55

Post by throw0101c »

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.

> 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.

We then get into:

> In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods (such as public roads or public library), or services of a communal nature do not pay for them[1] or under-pay. Free riders are a problem because while not paying for the good (either directly through fees or tolls or indirectly through taxes), they may continue to access or consume it. Thus, the good may be under-produced, overused or degraded.[2] Additionally, it has been shown that despite evidence that people tend to be cooperative by nature, the presence of free-riders cause this prosocial behaviour to deteriorate, perpetuating the free-rider problem.[3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#56

Post by dantheman »

Zeyka wrote: post #23
JasonFruit wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, what they oppose isn't unions as such, but compulsory union membership. They consider that a union should arise from the expression of worker needs, and a union that they are forced to join and that exists whether they want it or not might lack incentives to represent their needs instead of the needs of the union. It's kind of like the saying about organizations in general: eventually they come to s…

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.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#57

Post by Devasta »

thepasswordis wrote: post #15
Zeyka wrote: post #3

I will never understand how some working class Americans can be against unions, maybe they just see themselves as embarrassed millionaires that would want to crush their workers to squeeze money out of them? It's probably my European brain, but I cannot understand how someone, say Jerry, 60 year old factory worker from idaho, can be against unions...

Because some people take pride in their work, and being essentially forced to do a bad job hurts them psychologically. I want to get up early, set big goals, work hard on them, and then see the fruits of that hard work. I take immense pride in that, and seeing the output in some sense is a big part of the payment. Unions don’t allow for this attitude, at least none of the ones that I have ever interacted with. They’r…

> I want to get up early, set big goals, work hard on them, and then see the fruits of that hard work.

You might see the fruits of your hard work, but it's your boss who reaps them.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#58

Post by sopooneo »

mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

I think your point about "feel better off" is critical, but I wonder if that stems more from comparison across generations or across the current population.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#59

Post by awinder »

thepasswordis wrote: post #41
ljw1001 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your characterization of unions is a propaganda driven falsehood, and your argument ignores the fact that Most people see less and less of the fruits of their labor.

Quoted post unavailable.

You’re:

1. Not actually detailing your life experience

2. Repeating tropes and stawmanning arguments that others aren’t making

3. Framing people you don’t agree with as “PMC people”, i.e. you’re not engaging with their arguments

Your final sentence applies in spades to how you’re arguing across the thread. Ridiculous.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#60

Post by ed25519FUUU »

avereveard wrote: post #47

This article puts together two graphs and absolutely give no backing as to which one is the causation of the other beyond "see?" or if there's any backing model for their correlation than one could go and test. This is sensationalistic propaganda, not research.

You would honestly think that in 2022 someone would critically ask the author if they’re falling into a “correlation implies causation” fallacy.
Post reply on HN