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

91–100 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#91

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

wpietri wrote: post #77
dantheman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are anti-immigrant.

Do you have any current data on that? I think it was true of the "Reagan Democrat" variety of union worker in the 1980s, but I suspect it's an outdated stereotype now. For example, SEIU, one of America's largest unions, represents a lot of immigrants and is strongly pro-immigrant: https://www.seiu.org/justice-for-immigrants/

The only reason blue collar workers' unions changed their tune is because they were unable to stop the flow of illegal immigration. On the other hand, restricting H-1Bs and green cards is a battle that many think they can win.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#92

Post by js8 »

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.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#93

Post by skummetmaelk »

next_xibalba wrote: post #81
Devasta wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.

This is shocking news to me. How many extra votes does Rupert Murdoch get? What is the exchange rate from dollars to votes, precisely?

Is this sarcasm? I actually cannot tell.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#94

Post by ubercore »

wallawe wrote: post #74
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...

If this is your take, you're not being honest about the downsides of unions. Here is a list of reasons for not wanting a union[1]: - I want my underperforming colleagues to be fired quickly. It's unfair and annoying that laggards are protected and free riding off their colleagues' (my) effort, and it leads to ineffective orgs. - I don't want seniority or rank to be rewarded. It's unfair to young people (me) who are m…

I think you have a very US-centric lens on unions. In the Nordic countries, for example, unions operate entirely differently. So you need to be clear where your points come from.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#95

Post by lisper »

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...

Two big factors:

1. American capitalists have waged a very effective propaganda campaign against unions and

2. American unions have had a history of corruption. (Or maybe I just think that because I've been taken in by the propaganda campaign.)

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#96

Post by flanflan »

next_xibalba wrote: post #81
Devasta wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.

This is shocking news to me. How many extra votes does Rupert Murdoch get? What is the exchange rate from dollars to votes, precisely?

is this a serious comment? Rupert murdoch is a global media baron, he literally owns news outlets that encourage people to vote in one way or another. Do you think those news outlets are free of his ideology? do you think the washington post is free of Bezos' ideology?

Even billionaires and millionaires who dont own media companies have outsized influence. They can fund politicians they prefer to an extent that a rival might not be able to match. They can pay for lobbyists. There are a myriad of ways that dollars turn into votes without a mustachioed man walking around with a bag of money being involved. Mass movements aside the working class isnt out there propping up politicians.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#97

Post by [deleted] »

wallawe wrote: post #74
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...

If this is your take, you're not being honest about the downsides of unions. Here is a list of reasons for not wanting a union[1]: - I want my underperforming colleagues to be fired quickly. It's unfair and annoying that laggards are protected and free riding off their colleagues' (my) effort, and it leads to ineffective orgs. - I don't want seniority or rank to be rewarded. It's unfair to young people (me) who are m…

[deleted]

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#98

Post by MoreSEMI »

goodpoint wrote: post #89
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…

> There is a problem with correlation vs causation in the article’s logic No, there isn't. The causation is self-evident, and also unsurprising since it's the whole point of unions.

I think stating that something is self-evident is not a helpful argument. First, it seemingly isn’t or else parent would not have posted as such. And secondly, something being self evident is only used when you want to describe an axiom because you cannot prove otherwise.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#99

Post by gfdsgfsdgfdsg »

throw0101c wrote: post #76
Closi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules/influence in a system which has wealthy people? Personally I think lower inequality in our society would be a good thing - but also with political influence there are more direct faults/solutions.

> Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules? In the US those are intertwined: > The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citiz…

The New York Times is funded by the rich. Should their speech be restricted too?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#100

Post by BurningFrog »

zip1234 wrote: post #42
jasode wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's probably my European brain, but I cannot understand how someone [...] can be against unions... America unions are structured differently from Europe and some can become as distrusted by the workers as the corporation. Your viewpoint is common but it's based on the mental model of "Unions are good. Period end of story." But for voters like your proverbial Jerry against unions, the mental model is more about trad…

There are also public sector unions which appear to only serve a special interest group at the expense of everyone else. Teacher unions are an example--they appear to protect bad teachers, stifle innovation, and it isn't even clear that they are great at getting pay for teachers.

> unions which appear to only serve a special interest group at the expense of everyone else

I mean, the intended purpose of unions is to serve their members, at the expense of non members.

Post reply on HN