Are unions good?

[Birdjaguar]

The real question isn't about whether or not unions are good (or bad). The focus should be on how they can be useful and beneficial to people. Any institution or organization can be corrupted to benefit those in charge more than the people they serve. The best approach is to establish the outcomes needed to improve the life of the bottom 50% of the US population and then figure out the best way to get them given the US system.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well ultimately UBI is more cost-efficient than all a welfare state. A welfare state causes economic distortion and has a high administrative cost. UBI is simple to administer, and doesn't directly distort the economy. In other words, UBI establishes a baseline without disrupting the efficiency of the open market.

Theoretically. I have my doubts.

 

[Lexicus]

Address the roads point. Did the public sector invent cars? Did they figure out how to mass produce them at a price that consumers could afford? I don't think so!

Sure, I'll address the roads point:

Just to make this point clear, that would be like saying that the public sector invented the widespread use of the automobile because roads were built with public money. It took entrepreneurs to imagine putting cars on those roads to actually make that something that benefited people.

This is a terrible analogy because the widespread adoption of paved roads actually came way after the widespread adoption of the automobile.

Now, I wouldn't say something like "the public sector invented the widespread use of the automobile." I might say that widespread use of the automobile would be impossible without public infrastructure, so calling widespread use of the automobile a "product of deregulation" would simpy be factually wrong - since aside from the fact that government built the roads, it is public regulations about road use that allow the roads to be used widely!

IN the case of the internet, the technologies were literally developed by the public sector. The internet flat-out would not exist if the public sector had not made these investments. If your point is that the private sector is what made the internet actually available to most ordinary people, I wouldn't disagree, but would note that private ISPs - which, again, in this country operate in an environment that is nothing like a free market - leave a lot to be desired in terms of efficient service delivery, and that (as of 2016 anyway) the highest-rated ISP in the United States in terms of customer satisfaction is actually a municipal (public) broadband corporation.

By the way, communist governments tend to be good at investing in a bunch of useless infrastructure, so your mindset on the internet is totally reflective of how your mistaken view translates into real life problems.

What do you think communist governments have to do with the argument I'm making here?

 

[Zardnaar]

The real question isn't about whether or not unions are good (or bad). The focus should be on how they can be useful and beneficial to people. Any institution or organization can be corrupted to benefit those in charge more than the people they serve. The best approach is to establish the outcomes needed to improve the life of the bottom 50% of the US population and then figure out the best way to get them given the US system.

Pretty much. First step win elections.

Democracy is two steps forward one step back.

Sometimes one step forward two steps back.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, I'll address the roads point:


This is a terrible analogy because the widespread adoption of paved roads actually came way after the widespread adoption of the automobile.

Now, I wouldn't say something like "the public sector invented the widespread use of the automobile." I might say that widespread use of the automobile would be impossible without public infrastructure, so calling widespread use of the automobile a "product of deregulation" would simpy be factually wrong - since aside from the fact that government built the roads, it is public regulations about road use that allow the roads to be used widely!

IN the case of the internet, the technologies were literally developed by the public sector. The internet flat-out would not exist if the public sector had not made these investments. If your point is that the private sector is what made the internet actually available to most ordinary people, I wouldn't disagree, but would note that private ISPs - which, again, in this country operate in an environment that is nothing like a free market - leave a lot to be desired in terms of efficient service delivery, and that (as of 2016 anyway) the highest-rated ISP in the United States in terms of customer satisfaction is actually a municipal (public) broadband corporation.



What do you think communist governments have to do with the argument I'm making here?

My theory is both have a role to play. Government provides utilities and infrastructure, private sector luxuries.

 

[Lexicus]

My theory is both have a role to play. Government provides utilities and infrastructure, private sector luxuries.

I mean, I'd go quite a bit further than that and say the distinction is largely arbitrary since the "private sector" cannot exist absent the state. No corporation can exist, no business activity can really take place, without the state acting as a guarantor on some level. The criminal underworld shows what happens when the state can't be relied on in that way and I'm not sure anyone would want to argue that the criminal underworld is a model the rest of society should emulate.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, I'd go quite a bit further than that and say the distinction is largely arbitrary since the "private sector" cannot exist absent the state. No corporation can exist, no business activity can really take place, without the state acting as a guarantor on some level. The criminal underworld shows what happens when the state can't be relied on in that way and I'm not sure anyone would want to argue that the criminal underworld is a model the rest of society should emulate.

Point. The government has a role IMHO one way or another.

 

[Angst]

Do you own a smartphone?

Bought a used one for ~60 bucks. Has worked for a long time. If we assume that increased scarcity increased costs by 12X (not your 3-4x), I could still afford it on the dole. And if I couldn't, I'd have to do without. End of story.

Have you ever purchased various widgets/cups/clothes at Target or Walmart?

No. I deliberately buy expensive goods that are made by union-driven companies.

Ever check the "Made in X" sticker of those?

Yes, I track this. Above, and for the record, I've been researching my purchases for 10 years at this point and continuously do so.

And keep in mind, even if you are wealthy enough to afford more expensive products, the vast majority of people have experienced meaningfully higher qualities of life by purchasing products assembled in countries with fewer protections for workers/labor not to mention lower cost of living.

So again, my point is that just being "pro-union" or "pro-labor" is myopic in the extreme unless you acknowledge that this position represents a trade-off between the consumer and the worker.

There's a trade-off indeed, and I acknowledge that, but calling me/inferring me to be a hypocrite is nonsense and honestly isn't important to the discussion. Personally I buy very little. I'm actually on the lowest income bracket and still afford what I need. In Denmark, where everything is incredibly expensive. (The Target/Walmart point is off here and kind of weird, since you know, not all people live in the US? Still, what I'm saying holds true in the equivalents of my country).

The point is the trade-off and the overall economy, not my personal consumption; if it were the latter, there would be no argument. Not everyone is in my situation and not everyone has the mental resources to thoroughly research what they buy.

So if we could get off my back, please, and talk about the more general situation, in which, yes, I still think cheap smartphones made off the back of slavelike conditions isn't acceptable. We've only had smartphones for, what, 10 years? 15? This is not an eternal status quo. There are ways to work with it.

Again, I'm biased here, based on my personal consumption, which is quite union-friendly. Which is why I'd rather talk about a general picture.

EDIT:

I see that you support UBI, which I do as well, however I'm tentative about it, as UBI is still a novel idea with little practical evidence of working. But I do support it. I do think, however, that unions are a more immediate, established solution to a lot of the problems the modern West faces; if anything, I believe the Danish model is reasonably succesful. Would I throw that away for a straightforward UBI-based model? I don't know. I want to know, I want to support it, but I don't know enough. Too much theory, too little practical application (so far). And I need to eat.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not sure anyone would want to argue that the criminal underworld is a model the rest of society should emulate.

There was one dude who tried making that argument for the last four years.

 

[sendos]

Union membership has been on the decline for a while. Perhaps it is because we are more individualistic than we used to be? Perhaps less sociable as well?

As a political movement, this is a problem. If a party is too tied to the union movement when very few employees are members, it may not have sufficient voter appeal. I believe the ALP in Australia is going through this problem right now.

Another issue I find with unions these days is that they are arguably too left wing in that they deal too much with social issues that don't really concern ordinary members (e.g. unions campaigning for LBGTI rights or climate change). While it's fine to protest on those issues, the perception from ordinary members is that they're not a top priority.

 

[Zardnaar]

Union membership has been on the decline for a while. Perhaps it is because we are more individualistic than we used to be? Perhaps less sociable as well?

As a political movement, this is a problem. If a party is too tied to the union movement when very few employees are members, it may not have sufficient voter appeal. I believe the ALP in Australia is going through this problem right now.

Another issue I find with unions these days is that they are arguably too left wing in that they deal too much with social issues that don't really concern ordinary members (e.g. unions campaigning for LBGTI rights or climate change). While it's fine to protest on those issues, the perception from ordinary members is that they're not a top priority.

Here something like 90% of the MPs have university educations (25% population) and only 6/120 odd don't own property.

They're more or less completely out of touch with working class. Of the 120 odd only 1 is debateably blue collar.

Rights corporate types somewhat liberal by US standards. Greens more or less don't care about environmental issues they're all woke.

Labour got elected more or less liberal but not to vocal about it but can't or won't do much about big picture stuff.

The young are fairly screwed. Low wages plus high rent good luck getting a mortgage without rich parents.

House prices are increasing around triple the median wage per year. Great if you own a house screwed if you don't. Teachers and copsoften can't afford a house in most cities unless they're double income and even then it's iffy.

Labours now run by university type inner city liberals. Voted for them due to lack of better options.

 

[Samson]

How many are workers who benefit from unions? For example, a doctor who is a solo practitioner doesn't benefit from unions for obvious reasons.

He totally does. Unions do more than negotiation with employers.

 

[GinandTonic]

He totally does. Unions do more than negotiation with employers.

Doctors benefit from their union more than most. Remember when the gov negotiated GP's having performance bonuses rather than a pay rise and then complained the GP's were gaming the system. Because a bunch of clever well educated people, presented with a ton of performance bonuses, hit those bonuses.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Union membership has been on the decline for a while. Perhaps it is because we are more individualistic than we used to be? Perhaps less sociable as well?

Virtually every social institution in existance has been on a steady decline since the '80s, at least in the western world. Not just Unions, political party membershop, we're talking about Bowling clubs, church attendance, voluntary work, nonpartisan political movements, sports leagues..

So yes, I think you're spot on. Atomization and rampant individualism are two reasons on an ideological level. Neoliberal politics, global precarity and emerging "social" technologies are three reasons on a material level.

Another issue I find with unions these days is that they are arguably too left wing in that they deal too much with social issues that don't really concern ordinary members (e.g. unions campaigning for LBGTI rights or climate change). While it's fine to protest on those issues, the perception from ordinary members is that they're not a top priority.

This is shortsighted - both the idea that climate change is somehow a leftist issue when it's literally about the preservation of the world as we know it, making it not only a virtually pan-human problem, but a problem that literally breaches species lines - and the idea that climate change doesn't affect your average worker.

Climate change explicitly affects your average worker. It's only the billionaires which will make a profit off of the planets global demise, it's only them which get to keep their priviledges.

Every single working class person will be affected in their daily life by the massive amount of societal and infrastructural chaos, destruction, and the millions upon millions of refugees that will result from the inevitable climate catastrophe and come knocking at their doors, metaphorically and literally (I mean, those refugees already exist, just in smaller numbers). And this is not even taking into account the effects that actual climate change will have on their country, this is just the spillover..

 

[Estebonrober]

Inequality just doesn't trouble me. Again, what difference does it make if Warren Buffet is living in a mansion and I'm not?

.

Man the disconnect is intense with you. Buffet is a terrible example since he still lives in his home from the 50s technically. Its not a mansion by any means. I thought the one off comment was jsut an error now it is twice which indicates more ignorance.

Inequality is relative and yes leads to revolutionary movements. You would have thought the events since the turn of 2021 would have awoken all Americans to the problem. Blind belief in market forces and the rationality of markets is your error its foundation on rational humans should have warned you of the mistake you were making.

Rational Markets Theory Keeps Running Into Irrational Humans - Bloomberg

I honestly cannot believe grown adults ever bought into the idea in the first place.