The media in the US promotes this message, both because its members have themselves been awash in the propaganda their whole lives and also because the media organs in this country are largely corporate.
Combine that with a general disinterest in critical thinking that has also been "encouraged" by those same cynical forces described above to ensure that they have an uneducated, incurious population that believes what they want.
So now you can see why income inequality is growing in the US.
Here's a place to start reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-cor...
The only places where housing is priced at a sensible level are those countries that the government build high quality local housing that the market has to produce better housing than to compete.
In central Tokyo you can get a 300 square foot apartment for $1800 per month and in the Mission (probably the cheapest part of San Fran?) for something that small (it's the legal limit) it's about the same.
The rest of Japan is more expensive than the US per square foot.
You actually get less space usually in new Japanese housing if anything. And I maintain they are cheaply built compared to US property.
It's very difficult to compare property across countries but this has been my experience and I think everyone living in Japan vs Western countries you seem to get larger better built buildings for your money.
What this means is that social welfare expansions have far outsized the cuts.
>productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...
>Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top.
—Robert Reich, Financial Times, Jan. 29, 2008
>Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners.
—Robert H. Frank, New York Times, March 9, 2008
>The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population.
—David Leonhardt, New York Times, April 9, 2008
...
>These statistics appear quite compelling, but hiding in the background are some key issues that might alter the story. Average household size declined substantially during the past 30 years, so household income is being spread across fewer people. The mix of household types—married versus single, young versus old—also changed considerably, so the “median household” in 2006 looks quite different from the “median household” in 1976. Finally, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau to compute household income excludes some rapidly growing sources of income.
...
>Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth.
>The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index.
>A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types.
>The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income.
>The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
IMO, what happened since the 70s is that corporate capture of economic growth increased, often through government spending. Basically what's being called neoliberalism: austerity for most, government handouts for the wealthy.
It hasn't been austerity for most. I thought we just established that there has been a massive increase in social welfare spending.
>So what's your point.
My point is that wage growth has tracked productivity growth. Middle class wages have mostly tracked productivity growth. There has been a slowdown in wage growth, and this can be mostly attributed to a decrease in labour productivity growth.
Other factors have played a role in the slowdown in middle class wage growth, but they are far outsized by the effect of slowing labour productivity growth. Those 'other factors' relate to government intervention, not to any mythical "neoliberalism" that the socialist consensus always harps on about as it further pushes the US into socialism.
Couldn't also have to do with the phase out of Bretton-Woods and the recovery of Europe from WWII during that time?
And with all that social redistribution marginal-utility-wise productivity must be off the charts. $1 in additional purchased products for consumption sure provides a lot more utility to someone at the bottom than $1 in additional products does for a billionaire.
Now take a look at the policies on the table. Bernie's medicare for all has a projected cost of 2.5 trillion dollars annually. If we taxed everyone who makes 1 million or more a year at 100% we would have about 1.5 trillion in receipts. It just isn't possible.
The labour participation rate went from 60 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 1992. At the same time, average hours worked per employed person declined from about 1900 hours a year in 1970 to 1790 hours a year in 1992:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USAAHWEP
So there was no relative growth in the size of the work force.
Socialism destroys the economy. Believe it or not, forcibly confiscating the earnings of highly productive people, to give without discrimination to less productive people, is poison to an economy. And that is all social welfarism amounts to:
Leftist authoritarianism that destroys incentives and breeds dependency.
But hey it's politically fashionable to defend welfare, because it makes it look like you stick up for the underdog, so that's what the majority will continue to do.
Any politician that promises more government "help", from the pocket of the faceless taxpayer, will have a major advantage in any election. That's why social welfare spending has increased so dramatically over the last 50 years.
The labor participation rate doesn't include homemakers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_Stat...
One other complication: as with most parts of U.S. history, racism shows up at key points. Some unions have a history of racial discrimination – not least because factory owners tried to use African American workers to break strikes – but others, especially the government unions, were actually attacking race or sex-based discrimination, which didn't win them support among the more conservative workers. One thing I've noticed is a trend in who is portrayed as the “lazy union worker” in attacks, where they never show e.g. a white police officer in a negative context but routinely depict a public school teacher as someone unqualified who got the job by virtue of being female, minority, etc. One thing we're not short on are people who will act against their own personal interests if they think it'll hurt an undeserving other.
Teachers unions for instance are still very strong on a state-by-state basis, but are disliked because they continuously only promote public schools and do whatever they can do show disdain for private school teachers, and students. This 'us versus them' mentality doesn't endear them to parents who simply want the best education for their children and not necessarily a "public school".
Additionally due to teacher's unions, demonstrably bad teachers are difficult to remove from their positions.
Police unions act similarly, by closing ranks anytime there's a whiff of a corruption investigation and proposing measures that essentially make police officers a protected class when it comes to criminal investigations against them. It's no surprise that the general public isn't in favour of them.
Unions historically can be favoured by the general population, when most people in the general pop are also members of unions themselves. Unions have an us versus them mentality that puts them at odds not only with management, but also with anyone who isn't a part of a union. They make allowances for and have political alliances with other unions, but don't really think about the public good.
An example is that if Software Developers were all in a union, we'd probably work it out so that a garbage man's union strike doesn't affect us too badly, so that in the future when we go on strike, the garbage men won't suddenly find that the apps and software they depend on suddenly has zero support. Given this situation, software devs (of the union) would be 'okay' with the other union, but everyone outside of the union would be unhappy because they're left high and dry.
And then there's the actions of police unions in encouraging officer impunity.
If you've ever worked with our seen some of the actions of unions I'm the US I'm sure you understand.
They are often political and you can usually be barred from getting a job if you aren't Union. At one point in my life I considered doing lighting and stage work for theaters. After trying for some time, and impressing people with my spotlight work, they told me I'd have to join the union here in NJ and that could take years. I'd have to work for free till I got in! This was common here in NJ.
The political side is worse. Let's say you're a Catholic and you work in a company. Your company forces you to work in the union. Then your union donates to pro-abortion charities. Is that fair? I don't think so.
Then you have the biggest debate that should be raised about unions: how corrupted they are. Union dues are high and it's not because of the good service. The heads make a lot of money on the backs of some of the hardest working people in our country. You've got union bosses taking half a million pay check who is skimming from minimum wage factory workers.
So that's why I think the average Joe hates the American union: they are rich, political, and will bar you from getting a job all while taking your money, pocketing it, and expecting you to thank them for the pleasure.
No union factory worker in the US makes minimum wage.
You may think I'm ok with that, but I'm not. I don't think companies should be political vehicals unless that's their goal (like the Free Software Foundation or the EFF).
> Corporation C-level execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers.
I don't see it that way. First of all the executives are the ones managing the company. Without their planning there would be no work for anyone to do. Union bosses convinced some group of people that they needed their help. After that they threatened the owner of a company saying "If you hire off union, we'll go on strike". Because of that the company won't hire off union. Now the union boss has a monopoly on who does and doesn't get to work for a specific company.
If that isn't anti-worker I don't know what is.
Second, lets say I engage in a discussion with an employer and they say "Hey, we would only make money hiring you at this rate" and I decide that it's fine because I'm industrius and they'll promote me after a specific amount of time. I don't want some third party coming in and saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! THEY HAVEN'T JOINED THE UNION! THEY CAN'T BE PAIED LESS THEN US".
You've turned hiring into a power game. If the employer is allowed to hire people below the union rate then the union is fucked. They've lost all of their gargining power. If the union looses it's power, they'll stop paying their dues. If they stop paying their dues the boss looses money. So what happens then? The union boss has a vested interest in lobbying to keep their job relevant. They've stopped working for the good of the worker and are now working for their paycheck. We've seen that at least here in NJ with union protection laws.
> But the corporation is working (in practice) solely for the shareholders.
Well yea that's the point. A company is just a few people getting together and saying "Let's do X because it will make us money". They then hire people to all do a very specific subset of problem X. The people aren't forced to work on that specific subset or at that company, they can work at another if they don't like it here.
On the other hand, at least where I live, a union is state-wide. If I don't want to give money to a union and I want to work off union then I have to move to another state. I'm completely screwed because every company shares a union.
> It seems to me that Unions are no better/worse than the corporation except that their duty is to their members.
They don't care about their members. They think of their members as a cash source. This illusion that someone is looking out for you is crazy. It's acctually in their best interests to keep working conditions poor enough that people don't like their jobs while still doing easy meaningless things to make people think they are productive.
Now granted not all unions are like this but the ones I've seen definetly are.
> In this way Unions don't need to be a paragon of virtue because they're a balance to corporate power (even if a bit of a greasy one).
This is an ends-meets-the-means situation. I don't think that greasy wheels are the ones I should be giving my money to and I definetly don't want to be forced to work for, in, or under the thumb of a union.
Just because something is called a "union" doesn't mean it's for the people it has united. Most unions are for the union boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money.
Now, again. Not all unions are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with unions run by people who work at a specific plant where the union boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the union's dues are actually the amount needed to hire only the barging person at the end of the groups contract.
The sad thing is most unions aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.
Also, this assumption that the "execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers" is not shared by the average person. The Execs are there because they make decitions about how the company is run, has been run, and will be run. Without them the company wouldn't function just like how without the workers the company wouldn't function. Devaling them just makes people look bad in the eyes of the average worker. Very few people, asside from the small small number of radical communists, I've met actually think this and they are actively turned away by people perpetuating it.
If you want to sell unions:
* Don't lead with communism/"These people don't deserve it, because!"
* Show a list of unions that are run by people who work at the company
* Tell people that the corruption is a problem but you want to lobby to fix it by removing state-wide union monopoly laws
* Don't disallow people to work off unions. If it's acctually worse, then it should just make the union look better.
* Don't tell people who work hard that you know better then them and that they'd not be able to survive without the union's help.
* Don't charge union dues that are more then what is acctually needed (1 full time lawer, an office, a monthly meeting place). A union is meant to make things affordable to those who need it the most, not to make it mandatory.
>Well yea that's the point. A company is just a few people getting together and saying "Let's do X because it will make us money". They then hire people to all do a very specific subset of problem X. The people aren't forced to work on that specific subset or at that company, they can work at another if they don't like it here.
This is also true of Unions, you can go to a different company with a different(or no) union or you can go work on a different subset.
>On the other hand, at least where I live, a union is state-wide. If I don't want to give money to a union and I want to work off union then I have to move to another state. I'm completely screwed because every company shares a union.
You can go work in another state if you don't like it there.
>Union bosses convinced some group of people that they needed their help. After that they threatened the owner of a company saying "If you hire off union, we'll go on strike". Because of that the company won't hire off union. Now the union boss has a monopoly on who does and doesn't get to work for a specific company.
So individuals organized into an organization and were able to bargain successfully with another organization? I don't see the problem. The corporation is inherently organized and can act as one force, when workers do the same, it's suddenly a problem?
>You've turned hiring into a power game.
It already is one.
>If the employer is allowed to hire people below the union rate then the union is fucked. They've lost all of their gargining power. If the union looses it's power, they'll stop paying their dues. If they stop paying their dues the boss looses money. So what happens then? The union boss has a vested interest in lobbying to keep their job relevant. They've stopped working for the good of the worker and are now working for their paycheck. We've seen that at least here in NJ with union protection laws.
I don't see why the union boss has suddenly stopped working for the good of the worker. They only exist if people pay the dues so they should obviously still be doing their best job to convince people dues are necessary. In this case why do remaining members of the union not defect? The union must be doing something for them.
>They don't care about their members. They think of their members as a cash source. This illusion that someone is looking out for you is crazy. It's acctually in their best interests to keep working conditions poor enough that people don't like their jobs while still doing easy meaningless things to make people think they are productive.
How is that in their best interest?
>Just because something is called a "union" doesn't mean it's for the people it has united. Most unions are for the union boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money. Now, again. Not all unions are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with unions run by people who work at a specific plant where the union boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the union's dues are actually the amount needed to hire only the barging person at the end of the groups contract. The sad thing is most unions aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.
A corporation is not for the people it has united. Most companies are for the company boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money. Now, again. Not all companies are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with companies run by people who work at a specific plant where the company boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the executive's pay is actually the amount needed to hire a decent executive. The sad thing is most companies aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.
>Also, this assumption that the "execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers" is not shared by the average person. The Execs are there because they make decitions about how the company is run, has been run, and will be run. Without them the company wouldn't function just like how without the workers the company wouldn't function.
Most executive pay is unnecessary/undeserved. Many companies would run just fine if they paid their CEO less.
>Also in my mind will be these words of Jeroen van der Veer, former chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, uttered at an FT conference in 2009. “You have to realise,” he said, “if I had been paid 50 per cent more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50 per cent less, then I would not have done it worse.”
https://www.ft.com/content/27e6de52-6db2-11e5-8171-ba1968cf7...
>This paper shows that the standard form of option compensation, with non-indexed at-the-money options, is very far from optimal, though, as its pay-for-luck component is in the ballpark of 90%, and its motivational power is rather low.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/29/90-cents-of-every...
>Devaling them just makes people look bad in the eyes of the average worker. Very few people, asside from the small small number of radical communists, I've met actually think this and they are actively turned away by people perpetuating it.
You shouldn't speak for these people especially when I know plenty of people who aren't radical communists, are "average workers" and don't agree with you.
>* Don't lead with communism/"These people don't deserve it, because!"
I'm not.
>* Show a list of unions that are run by people who work at the company
Why is this relevant? I work at a large company and our C-levels are extremely disconnected from what I actually do every day.
>* Tell people that the corruption is a problem but you want to lobby to fix it by removing state-wide union monopoly laws
Corruption is a problem, but is union corruption any worse than business coruption? I'd bet not. Once again, unions are to balance power between the company and its workers. As far as state-wide union monopoly laws my state is actually extremely anti-union so I know nothing about this. Can you point me towards the law that entrenches state-wide union monopolies in new jersey?
>* Don't disallow people to work off unions. If it's acctually worse, then it should just make the union look better.
This is a freerider problem. Unions can't exist when freeriders can gather the benefits the union has fought for and not contribute.
>* Don't tell people who work hard that you know better then them and that they'd not be able to survive without the union's help.
I'm not.
>* Don't charge union dues that are more then what is acctually needed (1 full time lawer, an office, a monthly meeting place). A union is meant to make things affordable to those who need it the most, not to make it mandatory.
I agree with you in principal. I even agree with you in practice in some places. My problem is why do you not hold corporations to the same standard you hold unions? It seems to me that companies are just as guilty as most of the sins you prescribe to unions yet you hate unions because of this and still love the corporation.
Furthermore, I would make a "herd immunity" sort of argument for unions. My mother used to work for a large paper company which didn't have unions even though many of the other paper companies around did. How did they keep the unions out? They paid a quarter more and had better benefits. In other words, my mom's wage was raised by a union that didn't even represent her. The unions in this case served to make the firms around town compete on wages. If you paid poorly, your workforce would unionize and you'd be stuck with strikes, wage increases and beauracracy. On the other hand if you paid well, you only had to deal with the wage increases.
When unions strike, they attack those who go to work anyway. They are closely associated with the mob and racketeering. They are, from what I can tell, generally worse than the corporations they ostensibly protect workers from.
I think it should be perfectly legal to organise, perfectly legal to collectively bargain and perfectly legal to strike — but it should also be perfectly legal to fire folks who strike, and perfectly legal to refuse to deal with a union. Also, public employees should be strictly forbidden to strike, or to collectively bargain.
I do kinda wish that there were a non-adversarial way for employees to have a voice with their employers, but unions as they currently exist are not the right mechanism. Maybe employment contracts?
There was a time in history when businesses were abusive enough that unions' outrageous actions were perhaps necessary, but that's simply no longer the case. Strikes and violence to overthrow paternalistic company town and unsafe mines? Maybe. Strikes and violence to ensure that teachers who browse porn in class don't get fired? Nope.
The employer pays you the absolute minimum he can to extract the maximum amount of value out of you in return. If he could force you to work an extra day for free, he would. If he could force you to work unpaid overtime, he would. If he could force you to take a risk to your own health in order to work more quickly and make him more profit, he would. This is all inherent and necessary qualities of capitalism.
We have checks to try to make this system palatable for human beings to exist within -- employers are liable for workplace injuries, you must be paid for your labor (unless you are salaried), and unions exist. Corporate interests are constantly trying to undermine every single check we have installed, and to prevent new ones. They must; it's their job, it will increase profits.
Most complaints about unions essentially boil down to them being too powerful. But if the government isn't going to step in and be a check on corporate power, unions had better be powerful enough to do something about it.
Tricking you into thinking this relationship is not adversarial is the greatest trick your adversary has ever pulled.
they also are a reason many don't like the police because that union buries a lot. throw in that public service unions run up salaries and benefits of members who aren't in dangerous or unfairly compensate industries and regular working people get annoyed (countless stories about exceedingly high payouts for some retirees because of pension abuse and such all paid by taxes). Government unions tend to be the prime reason many dislike them because of the near immunity some members derive from such status
lower income earners tend to not get as much benefit from the high cost of dues (based on percentage of income) versus some higher wage earners.
Libertarians (of which I am not) are not against unions, they are simply pro freedom. Freedom means being able to assemble, but it also means not being compelled to assemble, especially when a portion of the dues are used to fund political action for policies they don't support.
EDIT: autocorrect is horrendous
Freedom also means you can strike, walk-out, or quit your job if you want. Union shops exist because unions have the power to have everyone else walk out if someone is hired who isn't in the union. That's how the concept was originally created. (I think the formalism around modern elections, created by Taft-Hartley, is actually strongly anti-union but that's another matter) it therefore seems odd to argue that you should be free to work in a union shop without joining the union, with all of your union co-workers forced to not walk out in response.
Or just speaking practically- a good union is democratic, and the democracy is much smaller - you can have more impact if you speak up- than the big democracy of the federal or state governments. So shouldn't taxes be a larger gripe than union dues? A portion of my taxes goes to fund all sorts of things I don't support.
I think the free rider problem you allude to is a result of union membership providing diminishing value.
But again, the only part I really have an issue with are public sector.
PS. You're not wrong about taxes, but let's not use debating fallacies please. We're talking about unions.
No, free riders are a problem regardless of membership value. You say that you are for unions but you are against the only thing that allows unions to exist.
I support the individual. Pretty simple.
Let companies decide what workers they want.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
Corporate profits are good; they mean more return to shareholders.
If living costs raise and the quality of available jobs worsens (e.g. less job security) but your wage stays the same that's objectively a loss.
> If living costs raise and the quality of available jobs worsens (e.g. less job security) but your wage stays the same that's objectively a loss.
True, but that hasn't happened.
Let companies manipulate their workforce as much as they want?. It's THEIR workforce after all?
I'd say keeping your workers confused about their rights was a form of unscrupulous control. Hurts the bottom line when employees want things they are entitled to by law.
It seems like Uber is making drivers listen to anti-union propaganda.
The ones who cost the least, probably.
What you're saying is "companies should hold a lot of power over workers." Management is much more powerful than an individual worker and collective bargaining via unions seeks to be a check on that power. Why is that so undesirable?
Maybe the company thinks unions are inefficient or doesn't like the collective bargaining power (in extreme cases it resembles a monopoly). Companies and workers are entitled to their opinion. Workers can choose to work at companies that allow unions.
Of course management (multiple people) should be more powerful than an individual worker.
It's controversial, but, IMO, it's not good at all. Unions here are very political, and often detached from what the workers actually want.
I once "participated" in a nationwide protest I hadn't heard about until the very day. Union thugs stopped the corporate buses full of workers from reaching the factory, got in bus by bus and instructed us to remain on the bus "for our own safety" - seriously, direct quote - so we were "deliberately" late for work.
That said, some things were unpleasant. For example, they wouldn't let you switch from a 40h to a 30h contract, no matter how many times you told them you actually wanted that, because they would always take the stance that the employer was forcing the employee to do that so they could pay them less.
Back when I worked there, the union I would have been a part of (had I not jumped through hoops) tried to make it so software engineering would be a licensed profession requiring a degree in the field.
I'm so glad to not be working in that system anymore. There are many reasons why productivity in Latin America is less than half of the US. The attitude towards unions is one of them. I guess its a swell idea if you don't care that your country and industry is competitive globally.
I find that thought terrifying. I don't mind people choosing to unionize, but forcing it is another matter entirely.
Characteristic example of the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13686560
There's definitely a bias towards protecting useless people, for the simple reason that divide & conquer is a key tactic for disrupting the bargaining position of a union, and it's always a better play to defend the dopes.
WRT to harassment, unions almost always help. The company has an interest in not getting sued, the union has an interest to protect the employees. As with any relationship involving humans, things go off the rails sometimes, but you are protected against most types of arbritary and capricious retailiation.