It always starts this way, and ends with over half the people not bothered but still under union protection, and cannot be removed.
It always starts this way, and ends with over half the people not bothered but still under union protection, and cannot be removed.
Either way, no, if unions don't reduce how much people make and provide stronger worker's rights, protection from corporate abuse, workplace safety, collective bargaining for things like holidays, you can think it doesn't change your take-home at all and pretty undeniably see the benefits. How many weeks of legally mandated paid time off do you get, and how many additional days do you get on top of that as a median worker in the US? :b
For comparison: unions are at best toothless in Singapore, there's no minimum wage, yet we have some of the highest wages in the world.
I cannot think of any standard by which this is true, certainly not by nominal or PPP income for either personal or household income.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
[2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
Not looking at households or disposable income here but at hourly wages.
It's not wrong, it's just not very useful. It's typically a more intermediary statistic rather than a final one when doing this type of comparison.
Myopically focusing on wages while ignoring the many other concerns about the distribution of power and legal rights is a common misunderstanding.
Not every American citizen is having incomes like SWE in SV.
https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-grow...