I Hate Unions

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By lilburtonboy7489

I was just reading The Fellowship of the Ring, when something hit me: Unions suck!


So here's the deal, unions always try to keep wage rates higher than market value. The obvious consequence is a surplus of workers, or unemployment. 


But then I started thinking about other possible consequences. Usually anti-union people say "Yo, even though these workers get higher wage rates, they get fewer hours." That's true. Typically someone might work 40 hours a week whereas a union worker may work 30 hours a week. But wage income in a week very well might be equal due to the higher wage rates of unions. 


Isn't that great!?!


I don't think so. Sure, having more leisure time may be "nice" for an individual at first glance, but is it really?


Let's look at some possible unintended consequences, from the employer's perspective. A factory was just unionized. Now instead of a 5 day week, it is only open 3 days a week. It has a fixed income which it can spend on labor. Even with the higher wage rates, the payroll has remained the same by simply cutting hours. 


But notice, production has now been cut by 2 days while maintaining the same expenditures as if production was not cut by these two days. That means production has just become that much more expensive. It also means that real wage rates actually have increased contrary to what the union worker will tell you. A consistent wage income does NOT mean that real wage rates have not increased. 


Since production is so much more expensive, it can now produce much less.


Less production of goods means less wealth in the economy. Less wealth means that these businesses will now have less money to invest in capital, and will likely result in a multiplied increase in unemployment in the future. 


In any market besides labor, this price fixing is seen as a bad thing. In Milwaukee they tried to try some price fixing on apartment complexes. Instead of a minimum price, they did a maximum price instead. The rent was fixed below market level so that the poor could get the apartments. What happened of course, was that there were massive shortages of apartments. 


Instead of helping the poor, they were made off. A black market was created, and bids were made on apartments so that only the absolute wealthiest would get them. It was a disaster.



But when it comes to fixing wage rates, they don't consider it a disaster, even when it results in the same. As for a black market in labor, can you say mexicans? 


The reason it isn't considered a disaster is because commodities can't vote in elections, people can. People know they are getting paid more, that's all they care about. They never consider the opportunity costs incurred both individual and in the aggregate.



Look at the opposite scenario. 


What if lower wage rates were set rather than higher. Now the business has set the wage rate below market value and increased production to 6 days a week. The weekly income is still the same as it has been. 


Now production has been made cheaper. More is being made for less and the economic pie is expanding. With some sound monetary policy, this could be the absolute best case scenario. If the money supply remains the same through this decrease in wage rates, production would be increasing but the money supply would remain consistent. This would infer that the real wealth of every individual would be steadily increasing, even those who took the wage rate cuts. 


More wealth is created while the medium of exchange remains the same. The result would be a higher living of standard for all and overall awesomeness. 


I hate unions. 

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By lilburtonboy7489

I was just reading The Fellowship of the Ring, when something hit me: Unions suck!


So here's the deal, unions always try to keep wage rates higher than market value. The obvious consequence is a surplus of workers, or unemployment. 


But then I started thinking about other possible consequences. Usually anti-union people say "Yo, even though these workers get higher wage rates, they get fewer hours." That's true. Typically someone might work 40 hours a week whereas a union worker may work 30 hours a week. But wage income in a week very well might be equal due to the higher wage rates of unions. 


Isn't that great!?!


I don't think so. Sure, having more leisure time may be "nice" for an individual at first glance, but is it really?


Let's look at some possible unintended consequences, from the employer's perspective. A factory was just unionized. Now instead of a 5 day week, it is only open 3 days a week. It has a fixed income which it can spend on labor. Even with the higher wage rates, the payroll has remained the same by simply cutting hours. 


But notice, production has now been cut by 2 days while maintaining the same expenditures as if production was not cut by these two days. That means production has just become that much more expensive. It also means that real wage rates actually have increased contrary to what the union worker will tell you. A consistent wage income does NOT mean that real wage rates have not increased. 


Since production is so much more expensive, it can now produce much less.


Less production of goods means less wealth in the economy. Less wealth means that these businesses will now have less money to invest in capital, and will likely result in a multiplied increase in unemployment in the future. 


In any market besides labor, this price fixing is seen as a bad thing. In Milwaukee they tried to try some price fixing on apartment complexes. Instead of a minimum price, they did a maximum price instead. The rent was fixed below market level so that the poor could get the apartments. What happened of course, was that there were massive shortages of apartments. 


Instead of helping the poor, they were made off. A black market was created, and bids were made on apartments so that only the absolute wealthiest would get them. It was a disaster.



But when it comes to fixing wage rates, they don't consider it a disaster, even when it results in the same. As for a black market in labor, can you say mexicans? 


The reason it isn't considered a disaster is because commodities can't vote in elections, people can. People know they are getting paid more, that's all they care about. They never consider the opportunity costs incurred both individual and in the aggregate.



Look at the opposite scenario. 


What if lower wage rates were set rather than higher. Now the business has set the wage rate below market value and increased production to 6 days a week. The weekly income is still the same as it has been. 


Now production has been made cheaper. More is being made for less and the economic pie is expanding. With some sound monetary policy, this could be the absolute best case scenario. If the money supply remains the same through this decrease in wage rates, production would be increasing but the money supply would remain consistent. This would infer that the real wealth of every individual would be steadily increasing, even those who took the wage rate cuts. 


More wealth is created while the medium of exchange remains the same. The result would be a higher living of standard for all and overall awesomeness. 


I hate unions. 

Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#2  Edited By CL60

Black text fail.

Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#3  Edited By Jayge_

This is all common sense. However, until you come up with a better solution for worker's rights (which, as a hardcore libertarian, you probably don't believe in as I think you're a property owner = god in his domain type of person?), the majority of people will never give up on them.

Avatar image for mikevanpwn
mikevanpwn

433

Forum Posts

6815

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#4  Edited By mikevanpwn
I agree, unions fight for higher wage: as a result less are employed for that company, which means more people looking for a job.  The more people looking for a job, the less wage other employers have to offer since there is a surplus of workers than there is to jobs. 

And, I've had my own weird experience with unions when I worked for Safeway.  The union that represents Safeway employees finally got around to sending my papers to join up after five months of me already working there.  After the joining fee and the weekly fees that I had to pay, they also said I had 400 dollars in backed fees/penalty fees from the week I got hired until the point I got the letter.  I called up the union and inquired about it, and they told me that I owed that money becuase they would have protected me if I needed it, despite me not being in the union yet, which was totally bogus.  I ended up quitting the job the next day.  
Avatar image for snipzor
Snipzor

3471

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#5  Edited By Snipzor

I'm split on unions. 50 years ago, unions were extremely important for helping the employees receive benefits that we take for granted today. So they do have their purposes. But sometimes unions are so corrupt they take advantage of their clout to corner the higher-ups. In Quebec, there is the Blue Collar Union, which is by far the most corrupt union in North America without being connected to the mob. But unions built Quebec at the same time, so we can't get rid of unions.

But what is missing from your idea is the human aspect. As usual, it is always gone. There is a certain amount of time a person can work until they are fatigued, and the lack of unions would surely mean that the company cuts down on safety protocols as well as break times. Benefits would be slashed as well all know that the company has no need to give to the employees, they are pawns and can easily be replaced (In their eyes). People are greedy but also fragile. What is going to stop the higher ups from making the factory a sweatshop while they make a couple extra million? Nothing.

So we can't have the option where there are no unions, because then it brings out the greed in the higher-ups. But we can't have overly powerful unions, because then it would be like the Blue Collar Union I mentioned earlier. It is safe to say the majority of people prefer the idea of moderation. Regulate unions to stop them from being too strong, but keep a certain amount of clout, so they can deal with the tyrannical presence of greed.

Finally. Fellowship of the Ring sucks.

Avatar image for jesus
Jesus

1190

Forum Posts

104

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#6  Edited By Jesus

No. Unicorns are great. They are so much fun to ride, really.

Avatar image for xaiax
XaiaX

101

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#7  Edited By XaiaX

Unions / Corporations / Whatever. It's a collective bargaining entity. Either it's a collective on the "capital" side (corporation) or on the labor side "union".


However, here are things unions have gotten us:

Getting paid in actual money, instead of corporate scrip. Look up "company town".

Weekends.

Pretty much all rights not tied explicitly to real estate ownership.

So, you know, on the whole, kind of postive.

Are there bad unions? Sure. Just like there are bad corporations, and bad people. Castigating the entire idea of "unions" as bad is myopic.

--

The real problem with this randian thought experiment stuff is that it's completely anti-empirical. It's all theoretical stuff, with little regard for actual human behavior and systemic exploitation by the powerful. (capitalist / government / whatever, makes no difference )
Avatar image for cloneslayer
cloneslayer

1890

Forum Posts

587

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#8  Edited By cloneslayer
@XaiaX said:
" Unions / Corporations / Whatever. It's a collective bargaining entity. Either it's a collective on the "capital" side (corporation) or on the labor side "union".

However, here are things unions have gotten us:

Getting paid in actual money, instead of corporate scrip. Look up "company town".

Weekends.

Pretty much all rights not tied explicitly to real estate ownership.

So, you know, on the whole, kind of postive.

Are there bad unions? Sure. Just like there are bad corporations, and bad people. Castigating the entire idea of "unions" as bad is myopic.
"
this, i agree

black text WTF
Avatar image for thegremp
TheGremp

2100

Forum Posts

400

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By TheGremp

When I saw this thread, I thought it said "I Hate Onions", and I was thinking "Oh hey, an interesting topic that I give a shit about!"  But...

I am disappoint.

Avatar image for snipzor
Snipzor

3471

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By Snipzor
@TheGremp said:
" When I saw this thread, I thought it said "I Hate Onions", and I was thinking "Oh hey, an interesting topic that I give a shit about!"  But...I am disappoint. "
I agree, I also saw "I hate onion", but something must be said.

I think onion is a pretty cool guy, eh cooks well with food and doesn't afraid of anything.
Avatar image for icil
Icil

750

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Icil

Think about it like this:

Companies -deflate- wages already. Unions exist to inflate them back to normal. Sometimes they get carried away, sure, but unions are supposed to normalize wages to the market instead of taking a normalized wage and increasing it.

I'm no economist, though.

Avatar image for alsnuts2
alsnuts2

699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#12  Edited By alsnuts2

Jesus Christ that is a lot of black text

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#13  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Jayge said:
" This is all common sense. However, until you come up with a better solution for worker's rights (which, as a hardcore libertarian, you probably don't believe in as I think you're a property owner = god in his domain type of person?), the majority of people will never give up on them. "
This is economics, not ethics. If you want to get into rights that's an entirely different topic (What the hell does worker's right mean? They voluntarily work for a company for a specific rate, no rights are violated no matter what the going wage rate is). 


Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#14  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Icil said:
" Think about it like this:Companies -deflate- wages already. Unions exist to inflate them back to normal. Sometimes they get carried away, sure, but unions are supposed to normalize wages to the market instead of taking a normalized wage and increasing it.I'm no economist, though. "
There is a set market value for labor which is unrelated to whatever the current rate is. 

Perhaps the equlibrium wage rate for a carpenter is $7.50/hour. That is the market value of that job. Companies might be paying over that, or they might be paying under. The whole point here, is that price fixing makes it so that the wage rate is no longer approaching equilibrium because it is frozen by unions. 

All prices in a free market are heading towards an equlibrium. Think of it as a mathematical asymptote. It is the value which prices are always approaching but will never reach. Of course that's an awful analogy because wages can be above equlibrium as well. But the point is that the market is always adjusting to reach this equilibrium, but price fixing stops that movement.

Technically you can never "normalize" wage rates since the normal level is in constant fluctuation. The market assures this movment. The equilibrium is based on supply and demand. Those are the deciding factor of price (speculation and necessity change the slope of the schedules though). Setting an arbitrary number, either by government or unions, stop this market process and prevents the correct market rate. 
Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#15  Edited By Jayge_
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@Jayge said:
" This is all common sense. However, until you come up with a better solution for worker's rights (which, as a hardcore libertarian, you probably don't believe in as I think you're a property owner = god in his domain type of person?), the majority of people will never give up on them. "
This is economics, not ethics. If you want to get into rights that's an entirely different topic (What the hell does worker's right mean? They voluntarily work for a company for a specific rate, no rights are violated no matter what the going wage rate is). 


"
If you think the two can be seperated that easily, then what is that degree of yours actually worth?
Avatar image for keyhunter
keyhunter

3208

Forum Posts

248

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#16  Edited By keyhunter

My dad makes 80 dollars an hour. He works in a union. Unions are awesome. Also it keeps the foreign people from TAKIN ER JEARBS

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#17  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Jayge said:
"
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@Jayge said:
" This is all common sense. However, until you come up with a better solution for worker's rights (which, as a hardcore libertarian, you probably don't believe in as I think you're a property owner = god in his domain type of person?), the majority of people will never give up on them. "
This is economics, not ethics. If you want to get into rights that's an entirely different topic (What the hell does worker's right mean? They voluntarily work for a company for a specific rate, no rights are violated no matter what the going wage rate is). 


"
If you think the two can be seperated that easily, then what is that degree of yours actually worth?
"
My degree is based on finding the most efficient markets, not trying to figure out morality. If morality is subjective, then playing Paul Krugman and basing every
economic stance on morality is a pretty shitty way of looking at it. 

I want to teach people how markets work. That's all. There are millions of opinions on other matters, but this isn't opinionated stuff. I am saying what is materialistically beneficial, and what is not. 

But for the record, before I start my work on my MA in econ, i'm finishing up my other degree in philosophy. But I will never infuse the two, because inserting philosophical opinions (such as ethics) into a non-opinionated field of economics will distort your conclusions and ultimately give you false economic conclusions. *See Paul Krugman*
Avatar image for frankcanada97
FrankCanada97

4186

Forum Posts

24056

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#18  Edited By FrankCanada97

The teacher's union here in Ontario owns two professional sports teams and several prominent Toronto properties. I don't know about you, but that sort of goes beyond "fair pay".

Avatar image for chrissedoff
chrissedoff

2387

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By chrissedoff

unions don't hurt the economy or break the free market system. they're really nothing more than an organized body built to ensure a fair dialogue between the workers and management, so that they can work out a mutually beneficial relationship, rather than one of pure exploitation in which one side has all the power.
what breaks this mutually beneficial relationship is not giving workers an advocacy body, it's forcing union workers to compete with non-union workers, who will work for peanuts without benefits, or worse, forcing them to compete with overseas labour who are so desperate they will allow themselves to be abused for 16 hours a day for less than peanuts, no benefits and no job security.

you talk about more wealth being created when you pay people a pittance and work them like dogs. but why is that a compelling argument to us, when all that wealth goes to a much smaller number of owners, and the workers, who made that wealth a reality, don't get anything for our time & labour? why not go as far as monarchy? why not go as far as slavery? respect for people's time and labour, or their dignity as human beings, factors nowhere into your argument.

and just as an aside, i'm sure you, personally, are not an owner of industry, and i hope you are under no delusion that you ever will be. you stand to gain nothing and lose a great deal in your perfect world.

Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#20  Edited By Jayge_
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@Jayge said:
"
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@Jayge said:
" This is all common sense. However, until you come up with a better solution for worker's rights (which, as a hardcore libertarian, you probably don't believe in as I think you're a property owner = god in his domain type of person?), the majority of people will never give up on them. "
This is economics, not ethics. If you want to get into rights that's an entirely different topic (What the hell does worker's right mean? They voluntarily work for a company for a specific rate, no rights are violated no matter what the going wage rate is). 


"
If you think the two can be seperated that easily, then what is that degree of yours actually worth?
"
My degree is based on finding the most efficient markets, not trying to figure out morality. If morality is subjective, then playing Paul Krugman and basing every
economic stance on morality is a pretty shitty way of looking at it. 

I want to teach people how markets work. That's all. There are millions of opinions on other matters, but this isn't opinionated stuff. I am saying what is materialistically beneficial, and what is not. 

But for the record, before I start my work on my MA in econ, i'm finishing up my other degree in philosophy. But I will never infuse the two, because inserting philosophical opinions (such as ethics) into a non-opinionated field of economics will distort your conclusions and ultimately give you false economic conclusions. *See Paul Krugman*
"
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Avatar image for jjor64
JJOR64

19699

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

#21  Edited By JJOR64
@CL60 said:
" Black text fail. "

Avatar image for chrissedoff
chrissedoff

2387

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By chrissedoff
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@Jayge said:
My degree is based on finding the most efficient markets, not trying to figure out morality. If morality is subjective, then playing Paul Krugman and basing every
economic stance on morality is a pretty shitty way of looking at it. 

I want to teach people how markets work. That's all. There are millions of opinions on other matters, but this isn't opinionated stuff. I am saying what is materialistically beneficial, and what is not. 

But for the record, before I start my work on my MA in econ, i'm finishing up my other degree in philosophy. But I will never infuse the two, because inserting philosophical opinions (such as ethics) into a non-opinionated field of economics will distort your conclusions and ultimately give you false economic conclusions. *See Paul Krugman*
"
morality and ethics don't occur in two separate worlds that can be discussed independently of one another. they should be working in tandem towards one goal.
giving your opinion on economics and claiming it to have no link to any kind of morality is disingenuous at best and masturbatory at worst.

PS, the idea that your simplistic jabber has taught anyone anything about markets is laughable. a name dropped here, a claim of authority there, no arguments of any substance disseminated so far.
Avatar image for oldschool
oldschool

7641

Forum Posts

60

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#23  Edited By oldschool

I would always trust a union to look after  my welfare than a corporation.


Corporations want unemployment to be at a certain level for their business purposes.  When there is unemployment, they have a better bargaining position.

Unions are an absolute must and workplace bargaining will always be better for workers as a whole, and society, than individual bargaining - where the employer holds too much power.  Governments must also maintain control of the rights of workers, including unfair dismissal and proper minimum wages, so as to protect the weak and maintain social cohesion.

Just imagine life withut unioons and see where society would be.  It is not a pretty picture.
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#24  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@chrissedoff 

"unions don't hurt the economy or break the free market system."

Yup, they do actually. My guess is that you didn't actually read my post. Critique it line by line to show me how it doesn't hurn the economy. 

"they're really nothing more than an organized body built to ensure a fair dialogue between the workers and management, so that they can work out a mutually beneficial relationship, rather than one of pure exploitation in which one side has all the power."

You don't own a job. It is the employer's job to give to people. There is no exploitation. 

"what breaks this mutually beneficial relationship is not giving workers an advocacy body"

Workers can choose to work there if they want. It's purely voluntary. If a business treats its employees horribly, then people won't work there if other businesses are offering better conditions. 

"it's forcing union workers to compete with non-union workers, who will work for peanuts without benefits, or worse, forcing them to compete with overseas labour who are so desperate they will allow themselves to be abused for 16 hours a day for less than peanuts, no benefits and no job security."

Woah, woah, woah. What is this force you are talking about? What is this abuse? Are you high right now? Did I somehow advocate the use of force and violence? Sorry, that's illegal. Working 16 hours a daymade us the most powerful economy in the world. Businesses were able to run more efficiently and wealth was created at an extraordinary rate, giving America the highest standard of living in the world due to all the capital built of from the growth of the economy. 

"you talk about more wealth being created when you pay people a pittance and work them like dogs."

I'm talking about wage income vs. wage rates and efficiency. Not dogs. 

"but why is that a compelling argument to us, when all that wealth goes to a much smaller number of owners, and the workers, who made that wealth a reality, don't get anything for our time & labour?"

I don't care about compelling arguments, I care about market equilibrium. But to play into your silly ethics game, the way to generate economic growth and increase the standard of living is to produce. The more you produce, the greater wealth in the economy. That means more power to consume, higher real income, and overall greater standard of living. It's obvious that higher production capacity is better than lower. The way to achieve higher production is to run at lower expenditures. This doesn't mean that wages will stay low forever, they will increase with time as aggregate wealth increases. 

Also, as far as employment is concerned, they actually ensure that more individuals are worse off. As I said, if wages are above equlibrium, unemployment will rise. Businesses only have so much to spend on payroll. The lower the wage rates, the more people can be hired. This means lower unemployment, or lower poverty. 

 "why not go as far as monarchy? why not go as far as slavery? respect for people's time and labour, or their dignity as human beings, factors nowhere into your argument."

You really have jumped on the crazy train. Monarchy has nothing to do with this. This is voluntary, it is not slavery. You are just getting weird now. But even if I were to concede you point that it is slavery (which I don't, because that's insane), I am talking about market growth and equlibrium, not respect or dignity. Go start your own topic on ethics, don't hijack mine. 

"and just as an aside, i'm sure you, personally, are not an owner of industry, and i hope you are under no delusion that you ever will be. you stand to gain nothing and lose a great deal in your perfect world."

Thanks for that life tip. You're right, I'm not an owner of industry, I just have a degree in economics. But last time I checked, you don't have to run a business to understand this stuff. Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with my "perfect world". That was out of the blue. 

But you seem to be having the same problem as jayge, confusing economics with ethics. How about you post an economically critique of my topic rather than argue some random points that have nothing to do with economics and consist of nothing more than you personal moral beliefs. 
Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#25  Edited By Jayge_
@oldschool said:
" I would always trust a union to look after  my welfare than a corporation.

Corporations want unemployment to be at a certain level for their business purposes.  When there is unemployment, they have a better bargaining position.

Unions are an absolute must and workplace bargaining will always be better for workers as a whole, and society, than individual bargaining - where the employer holds too much power.  Governments must also maintain control of the rights of workers, including unfair dismissal and proper minimum wages, so as to protect the weak and maintain social cohesion.

Just imagine life withut unioons and see where society would be.  It is not a pretty picture.
"
Society is subjective. Only the market matters.

And this post is worthless without that damn south park clip... god dammit. Can't find it anywhere.
Avatar image for suicrat
Suicrat

3829

Forum Posts

1057

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By Suicrat

Nothing wrong with voluntarily-formed mutual-representation systems.

But in effect unions are labour brokers. Manipulating the supply of labour to drive their returns higher. They're like Opec, but they're dealing in people and not oil.

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#27  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@chrissedoff

"morality and ethics don't occur in two separate worlds that can be discussed independently of one another. they should be working in tandem towards one goal."

You just made a moral claim on what economists should do. Maybe I don't have the same moral beliefs as you. Oops, now you're stuck. And yes, actually you can evaluate situations without consisering ethics. Watch this: 

The elasticity of demand is the change in price divided by the change in demand. It can be shown like this: E= ^P/^D. Price and Demand have an inverse relationship so that the demand curve is always downward sloping. If a price is set above market equlibrium, there is a surplus. If a price is set below market equilibrium, there is a shortage. 

See that, no ethics involved. It's called economics. 

"giving your opinion on economics and claiming it to have no link to any kind of morality is disingenuous at best and masturbatory at worst."

You are weird as fuck. 

"PS, the idea that your simplistic jabber has taught anyone anything about markets is laughable. a name dropped here, a claim of authority there, no arguments of any substance disseminated so far."

What? Please, destroy my simplistic arguments. I encourage it. I haven't seen a single economic rebuttal from you yet. Just random opinions and calling my post rabble. 
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#28  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Suicrat said:
" Nothing wrong with voluntarily-formed mutual-representation systems.But in effect unions are labour brokers. Manipulating the supply of labour to drive their returns higher. They're like Opec, but they're dealing in people and not oil. "
Ugh.....I didn't say there is anything wrong with it in the
moral sense. 

I'm saying it is bad for the economy. No one seems to get this. 
Avatar image for rsistnce
RsistncE

4498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By RsistncE
@Jesus: So Jesus is a fucking hippy AND a unicorn lover. My mind has been blown.
Avatar image for suicrat
Suicrat

3829

Forum Posts

1057

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By Suicrat
@lilburtonboy7489: That is like saying that corporations harm economies by staking claims to resources and then driving down the cost of them by increasing the supply of them.

A free economic agent has the right to form associations for whatever purposes they want, and if they bring about personal economic gain, then they are improving the state of their economy. Where the major economic drain from organized labour comes in is the forceful restriction of the supply of labour, with government backing. Unions wouldn't have the power to cripple economies without their men in Washington helping out
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#31  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Suicrat

"That is like saying that corporations harm economies by staking claims to resources and then driving down the cost of them by increasing the supply of them."

I didn't say that at all....That's good for the economy. 

"A free economic agent has the right to form associations for whatever purposes they want, and if they bring about personal economic gain, then they are improving the state of their economy."

Not necessarily. First of all, as I said, wage incomes generally stay the same. There is a reaon that union workers are not rich, it's because they get less hours than non-union workers. The wage income is the same, yet expenditures for businesses are higher because real income rates have increased. This doesn't make the union worker better off economically though, it just makes life easier for them. 

And even if I conceded the point that union workers are better off at first look, I would still dispute that it is misleading. Businesses would be worse off. They get much less production from the same amount of expenditures. That means they have less money to invest because their wealth has greatly shrunk due to the increased costs. These investments are what drive economic growth and increase the standard of living. Capital accumulation is key here. 

 "Where the major economic drain from organized labour comes in is the forceful restriction of the supply of labour, with government backing. Unions wouldn't have the power to cripple economies without their men in Washington helping out"

That's true, except for most union workers are mislead in thinking the higher wage rates are beneficial. I agree that government backed unions are bad and maybe even worse, but even non government backed unions are harmful to the union members because they will lose hours and more members will lose jobs. The reason is that the market is always in flucuation. This fluctuation requires dynamic wage rates. If they aren't allowed to fall when needed, they will lose hours and possibly their jobs. 
Avatar image for capitalism
Capitalism

74

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Capitalism

unions also make it harder to hire new people at their company and make prices go way up for the consumer.

in short: union workers get richer at the expense of others getting poorer

Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#33  Edited By Jayge_

You know, Burton, you could edit quotes down and leave the formatting normal, instead of using that obnoxious system.

Avatar image for suicrat
Suicrat

3829

Forum Posts

1057

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By Suicrat

I don't think voluntarily formed labour corps necessarily make rigid the costs of labour. In many cases they can provide flexibility and a dynamism that a single labourer could not (hence the value of outsourcing).

Like the leftists who hate corporations because limited liability makes them immune to criminal prosecution, I have to remind those with the same political stripes as me that the current political-economic state of affairs would not necessarily apply to a differently-organized social system.

Basically what I am saying is in a free society, unions might become labour-supply corporations, and that process might increase the availability of the supply of labour.

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Jayge said:
" You know, Burton, you could edit quotes down and leave the formatting normal, instead of using that obnoxious system. "
That would make waaaay too much sense. 
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#36  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Suicrat said:
" I don't think voluntarily formed labour corps necessarily make rigid the costs of labour. In many cases they can provide flexibility and a dynamism that a single labourer could not (hence the value of outsourcing).Like the leftists who hate corporations because limited liability makes them immune to criminal prosecution, I have to remind those with the same political stripes as me that the current political-economic state of affairs would not necessarily apply to a differently-organized social system.Basically what I am saying is in a free society, unions might become labour-supply corporations, and that process might increase the availability of the supply of labour. "
If they don't make rigid wage rates, then virtually all problems disappear with unions. But since that's the main purpose of unions, I think my criticisms can stand. 

I'm not sure labor supply corporations are needed, but that could work. The worry I would have, is that their primarily goal would to keep wage rates propped up though. Otherwise, why have unions?
Avatar image for suicrat
Suicrat

3829

Forum Posts

1057

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By Suicrat

That isn't necessarily true. Corporations in other aspects of the economy don't simply make rigid the supply of their goods to drive up the price of their goods. If it were up to Chevron and ExxonMobil, oil prices would be lower, because they wouldn't accept the supply constraints Opec thrusts upon them.

Unions can exist for reasons other than the cost of labour. They can be ways for workers to pool their resources to purchase products and services collectively, driving down the cost for them of the item they wish to purchase.

Though you're right that if their only purpose is to drive up the cost of a thing, then they wouldn't last long in a free market.

Avatar image for pirate_republic
pirate_republic

1151

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#38  Edited By pirate_republic
@CL60 said:
"Black text fail."

Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#39  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@Suicrat said:
" Unions can exist for reasons other than the cost of labour. They can be ways for workers to pool their resources to purchase products and services collectively, driving down the cost for them of the item they wish to purchase.Though you're right that if their only purpose is to drive up the cost of a thing, then they wouldn't last long in a free market. "
That works for me. I'm not opposed to organization of labor as long as it is sensible and not short-sighted. 
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#40  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@pirate_republic said:
"
@CL60 said:
"Black text fail."
"
Contribution to topic fail.
Avatar image for suicrat
Suicrat

3829

Forum Posts

1057

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By Suicrat
@lilburtonboy7489: Well herein lies the underlying issue: unions' ability to coerce workers into joining (i.e., majority vote), and their ability to coerce companies into accepting only their product is the problem, not the existence of unions themselves. If we had a mechanism of some kind which was able to effectively deter the use of these tactics (I don't want to give this mechanism a name, because the naming part is where our disputes lie, which is silly), then the existence of trade unions would not be an economic nor a moral problem
Avatar image for pirate_republic
pirate_republic

1151

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#42  Edited By pirate_republic
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@pirate_republic said:
"
@CL60 said:
"Black text fail."
"
Contribution to topic fail.
"
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#43  Edited By lilburtonboy7489
@pirate_republic said:
"
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"
@pirate_republic said:
"
@CL60 said:
"Black text fail."
"
Contribution to topic fail.
"
"
dang it....
Avatar image for pirate_republic
pirate_republic

1151

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#44  Edited By pirate_republic
@lilburtonboy7489:
It is apparrent to me that you want me to contribute. Unions are good, otherwise it'll be the industrial revolution all over again. That is all.
Avatar image for lilburtonboy7489
lilburtonboy7489

1992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#45  Edited By lilburtonboy7489

Industrial revolution good?

Avatar image for stephen_von_cloud
Stephen_Von_Cloud

2030

Forum Posts

844

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

Not really sure what the answer is, but I think a lot of unions as of late are corrupt and don't help workers like they once did.  They're just like the businesses.

My dad worked for a corporate airline for 40 years and the union ended  up cutting half of his pension.  Sure it wasn't just the Union doing that alone, and there are obviously other factors, but I just don't get how you can let workers down when they're paying their union dues for 40 years.  As soon as you retire they could care less about you.

Avatar image for relys
Relys

1001

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#47  Edited By Relys

I had to pay a union start up fee of $30, and I have to pay $27 a month now that I just started working at Slaveway. (By July 26 they'll have to increase they're pay per hour to $7.25 to keep up with the minimum wage laws).

Working as a courtesy clerk, I see no need for the union seeing as I'm being paid the state minimum wage.

I hate them. I can't wait until I can get my originally planned summer job as a Lifeguard. (Unfortintiallly for me, they hired at the pool when I was on  vacation). :( I'm pretty sure I would have gotten the job if I had known about it. (They pay $16 an hour starting out)

Oh well, the pool will be hiring in the Fall and I'm volunteering at the pool every Saturday for childrens classes so I pretty much have a job secured there. If not, I could always get a lifeguard job on the local military base.

Avatar image for jayge_
Jayge_

10269

Forum Posts

2045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#48  Edited By Jayge_
@Stephen_Von_Cloud said:
" Not really sure what the answer is, but I think a lot of unions as of late are corrupt and don't help workers like they once did.  They're just like the businesses.My dad worked for a corporate airline for 40 years and the union ended  up cutting half of his pension.  Sure it wasn't just the Union doing that alone, and there are obviously other factors, but I just don't get how you can let workers down when they're paying their union dues for 40 years.  As soon as you retire they could care less about you. "
A lot of unions that gain publicity nowadays seem disproportionately interested in furthering their own positions at the expense of the community they are supposed to serve, consumers and workers alike. Many of the people who run them are corrupt to the core.
Avatar image for zander1123
zander1123

104

Forum Posts

168

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#49  Edited By zander1123

black text it burns it burns


Avatar image for ket87
Ket87

472

Forum Posts

156

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#50  Edited By Ket87

Unions destroyed the American steel and automotive industries let us not forget. And nowadays do a half-assed job at protecting workers rights anyways, its no longer the 70's and the mob is no longer behind the unions. So now unions are pussies and a waste of money and would do much better if they were dissolved and workers rights were outlined by laws not contracts subject change.