Unions Explained

[Jon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=LEhHD5iXzDg

[1715640879]

1715640879

[1715640879]

1715640879

[1715640879]

1715640879

[1715640879]

1715640879

[Rassah]

Just a few minor quirks about this:

* If you have no problems with monopolies, you should have no problems with private sector unions. All they are are human resource companies that sell resources innthe same way that any other company would. The resources in this case being labor. One thing against them though is that they can sometimes bully other business and employees, which SHOULD be treated as unfair business practices or racketeering, but sadly isn't. Either way, unions still fit into the free market ideal.

* Government employees getting paid higher salaries is not true. On average government employees earn higher salaries than private sector, but that's because ALL government positions are professional white collar type, like accounting, research, management, etc. All jobs like cafeteria work, cleaning, custodial, etc have been outsourced by government to local business. And the average of private sector jobs includes those low level blue collar jobs. So in essence, the statistics that show government workers make more than private sector are comparing group consisting mainly of office professionals to a group that's full of McDonald's and Wal-Mart workers. If you compare private office workers to government office workers, the salaries are about the same, and many government jobs actually pay less. At my current job, the top salary for my profession is maybe half of what I can get in the private sector (I'll start looking soon as I'm done with my MBA). Caveat:I do believe fully that on average private sector employees work much more and harder than public sector employees, since public sector atmosphere is more relaxed, and it's harder to get fired. In that sense, public sector employees get paid more for the work produced than private sector ones.

[FlipPro]

Atlas does your dad work for the Heritage Foundation?

[Littleshop]

The biggest problem with unions is not the collective bargaining for salaries.   It is the imposition of rules regulating the hiring and mostly firing of employees.  They make employers (public and private) keep dead weight, unresponsive employees that know they do not have to push hard and can not be fired even for some pretty major infractions.

[Rassah]

To extrapolate from that, the biggest problem with unions is that there is no competition between unions. A business can chose its suppliers and vendors, but it can't chose its labor suppliers.

[Gabi]

Before Unions the laborers were like slaves...

[Hawker]

Before Unions the laborers were like slaves...

Well that's precisely why unions are hated by libertarians now.  Not everyone accepts that a prosperous working class is a good thing.

[Rassah]

Before Unions the not all laborers were like slaves...

You could argue that current fast food employees are like slaves right now. People with valuable skills who are in short supply were never treated as slaves. People who's job it was to just move things around without thinking, were quite literally a dime a dozen. Their option was to either get more professional skills/education, or to form a union and create artificial labor scarcity. Unions are basically labor hoarders.

[Hawker]

Before Unions the laborers were like slaves...

Well that's precisely why the are hated by libertarians now.  Not everyone accepts that a prosperous working class is a good thing.  The OP has said in another thread that US workers should be reduced to the status of $10 a week Indian wages slaves.

Everyone should get rewarded proportional to their skillset,
and not proportional to their ability to join a gang of thugs
that's large enough to threaten others.

The first system is called a meritocracy.
The second a mob rule.
 

That depends.  If one person simply has more economic power than another as a result of random chance or crony capitalism, that isn't meritocracy. 

[Hawker]

Before Unions the laborers were like slaves...

Well that's precisely why the are hated by libertarians now.  Not everyone accepts that a prosperous working class is a good thing.  The OP has said in another thread that US workers should be reduced to the status of $10 a week Indian wages slaves.

Everyone should get rewarded proportional to their skillset,
and not proportional to their ability to join a gang of thugs
that's large enough to threaten others.

The first system is called a meritocracy.
The second a mob rule.
 

That depends.  If one person simply has more economic power than another as a result of random chance or crony capitalism, that isn't meritocracy.  

Agree on cronyism, but it's an orthogonal problem to unions.

Disagree on random chance: statistically, it averages out over time,
e.g. lottery winners never amount to much in terms of impact on society.

Sorry you are wrong.  William the Conqueror distributed the wealth in England in 1066.  Its almost 1000 years later and the same families are still a large part of the upper class here.  And the US has lower social mobility than Europe so whether or not you are rich is a random factor of whether or not you are born into a rich family.

EDIT: to make clear, the reason this matters is that a meritocracy is a great alternative to unions where everyone starts off with an equal chance to be the boss.  But if its random, then there is no value in allowing the random lucky guy to screw the rest.

[ineededausername]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association. 

[Jon]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association. 

They are thugs when they corrupt the taxpayer's only means of negotiation. The main discussion point of the video was public-sector unions.

[ineededausername]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

They are thugs when they corrupt the taxpayer's only means of negotiation. The main discussion point of the video was public-sector unions.

Well, that's a problem with democracy, not with unions.  (same thing with corporations)

[Jon]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

They are thugs when they corrupt the taxpayer's only means of negotiation. The main discussion point of the video was public-sector unions.

Well, that's a problem with democracy, not with unions.  (same thing with corporations)

I am glad we can agree.

[Rassah]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

That's BS. Just last year my union made it so that everyone working where I work has to be a member, and has to pay monthly dues (I, obviously, did not want to be a member). They are taken out of our paychecks before we even see the money. If you want to work here, you have no choice but to be a part of the union.

[Rassah]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

That's BS. Just last year my union made it so that everyone working where I work has to be a member, and has to pay monthly dues (I, obviously, did not want to be a member). They are taken out of our paychecks before we even see the money. If you want to work here, you have no choice but to be a part of the union.

This, in my neck of the woods, is called 'racketeering'

It's legal if it's a government union apparently. Your only option for not paying dues is to fill a form claiming religious objection, at which point you will be required to make an equivalent donation to a public charity of your choice, and provide them with monthly proof that you are paying. If you don't, they will start charging you automatically again. I wanted to do that and donate the forced money to Ayn Rand Institute, but I could never find that form.

[Hawker]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

That's BS. Just last year my union made it so that everyone working where I work has to be a member, and has to pay monthly dues (I, obviously, did not want to be a member). They are taken out of our paychecks before we even see the money. If you want to work here, you have no choice but to be a part of the union.

This, in my neck of the woods, is called 'racketeering'

It's legal if it's a government union apparently. Your only option for not paying dues is to fill a form claiming religious objection, at which point you will be required to make an equivalent donation to a public charity of your choice, and provide them with monthly proof that you are paying. If you don't, they will start charging you automatically again. I wanted to do that and donate the forced money to Ayn Rand Institute, but I could never find that form.

Unions get better wages and pensions for their members.  You are getting the benefit of that.  I can't believe you are complaining about not being allowed to freeload.   

[Rassah]

Unions get better wages and pensions for their members.  You are getting the benefit of that.  I can't believe you are complaining about not being allowed to freeload.   

I'm not convinced that some of the people we have working here deserve a union protected job, let alone better wages and pensions. I'm also not entirely sure why the hell they need $24 a month from every employee, either, if the basic idea is just to organize and have a representative.

[Jon]

Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.  

That's BS. Just last year my union made it so that everyone working where I work has to be a member, and has to pay monthly dues (I, obviously, did not want to be a member). They are taken out of our paychecks before we even see the money. If you want to work here, you have no choice but to be a part of the union.

This, in my neck of the woods, is called 'racketeering'

It's legal if it's a government union apparently. Your only option for not paying dues is to fill a form claiming religious objection, at which point you will be required to make an equivalent donation to a public charity of your choice, and provide them with monthly proof that you are paying. If you don't, they will start charging you automatically again. I wanted to do that and donate the forced money to Ayn Rand Institute, but I could never find that form.

Unions get better wages and pensions for their members.  You are getting the benefit of that.  I can't believe you are complaining about not being allowed to freeload.   

So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

Should I be forced to pay dues to my caveman forefathers for inventing fire as well?

[Hawker]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

Of course it can't be voluntary.  The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

[Jon]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

I don't see a problem. Maybe the union is overvaluing their labor in this case. If I am willing to work for less, why shouldn't I?

Afraid that I will out-compete you and take your job?

[Rassah]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

Of course it can't be voluntary.  The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

There would be if the union provided valuable services, such as easier contract negotiation for employees, took care of its own employee benefits so the employer didn't have to bother with that, or provided better employees by being a pool that goes out to find the best qualified workers, and quickly got rid of those dragging them down. An employer would gladly pick a union with all its services over nonunion employees then, and the union would have plenty of negotiating power.

Actually, that's a rather blatant example of what's wrong with them. Unions should be exclusionary, something you have to work and fight for to get into, as opposed to compulsory, that people are both fighting, and fighting to get out of.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

I don't see a problem. Maybe the union is overvaluing their labor in this case. If I am willing to work for less, why shouldn't I?

Take all the money you don't want out of the fat paycheck your union negotiated for you and give it to your boss.  

[Hawker]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

Of course it can't be voluntary.  The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

There would be if the union provided valuable services, such as easier contract negotiation for employees, took care of its own employee benefits so the employer didn't have to bother with that, or provided better employees by being a pool that goes out to find the best qualified workers, and quickly got rid of those dragging them down. An employer would gladly pick a union with all its services over nonunion employees then, and the union would have plenty of negotiating power.

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

[Jon]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

I don't see a problem. Maybe the union is overvaluing their labor in this case. If I am willing to work for less, why shouldn't I?

Take all the money you don't want out of the fat paycheck your union negotiated for you and give it to your boss.  

I made an individual contract with my employer. It was his money that he is now giving to me. The history of the contract is irrelevant to me.

It's not my fault the Union doesn't have a sustainable business model. Maybe they should be the ones adapting.

[Jon]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

Of course it can't be voluntary.  The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

There would be if the union provided valuable services, such as easier contract negotiation for employees, took care of its own employee benefits so the employer didn't have to bother with that, or provided better employees by being a pool that goes out to find the best qualified workers, and quickly got rid of those dragging them down. An employer would gladly pick a union with all its services over nonunion employees then, and the union would have plenty of negotiating power

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed?

To me that's truly being screwed over.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?

...snip...

Of course it can't be voluntary.  The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union.

There would be if the union provided valuable services, such as easier contract negotiation for employees, took care of its own employee benefits so the employer didn't have to bother with that, or provided better employees by being a pool that goes out to find the best qualified workers, and quickly got rid of those dragging them down. An employer would gladly pick a union with all its services over nonunion employees then, and the union would have plenty of negotiating power

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed?

To me that's truly being screwed over.

Because unless you have unique skills that mean you can't be replaced or you want to see your wages driven to the minimum, you need a union. 

I think you posted in another thread that US workers should reduce their wages to the level of child labourers in the developing world.  That's a legitimate viewpoint.  But its also legitimate to say that you don't want to be quite that poor and form a union.

[Hawker]

...snip...

My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed?

To me that's truly being screwed over.

Don't do it then.  Take all the extra money you don't want and give it to your boss. 

[Jon]

...snip...

My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed?

To me that's truly being screwed over.

Don't do it then.  Take all the extra money you don't want and give it to your boss. 

You're failing to understand that employment is a scarce resource. Under sustainable circumstances, unless I offer a competitive wage, I will not have a job. The employer has to make profit to sustain.

Do you believe a organized worker is entitled to their job even if somebody can offer the same quality of workmanship for a lower rate?

[Rassah]

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

Question: what do you believe the wage minimum is? I.e. how do you believe a minimum is determined?

[Hawker]

...snip...

My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed?

To me that's truly being screwed over.

Don't do it then.  Take all the extra money you don't want and give it to your boss. 

You're failing to understand that employment is a scarce resource. Under sustainable circumstances, unless I offer a competitive wage, I will not have a job. The employer has to make profit to sustain.

Do you believe a organized worker is entitled to their job even if somebody can offer the same quality of workmanship for a lower rate?

You are confusing separate issues.

1. Is the wage competitive?  
2. Is the job unionised?

If the employer has made the wages deal, its competitive.  Its not your job to tell him he pays you too much.  So that issue is off topic.

What you are arguing is that you should be able to undercut the unionised worker.  And that he in turn should be able to undercut you.  And that eventually you both will be on starvation wages and you are arguing that's a good thing.

Not everyone wants to live that way.  I know some US states like Alabama have that kind of system but even they depend on the Federal government to subsidise them.  Rich competitive countries have well paid unionised workers.

[Hawker]

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

Question: what do you believe the wage minimum is? I.e. how do you believe a minimum is determined?

Starvation.  If you can afford 1 calorie more than it takes to feed a single man, you are earning more than the minimum an employer can get away with.

[Jon]

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

[Hawker]

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down. 

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising.  The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth. 

[Jon]

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.  

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising.  The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth.  

Wages have increased. Employment has decreased.

The cost-of-living has gone sky high. It's not wages to be blamed but our whole controlled economic paradigm and the restrictions placed upon innovation. It's not a problem to work for only $50 a month, if your food costs are only $10 or so a month.

In a truly free market, businesses will compete for the best workers with rising wages that contrast with lower-quality workers that will work for less.

Please keep in mind that truly poor and starving people don't buy much. That creates little profit for businesses. You're implying people are irrational animals and that only a wise, virtuous elite can show us the way.

[Hawker]

At least in the first-world, not many people are willing to negotiate to wages that entail border-line starvation, Hawker. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.  

To put this in context, since 1980, the US private sector has been de-unionising.  The result is that US workers have seen a real terms fall in their standard of living during a 30 year period of huge economic growth.  

Wages have increased. Employment has decreased.

The cost-of-living has gone sky high. It's not wages to be blamed but our whole controlled economic paradigm and the restrictions placed upon innovation. It's not a problem to work for only $50 a month, if your food costs are only $10 or so a month.

In a truly free market, businesses will compete for the best workers with rising wages that contrast with lower-quality workers that will work for less.

Please keep in mind that truly poor and starving people don't buy much. That creates little profit for businesses. You're implying people are irrational animals and that only a wise, virtuous elite can show us the way.

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line.  Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/opinion/14brooks.html

"The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially."


You can search around - the fall in the percentage of unionised workers and the fall in wages are strongly correlated.  

[Rassah]

Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer.  The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum.  The workers best interest is served by not being screwed.  The union exists to help the worker.

Question: what do you believe the wage minimum is? I.e. how do you believe a minimum is determined?

Starvation.  If you can afford 1 calorie more than it takes to feed a single man, you are earning more than the minimum an employer can get away with.

Why would someone work for only 1 extra calorie a day if a competing company can offer more then? Are you essentially throwing away the entire competition for valuable skills in a free market away, or believe that everyone, even those with useless skills, should get a high wage?

In a truly free market, where there is no union, wages will be pushed down and down.  

Do you believe the price of everything, like milk, bread, clothing, haircuts, etc will be pushed down and down too, or is there a"union" of sorts keeping prices of those things art a certain level? Or do you not consider labor to the the same as any other valuable good or service?

I'm trying to understand if there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere.

[Rassah]

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line.  Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980. 

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

[Hawker]

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line.  Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.  If you are interested in modern libertarian thinking, Tyler Cowan's "Great Stagnation" adds a lot of data as to what is driving wages down and why there is no relief in sight.

Since we are agreed on the facts, can you now see why I regard your saying you want to get the union wage but not pay the union due as freeloading?

[Rassah]

Sorry but you are factually wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

Look at the blue line.  Wages have been stagnant in the US since before 1980.

Correlation <> Causation

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.  If you are interested in modern libertarian thinking, Tyler Cowan's "Great Stagnation" adds a lot of data as to what is driving wages down and why there is no relief in sight.

Since we are agreed on the facts, can you now see why I regard your saying you want to get the union wage but not pay the union due as freeloading?

That's the thing, I don't want union wage. Moreso, the union wage is still lower than my personal value. I'm only here until I finish my degree. And yes, I understand, they did stuff for me. Stuff I didn't ask for, and didn't need, and then forced me to pay for it. Stuff like forcing the state to raise everyone's salary by 3% when the state is struggling financially, and then forcing everyone to pay monthly dues that used to be voluntary, which add up to a sizeable chunk of that 3% for many employees, and then since the state will have to make up that money later anyway, creating a situation where everyone will eventually be forced to pay for that raise with state taxes. My state is living on borrowed money right now. So in the end, all they got me was nothing.

Also, can you understand why we think a lot of union employees are freeloading?

[Rassah]

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

[Hawker]

There are two explanations for that blue line:

1) The rich have been purposefully pushing down employees wages, stealing from their work instead of sharing the wealth fairly.

2) Due to technological advancements in robotics, computers, and communications, each worker has been able to become MUCH more productive without exerting any extra effort. Due to this, companies are able to create and sell much more for the same amount of human labor input, thus those who own those companies (including investors and the 1%) are able to get a lot more in profits, while the employees are still being paid for the same level of labor effort they were providing before.

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily.  De-unionise the workplace.  Push down wages.  There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

[Rassah]

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily.  De-unionise the workplace.  Push down wages.  There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

Are you generalizing our something? How can a software developer make $50 an hour and a car mechanic make $12 an hour if there is a surplus of both, and worse, the latter is usually in a union and the former  isn't?

Or is your whole premise that only those workers, who do menial, usually low priority or unnecessary, work are the only ones who deserve to have their wages artificially held high because... so that those cheap unnecessary jobs can continue to be done because... instead of those workers seeing that those jobs are crap, they pay crap, and these workers are better off spending their union time and money on learning a more valuable skill set?

[Hawker]

Both are true, though in fact the second should say "same wages for more hours" in the case of male workers.

By the way, this answer is rather curious. How do you propose rich people push down employee wages? Are you basing this on an assumption that the value of any employee is either zero, or just enough for them to survive?

Easily.  De-unionise the workplace.  Push down wages.  There is a surplus of workers so there is no risk of a strike and no downside for the employer.

Are you generalizing our something? How can a software developer make $50 an hour and a car mechanic make $12 an hour if there is a surplus of both, and worse, the latter is usually in a union and the former  isn't?

Or is your whole premise that only those workers, who do menial, usually low priority or unnecessary, work are the only ones who deserve to have their wages artificially held high because... so that those cheap unnecessary jobs can continue to be done because... instead of those workers seeing that those jobs are crap, they pay crap, and these workers are better off spending their union time and money on learning a more valuable skill set?
[/quote]

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour.  To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down. 

[Rassah]

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour.  To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down. 

It is right and natural that their wages be screwed down. If there was a need for unskilled labor, it would pay higher. If it pays too little, people would look for ways to avoid that job and get better ones. To argue that keeping wages artificially high is to imply that, as Boss said, some people people don't need jobs or income at all, and worse, to imply that its OK to be mediocre and without any skills or education, because you'll still do fine without them.

[Hawker]

There will always be a need for unskilled labour and there will always be people who are only capable of unskilled labour.  To argue that their wages are "artificially" held high by being in a union is to imply that its somehow right and natural that their wages be screwed down. 

It is right and natural that their wages be screwed down. If there was a need for unskilled labor, it would pay higher. If it pays too little, people would look for ways to avoid that job and get better ones. To argue that keeping wages artificially high is to imply that, as Boss said, some people people don't need jobs or income at all, and worse, to imply that its OK to be mediocre and without any skills or education, because you'll still do fine without them.

Our society will always have a huge percentage of people who are unskilled.  It also has a percentage of people who inherit huge advantages including wealth.  There is nothing right and proper about making the poor poorer and the rich richer.  You are confusing what is possible with what is desirable.

On a purely selfish basis, take a look at countries or states with poor worker protection and compare them to the rest of us.  Within the US, the anti-union states leech off the pro-union states.  Worldwide, the better the protection for workers, the more prosperous the country.  Even if you are happy for the poor to be reduced to begging, its in your own interest to make sure you live in a country where it doesn't happen.

[Rassah]

Our society will always have a huge percentage of people who are unskilled.  It also has a percentage of people who inherit huge advantages including wealth.  There is nothing right and proper about making the poor poorer and the rich richer.  You are confusing what is possible with what is desirable.

On a purely selfish basis, take a look at countries or states with poor worker protection and compare them to the rest of us.  Within the US, the anti-union states leech off the pro-union states.  Worldwide, the better the protection for workers, the more prosperous the country.  Even if you are happy for the poor to be reduced to begging, its in your own interest to make sure you live in a country where it doesn't happen.

Agreed, with two caveats:
1) Countries that don't have any unions or minimum wage laws (India, China, Russia, Brasil) used to have a lot of poor people, but now, despite having a large wealth divide, they are the fastest growing economies in the world, and their population of poor is shrinking. Adjusted for living expenses,in some cases they are better off than people living here.

2) The system we have here may not be sustainable. National debt is increasing, and that's only in part due to unnecessary military spending. Depending on how exactly the drain to support a minimum wage level and consequent unemployment is handled, we will either run out of borrowing power leading to the situation in Greece, or will severely stifle our economic growth and get surpassed by those other developing nations. We will become the country of unskilled labor, and ours won't even be cheap. Our only saving grace with those nations is that the corruption level in developing countries is still sky high.

So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

[Hawker]

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going.  For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result.  Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

[Rassah]

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going.  For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result.  Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

What do you mean other markets need to be open? I thought the problem was that for 30 years US kept their markets somewhat closed, where we exported stuff but limited imports, and other countries didn't have much of a market at all, but now suddenly for the last ten years the whole global market opened up, and we are forced to compete in an open market?

[Hawker]

...snip...
So, how do you believe our economy will progress in the world, when we already have to compete against others without a minimum wage, and the only thing separating two competing companies is what legal requirements they have to follow?

You have to maintain a domestic economy with a class of salaried people who buy the consumer goodies that keep the economy going.  For 40 years, the US has provided this consumer market to the world and the world has grown as a result.  Now it needs other countries to open their markets if it is to keep its market open.

What do you mean other markets need to be open? I thought the problem was that for 30 years US kept their markets somewhat closed, where we exported stuff but limited imports, and other countries didn't have much of a market at all, but now suddenly for the last ten years the whole global market opened up, and we are forced to compete in an open market?

Hmmm.  The US has always been one of the most open markets in the world.  Go to China and try selling them US made goods and see how far you get before you get arrested.  Then try the same in reverse.  It won't take you long to see which is the open economy and which is behind a wall of protective laws.

[Rassah]

So, your claim is that US is an open economy, and the rest of the world is not, and by extension, US not being able to sell our products to other countries is why we have wage and unemployment problems?

[Hawker]

So, your claim is that US is an open economy, and the rest of the world is not, and by extension, US not being able to sell our products to other countries is why we have wage and unemployment problems?

Its a big part of the problem.

I actually think the libertarian economists like Tyler Cowen identify a lot of other serious problems.  US society is going to have a lot of unemployed people for the foreseeable future.  Find a way to provide for this economic dead weight is a challenge that no politician dares to address.