5 ms·

The idea of blue-collar workers getting well-paid is very upsetting to some white-collar workers. They feel their social status threatened by people they deem b

The idea of blue-collar workers getting well-paid is very upsetting to some white-collar workers. They feel their social status threatened by people they deem beneath them.

lambdapie 11y ago
I don't think that's the primary issue people have with high wage union labor, and your comment shows an unwillingness to engage constructively with political opponents. Unions are a monopoly, and when prices (in this case, of labor) are high due to a monopoly, we must ask whether the government should allow, forbid, or encourage this monopoly. When wages are very low, I think most people are not opposed to unions forcing wages above market rates (I am, but that's another issue). But when wages are high, or driven far above what people think market wages would be, people question the moral basis for protecting workers from competition. So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  This is especially true when unions are actively sabotaging the introduction of new technology in order to maintain their high wages or inflated numbers (introduction of containerization to Oakland).
- ConroyBumpus 11y ago
  My issue with union shops is that getting things done is unnecessarily difficult. Case in point: sitting around for half a day waiting for the unionized cable puller to sling a single cat5 connection between two racks on the same row in a data center. Then the guy doesn't show up until after 1600, so he forces overtime.
  - lambdapie 11y ago
    Funny you mention that. When I was a teenager I earned pocket money by running cat5 cable through buildings. In this case it was professional licensing, not unions, that made what I was doing illegal. I think professional licensing is even more pernicious than unions, since it operates entirely through manipulating the legal system.
- knagra 11y ago
  You do realize the sentiment behind the second clause of your last sentence contradicts the assertion of the first one?
  - lambdapie 11y ago
    Could you flesh that idea out? It's not clear to me what parts of the sentence you're referring to.
    - mistersquid 11y ago
      > So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages. You say the issue is not one of considering blue collar workers to be inferior ("beneath"), but your second clause implies that if blue collar workers do not possess "special skills" "that would command high market wages" then something is "not clear", i.e. the blue collar workers would be "lower" without those "special skills". This presumes blue collar work and workers are inferior to white collar work and workers because blue collar workers need "special skills" to be equivalently compensated/regarded. EDIT: qualifying condition for last sentence.
      - lambdapie 11y ago
        Ok I get it now. I think a natural reading of my statement is that the original post was claiming some cognitive bias, in which white color workers felt themselves to be inherently better than blue collar workers, vs my own view that white color workers on average are actually worth more in the market. My claim is that there is no cognitive bias, but that white collar workers in general are worth more (because they possess a rarer set of skills).
- Frondo 11y ago
  Let me just ask you: why, in a market system, shouldn't people get as wages whatever they can demand, using personal negotiating skills, collective negotiating skills, law, whatever? Management won't leave money on the table, why should the workers?
  - lambdapie 11y ago
    You had me up to "law". From the econ perspective, the "free market" does not include lobbying for particular laws. To define it as such is mockery of the term. Assuming completely free property rights and contracts, unions would probably have almost no power. The power of unions stems from the fact that they are protected (e.g. you can't fire someone for joining a union) and the fact that the state ignores violent crime when unions commit it (but as far as I know that's not the issue here, I'm just mentioning for completeness). I think that a legal system that is skewed towards labor is ok, for various reasons. But when you see wages pushed far beyond market wages, it's fair to ask if the system is too skewed. So to answer your question, a person should not get whatever they can command by influencing the political system. Yes, both sides will try to do it, but in both cases the response should be to argue against them, and instead argue for impartial laws. EDIT: the delay before the "reply" link becomes active is there for a reason. I'll respond to any reply that I consider to be based on a thorough reading of my post, and not a knee jerk reaction (for reference, the reply I'm referring to was written 4 minutes after my post).
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Of course the free market includes the rules that govern it. If you don't have rules, you don't have a market, just a rule of anarchic might-makes-right force. If you're going to say "well, only property laws then," that's still laws! That's still a set of "this is how it should be" encoded into rules that we all have to agree to to take part in it! It's just been, for so long, assumed that "screw the workers and don't let them fight back" is somehow "more free" that we treat that like a built-in thing, when really, that's just one way of doing it. As for state-sanctioned, union-committed violent crime, oh please. EDIT: Since you edited your remarks to include the last paragraph, I'll address that, too. Why shouldn't people work to influence the political system in their favor? We all live here, we all have a role to play in the design and operation of the laws of our city/state/country. If enough people like strong worker protection laws, well, that's democracy, why shouldn't that stuff get encoded into law? SECOND EDIT: Yeah, it only takes a minute or two to read what you're saying and respond to it. I saw a "reply" link right away, so if there's some extra delay built in, it didn't apply to me.
- compostor42 11y ago
  Unions aside, there was the same butt-hurt regarding blue-collar oil field workers making 100k+. The New York Times ran endless articles complaining about the shale oil boom. Non-elite flyover whites making good money seems to really upset a certain segment of the population. How dare they make a better living them me doing physical labor! Most people have been taught to look down on blue-collar manual labor. Seeing them makes good money upsets them. Even the OP expressed his distaste for the oil-field workers.
  - lambdapie 11y ago
    Fair point, I thought you were saying before that critiques of union workers earning too much were really driven by this white vs blue collar issue, while now I see that what you were really saying is that the OP wasn't necessarily even talking about unions, just complaining about rich blue collar workers. In fact, before I saw the rest of the thread I was going to ask for clarification about the original oil-field worker point. I agree that manual work can have a high market rate even without unions, e.g. if it physically requires a very fit man to do the job, in addition to the right personality, dexterity, intelligence and reliability.
    - compostor42 11y ago
      Indeed. I don't disagree with you about the Unions at all.
pkaye 11y ago
Lots of people don't like that engineers are well compensated in the tech industry also. Look at all the company shuttle protests in San Francisco.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  And yet they never protest at the homes of the executives who decide how much tech workers are paid.
nkurz 11y ago
I think the difference is the seemingly artificial restriction on the supply of labor, and the assumption that if there are qualified individuals willing to do the work for less cost, they should be allowed to do so. If the employers are blocked from hiring these others by those who are currently employed, this strikes many people as unfair to both the employers and to those willing to do the work for less, as well as to the public who in the end bear the extra costs of the inefficient labor market. The presumed difference with white-collar work is the assumption that this pool of willing and qualified workers exists. Maybe it doesn't? I'm guessing that while there are many people who could be trained to be excellent computer programmers, but I doubt there is a significant pool of ready-to-go programmers in Oakland who are being blocked from employment by the current programmers currently holding a limited number of positions.

The idea of blue-collar workers getting well-paid is very upsetting to some white-collar workers. They feel their social status threatened by people they deem beneath them.

lambdapie 11y ago

I don't think that's the primary issue people have with high wage union labor, and your comment shows an unwillingness to engage constructively with political opponents. Unions are a monopoly, and when prices (in this case, of labor) are high due to a monopoly, we must ask whether the government should allow, forbid, or encourage this monopoly. When wages are very low, I think most people are not opposed to unions forcing wages above market rates (I am, but that's another issue). But when wages are high, or driven far above what people think market wages would be, people question the moral basis for protecting workers from competition. So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages.

fraserharris 11y ago
This is especially true when unions are actively sabotaging the introduction of new technology in order to maintain their high wages or inflated numbers (introduction of containerization to Oakland).
ConroyBumpus 11y ago
My issue with union shops is that getting things done is unnecessarily difficult. Case in point: sitting around for half a day waiting for the unionized cable puller to sling a single cat5 connection between two racks on the same row in a data center. Then the guy doesn't show up until after 1600, so he forces overtime.
- lambdapie 11y ago
  Funny you mention that. When I was a teenager I earned pocket money by running cat5 cable through buildings. In this case it was professional licensing, not unions, that made what I was doing illegal. I think professional licensing is even more pernicious than unions, since it operates entirely through manipulating the legal system.
knagra 11y ago
You do realize the sentiment behind the second clause of your last sentence contradicts the assertion of the first one?
- lambdapie 11y ago
  Could you flesh that idea out? It's not clear to me what parts of the sentence you're referring to.
  - mistersquid 11y ago
    > So the issue isn't that blue collar workers are "beneath" white collar workers, but that (at least to an industry outsider) it's not clear what special skills these workers have that would command high market wages. You say the issue is not one of considering blue collar workers to be inferior ("beneath"), but your second clause implies that if blue collar workers do not possess "special skills" "that would command high market wages" then something is "not clear", i.e. the blue collar workers would be "lower" without those "special skills". This presumes blue collar work and workers are inferior to white collar work and workers because blue collar workers need "special skills" to be equivalently compensated/regarded. EDIT: qualifying condition for last sentence.
    - lambdapie 11y ago
      Ok I get it now. I think a natural reading of my statement is that the original post was claiming some cognitive bias, in which white color workers felt themselves to be inherently better than blue collar workers, vs my own view that white color workers on average are actually worth more in the market. My claim is that there is no cognitive bias, but that white collar workers in general are worth more (because they possess a rarer set of skills).
Frondo 11y ago
Let me just ask you: why, in a market system, shouldn't people get as wages whatever they can demand, using personal negotiating skills, collective negotiating skills, law, whatever? Management won't leave money on the table, why should the workers?
- lambdapie 11y ago
  You had me up to "law". From the econ perspective, the "free market" does not include lobbying for particular laws. To define it as such is mockery of the term. Assuming completely free property rights and contracts, unions would probably have almost no power. The power of unions stems from the fact that they are protected (e.g. you can't fire someone for joining a union) and the fact that the state ignores violent crime when unions commit it (but as far as I know that's not the issue here, I'm just mentioning for completeness). I think that a legal system that is skewed towards labor is ok, for various reasons. But when you see wages pushed far beyond market wages, it's fair to ask if the system is too skewed. So to answer your question, a person should not get whatever they can command by influencing the political system. Yes, both sides will try to do it, but in both cases the response should be to argue against them, and instead argue for impartial laws. EDIT: the delay before the "reply" link becomes active is there for a reason. I'll respond to any reply that I consider to be based on a thorough reading of my post, and not a knee jerk reaction (for reference, the reply I'm referring to was written 4 minutes after my post).
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Of course the free market includes the rules that govern it. If you don't have rules, you don't have a market, just a rule of anarchic might-makes-right force. If you're going to say "well, only property laws then," that's still laws! That's still a set of "this is how it should be" encoded into rules that we all have to agree to to take part in it! It's just been, for so long, assumed that "screw the workers and don't let them fight back" is somehow "more free" that we treat that like a built-in thing, when really, that's just one way of doing it. As for state-sanctioned, union-committed violent crime, oh please. EDIT: Since you edited your remarks to include the last paragraph, I'll address that, too. Why shouldn't people work to influence the political system in their favor? We all live here, we all have a role to play in the design and operation of the laws of our city/state/country. If enough people like strong worker protection laws, well, that's democracy, why shouldn't that stuff get encoded into law? SECOND EDIT: Yeah, it only takes a minute or two to read what you're saying and respond to it. I saw a "reply" link right away, so if there's some extra delay built in, it didn't apply to me.
compostor42 11y ago
Unions aside, there was the same butt-hurt regarding blue-collar oil field workers making 100k+. The New York Times ran endless articles complaining about the shale oil boom. Non-elite flyover whites making good money seems to really upset a certain segment of the population. How dare they make a better living them me doing physical labor! Most people have been taught to look down on blue-collar manual labor. Seeing them makes good money upsets them. Even the OP expressed his distaste for the oil-field workers.
- lambdapie 11y ago
  Fair point, I thought you were saying before that critiques of union workers earning too much were really driven by this white vs blue collar issue, while now I see that what you were really saying is that the OP wasn't necessarily even talking about unions, just complaining about rich blue collar workers. In fact, before I saw the rest of the thread I was going to ask for clarification about the original oil-field worker point. I agree that manual work can have a high market rate even without unions, e.g. if it physically requires a very fit man to do the job, in addition to the right personality, dexterity, intelligence and reliability.
  - compostor42 11y ago
    Indeed. I don't disagree with you about the Unions at all.

pkaye 11y ago

Lots of people don't like that engineers are well compensated in the tech industry also. Look at all the company shuttle protests in San Francisco.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
And yet they never protest at the homes of the executives who decide how much tech workers are paid.

nkurz 11y ago

I think the difference is the seemingly artificial restriction on the supply of labor, and the assumption that if there are qualified individuals willing to do the work for less cost, they should be allowed to do so. If the employers are blocked from hiring these others by those who are currently employed, this strikes many people as unfair to both the employers and to those willing to do the work for less, as well as to the public who in the end bear the extra costs of the inefficient labor market. The presumed difference with white-collar work is the assumption that this pool of willing and qualified workers exists. Maybe it doesn't? I'm guessing that while there are many people who could be trained to be excellent computer programmers, but I doubt there is a significant pool of ready-to-go programmers in Oakland who are being blocked from employment by the current programmers currently holding a limited number of positions.