5 ms·

You can work someplace else if you hate the company. Imagine that.

andrepd 4y ago
Okay. So your company treats you like shit and you quit. Where do you go now? You need to sell your labour to survive, so you lost all your income. Your employer has other sources of income, has reserve capital, so that even if your job was critical and production is now shut while they look for a replacement (unlikely), they're gonna be fine. But you need to eat tonight. Not next quarter or next month or even next week, tonight. You need to pay the bank/landlord a steady sum or you'll become homeless. And god forbid you get less than perfectly healthy. So you don't quit actually, because it is not possible for you to quit. Capital has far more power than a (so-called) "unskilled worker", especially if there's no collective action. They have all the leverage, the worker has none, so they can dictate the conditions, i.e. the bare minimum for the worker to survive and continue working, and the worker has only to accept. I feel like I'm saying really basic stuff.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. But as a practical matter, opportunities expand faster when labor markets are free, and capital owners are secure in their rights. Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    >The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. It's not about "difficult circumstances" at all. It's about the fundamental divide between those who need to sell their labour to survive, and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. It's a qualitative distinction, of class, not a quantitative matter of being more or less poor. Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control". But I will say this: the current economic system based on joint-stock ownership of firms by capital monopolists is an entirely fabricated system, and not a rule of Nature. So don't argue "but you would seize property from their rightful owners" as if the very particular system of property rights currently in force wasn't a social invention enforced with violence by the state. >Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. >Detroit Also, it's very rich trying to link the downfall of American industry to unionisation... I could go on for an hour about this topic.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      >>and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. No capital owner has a monopoly on capital, and capital owners do not collude to act as one with respect to recruiting workers, making your claim totally specious. Also, typically businesses don't extract economic rent. Investment is a difficult and risk-filled enterprise, that adds value to the economy, making it by definition, not a form of rent extraction. I suggest putting aside Marxist narratives and studying mainstream Economics, which would dispel you of these fallacies on which your claims of class victimhood rest. >>This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. You just criticized me for making the correlation equals causation argument with respect to Detroit and then you go on to make a far more egregious use of this argument in claiming that conditions being worse in an era 80 years prior tell us the policies in place 80 years prior were worse. A rational analysis compares the trajectory of an economy relative to its contemporaries when trying to use comparisons between different eras to decipher what works. The fact is wages and productivity grow faster on average in countries where labor markets are more free. The Nordic countries saw far faster economic growth relative to the rest of the world when they were more free market economies and have been leapfrogged by Singapore and Hong-Kong in life expectancy since abandoning those free market policies and embracing socialism-lite. >>Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control" The government mandating companies to enter into collective bargaining to the exclusion of negotiating with any other worker is the government taking control of the shareholder's negotiating agency with respect to their property. Without this compulsion, the ability of unions to extract economic rent would be non-existent.
  - krolden 4y ago
    >Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self. Oh yeah blame the unions for the downfall of the american auto industry. It had nothing to do with the biggest recession in the last 40 years and the fact that no one wanted new cars when they were losing their house to the banks.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    > 1950 That prosperity almost certainly more to do with the post-WW2 economic boom than anything else. There are arguments to be made against unions but citing what happened in the golden era of the '50s-'60s isn't one of them.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Detroit being the richest city in America in 1950 was a culmination of many decades of economic development stretching back to the late 19th century.

Okay. So your company treats you like shit and you quit. Where do you go now? You need to sell your labour to survive, so you lost all your income. Your employer has other sources of income, has reserve capital, so that even if your job was critical and production is now shut while they look for a replacement (unlikely), they're gonna be fine. But you need to eat tonight. Not next quarter or next month or even next week, tonight. You need to pay the bank/landlord a steady sum or you'll become homeless. And god forbid you get less than perfectly healthy. So you don't quit actually, because it is not possible for you to quit. Capital has far more power than a (so-called) "unskilled worker", especially if there's no collective action. They have all the leverage, the worker has none, so they can dictate the conditions, i.e. the bare minimum for the worker to survive and continue working, and the worker has only to accept. I feel like I'm saying really basic stuff.

ETH_start 4y ago
The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. But as a practical matter, opportunities expand faster when labor markets are free, and capital owners are secure in their rights. Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
- andrepd 4y ago
  >The employer owes you nothing. You're citing your difficult circimstances to justify getting the government to seize control of an employer from its shareholders, in dictating its hiring decisions. It's not about "difficult circumstances" at all. It's about the fundamental divide between those who need to sell their labour to survive, and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. It's a qualitative distinction, of class, not a quantitative matter of being more or less poor. Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control". But I will say this: the current economic system based on joint-stock ownership of firms by capital monopolists is an entirely fabricated system, and not a rule of Nature. So don't argue "but you would seize property from their rightful owners" as if the very particular system of property rights currently in force wasn't a social invention enforced with violence by the state. >Employment growth has been widely observed to be stronger where labor laws are less restrictive. This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. >Detroit Also, it's very rich trying to link the downfall of American industry to unionisation... I could go on for an hour about this topic.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    >>and those who can extract rent without working due only to having a monopoly on capital. No capital owner has a monopoly on capital, and capital owners do not collude to act as one with respect to recruiting workers, making your claim totally specious. Also, typically businesses don't extract economic rent. Investment is a difficult and risk-filled enterprise, that adds value to the economy, making it by definition, not a form of rent extraction. I suggest putting aside Marxist narratives and studying mainstream Economics, which would dispel you of these fallacies on which your claims of class victimhood rest. >>This is simply not true. Notice how the best countries to live in the world are invariably those with more labour protections and a mixed economy with heavy public participation. Limiting ourselves to the US, compare the standard of living in the gilded age vs the golden age of American labour organisation. You just criticized me for making the correlation equals causation argument with respect to Detroit and then you go on to make a far more egregious use of this argument in claiming that conditions being worse in an era 80 years prior tell us the policies in place 80 years prior were worse. A rational analysis compares the trajectory of an economy relative to its contemporaries when trying to use comparisons between different eras to decipher what works. The fact is wages and productivity grow faster on average in countries where labor markets are more free. The Nordic countries saw far faster economic growth relative to the rest of the world when they were more free market economies and have been leapfrogged by Singapore and Hong-Kong in life expectancy since abandoning those free market policies and embracing socialism-lite. >>Also I did not even say anything about "government seizing control" The government mandating companies to enter into collective bargaining to the exclusion of negotiating with any other worker is the government taking control of the shareholder's negotiating agency with respect to their property. Without this compulsion, the ability of unions to extract economic rent would be non-existent.
- krolden 4y ago
  >Detroit was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self. Oh yeah blame the unions for the downfall of the american auto industry. It had nothing to do with the biggest recession in the last 40 years and the fact that no one wanted new cars when they were losing their house to the banks.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  > 1950 That prosperity almost certainly more to do with the post-WW2 economic boom than anything else. There are arguments to be made against unions but citing what happened in the golden era of the '50s-'60s isn't one of them.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Detroit being the richest city in America in 1950 was a culmination of many decades of economic development stretching back to the late 19th century.