Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I give Not Bob my proxy on the underlying debate about collective bargaining versus this kind of individual bargaining.

But I'd point out that, economically, unions have been critical to the US economy. The ability of the workers in the auto plants to buy the cars they make, and of other workers in other industries to similarly be able to afford their own products, is what has given us the powerful market that we have today, and that has arisen because of collective bargaining.

One of the things happening today in tech is that the work is starting to get fragmented out so low wage sweatshop environments can be used to perform some of the work not needing more talented or educated work forces. The dynamics that made tech a high-wage industry that wasn't unionized, especially the shortage of talent and the need for unique talents for even ordinary tasks, are fading. If collective bargaining doesn't develop in the industry, expect to see big economic problems as that portion of the US market's buying power shrinks.

We live in a world today where large portions of the country have chosen, especially by undermining unions and education, to compete with China, Vietnam and the Philippines, at the very point when China in particular is choosing to compete with California and Massachusetts. Aim higher, people. Aim higher.

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

Nick Hanauer's been nailing related issues for years. (I see minimum wage and unionization as near indistinguishable items in terms of the broad economic debate about the inequality between capital and labor. I also see labor as a form of capital and think the distinction between the two is artificial [They should both be considered "assets," and leave it at that].)