Originally posted by: shilala
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Injury
I don't know your situation, but I do know that when the average unionized worker is making something equivlent to a college graduate in the workforce for 5 years, with better benefits and the job of a simp, there is something wrong.
Factory jobs shouldn't have to take the bullcrap from unionized employess like they do. Most parts of automotive manufacturing is UNSKILLED LABOR. The ONLY reason that a factory job is more important than the burger flippers and janitors in the country is that they are more dangerous.... but there's no way in hell that some of the guys that work there should be making the $25-30/hr they do. That's just stupid. Even if you've been there 40 years, it shouldn't matter.
$5 more in your pocket is great for you, but now some factory has to pay it's employees $5 more every hour... guess who pays for that in the end? THE REST OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY. They just pass the cost straight on to the customer.
Unions were created to prevent dangerous and risky working situations, as well as prevent employers from screwing over workers who NEED the job.
There were NOT created to strong arm their way into getting more money left and right, and to piss whine and moan everytime the slightest hint of inflation comes along.
Funny enough, when union workers negotiate for big bucks and the money is passed on to the customer... in turn the customer needs to start making more money... thus the company they work for has to charge more to get them more money... yadda yadda yadda. Yeah, it can be said for any job, not just unionized ones, but the unions are negotiating for CRAZY HIGH amounts. Remember two years ago, the grocery store strike, where they were complaining that giving a paycut to cashiers making upwards of $17/hr? Yeah, unions suck ass.
wow... for someone who apparently believes in free markets, you're showing some severe ignorance of how free markets work.
That is the stupidest post I have read in a YAUT yet.
I agree - the notion that a competitive firm can simply 'pass costs along to consumers' is utterly ridiculous.
If you learn one thing from basic economics it should be this:
under competition, firms are price-takers.
Now we can argue all day about the degree of competition in a given industry, but the fact remains that costs cannot simply be 'passed along' in anything the remotely approximates a market. Asking prices can be increased, with any associated reductions in demand, but they simply do not work their way through the system in the manner that Injury describes.
In fact, the standard (but still highly flawed) argument is that unions lead to artificially low employment levels in unionized companies. By this I mean high capital:worker ratios, which allow higher marginal products of labour, which allow companies to pay workers high wages without going broke. What is glossed over here is that maintaining such high ratios should be impossible in a world which supposedly also has a free market for investment funds, as this one does, since high capital:worker ratios are typical of industries with low returns to capital. But I digress.
Allowing this capital ratio inequality means lower capital:worker ratios for the rest of the non-unionized economy, meaning each worker in the rest of teh economy has less 'technology' helping them do their job, and as a result lower productivity, and lower pay than they would have in a world without unions.
Short version - unionization of some industries leads to lower employment and higher pay in those industries, and higher employment with lower pay in 'the rest' of the industries.
I think that's mostly BS myself, but it's the standard textbook answer that neo-classical economists would give.
I tend to think you can gain more from analysing the gap between 'living wage' (in the long run, the smallest wage you can pay a worker without them dying) and 'workers marginal productivity' (in free market theory, what a worker actually gets paid). The funny thing is that in the textbook world, living wages are irrelevant, but in the real world, they are very much more important in people's day-to-day lives than often abstract calculations of productivity.
Think about this: What is the productivity of a manager? what about a janitor in a factory? How do you calculate the productivity of
anyone who doesn't singlehandedly create a good or service that is directly sold in the marketplace?