it works because high compensation and strength of job market, not "results in". these (high paid) workers have a lot of power individually which balances against the scale power of the organization. Not so for low skill workers. At will employment will not lead to higher wages for low skill workers. It will lead to fuller employment, more overall wages.
I understand why low-skill workers want to form unions, just like I understand how people want to buy gas and drive a 1 ton internal combustion engine around by themselves, it makes their lives better in the short term.
but in that comment I went on to say that the overall (aggregate, total) wages paid by greedy, rapacious capitalists to low-wage workers (taken as a group) will be higher without unions. It's well known that unions get higher wages for their members at the expense of unemployment for their non-members.
I think the right answer is policies that decrease the power of large employers by making sure that they are always competing against other large employers. I don't think there should be 1 Amazon, I think Amazon should be broken into a half dozen Amazons. Bezos would continue to own the same %age of the Amazons as he does of Amazon, so it's fair to him, but Amazon would no longer be a monopsony in the the labor market and the small vendor marketplace, nor have monopoly power for consumers, so fair to everyone else also.
such a hard core market solution as I'm proposing would probably drive wages down, but it would also drive prices down, and driving prices down (or holding back increases, nobody wants deflation) is a really powerful way to increase standards of living
While I understand your argument, and it has some legitimacy, particularly in relation to anti-trust regulation and moving back to actually enforcing the laws, as opposed to what has been happening since the late 1980s.
Low-skill workers only have the power to withdraw their labor (which is their only negotiating leverage) when their labor is required.
As for unions getting higher wages for their members, that's their job (by definition). It's not at the expense of unemployment for their non-members.
The "hard core" market solution you're proposing is what used to be implemented ever since the anti-trust laws and regulations were passed in the early 20th century. Standard Oil was broken up and the companies that exist as a result today (Mobil, Exxon, etc) have all done very well in spite of Standard Oil being split. The same applies to AT&T and IBM (less so, due to their own management) and Microsoft.
no, anti-trust laws talk about abuse of monopoly power, which can only be established after years of said abuse and which leave many of the negative patterns untouched. I'm talking about using market share itself as the metric
> "hard core" market solution
I call it hard-core because most of the arguments for "free market" solutions wind up protecting large businesses. I'm talking about making sure to subject large businesses to market forces for the benefit of consumers, whose jobs I'm not willing to protect. To put it in vulgar political terms, neither the socialist Democrats nor the capitalist Republicans would support what I'm talking about, that's how you know it's good. And it's more of a thought experiment, it's like saying "I know the answer, carbon capture!" when carbon capture is the unknown hard part, but you have to think this way to achieve a breakthrough. I'm focusing attention on the parts of the market that are failing.
> not at the expense of unemployment
you're writing patiently as if you're teaching me something (which i don't mind, i'm pedantic af, welcome friend), but unions getting higher wages at the cost of higher unemployment is standard econ 101, taught in every class everywhere, except maybe Political Economy where they talk about workers's feelings.
Thanks for that longer (and gracious) explanation.
Upon a more careful re-reading, your post is more clear; I chalk up my misreading to reading and replying while commuting back home from the airport. The fault is in my reading not your writing.
How are Unions "organized Mafia" (btw, Mafia, by definition is "organized crime") yet organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and other "business associations" are not?
Why are businesses allowed to "organize" and "influence politics" (Citizens United decision anyone?) yet when a union does it, it's considered somehow theft from workers and "socialist".
If capitalism is about regulated free markets, then why is a regulated labor market not "free"? Unregulated markets are both anarchic and lead to oligarchic and monopolistic behavior, as can be seen in areas like big tech etc.
Capital "vs" labor is by definition about labor attempting to extract as much of the profit of their labor as they can, while capital will be working to achieve the opposite. To ensure that this is at least managed, a regulated market, with an impartial regulator and legitimate market laws is required.
