I'm a software engineer and you don't speak for me.
There are plenty of software engineers who would unionize, given the chance. It's not easy to do. And sure, with enough effort we could, but that's a pretty big difference from "refusing to".
Software engineers and other white collar professionals want to believe we have more in common with our CEO than we do with a plumber because we work in offices, but I'd bet most of the executive class, ownership class, boards of directors and such see us the same as plumbers: we're a necessary expense
What you’re pointing out applied last year when salaries were higher too though, thats an overarching theme for decades
I’m not furious about what this article is saying, this article is about doing economically viable thing with workers - inside this country - in lower cost of living areas with salaries relevant there instead of higher cost of living areas
I agree that employees could collectively extract more of the value they help create, I don't think every article ok the topic is the right place for that discussion
> I agree that employees could collectively extract more of the value they help create, I don't think every article ok the topic is the right place for that discussion
You don't agree with anything reasonable at all. The way you just said that blames workers, as if it's workers' fault.
Frankly, until people like you stop refusing to listen, every article on the topic is the right place for this discussion, because it's arguably the largest problem facing most people today and people who don't think it's important are a big part of the problem. Whatever ivory tower economics you want to talk about instead just isn't as important.
I was referring to unions as a level of agency employees could unilaterally employ
If you call blame or refusing to listen, I’m not sure which talking point you are referring to. I’m not familiar with any concept or movement beyond that.
Employers are not going to operate outside of market conditions, am I understanding that you wanted me to acknowledge their capability of paying more? Ok. There. I have now. The union can be a market condition.
There actually is - see the various revolutions over the past few hundred years. But, as always, there’s a “but”: things would need to get much worse for that to be possible, and they would deteriorate by another order of magnitude after it happens. I’m not aware of any exceptions.
I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how we feel about our current treatment (as if there were not always people who took a hit)
World Economic Forum [1]
"Between 1948-1979, the percent growth in productivity and wages were relatively similar, with an increase of 108 percent and 93 percent, respectively. The growth from 1979-2018, however, has been drastically different. While net productivity has continued to increase by an expected 70 percent, hourly compensation in the country is less than a fifth of that at just 12 percent."
Since 1979, foreign manufacturing has grown massively at the expense of domestic, second, enormous advances in technology. Are you, presumably a software programmer, more productive because you're inherently smarter, or a harder worker, than a colleague from the 60s-70s? Or do you have much, much, much better tools, languages, frameworks, graphics, etc to do your job?
(You might even ask if you are, actually, more productive. Engineers in the 1960s created the 747 and put men on the moon. Not entirely sure either could be done today. GDP is not really the best way to measure "productivity.")
Hourly compensation has increased significantly more than that when you account for employer contributions to employee health insurance. We should have never allowed health insurance coverage to be tied to employment; that was a terrible public policy error but it's so entrenched now that it has become politically impossible to unwind.
> I find it fascinating and deeply sad how the fundamental position on capital markets seemingly shifts depending on how we feel about our current treatment (as if there were not always people who took a hit)
That's not reality. Just because you base your fundamental position on capital markets on how you feel about your current treatment, doesn't mean everyone else does.
What's deeply sad about this situation is that you don't even consider the possibility of empathy and concern for people less fortunate than ourselves.
The question is: who holds power in the relationship? If workers join together (unionize) they can demand a greater share of business' profits which are generated by those workers.
I find myself thinking of a certain kind of economic hypocrisy that I think floats around in the background, and I'm not sure how to label it:
A: "The new economic system will be based on markets which price items based on their marginal cost over basically anything else, so no more of that tricky old philosophical talk of 'true value' or 'what someone deserves.' Nope, it'll all be based on whatever lands between the two parties' negotiating positions. Totally fair."
B: "Okay then, all of us individual workers will group together to improve our weak negotiating position."
A: "No! You're doing it wrong! You don't deserve to be paid that much, your labor isn't truly that valuable!"
Productivity is up, companies are reporting record profits, and all forms of compensation are being squashed as much as possible
At some point enough is enough right?
This idea that people were being overpaid is absurd. We've been underpaid for decades and it's getting worse over time not better