🇳🇱
I have always been a big supporter of #unions but lately I have been second-guessing that and debating with myself if I might actually change my views to be against unions....
My thinking is simple.. I am a huge supporter of anti-trust laws. Essentially I dont think companies should be allowed to create coalitions with the intention of price-fixing the market. This makes sense to me, companies **must** compete or else they can become too powerful.
If i believe in that logic then I should, by similar logic, be against unions. Unions are effectively large groups of people getting together to carry out price-fixing of their labour.
@freemo Unions is to give the workers a fair treatment, isn't it? To stop companies from acting like assholes to their workers.
Price-fixing labour sounds not as bad as price-fixing the market. After all, what is minimum wage if not price-fixing too? Or did you want to get rid of that as well?
@trinsec Everyone wants more, everyone thinks they arent treated fair. Companies think they pay too much for employees and may just as well view themselves as the one not getting fair treatment.
The anti-trust laws on companies is specifically there to ensure fair market value (no price fixing), so thats already how they get fair treatment.
I am also against minimum wage, it has caused enormous harm to the poor.
@freemo How does minimum wage cause harm to the poor?
@trinsec Because minimum wage is well known to cause unemployment shifts towards the poor... Higher minimum wage means hiring shifts so that fewer poor/low-educated people are hired and more higher-education people are hired. Minimum wage effectively increases unemployment amongst the group of people that you are trying to help (the poor) doing more harm than good.
@freemo Huh. That might be an American thing? Here, people are reluctant to hire well-educated people for low-skill jobs, because they tend to stay a short time because they'd get bored and move on to jobs that actually suit their level.
@trinsec No its pretty universal in the world... It isnt the result of high-education people getting hired for low skilled jobs. It is instead the fact that high-education positions that automate low-skilled jobs emerge. People are hired to build self-chekout machines and to maintain them, and the cashiers loose their job entierly. As minimum wage increases this accelerates.
@freemo *Giggles* Self-checkout machines are starting to fall in disfavor around here because theft is hugely on the rise due to inflation. Those companies aren't saving anything, just as a funny aside.
There's a personnel shortage everywhere, too. I'd say minimum wage is actually helping out a lot right now. If there was too many workers and not enough jobs, you'd have a point. But right now, not really.
> *Giggles* Self-checkout machines are starting to fall in disfavor around here because theft is hugely on the rise due to inflation. Those companies aren't saving anything, just as a funny aside.
Thats the thing there are plenty of downsides to self-checkout... which is why many store owners might be resistant to it. But the more you price-fix the cost of labour with minimum wage the more those down-sides are worth it since there is a point where the costs balance out.
When there is a shortage of workers you dont need unions, thats the point, market pressures increase your pay as is since companies now need to compete to hire you aware... So there really is no good argument for needing unions in that scenario.
@freemo We had teacher strikes, cop strikes, etc, because of the government's decisions. Only possible with unions because how else will you organize this? Here the strikes are usually against government, not so much against companies. At least, not at that large scale. How do you figure this will fit here?
@trinsec You wont have strikes, strikes shouldnt be allowed, that is price-fixing and would be no different than companies organizing together and refusing to give their services at the market price...
Now you CAN have protests, and those get organized all the time. So nothing stopping people from protesting these issues still.
@freemo Well, the strikes aren't always about increasing wages, actually. It's also about lowering work pressure and all that. You seem to be focused on price-fixing here.
@trinsec The idea is the same even when you talk about other features... and it works the same on the flip-side with antitrust... companies might not create coalitions just to price-fix, maybe they want to sell their product at the same price but be allowed to use all sorts of dangerous chemicals, or build it with cheap parts.. The concept is the same even beyond price-fixing, its just easier to talk in price fixing terms.
We already know from expiernce that doesnt work. We created anti-trust laws with very good reason, because when they are allowed to coordinate and price fix the markets collapse.
@JonKramer @freemo @trinsec Yeah – when we see problematic monopolies, I always wonder: why can't someone else sneak in and undercut? It seems like more often than not the answer is something like "regulatory capture".
Do we really need antitrust legislation? Or maybe what we need is just less statism?
@JonKramer @freemo @trinsec I'd say the same thing about Unions, too, of course: I think workers negotiating as a bloc (price fixing, essentially) would be totally fine if nothing prevented people from undercutting the bloc. I realize this takes the wind out of the sails of Unions, though. I think this is probably what Freemo means by "You wont have strikes".
The issue with undercutting has to do with niche "capture". Basically the barrier to entry to be able to compete is unreasonably high due to control over the whole niche.
Consider the historic example of the gas companies. If a new gas company opened up the mega-corp would just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss, they would also hike the price at all their other stations by a penny sot hey make up costs but dont really effect the cost much elsewhere. Then when the new startup goes out of business they restore the costs in the area to normal.
It effectively would make it completely impossible for small businesses to compete and enter the space. The only way to compete is by forming another megecorp right fromt he getgo, which of course no one could afford to bankroll that out of pocket.
@freemo @JonKramer @trinsec My first reaction to "just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss" is: sounds good to me, problem solved!
I guess there's an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. But... do we see that much in practice? Megacorps don't have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.
Maybe what I need to do is a bunch of case studies – how often are problematic monopolies able to do this without government help?
> How does that solve the problem?
IIUC, "the problem" is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily – you saw my next paragraph...)
> Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?
That's what I meant by scared away.
> IIUC, “the problem” is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily – you saw my next paragraph…)
Well, no. For starters the problem is that competition cant come into existance. Which in turn leads to higher prices, but also other problems.
Second, this hasnt lowered the price. As stated the monopoly lowers prices within a 50 mile radius but raises prices everywhere else. So the average price hasnt changed, so the problem isnt solved. Moreover the lower price is only temporary, once the company goes out of business then the price is raised and the money made back by an even higher rate. Moreover, knowing competition is garunteed to fail no one even bothers to create said competition in the first place, so the decreased price is never even realized.
@freemo @JonKramer @trinsec Yeah, I hope it's clear I see this point. I articulated it myself several messages ago, even. I think my other observation remains, though.
@freemo @ech @trinsec ,OK, antitrust laws (I don't think this is 100% true, just assuming it is to make this point) are needed because of the cost of entry to compete. This is a major hurdle to overcome, agreed.
What is the cost to create a labor force? A couple of pornos and a six-pack will get you started. It has no extra financial burden that stops competing groups of people from entering the market. There isn't any "niche capture" to worry about. The only issues we have with unions are regulatory, and those issues are not designed to support unions, but to undermine them.
Of course there is a barrier to entry when it comes to work... Your success as a worker financially is largerly dependent on your education or skills. Aquiring those skills costs money.. there is a huge barrier of entry for those starting out in life with no skills or money and must compete with others int he labour force to grow their "brand" so they can make more money as they advance as a worker. Education for example (or other forms of training) is a huge barrier.
@ech
> My first reaction to “just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss” is: sounds good to me, problem solved!
How does that solve the problem? The company doesnt loose any money, they stay in business, and all new companies are prevented from forming that could possibly compete... what problem is being solved?
> I guess there’s an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. But… do we see that much in practice? Megacorps don’t have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.
No its not that anyone will be scared away.. they are 100% garunteed to go out of business no matter how much they undercut. Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?
@JonKramer @trinsec