Americans Don’t Miss Manufacturing — They Miss Unions

[Nice Squirrel]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/

Unions also help explain why the middle class is healthier in the Midwest than in the Southeast, where manufacturing jobs have been growing rapidly in recent decades. A new analysis from the Pew Research Center this week explored the state of the middle class in different parts of the country by looking at the share of households making between two-thirds and double the national median income, after controlling for the local cost of living. In many Midwestern cities, 60 percent or more of households are considered “middle-income” by this definition; in some Southern cities, even those with large manufacturing bases, middle-income households are now in the minority.

 

[DBT]

The balance of power has been shifting from workers and unions to management for decades. There seems to be increasing apathy amongst employees, may who seem willing to work for poor wages and conditions with little or no protest.

 

[barbos]

The balance of power has been shifting from workers and unions to management for decades. There seems to be increasing apathy amongst employees, may who seem willing to work for poor wages and conditions with little or no protest.

That's to be expected when number of people in traditionally unionized industries becomes smaller.

 

[untermensche]

This has happened before. US unions were crushed (with force) in the early 20th Century. They rose up and were strong for a while, and now they have been illegally crushed again. But the human spirit has not been crushed.

The need for unions never ends when you accept capitalist immorality and wage slavery.

 

[DBT]

Until pay and conditions decline to the point that high percentage of the workforce become the working poor, depending on government benefits. Then when anger and frustration builds to point that people can't take any more, action is taken and the cycle of history repeats.

 

[rousseau]

Until pay and conditions decline to the point that high percentage of the workforce become the working poor, depending on government benefits. Then when anger and frustration builds to point that people can't take any more, action is taken and the cycle of history repeats.

I also see it as a demographic problem. Unionization is easy when companies have a supply problem filling their roles. Today a lot of their power comes from too much supply, and workers don't have the clout to protest because the alternative might be unemployment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unions were strong when there was no meaningful foreign competition. Now that there is industries with strong unions are pretty much destroyed by foreign competition unless they are somehow shielded from it (say, airlines.)

 

[DBT]

The result being a steady decline to the bottom for workers wages and conditions while wealth continues to concentrate at the top of the economic food chain.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

It's another symptom of the growing affection for ignorance.

"Fuck book learnins! My gut, my church, and that angry man there on the radio knows what's what!"

For the average person, a union is almost all to the good, yet we see tens of millions who don't want to work union simply because it's a union and somehow the unions are communists. It's portrayed as oppressive, as in they shouldn't have to join if they don't want to.

There is more persuasive value in repeating the same thing over and over and over again than there is in substantive discussion with poorly educated and/or non-thinking individuals.

Look at ACA. Conservative voters fucking despise it.

But why?

Some people have had their rates go up. There is no denying that. But the vast majority pay the same or less and there's over 12 million more people insured than there were before. But still, one can definitely end up bankrupt no matter how much insurance they have. And it's very real.

The point is this: the phenomenon of so obviously voting against one's own self-interests is at an epidemic level. That's why unions have faded. Conservatives powers in the U.S. have repeated the same few talking points since Reagan. That's three and a half decades spend repeating the same thing over and over again.

Look at the difference in the economy and pretty much every other measurable that concerns the nation. By every standard it is considerably better than under Bush. But rather than acknowledge that, conservatives have continuously said he's the worst President ever. It's utterly farcical, but tens of millions of voters believe it.

I also blame the internet. It seems paradoxical that with more information so readily available that people are becoming more ignorant. But that's what's happened. It's a gross misuse of the resource, but the dumb are getting dumber. And there are a lot of dummies.

 

[J842P]

The balance of power has been shifting from workers and unions to management for decades. There seems to be increasing apathy amongst employees, may who seem willing to work for poor wages and conditions with little or no protest.

There has been a concerted effort to malign unionship. If you ask the average right-winger, they'll blame unions for all the problems in the world.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You just have to whine LOUDER than the other crybabies. Those who WHINE the loudest do a little better.

The result being a steady decline to the bottom for workers wages and conditions while wealth continues to concentrate at the top of the economic food chain.

It's all about supply and demand.

Those who are in oversupply experience decreasing value. more easily replaceable = lower value = lower income.

Not ALL workers are declining. Only those whose VALUE is declining experience the declining incomes. Some workers, the ones more valuable, experience higher incomes to reflect their increasing value.

However, there are a few workers who manage to keep pace even though their value is declining. I.e., the ones who WHINE extra loud might succeed in getting paid more than they're worth, one way or another, in which case it's always at the expense of consumers and taxpayers who have to pay the cost for this extra subsidy to them to appease their WHINING.

 

[DBT]

And there it is.... the biggest whine of all. The cry of the Capitalist: the market is the ultimate solution. Working full time for a wage that does not meet the basic costs of feeding and housing, why that's just supply and demand at work, your work and your life has little value according to ''the market'' (who sets the salaries and perks and lurks of CEOs, board of directors, etc)

That itself is not a ''whine'' but a description of the world we live in according to the impersonal market forces of capitalism.

 

[untermensche]

The result being a steady decline to the bottom for workers wages and conditions while wealth continues to concentrate at the top of the economic food chain.

It's all about supply and demand.

Those who are in oversupply experience decreasing value. more easily replaceable = lower value = lower income.

Not ALL workers are declining. Only those whose VALUE is declining experience the declining incomes. Some workers, the ones more valuable, experience higher incomes to reflect their increasing value.

However, there are a few workers who manage to keep pace even though their value is declining. I.e., the ones who WHINE extra loud might succeed in getting paid more than they're worth, one way or another, in which case it's always at the expense of consumers and taxpayers who have to pay the cost for this extra subsidy to them to appease their WHINING.

This is the sociopaths view of the world. In other words the capitalists view.

Humans are just commodities.

And human labor has no inherent value.

 

[SimpleDon]

The result being a steady decline to the bottom for workers wages and conditions while wealth continues to concentrate at the top of the economic food chain.

It's all about supply and demand.

Those who are in oversupply experience decreasing value. more easily replaceable = lower value = lower income.

Not ALL workers are declining. Only those whose VALUE is declining experience the declining incomes. Some workers, the ones more valuable, experience higher incomes to reflect their increasing value.

However, there are a few workers who manage to keep pace even though their value is declining. I.e., the ones who WHINE extra loud might succeed in getting paid more than they're worth, one way or another, in which case it's always at the expense of consumers and taxpayers who have to pay the cost for this extra subsidy to them to appease their WHINING.

In one short but colorful post, you have made three different claims as to how wages and salaries are set --

• by supply and demand, presumably for labor
• by the True Value™ of their labor
• by their ability to whine

You do realize that it undercuts the credibility of your argument if you can't decide how wages are set, don't you?

 

[TV and credit cards]

The balance of power has been shifting from workers and unions to management for decades. There seems to be increasing apathy amongst employees, may who seem willing to work for poor wages and conditions with little or no protest.

There has been a concerted effort to malign unionship. If you ask the average right-winger, they'll blame unions for all the problems in the world.

What are the unions doing to combat this perception? There is the perception among the rank and file that unions will take your money and doing little or nothing for you. That they are in bed with management.

Coincidentally I have had a negative experience with the union. Coincidentally this is the only job I've held that is union. Mine is a Memo of Agreement signed by the union president and management that rewrites a section of the ratified union contract because "the Parties' recognized that certain language in the Pay Plan did not accurately reflect the Parties' mutual intent" and "this MOA is to clarify the Parties' mutual mistake and to clarify the Parties' mutual understanding".

Does this mean I don't move up to the next pay grade upon successful completion of my training as per the contract?
You bet your sweet bippy.
Oh.

So, I would assume there was a draft contract, both sides had (I would also assume) teams of lawyers pour over this contract prior to presenting it for ratification and all these forty pound heads missed this wording resulting in this "mutual mistake". Then my ignorant ass gets hired, flips through the contract, gets excited by the section called "Pay Plan" and manages to find what they all initially missed. Well fuck me.

By the way, where I'm currently working only one (the union rep) of thirty people is a union member. That's more than just right-wingers.

Just a little anecdote.

 

[RVonse]

Unions were strong when there was no meaningful foreign competition. Now that there is industries with strong unions are pretty much destroyed by foreign competition unless they are somehow shielded from it (say, airlines.)

Yes. But that does not mean unions are bad at all. If you like a robust middle class economy, unions are what are good.

The solution IMO is for unions to become international in scope. Instead of a TPP agreement which is basically a rigged economy for the CEO's of the corporations, what the world needs is an international agreement for workers of the world. An agreement which (like TPP) will mandate workers wages regardless of a sovereign position of country. And yes, that will raise the cost of goods and services. The effect will be exactly as in the booming area's of the United States (Silicon Valley) where both wages and prices rise. Such a situation is good for all of humanity as opposed to an economic situation where both wages and prices are lower (say Mexico).

Anyway, the net effect of organized international labor will be to raise the wages of the middle class and lower the wages of the people at the very top who really do not produce anything anyway.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Unions were strong when there was no meaningful foreign competition. Now that there is industries with strong unions are pretty much destroyed by foreign competition unless they are somehow shielded from it (say, airlines.)

Yes. But that does not mean unions are bad at all. If you like a robust middle class economy, unions are what are good.

The solution IMO is for unions to become international in scope. Instead of a TPP agreement which is basically a rigged economy for the CEO's of the corporations, what the world needs is an international agreement for workers of the world. An agreement which (like TPP) will mandate workers wages regardless of a sovereign position of country. And yes, that will raise the cost of goods and services. The effect will be exactly as in the booming area's of the United States (Silicon Valley) where both wages and prices rise. Such a situation is good for all of humanity as opposed to an economic situation where both wages and prices are lower (say Mexico).

Anyway, the net effect of organized international labor will be to raise the wages of the middle class and lower the wages of the people at the very top who really do not produce anything anyway.

How would you implemet that? In China, any "international labor organizer" would be shot.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. But that does not mean unions are bad at all. If you like a robust middle class economy, unions are what are good.

The solution IMO is for unions to become international in scope. Instead of a TPP agreement which is basically a rigged economy for the CEO's of the corporations, what the world needs is an international agreement for workers of the world. An agreement which (like TPP) will mandate workers wages regardless of a sovereign position of country. And yes, that will raise the cost of goods and services. The effect will be exactly as in the booming area's of the United States (Silicon Valley) where both wages and prices rise. Such a situation is good for all of humanity as opposed to an economic situation where both wages and prices are lower (say Mexico).

Anyway, the net effect of organized international labor will be to raise the wages of the middle class and lower the wages of the people at the very top who really do not produce anything anyway.

How would you implemet that? In China, any "international labor organizer" would be shot.

By making freedom of labor organization a stipulation in trade treaties, perhaps?

 

[Harry Bosch]

How would you implemet that? In China, any "international labor organizer" would be shot.

By making freedom of labor organization a stipulation in trade treaties, perhaps?

Well, I just can't imagine China ever agreeing to that. Do you?

 

[SimpleDon]

And there it is.... the biggest whine of all. The cry of the Capitalist: the market is the ultimate solution. Working full time for a wage that does not meet the basic costs of feeding and housing, why that's just supply and demand at work, your work and your life has little value according to ''the market'' (who sets the salaries and perks and lurks of CEOs, board of directors, etc)

That itself is not a ''whine'' but a description of the world we live in according to the impersonal market forces of capitalism.

Actually, of the three methods of setting wages and salaries, I think that Lumpenproletariat was closest to being right when he said that whiners are paid more. You would have to moderate his choice of words, of course, he certainly intended to denigrate the whiners. But what he calls "whining" would be more properly be called "negotiating." Wages are most directly dependent on the relative negotiating strength of the employees and the employers.

What reduces employees' negotiating strength is high unemployment and having to negotiate individually.

High unemployment is not so much a function of the supply of labor as it is a function of the way that we try to control inflation. By raising interest rates the Fed causes high unemployment in the industries that depend on their customers borrowing money to purchase the products, primarily home construction and new automobiles.

A more logical and effective way to control inflation is to raise or lower a regressive tax to lower or raise demand through the entire economy, not just to inflict unemployment on a few select industries. Raising or lowering the interest rates also becomes less effective as our economy moves away from manufacturing.