Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

Re:Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat... by hkmurakami on Sunday November 20, 2016 @05:16PM (#13001613)

>One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.

Honestly, neither of the two major parties have looked out for their interests in decades.

Hence the revolt against both the major parties this year.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat... by ethbro on Sunday November 20, 2016 @09:29PM (#13002629)

The major problem seems to have been that neither party had or has an effective answer to the systemic de-employment (i.e. substituting lower paying jobs) which affects manufacturing hubs post-free trade agreements.

The economist argument has always been (a) sign free trade deal, (b) some jobs lost as labor reallocates to cheaper locations, (c) prices for goods decrease enough that everyone is better off.

Based on the result from the Rust Belt (and the split, not just the winner), I'd say they felt neither party did enough about (b).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat... by zeroer on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:41AM (#13003814)

> everyone is better off

That's definitely not the argument. It's that on average most people are better off, or some sort of weighted average of people's well-being.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat... by ethbro on Monday November 21, 2016 @05:27AM (#13004395)

Your version is probably more accurate. They converge in the long term, but absolutely not immediately.

[ Parent | on HN ]