Re:NYC's brand new subway is the most expensive in the world
by yummyfajitas on Monday January 02, 2017 @07:39PM
(#13305723)
Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers.
But they create no new wealth themselves while seeking to capture more wealth. Hence, rent seekers.
Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is.
Correct, a manager/CEO/construction worker negotiating higher compensation by threatening to leave is not rent seeking. That's because this factor of production would not be employed at a lower wage.
Rent seeking is a technical term with a specific definition, not a general term of derision. Unions meet that definition, CEOs (in their role as labor) mostly do not.
Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking.
Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is.
Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay.
>You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel.
You seem even more confused.
First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers".
By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely.
If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that.
Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong).
The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have.
Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.