News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PG on Unions by nostrademons on Monday May 07, 2007 @06:00PM (#20331)
I've got another explanation, one that's perhaps simpler and grounded in more orthodox economics:

The great union boom of the postwar era came about because labor was relatively the scarcest factor of production. Millions of people had been killed by WW2; billions more were locked up behind the iron curtain or stuck in third-world post-colonial nations, and hence unable to contribute to the global economy. Meanwhile, the U.S. had a huge capital stock leftover from WW2, and plenty of new innovations to develop. High supply of capital + high demand for products + low supply of labor = rising wages.

The nifty thing about this model is that it can explain virtually all economic history from the past millenia. For example:

Around A.D. 1000, the population of Europe began rising, marking a slow trend out of the Dark Ages. As labor became more abundant, land became scarcer (capital was not much of a factor in those days). This led to the glory days of feudalism: serfs would be bound to the feudal estate, since land was dear and labor cheap.

This continued until 1347, when Black Death hit. Within a few years, 1/3 of Europe's population was wiped out, leading to large-scale chaos in the social order. When people recovered, wages started rising. Feudalism collapsed, as there were not enough workers left to work the field, and surviving laborers began demanding more rights. The new entrepeneurial spirit led to innovations, particularly the development of modern finance, Medici-style banking. As capital became progressively more important and labor more abundant, returns to capital increased (the speculative booms in the late 1600s) and wages dropped.

Colonialism also opened up large new land areas during this time period, dropping the returns to land and increasing the returns to labor and capital. This sounded the final death knell of feudalism: you really don't hear about many knights in shining armor after the 1600s.

As labor expanded across the new continents, it eventually reached a point of diminishing returns. It's no coincidence that the industrial revolution kicked into high gear just as the Americas and European-habitable parts of Africa and Australia became fully settled. With no more land for the taking, people had to turn to machinery to increase their returns. And once the machinery had been invented, wages dropped as labor became less necessary.

This reached a head during the Great Depression, when capital outpaced what labor could buy. The immediate cause of the Great Depression was a major contraction in the money supply. This, in turn, was caused by the bursting of a major credit bubble that had inflated throughout the 1920. Credit is a way for rich people to give poor people money, so that poor people can continue to buy the products that rich people make. Unfortunately, creditors generally expect to be paid back, so it sucks when people find out that's impossible.

The Depression led to the political unrest that eventually led to World War 2. WW2 had four major effects: it killed a lot of people, it made the U.S. build up a huge industrial base for war production, it destroyed the capital stocks of most European countries, and it led to the Cold War and rise of communism. The net effect is detailed above: labor became scarce, capital became abundant, and that lead to a large increase in wages and general prosperity.

That changed in the 1980s. People generally attribute the change to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but it's worth asking how they came to power. In the 1980s, the peak of the baby boom generation was just entering the workforce. The increased labor supply drove wages down ("jobless recovery", anyone?) and returns to capital up.

The pendulum should've started swinging the other way around 1990, when the relatively small Gen-X started entering the workforce and the 1920s-born Silent Generation started retiring. And that's what happened among skilled professionals: wages for the top 20% of the population have increased significantly lately.

But the end of the Cold War put a kink in a more broad-based prosperity. When Communism collapsed, lots and lots of additional workers entered the global labor pool. And with Y2K and outsourcing and the Internet, we found out how to put them to use. So the global supply of labor has been increasing and increasing fast, which keeps real wages down and returns to capital up. Hence the booming stock market of the last 10 years, amidst fears that Main Street USA is missing out on the party.

In the last 3-4 years or so, a new wrinkle has been added. The new Asian workers are voracious savers, which means that the supply of financial capital has been high along with the supply of labor. That's why real interest rates are fairly low, and stocks are trading at valuations higher than their historical norms.

It also means the relatively scarce factor of production is innovation: the ability to take available capital and make something people want. That's why the returns to entrepreneurship have been so high for these past couple years, and why so many people have been starting startups. We're attempting to fill a supply/demand imbalance and turn all that free money floating around into useful products for people. When YouTube gets bought for $1.6B despite having little revenues and no profits, it's not because Google is stupid. It's because Google stock has been bid up to stratospheric heights by large influxes of money, and so the rational thing to do is trade it away to make life a bit better for its customers.

So PG's wrong when he says unions are a historical anomaly. (Well, the particular organization of a "union" is a historical anomaly, but the general phenomenom of labor making greater demands in times of scarcity is not.) Labor will have its day again, when a war or famine or plague kills off large numbers of people. Similarly, the startup ecosystem isn't a brave new world that'll last forever: rather, it's a reaction to the particular economic conditions that exist on earth at this time. As long as capital and labor both remain abundant, though, startups will continue to be a profitable career path.

Re:PG on Unions by pg on Monday May 07, 2007 @10:19PM (#20388)
Sure, labor prices always vary with supply and demand. I'm not contradicting that, or merely restating it. What I'm saying is that the hot companies of the early 20th century happened to be a type that needed lots of people. Those before and after didn't, earlier ones because they just weren't as big, and later ones because they tended to hire programmers by the tens, not factory workers by the hundreds.

So labor unions were a historical anomaly, because they happened at a time when, uniquely in history, single organizations needed to hire large numbers of people and didn't need to be too careful about how much they paid them.

Re:PG on Unions by jason13 on Monday May 07, 2007 @11:21PM (#20405)
That is an interesting argument.

Now what public policies would you advocate for based on your previous thesis ?

Re:PG on Unions by gibsonf1 on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @07:00AM (#20489)
I would advocate removing all legal advantages unions have to level the market. If they want to exist, let it be a fair voluntary agreement between employees and management without the legal jeopardy that still exists for management during labor disputes.
Re:PG on Unions by BrandonM on Monday May 14, 2007 @06:50AM (#21908)
This agreement could never be fair. Management has hordes of resources at its disposal that can be used to fight workers against improving their conditions. Workers cannot afford the type of representation a company has. Moreover, in an economy with a poor job market, you are bound to find someone to work a given job no matter how bad it is. This does not mean that the given wage is fair, you are simply taking advantage of a deficiency in the system.

You are also neglecting the fact that many of these manufacturing jobs pay a wage that is typically barely enough to support a family. What's to stop management from suddenly cutting workers' pay? Even in the presence of unions, many workers are forced to "grin and bear it" when certain changes are enacted, because they cannot afford to stop working there (their family would go without). In a market with no union protections, management would be free to jerk workers around at will... when the market goes a little sour, they could just lower pay, some workers would quit, others would stay and pick up the extra available hours so that they could still get by, and the company would do fine. When the market improves, management could advertise positions and temporarily raise pays in order to get more people working there. This may seem fair from a supply-demand economics perspective, but when you're talking about the lives of the workers who are not far from poverty, a slight change in pay leads to a dramatically different quality of life. Unions help to deaden this "yo-yo effect" and make the condition of the worker a little more livable and realistic.

Re:PG on Unions by Goladus on Wednesday May 09, 2007 @09:17AM (#20746)
I think that's a bad idea. I'm sure there are laws that need reconsideration, there always are. But fundamentally, collective bargaining is an important right because individual workers are worth so little all by themselves. In order for the dynamic you mention in your post to work employees have to be able to organize. They cannot do this if all the legal aspects (aka threats of force) favor the employers. Employers will use Divide and Conquer to win every time.
Re:PG on Unions by gibsonf1 on Wednesday May 09, 2007 @11:48AM (#20796)
I guess I don't quite see your point. What stops employees from organizing themselves (say using the web etc), electing someone to represent the group, and negotiating with the company. Lets say the group demands more pay, and the company says no. The employees go on strike, and the company is able to hire all new people. This means that the pay demand was beyond market levels and not an appropriate request. The flip side is the company is unable to find replacements, which would mean that the staff is underpaid, so they grant the raise. Going on strike at a company is an extremely damaging method of contract negotiation putting into jeopardy both the company and the jobs they provide. It is very risky and should only be done as a last resort. Either way, why would you need laws for this (other than current contract law, etc.)

Can you give an example of where the free market and current laws prevent voluntary group negotiation?

Re:PG on Unions by Goladus on Friday May 11, 2007 @08:35AM (#21310)
"What stops employees from organizing themselves?"

The companies themselves are one thing. I mentioned the practice called blacklisting above. If employees attempt to organize, the company fires the leaders and prevent them from being employed anywhere else in the industry. This, so far as I know, is currently very illegal because of the laws protecting Unions.

Once the workers are disorganized, they're at a big disadvantage. If we assume that individuals are unable to organize because employers use unethical tactics to keep them that way, knowledge and input on company policies becomes much harder to fight for.

Suppose top executives want to "cash out," and pursue a deal that is bad for the long term health and stability of the company but good for short term revenues and stock price. Normal workers are generally too busy with their jobs and families to spend time investigating that sort of thing. By the time the peons find out that a deal has been made, it's way too late to do anything. One of the things Unions theoretically do is ensure the workers have a voice. A Union leader would be involved somehow in the writing of the contract, and when they started talking about sending valuable training personel to a direct competitor he'd be able to fight it with the leverage of the entire Union.

But I am not a lawyer and not an expert on Union law, so I cannot give a complete example.

Re:PG on Unions by gibsonf1 on Friday May 11, 2007 @08:59AM (#21315)
We're no longer in the old days - organizing is very easy today with all the technological tools available. Doing it in a way that prevents management from knowing who is leading the push is also quite doable. In fact, a group of employees could negotiate in unison by every one of them sending emails to management with the same content at the same time - making it impossible to single out anyone for firing. So again, I don't see your point.

The issue about executives destroying a company is an issue for the board of directors, who fire and hire the executives. If the board agrees to sell their company and the shareholders agree, etc, that is their prerogative as they own the company, not management or the employees. Unions are powerless in this context, which is a good thing.

But I guess the reality is that unions in the US are shrinking fast as they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Re:PG on Unions by Goladus on Friday May 11, 2007 @09:57AM (#21335)
You may be right, but either way anti-union sentiment isn't particularly useful. It's not a good idea to recklessly jettison union protections without understanding what they're really doing in the first place.

You say organizing is easy with the internet, but sites like overhear.us only just launched, and we really have no data about how effective they will be. Secret organization is not effective either, because in order to actually negotiate anything serious they would have to come out, at which point they'd be vulnerable.

And my example is about arriving at the best possible economic solution for everyone, not simply assuming that the way company ownership works is perfect and therefore any consequences of that are Good Things. My example is about making sure the workers can excercise their economic power. I am most definitely not saying that a Union should be able to prevent a Board from selling the company, nor even entering into a bad deal. I'm saying that a company should not be allowed to use threats of force to influence the labor market (eg keep it disorganized by blacklisting leaders).

Re:PG on Unions by jason13 on Friday May 11, 2007 @01:33AM (#21253)
The simplest answer is that many people believe the "free market wage" is not always the apropriate wage.

Anyhow your defining the free market wage, as the wage the get paid if the have no legal help in there negotations. And then your defining the appropriate wage as the free market wage.

So you are basically stating that by definition the appropriate wage for people to be paid is the wage they could negotiate if they have no laws to help them negotitate.

Basically your conclusion is the axiom you start with.

Re:PG on Unions by Goladus on Friday May 11, 2007 @08:41AM (#21311)
As PG said in "How to Create Wealth" the contributions of individual workers can not be measured individually. They have to be measured as a whole. That's why the negotiations often need to be done at the organizational level, rather than on an individual basis.

The problem there, of course, is that it becomes harder to hire and fire, thus it becomes harder to maximize the skill of your workforce. Which is why employers really need to think about the consequences of being evil.

Re:PG on Unions by gibsonf1 on Friday May 11, 2007 @08:48AM (#21312)
The free market wage is the amount that an employer is voluntarily willing to pay, and an employee is voluntarily willing to be paid. To say that this is "inappropriate" is to argue for the introduction of force into one or the other side of this equation which would definitely be inappropriate.
Re:PG on Unions by jason13 on Friday May 11, 2007 @09:56AM (#21334)
I disagree, I have different set of axioms than you. My axioms are based on morality and well-being. What are you axioms based on ?
Re:PG on Unions by gibsonf1 on Monday May 14, 2007 @12:02PM (#21956)
Mine are based on Morality (which are based on Philosophy), one key principle of which is individual responsibility.