I don’t agree that Amazon is taking advantage of the pandemic - people were making similar claims about Amazon before any of that happened.

Wal-mart could ship me products and I would be happy to buy from them, but since March everything at Walmart has been pickup only or doesn’t ship to my zip code (NYC), so I order from Amazon.

Target is even worse off - it’s not that items are pickup only or not shipping to my zip code, they are simply unavailable.

So my message to Wal-Mart and Target is evolve or become the next US Steel.

Amazon built a logistics pipeline that fits in well with the new normal. Walmart built a bunch of super-centers that don’t.

Spoils to the victor.

Economic rights are rights too. The right to bargain collectively is extremely important and should not be restricted to those holding large amounts of capital.

Why wouldn’t Amazon pass through the French tax to French sellers and therefore French customers? I don’t expect Frenchmen to pay my American sales taxes. The French taxes make Amazon less competitive against smaller competitors, as intended.

Rent-seekers rent-seeking, more at 11.

At least unions grift to build a strong blue collar middle class. That raises standard of living and creates a strong consumer economy.

My perception is that, at least lately, unions grift to build a powerful (and therefore wealthier) union official hierarchy. (There was a day when they actually were for the blue collar workers, in practice as well as in theory, but that day is long gone.)

The biggest advantage of strong unions these days is that it will create a strong push towards automation.

"Why should anyone want a better living, it will cost me more money. Screw them."

The selfishness and corporate worship is just endemic to the US at this point. No wonder it is in decline.

I'm not in the business of doing charity with every product I buy. Cartels are bad when OPEC does them, and they're bad when labour unions do them.

Unions don’t give workers an unfair advantage; they merely level the field and make it a fair negotiation. After all the boss already has the power of a large organization behind them, why should the workers not have their own?

The idea that it 'levels the playing field' is an opinion. I reject that opinion out of hand. If a company's workforce unionizes, a company cannot do much but pay the wages they demand. That is not a fair playing field. That is a cartel. Cartels are bad.

>After all the boss already has the power of a large organization

Poor representation of the facts. A boss has the authority to buy labour as he sees fit, and to offer a sum for it that he thinks he can afford. He does not have the power to force an employee to be hired at a price he wants.

> If a company's workforce unionizes, a company cannot do much but pay the wages they demand.

If a company’s workforce unionizes, the single employer and single collective bargaining negotiator are on much more equal footing than if the workforce does not unionized.

The shareholders whose interest the firm represents are already a cartel through the formation of the firm.

The concept of a cartel continues to elude you. Shareholders do not band together to increase the price of a product. They pool resources to produce a product.

> a company cannot do much but pay the wages they demand. That is not a fair playing field. That is a cartel. Cartels are bad.

This would be true if there were no negotiations (there are.)

Or if workers were all paid the same (they aren't).

Workers have a cartel on wage just as much as a company has a cartel on jobs. Companies use their leverage (aka a cartel) on workers - so to combat it they organize.

We wouldn't need them if corporations didnt constantly game the system for their own benefit.

Except this isn't a zero-sum game.

But it is. Why do you think it takes 10 years to join the longshoreman's union? Why do you think they make $140,000-$400,000 a year doing menial lower skill work? Why do you think it takes well over a year to join the plumbers union in some states?

They are making their money at the expense of non-union workers. There is no value-add in banding together to make more money. It's the exact same concept as the non-poaching rules in tech. Cartels advantage the cartel members at the expense of the everyone who isn't in the cartel, and unions are a cartel. They restrict supply of a product (labor) to increase the price at which is it sold. Cartels are bad when OPEC does it, and they're bad when the UAW does it.

Exactly this. But the same dynamics apply to all unions including the ever sacred teacher unions. Their playbook is to use children as a rallying cry for continual pay increases, resistance to performance measurement, and resistance to competition from charter schools or any model that allows school choice.

No, they procure high wages at the expense of corporate profits. There’s a direct link between union busting and a booming market for super yachts. So if you enjoy doing coke off a stripper’s backside on your private island then you probably don’t like unions very much.

Source: https://i.redd.it/r6wy0dcb09d01.jpg

That is beyond insanity to assume there is a causation between the two.

A union works by resctricting supply of labor to increase the price it costs to procure it. Just like OPEC with oil. Cartels are bad when OPEC does it and they're bad when labour unions do them. Please don't defend cartels.