If Tesla doesn’t want to put up an assembly line in Sweden because their management is too stupid and greedy to see the advantage of a unionized workforce, it’s their loss.

You’ll never see modern manufacturing companies willingly become a union shop, it’s not in their best interest.

The rare times it does happen, it’s always against the wishes of management.

And by wealthy countries, I don’t mean countries where a select few have all the money and power and the working man is struggling.

I would absolutely prefer to live in a country where my fellow man work for a “non-productive” factory in Sweden, or any other advanced European economy, than in the US.

And quite frankly, if management wants to exploit their workers, they can go fuck themselves.

Moreover, union membership is rapidly falling. Every OECD country except Spain and Belgium are losing union members faster than they are being added.

Unions don’t really make sense for employers, and typically don’t make sense for high skilled workers either.

While I’m sure that many low skilled workers prefer them, it’s the companies and higher skilled workers who decide where businesses operate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Sweden#... [2] ECONOMICS:MXCAP on trading view

My question to you. Would you rather drive a Swedish made car or one from Mexico?

It is not like this is a fact of life which is outside of tesla's control. All they need to do is agree on a collective agreement and their troubles go away.

Their refusal to even negotiate is the source of their problem. "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do" When in Sweden....

The range of negotiated outcomes that would be attractive to manufacturers would all involve pay cuts.

There’s no point engaging in negotiations unless the union can first accept that.

> "When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do" When in Sweden....

But you can also choose where you want to go and that sounds like what Tesla is doing. They aren't forcing Swedish unions to do anything that Swedish unions don't want to do. And Swedish unions aren't making Telsa do something they don't want to do. Sounds like a win win for everyone.

The Tesla factory in germany has also big problems now...

Google the german meet industry were people who prepare meat are sleeping in tents in the forest...

Euro-area economies are stagnant or shrinking whilst US economy is churning onwards like a madman. They will buy all of our assets away over time unless we start seriously competing.

Sad, but this is the only choice now that we've chosen to participate in the global economy.

What we actually need to do is develop a political and economic language which values things people actually care about.

I very much agree with the Finish parent that we need to adapt our societies. It’s not just about economic standard of living, it’s about staying relevant.

In fact I would even go further: it’s an ethical question to me. I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.

Do you have concrete examples? I can imagine that if you're working on avionics Sweden might not be the best place, but otherwise it really doesn't seem to be lacking opportunities for a small country.

I’m interested in fundamental challenges around computing: programming languages, cloud platforms, operating systems, combinatorial optimization, database technology, machine learning and the like. Not many bleeding edge opportunities around that here.

We also have a work culture were effort and ability is not rewarded (which at least I associate with strong unions), but “playing politics” is. It’s very hard to stay motivated in a culture like that. I think this is an important part of the downward spiral.

To me that sounds like your typical large company. I've had a great time working at small startups but I've found that my job satisfaction pretty much scales with the inverse of company size (within limits, it seems 20-30 employees is the sweet-spot for me).

Yeah, for programming languages you should probably have been Danish and for operating systems the Finnish have had quite an impact. Both socially stable countries with dare I say pretty strong unions...

I'm guessing that their decision to move west had very little to do with the "stifling" unions and more to do with the increased opportunity for a skilled SWE over there. I would say that that increased opportunity has also very little to do with "stifling" unions and more to do with the huge single market that the US is. That huge single market allows companies to grow fast. The EU works hard to be a single market as well but we have language barriers, bigger legal differences and dare I say bigger cultural differences.

Also talking about Scandinavia, as tiny as it is population-wise, we've had a disproportionately large impact on the world in many different areas. Some factors that contribute to this, I believe, are our free education system and the social safety net that unions have played an important part upholding.

I am also a Swedish engineer and find that there are plenty of interesting and innovative companies to work for. As a software engineer it has typically been easy to find jobs that offer better compensation packages than what the union requires but I still see a union agreement as a positive thing if the company has it. To me it signals that they care about their employees. I also believe that the strong unions in Sweden have given us the (at least) five weeks of vacation, compared to the two in (the weakly unionized USA) and other quality of life and safety improvements.

> I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.

This is quite an ignorant view. Social stability is the foundation for society, and society is the foundation for innovation. Who will build what you innovate? Who will buy it? Who will service it? Who will innovate based on your innovation? If you did an honest comparison of the innovative output of socially stable countries with those that are not socially stable you would change your mind.

What I was referring to was the Nordic cultural focus on a certain kind of “equality”, often referred to as the law of Jante, which is very focused on holding capable independent-minded people back.

> Who will innovate based on your innovation?

This is an excellent question, but I would like to turn it around: Who’s innovation do you innovate on top of? The answer in my case is “Anglo-Saxons”. There is pretty much nothing in my tech stack from the EU. It’s just a black hole. Does that not concern you at all?

Then again maybe we have different tech stacks but mine typically includes: Linux (originally from Finland), ARM (from previously EU member UK), C++ (designed by a Dane) and Python (designed by a Dutch). That's the basis at least then there are other stuff as the need comes by.

As for social stability, I didn't intentionally misinterpret you. The kind of monetary equality that we traditionally have had in Sweden is good for social stability (the one without quotes I was talking about). That has changed during the last couple of decades and with increasing differences in income comes the increasing social problems we see.

OTOH I do agree that Jante can definitely be a negative factor when it comes to innovation.

youre so high on copium if you think that the economic model has anything to do with that...

if you were a world class talent, you'd be able to get a position for such a job under any economic system. youre just not.

What sort of interesting work is not possible in Sweden? I've worked in many tech hubs and am now in Stockholm; Oxford, London, Palo Alto, etc, and haven't noticed anything

Again, then you either need to invent your own currency and stop participating in the global economy or accept that Nordic welfare state will cease and we'll become akin to a soviet block economy in the next 50 yr timespan

Ask the average US citizen if it feels that way.

https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...

I wonder how rich Elon Musk would be on that scale? "Wow Elon, you have managed to consume goods for $50000! You are off the chart of richness. $50k, what a rich man!"

Flexibility in the economy only creates flexibility for those at the _very_ top. It creates potential instability for literally everybody else.

As for a better hypothesis as to why the US economy is so powerful: "The Prize" or "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Nice false dichotomy there.

You have many counter-examples of countries doing fine with a welfare state, but instead you cherry pick an example of one of the countries that you consider does "well" without one.

There needs to be a balance between what the employers want and what employees want. Or else...

Unions are a way to reach balance.

Almost always, the unions ask for too much get bloated, then the employer outsources or offshores to get back to paying market wages.

It’s a pattern I’ve seen over and over again. For whatever reason, union agreements often turn out to be unstable arrangements.

That's... not how it works, in decent unions at least. In fact, in many sectors in Europe the unions will come out swinging only when layoffs are on the cards. And union membership is not necessarily tied to a job, often people remain union members as long as they stay in the same sector (some unions even allow non-sector members).

I assume you’re referring to the RMT /deputy/ leader. And just one person, not plural

And it’s not a six figure salary. Just over six if you consider total comp

23 in the below list on 6 figure salaries (excluding the professional sport unions):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a759e1440f0b...

Not sure if you're British too (OP and I are) but attacking union bosses is a thinly veiled attack on the Labour party, so in a way, it's a comment intended to incite.

And call me mad, but someone who owns £100k+ should not be living in council houses intended for people of limited means. It's disgusting and parasitic.

Again, I ask you to give us the name of a single big union boss who earns £100k+ base salary (you can't pay rent with your employer pension contributions) AND who currently lives in a council property.

I'll even be charitable and accept deputy leaders.

We'll see what Eddie does after the next time he votes himself a payrise.

You still seem to think that it's OK for someone on ~£70k per year salary to live in housing intended for the most vulnerable, though, which is a strange for position for someone of the left.

My understanding of the UK system is pretty limited, but I don't think it works that way.

That is, I thought the UK prioritizes housing assignment for the most vulnerable, but once you are in you are a secure tenant and - baring breaking your tenancy agreement - can stay there for the rest of your life, and even pass that tenancy on to a family member.

There is nothing in the law that say you must leave if you make too much, and I thought Thatcher pushed the idea that council housing should be transferred to the residents, as a way to promote home ownership. Isn't that why the UK has the Right to Buy for council housing?

If council housing were indeed only for the most vulnerable, why promote the idea that if you make enough money you can remove housing stock and force the council to build new housing?

Would you feel better if Dempsey buys out his council housing?

> which is a strange for position for someone of the left.

Why is that strange? I am on the left. Everyone should have access to basic housing as a secure tenant, no matter how much they make, just like everyone should have access to a government funded public library, health care, and education.

£70k/year salary does not sound like all that much to uproot, especially if you are friends with your neighbors, your kids love the local school, your parents live nearby, etc. Social ties are one reason you should not get kicked out of your housing simply because you exceed a certain income threshold.

However, my point is not that it's illegal, just that it's unethical.

Why do you want a legal way to move them out, even if that breaks their social support network?

Because I don't understand why you think there is any issue with him staying.

If there isn't enough council housing, raise taxes and buy/build more housing. Someone making 70K/year should be in a higher tax bracket so it's not like he's not contributing more to society.

Would you really say it is unethical for a rich man to check out a book from the public library, because he can afford to buy his own books?

In general, I think benefits should largely be means tested.

Your system is set up to encourage people in council housing to make enough money to be able to buy their home. With your zero-sum argument in mind, you must think this unethical as it takes council housing away from the council.

Your system does not appear to be set up with your ethics in mind, so I hope you can understand why it doesn't seem like something others should be bound by.

It's been eminently entertaining reading your responses lol. I used to live in the south and met many Tories who think and foam at the mouth just like you. Man, do not miss it at all.

But if you get fired the union usually checks for you if you were fired in a correct way.

If you pay into a A-Kasa and a union you get more unemployed benefits.

So not sure what you mean that they don't do anything...

stop spreading your SD BS here...