Quote :

"No one knows what market value is."

We don't know the exact amount, but we know by the definition of "market value" how to achieve it. Market value is the price achieved by perfect competition. Additionally we know what market value is NOT, that is the price achieved by imperfect competition. In many of the markets that unions exist, perfect competition cannot be achieved due to an unequal number of entities in the market.

Quote :

"There is competition for labor. Firms have to compete to the get workers, and workers have to compete to get a job."

This is true, but firms have to compete less and workers have to compete more due to market power on the part of the firms.

Quote :

" If a potential hire thinks he's being offered below his market value, he can weigh his options, and tell the employer that he can get a better wage elsewhere."

But often this is not true, especially in unskilled labor. The worker can not actually get the price that should be achieved through perfect competition.

Quote :

"I propose a better plan, though. Let's have Lord Kris set prices. Then, finally, we can have fairness."

Nice strawman.

Quote :

"I think it might be better to have lord Kris setting prices than to suffer the legally enforced monopoly that is unionization."

I agree that monopolistic unions are not bad, they tip the market power to the other side.

8/21/2011 2:38:18 PM

Quote :

"Market value is the price achieved by perfect competition. "

False. Perfect competition is a theory, not a plan. Market value is the price that prevents either shortage or surplus.

8/21/2011 2:52:24 PM

Why do people keep doubling the income to talk about a family? How many people marry someone they work with? Insanity.

8/21/2011 2:58:48 PM

It is an attempt to compare apples to oranges. Of course it fails. A better idea would be to compare apples to apples, starting salary to starting salary, but no one has bothered.

8/21/2011 3:23:30 PM

starting salary of what versus what? That can be just as apples:oranges as anything else if you don't factor in the scarcity of the skills required for the respective positions.

I have friends who are working for $15 and $16 an hour respectively at a BMW line entry level doing manual labor. I also happen to know that my company hires a lot of contract workers (not on the engineering side of course) and admin types for non-skilled positions at around $15 an hour. Some of these people at these positions even have liberal arts degrees.

I don't think that $14 is too low for an entry-level position depending on the circumstances.

Heck, one site I am looking at shows the starting salary for teachers in 20/50 states as equal to or less than the equivalent full time position of $14/hr.

Of course, when you start comparing jobs across multiple industries it does get very apples:oranges but the idea is that the isolated idea of $14/hr being an unlivable wage is ludicrous. The only argument they might have is whether $14/hr is worthy of their provided skills to the company, and I am not knowledgeable enough about their skills or what their company expects of them to make that determination but I am in support of them getting paid what they are worth. That is the angle they need to take it though. You can't expect to make unfounded and ignorant statements like $14/hr is unlivable and not get called out for it.

On a completely unrelated note, field union construction workers are almost always less efficient and more highly paid than non-union construction workers. Pretty consistent observation too.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 3:31:31 PM

Quote :

"False. Perfect competition is a theory, not a plan. Market value is the price that prevents either shortage or surplus."

Perfect competition is a theory, I never said differently. But you are incorrect about what market value is. My definition was correct. Market PRICE is a price that prevents shortage or surplus, market value is market price under a perfectly functioning market.

8/21/2011 4:49:25 PM

Quote :

"Why do people keep doubling the income to talk about a family? How many people marry someone they work with? Insanity."

Because the contention is that 14/hour is not a livable wage. If you're going to talk 4 person families, than you should talk two wage earners, especially if you're going to then compare an individual earning $14 / hour with the poverty, average and median household incomes for a family of 4.

8/21/2011 5:49:52 PM

I guarantee you most of the people in that union are bread winners.

8/21/2011 5:56:18 PM

Until you've got statistics on how many of the people in the union are working entry level jobs at 14/hour and are breadwinners of families of 4, your guarantees are worthless.

8/21/2011 8:49:57 PM

^

Besides, companies (should) pay employees what their skills are worth to the company. Unfortunately, being a husband and father are not necessarily skills that are valuable to the company. In other words, they have no obligation to pay employee X more just because you are the breadwinner of a family of 4 versus employee Y with the same skill set who is single.

The amount of kids you have is a decision you make on your own based on what you can afford. And, if you are the sole moneymaker and you are only making entry-level pay at a manual labor job, it probably isn't the time to have kids...

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 9:21:56 PM

PS I'm not going to pretend it is a big salary or anything, but I have yet to see anyone show anything that demonstrates $14/hr or ~$29,000/year is not livable.

My wife and I make decent money together but we save a huge percentage of our income and live like we make much less. If you take out the savings, our mortgage (since owning a house isn't essential), and college loans (since someone working this job most likely wouldn't have these) we spend an average of $950 per month on what I consider more than the essentials. Keep in mind that this is for TWO people and is what I would consider far above unlivable.

-Auto Insurance
-Groceries (organic vegan and vegetarian) + eating out once a month. IOW Not scraping by on ramen
-Entertainment (movies, going out with friends, some light shopping purchases)
-Gasoline
-Utilities: Water, NG, Power, TV (DISH HD, DVR in two Rooms, Netflix)

If someone makes $29,000/yr. Let's put 5% in their 401k, and then say they take home 70% of what is left over after taxes and insurance. That leaves $660 out of my wife's and my budget for an apartment and after-tax savings. BUT, remember that we are eating for two, paying for two cars of gasoline, two people shopping/entertainment, two auto-insurance carriers, and two people eating high-quality strict diets. The food alone for one gives back ~$170, gas another $60 etc.

5% 401k, a budget for entertainment, organic food, HD TV with DVR and netflix...not livable?

This all assumes 0 income from a SO of course as well. I'm using a budget for two with this income of one as a safety factor and still coming up with something far above unlivable.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 9:59:16 PM

You own cars which they would have to come up with a few thousand dollars for and 660 puts you int the ghetto in most places.

Also, 5% 401k aint shit.

8/21/2011 10:15:10 PM

I saw some decent >1000 ft2 apartments in Detroit for $600 when I searched before posting that. Are they in the ghetto? I dono. Is living in a nice part of town required in order to qualify your income as livable? Is maxing your 401k a requirement for your salary being livable? If it is, cut out some of the organic food and the netflix and the HD-DVR satellite package I consider above and beyond livable and up your 401k. Going to OTA cable versus a nice satellite package is another few % in the 401k right there.

Besides, this is all based on the lowest wage, entry level job as a worst case scenario. I have no idea how their pay increases with time or what skill-set is required to move beyond that pay.

Many industries have entry-level positions where people are having to scrape by for awhile. My whole point is that their unlivable angle is not easily backed up without throwing stuff in that I consider above the essentials.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2011 10:18:02 PM

You fucking retard. Most college graduates are lucky to start at $14/hr right now and you're arguing that a bunch of 18 year old kids in Detroit can't make do on $30k a year???


This is ENTRY FUCKING LEVEL.

Go look for a job and see how many entry level jobs there are for non-college grads, unskilled labor that pay over $30k/yr with a SWEET benefit package?!?!

IF YOU PAY THEM MORE THEY WILL HIRE FEWER WORKERS AND THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE MAKING $0 A YEAR INSTEAD OF $30K. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT GET THIS YOU LIBERALS ARE DRIVING THIS COUNTRY OFF THE CLIFF AT RECORD SETTING PACE AND YOUR ONLY RESPONSE IS TO STEP ON THE ACCELERATOR.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason : A]

8/21/2011 11:32:56 PM

actually its the attitude you speak of; of hiring less people just because you have to pay them a fair wage that is the cause of our problems.

8/21/2011 11:44:48 PM

He said a 5% 401k ain't shit, jajajajaja. I am good though, I get matched and profits sharing that goes in my my 401k, but I am not gonna at all high an mighty like a 5% 401k ain't shit.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 11:48 PM. Reason : /]

8/21/2011 11:47:17 PM

^^ Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. Leave the heavy lifting to smart people.

8/21/2011 11:54:28 PM

^^^ In the same sense that "God does not provide all for free" is a cause. What would you suggest we do to convince God to provide and convince business people to stop being so darn self interested?

8/22/2011 12:14:55 AM

^

That's kind of how it is in Japan. Individualism is not a valued trait there...

8/22/2011 8:54:38 AM

Quote :

"IF YOU PAY THEM MORE THEY WILL HIRE FEWER WORKERS AND THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE MAKING $0 A YEAR INSTEAD OF $30K. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT GET THIS YOU LIBERALS ARE DRIVING THIS COUNTRY OFF THE CLIFF AT RECORD SETTING PACE AND YOUR ONLY RESPONSE IS TO STEP ON THE ACCELERATOR."

I have no dog in this fight, but I have a question. Let's assume we live in a time that's had the greatest technological break-throughs of the past 30 years. Because of that a new 1/5th of the population has no marketable skills. In some cases, these people with no marketable skills, have families to support and have little means to escape. The rich no longer need as many of them to build their wares as we have robots and other automation.

What exactly do these people do in the modern world? Some of them are likely unable to learn the creative skills needed to succeed because we have engineered them out of the industrial education system. Do you let them starve? Blame them? Enslave them?

I figure the only solution is figure out a way to give them sustainable skills. Retrain for crafts and agriculture (trades from 150 years ago).

8/22/2011 9:02:04 AM

Quote :

"IF YOU PAY THEM MORE THEY WILL HIRE FEWER WORKERS AND THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE MAKING $0 A YEAR INSTEAD OF $30K. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT GET THIS YOU LIBERALS ARE DRIVING THIS COUNTRY OFF THE CLIFF AT RECORD SETTING PACE AND YOUR ONLY RESPONSE IS TO STEP ON THE ACCELERATOR. "

Quote :

"actually its the attitude you speak of; of hiring less people just because you have to pay them a fair wage that is the cause of our problems."

Well, you've made the leaps that profit motive is bad and government wage fixing is good. Let us know when you're ready to come out of the communist closet. We can try to get you set up with Kris.

8/22/2011 10:01:09 AM

Setting the silliness aside, what is the issue here aside from "dumb guy said dumb thing"? Surely people aren't trying to say that collective bargaining is somehow akin to wage fixing? If there's a school of thought out there that believes this that doesn't also believe our biggest obstacle to job creation right now is the existence of a wage floor, I'd like to see it.

8/22/2011 11:06:05 AM

can we talk in here about how its possible to get rid of unions?

8/22/2011 12:46:05 PM

i was told if i wanted to build something in new york city one day i would be forced to hire unions

8/22/2011 12:48:23 PM

Quote :

"Surely people aren't trying to say that collective bargaining is somehow akin to wage fixing? "

Excepting places where unions are legally mandated (or their strikes are legally protected from being broken), not at all. People are free to associate as they please, and the businesses are free to negotiate or not as they please.

8/22/2011 1:03:38 PM

Yeah, I expected that. In your world, organized labor can do all they want, but in the end they either have to accept whatever is thrown at them or be out of a job. People eventually need work, so eventually they just have to accept whatever you please, so the management/labor balance is non-existent, but I'm sure no one in here cares since you worked too hard to be the best, damnit. Fuck everyone that isn't as good as you. Accept what I'm willing to pay you or go rot.

8/22/2011 1:10:44 PM

Quote :

"What exactly do these people do in the modern world? Some of them are likely unable to learn the creative skills needed to succeed because we have engineered them out of the industrial education system. Do you let them starve? Blame them? Enslave them? "

They move in with family or friends. This is how it we did it in the past, and how it is done in other cultures today.

Modern America's obsession with rugged individualism/personal achievement makes this outcome seem like an immense personal failure. It has also obscured the importance of keeping friends and family close.

8/22/2011 1:41:50 PM

^ I mean, I have no problem with that, but the idea that people should accept what is dictated to them by the priveledged and not strike a balance through collective bargaining just strikes me as at best gilded age crap and at worst some sort of libertarian utopianism where the kindly peasant can simply go from job to job should conditions not be to their liking.

8/22/2011 1:43:47 PM

I'm not saying there isn't something wrong with people being forced to resort to that; just answering the question.

8/22/2011 1:46:53 PM

people could also try having marketable skills that give them the ability to negotiate for their compensation based on personal talents and knowledge. And then combine this with a reasonable understanding of what their skills are worth in order to get a rate that would be considered average or better within their chosen field.

8/22/2011 1:50:52 PM

^^^ No one has to accept anything. They are free to continue to negotiate, find work elsewhere, or start their own business and become their own management. I have absolutely no problem at all with every worker at a GM plant walking out until they get better pay. They just better be sure that there aren't enough skilled workers without jobs (or with lower paying jobs) that don't want to take their positions.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:54 PM. Reason : sdfg]

8/22/2011 1:54:05 PM

^^That's pretty much the service that craft unions provide.

Quote :

"They are free to continue to negotiate, find work elsewhere, or start their own business and become their own management."

Yep, it's that simple. Eventually they'll find the golden job if they keep moving. Or, they can use all that capital they built up to start their own business. Yep.

Labor isn't so scarce that any of that would matter, at least not now. Your model assumes that it is. Hey, price we gotta pay so us college educated engineers don't feel inadequate and inferior to union workers who obviously aren't as deserving.

Quote :

"They just better be sure that there aren't enough skilled workers without jobs (or with lower paying jobs) that don't want to take their positions."

Haha, and you know that's the case. Wage pressure will continue to be placed downward, but those people just need to work harder, you know?

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : x]

8/22/2011 1:54:30 PM

When there aren't public social services, you have to accept something or else you starve. This what libertarians don't get about the concept of "coercion". Just because you can't point to somebody holding a gun to a worker's head doesn't mean there isn't a gun to their head. In other words, you can be coerced without there being a clear coercer.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 2:01:30 PM

That gun was put to your head by your parents when they gave life to you. Having the government point physical guns at other people is not going to remove the metaphorical gun from your head.

8/22/2011 2:45:11 PM

Why is it only "pointing guns at people with the power of the gubbament ZOMG" when it's enforcing taxation, but not when it's enforcing private property? Please at least attempt to bullshit me with an answer not stemming directly from your intuition and or tastes

8/22/2011 2:55:16 PM

You know I don't care about that Loneshark, just as long as you admit that its disingenuous to claim that worker-employer negotiations in a Capitalist economy are free of coercion.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2011 3:12:28 PM

Quote :

"but not when it's enforcing private property?"

I never said it wasn't. It is exactly that when the government decides to enforce property rights or anything else.

8/22/2011 3:13:05 PM

So it's okay to point the gun if it's a privately-owned security firm? Where are you going with this?

8/22/2011 3:17:30 PM

He asked a question, I answered it. Ask him where he was going with it.

8/22/2011 3:20:13 PM

I'm asking you to, for once, follow your own rhetoric to its logical conclusions instead of stopping as soon as it matches up with a talking point.

8/22/2011 4:02:00 PM

Quote :

"just as long as you admit that its disingenuous to claim that worker-employer negotiations in a Capitalist economy are free of coercion."

coercion is a legal term. For it to have any meaning in court (or rational discussion) we throw out the coercion imposed upon you by life itself.

But, like I said, having the government point guns at owners is not going to make life fair. All it is going to do is force (at gun point) some of us to face the coercion of starvation alone (unemployment on the street) so some of us can enjoy above-market union wages.

I am a rational libertarian. I arrive at my libertarian not through principle or ideology but because it maximizes humanist ideals. Killing some so others can profit is evil. I defend property rights not because God said so, but because property rights are what allows society to function, minimizing death and suffering in the long run.

8/22/2011 4:23:55 PM

Quote :

"people could also try having marketable skills that give them the ability to negotiate for their compensation based on personal talents and knowledge. And then combine this with a reasonable understanding of what their skills are worth in order to get a rate that would be considered average or better within their chosen field."

But, some of these people are way passed that. These are the people in their 50s in rural NC with 4 kids. There's a whole generation left behind. There is sort of hope for people in their 20s right out of college, but I'm not sure about someone much older picking up hacking skills or ninja skills to get a job in the modern world...

8/22/2011 7:40:09 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/technology/verizon-strike-slowing-service-and-customers-complain.html

Fuckin' communists. If only they got rid of their Verizon cell phone plans, they could afford the wages given to them by Verizon.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 9:52:13 PM

Quote :

"I defend property rights not because God said so, but because property rights are what allows society to function, minimizing death and suffering in the long run."

This is a pretty bold statement. Care to elaborate? Did societies not function before the conceit of property?

....I had more written, but I'm more interested in watching people defend "property" rights without having critically examined how property first came into existence and the effect it likely had on the balance of power.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 10:51:26 PM

Quote :

"Fuckin' communists. If only they got rid of their Verizon cell phone plans, they could afford the wages given to them by Verizon."

Your dishonest characterization of the arguments presented suggest you have no real interest in having a real conversation about the topic.

8/22/2011 11:27:22 PM

you're right. i don't. but nobody in here does. why does it matter to anyone else how laborers negotiate their wages? when did negotiating become un-american?

when teachers strike (or call in sick or whatever) people don't really seem to bother (not as much, anyway). when firefighters threaten to strike, people support them. when nurse's strike, people are sympathetic. when writers strike, people are indifferent. when the NFL players union strikes, people don't care. nobody even gave a shit or even knew about the verizon strikes.


but when it's the remedial workers who want to strike, fuck 'em. they should be glad they have a job. they should have gone to college to up their net worth if they wanted more. they should just be happy with what they've got. they have no business trying to negotiate a higher wage. they're a bunch of thugs hell bent on ruining industry. they should lay back and accept whatever their business owner's generously offer them.

you wanna talk about reforming unions to meet the demands of a new industry? fine. go ahead. it's a conversation that is probably long overdue. but people in here discussing their own personal mortgage, cable tv, and cell phone bills to try and prove a point about entry level workers needing to live within their means is fucking stupid. maybe they're demanding too much, maybe they're not. who knows, but its between them and their employers to come to a reasonable agreement, and if being organized in their approach helps them reach the goal, then so fucking be it.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 11:46:32 PM

^^^ I am familiar with quite a bit of history, but I don't see why the balance of power hundreds of years ago should influence us today.

^ I doubt anyone here is against any workers getting organized, what we object to are laws making it illegal to offer a job to non-union labor.

8/23/2011 2:05:23 AM

Quote :

"I am familiar with quite a bit of history, but I don't see why the balance of power hundreds of years ago should influence us today. "

Are you being serious? How do you imagine we've worked ourselves completely free of the consequences? Seriously curious about this because to me it seems like a massive (and probably cognitively central) conceptual error.

Quote :

"I am a rational libertarian. I arrive at my libertarian not through principle or ideology but because it maximizes humanist ideals. Killing some so others can profit is evil. I defend property rights not because God said so, but because property rights are what allows society to function, minimizing death and suffering in the long run."

You're neither. You don't give rat's ass about liberty. You just care about freedom from external constraint. Pretty important to point out you only give a shit about half the picture, don't you think? Also, don't you think "rational" should at least include some basic tenants of sound empirical practice? How do you square your claim that you're "rational" with a denial that circumstances today stem from circumstances yesterday?

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 8:11 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 8:06:16 AM

Quote :

"but when it's the remedial workers who want to strike, fuck 'em. they should be glad they have a job. they should have gone to college to up their net worth if they wanted more. they should just be happy with what they've got. they have no business trying to negotiate a higher wage. they're a bunch of thugs hell bent on ruining industry. they should lay back and accept whatever their business owner's generously offer them."

Never said they don't have a right to try to negotiate higher wages. My contention has been that it is idiotic to claim that $14/hour is not a livable wage, and yes, if they can't live on $14/hour then maybe they need to look at making some changes to their life. I can make 60k/year and still not be able to afford a house of the beach with a boat, a membership at the country club, 1000 channels of HD with 7 room DVR system, save for my kids to go to Harvard and raise a family of 4 at the same time. That doesn't mean 60k isn't livable, it just means I have to live like I make 60k / year. The "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs" commercials were only funny because they were true.

8/23/2011 12:25:55 PM

Quote :

"Let us know when you're ready to come out of the communist closet. We can try to get you set up with Kris."

I'm more of a practical communist, but nothing I said in this thread was really communist, or even pro-union, in fact I am very anti-union, my point was that the only reason unions have come about is due to market failure.

8/23/2011 6:00:17 PM