Labor Unions

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Yet corporations are often seen bragging that they're pulling in record profits. That's along way from :being driven out of business."

Merely driven overseas to fulfill their obligations to stockholders I would say.

Shame shame on those evil corps for doing right by their stockholders.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I agree that labor unions did help quite a bit. I don't agree that they are necessarily a good idea now. I don't oppose the idea, but what I do oppose is the "closed shop" system, and the idea of strong legal protections for unions.

Unions should be voluntary, as should employment. Right to work states

The problem with the right-to-work position is that...at least in California...unions are required to provide representation in grievances and in disciplinary hearing to all employees who wants it, whether they are members are not. Non-members also get the benefits of any contract we negotiate. Without agency shops, a lot of employees would be "freewheeling" (taking the benefits and not paying for them).

In California, many places have agency shops. That is, the non-members pay fees to the unions, albeit the agency fees are less than union dues. Non-members can come to the meetings, but can't talk and can't vote. The way agency shops come about is that all the employees, union members and non-members alike, vote for it.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not a realistic likelihood any time soon when growth countries see no advantage to doing so and no compelling need to observe even a modicum of human rights.

It wouldn't be that hard... apply a special tax for imported goods produced in sweat shops.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Merely driven overseas to fulfill their obligations to stockholders I would say.

Shame shame on those evil corps for doing right by their stockholders.

That's not the problem. The problem is that companies only want to do right by their shareholders, but then expect the government to serve the companies' interests.

Here's the deal: you want the government to serve your interest? Behave like a citizen. You want to act like a global free agent, serving only your shareholders? Stop whining when a national government protects the interests of its citizens at your expense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Merely driven overseas to fulfill their obligations to stockholders I would say.

Com'on, this is so passe. Keep up with the times, please.

The new term is "Stakeholders."

[SlowwHand]

Anything produced offshore needs to pay the same tariffs as any import. Including Puerto Rico , wherever.

[GePap]

If there was freedome of movement by labor then the benefits to companies of moving offshore would end.

The problem is that resources and capital are free to move while labor is essentially locked down and relatively static. This in my view creates a huge imbalance in favor of capital over labor.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by GePap
If there was freedome of movement by labor then the benefits to companies of moving offshore would end.

The problem is that resources and capital are free to move while labor is essentially locked down and relatively static. This in my view creates a huge imbalance in favor of capital over labor.

thats not entirely true. people can move to where the jobs are, but they simply arent because of human reasons. i think the thing that upsets most people is the loss of the status quo at this point, not through and through exploitation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MRT144


thats not entirely true. people can move to where the jobs are, but they simply arent because of human reasons. i think the thing that upsets most people is the loss of the status quo at this point, not through and through exploitation.

Oh really? So tens of thousands of Americans could move to Mexico to compete with Mexicans for factory jobs?

People can move within states. Movement between states is difficult (putting it mildly), while Capital is supposed to be able to move freely. So peoples within states compete for capital while their labor is "imprisoned", which allows the ones who control capital to shop for the places were they can charge the least, therefore leading to the demands that people in this country for example lessen their rights and accept lower wages simply to compete for that capital to stay at home.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh really? So tens of thousands of Americans could move to Mexico to compete with Mexicans for factory jobs?

Thousands of Usians won't move to Mexico to compete for factory jobs. Most of them just aren't interested in the low pay. OTOH, lots of Mexicans are trying to get into the US, because the pay is so much higher.

However you are right that, if labour could move as freely as capital, much of the imbalance will be redressed.

If Mexicans could move freely into the US, wages will drop in certain sectors in the US while wages will increase in Mexico. You can see why this may not be desirable to US workers.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem is that resources and capital are free to move while labor is essentially locked down and relatively static. This in my view creates a huge imbalance in favor of capital over labor.

This argument pretty much falls apart on closer inspection. Resources are not mobile. Coal is where it is, period. It can be mined locally and shipped all over the world, if that is what you mean by mobile. But what that "mobility" really represents is competition in an increasingly globalized market.

Capital is mobile ex ante. GM can choose to build a new auto plant pretty much anywhere in the world. But once that plant is built, it is pretty much sunk ex post. A rusting auto plant is a rusting auto plant, and there is not much else you can do with it until it reaches the end of its useful life. This is what economists refer to as the "putty - clay" model of capital. Not all forms of capital are sunk ex post, but a significant amount are.

The underlying issue here is not the fixity of labor, but a global increase in the supply of labor as various economies such as China, India, and Latin America move out of subsistence agriculture and into more specialized forms of organization. The counterpart to union members protesting outsourcing and the loss of high-paying jobs in industrialized economies is farmers protesting agricultural imports and falling prices in newly industrializing countries. Both are symptomatic of massive, almost unprecedented, changes in global trade patterns. If we are smart we can learn how to manage these changes for mutual benefit.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
This argument pretty much falls apart on closer inspection. Resources are not mobile. Coal is where it is, period. It can be mined locally and shipped all over the world, if that is what you mean by mobile. But what that "mobility" really represents is competition in an increasingly globalized market.

Resources have been moving around for centuries. Take chocolate. Why is a place like Belgium a center of chocolate production even though the basic raw material for it does not and could never grow in Belgium? (besides history of Spanish rule of course) And yes, the ability tio ship worldwide is what I mean by global. That is all mobility for me means, the ability to move-and resources can move. We have an oil based eocnomy even thought our local supply of oil could never meet our consumption. Why? Because oil has for half a century or more moved from where we find it to where its used. And this country and many others go to great lenghts to ensure the conitnued mobility of said resources.

Capital is mobile ex ante. GM can choose to build a new auto plant pretty much anywhere in the world. But once that plant is built, it is pretty much sunk ex post. A rusting auto plant is a rusting auto plant, and there is not much else you can do with it until it reaches the end of its useful life. This is what economists refer to as the "putty - clay" model of capital. Not all forms of capital are sunk ex post, but a significant amount are.

What about the profits though made from the new car plant given the lower labor costs? That capital can then be moved again elsewhere.

However you cut it, capital can move around with relative ease compared to labor.

The underlying issue here is not the fixity of labor, but a global increase in the supply of labor as various economies such as China, India, and Latin America move out of subsistence agriculture and into more specialized forms of organization. The counterpart to union members protesting outsourcing and the loss of high-paying jobs in industrialized economies is farmers protesting agricultural imports and falling prices in newly industrializing countries. Both are symptomatic of massive, almost unprecedented, changes in global trade patterns. If we are smart we can learn how to manage these changes for mutual benefit.

That there is more labor does not change the fact that that labor is trapped in ways that capital is not. Can 100 million Chinese peasants off their farms move to Europe and N. America to compete directly with people's there for jobs? Of course not, for political reasons. Therefore, capital gets to jump ship from N. America and Europe and go find the cheaper labor.

IN a trully free market, capital, labor, and resources could all move freely and without restrictions to those places where they would be most efficient. The thing is, while governments do everything to ensure the free movement of resources, and many fight about the free movement of capital, no one in urging free movement of labor. As far as I can see, this invariably puts labor at a disadvantage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Anything produced offshore needs to pay the same tariffs as any import. Including Puerto Rico , wherever.

You numnuts! Puerto Rico is US territory, hence not an import!

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by GePap
And yes, the ability tio ship worldwide is what I mean by global. That is all mobility for me means, the ability to move-and resources can move.

If that's what you mean by "mobility" then I think we are having semantic issues. Under that definition labor is also mobile, because the goods labor produces can be shipped world wide, just like the resources you mention. (See Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem - traded goods embody the factors of production.) I think its clear that the issue is not fixity, but an increase in the supply of labor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
If that's what you mean by "mobility" then I think we are having semantic issues. Under that definition labor is also mobile, because the goods labor produces can be shipped world wide, just like the resources you mention. (See Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem - traded goods embody the factors of production.) I think its clear that the issue is not fixity, but an increase in the supply of labor.

Well, its great that economist decided to label goods created by labor as "labor", but I certainly would not - and as far as I could tell from Wiki, in the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem, Capital is assumed to be immobile between states just like labor. But Capital is NOT immobile anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher-Ohlin_model

For there to be true labor mobility as there is capital mobility, labor should be able to move, seeking capital, just like capital moves, seeking labor.