Racist Poster

[Fake Boris]

What Thoth, Oncle, and gribbler are doing is using market/capitalist rhetoric to promote something that is inherently anti-market, which I find amusing. The idea that you have a choice in terms of whether or not to join a union shop is irrelevant, unions exist for exactly one reason--to increase their compensation above that paid by the market. The company has artificially reduced choice in its labor decisions as a result of unions.

The market is anti-market.

Buyers are competing against sellers, and vice-versa.

[Hauldren Collider]

How the **** is branding rent-seeking? Exploiting behavioral economics is in no way rent-seeking.

In the meantime, fair trade seeks to prop up domestic producers at the expense of international producers, how the hell is that NOT rent-seeking?

[Hauldren Collider]

The market is anti-market.

Buyers are competing against sellers, and vice-versa.

And clocks turn counterclockwise!

You're an idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, don't like slavery, don't own a slave! Terrible rhetoric.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're a moron, ben, shut up.

[Fake Boris]

Welcome to my ignore list, HC.

[giblets]

The market is anti-market.

Buyers are competing against sellers, and vice-versa.

Wuh?

[KrazyHorse]

So if it's legal to replace striking workers, then it's possible for an employer to refuse to become a union shop.

1) No, it's not. "Refusing to negotiate" with a union is an "unfair labor practice" in the US, which precludes an employer from permanently replacing striking workers. In addition, and ignoring this technicality,
2) I am quickly losing respect for you here. If I create a law saying that you can dismiss striking workers if you pay a trillion dollar fine then the effect is that you are locked into a monopolistic labor negotiation. When there are outs that are costly then it may not be a pure monopoly (specifically, if the competition from other firms is outweighed by the costs of dismissing all of your workers then the union cannot extract 100% of monopoly rents)

[Hauldren Collider]

Welcome to my ignore list, HC.

Goal achieved.

[Fake Boris]

Hey KH, if weapons are a commodity, and we define the state as a monopoly of violence over a given territory, why shouldn't political influence be considered a legitimate commodity? In terms of share % of a monopoly?

[KrazyHorse]

Just so that everyone understands, KH believes that fair trade is rent-seeking, but that branding isn't. Or at least this is how it looked like last time we discussed the topic.

Welcome to the ****ing OB world. Where legal restrictions on who you can buy stuff and labor from are the same as marketing. Wonder-****ing-ful.

[Fake Boris]

Who talked about legal restrictions?

[Hauldren Collider]

[giblets]

1) No, it's not. "Refusing to negotiate" with a union is an "unfair labor practice" in the US, which precludes an employer from permanently replacing striking workers. In addition, and ignoring this technicality,
2) I am quickly losing respect for you here. If I create a law saying that you can dismiss striking workers if you pay a trillion dollar fine then the effect is that you are locked into a monopolistic labor negotiation. When there are outs that are costly then it may not be a pure monopoly (specifically, if the competition from other firms is outweighed by the costs of dismissing all of your workers then the union cannot extract 100% of monopoly rents)

So you're upset about employees using the cost of replacing them to bargain with their employer?

[Hauldren Collider]

So you're upset about employees using the cost of replacing them to bargain with their employer?

gribbler, why should they be allowed to negotiate with anything other than their actual value as an employee? If you want to get the correct price for labor, then the two factors to be balanced have to be the value of the pay to the employee versus the value of the employee's labor to the employer.