Racist Poster

[Kuciwalker]

At what point does a pool of workers become large enough that the cost of replacing them all would be too high and they should be broken up?

Probably somewhere short of the point where the pool comprises almost all of the employees of the company.

[giblets]

Probably somewhere short of the point where the pool comprises almost all of the employees of the company.

So the pool of workers at a company is too big even if the pool of capital is not?

[Kuciwalker]

So what exactly is the problem? Even with unions there is substantial labor competition.

wtf, gribbler, there isn't, that's the entire ****ing point of the union.

[Kuciwalker]

So the pool of workers at a company is too big even if the pool of capital is not?

What does that even mean?

[KrazyHorse]

At what point does a pool of workers become large enough that the cost of replacing them all would be too high and they should be broken up?

Holy Jebus, this is a ridiculous line of questioning:

1) We should structure rules so that the entry of new participants into any given market is as easy as possible, whether that be as suppliers of labor, consumers of labor or suppliers of ****ing widgets
2) Rules which do NOTHING MORE than facilitate groups of people in their quest to restrict entry to a given market (e.g. providing legal enforcement of carteling or unionization) are destructive
3) Other rules which bind together people or capital in groups (e.g. enforcing partnership agreements, worker-ownership or incorporation) provide the legal structure necessary for productive organization, given that piecework contracting is usually unfeasible at the level of the individual laborer.

[KrazyHorse]

What does that even mean?

It means that he doesn't understand that size needs to be measured relative to the market being studied.

[KrazyHorse]

For example, a union of ten members, representing the only people allowed to operate a given multimillion dollar machine is essentially a labor market monopoly, while Google, with a couple of hundred billion dollars in market cap is not a monopolist or monopsonist, because there exist close substitutes for employment and services.

[giblets]

What if an employer decides a single person is irreplaceable? How narrowly can you define a "labor market"?

[giblets]

I don't see how a union of all of the employees at a company would necessarily be a monopoly. The company can hire other people who don't currently work at the company, so the people currently working at the company are not the sole supplier.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see how a union of all of the employees at a company would necessarily be a monopoly. The company can hire other people who don't currently work at the company, so the people currently working at the company are not the sole supplier.

I don't see how a cartel of all of the gas stations in America would necessarily be a monopoly. People can always drive to Canada and bring cans of gasoline back home.

[KrazyHorse]

There are two important propositions which have been discussed here, by the way:

1) Unions are organizations dedicated to extracting monopoly rents from employers
2) Unions are declining in importance in the private labor market in the US/Canada

We have covered the reasoning behind (1). As for (2), this is an obvious empirical fact for anybody who wishes to look at the data. The more interesting question is "why". The answer, to those who aren't polemicists consists of the following observations:

a) Unions can only extract rents when producers have large sunk costs (e.g. they have purchased machinery, factories, trains, planes, etc), which protect union firms from startups which can compete effectively before they themselves get unionized
b) The industries which most conform to this description are in heavy industry (large-scale manufacturing, heavy freight)
c) These industries are also mostly in the tradable goods sector of the economy
d) Less consumption is focused in these industries now than previously
e) There is increased non-union competition in these industries now than previously (both in North America in previously relatively underdeveloped regions like the South and from outside North America in very underdeveloped nations)

Thus union labor market monopoly is less effective than previously because there is more competition on the supply side of the economy.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't see how a union of all of the employees at a company would necessarily be a monopoly. The company can hire other people who don't currently work at the company, so the people currently working at the company are not the sole supplier.

You ****ing ******, prospective new joiners to the company have to let the union ****ing negotiate for them. Therefore union members are not subject to price competition.

[KrazyHorse]

What if an employer decides a single person is irreplaceable? How narrowly can you define a "labor market"?

Are you attempting to argue via Zen koans or something?

[SlowwHand]

Are you ready to talk about lazy people yet? Beat a union worker with seniority. I dare you.

[KrazyHorse]

Gribby, I wouldn't be so mean to you if WE HADN'T RECENTLY COVERED THIS EXACT SAME GROUND IN ANOTHER THREAD.

Arguing with you is like dealing with the guy from ****ing Memento.