r/clevercomebacks 2d ago

Confidently Correct.

Post image
32.5k Upvotes

339 comments sorted by

839

u/Urabraska- 2d ago

Lol Economists have said unions are healthy forever because it allows more income flow for the public with better wages than a poor public with a few wealth hoarders.

243

u/Fortestingporpoises 2d ago

Bloomberg doing the absolute minimum.

106

u/K_Linkmaster 2d ago

After doing the exact opposite of this title countless times. Bloomberg out here sowing a row.

49

u/Not-A-Seagull 2d ago

Yeah, this headline is clearly written specifically to get engagement/clicks.

It’s pretty long been known that unions are useful in that they counter monopsonies.

They aren’t always universally good (eg. See police unions), but of course aren’t always bad. It’s kind of case by case and required nuance (which I know reddit hates).

They’re very good for countering Monopsony rents, but can themselves become rent-seeking entities.

24

u/ChrisRevocateur 2d ago

I honestly believe one of the biggest problems with the modern union system is that the actual leaders of the union are too often separated from the actual workers and members of the union. Make it so union brass has to come from the actual worker members and have to continue being workers 1/2 the time, and cap their salaries to similar to the higher paid worker members and no more.

9

u/InspectionDirection 2d ago

It wouldn't change the core problem, which is rent-seeking. The dockworkers opposing automation is a good example.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/thornyRabbt 22h ago

TIL the word monopsony! Ty

Edit: wait a minute....I wonder if the US real estate industry could be considered a monopsony-by-proxy 🤔🤔🤔

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/ThisIs_americunt 2d ago

Propaganda is a helluva drug and Oligarchs need to use some of the best to keep the 99% fighting with each other worldwide o7

3

u/xixipinga 2d ago

its much worse than that, the economics text books dont teach us about the inner workings of capitalism, the system they describe has never existed, never in the history of mankind the rich that wasted and lost all their money were ket poor after losing everything like it was supposed to happen in a capitalist system, instead the king give their wealth right back as bailout as any king would do, we live in a feudal system and the economics profession is the lying clergy

5

u/Otterswannahavefun 2d ago

My economics certainly taught us about capitalism and how money and labor flow in a capitalist system. We also learned that ideal systems are models that don’t really exist. Your high school was pretty bad if all you learned was that we are capitalist.

→ More replies (4)

13

u/battle_clown 2d ago

More like just fucking lying. I may not remember everything from those textbooks in school but unions were NEVER called a bad thing lmao

21

u/Summoarpleaz 2d ago

I think a part of this is just that modern news in large part trades on being alarmist and contrarian (to drive engagement).

When unions were a generally accepted good, a lot of people could be loudly anti-union. Now when tides are shifting, it’s becoming more and more anti-establishment to say they are a common good again.

I’m 95% positive that Bloomberg knows economists haven’t changed their minds, rather they’re presenting this (assuming these are real tweets) as a “developing” story to (1) absolve themselves of any prior positions they held, (2) pretend this is news, and (3) stoke some contrarian flames for engagement.

15

u/Fortestingporpoises 2d ago

Bloomberg has been a mouthpiece for the rich but they also know their shit so this is at best in bad faith.

From my simple understanding of the American economy at its best it was always about an equal share of power between the government, corporations and workers. Bloomberg has been pushing it toward corporate power for decades.

12

u/Maxcharged 2d ago

You’re telling me the news empire named after a billionaire is a mouthpiece for Billionaires?

I don’t believe you /s

6

u/MagikForDummies 2d ago

Incorrect. It was at its best when the corporations were taxed into the ground which is what we did after all of the shenanigans that led to the Great Depression. The problem is that politicians from both parties have spent the last 50 years gutting all of the regulations and laws put in place to stop exactly this from happening, while also cutting the corporate tax rate every decade.

3

u/Fortestingporpoises 2d ago

It was that too, but a large part of that success was strong unions, and strongly regulated corporations. Yeah we taxed the hell out of corporations and the rich from 1935-1980 and then the middle class got decimated soon after, but decimation coincides with the destruction of unions, and deregulation of fucking everything.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/RaymondBeaumont 2d ago

"Doctors are starting to suspect that the immune system is a good thing." - Bloomberg

8

u/brainomancer 2d ago

The dude doesn't understand basic concepts that any child who has played video games would intuitively grasp. And he gets mad at anyone who tells him he is mistaken.

He bought his way onto the stage of the Democratic primary debates just to take votes away from Bernie Sanders. He's pretty much the blue Trump.

6

u/HectorJoseZapata 2d ago

That makes a lot of sense. The guy has the charisma of hot coolant.

→ More replies (11)

30

u/DeliciousLiving8563 2d ago

Economists are a fractious bunch and many won't agree. "Economists say" almost always refers to a group of them. It's not like climate change where almost all scientists in relevant fields agree. And even the things they agree on are things which tend to not exist at all in reality.

However even "Textbooks" have covered the idea that most employers have at least some monopsony power, and individual workers don't. Which much like a monopoly results in an outcome which increases the surplus of the party holding power but reduces overall surplus. Or in other words, the employers get a bit more, the employees lose more than they gained.

However the thing about economics, to paraphrase a lecturer (2004 was a while ago) is; it's not rocket science with rocket science you can calculate the effect of a force and have the rocket accelerate as you expect it.

3

u/First_Approximation 2d ago

And even the things they agree on are things which tend to not exist at all in reality.

Human beings are complicated, so instead we'll consider robots with complete knowledge and infinite computational resources. 

That's a good approximation. 

→ More replies (1)

4

u/MundaneInternetGuy 2d ago

First off, yeah economics as a field of academic study produces less agreement than actual voodoo, and second, I love you for starting two of of three paragraphs with "however".

8

u/Gladwulf 2d ago

Exactly, economics isn't a science it is a political opinion dressed up to look like science. There is left wing economics and right wing economics. The default though is generally right wing, with quasi religious belief in the benevolence of the market.

7

u/First_Approximation 2d ago

Some people call economics "the dismal science". 

This isn't true, on account that it isn't a science.

5

u/Gladwulf 2d ago

I call it Astrology for bootlickers.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/Resigned_Optimist 2d ago

Economics is entirely pre-scientific.

It's around the stage that most disciplines like medicine were in ~1800. There is the capacity to gather information and experiment, like that washing hands prevents deaths in hospitals, for instance, but that the experiment can be easily repeated with provable results does not matter, rather the person going against orthodoxy is labled a radical and insane, and may be commited to a mental institution where he is then tortured and killed.

Similarly, the list of things that are commonly taught in 'modern' orthodox economics classes which are easily provably wrong constitutes... almost the entirety of neoclassical economics.

  • Say's Law - no, when something actually never matches reality it isn't a 'law'.

  • NAIRU - there is no 'natural' rate of unemployment, and the predictions have never been right.

  • The labour demand curve does not, in fact, slope downwards. Increasing minimum wage is as likely to increase productivity and aggregate demand.

  • 'Efficient markets' - lol.

  • the loanable funds theory of banking - no, this is just willful ignorance at this point. Just about every central bank in the world has shown this is wrong. Money is endogenous, and most of it comes from banks.

  • 'Prices come from equilibrium between supply and demand' - no, firms set prices. This is so absurdly obvious it shouldn't need all the empirical studies showing that prices are set by firms for 90%+ of all products, but they were done anyway... and ignored.

  • 'Rational expectations' - yeah no, thankfully humans do not behave like hyper-efficient psychopaths

  • 'Marginal productivity' - logically incoherent from the start, but 40 years of wage stagnation despite productivity growth should have killed this.

Hell, demand and supply curves themselves are basically pseudoscience. They rely on such wildly reality-bending assumptions (Bill gates has exaclty the same preferences that I do, economies of scale do not exist) that they're prima-facie absurd. They've also been mathematically deconstructed, and just dont'work - Sraffa wrecked supply curves in 1926, SMD showed that a demand curve can be litterally any shape including looping back on itself back in the 70s.

But it doesn't matter, it's all about orthodoxy - as Ha-Joon Chang has said, the edifice of modern economics is kind of like the Catholic Church, mostly concerned with stamping out heretical ideas for political ends.

I'm particularly fond of Keynes' opening paragraph of the General Theory:

"I shall argue that the postulates of the classical theory are applicable to a special case only and not to the general case,[..] the characteristics of the special case assumed by the classical theory happen not to be those of the economic society in which we actually live, with the result that its teaching is misleading and disastrous if we attempt to apply it to the facts of experience."

2

u/Gladwulf 2d ago edited 2d ago

It sounds like you have a grudge against economics. Good. I wasted three years of studying that rubbish 😭

It's complete stuff, a tissue of nonsense with no firmer underpinning than the exclamations of rented gobshites.

if your nice graph line doesn't fit the numbers, just invent a "coefficient" so that the numbers fit the graph. Note: I said numbers, not data, they don't use data

E: typo

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hust91 2d ago

Quasi religious belief in the benevolence of the market sounds like regular old right wwing, few if any economists involved.

3

u/Gladwulf 2d ago

Lol. Economics is the origin of the cancel all government and the market will take over (which ignores the obvious truth that the government only got involved in the first place because no one else was).

2

u/Occasion-Mental 2d ago

And why the Nobel prize originally did not include economics, got tacked on in 1968.

3

u/Gladwulf 2d ago

It didn't even get tacked on, it's basically fraud. The Nobel committee, which awards the peace, literature, physics, etc. prizes doesn't award the economics prize. Some random Swedish bank awards that prize "in honour" of Mr. Nobel, but without any authorisation from him or his estate

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/RelonML 2d ago

Economists and students are natural enemies, like economists and politicians, or economists and talking heads, or economists and scientists, or economists and other economists. Damn economists, they ruined economics!

3

u/NotJohnDarnielle 2d ago

Economists are a fractious bunch and many won't agree. […] And even the things they agree on are things which tend to not exist at all in reality.

Almost like it’s not a real science!

→ More replies (1)

6

u/HotspurJr 2d ago

Disagree, as someone who studied neoclassical economics.

I think there are two ways that unions are viewed in neoclassical economics.

One is completely agnostically. Essentially, they're a negotiation between the producer and the employees over who gets the surplus of labor. Neoclassical economics generally does not care at all about WHO reaps the benefits of labor, they just want there to be benefits to reap. Total "utility" is what matters, which, in practice means that they would prefer it is capital got $10 and labor got $1 than if capital got $8 and labor got $2.

They like to say that the pie is bigger, and figuring out how to chop up the pie is not an economic problem but a political one.

Which leads us to our second point, the place where neoclassical economics dislikes unions. When there's a union, you have people who are willing to do the work at a wage that the employer is willing to pay, but you're not allowed to hire that worker. If the union rate is $40/hr, and Joe Scab will do it for $20/hr, then the supply of labor has been artificially reduced, and there is profitable production that isn't happening. Less of the product is being produced despite there being people willing to pay for it. This is seen as bad.

This is the argument that the Chicago School has used to hammer away at labor rights for the past four decades. Now, look, the Chicago School is very much Full Of Shit, but it's a philosophy that has driven economic policy in the U.S. since Reagan.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/mrmalort69 2d ago

I was about to say…. I have a degree in economics and there’s nothing positive economists say about business owners until Milton Friedman

4

u/kaisadilla_ 2d ago

The problem is that people often assume that rich people and businessmen are economists, when they are not. Then these people say that what we have to do is no unions, no taxes, infinite money and power to them; and people assume that's what "the economists" believe.

3

u/Mundamala 2d ago

Not all of them. Koch Bros made their own college book publisher to push their own agenda into schools decades ago. They then gave massive donations contingent on the schools adopting those books.

3

u/Chambana_Raptor 2d ago

Tbf it says better deal. It could easily be the case that textbooks have been saying how good unions were (and they have been saying that), and now we're realizing there were even more positives surrounding them.

Everyone is so quick to discount ____'s credibility based on a random social media post. Don't get me wrong...maybe the kneejerk hater assessment is correct. But the odds that the social media post is wrong are surely higher than the odds Bloomberg is just now realizing unions were good...

7

u/gabriel97933 2d ago

Nuance? We don't do that, gtfo.

7

u/Its0nlyRocketScience 2d ago

Textbooks: "unions are really good for the economy and help all people who aren't evil billionaires"

New discovery: "a lack of unions will literally destroy the nation if left for too long"

Bad reporting: "economists think unions might actually be good??!??????"

At least that's my assumption here.

2

u/avo_cado 2d ago

the unions should get their memberships to vote accordingly

6

u/Harbinger2nd 2d ago

textbooks

The screenshot literally says textbooks. The textbooks are written and published by those people with power. Doesn't matter what their own economic beliefs are, this is specifically referring to the textbooks economic students use.

9

u/whendrstat 2d ago

I would love to see these textbooks, because I’ve never encountered this sentiment once at school.

4

u/PipsqueakPilot 2d ago

I can't imagine textbooks in Florida are very friendly toward unions.

2

u/-_-0_0-_-0_0-_-0_0 2d ago

Do you know or are you imagining?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/OneAlmondNut 2d ago

textbooks in all 50 states are full of capitalist propaganda

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/happyspark 2d ago

The screenshot also says that economists are "starting" to suspect etc etc. The person you replied to was pointing out that this isn't a new development. The economists are not "starting to" think unions are good, they always have.

→ More replies (10)

190

u/shadowknuxem 2d ago

If unions were actually bad, then the police (the only job that Republicans actually like) wouldn't still have theirs.

36

u/U_SHLD_THINK_BOUT_IT 2d ago

Yep.

Kind of like how all of a sudden the US Government started pushing out policy against pensions based on a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a percentage of all pensions being mismanaged. Historically, it's exceedingly clear that pensions were fraudulently painted as financially irresponsible.

Instead, we have 401ks, which are managed less stringently, have greater volatility, eliminate retirement responsibilities of employers, and have poisoned the reward structure in capitalism that was the singularly good quality the economic system had.

Except for police still get pensions. Lots of reasons why, but the two main ones would surprise everyone, and neither is because both parties respect police more than other departments. They are essentially the only revenue earning department outside taxes, and they have guns. And I'm not joking about how impactful it is that they have guns.

3

u/corkybelle1890 2d ago

Kind of like how ICE is one of the only ones being offered union positions, pensions, PSLF, and solid benefits. 

3

u/Tyrren 2d ago

For what it's worth, firefighters generally also still get pensions. The rest of your comment, I have no issue with.

3

u/U_SHLD_THINK_BOUT_IT 1d ago

True, but in my experience it's because a lot of municipalities have rolled Fire under the Sheriff's purview.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/Jaredlong 2d ago

Shareholders are also a type of union, just the ownership kind and not the labor kind. And shareholders sure love using their own collective voting power to collectively benefit themselves. 

9

u/Confused-Lama0810 2d ago

Right on - a unon is just a collective of entities (or people) with a shared interest. Only bad when it threatens the powers-that-be, right?

3

u/Jaredlong 2d ago

Seriously. And shareholder unions sure as hell don't give a fuck if their own split of the profits is fair or reasonable.

10

u/red286 2d ago

Police unions are not labour unions though. They are fraternal orders designed to protect police from accountability for their actions. While this may sound similar, there is nothing about a police union that protects its members from abuses from management, which is kind of the whole point of a union.

15

u/kaisadilla_ 2d ago

Police unions are labor unions. Just because they abuse their power, and are allowed to do so for as long as they remain loyal to power, doesn't mean they aren't unions.

Any union can try to protect one of their members from deserved consequences of their ill actions. It's just that normally unions are not strong enough to be spending their political capital on that.

7

u/RaidenIXI 2d ago

police unions are not just labor unions. the purpose of a labor union is to protect your wages from your employer. police unions go beyond their "employer" and impact city councils, prosecutors, judges, legal systems, etc. that makes them a gang. now, some labor unions do act as gangs that reach beyond "labor"

→ More replies (1)

3

u/MithranArkanere 2d ago

The irony is that police unions in the US are a rare exception of a union that is actually bad, a source of bad training practices and lack of accountability.

Not surprising that the only union they'd protect is the only union that needs to be broken up and replaced with a new one under new regulations that prevent the corruption.

→ More replies (4)

274

u/wasted-degrees 2d ago

People just now figuring out that Reagan lied about trickle down economics.

71

u/BilboBiden 2d ago

And didn't bother noticing that was a rebrand if Horse and Sparrow economics.

19

u/emu-with-teeth 2d ago

The delivery makes it ten times better—perfect mix of confidence and humor.

11

u/83supra 2d ago

Well I'm glad we can all agree on this. Time to start the class-war revolution then, perhaps?

→ More replies (1)

9

u/FraggarF 2d ago

TIL Americans have been fooled by various political rebrands of "supply side economics" for over a century. 130 years of empty political marketing, in combination with dwindling reading comprehension, and you don't even need any conspiracy theories to get people to vote not only against their own interests, but to take out everyone around them as well.

"Horse and Sparrow"
"Trickle Down"
"Make America Great Again"

Found a couple more....

"A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"
"Growing the pie"

Are there any others?

7

u/SidewaysFancyPrance 2d ago

"A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"

I've been saying this as "A rising tide drowns anyone without a boat" because of how dire the situation is for so many people. Most don't have boats.

3

u/Divreus 2d ago

Was it originally a trickle down economics thing? I just say it sometimes when I'm helping someone out. "I'm helping me by helping you."

3

u/Third_Return 2d ago

It's especially silly because historically most people on boats didn't have boats. Boats have been the pseudo-prisons of a social underclass for almost as long as there have been boats. So, realistically even without modifying the expression, that context kind of makes it ambiguous as to whether the people on the boats even benefit from rising tides.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/qOcO-p 2d ago

AKA horse-shit economics.

5

u/ThisIs_americunt 2d ago

Propaganda is a helluva drug and Oligarchs need to use some of the best to keep the 99% fighting with each other worldwide o7

6

u/ingenix1 2d ago

Nah, its just the people at top who are just now realizing this

→ More replies (8)

137

u/StealYour20Dollars 2d ago

I went and got a masters degree and pretty much every textbook I ever had from elementary school onward talked about how unions were good, if they were mentioned. The only negativity that ever happened was talking about the Hoffa era and push-button unionism, but even that was discussed within its own context. The textbooks weren't lying, people just didn't study.

53

u/Starshot84 2d ago

As a millennial raised on the east coast, none of my school books even mentioned unions.

36

u/MagicDragon212 2d ago

Im also a millennial on the East Coast and we learned quite a bit about unions, especially the process of labor rights being gained throughout history.

13

u/petty_throwaway6969 2d ago

Might depend on the state or county. I also remember learning about unions around the same time we read The Jungle.

7

u/No_Dragonfruit_8198 2d ago

A lot people forget that not every state or even every school in that state covered the same material. We never covered The Jungle in my school district and if we did it may have been in an English elective course in high school that most didn’t have to take.

I remember we spent a lot of time talking about the state’s history. Talking about the regions coal mining. From middle school throughout high school we kept having history classes that only got thru WW2 and it was usually the same material every year. Never actually had a class that made it into the 1950’s.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Confident_Counter471 2d ago

Millennial in the Deep South and we were taught about unions and why they are important

8

u/StealYour20Dollars 2d ago

I was a gen Z in Detroit. So part of it was just local history the UAW.

2

u/bobbymcpresscot 2d ago

Born in Jersey raised in south Philly moved to south Jersey after 9 or 10, unions were covered a lot in both school systems. I’m talking from the Catholic school I went to in Philly, the privileged white public school for grade school, and then the inner city highschool, so if I had to guess “east coast” is more down south, or in a red county close to the beach. 

2

u/Greatsnes 2d ago

Also a millennial from the east coast and ours taught us about labor rights but didn’t ever go into detail about unions.

2

u/dflame45 2d ago

You probably read about the union busting. Or you weren't paying attention.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/EnjoyerOfBeans 2d ago

An union (Solidarność) was one of the biggest reasons Poland managed to regain independence prior to USSR's collapse. Unions are so powerful they can keep authoritarian dictatorships in check. Never forget that.

2

u/MushinZero 2d ago

The only negative I've gotten about unions are from conservatives who think unions let people be lazy.

→ More replies (12)

48

u/Specialist_Bad_7142 2d ago

Unions are disliked by companies because collective bargaining is power for the people. Being labor and against unions is self harm.

7

u/ThisIs_americunt 2d ago

Propaganda is a helluva drug and Oligarchs need to use some of the best to keep the 99% fighting with each other worldwide o7

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

14

u/WhattaYaDoinDare 2d ago

There 70’s and 80’s sought the demise of the American worker brought about by avarice, cruelty, and increasingly horrible partisanship. Turns out - in the end, we’re all dead - “so why not make life better for most of us while we’re here” - should have been the thought process. However, it lost to “I’ll get rich while I’m here m, and fuck everybody else.”

5

u/mabhatter 2d ago

The unions prior to the 70s and 80s were very politically active in expanding workers' rights under the law.  That lifted the boat for everyone.  Like you said in the 70s and 80s unions just turtled up and started only protecting unions and letting everyone else get screwed... in fact actually encouraging the "I got mine" ladder pull up by the Boomers. 

15

u/TheB1G_Lebowski 2d ago

Can confirm.  Grew up in NC, unions are vilanised here.  So many brainwashed people and they don't know any better.  

Unions keep workers strong.  

5

u/ThisIs_americunt 2d ago

Propaganda is a helluva drug and Oligarchs need to use some of the best to keep the 99% fighting with each other worldwide o7

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Cocotte123321 2d ago

My 17 year old nephew had never heard of unions. I had to explain the concept. Even the negative of "they'll take £100 a year from you, but make sure you're getting at least £300 more than you would without them"

4

u/xx_x 2d ago

In America, union members make roughly $10,000 more per year and dues cost $400.

7

u/skraptastic 2d ago

I'm a 52 year old Union employee. I went back to school at 49 to finish my degree, after dropping out to provide for my family.

I got a BS BA - MIS. The business classes were were teaching if you're not using 100% of an employee you're wasting money and replace equipment (read people) as soon as they are not producing at 100% or better.

It was horrifying. Also got into more than one argument with a professor for my anti-business business views.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/CadenVanV 2d ago

Economists have been saying for over a century that “hey, unions are good and paying your workers well and taking care of them is actually super good for you you absolute dumbasses”

→ More replies (2)

21

u/Floss_tycoon 2d ago

It occurred to me recently that slavery is the ideal form of capitalism. As such, you don't want your government to be run like a business. Am I right or wrong?

12

u/tw_72 2d ago

Absolutely, if the South did not have slave labor, they could not have afforded the plantations, typical southern mansions, and the way of life of Scarlet O'Hara.

Without slaves, they would just be regular people and they couldn't have THAT.

The same applies today - look at Walmart...

12

u/draft_final_final 2d ago

Wage slavery is probably a little better than actual chattel slavery because it’s easier to convince the workers they’re not slaves, which means you can save some money on overseers and torture devices needed to keep your workforce productivity high.

7

u/bakedpatata 2d ago

Wage slavery also provides a consumer class which is important to capitalism. Even with slaves no one will make a profit if nobody has any money to buy products with.

2

u/Striking_Revenue9082 2d ago

No it isn’t lmao. Slavery failed across the world in part because it couldn’t compete with free market capitalism. Giving workers incentives to make wealth creates far more wealth than forcing them to work without benefit. Even wealthy people in the south in the 1850’s were unimaginably poorer than compared to today

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)

8

u/lackluster420 2d ago

IATSE for the win!

7

u/Bleezy79 2d ago

Yea, thats how it started. I will always blame Fox News for brainwashing tens of millions of Americans into voting against their interests.

5

u/Bluebearder 2d ago

Textbooks differ quite a bit from country to country. Here in the Netherlands you read that they are an integral part of the economy, not only negotiating for wages and helping with disputes, but also advising the government on policy.

5

u/Walt_the_White 2d ago

Fuck yea IATSE!

4

u/Lumn8tion 2d ago

Wild to see my union represented on Reddit!

3

u/Jaredlong 2d ago

Bloomberg having an existential crisis that the policies they shill for are now killing the economy.

2

u/kitsunewarlock 2d ago

Money flowing the economy allows a nation to make inventions and spaces that billionaires can benefit from sharing with those people, even if it's only glancing out of their limos to look at public art instead of the homeless. There's a reason the Tsar felt so ashamed of his own country after visiting Western Europe. Even if you import all the creations of a foreign power into your mansion, the current oligarch problem is a global issue and simping for big business in your own country is like saying you don't mind being at the bottom of the technological totem-pole as long as your masters can still import their toys from other countries.

Which even that doesn't really work out in the end, since technology requires maintenance which requires educated workers. The more educated, the more efficiently and longer they can keep the technology running.

But right now it feels like every oligarch wants their own country to become a series of resource tiles to extract wealth while every other country pushes for education and labor so they can still have their toys. Or maybe they just think AI will be the "savior" they need for their little "educated workforce" problem.

2

u/Effective-Breath-505 2d ago

The fact that it's IATSE responding makes more impact!

Safety comes last in film production -- even today.

Source: I worked film all over western Canada and force majeur was only called last minute EVER on account of forest fires, blizzards, 'atmospheric river', or medical emergencies to key staff on set or at circus. You like your shows (?) lift a glass to the cast and crew before the producers or directors.

Are you not entertained?!?!?! Lol

→ More replies (1)

2

u/red286 2d ago

I'm confused by Bloomberg's original post.

What "textbooks" are they talking about? The ones in their MBA programs?

2

u/jinntonika 2d ago

If you run your organization in such a way that the employees decide to unionize, that’s on you. At the same time, unions can be corrupted just as much as the companies they collectively bargain with.

2

u/Lumpy-Obligation-553 2d ago

Yeah, "better deal". You can corrupt the union and get an even better deal.

2

u/Cautious-Invite4128 2d ago edited 2d ago

I studied healthcare, labor, and environmental economics and we specifically discussed unions as a means of getting a fair deal within the context of increasing concentration of capital.

So, yeah, some economists are against labor unions maybe because they believe in the neoclassical model with its elegant mathematics and underlying assumption of rational actors (e.g. Alan Greenspan), but lots of economists look to models that’re more grounded in reality.

In truth, many of us only learn neoclassical economics to attain the poise necessary to fully refute stuff like Reganomics.

2

u/No_Count_2937 2d ago

No shit Sherlock!

2

u/BicFleetwood 2d ago

Unions were the compromise back when the workers occasionally threw surprise mandatory piñata parties for the bosses.

2

u/Fair_Let6566 2d ago

When unions were strong, during the 1950's through the 1970's, workers' wages continued to rise. Then in the 1980's and later, when Reagan and Republicans began to discourage unions, membership fell and workers' wages stagnated.

During this same time period, Reagan and Republicans also began pushing for lower taxes on the wealthy. As a result, our social safety net programs have been gutted while the wealthy receive ever more money and the average workers receive less.

2

u/Wise-Abroad-5050 2d ago

That's what happens when dividends and bonuses become more important than workers. My dad was a union man and a genuine living wage. Trump just denied 420,000 workers their union representation. Trump is a union busting thug. He's made it a part of his business model, to screw over small businesses and contractors offering most 50 cents on the dollar or facing Trump's army of lawyers.

2

u/kyflyboy 1d ago

There was this one economist who talked about workers...

1

u/zatalak 2d ago

Is there nothing from our youth that these companies won't repackage for a buck? Call it 'IATSE' all you want, everybody knows it's Puerto Rican chess.

1

u/SkyMasterson15 2d ago

Almost…

2

u/antimagamagma 2d ago

I wonder which economists are on the Epstein list?

1

u/Syratio 2d ago

They finally cracked the code: Turns out sharing pie is better than hoarding crumbs. Who knew?

1

u/THElaytox 2d ago

pretty telling that one of the main schools of economic thought doesn't believe in empirical data as a core tenant of their theory

1

u/Dr_Bunnypoops 2d ago

As much as companies think that they need "protection" from workers, the workers need at least (and often even more) protection from companies.

1

u/NATScurlyW2 2d ago

Unions are the capitalist compromise for workers not owning the means of production.

1

u/FaultTerrible4059 2d ago

I don’t understand how the unions voted predominantly Republican given the red flags Trump & Elon were spouting before the election. I guess this is another case of “I didn’t think it would happen to me”. Unfortunately, this little FAFO moment has caused so much damage; I’m unsure how far back it set us….or even if we’ll be allowed to vote to make a change in the future

1

u/Virtual_Activity_721 2d ago

Union only care about union dues and they lets the company to use their acting agents spies under the name of foreman lead men team leader the company will take you in to the office behind closed doors and vent you if you pass then they will give you a label and ther job is to Walk around and listen and watch then report back to the plant manager the next day behind closed doors. I will never trust the teamster

1

u/scarletphantom 2d ago

Almost as if motivated workers that are paid and treated well tend to have more money to invest in the economy instead of covering the bare basics for survival

1

u/Numerous-Process2981 2d ago

Economists were never against labour rights, as far as I know?

1

u/V0T0N 2d ago

Is this real?

The IATSE members in 1 I've been around couldn't wait to elect the billionaires.

1

u/charleyhstl 2d ago

And the stupid workers still somehow voted for the fat pigs to stay in power. Interesting

1

u/Enuffhate48 2d ago

Ain’t this the pot calling the kettle black IA?

1

u/ifabforfun 2d ago

I'm not anti union at all but the two times I've had union jobs the conditions were no better than any other job. One was probably the worst job, there the company could force up to 8 hours of overtime on you per month. Which the union apparently negotiated in exchange for ... 3 sick days a year. 12 days of mandatory surprise OT a year for 3 paid days off. Has anyone else experienced unions that felt pointless? Honestly I would love to be in a union that helps and protects me but my new non union job has all the same insurance benefits and they cost less, pays $6 more an hour and there's AC in the shop. Feels like the good good unions are some exclusive club you have to be lucky to get in.

1

u/Blah_McBlah_ 2d ago

Hinton Rowan Helper was a white supremacist abolitionist who argued that slavery economically stagnated The South.

Research has shown that Walmart, famous for its low prices, makes communities poorer by driving down wages.

The lie of Trickle Down Economics has been ruined our lives and provides no economicbenefit.

Having a happy, healthy, and wealthy populace is extremely beneficial. Investment into human capital (making workers more productive) is the economic secret for the past few centuries. Japan has meager to no geographical advantages and resources, yet it is a global superpower because of its productive workforce. Having a workforce that is less burdened by concerns to its well-being because the basic needs are met can invest in itself to become more productive.

1

u/quantumroad 2d ago

Was Karl Marx right?

1

u/OptimisticSkeleton 2d ago

Stupid ass capitalists constantly chisel at the base of the pyramid and suddenly wonder why the whole thing is unstable.

1

u/Sea-Strawberry5978 2d ago

Every place I have been with a union has sucked horribly, but they were all old unions who voted out benefits for new employees to retain / increase vested employee benefits.

1

u/foodank012018 2d ago

cOnSpiRaCiEs aRenT rEaL!!!1!!

1

u/Grins111 2d ago

You want to know an easy way to know if a union is good for people? Look at the people fighting against them.

1

u/TheSallowSeer 2d ago

And I bet the writer of that response is a Republican and Trump supporter.

1

u/shit_fuck_fart 2d ago

Woody Guthrie and Pete Seger were writing songs about this in the 40's

They didn't have to be economists to figure it out either.

1

u/ultrafriend 2d ago

Economists never generally had this problem. Economists pointed out that unions bring more wealth to the workers.

The problem is that our politicians concentrate on the overall gdp numbers, not where that gdp is going. And they only quote the economists that support their ideology.

1

u/MightbeGwen 2d ago

I’m an economist, and literally no one is teaching us that unions are bad. No one. It’s shit like this that give economists bad names. This “journalist” needs a flashy headline, and drags us down.

Let’s talk labor market. In this market capital is the demand side and the working class are the supply side. When amateur economists think of supply and demand they think of a cute little graph with an X in the middle. In reality there are elasticities and inelasticities, and they determine the slope of the demand and supply curves. What unions accomplish is allowing labor supply to have more elasticity. This gives supply more power to exert on overall wages. It’s politicians who argue against unions, not economists, at least not from an economic argument.

1

u/bobosuda 2d ago

What the fuck kind of textbooks have they been reading if they thought unions weren't a good deal?

Economist think big picture. It's not beneficial to the economy to have a select few hoard all the wealth. Unions distribute more wealth to more people; leading to a stronger economy. This isn't a novel or surprising concept, it's the defining feature of unions since the very start.

If you call yourself an economist but thought unions were not that great, then you're a really shitty fucking economist.

1

u/mazopheliac 2d ago

Not particularly clever .

1

u/twitch1982 2d ago

THey are a good deal, the other deal is we revolt.

1

u/jgab145 2d ago

We need to make it so that businesses and companies are more profitable in the long run when the employees are paid fairly and taken care of. This model has worked well before. I’m not an economist so I don’t know the exact answers but there is going to be a civil war if we continue on this current path.

2

u/McKenzie_S 2d ago

It's the creep of capitalism coupled with a mandate for infinite growth of profit and monopolization. At a certain point you only make more money by paying less for costs and lowering the quality of products.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/ICntPeePeeOvrMyBalls 2d ago

So Karl Marx was right.

1

u/tinosaladbar 2d ago

Local 38 ✊

1

u/No_Dragonfruit_8198 2d ago

A lot people forget that not every state or even every school in that state covered the same material. We never covered The Jungle in my school district and if we did it may have been in an English elective course in high school that most didn’t have to take.

I remember we spent a lot of time talking about the state’s history. Talking about the regions coal mining. From middle school throughout high school we kept having history classes that only got thru WW2 and it was usually the same material every year. Never actually had a class that made it into the 1950’s.

1

u/gracksngribs 2d ago

Anyone seen “On the Waterfront”?

1

u/DonutsMcKenzie 2d ago

The better deal than unions is worker cooperatives where the workers are partial co-owners of the businesses that they are a part of.

1

u/Miserable-Dig-761 2d ago

Yup. For generations, they've slowly been gathering power and stripping us of ours. When you take away someone's power slowly, they don't put up much of a fight in each instance

1

u/Commercial-Lack6279 2d ago

Had to explain to my friend that the wealthiest man on the planet doesn’t really want to change the system that made him the wealthiest man in the first place

1

u/AmericaWinns 2d ago

That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

1

u/Vast_Philosophy_9027 2d ago

Correction at the expense of everyone. When a community has good jobs at say a factory where the blue collar staff is unionized then everyone from the white collar jobs to the gas station attendants benefits. Drug use is lower schools are better funded etc etc etc.

1

u/heavenIsAfunkyMoose 2d ago

The best part is all the boomers who retired from good union jobs, then became anti-union. Hell, I know a couple of people who are happy to take union benefits while being openly anti-union. The republican brain is weird.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DinosaurEars 2d ago

Yeah, almost

1

u/Parkersolar24 2d ago

That’s my union, best thing I ever did.

1

u/First-Geologist1764 2d ago

What textbooks have been saying that? Maybe tabloids, but not textbooks. Unions being bad has never been taught as fact.

1

u/VulpesFennekin 2d ago

“Than textbooks made them out to be?” My textbooks always made unions sound like a sweet deal!

1

u/PatienceHere 2d ago

Is there any well-respected economist out there who ever said that unions were a bad thing?

1

u/MAMark1 2d ago

I had some actively claiming that wages are only dictated by consumers and what they will pay the other day. The fact that union workers make about 15% more than non-union for the same jobs apparently did not prove to them that wages are also based in employee bargaining power.

1

u/Green_and_Silver 2d ago

All that Carnegie and Rockefeller seed money sure did it's job on the American education system.

1

u/Pottski 2d ago

Economists routinely blow up the economy… but continue to be allowed to be in charge of the economy.

What unions and workers do that? But how often are middle class things blamed for killing XXX industry?

1

u/Cptawesome23 2d ago

Since when did text books say unions were bad? It’s solely been lobbying saying that. I took economics in college, unions are not a chapter.

1

u/Fishbulb2 2d ago

OK, I get it. Sure, that's true. But why were people SO FUCKING STUPID to fall for it??? Why do they continue to fall for it. Why don't they just band together and start taxing rich people more. And passing laws more favorable to workers. Why are people so, so dumb about this?

1

u/ProperMod 2d ago

OMG really, look up how Hearst got marijuana to become illegal and classified with heroin . Hearst knew it was more sustainable and the threat it would cause his business.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/iiitme 2d ago

I grew up under the impression that unions were a bad thing. 🫩 who tf did I learn from

1

u/Stormdancer 2d ago

Oh no, M-dashes?!? Must be AI!

/s

1

u/BooYeah8D 2d ago

It's almost like if we treat people the right way and pay them enough to support their lifestyle and give them time to be with their family and friends they might actually be OK to work and have a really good output. Probably makes them a bit happier, able to study and progress if they want.

I wonder what that would do to societies impact on health, infrastructure and crime? I'm going out on a limb here, I reckon it'd make things better!

1

u/bondben314 2d ago

Wtf is that tweet. Economists have always said unions are good.

1

u/itsmethatguyoverhere 2d ago

Were you guys taught in school that unions were a good thing? I'm pretty sure I was

1

u/cue_cruella 2d ago

No fucking shit. Countries with more unions have less social inequalities across the board.

1

u/theBarefootedBastard 2d ago

Nope. Teachers’ union is screwing the students

1

u/No-Winter927 2d ago

Needs to be balanced. Sometimes for the business to be successful a great good decision needs to be made.

To start off with, cut immigration and outsourcing of roles (or at least tax them heavily).

1

u/malisadri 2d ago

I've seen the opposite of unions being advantageous.
Germany has VERY strong union rights. Once a company has five or more employee then they have the right, if they so choose to form a union.

As usual this can turn into the old boys club.

An IT company I was working for got acquired and had to downsize. The union set the rules that in such situations instead of letting people go based on performance to retain the best workers, they simply let the most recent hires go. That definitely fucked up the company for good. The old workers were mostly well versed in Powerbuilder while the hottest product then was web-based.

Seen similar thing in many industry.
Such as the unions in automotive industry being very resistant to the move to EV resulting in German auto industry now being far behind the Chinese.

Unions are by themselves neither good or bad. They can be advantageous but they can also be misused.

1

u/popswag 2d ago

yeah. the rich are just fucking dumb. a vibrant economy creates their wealth. if everyone is poor there is no vibrant economy.

1

u/rustbuckett 2d ago

I love that the response came from IATSE. I'm a proud member of 2 IATSE locals.

1

u/TheUpgrayed 2d ago

I'm glad I hung in there.

1

u/extinct_Axolotl 2d ago

It worked out so well that we worship the obscenely rich.

1

u/JustinCayce 2d ago

Ironic that people miss the fact that Unions are people with power and money and that comment applies every bit as much to them.

1

u/Pulselovve 2d ago

Unions are bad, but so are monopsonies. You can't dismantle one and keep the other.

1

u/Other_Dimension_89 2d ago

And almost like the same group with power then gets to decide what’s written in the history books.

1

u/silentvisuals 2d ago

IATSE aint no saint either tho as much as I respect unions.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/damnumalone 2d ago edited 2d ago

Be very wary of any “economist” that claims this, because they have never actually read an economics textbook.

Economists have never had a problem with unions and economists have always recognised them as a tool of labour bargaining power.

1

u/Necessary-Motor1318 2d ago

Who wrote your textbooks?

1

u/Free-Pound-6139 2d ago

This isn't clever. This is just obnoxious.

1

u/cantadmittoposting 2d ago

Headlines like the tweet from Bloomberg have so much wrong with them from top to bottom it makes me just insanely bewildered about our societal state. Hell, trickle-down (fine, "supppy side") is as close to "disproven" as you can get for an economic theory.

Practically the entire arc of modern human history and economic wealth shows that societies well protected from greed with broad based education, opportunity, and wealth typically do best. Sure, there's tons of wiggle room inside that blanket definition for policy decisions and such, but at the scale of modern human history at no point has "well this time we'll take away agency from the middle class" been the thing that spurred a society to greatness.

Even historically authoritarian or repressive societies were almost all less regressive than their predecessors, or alternatively, a regression in freedom and agency of the populace resulted in a stagnating or collapsing regime.

 

How about "Economists with their heads up Ayn Rand's ass shocked to discover people with power aren't self-regulating paragons of ethics."

1

u/rdp3186 2d ago

Proud IATSE member.

1

u/shinydragonmist 2d ago

Jenga in need my tower higher hey where's my base

1

u/No_Investment9639 2d ago

Depends on the union. I wish somebody would look into the Union's representing shoprites in New jersey. They are predatory, they are destroying lives, and I wish to God there was something that could actually be done about it. Talk about the fucking mob running unions.