What free rider? The union people who don't work as hard as the other people in their union but can't get fired because of all the protections? Like a bad teacher, something all of us have experienced? Why shouldn't non union members be allowed to take jobs without striking and picketing and running to the labor relations board? Why do they hate people taking the jobs at pay they feel is not worth it for them? Why can't they just go find another job if they are so valuable? If the workers are the only ones making money for the company, how come unions run zero corporations? No one there to leach from so they would have no purpose?
You're asking for repetition. Non-union workers benefit from union bargaining. Given they do not contribute the bargaining process, that is a classic case of free riding
They didn't ask for the union to bargain for them, can I negotiate your wage with your employee without asking you ans help myself to a chunk of your wages? You dodged my other questions, but I will add that what if this member votes against everything the union wants, and doesn't like who they spend campaign money on, should they lose their speech rights just because they want their job? Isn't the forced contribution the only real involuntary labor you were able to point out in this thread? Are there union free riders the other way? Like I described? Or do you buy into the false notion that employees work just as hard as each other always?
Who is to say they couldn't have demanded that wage because they are worth it? Why should the union have monopoly over the labor of any industry or firm? Doesn't that force people to work for the union involuntarily? Free rider is taking advantage of something you want. Many people want nothing to do with unions, and it shouldn't matter that the unions say they are doing a good job by them it should be up to the member to decide of they want to join.
Its an empirical result. They achieve wage gains through union activity. It might not be a result that you know about, but you don't seem to be too interested in economic reality
What if they prefer being paid a wage that will allow the company to reinvest? What if they are a teacher that supports vouchers? Should they be forced to join the union an work for them if they want that job? Does your empirical evidence count jobs that have moved overseas away from the unions, or to the south? As we already discovered earlier in this thread, job security has a value. Don't feel like you have to rush a response out. Take your time get to those questions you dodged and let me know.
Your random questions continue to make no sense. They see wage growth; they see wage growth because of union bargaining. Its not a difficult concept to grasp!
Why should they be forced into the union bargaining in the first place? Why can't someone work at a job without owing some third party the benefits of their labor? If they don't want the unions help, what gives the union the right to force them to work for them? What if a teacher really cared about the students first before their salary? Money isn't everything you know. Should they be forced into the union?
Another random question. I haven't referred to coerced membership. I'm simply referring to the truth of the matter: non-union workers free ride from union activities
Not random at all, they come from your reasoning. How are non union workers in an open industry free riding? Isn't only closed industries that this would occur? Why is the union bargaining for people outside its membership? Can you give just one example please? Additionally, if you can find one union, just one, outside of Poland and Germany that haven't hurt their countrymen to promote themselves I would love to hear about it. US or UK preferred so I'd not have to look them up in Swahili.
It was undoubtedly random, as I made no mention of coerced membership. Bit obvious really! You're again asking for repetition. They benefit without contributing to the costs. That's a free riding issue. Can we eliminate such problems in capitalism? Nope. However, it certainly ensures a significant source of contempt within the working class
Who decides the value of the benefit if the person does not want any part of the union? What benefit does society get from this higher wage the unions get? What benefit do non union members get from the union if they are called scabs when they try to apply? The correct answer to these is simple: You do apparently. None, just higher costs and more unemployment. Only the union members benefit. None, those people go home wanting to work while people who don't want to work for the offered wage or without protections from being fired etc.., keep them unemployed and in crisis. Tell me again about the benefits of a union if you are not in the union? Who will dictate wages in your social paradise, and why won't they engage in the same behavior?
"[P]olitics" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of economics. But I shall stand by my earlier assertion that European standards are unimportant to me. If you wish to describe that as "shallow," please feel free to look at it that way... Could you backup that assertion, please? (Preferably, from a neutral source.) Allow me, please, to reiterate: "Nazism" is merely an abbreviated form of National Socialism. What do you think the term stands for? Again, the views expressed by Adam Smith are light years away from the economic views of John Maynard Keynes. Would you contend that the two held similar economic views?
You can of course refer to political economy. Party politics, and that's all you have, is just going to be sub-Fox News. Della Vigna and Kaplan (2007, The Fox News Effect: Media bias and Voting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 122, pp 1187-1234) Again, you only confirm that you're not at all aware of the nature of the political economy. This weakens your position and helps us appreciate where your error originates. Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I’d first refer to Keserich’s definition of fascism as “the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital”. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism (“obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism”. That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: “the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions”. That aint participatory socialism! Fourth, we have “fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism”. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as “a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government” (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together. The economics of fascism is actually “economics by mistake, not design”. They were investigating different issues. Smith's focus on moral justice would certainly make him a socialist to the Fox News viewer. Keynes was focused on the impact of uncertainty, integrating behavioural economics into macroeconomic analysis to appreciate the dangers to capitalism. I would contend that you have to argue that they are both 'left to centre'. Indeed, given Smith's focus on egalitarianism- with Keynes more focused on defending the continued existence of capitalism- you'd have to argue that he was a raving loony lefty. Good luck with that!
Wow you really make or clear how much the same fascism is with socialism, as it would play out in practice. If not, please show me where I went wrong Government direction of the economy? Check Stifling individualism for the benefit of the state? Check Revolt against the current capitalist system? Check Anti intellectualism at its finest? Check Otherwise lets hear a socialist system that doesn't run afoul of all the point you had.
The user above failed to learn anything from all the extensive debates he had with socialists , i am starting to wonder if something is wrong with him to answer the questions : Government direction of the economy? What this suppose to mean? in fascism corporations run the economy and the state finances them. Stifling individualism for the benefit of the state? socialism is pure individualism and this is why exploitation of others is banned Revolt against the current capitalist system? fascism is a capitalist system Anti intellectualism at its finest? lolwut
Keynes theories provided capitalism with a safety valve. Left to there own, market systems are imperfect and tend to self destruct every 50 or 60 years. Keynes provided the theory to address and mitigate the forces that tear market economies to pieces with surprising regularity. And for nearly 80 years, the US economy avoided the kind of meltdown that occurs regularly in laissez faire capitalism, until the Keynesian inspired safeguards were removed and unrestricted market forces were allowed to once again bring the economy down in relatively short order.
Lets go one step at a time. Can I be individual enough to make as much money as I want and hire people for the pay I want to pay them under your system without any government control? Can I hire someone for 1 penny an hour, even if they are making me a fortune?
No, it provided socialists with a weapon for government to do what it wants at the expense of a true profit AND LOSS portion of true capitalism. True capitalism works fine and made us the most powerful country on earth before Keynes put pen to paper. Keynes theories also don't work by the way of you are talking about the multiplier effect.
Using Keynes' defence of capitalism to suggest it helped socialism is nonsensical. Was Reagan's Military Keynesianism socialist? Of course not. Just an inefficient form of Keynesianism which right wingers were happy to blindly support
In every aspect of fascism I showed its inconsistency with socialism. It would be cretinous, for example, to suggest that the theory of the elites is compatible with socialist political economy. Try disputing the points made. Try content
Who will run your socialist utopia if not the "elites"? Will you be throwing trash? Why not? Who would decide that?
Economic stimulus is government intervention in the market aka socialism. Mills and Friedman also saw the benefit of a state run military. I even want government for that. Are they socialists now too, or simply not anarchists? Surely you don't think Friedman was a socialist.
Another nonsensical question. First, its nonsensical to refer to utopia (we're only referring to the protection of property rights after all). Second, it is the workers who control and own the means of production. That is completely alien to the theory of the elites. - - - Updated - - - This is an exceedingly ignorant statement. However, it amuses me that you couldn't deny that Reagan was a socialist (given military keynesianism 101 was used)
