[hueving]

"helped in the past" != "helpful now"

Burning coal has been a tremendous help to society, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it when we find better alternatives for each of its use cases.

Can you name some of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years? Does that outweigh their anti competitive nature that has led to companies moving manufacturing out of unionized areas entirely?

[icantdrive55]

Off the top of my head, try being a non-union Electrician, Plumber, etc. in San Francisco for a day.

At the end of that day, you will drop to your knees, and thank god for those lefty unions. At the end of a few years, you just might be able to afford a house.

Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China.

Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas.

What's the better alternative? America is better now because got rid of a lot of unions? Yes--a lot of products are made where your boss can get maximum ROI. They are made overseas for a lot of reasons, including lax laws concerning every aspect of that widget. Employee health/happiness/economic viability--who cares. Enviornment--who cares. Ability to pay taxes--who cares. Who cares as long as it's cheaper. Sometimes the cheapest is not the best for society as a whole?

[bogomipz]

As far as the union jobs you described, its not actually possible to outsource manual on-site performed labor to overseas. Is that really an accomplishment of unions?

[tunap]

Very possible to import immigrants, illegally or through visas, to labor for below market rates.

[ctlby]

If they're willing to labor for those rates, they are "market" by definition.

[bogomipz]

The OP's question was:

"of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years?"

Not what's possible. Also local trade unions are not really involved in federal immigration policy.

[hueving]

>What's the better alternative?

Let's look at the BART. It's one of the worst and most expensive transit systems in the US. It costs $4 to ride it from SFO to the nearest caltrain stop a couple of miles away. Part of the reason is that the train operators can easily rake in 6 figures with overtime for doing something that could easily be automated or made more efficient with centralized control at a minimum. The bay area has given up affordable/useful subways to subsidize a bloated union-based operation.

>Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas.

You're gravely mistaken if you think unions protect jobs from moving away. Labor costs that greatly exceed the market rate are the primary reason the jobs move elsewhere.

>Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China.

Oh? Point me to all of the union heavy manufacturing jobs in SF. You will find that difficult because they don't exist anymore. The only union jobs that are left here are ones that have no competition because they are local (e.g. your electrician example).

[pastProlog]

Can you name some of the advancements that heirs who have never worked a day in their lives have brought in the US over the last 10-20 years? Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits?

The heirs, the parasites who live off the labor of those of us who do work are the ones who have to explain what good their parasitism is doing in this day and age. We who work and create wealth and who organize ourselves don't have to justify our existence to these parasites and their myrmidons. They need us, we don't need them.

[dang]

You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological purposes. Please stop doing that. It's not a legitimate use of this site; it poisons the spirit of collegial curiosity that we hope for here. If you want to do political battle, please do so in other places.

[fennecfoxen]

> Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits?

You know, you certainly don't have to like entitled rich children of millionaires, billionaires, and industrialists. I certainly don't. But this rant confuses me for a few reasons. First, if we have a system where people are allowed to own capital and that's legitimate, doesn't inheritance just follow? I mean, what's the alternative you're after here without heirs? When Steve Jobs died, should the government have taken his shares and distributed to all current Apple employees? (And if so, according to what formula - proportional to pay? time served? the product of the two? equal division?) And why stop at just the shares - what about the shares of other companies, and his houses and cars and any bars of gold he bought with salaries or shares he'd previously sold? Where's the line? How much is the line? Do we redistribute everything to company employees? What about people who own multiple companies? Or maybe being at the company is no part of it - should the government have just auctioned off his estate for the general fund? Doesn't the government already sort of do that when it collects a roughly 50% inheritance tax? Is that not enough? How much exactly is enough? I could go on... Also, all that notwithstanding, morally: isn't that one of the things human beings work for, a good life for their children and grandchildren? If you respect the original industrialist, can you respect this? (If you don't respect the original industrialist, why are we attacking his heirs?)

Second, are they really even all that big of players in the large-corporation ownership scene writ large? Even in the absence of taxes, big inheritances will spread themselves out over several generations unless all rich kids are only children.

> They need us, we don't need them.

Then quit and found your own company.

[rayiner]

Inheritance does not naturally follow from the existence of private capital. Just because the state protects wealth earned by someone does not mean it needs to commit to protecting the transfer of that wealth after death.

To the contrary, inheritance is a weird construct. Dead people don't have property rights--inheritence is a whole mechanism to get around that.

Of course if we got rid of inheritance people would just make inter vivos gifts.

[EliRivers]

"First, if we have a system where people are allowed to own capital and that's legitimate, doesn't inheritance just follow?"

No, it doesn't necessarily follow. We could have a system based on the idea that people should benefit from their own efforts. You can own capital, well done you, and you can even choose to give your property to other people - it's yours, after all - but giving involves one person losing the benefit of it. Inheritance involves people holding onto things until they don't need it any more, and have no use for it, and whatever happens to it next affects them not at all, but they still want to be able to dictate what happens to it. We could jack up inheritance tax to basically 100%, and still have a society in which people can own capital and we encourage people to benefit from their own efforts.

[JoeAltmaier]

In this day of clever contracts, I could write one where I co-own my capital until I die. Thus constructing inheritance even if it doesn't generally exist in law. Like charitable remainder trusts etc.

[EliRivers]

You could; that would be better. Such a contract would have to surrender some control to the other co-owner; in effect, you've given something away, while you were alive. Trusts do a similar thing; the Duke of Westminster just "inherited" a large chunk of London, but he can't just do whatever he wants with it (that said, it is clearly tilted way too far in his favour).

I've no doubt some people would try to cheat the system, but that requires the taxman to look the other way; we already have situations in which people have tried to cheat by obeying the law in paperwork only, and a taxman paying attention can get them.

There already are cases in which people try to come up with clever contracts to attempt to dodge inheritance tax, and the taxman has been known to tear it up.

[dpark]

> Such a contract would have to surrender some control to the other co-owner

No, it wouldn't. You could easily structure this contract such that the person on the receiving end has no control until the original owner dies.

[Eridrus]

We should probably get rid of the charity tax exemption above a small threshold anyway.

[JoeAltmaier]

It doesn't take charity to hold property in common. Or shares in a corporation with a nominal value of $1. No gift is required I think.