[consteval]

> So, why don't the poor unionize and use their power to capture wealth they're lacking?

They... do. You just described a union and why a union would be good for poor workers.

> They don't have the resources

Right... which is why they unionize, to pool resources.

> Unions are a rich man's sport

You've said this, and never explained how. Rich man are, presumably, business owners. Not laborers. Why, and how, would a union be beneficial for business owners? Wouldn't it be bad for them?

[randomdata]

> They... do. You just described a union and why a union would be good for poor workers.

Okay, given that you say they have unionized, but are still poor, what are they waiting for? Why are they sitting on this mythical power that will magically appear without money that you speak of?

> Right... which is why they unionize, to pool resources.

What resources? They are poor. They don't have resources to pool. If they had such resources they wouldn't be poor.

> Rich man are, presumably, business owners.

Why would that be the presumption? The data shows that business owners tend to be quite poor themselves, if not even the poorest, statistically. Obviously there are counterexamples, but the average mom and pop trying to eke out a living at their restaurant down the street, that won't make the year before bankruptcy, are probably not rich. What makes you think that they are?

> Wouldn't it be bad for them?

Why wouldn't business owners also stand to gain bargaining power if they joined a union? It seems you're completely contradicting yourself now.

[consteval]

> mythical power

It's not mythical, it's logical. If you rely on me and ten other people to run your business, and I say I'll walk without a raise, then you say, "good luck". If all ten of your employees say they'll walk, you have a problem.

That's just bargaining power. It's a real thing that exists.

> what resouces?

The most valuable resource from a business perspective, labor. Without labor you don't have a company. You don't have a product. And you don't have customers. Again, a tiny drop of labor you can let go. All of it? Well, there's nothing left.

> business owners stand to gain bargaining power

Two problems. 1, businesses already have perfect bargaining power in labor relations. They can't get more because they have the most. Number 2, bargaining power against themselves? Again, why? That doesn't even make sense.

[randomdata]

> If you rely on me and ten other people to run your business, and I say I'll walk without a raise, then you say, "good luck". If all ten of your employees say they'll walk, you have a problem.

Yet we can find all kinds of examples where the employer did say "good luck" to all ten people. In fact, it used to happen frequently enough that the government will now often step in to try and prevent the business from doing that. As before, labour unions, even when comprised of moderately wealthy people, are not always wealthy enough to hold power and have to cry to a much richer government for assistance.

> The most valuable resource from a business perspective, labor.

You can direct your labour resources towards the union, but that comes at the cost of not being able to direct it to your paid job. Opportunity cost is real. If you are poor, what supplemental resources do you plan to use to acquire things like food in the absence of the pay you gave up? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

> businesses already have perfect bargaining power in labor relations.

And...? Even if that is true (it's not, of course), unions are not limited to labour relationships. The farmer unions talked about at the top of the thread branch (which you obviously didn't bother to read) aren't about trying to embolden farmer bargaining power over their farmhands.

> bargaining power against themselves? Again, why? That doesn't even make sense.

Uh... What? Best to stop and think before replying, my friend.

[sqeaky]

I am fully convinced that you are not arguing in good faith.

Finding a few counterexamples on a gradient doesn't mean the gradient doesn't exist. Finding a few counterexamples means that strikes don't always work, but they certainly work more often than solo negotiations.

At best you are doing this thing that smart but narrowly focused people do where you try to break it down to a binary. That might be possible, but if this most charitable interpretation is correct your binary is "Are unions perfect" which they clearly aren't. Instead your binary should be "Are union usually better than solitary negotiations?" and that the answer to that is clearly yes.

I also doubt this is your actual issue, because you have introduced data and brought in hypothetical mom and pop stores that are clearly unrelated. Because of abject non-sense like this:

> You can direct your labour resources towards the union, but that comes at the cost of not being able to direct it to your paid job.

We are talking about strikes. You know and have demonstrated a knowledge that withholding labor is the power a laborer has, not directing it to a union. And in some situations (like the Kellogg's Strike over the pandemic) the union pays people on strike, this is a problem with many solutions and people get more options as they pool effort and resources.

You are ignoring repeated explanations and willfully choosing to answer the wrong questions. You are not engaging with this topically honestly.

[randomdata]

> but they certainly work more often than solo negotiations.

Generally, least as long as the members are moderately rich and have the richest, and therefore most powerful, entity – the government – willing to hold their hand. But how successful do you think labour unions would be if the government eliminated all laws that protect labour unions? Let's be real: Most of them wouldn't stand a chance. A lot of them aren't rich enough to exert the needed power on their own.

> Instead your binary should be "Are union usually better than solitary negotiations?"

It seems the problem here is that you're doing that weird programmer thing where you think everything is binary. The first comment described four possible states on the blatant surface. It cannot be distilled down to a binary state. To try and force it into to a binary state loses everything that is being talked about. The quantization you are trying to apply is invalid.

With respect, no wonder you're so confused about the subject. Hopefully recognition of your error can get you back on track.

> the union pays people on strike

Assuming we're still talking about a union of poor people, and not going off on wild tangents, how? Where has this money magically appeared from? Sure, rich people can fund a union and pay out dividends to workers on strike, but then you're talking about rich people. We recognized from the very beginning that unions are beneficial to the rich.

Again, where do you think these poor people are magically finding all this money out of thin air? You keep going there, but never seem to be able to answer to it. Let me be clear: Poor people, not rich people.

[sqeaky]

> What resources? They are poor. They don't have resources to pool. If they had such resources they wouldn't be poor.

This is binary thinking where a gradient is required.

Poor is a spectrum. Someone with a car and a house and a $20/hour job might be poor because they barely make ends meet but manage to save a few hundred a month, but they have more options than a renter who is otherwise financially identical because they can use their house or car as collateral to get a loan.

A group of people might be able to take out a loan an individual can't. A group of people might collect dues as a cost to be in that group and pay them back out to allow strikes.

A group of people can threaten a strike and that costs Zero dollars.

> The data shows that business owners tend to be quite poor themselves

This is bullshit. I now think you are a liar. We are clearly talking about business large enough for strikes to happen and that excludes whatever non-sense dataset you have cherry picked.

More people have more options. Options are power. Why are you arguing against this fundamental point?

[randomdata]

> Someone with a car and a house and a $20/hour job might be poor because they barely make ends meet

And someone with a $1,000,000 per year salary and a penchant for hookers and blow might also barely make ends meet. Is there some kind of useful takeaway from this fun anecdote?

> but manage to save a few hundred a month

If we assume the average worker with 20 years under their belt, that's ~$40,000. In what world is that poor? That alone, even ignoring the house and any other assets (a car, perhaps?), is somewhere around the top 20%. This disconnect from reality is fascinating.

> A group of people might be able to take out a loan an individual can't

Just who, exactly, is going to lend to poor people, even if they come by the millions, for no reason other than to cover their living expenses? There is almost no chance the poor are going to pay you back, unless maybe they happen to win the lottery. But if you really want to "invest" in the lottery, why not put that money directly into the lottery? What value do the middlemen bring?

> A group of people might collect dues as a cost to be in that group

From who? The poor don't have resources to pay dues. Are you being tricked by rich people again?

> We are clearly talking about business large enough for strikes to happen

No, we are clearly not. What makes you think the farmers that we were talking about earlier in thread even have employees? Many farmers do not. You're clearly not talking about anything related to what the rest of us are, but anyway...

> More people have more options. Options are power. Why are you arguing against this fundamental point?

Get back to us when you've actually read the thread. As amusing as your confusion is, there is no interest in arbitrarily changing the subject for no reason. Never was, never will be. Start a new thread if you want to talk about something else. Hijacking an existing thread for a different purpose is in bad faith.