[collingreen]

I get that you don't like unions but this is a weird argument. Unions being corruptible isn't a great reason to imply companies should be able to do anything they want to their workers and the workers should placidly accept it. Neither is your next implication that some companies wouldn't be viable if they had to pay more so therefore paying more is bad.

In a labor market, companies aren't entitled to labor and laborers aren't entitled to jobs. If a company isn't viable then it isn't viable. If a job doesn't pay what you want, you dont have to do it. Things get complicated (intentionally?) when companies control large swaths of jobs at once or have outsized impacts on their employees' lives and future careers. Employees don't have nearly as much impact in the other direction (individually) and this asymmetry is the cause of lots of abuse historically. Unions are one way to help steady and maintain the labor market in order to keep it fair and efficient and powerful.

In general, things are worth improving even if there aren't perfect answers.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Unions being corruptible i

Never really heard of one that didn't end up corrupted. Usually from the get-go. To call my argument "weird" tells me how little personal experience you have with unions.

>Neither is your next implication that some companies wouldn't be viable if they had to pay more so therefore paying more is bad.

Not some. Practically all companies. In tech, maybe only the FAANG set would be able to shoulder that burden.

>If a company isn't viable then it isn't viable.

Some companies are viable in one environment, but not in another. If you're changing the environment to make fewer companies viable, then you're putting more people out of work. This should be obvious. It isn't, I think, because some second grade teachers pass children who should have flunked out.

>In general, things are worth improving even if there aren't perfect answers.

Dimwitted people will try to "improve" things right until the world burns down around them. Any attempt to point out to them that this is occurring will be met with even more ambitious-but-ill-conceived attempts at improving things.

[exe34]

> Never really heard of one that didn't end up corrupted.

We have them across the pond and they work for us - they are us. We can run for election in them. We can run them.

> To call my argument "weird" tells me how little personal experience you have with unions.

Sounds like you are the one with a limited experience of the world. The world is much bigger than America. The idea that "unions can't work" is fed to you and you gobble it up.

> Not some. Practically all companies. In tech, maybe only the FAANG set would be able to shoulder that burden.

In Europe, companies have to pay a living wage and they still function. They just don't always turn into giant funnels to siphon wealth into the hands of the ultra wealthy. If that's failure, then let them fail!

> Some companies are viable in one environment, but not in another. If you're changing the environment to make fewer companies viable, then you're putting more people out of work. This should be obvious. It isn't, I think, because some second grade teachers pass children who should have flunked out.

We have unions in the UK/EU and companies are still viable. Only people who failed geography and don't realise there are other countries out there would think that.

> Dimwitted people will try to "improve" things right until the world burns down around them. Any attempt to point out to them that this is occurring will be met with even more ambitious-but-ill-conceived attempts at improving things.

Whereas the really clever people want to keep things the same, because they are terrified of change.