Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryptoPunk | Hacker News Reader

I appreciate you keeping an open mind. But I would also nitpick, and make the argument that the middle-ground between two widely divergent positions is not always right. I would argue we should never undermine the freedom to contract, which labor unions urge us to do when they advocate laws preventing employers from choosing to not associate with them.

Their premise, that corporate power can sometimes be abusive, can have some validity, without their solution, which is limitations on the right to freely contract, being correct.

View on HN

Do these people genuinely have freedom to contract? If there's only one employer in town (or a range of employers offering the same conditions), then that freedom is moot.

This is the balance we need. There needs to be equal forces pushing up and down on workers' rights. At the moment, for many industries, there is too much down and not enough up.

Could you make collective bargaining work without restricting freedom to contract in some way?

>>Do these people genuinely have freedom to contract?

Yes, and if they didn't, a court, made up of a jury of their peers, would find the contract void, as contracts require informed/genuine consent.

>>If there's only one employer in town (or a range of employers offering the same conditions), then that freedom is moot.

Even in the late 19th century, workers in company towns had market options:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in...

And in any case, that situation is exceedingly rare, especially in the modern highly urbanized economy, where a large and growing percentage of the population lives in high population metropolises with thousands of employers.

>>There needs to be equal forces pushing up and down on workers' rights.

I disagree with this assessment, based on the empirical evidence, which shows wages consistently rise in lockstep with per capita GDP. What gives workers bargaining power is companies seeing their productivity and revenue rise, and as a consequence, bidding more for workers' services as they compete with other employers. That's the dynamic behind wages in China tripling over the last twenty years.

You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps.

> What gives workers bargaining power is companies seeing their productivity and revenue rise

So where is the bargaining power of Amazon's workers right now?

> wages consistently rise in lockstep with per capita GDP.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The mean wage has risen for all, but that is skewed by the much higher rises for the highest paid. At the bottom, real wages have fallen. [1] As a result, purchasing power for 90% of USA population has stayed the same since the late 1970s, while for the top 10% it has significantly increased. [2]

[1] - https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

>At the bottom, real wages have fallen.

Wages are not the only form of remuneration. Total remuneration is the stat you should look at, since also since 1980 a lot of law changes have made it more costly to employ, and most jobs, even low wage ones, have received lots more benefits.

Also, since 1980, wages at the low end have increased for women and minorities. Only white males at the low end have decreased.

Finally, almost no one spends a career at the low end - entry wages to the workforce are just that - a start for a career. Look at lifetime earnings to see what the lowest lifetime earners make, and then you will see vast improvements in both wages and total remuneration.

BLS tracks all of these variables. Wages, total remuneration, and total cost to employ are the relevant things to look through to get a better picture. Look through them sometime.

Agreed, real wages are not the whole picture, but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like. For me, the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces of data to track over time, but that can can hide the difference between geographical areas, and how we calculate PPP is controversial.

What to do? Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility - indicators that can't be moved directly and themselves have an impact on future change.

>but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like

That's nonsense. If you believe that, then there is no worth to using any metrics or numbers to try and understand the world. It's a common defense by people that don't get the result they want when looking at solid evidence. I gave you a place to find solid evidence.

>the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces

If that is eroded by legislation making it costlier to employ, then this is just as valuable, because then instead of spreading rage against employers, it's the people and the government that is causing wage decreases, not employers. Ignoring relevant factors makes "solutions" unusable because you're not solving the problems.

>Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility

Well, then you're in luck. Social mobility has not decreased in the past 50+ years [1]. This was done using all tax records from all Americans by a group that wanted to show social mobility had declined, but they could not do so once given all the data.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mob...

If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats, then I guess I’m done here.

>If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats

That is a long way from your claim that all stat "can be manipulated to show whatever we like".

The way to show some stat is false, or even manipulated, is to demonstrate that claim by using better evidence or stats. The way is not to simply hand wave that all stats can be manipulated to "to show whatever we like".

If you want to claim BLS stats are not true (debating the veracity), then provide better sourced ones. I am unaware of any agency that does a wider, longer running, better sourced, better documented system for the relevant stats I mentioned. If you have one, provide it. If you cannot, then accept the BLS as the best available and create a belief based on that evidence.

You claimed wages have fallen. I pointed out quite valid reasons for that using relevant factors that are counter to the narrative you want, and, that taking more factors into account, this is a not unreasonable outcome.

Simply implying that I or others are manipulating facts to reach any conclusion we want, without perhaps providing yet more factors or evidence, is not debate.

>>You're talking about the freedom of a wheelchair-bound person to climb any set of stairs they like, whereas I'm talking about the existence of ramps.

But the analogy fails given the example I provided. As I demonstrated, even in the 19th century, when transportation options were far more limited, the typical worker in a company town possessed effective mobility, which gave them the power to reject the work being offered in the company town in favor of a better offer in a different locale.

>>So where is the bargaining power of Amazon's workers right now?

How does the situation of Amazon's workers contradict what I said about bargaining power for workers rising when companies see their productivity and revenue rise?

The fact that they are paid more than minimum wage proves they have bargaining power. Amazon is forced, by virtue of the other opportunities offered to these workers by other employers, to pay more than minimum wage.

If the US economy saw further productivity growth, and with it revenue growth for its companies, then wages would rise further as well.

>>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. [1] As a result, purchasing power for 90% of USA population has stayed the same since the late 1970s, while for the top 10% it has significantly increased. [2]

EPI is heavily funded by public sector unions, which are rent-seeking institutions who extract wealth through involuntary wealth transfers.

The statistics they provide are based on using a different standard for inflation when measuring productivity, than when measuring labor compensation:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...

For years, I trotted out the same graph you're linking to, in debates on the internet, until I found out that the apparent divergence between wages and per capita GDP was actually just statistical manipulation. As you say: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

workers' rights isn't the same thing as wage. People in western-Europe are happier than folk in the US, with more worker's rights and less wages.

Western Europe countries (per CIA definitions) are Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, and United Kingdom.

Belgium and France rank below the US [2], Monaco is not listed, the other 4 are close to the US, except the Netherlands.

Also, Monaco (population 38,000) has the highest number of millionaires and billionaires per capita in the world. They're not the usual workers and union type of country.

I suppose you mean the Nordic countries are happier as a group, which is true, but World Happiness Reports explicitly do not list your reasons as the cause of Nordic happiness [1], instead listing other factors.

Do you have a source showing their happiness is caused by the factors you listed? I can find none. All list things like lack of corruption, belief in government, etc., as the reasons for their happiness.

[1] https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/the-nordic-exceptional...

[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...

Is there any reason to believe that the famous welfare state, and thus broad workers rights, is not a large contributor to the fact that the same set of countries seem to be the happiest?

Yes ,I just pointed it out. The places that create the happiness indices, which is where the information comes from that give you the evidence these places are happiest, lists the reasons for this happiness, and the workers rights are not listed as the cause.

You cannot on the one hand claim these are the happiest places and ignore the same source for the reasons.

And, as I pointed out, a significant amount of countries beyond the few considered western European perform worse than the US, even though they have more workers rights. And the reason for the US being lower than many is the lack of faith in government, as stated in the reports by the people that measure happiness, not weaker workers rights than Finland.

An interesting test would be to find a ranking of countries by workers rights, and use the ranking by happiness, and see if there is even strong correlation between these.

Read the reports. I provided the links.

If you think these things don't overlap you're ideologically blind.

From the introduction in your first link:

Through reviewing the existing studies, theories, and data behind the World Happiness Report, we find that the most prominent explanations include factors related to the quality of institutions, such as reliable and _extensive welfare benefits_, low corruption, and well-functioning democracy and state institutions.

Under Welfare state generosity:

In a longitudinal study of 18 industrial countries from 1971-2002, Pacek and Radcliff examine welfare state generosity by using an index capturing the extent of emancipation from market dependency in terms of pensions, income maintenance for the ill or disabled, and unemployment benefits, finding that welfare state generosity exerts a positive and significant impact on life satisfaction.[21]

Your top claim was:

>People in western-Europe are happier than folk in the US, with more worker's rights and less wages.

That's two factors you linked. Let's look at them:

You imply that "workers rights" and "less wages" are perhaps major causal factors for happiness. Despite the fact you misapply western Europe, and ignore those countries in western Europe that don't fit your claim, even the part you quoted is a tiny part of the reasons listed, they do not state a single thing about workers rights (you mean legal rights like unions or contracts, or simply welfare state, which is not so much workers rights as citizen rights) and not a mention of lower wages.

What in the stuff you quoted support "workers rights" being a major cause? Or lower wages? Every single factor in there are largely or completely state functions. Let's list them: pensions (perhaps unions, definitely not stated, most Nordic have large state pension funds), income maintenance for the ill or disabled (almost certainly all state functions), unemployment benefits (state functions), the finding that "welfare state generosity..." (also completely state functions).

And this is a 1/4 of the larger reasons: (1) welfare benefits, (2) low corruption, (3) well functioning democracy, and (4) well functioning state institutions.

So - of 1/4 of the possible reasons, you quoted a statement with another 4 components, and the two you listed are not mentioned.

Are you claiming "workers rights" are a major causal factor for (not Western Europe, but Nordic) countries happiness?

This is pointless, you are just honing in on specific words and are for whatever reason unwilling to "read between the lines". The labour movement in Sweden (and other Nordic countries) was the root cause of welfare state. Workers' rights overlaps with other rights that are in the interests of the common man. These combine to create a dignified life for all. Thus better average happiness.

> Are you claiming "workers rights" are a major causal factor for (not Western Europe, but Nordic) countries happiness?

Yes, and like rings on the water organized labour creates the other ones. Why do you think even rich corporations like Amazon fight against them otherwise? Organized labour can combine their forces and make universal demands, like they did in the Nordics. Glad midsommar!

The data shows that the Scandinavian region, which is the poster child for social democracy, has suffered for it, in being surpassed by low-tax Hong Kong and Singapore in life expectancy, despite the latter coming from a position way behind them in the 1960s, and this is a result of the Scandinavian region's stagnation versus less social democratic economies:

http://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/San...

• Scandinavia is often cited as having high life expectancy and good health outcomes in areas such as infant mortality. Again, this predates the expansion of the welfare state. In 1960, Norway had the highest life expectancy in the OECD, followed by Sweden, Iceland and Denmark in third, fourth and fifth positions. By 2005, the gap in life expectancy between Scandinavian countries and both the UK and the US had shrunk considerably. Iceland, with a moderately sized welfare sector, has over time outpaced the four major Scandinavian countries in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality.

• Scandinavia’s more equal societies also developed well before the welfare states expanded. Income inequality reduced dramatically during the last three decades of the 19th century and during the first half of the 20th century. Indeed, most of the shift towards greater equality happened before the introduction of a large public sector and high taxes.

There's not a single respectable historian that would support your revisionism. Only the type of reactionary orgs that you always link to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com