More cheap shots from the first guy eliminated in the 5th Grade Spelling Bee.telcoman wrote:Perhaps the job skills required exceed the education levels of The Florida Education System?
telcoman wrote:Non union usually have no training, no certifications which is why they work cheap
You don't know what you are talking about
Actually, I don't totally disagree with you. I am sure that there are companies - large and small - that have unacceptable employee practices that need to be addressed. I do think that the number of such companies has gone down dramatically in the past multiple decades to century.IBCoupe wrote:And, no, Z & smockers, I'm not ranting about "big bad corporations." I can see you setting fire to that strawman from here. I am saying that employers can trample their employees, and when they do, employees get two choices: unemployment or organization.
But ... but ... I thought, according to your position in a different thread, Nobel laureates walked on water, no?IBCoupe wrote:Milton Friedman is a crazy person.
Never said a company would hire more than they need. Correct me if I'm going in the wrong direction, but when labor is forced out due to union wages and is excess in the market, it depresses wages because the supply of labor increases.C-Kwik wrote:Depends. If a company needs 5 workers to complete a certain job, why would they hire 6? Last I checked, companies aren't in the business of over-staffing simply because they have the income to do it. The ROI of an additional employee that adds no additional value is going to be awfully low. Perhaps negative. Of course, a company that can only afford 4 where 5 would be necessary or ideal is under a different circumstance and would likely follow the pattern you describe. Point is, you're only partially right.smockers83 wrote:Unions, with higher wages than the market equilibrium, cost potential jobs otherwise. A company can only spend so much on labor, so if labor costs are too high per unit due to union wages, they cut at the expense of headcount. This forces excess labor into the rest of the market, thus driving down non-union wages. This then gives the perception that unions get better deals, which they may in nominal terms, but it makes it more lucrative than what it should be...at least when it comes to the employee.
What happens at non-union companies today? Their wages rise as well. If they didn't, why are people still choosing to be employed there? There's forces there that make wages rise. Employees expect raises and if a company doesn't give raises, they lose labor as a result. So that point, to me, doesn't have a lot of weight.C-Kwik wrote:As for market forces and such, maybe. But generally, if the company was smart about how it negotiated its contract and allowed itself to be the party to decide who gets hired, the costs are not going to be entirely unabated. Higher wages will usually allow the company to choose from the best potential hires. They get to be a lot more picky if there are larger pools of workers. That said, if non-union companies want the same people, they are going to have to pay more as they will be competing with the union wages.
That said, consider what might happen without any unions. Without any significant force to drive the wages up, its likely all the wages (for those particular jobs) might actually fall.
I'm not sure he concluded or implied unions had nothing to do with it. What's not to take away to be analyzed? One can take away an analysis of how labor markets work. Sure, there's no numbers to crunch, but really?C-Kwik wrote:Just an FYI. Unions were part of that free market system for the past 2 centuries. So how can he possibly conclude or even imply that unions had nothing to do with it? There is nothing scholarly about that quote and nothing analytical we can take away from it as an argument for or against unions.smockers83 wrote:In the words of Milton Friedman:
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.
That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries."
Keep in mind that unions are PART OF the free market. Workers can certainly choose not to take a union job. And non-union employees can certainly start up a union. Or is it somehow that you think that the free market does not include the right of workers to collectively negotiate the terms of employment. Lest you forget, the employers are not bound to agree to any terms. Otherwise it wouldn't be a free market anymore.
That's false. Management doesn't change their approach to workers just because they're union. Ask people who have actually been involved in a union environment and non-union environment where an employee is like a cog. Treatment is all the same regardless of the union being present.IBCoupe wrote:Because compensation tends to go up when you're in a union. Doesn't mean there isn't wage competition anymore. Further, a union isn't just about wages: it's about not getting trampled by your employer. When you're a human working like a cog in a machine, it's easy to be treated like one. A union gets you a representative at the table, negotiating the terms of your labor. It's a power-balancing tool.smockers83 wrote:So when it comes to compensation, coming full circle to where this debate started, why is a union needed then?
I've never said employers don't. I have argued though that if companies do, labor leaves. They don't need a union to do that. If a company tramples on their employees, whatever that means but I'm going to take that as something very serious, people better start reconsidering who they're working for.IBCoupe wrote:And, no, Z & smockers, I'm not ranting about "big bad corporations." I can see you setting fire to that strawman from here. I am saying that employers can trample their employees, and when they do, employees get two choices: unemployment or organization.
And I'm accused of changing the context of the debate from compensation to...compensation, which has been the origination of this debate and has been a key point in nearly every post? So this is not changing the context? IBC..this isn't directed towards you.IBCoupe wrote:So do a lot of things. We still like having clean water, clean air, and children who are enjoying both, instead of working in a factory making your shoes.smockers83 wrote:Unions, with higher wages than the market equilibrium, cost potential jobs otherwise.
Ever do a budget before? There's only so much you can cut and still do business. You budget for labor expenses and if the union says you will pay $X, you figure out how many people that is and have that many people employed. But they could increase business and profits by increasing headcount with a slightly lower wage, thus decrease unemployment, so on and so forth.IBCoupe wrote:Or they cut at the expense of other things. Businesses are dynamic. Labor costs don't exist in a vacuum.smockers83 wrote:A company can only spend so much on labor, so if labor costs are too high per unit due to union wages, they cut at the expense of headcount.
True, but hardly. Wages have barely gone up since the 1970s. Maybe in nominal terms, but the buying power of wages has barely moved, and until the past few years, had actually declined, which is a big reason for the economic collapse we've seen and the deleveraging the US populace is doing right now. The real wage had been below what it was in 1972 when it peaked (at least going back to 1964) for decades. In 1982 dollars, the real average weekly wage peaked at $331.59 in 1972, was at $277.57 in 2004, and in July 2011 was at $351.94.IBCoupe wrote:That doesn't follow. Wages have gone up. That not everybody in India who wants one gets an H-1 visa doesn't mean they're suddenly willing to settle for crap pay.smockers83 wrote:This forces excess labor into the rest of the market, thus driving down non-union wages.
Yes, but the goodness of the deal is also exacerbated by the fact that it restricts incoming labor to that employer, leaving more employees to be employed, which drives down other wages.IBCoupe wrote:Unions do get better deals. That's what happens when you get more power in negotiations.smockers83 wrote:This then gives the perception that unions get better deals, which they may in nominal terms, but it makes it more lucrative than what it should be...at least when it comes to the employee.
Ok, Friedman is a crazy person. Except for the fact that he was one of the greatest economists of our time and basically lead the direction of economic research. As for a free market not resulting in higher wages...are you suggesting that the data I just presented above about real wages, in a country where union participation rate was only 11.9% in 2010, that real wages increased as a result of union employees? The government didn't increase real wages so that's ruled out. The market did that on it's own.IBCoupe wrote:Milton Friedman is a crazy person. This doesn't, by and large, happen. If it did, there wouldn't ever be a desire to organize. But there is. A free market does not result in higher wages. A free market results in unhealthy, poor, child workers.smockers83 wrote:In the words of Milton Friedman:
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector
That would be then limited to cases where labor is actually forced out. This would likely only occur where the company can no longer afford it. It can and does occur, but its not always the case and perhaps not even the prevalent case. The point I was making above was that companies do not generally have excess staff (more than they need or want). So they aren't going to be dropping staff that they need/want unless they really need to. Sorry if it wasn't clear where I was going with that.smockers83 wrote:Never said a company would hire more than they need. Correct me if I'm going in the wrong direction, but when labor is forced out due to union wages and is excess in the market, it depresses wages because the supply of labor increases.
Of course there are other market forces in play. But I am speaking relative to the current wages for those non-unionized positions. If you losing a forcing effect, it stops having an effect. Unless you are saying union wages don't have any forcing effect on all wages for that job...smockers83 wrote:What happens at non-union companies today? Their wages rise as well. If they didn't, why are people still choosing to be employed there? There's forces there that make wages rise. Employees expect raises and if a company doesn't give raises, they lose labor as a result. So that point, to me, doesn't have a lot of weight.
The statement in that quote is a a conclusions he reached. I'm more interested in the analysis. This is nothing against him though as you chose to quote that rather than something more substantive. It would be like me arguing science by saying Einstein said it rather than discussing how the science works.smockers83 wrote:I'm not sure he concluded or implied unions had nothing to do with it. What's not to take away to be analyzed? One can take away an analysis of how labor markets work. Sure, there's no numbers to crunch, but really?
Remove regulation from this for a moment. Yep. Unions still would exist. In fact, they existed before regulations came into play. Regulations were ultimately the effect of unionization. Not the cause of.smockers83 wrote:They're part of the free market because regulations say so. So to say they are part of the free market is misleading in that they are a regulation that they have to exist if employees want them. At the same time, there are regulations about who, what, and where work can be done. Classic case today is Boeing being sued because they decided to build a new plant somewhere else, all because the union is throwing a hissy fit.
I can't see that as always being the case, but I can conceded that is can be the case in some instances (not implying the magnitude in any way). However, many unions offer recourse that most non-union employees do not have easy or cheap access to. As a result, it is likely that the way management approaches union employees are going to be different to some extent.smockers83 wrote:That's false. Management doesn't change their approach to workers just because they're union. Ask people who have actually been involved in a union environment and non-union environment where an employee is like a cog. Treatment is all the same regardless of the union being present.
No.szh wrote:But ... but ... I thought, according to your position in a different thread, Nobel laureates walked on water, no?
On economics, he might be right. But he's making a political point using economics as a guise. Or, he really believes that unions have that economic effect, and he is actually crazy. So, either he's crass and I'm not being cynical enough, or he's a crazy person.szh wrote:For example, my ultra-liberal wife, whose field of study was Economics and then got her MBA studying under Friedman (one of her advisors) would disagree with you about his [in]sanity.
Which part of what I wrote was false? Where did I write that a union gets you a different work experience? I said it gets you better compensation and better contract terms. It doesn't change your job description and it doesn't change your job functions. But it does make them worth the cog-ness.smockers83 wrote:That's false. Management doesn't change their approach to workers just because they're union. Ask people who have actually been involved in a union environment and non-union environment where an employee is like a cog. Treatment is all the same regardless of the union being present.IBCoupe wrote:Because compensation tends to go up when you're in a union. Doesn't mean there isn't wage competition anymore. Further, a union isn't just about wages: it's about not getting trampled by your employer. When you're a human working like a cog in a machine, it's easy to be treated like one. A union gets you a representative at the table, negotiating the terms of your labor. It's a power-balancing tool.
At the margins, yes. In large part, they don't, because there are transactional costs involved.smockers83 wrote:I've never said employers don't. I have argued though that if companies do, labor leaves.
Or they might organize to get a better set of terms.smockers83 wrote:They don't need a union to do that. If a company tramples on their employees, whatever that means but I'm going to take that as something very serious, people better start reconsidering who they're working for.
The origination of the debate was not compensation. It has been a key point in the conversation because that's what a union largely does for its employees: it gets them more control over their job and with that usually comes better compensation.smockers83 wrote:And I'm accused of changing the context of the debate from compensation to...compensation, which has been the origination of this debate and has been a key point in nearly every post? So this is not changing the context? IBC..this isn't directed towards you.
Ever collectively bargained before? The employer gets to negotiate what it wants, but if it claims there isn't money to be found, the union is entitled to make them prove it. If your business is truly in such straits, you needn't worry about labor demands.smockers83 wrote:Ever do a budget before? There's only so much you can cut and still do business. You budget for labor expenses and if the union says you will pay $X, you figure out how many people that is and have that many people employed. But they could increase business and profits by increasing headcount with a slightly lower wage, thus decrease unemployment, so on and so forth.
I wasn't actually referring to household wages, I was referring to the economic effects of an upward pressure on some wages instead of others.smockers83 wrote:True, but hardly. Wages have barely gone up since the 1970s. Maybe in nominal terms, but the buying power of wages has barely moved, and until the past few years, had actually declined, which is a big reason for the economic collapse we've seen and the deleveraging the US populace is doing right now. The real wage had been below what it was in 1972 when it peaked (at least going back to 1964) for decades. In 1982 dollars, the real average weekly wage peaked at $331.59 in 1972, was at $277.57 in 2004, and in July 2011 was at $351.94.
The problem isn't wages; it's that there was an over-reliance on credit based in a faulty housing market, which led to a market crash and unemployment. Unemployment led to a lack in buying power which led to decreased demand. Decreased demand led to greater unemployment. Wages had nothing to do with it; in fact, higher wages might have mitigated some of the credit issues by reducing the popular perceived need to rely on credit.smockers83 wrote:This is off topic of the union debate, but this is an interesting point. Real wages have increased while unemployment has decreased and have been doing so since sometime in 2007. As the real price of labor increases, employment decreases (in it's most simple terms, there are always factors in this). A lot of people look at the financial/economic collapse as the cause of job loss, but even before that happened, real wages were increasing while employment decreased. They haven't really receded yet either, which is one of the contributors to the Great Depression and why it lasted so long...real wages took so long to fall relative to employment. Until real wages fall, we won't see large gains in the employment rate.
Except that when your neighbor makes $10,000/year more than you do, you kind of want that, too. Unions are an upward force on wages, not a downward one. Your knowledge that you could get a job for $10,000/year more with your skillset leads you to refuse to settle for $10,000/year less. There may be more people out there not making $45,000/year, but that doesn't mean that everybody else settles for $35,000/year. Were Taco Bell to unionize, wages at Burger King would go up, even if the number of Taco Bell employees decreased. Guaranteed.smockers83 wrote:Yes, but the goodness of the deal is also exacerbated by the fact that it restricts incoming labor to that employer, leaving more employees to be employed, which drives down other wages.
Wow, that's a paragraph chocked full of fallacious reasoning. First you appeal to authority, then you tell me that unions can't possibly account for all of the wage increases, so they must not account for any. Tell me, O Wise One, what would the median wage be in the United States with 0% union participation? Were union participation to increase to 30%, do you think wages would fall in the other 70%? Really?smockers83 wrote:Ok, Friedman is a crazy person. Except for the fact that he was one of the greatest economists of our time and basically lead the direction of economic research. As for a free market not resulting in higher wages...are you suggesting that the data I just presented above about real wages, in a country where union participation rate was only 11.9% in 2010, that real wages increased as a result of union employees? The government didn't increase real wages so that's ruled out. The market did that on it's own.
When you said "it's about not getting trampled by your employer."IBCoupe wrote: Which part of what I wrote was false? Where did I write that a union gets you a different work experience?
Depends on how much the employer is trampling or screwing it's employees. Before GM went into bankruptcy protection, there were many employees who left the company because they saw the writing on the wall.IBCoupe wrote:At the margins, yes. In large part, they don't, because there are transactional costs involved.smockers83 wrote:I've never said employers don't. I have argued though that if companies do, labor leaves.
They could, but if the company is willing to screw it's employees so much, unions may help in compensation, but in terms of employee morale and such, people start looking for jobs elsewhere because of that, too. The union may be a quick win for employees as it will give them a fuzzy feeling inside, but things will return to normal soon after.IBCoupe wrote:Or they might organize to get a better set of terms.smockers83 wrote:They don't need a union to do that. If a company tramples on their employees, whatever that means but I'm going to take that as something very serious, people better start reconsidering who they're working for.
Do I need to quote the OP for you, or could you just click on the "1" box at the top for me and reread it?IBCoupe wrote:The origination of the debate was not compensation. It has been a key point in the conversation because that's what a union largely does for its employees: it gets them more control over their job and with that usually comes better compensation.smockers83 wrote:And I'm accused of changing the context of the debate from compensation to...compensation, which has been the origination of this debate and has been a key point in nearly every post? So this is not changing the context? IBC..this isn't directed towards you.
Ah, but why did they have to become reliant on credit? The answer is wages. The middle class saw the US economy growing and the upper class living better, so they thought they should have a share in that growth and could do it, too. The only problem was that their purchasing power/real wages had been in decline for decades, so the only way they could do that was through lines of credit. This means discretionary spending, housing, all of it. Granted, people did overspend and bought homes they couldn't afford as there wasn't a whole lot of discipline in the market. However, one has to go back to wages as a fundamental issue to the problem. This isn't the first time we've seen this phenomenon happen either.IBCoupe wrote:The problem isn't wages; it's that there was an over-reliance on credit based in a faulty housing market, which led to a market crash and unemployment. Unemployment led to a lack in buying power which led to decreased demand. Decreased demand led to greater unemployment. Wages had nothing to do with it; in fact, higher wages might have mitigated some of the credit issues by reducing the popular perceived need to rely on credit.smockers83 wrote:This is off topic of the union debate, but this is an interesting point. Real wages have increased while unemployment has decreased and have been doing so since sometime in 2007. As the real price of labor increases, employment decreases (in it's most simple terms, there are always factors in this). A lot of people look at the financial/economic collapse as the cause of job loss, but even before that happened, real wages were increasing while employment decreased. They haven't really receded yet either, which is one of the contributors to the Great Depression and why it lasted so long...real wages took so long to fall relative to employment. Until real wages fall, we won't see large gains in the employment rate.
No, not necessarily guaranteed at all. Sorry, but it's not. The opposite could even be true, and there are real live examples, in that the non-union employers pay more. But with your number examples, I'm not following. You make it seem as if with my knowledge I settled for a job that I'm over qualified for.IBCoupe wrote:Except that when your neighbor makes $10,000/year more than you do, you kind of want that, too. Unions are an upward force on wages, not a downward one. Your knowledge that you could get a job for $10,000/year more with your skillset leads you to refuse to settle for $10,000/year less. There may be more people out there not making $45,000/year, but that doesn't mean that everybody else settles for $35,000/year. Were Taco Bell to unionize, wages at Burger King would go up, even if the number of Taco Bell employees decreased. Guaranteed.smockers83 wrote:Yes, but the goodness of the deal is also exacerbated by the fact that it restricts incoming labor to that employer, leaving more employees to be employed, which drives down other wages.
My point is that union wages account for a small percentage, so this idea that union wages drive up other wages is a fallacy. There are millions upon millions of people, more than there are unionized workers, who are unaffected by any sort of "union upwards pressure" due to union wages in this country.IBCoupe wrote:Wow, that's a paragraph chocked full of fallacious reasoning. First you appeal to authority, then you tell me that unions can't possibly account for all of the wage increases, so they must not account for any. Tell me, O Wise One, what would the median wage be in the United States with 0% union participation? Were union participation to increase to 30%, do you think wages would fall in the other 70%? Really?smockers83 wrote:Ok, Friedman is a crazy person. Except for the fact that he was one of the greatest economists of our time and basically lead the direction of economic research. As for a free market not resulting in higher wages...are you suggesting that the data I just presented above about real wages, in a country where union participation rate was only 11.9% in 2010, that real wages increased as a result of union employees? The government didn't increase real wages so that's ruled out. The market did that on it's own.
Doesn't mean the forcing isn't there. Think of it this way. A person goes and interviews for the same job at another company and is offered more money. He lets his current employer know this and as a valued employee, the company offers to match or even come close to the offer. Whatever the reasons, the employee accepts his new pay at the current job and turns down the new job. Someone else gets that job and both are making the same or close to the same salary. There is some forcing that occurred there. This is not to say every employer will match the salary and every employee will stay at their old job, but so long as there is an employer willing or forced to pay their employees more, then there will be a positive forcing on the wage. The overall change in median salaries is going to be dependent on a great many factors. And there is likely some negative forcing that occurs. The net result is likely to vary with a great many factors and I could conceive it is possible it could have a net negative result in some cases, but its disingenuous to say that higher union wages aren't going to have a positive forcing effect.smockers83 wrote:My point is that union wages account for a small percentage, so this idea that union wages drive up other wages is a fallacy. There are millions upon millions of people, more than there are unionized workers, who are unaffected by any sort of "union upwards pressure" due to union wages in this country.
Nothing in that requires a union.C-Kwik wrote:Doesn't mean the forcing isn't there. Think of it this way. A person goes and interviews for the same job at another company and is offered more money. He lets his current employer know this and as a valued employee, the company offers to match or even come close to the offer. Whatever the reasons, the employee accepts his new pay at the current job and turns down the new job. Someone else gets that job and both are making the same or close to the same salary. There is some forcing that occurred there. This is not to say every employer will match the salary and every employee will stay at their old job, but so long as there is an employer willing or forced to pay their employees more, then there will be a positive forcing on the wage.
All economists of his stature effectively make political points all the time, to different degrees, with their positions on these topics. Their field of expertise is pretty much strongly related to what governments also want to regulate/deregulate/oversee/whatever, since it has so much impact to citizens. Different governments do it to different levels, of course.IBCoupe wrote:On economics, he might be right. But he's making a political point using economics as a guise. Or, he really believes that unions have that economic effect, and he is actually crazy. So, either he's crass and I'm not being cynical enough, or he's a crazy person.szh wrote:For example, my ultra-liberal wife, whose field of study was Economics and then got her MBA studying under Friedman (one of her advisors) would disagree with you about his [in]sanity.
Not sure what you are getting at here Greg. My post was in response to the argument that unions cause non-union pay to decrease. So no, it does not require a union, but it doesn't negate their effects either...AZhitman wrote:Nothing in that requires a union.C-Kwik wrote:Doesn't mean the forcing isn't there. Think of it this way. A person goes and interviews for the same job at another company and is offered more money. He lets his current employer know this and as a valued employee, the company offers to match or even come close to the offer. Whatever the reasons, the employee accepts his new pay at the current job and turns down the new job. Someone else gets that job and both are making the same or close to the same salary. There is some forcing that occurred there. This is not to say every employer will match the salary and every employee will stay at their old job, but so long as there is an employer willing or forced to pay their employees more, then there will be a positive forcing on the wage.
I'm in a lesser-paying position due to the flexibility I'm afforded. As such, the 2 positions I've turned down in the past 7 years have been filled by people who accepted the base pay of the range, whereas I was offered more than the midpoint.
And that was false how? That's what organization is about. Your comment appeared to say that an employer can have a bad relationship with his employees, even with a union. And that's true. But that's not what the word "trample" means.smockers83 wrote:When you said "it's about not getting trampled by your employer."
Yes, it does depend. When your job is worse financially and psychologically than unemployment, you will likely leave. And that's why I said what you wrote is true on the margins. That you point to a rare example (having nothing to do with the reasons for organization, by the way) kinda supports me.smockers83 wrote:Depends on how much the employer is trampling or screwing it's employees. Before GM went into bankruptcy protection, there were many employees who left the company because they saw the writing on the wall.
That's plainly false. An employer can write any contract it likes, within the parameters of the law. Depending on the local job market, that might still be the best of all s*** deals. Of there's a union, the employer can't simply go back to his old ways unless the union cooperates. Once there is a union, he is required by law to negotiate. Your statement that "things will return to normal soon after" is, at best, an overstated exception and at worst an outright lie.smockers83 wrote:They could, but if the company is willing to screw it's employees so much, unions may help in compensation, but in terms of employee morale and such, people start looking for jobs elsewhere because of that, too. The union may be a quick win for employees as it will give them a fuzzy feeling inside, but things will return to normal soon after.
Why don't you go ahead and point to "compensation" as the origination of the thread for me? Looks to me like the origination was a contract negotiation, and that some hear didn't like the tactics the union used.smockers83 wrote:Do I need to quote the OP for you, or could you just click on the "1" box at the top for me and reread it?
They didn't have to rely on credit. They chose to because it made sense: credit was easy and we really weren't paying attention. There weren't many folks out there who'd starve without credit, and had the actual costs of it been made clear, I wonder if we wouldn't have seen lenders and borrowers elect to place better better checks on credit. Yes, wages have stagnated, but no, that's not the immediate cause of our economic woes. It's a problem, and it ought to be resolved for its own sake, but as long as there are people like you standing up for an employer's right to set his terms for employment and against any limits on a "free market," that's not something that's likely to happen soon.smockers83 wrote:Ah, but why did they have to become reliant on credit? The answer is wages. The middle class saw the US economy growing and the upper class living better, so they thought they should have a share in that growth and could do it, too. The only problem was that their purchasing power/real wages had been in decline for decades, so the only way they could do that was through lines of credit. This means discretionary spending, housing, all of it. Granted, people did overspend and bought homes they couldn't afford as there wasn't a whole lot of discipline in the market. However, one has to go back to wages as a fundamental issue to the problem. This isn't the first time we've seen this phenomenon happen either.
Prospective employee in a world without unions: "The range of pay for this job is $25000 to $35000. You know, $30000 sounds pretty good."smockers83 wrote:No, not necessarily guaranteed at all. Sorry, but it's not. The opposite could even be true, and there are real live examples, in that the non-union employers pay more. But with your number examples, I'm not following. You make it seem as if with my knowledge I settled for a job that I'm over qualified for.
And that determination is based on what? A magic brew of pixie dust and foot of newt? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think Nissan's workers in Tennessee would be paid? Better?smockers83 wrote:My point is that union wages account for a small percentage, so this idea that union wages drive up other wages is a fallacy. There are millions upon millions of people, more than there are unionized workers, who are unaffected by any sort of "union upwards pressure" due to union wages in this country.
Of course it happens without a union, Greg. That's what I said to smockers earlier. But a union affects the likelihood that one of the job interviews C-Kwik took offered higher compensation. The point is that unions make some wages go up, which affects competing employers, which results in higher wages.AZhitman wrote:Nothing in that requires a union.C-Kwik wrote:Doesn't mean the forcing isn't there. Think of it this way. A person goes and interviews for the same job at another company and is offered more money. He lets his current employer know this and as a valued employee, the company offers to match or even come close to the offer. Whatever the reasons, the employee accepts his new pay at the current job and turns down the new job. Someone else gets that job and both are making the same or close to the same salary. There is some forcing that occurred there. This is not to say every employer will match the salary and every employee will stay at their old job, but so long as there is an employer willing or forced to pay their employees more, then there will be a positive forcing on the wage.
I'm in a lesser-paying position due to the flexibility I'm afforded. As such, the 2 positions I've turned down in the past 7 years have been filled by people who accepted the base pay of the range, whereas I was offered more than the midpoint.
What you just described is what I esplained to IBC...wage competition and price discovery. What you have is two employers competing for labor. No different than the price match guarantee at retailers and Orbitz. If the employer values the labor of said employee, they will be willing to pay more for that employee when price discovery occurs as no firm can get the market price exactly right; one can only guess with a range. Unions on the other hand don't base their price on the market, they just make their own price.C-Kwik wrote:Doesn't mean the forcing isn't there. Think of it this way. A person goes and interviews for the same job at another company and is offered more money. He lets his current employer know this and as a valued employee, the company offers to match or even come close to the offer. Whatever the reasons, the employee accepts his new pay at the current job and turns down the new job. Someone else gets that job and both are making the same or close to the same salary. There is some forcing that occurred there. This is not to say every employer will match the salary and every employee will stay at their old job, but so long as there is an employer willing or forced to pay their employees more, then there will be a positive forcing on the wage. The overall change in median salaries is going to be dependent on a great many factors. And there is likely some negative forcing that occurs. The net result is likely to vary with a great many factors and I could conceive it is possible it could have a net negative result in some cases, but its disingenuous to say that higher union wages aren't going to have a positive forcing effect.
Ok, so you want to get into semantics. If that's not what the word trample means, then your own statement using the word trample makes no sense whatsoever either. Employers can "trample" on employees in various ways (more hours, decreased pay whether in/out of pocket, forced work, etc.). Don't play games with me.IBCoupe wrote: And that was false how? That's what organization is about. Your comment appeared to say that an employer can have a bad relationship with his employees, even with a union. And that's true. But that's not what the word "trample" means.
Has nothing to do with what you mentioned. People saw the writing on the wall that jobs were to be cut, pay to be decreased, so they started looking for other jobs. Some looked, quit, continued looking, and found a new job. Some looked, quit, started new job. Some quit, started looking, found a new job. Or they didn't find a job. What you're implicitly implying is that people in unions are not humans, or at least don't think and act like normal humans.IBCoupe wrote: Yes, it does depend. When your job is worse financially and psychologically than unemployment, you will likely leave. And that's why I said what you wrote is true on the margins. That you point to a rare example (having nothing to do with the reasons for organization, by the way) kinda supports me.
You perceive it to be false because you're so hooked on compensation. As I said earlier, unions are/were there for more than just compensation. Get outside the compensation box. An employer may be required to negotiate but an employer and/or union walk away from negotiations and not come up with a deal. When an agreement can't be made, employers can hire replacement workers. They can then hold out until the union effectively goes away by way of the union employees giving up. This happens, I've seen it to be true! And it's perfectly legal.IBCoupe wrote:That's plainly false. An employer can write any contract it likes, within the parameters of the law. Depending on the local job market, that might still be the best of all s*** deals. Of there's a union, the employer can't simply go back to his old ways unless the union cooperates. Once there is a union, he is required by law to negotiate. Your statement that "things will return to normal soon after" is, at best, an overstated exception and at worst an outright lie.
Here ya go buddy, some of the very first lines of the post:IBCoupe wrote:Why don't you go ahead and point to "compensation" as the origination of the thread for me? Looks to me like the origination was a contract negotiation, and that some hear didn't like the tactics the union used.smockers83 wrote:Do I need to quote the OP for you, or could you just click on the "1" box at the top for me and reread it?
Incorrect, real wages had depreciated until the last couple of years. I made that pretty clear earlier. But you continue to ignore basic economic facts. Is it the only reason? Absolutely not, never said so. And credit was not exactly always cheap. 23%+ on credit cards is not cheap. If you want to go to a particular line of credit, that being mortgages, perhaps, but there's more credit out there than just mortgages. However, with credit cards, that can be very cheap credit, at the price of free, if paid on time in full. That's always been the case.IBCoupe wrote: They didn't have to rely on credit. They chose to because it made sense: credit was easy and we really weren't paying attention. There weren't many folks out there who'd starve without credit, and had the actual costs of it been made clear, I wonder if we wouldn't have seen lenders and borrowers elect to place better better checks on credit. Yes, wages have stagnated, but no, that's not the immediate cause of our economic woes. It's a problem, and it ought to be resolved for its own sake, but as long as there are people like you standing up for an employer's right to set his terms for employment and against any limits on a "free market," that's not something that's likely to happen soon.
One word: sure.IBCoupe wrote: Prospective employee in a world without unions: "The range of pay for this job is $25000 to $35000. You know, $30000 sounds pretty good."
Prospective employee in a world with unions: "The range of pay for this job is $25000 to $45000. You know, that $30,000 sounds kinda crappy."
You spent a few posts talking about wage competition earlier in the thread. Go back and take a look at them and tell me why employers suddenly stop competing when a union shows up elsewhere.
Using your same origination, if there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think financial advisors in New York would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think farmers would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think the Best Buy salesman would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think McDonalds employees would be paid all across the country? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think you would be paid? Better?IBCoupe wrote: And that determination is based on what? A magic brew of pixie dust and foot of newt? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think Nissan's workers in Tennessee would be paid? Better?
I never said otherwise.smockers83 wrote:What you just described is what I esplained to IBC...wage competition and price discovery. What you have is two employers competing for labor. No different than the price match guarantee at retailers and Orbitz. If the employer values the labor of said employee, they will be willing to pay more for that employee when price discovery occurs as no firm can get the market price exactly right; one can only guess with a range. Unions on the other hand don't base their price on the market, they just make their own price.
Without getting into any opinion about unions, one could also make an analogy as if it were a group buy on a product. Its perspective really.smockers83 wrote:To me, unions are just like the special interest groups that have corrupted and nearly bankrupted our government.
I conceded the possibility of that scenario. As for the macroeconomic effect, source? Unless you are just making some kind of reasoning of logic to that effect, in which I might ask you to explain how on one hand you can argue that the low number of union workers can have no influence on wage increase, but on the other, can have such a large effect on wage decrease...smockers83 wrote:As for unions putting downward pressure on wages. It's very possible that unions put downward pressure on them. Unions raise the price of productivity relative to what the firm is willing to pay. Should the firm accept that price, to stay within what it is willing to pay, it must readjust its headcount. This readjustment forces either workers out or prevents workers from even coming in otherwise, thus creating excess supply in the rest of the labor market. Through the laws of supply and demand, when supply increase relative to demand, price falls. Not all union contracts result in this type of effect, I will acknowledge that, but the macroeconomic effect is such.
And employers can trample their employees by using contracts of adhesion (take it as it is or leave it). You can have a union and stop the trampling and still come out as a janitor.smockers83 wrote:Ok, so you want to get into semantics. If that's not what the word trample means, then your own statement using the word trample makes no sense whatsoever either. Employers can "trample" on employees in various ways (more hours, decreased pay whether in/out of pocket, forced work, etc.). Don't play games with me.
I don't think I've done anything of the sort. Why do you say that?smockers83 wrote:What you're implicitly implying is that people in unions are not humans, or at least don't think and act like normal humans.
No, I perceive it to be false because an employer can't simply go back to his old ways when there's another party at the table with federally-protected rights and a federal agency to boot, beating him back as necessary. It's possible that he will, but it will be with the union's cooperation, which is what I wrote. It might be easier to pretend I'm arguing something I'm not, but please stay with me, here. The union can negotiate for more than just compensation, but compensation isn't nothing. A s*** job gets a lot more tolerable when the pay is drastically increased. But they can also argue for better working conditions, paid leave, and job security in the form of a "for cause" clause.smockers83 wrote:You perceive it to be false because you're so hooked on compensation.
...What? No matter what you try, Bugs, you're not going to get me to say it's duck season.smockers83 wrote:As I said earlier, unions are/were there for more than just compensation.
You don't get to hire replacement workers in an impasse. You don't get to hire replacement workers when the union disassociates. Replacement workers come in during a strike. At all other times, your unionized employees are still your employees and they still enjoy all the rights and protections under the NLRA. Even without a union, you can't fire them for organizing. When the strike ends, so long as the employees havent found work lasting for more than a year, they get to come back to work at the earliest availabilities. If they were striking because you comitted an unfair labor practice (say, negotiating in bad faith), they get to displace all the replacement workers and get their jobs back. Either you've witnessed a crime, or you were confused about what you saw.smockers83 wrote:An employer may be required to negotiate but an employer and/or union walk away from negotiations and not come up with a deal. When an agreement can't be made, employers can hire replacement workers. They can then hold out until the union effectively goes away by way of the union employees giving up. This happens, I've seen it to be true! And it's perfectly legal.
The disagreement [appeared to be, but turned out not to be] absolutely about compensation. The origination of the debate is not: it's the breakdown of contract negotiations and subsequent striking. At most, half of the argument in this thread has been about compensation, but to chide me because we're somehow off-topic for continuing a discussion about the merits of the union originating at the beginning of this nine-page thread is just kooky.smockers83 wrote:Tell me which part of the disagreement there isn't related to compensation.
I said "easy." Cheap would have meant there was no problem. Stagnating wages surely didn't help, but if credit hadn't been handed out like candy, lifestyles would have reflected the stagnated wages, and they might have gone up, or not. Either way, I'm sure folks would have adapted.smockers83 wrote:And credit was not exactly always cheap. 23%+ on credit cards is not cheap.
So... Employers still have to compete with union wages when there's a unionized competitor, right?smockers83 wrote:One word: sure
So, now employers don't have to compete on wages when there's a unionized competitor? Geez, talk about looking silly.smockers83 wrote:Using your same origination, if there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think financial advisors in New York would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think farmers would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think the Best Buy salesman would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think McDonalds employees would be paid all across the country? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think you would be paid? Better?
If there were no unions in Detroit, how do I think I would be paid? Better? My pay is in no way tied to union pay in Detroit like you think it is. If the UAW were to collapse tomorrow, my pay would not be affected, by that I mean lowered as you would like to believe, and would continue to go up over the years. In fact, it is even plausible that if the UAW were to fall, other unions would fall, and my pay could go up even more as a result. And by my pay, I speak in both nominal and real terms.
Despite what happened in the matter after the post, that was still the original reason for the post, hence the original debate. Chill out dude, I specifically said that my comments regarding off-topic-ness weren't directed towards you.IBCoupe wrote: The disagreement [appeared to be, but turned out not to be] absolutely about compensation. The origination of the debate is not: it's the breakdown of contract negotiations and subsequent striking. At most, half of the argument in this thread has been about compensation, but to chide me because we're somehow off-topic for continuing a discussion about the merits of the union originating at the beginning of this nine-page thread is just kooky.
Easy credit = cheap credit for two reasons. If creditors have cheap credit to give, they will invariably hand it out like candy due to the low rates of return in order to keep revenues up; 100 lines of credit at 10% doesn't bring in the same amount of revenues as 100 lines of the same value at 4%. Plus, in order to give easy access to credit from a standards standpoint, credit also has to be made affordable, otherwise people find it more difficult to access credit because it's expensive. Also, the opposite can happen in that credit becomes so cheap that creditors reduce standards in order to develop more lines in order keep up revenues. Since this is a car forum, it's cheaper, thus easier to finance a car at 1.2% rather than to finance at 8%.IBCoupe wrote:I said "easy." Cheap would have meant there was no problem. Stagnating wages surely didn't help, but if credit hadn't been handed out like candy, lifestyles would have reflected the stagnated wages, and they might have gone up, or not. Either way, I'm sure folks would have adapted.
Prove that your example happens today and not 30 years ago, hence the rolled-eyes. The UAW had to negotiate their wage rate down in 2007 I think it was to better align with the market rate in the non-unionized foreign transplants. Historically, transplants kept their wages to within a few dollars of union wages, but that has fallen apart and they've abandoned that fixed parity and have chosen to tie wages to regional wage standards. This has increased the gap between the wage rates.IBCoupe wrote:So... Employers still have to compete with union wages when there's a unionized competitor, right?smockers83 wrote:One word: sure
See above comment about the UAW.IBCoupe wrote:So, now employers don't have to compete on wages when there's a unionized competitor? Geez, talk about looking silly.smockers83 wrote:Using your same origination, if there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think financial advisors in New York would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think farmers would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think the Best Buy salesman would be paid? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think McDonalds employees would be paid all across the country? Better? If there were no unions in Detroit, how do you think you would be paid? Better?
If there were no unions in Detroit, how do I think I would be paid? Better? My pay is in no way tied to union pay in Detroit like you think it is. If the UAW were to collapse tomorrow, my pay would not be affected, by that I mean lowered as you would like to believe, and would continue to go up over the years. In fact, it is even plausible that if the UAW were to fall, other unions would fall, and my pay could go up even more as a result. And by my pay, I speak in both nominal and real terms.
This is where you went wrong. Credit does not have to be cheap to be affordable. People simply do not know how much they pay when they put something on the credit card. The cost of credit is invisible: unlike a loan with a set term, the interest rate does not appear as readily in your credit card statement. Even in some loans the costs unclear. That's why adjustable-rate mortgages were so nefariously bad.smockers83 wrote:Plus, in order to give easy access to credit from a standards standpoint, credit also has to be made affordable, otherwise people find it more difficult to access credit because it's expensive.
I'm not going to look up numbers. What do you think changed in basic economics in the last thirty years?smockers83 wrote:Prove that your example happens today and not 30 years ago, hence the rolled-eyes.
Well, turns out, I will look up numbers for you. From Businessweek in 2005: "But Japanese carmakers in the U.S. match the UAW's pay -- and its benefits, too. The difficulty lies with the legion of retirees at the Big Three: GM alone has 430,000 to carry."smockers83 wrote:The UAW had to negotiate their wage rate down in 2007 I think it was to better align with the market rate in the non-unionized foreign transplants.
If they don't know, that's their fault. Credit is any loaned money, it doesn't have to be credit cards. Credit card debt, as revolving debt, and its cost isn't invisible. APR has always been stated. If people don't understand it, that's their fault. It would be like me buying a slide rule. I have no clue how it works, I just know it calculates stuff for me somehow. However, if I want to understand it and give the right numbers to my boss, I'd do the responsible thing and figure out how the hell that thing works.IBCoupe wrote: This is where you went wrong. Credit does not have to be cheap to be affordable. People simply do not know how much they pay when they put something on the credit card. The cost of credit is invisible: unlike a loan with a set term, the interest rate does not appear as readily in your credit card statement. Even in some loans the costs unclear. That's why adjustable-rate mortgages were so nefariously bad.
This us why there is a distinction to be made between "cheap" and "easy" credit.
No, I'm not trying to argue that higher union wages contribute to wage competition in the opposite way as what I said employers would naturally do, you're blending two different arguments somehow into one. My argument in terms of union wages has always been that unions bring wages out of equilibrium. What occurred, and what you conveniently left out of your Reuters quote, is that the UAW also made wage concessions, particularly to new employees. Go ahead, reread it, you'll find it in there. Yes, the UAW also relieved the Big 3 from other legacy costs as well by transferring that liability to the UAW. I'm aware of that, but that transfer is besides the point.IBCoupe wrote:Well, turns out, I will look up numbers for you. From Businessweek in 2005: "But Japanese carmakers in the U.S. match the UAW's pay -- and its benefits, too. The difficulty lies with the legion of retirees at the Big Three: GM alone has 430,000 to carry."smockers83 wrote:The UAW had to negotiate their wage rate down in 2007 I think it was to better align with the market rate in the non-unionized foreign transplants.
And from Reuters in 2007: "Under the deal, GM would shift a retiree health care obligation, estimated at over $50 billion, to a new trust in exchange for initial payments of $30 billion, a step analysts have said could save the automaker some $3 billion per year." That's the concession: benefits and retirement, not wages.
So, basically, the effect has been what I said it was, which is the opposite of what you said it was. Seriously, I'm not saying anything controversial. You lectured for how long about wage competition as the reason we don't need unions, and now you're trying to argue that higher union wages contribute to wage competition in the opposite way as what you said employers would naturally do. Is it any surprise that reality doesn't reflect what you and Friedman argue?
I agree. But that's beside the point: the problem wasn't that credit was cheap (because it wasn't), it's that it was too easy to get, and too easy to get without fully realizing the costs.smockers83 wrote:If they don't know, that's their fault.
Except where you said that unions drag down net wages because a union shop has fewer employees, which means more people get thrown out into the nonunion shops where they're paid less. The only way that's true is if you pretend that wage competition doesn't exist in a partially-unionized industry.smockers83 wrote:My argument in terms of union wages has always been that unions bring wages out of equilibrium.
My Reuters link doesn't say anything about wages, except that they planned to buyout old employees and hire new ones. There is no mention of wage concessions.smockers83 wrote:What occurred, and what you conveniently left out of your Reuters quote, is that the UAW also made wage concessions, particularly to new employees.
Duh. Unions, among many other things, get higher compensation: typically a 20-25% boost, and usually from the inclusion of better benefits. That's part of the reason people get organized. But that a unionized employee gets paid more than a nonunionized employee doesn't mean that the nonunionized employee is getting paid less than he otherwise would absent the union in the market. But even with that in mind, Ford's labor costs, not solely made up of wages, are $8/hour greater than Hyundai's.smockers83 wrote:In 2008, a study was done that showed wages and benefits of UAW members employed at Ford was $9 more an hour than those who worked at transplants.
That isn't what happened. What happened was a design focus that ignored economic trends, coupled with poor design quality. The UAW had to concede partly because it was a condition of the bailout that they wouldn't strike, which is their one major economic tool of persuasion. In fact, the only wage concessions in the last Google search I performed are those related to new-hires. Further, that cuts happened doesn't mean that nonunion employers don't have to compete! You're simply ignoring basic economic facts.smockers83 wrote:What happened with the UAW and Big 3 is that wages and benefits became too large relative to transplants, getting too far away from equilibrium. So, what the UAW had to do is concede because it was either they do or the Big 3 cut jobs, thus the UAW loses members, and the UAW is pretty shaky financially.
Right. Because the point of Government and unions isn't to achieve peak efficiency for industry.smockers83 wrote:Government and unions introduce red tape and bureaucracy and are extremely inefficient
And everybody else's wages benefit from the fact that UAW wages are higher than they otherwise would be.smockers83 wrote:Anyway, the UAW had to concede wages because they can only go so high before they have to come down and that's what happened.
In which area of the credit market was it not cheap? Yes, some people didn't realize the costs. Some people also were reckless and put too much on credit. But it all goes back to wages and the growth of the economy. If the middle and upper-middle classes see the economy growing and the upper class growing, they think that they can do so as well whether they actually can or not. Since their purchasing power wasn't growing, the only way for them to grow was by borrowing from the future. As borrowing from the future continued to grow unsustainably, the credit market finally collapsed.IBCoupe wrote:I agree. But that's beside the point: the problem wasn't that credit was cheap (because it wasn't), it's that it was too easy to get, and too easy to get without fully realizing the costs.
The only way what you say is true is if every non-union employer matches the union shops. When a union causes it's protected class of employees' wages to rise and other wages to fall, it sends the market out of equilibrium. I don't get where the confusion is? Wages were at $X for similar jobs, now a union shows up and union wages are increased to $Y and the others fall to $Z. To have an equilibrium, you can't have Y and Z, you have to have X. Even if the other wages didn't fall to Z and remained at X, the market is still out of equilibrium as you now have X and Y.IBCoupe wrote:Except where you said that unions drag down net wages because a union shop has fewer employees, which means more people get thrown out into the nonunion shops where they're paid less. The only way that's true is if you pretend that wage competition doesn't exist in a partially-unionized industry.smockers83 wrote:My argument in terms of union wages has always been that unions bring wages out of equilibrium.
Sure it does. New employees were going to be brought in at a negotiated concession of $14/hour (article says below $15) and have cheaper benefits. Then a couple years later, Gettelfinger complains that a $14/hr wage can't afford the cars they're making (studies proved otherwise; also, the work of these new hires was limited so as to not take away the jobs of more-senior employees, so were they even building cars?).IBCoupe wrote:My Reuters link doesn't say anything about wages, except that they planned to buyout old employees and hire new ones. There is no mention of wage concessions.smockers83 wrote:What occurred, and what you conveniently left out of your Reuters quote, is that the UAW also made wage concessions, particularly to new employees.
I don't follow. Also, the true labor costs of the Big 3 compared to Asian manufacturers is in the neighborhood of ~$30/hour, not $8.IBCoupe wrote:But that a unionized employee gets paid more than a nonunionized employee doesn't mean that the nonunionized employee is getting paid less than he otherwise would absent the union in the market. But even with that in mind, Ford's labor costs, not solely made up of wages, are $8/hour greater than Hyundai's.
Ok, so if more and more money was getting tied up in labor over time on a vehicle per vehicle basis, that money has to come from somewhere, right? So capital is diverted from other inputs (R&D/engineering, quality of materials, etc.) to labor. When the UAW renegotiated in 2007, and your Reuters article says this ("it really reverses the spiral"), that the savings were in the magnitude of $2000/vehicle. If a particular model line sells 250,000 units, that's $500,000,000 in savings that can be redirected to R&D, thus better designed vehicles, and better materials. It's a vicious circle, capital just doesn't come from the bottom line like unions like to believe.IBCoupe wrote:That isn't what happened. What happened was a design focus that ignored economic trends, coupled with poor design quality. The UAW had to concede partly because it was a condition of the bailout that they wouldn't strike, which is their one major economic tool of persuasion. In fact, the only wage concessions in the last Google search I performed are those related to new-hires. Further, that cuts happened doesn't mean that nonunion employers don't have to compete! You're simply ignoring basic economic facts.smockers83 wrote:What happened with the UAW and Big 3 is that wages and benefits became too large relative to transplants, getting too far away from equilibrium. So, what the UAW had to do is concede because it was either they do or the Big 3 cut jobs, thus the UAW loses members, and the UAW is pretty shaky financially.
Or anything for that matter. The parallels are the same.IBCoupe wrote:Right. Because the point of Government and unions isn't to achieve peak efficiency for industry.smockers83 wrote:Government and unions introduce red tape and bureaucracy and are extremely inefficient
They don't and I've already proven that they don't by showing that Japanese transplants actually lowered their compensation relative to the UAW and ending their traditional wage parity. The transplants began looking at regional wages and other manufacturing wages to determine how they valued those jobs, which meant the wages at transplants fell.IBCoupe wrote:And everybody else's wages benefit from the fact that UAW wages are higher than they otherwise would be.smockers83 wrote:Anyway, the UAW had to concede wages because they can only go so high before they have to come down and that's what happened.