I didn’t say it was ONLY due to the decline of unions. But it’s a very strong possibility. Especially since the graph indicates that workers are still producing value. It’s not that there is less to get from employers, it’s that workers are simply getting less of a share of it. Unions are how they have traditionally assured that share. THAT’S the POINT. There are always going to be economic trends that put pressure on wages. Unions push back.
Sure, but that cost trend would also include the loss of such insurance, or lower benefits.
Got no problems thanking them. Got no problems waving bye-bye to them, either. They have long ago outlived their usefulness. They no longer function for the benefit of the worker, they function for the benefit of the union.
Since few jobs offer no benefits at all, any serious examination of employee compensation needs to factor in the cost of benefits. From the employer’s perspective, they are no different from wages.
When charts of that sort ignore benefits, and especially health benefits, it’s indicative of trying to make a particular point, instead of trying to be accurate. When benefits are counted as compensation, the picture is dramatically different.
This is an argument for health-care reform, much more so than wage reform, as the explosion in health care costs has eaten what would have been wage increases.
Okay, folks…after all the shouting and insults, may I suggest that we turn this thread towards a more useful discussion?
Instead of talking about unions in general…I’d like to suggest that we talk about one specific union–(or the lack thereof.)
Let’s talk about everybody’s favorite company to hate: Walmart.
And my specific quesiton is–would the workers at Walmart benefit from being unionized?
I’d like to hear from previiousr posters…both lovers of unions, and especially from the haters of unions–(and there seem to be plenty of posters in this thread like that ).
My opinion: this thread started on the wrong track (i.e.the OP was wrong about his 35 reasons we must all worship unions), but there is still plenty of good that can be done by organized labor in specific cases. I would say that Walmart workers need a union…but the auto workers do not
(Back in 2001, Walmart closed down its meat department when the butchers tried to unionize.So the management is clearly afraid that a union would be good for the workers.)
A pretty strong one, I’d say, since the others are simply economic forces that unions have always dealt with.
Agreed.
No, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that.
Interesting, thanks. But this is in aggregate. It doesn’t break down the problem by class (perhaps the paper as a whole does). When you look at just wages, the same thing happens, because the top 10 percent have certainly seen their wages grow. The bottom 90 percent haven’t. So I’d like to know if this holds true when you break it out by percentiles.
It doesn’t follow that unions can guarantee x % of productivity growth go to their members, regardless of those economic forces. That is, even if union membership had increased rather than decreased over the last ~50 years, the gap between wage growth and productivity growth (such as there is) might well still have occured, as a result of technological changes that required fewer workers (and often lower-skilled workers) to acheive more productivity, more women in the work force, and etc.
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
No, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that.
[/quote]
Why does it make sense to make charts of wage growth versus productivity, and not include benefits, when they are just another form of wages? Perhaps there’s a reason I’ve overlooked.
I offered this in contrast to the chart(s) in the other cite, which is also an aggreggate.
I’m not saying that. It’s probably safe to say it would be more than zero growth though.
The data are easier to get?
Fair enough. But now I’m offering a new point, which is that pretty much all of what little wage growth has happened has been for the top 10%. This may be true when you include compensation. I rather doubt the average McDonald’s or Walmart worker has seen big boosts in health insurance that make up for stagnant wages.
I’m not contradicting the general thrust of your post, but your last sentence does not follow. Opposition to unionization means Walmart fears it would be bad for them and their ownership. There’s no reason to think they are “afraid that a union would be good for the workers.”
Possibly, though I of course dispute that the growth has been zero.
Maybe, but I’ve seen enough studies that include total compensation to conclude that the data is available. Only using wages as compensation is fundamentally inaccurate, so only using that data is worse than not doing the study/making the chart at all.
I may or may not be able to find that sort of data. Can you define exactly what data you’re suggesting be sought out? Is it the bottom 90% for both wages and total compensation, contrasted to productivity growth for the same group, over the period 1970-present?
Sure, but by a much smaller margin than before the decline of unions in the 1970s. And it includes all earnings and benefits, including those of the top income levels.
That’s not applicable to this particular discussion, because:
It’s just for 2005-2013
It uses the growth rates of wages and benefits, not the actual values. The fact that the growth rate of benefits is higher than the growth rate for wages supports what I’ve been arguing, that wage growth appears flat because benefits have become so costly for employers, though, again, it’s only for 2005-13.
It doesn’t include productivity growth, which is essential for the argument that compensation has lagged productivity.
That may or may not be possible, but I’ll take a look-see.
).