The impact on tech worker wages is probably negative because unionization is associated with lower profits. Especially for tech workers who derive the majority of their income from equity.
Highly unionized countries do not tend to have a higher per-capita income across all socioeconomic demographics when compared to the US. It's not clear that unionization is an overall net positive for higher income individuals.
Indeed. Granting a one group small ownership stake swings some of their allegiances towards ownership and away from labour. I would ask myself what cost that small slice of ownership you’ve been granted (play on words intended) comes at to the people around you. To me it doesn’t seem very different from buying off union leaders. Are you that easily bought?
I.e. maybe supporting unions leads to a smaller gap between your tech salary, and a warehouse worker. That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate, and have more energy to put into their communities, etc.
Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable, but worst of all it's simply inaccurate. I support the right to unionize regardless of whether it benefits me personally.
It seems the area where you and I differ is that my commitment to telling the truth regarding the various economic ramifications is more important than my political ideology.
I do have a political ideology, but so do you. My overarching point as been to insist that socio-economic class, consumer and worker separation, and stock granting are as political ideas as worker solidarity and class consciousness. But you’re calling that untruthful, and ideologically motivated, and disgusting rhetoric, so I guess we’re probably done
I'm calling out your projections. Your posts are riddled with inaccurate blind guesses about me. None of what you're saying is correct, as a simple matter of fact.
I encourage you to take a break and think about your perspective. If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games.
Nothing about me is relevant when it comes to objective facts such as the way unions impact economies.
>If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games.
>Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable
This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'.
The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate"
Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.
No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background.
This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum.
My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.
>No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person
The poster you're replying to has provided a synopsis of his argument; it has nothing to do with you. Part of the site's rules are that you should be charitable regarding how people phrase their arguments - just try to understand what he's trying to get at - it's very clear his argument isn't about you as a person. Focusing on this while ignoring the substance of his statements is obviously not going to generate a productive discussion.
Trying to use phrasing which allows people to relate to the discussion isn't 'objectively regrettable'.
Spinning this into a meta discussion about how the discussion should be framed is a waste of time, so I'll end my contribution here. I hope my notes help untangle the mess.
Your summary is simply not what took place above. I suggest you re-read the comment thread. Here are some specific links to help you improve your notes:
>Your summary is simply not what took place above.
You seem dead set on doing anything other than actually engaging with the substance of the post. I didn't say the term 'you' wasn't used. I said the argument has nothing to do with you, or perhaps more accurately, it doesn't rely on any lived experience you've had - you're irrelevant to the point being made.
Let's look at a sample argument: My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue.
In this argument, we have 1) A premise, 2) Evidence, 3) Rationale, and 4) A conclusion.
Let's modify the argument a bit. My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue - and so does everyone including you, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue.
The element we've added here, that everyone sees that the sky is blue, is not evidence in support of my conclusion, because my rationale depends on my trust in my eyes, not my trust in everyone else's. Disagreeing by stating "Blind people don't see that the sky is blue, so your evidence is faulty and your conclusion doesn't stand - the sky isn't blue because of blind people" is a poor critique; there ARE weaknesses in the argument, to be sure, but that isn't one of them.
To return to this thread, you're attacking elements of the post which aren't the core of the argument; they're attempts to make the argument cogent to you (which obviously failed), but aren't elements upon which the argument relies upon.
Anyways, you're clearly not arguing in good faith - there's no attempt to interface with ANY of the content being posted. I'm done here.
Abclaw is entirely correct, btw. I don’t know you, it would be weird for me to make those kinds of guesses about your life and work experience. That shoulda been your first clue that I might have been using an indefinite “you” there. Have a good one!
Highly unionized countries do not tend to have a higher per-capita income across all socioeconomic demographics when compared to the US. It's not clear that unionization is an overall net positive for higher income individuals.