It applies in other places much more than America! Their popularity is non-trivially responsible for their harm, for it has created much lack of accountability. My best guess is outside of the U.S., especially in Europe, unions are responsible for a substantial fraction of the lag or lack of economic growth over the last few decades.
Modern unions very reliably introduce enormous inefficiencies into any industry. “Union labor” is almost synonymous with inefficiency and lack of meritocracy in any industry in which it is common. States, areas and industries that successfully avoid unionization, especially of the kind that produces regulatory capture by enforcing “union labor” as required for work in the industry, very reliably outperform states/areas/industries that do end up with powerful unions on cost-effectiveness, consumer surplus and general wealth.
Not a crux; compared to countervailing institutions, consumer surplus seems more saturated than countervailing institutions, and its growth more robustly guaranteed across timelines than maintenance/expansion of the latter.
I do not understand. Are you saying “economic growth” is saturated? What does it mean for “consumer surplus” to be saturated? Consumer surplus is one of the key things that translates into economic growth.
I mean there are declining marginal returns to (preference or hedonic) utility for additional goods and services. Further I think this is largely at a saturation point in the first world—entertainment has a marginal cost of zero beyond time; the marginal value of additional money is real but largely related to achieving positional goods, security, and autonomy, the latter two of which are what people primarily want from unions.
I’m curious why you think that, unless it only applies to America. In my culture unions are seen quite positively.
It applies in other places much more than America! Their popularity is non-trivially responsible for their harm, for it has created much lack of accountability. My best guess is outside of the U.S., especially in Europe, unions are responsible for a substantial fraction of the lag or lack of economic growth over the last few decades.
Modern unions very reliably introduce enormous inefficiencies into any industry. “Union labor” is almost synonymous with inefficiency and lack of meritocracy in any industry in which it is common. States, areas and industries that successfully avoid unionization, especially of the kind that produces regulatory capture by enforcing “union labor” as required for work in the industry, very reliably outperform states/areas/industries that do end up with powerful unions on cost-effectiveness, consumer surplus and general wealth.
Not a crux; compared to countervailing institutions, consumer surplus seems more saturated than countervailing institutions, and its growth more robustly guaranteed across timelines than maintenance/expansion of the latter.
I do not understand. Are you saying “economic growth” is saturated? What does it mean for “consumer surplus” to be saturated? Consumer surplus is one of the key things that translates into economic growth.
I mean there are declining marginal returns to (preference or hedonic) utility for additional goods and services. Further I think this is largely at a saturation point in the first world—entertainment has a marginal cost of zero beyond time; the marginal value of additional money is real but largely related to achieving positional goods, security, and autonomy, the latter two of which are what people primarily want from unions.