Inequality

[Jacob]

We are reaching a paradoxical society where the rich elite is actually working for the poor masses - and the redistribution is the only thing keeping them from raising in a revolt.

Whereas you are revolting already.

[Josephus]

And we were doing so well.

Now can we have naked ladies?

[crazy canuck]

And we were doing so well.

Now can we have naked ladies?

Later.

But for now - to go off topic a bit.  Why do you think the trade union movement declined?

[DGuller]

Damn it, I have to study now.  This discussion is way more fun, though.

[DGuller]

We are reaching a paradoxical society where the rich elite is actually working for the poor masses - and the redistribution is the only thing keeping them from raising in a revolt.

Whereas you are revolting already.

[katmai]

And we were doing so well.

Now can we have naked ladies?

Later.

But for now - to go off topic a bit.  Why do you think the trade union movement declined?

The Man ™

[Josephus]

And we were doing so well.

Now can we have naked ladies?

Later.

But for now - to go off topic a bit.  Why do you think the trade union movement declined?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/01/10/three-big-reasons-for-the-decline-of-labor-unions/

1.  The hollowing-out of the country's manufacturing base and, with it, a decline in those industry jobs which, historically, had not only been strongly organized but well paid.

2. Government has assumed custody of key union provisions.

3. Changes in demographics and culture.

[Razgovory]

And we were doing so well.

Well, "automation", being a cause for trends starting int he early 1980's makes sense in Poland not so much in the US.

[The Minsky Moment]

PART II

The short answer is: I don't know and neither does anyone else.

The question can't be answered because there is no way to design an replicable experiment to test it.  All one can do is try to identify factors that correlate with the data.  But correlation is not causation - for example, one could probably easily show over the past 30 years in the US a clear inverse correlation between cigarette smoking and inequality of income but it is unlikely this is a causal relationship.

One thing we can do is use the absence of correlation to reject alternative hypotheses.  For example, the automization hypothesis - this may correlate with the post 1982 experience but it falls down when applies to the pre-1982 experience.  It jsut doesn't fits the facts and so it must be rejected.  Similarly, the rise of Chinese competition doesn't work because China did not have significant impact on the world economy until the mid-1990s but this trend dates back over a decade earlier.  The shift from manufacturing to services long predates the early 80s; that doesn't work either.

The best one can do is try to marry some correlative factor to some plausible theory explaining why that factor might logically give rise to the results.  And as it turns out, someone in the thread (not me) has already hit on something that might work.

[Neil]

Later.

But for now - to go off topic a bit.  Why do you think the trade union movement declined?

I think that public sector unions had something to do with it.  When public sector unions would go on strike, they weren't sticking it to the man.  They were sticking it to us.

[crazy canuck]

Later.

But for now - to go off topic a bit.  Why do you think the trade union movement declined?

I think that public sector unions had something to do with it.  When public sector unions would go on strike, they weren't sticking it to the man.  They were sticking it to us.

That does not explain why people stopped joining unions so they could stick it to the man.

I think Josephus is on to a better answer.  But I am wondering about his third point.

[crazy canuck]

PART II

The short answer is: I don't know and neither does anyone else.

You are worse than a lap dancer performing on Malthus in front of all his friends.

Also, thanks very much for the thread.

[The Brain]

PART II

The short answer is: I don't know and neither does anyone else.

The question can't be answered because there is no way to design an replicable experiment to test it.  All one can do is try to identify factors that correlate with the data.  But correlation is not causation - for example, one could probably easily show over the past 30 years in the US a clear inverse correlation between cigarette smoking and inequality of income but it is unlikely this is a causal relationship.

One thing we can do is use the absence of correlation to reject alternative hypotheses.  For example, the automization hypothesis - this may correlate with the post 1982 experience but it falls down when applies to the pre-1982 experience.  It jsut doesn't fits the facts and so it must be rejected.  Similarly, the rise of Chinese competition doesn't work because China did not have significant impact on the world economy until the mid-1990s but this trend dates back over a decade earlier.  The shift from manufacturing to services long predates the early 80s; that doesn't work either.

The best one can do is try to marry some correlative factor to some plausible theory explaining why that factor might logically give rise to the results.  And as it turns out, someone in the thread (not me) has already hit on something that might work.

I want to know what Yi says.

[Martinus]

I think trade unions declined in the Western world because they did not quite catch the fact that the nature of the "proletariat" has changed. It's not factory workers and the like anymore - most of them have been fired and those who stayed have a relatively good fare, being usually qualified employees.

The real "exploited masses" are now in service/retail industries and low level white collar jobs. And with the exception of some of the bigger chains, employers of these people usually do not employ enough workers for the workers to form influential trade unions.

[Valmy]

The increasingly large role of computers in business and society seems to really get rolling around 1982 might that be connected?