Why Unions Keep Losing

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying many members don't understand that they support a political philosophy and party (GOP) that is diametrically opposed to their self interest?

If that's what you mean you are correct

 

That is NOT what I said. In fact no one said that.

Hearing voices huh?

 

where one story is exaggerated to pretend a simple truth.

 

I provided an actual experience - something that really happened. It pretended nothing. Calling me a liar doesn't change a thing.

 

America's trade unions from the 1920's to 1990 were heavily infiltrated by CPUSA who always got their marching orders from the Kremlin.

The unions were always the useful idiots of the Kremlin.

Today many unions are nothing more than political operatives of the DNC and its union ,members are just useful idiots of the DNC.

 

Nahhhh..it's the Illuminati

 

So did I. However, to take one experience and assume a simple truth is tabloidism. I cannot assume that my experience is the norm, nor can you.

 

You didn't ask for a norm. You asked for an example of how a union failed to raise wages. I provided one.

 

You provided tabloidism. I've already informed you of the folly of that. Up to you to take the advice or ignore it.

I don't ask for tabloidism. I ask for evidence. That has to be objective and, for this topic, undertaken with appropriate hypothesis testing.

 

You seem to be confused as to the rigor of soft science versus that of a hard science. Without the ability to isolate down to one variable, economic studies specifically lack the necessary rigor in order to properly and objectively test any hypothesis, which is why economics is all about theory & economic principle, and expressly not about scientific proof.

Looking at your definition of tabloidism, that is precisely what you are doing while masquerading pseudoscience as scientific proof of anything. To listen to you, Unions are the greatest economic boon that could happen to any company, yet almost all of them with a choice fight tooth and nail against being unionized. Why do you suppose that is the case? Do you honestly believe that multi-billion dollar mega-corporations are too stupid to know what is in their best financial interest? Have you considered the possibility that your chosen pseudoscientific studies might just be peddling unmitigated B.S. ?

 

Sorry, but this is drivel. Of course I'm referring to econometric testing and of course control variables allow for the isolation of effect and therefore hypothesis testing. Scientists use the same techniques, explaining the importance of health economics.

You've gone off on one. I've already repeatedly referred to, via an understanding of rent, the difference between productivity maximization and profit maximization.

The problem is that you aren't starting from any economic understanding (not even Smith and his focus on bargaining power). You've then added another layer of misunderstanding over the nature of the empirical process.

 

You are ignoring that economic studies are by their very definition PSEUDOSCIENCE. Do you know what that means? The study of economics does NOT possess the scientific rigor that you are pretending. The scientific community gives absolutely no creedence to these studies because of the express inability to isolate the hypothesis down to one variable.

I took that one step further and asked you to step outside of your preprogrammed rhetoric and asked you if it is the economic boon that you insist, why then do multi billion dollar mega corporations resist unionization tooth and nail?

Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants do not know what is in their best financial interest, yet some egghead doing his Ph.D. thesis in economics has all the answers? Does that make any sense to you?

 

Yes, it means you are talking nonsense. Econometric techniques are also used by scientists. Already informed you of that, so no excuse!

Already demonstrated this is drivel. The econometric tests are used as standard in scientific study. Economists do tend to be better at it, explaining for the significant health economists within scientific faculties and health research centres.

You've gone nowhere but backwards. You think you somehow can derive coherent conclusion by moaning about economics and avoiding econometric analysis. Its post truth rhetoric, designed only to hide from the evidence. And I find it tiresome.

Asking for repetition here! Rent seeking is often in the interest of the corporation. It is of course also inefficient.

 

Economics is a Soft Science. How can you not know this? Another term for soft science is PSEUDOSCIENCE. How can you not know this? It is called pseudoscience because there is an inability to isolate down to one variable, which means that economics hypothesis can expressly NOT be tested to an acceptable level of scientific rigor. How can you not know this?

Now please step back from your pseudo condescension and answer a very simple, straightforward question. Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants do not know what is in their best financial interest?

PS I am NOT asking for repetition. I am asking for you to answer the question the first time.

 

Round and round you go. You haven't got a question as you have no economics to base it on.

I do have a question though, given your dodge. Why do scientists use econometric methods and why do they employ economists to do them?

 

Give me an example of a hard scientist using an econometric method, and I will be more than happy to address that situation with as much depth as you would like. I could potentially envision a scenario where that could happen, but its hard to address without knowing the actual specifics. I do present medical studies for a living so I do know that of which I speak when it comes to discussing studies in general. I also know full well the limitations of actual scientific studies and how you can easily manipulate outcomes by slight tweaks to the input variables and how those variables are defined. I also know that pseudosciences are nothing but theories that expressly CANNOT be proven.

Now will you please answer MY question which I keep repeating and that you refuse to address......

Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants do not know what is in their best financial interest?

 

I've already answered that naive question. I referred to how rent seeking increases profit, but also reduces economic efficiency. Unions can reduce that inefficiency.

What amused me is how you continue to pretend expertise, but you're apparently unaware of econometrics application to science (I don't believe you mind you, given the whinge about input variables gave the game away. You just don't understand any of the material, such as the robustness checks employed).

And papers? Put in science and econometrics in sciencedirect and get neatly 40,000 hits. Put in health and econometrics and get over 20,000.

 

You keep falsely claiming that you have answered this question. "Rent seeking increases profit" does NOT answer this question. I understand that you are trying to say that it IS in their best interest. My question is.....
Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants do not know what is in their best financial interest?

Personally, when looking for scientific papers ( both soft and hard) I would typically go to Google Scholar. With that being said, OF COURSE that would return endless results, but those results don't necessarily include the mixing of a soft and hard scientist. It will return plenty of papers from the pseudosciences such as sociology and economics etc. It is becoming increasingly clear that you really do not have the foggiest clue as toe differentiation between hard and soft science. Economics is a soft science. Another word for soft science is pseudoscience because its resulting conclusions CANNOT be proven with even a shred of scientific certainty. Which is precisely why I have asked you to step away from your economics study security blanket, and answer the very common sense question of...
Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants do not know what is in their best financial interest?

You see, in order for the information that you are pushing to be proven science, we also have to assume that corporate behemoths do not know what is in their best financial interest and that some egghead economist is the one that knows the real answers. If it were that simple and unassailable, those corporations would be derelict in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders by ignoring what you are delusionally believing is proven science. You don't want to answer my question because you would then have to confront the reality that those mega-corporations surely know what is in their best financial interest which blows your weak economic theory arguments completely out of the water. You aren't the first person trying to masquerade pseudoscience as science, and arent the first to not have the slightest clue as to the limitations of your pseudoscientific data. Don't feel too bad.

 

cause republicans are pro corp, and they are in power and stacking the courts

 

Again, we're back to your lack of understanding. A corporation will pursue rent, generating financial interest. That may be hyper-rational, in the sense that it maximises their profit. However, it is necessarily related to economic inefficiency. A union can therefore reduce profit and also induce greater efficiency.

You're still making me laugh!

Gosh, over 20,000 articles in health using econometrics and you're not aware of even one? Its like you're not an expert in science....

Sorry, just more drivel. We do not have to reject profit maximisation (although managerial theories of the firm, given the principal-agent problem, may pursue alternative objectives). They may have full understanding of what's in their interest (although they rarely do, given transaction costs and distributed knowledge). And that interest will often be based on economic inefficiency criteria. Do you perhaps avoid economics in an economics debate because you don't understand economics?

I'm not a fan of the dishonesty. I've answered the question numerous times. You just don't understand that financial interest is not necessarily consistent with economic efficiency. There is an irony here, mind you. You've been rattling on about a conversation with someone else, ignoring my reference to the efficient bargain. That refers to how unions increase both wages and employment, reflecting preferences of the unions. That really is only possible in the long run when firms are making rents. Corporations, by definitions, make rents. Imagine if you had bothered to try and embed economic argument within your bluster?

 

The goal of any corporation is profit maximization. Efficiency as you seem to be defining it pales in comparison. End of story. We are in agreement that unions are not an economic boon for a corporation. I stated that to listen to you one would think that unionization is the greatest economic boon for any company. If you disagreed, you should have said so and the topic would have been over. That is how a conversation actually takes place. You are too busy trying to dazzle with B.S. to actually follow a conversation.

Personally, paying more than necessary for labor is an example of gross INEFFICIENCY. It all depends upon how you define efficiency, and without a doubt, legitimate definitions for efficiency include cost of labor.

Google scholar makes you laugh? You have a strange sense of humor.

We are back to your lack of understanding. Economics is a soft science. An economic study is a soft science because it cannot be proven to an acceptable level of certainty to be considered a hard science. Just because you can find published studies in economics does NOT make them a hard science.

"Generally speaking, there are two types of science: Hard science and soft science, which are colloquial terms used to differentiate separate fields based on perceived rigor, methodology and objectivity. To put it simply, the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics are considered hard, while the social sciences such as economics, sociology and jurisprudence are considered soft."
http://www.thebatt.com/science-tech...cle_7d3fd268-8ed1-11e7-a79a-2bb3c54c8264.html

I dont care if you can produce 1 million economics studies. They are soft science, because they do not posess the scientific rigor, methodology, and objectivity necessary to be considered truly scientific. There are far too many varfiables and a distinct inability to isolate those variables down to one.

As I said earlier, if you rejected my characterization that you are claiming that unionization is an economic boon to corporations, you simply needed to say so. That is how an intelligent conversation is conducted. You seem to avoid such a route and instead opt for an endless loop of baseless condescension no matter who you are conversing with. Condescension is great when you have earned the right. You have done no such thing, other than perhaps in the deepest recesses of your delusional mind.

I avoid discussing economics as if it were a hard science. You dont seem to understand the distinction between hard science and economics. An economic theorem is worthy of discussing in a common sense manner, but the moment that you start pretending/believing that it is proven science, is the moment that you have taken the conversation into the absurd. I have watched your contributions to this thread. You like throwing around a lot of economics terms and theorems in the belief that it makes you sound intelligent, but I am not so sure that it actually produces your desired effect. To me, it strikes me as a very young person who has recently or currently went through school and has yet to spend much if any time in the real world. I too was once a business student, and I too enjoyed doing so under the mistaken belief that it made me sound intelligent. I dont doubt that you may be an econ undergrad or perhaps even a masters student, but that isnt nearly as impressive as you seem to think, especially since the tenets of economic theorems have severe limitations when applied to the real world. You have yet to learn that reality. Dont worry, it will come once you have attained some life experience.

 

Again you ignore the economics. There is no compulsion to profit maximise within corporations. Look up managerial theories of the firm, based on the consequences of asymmetric information and how it enables agency problems.

You're making no sense. I never suggested that the corporation pursues efficiency. I said, as they pursue economic rents for financial grain, they necessarily generate economic inefficiency.

We are not in agreement on anything. I refer to economics; you do not. The Union can benefit the corporation (via voice effects). However, it can also reduce profitability. That isn't necessarily a 'bad' as increased profit can be the consequence of the corporation's inefficient rent seeking behaviour.

More drivel. I'm not particularly pro-union. For example, they can encourage wage norms that create harm to both the individual and the economy. However, I also appreciate both the economic theory and the empirical evidence. You do not.

It shows a beautiful hole in your expert pretense!

Round and round you go. Amazing you make these claims after crowing about health research (and health economics, as shown by those 20,000 plus hits, is a key element in the discipline).

Of course you don't care. You're not interested in economic debate. You could at least be a good right winger and reject Friedman's understanding of economic modelling! That would at least make me smile.

Sorry, but you have nothing. You have no understanding of the economics or the evidence. Crowing "but economics doesn't matter", when referring to an economic debate, is just a little churlish.

Already referred to the methods that Unions improve economic outcome. Described the theory and given the empirical evidence.

How are you going to have an intelligent economic discussion by just saying economics is kack?

No, you avoid all economics. Where is your critique of voice effects? Where is your critique of the efficient bargain? Where is your critique of distributed knowledge?

Round and round you go! This is the economics that is a significant part of the area that you say you have expertise in...

Wrong again! Economic theorems will typically refer to a chain of linkages which yield an accepted truth. Thus, if you start from a textbook neoclassical world, the fundamental theorems of welfare will hold. There is no common sense in that. There is coherent modelling of economic costs and benefits. What I've done is more standard. Refer to the economic theory and then use that theory to appreciate the hypothesis testing in empirical analysis. It is a fact, for example, that the efficient bargain was traditionally rejected in the UK but it couldn't be rejected in the US.

Back to your basic errors. Econometrics of course enriches statistical analysis. One never accepts!

I'm happy for you to critique any economics that I use. Good luck!

A poor effort at putdown. I appreciate you feel impotent, given you can't use economics and just have to say its kack, but try harder!

 

Wow, that isnt what you said at all. What I responded to you was in regards to your statement... " A union can therefore reduce profit and also induce greater efficiency."

A union reducing profit (presumably via higher wages) is NOT an example of generating improved economic efficiency. Now you are bogusly claiming that you said something else. You are TRULY a piece of work

I understand the limitations of scientific studies in general and how they are easily manipulated; you do not.
I understand that economics in general is titled a pseudo or "soft" science, and how that places even greater limitations upon conclusions in economic studies; you do not
​

Its not "more drivel" as you are so fond of saying. It was repeating what I said in my first post, to which I later pointed out if you disagreed with my summation of your position, you simply needed to say I was mistaken and then explain your actual view. Conversations are far more productive that way. Are you incapable of having an even remotely productive conversation? Misunderstanding your position doesnt equate to "drivel". It equates to you needing to speak up and state your position so that an exchange of ideas can take place.​

Expert pretense? You keep saying this.... to what are you referring? Do you mean when I said that I present Medical studies for a living? That is precisely what I do, and have done so for the better part of the last 20 years. I am in Medical Sales, and that is accomplished by properly utilizing medical studies in order to convince physicians to use your therapy within the framework of an evidence based medicine approach. Does that make me an "expert"?......absolutely not, but it does make me a person that knows full well how to manipulate and cherry pick those studies that are going to push my particular point of view. Doctors know full well that every medical sales rep in the business has studies that proclaim their product or therapy as superior to all others, and while they are all FDA approved studies, they know full well that they have to take their conclusions somewhat with a grain of salt, because not every option is superior to all other options, yet they all have studies that say their option is the best. Studies have their limitations, and every doctor knows this. This doesnt mean that the studies arent important, because they are, but everyone knows that you cannot compare the efficacy shown in one study to the efficacy shown in another. They are all different because they have different entry criteria, dosing regimens, different raters, methodologies etc. That is in regard to actual hard science studies.

You are compounding this limitation even further. Not only are you ignoring the limitations of actual hard scientific studies, but you are then applying that to PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC studies with economics which makes the limitations that much greater. You are acting as if I am making up the notion that they are pseudoscientific. I provided you with a link explaining as much, and you ignored it whole cloth (what a shock)

To get back to your notion about me claiming to be an expert. I never made that claim, but my job does make me far more knowledgeable about the limitations of studies than most. If you notice, I explained my position instead of summarily declaring "THIS IS DRIVEL" when you mischaracterized my position.​

Once again, I am not going to type "THIS IS DRIVEL". I instead explained my position ( and did NOT declare myself an expert) that you mistook, in the hopes that a productive conversation could ensure rather than aimless bickering and baseless condescension.​

Did I not make it clear that my position is that economics is a pseudoscience, and you therefore have to recognize the limitations of its conclusions? You are having an economics debate. Nobody else. I have been arguing against economics as a hard science endeavor, and you have been incorrectly claiming that it is a hard science. The fact that you THINK this is an economics debate shows the folly in your entire position. After all of this time, you STILL dont have a clue as to what is being discussed.​

See above.​

See above.​

See above.​

See above.​

I do present medical studies for a living. That is a 100% fact, and I am damned good at what I do.​

See above. no one is having an economics debate other than you. You are TRULY confused.​

Economics is a pseudoscience. I can provide you with as many links as you like if you want to call my characterization incorrect. I did not make up this concept. Dont shoot the messenger.​

You still are operating under the delusion that we are having an economics debate? Yeesh. ​

Economics is what is called a soft science because it does not reach the necessary level of scientific rigor to be called a hard science. Another term for soft science is pseudoscience. That doesnt make it "kack", but it does make it a pseudoscience.

 

This is a neat example of the dangers of discussing economics without any knowledge of economics! You haven't understood the basics. Rent, by definition, ensures economic inefficiency. Union activity, if those rents are decreased, are therefore increasing efficiency. Without any understanding of rent, you've got no understanding of the meaning of any redistribution created by wage gains.

I see you're trying fake responses that are irrelevant to the quote. Tut tut!

Let's go through it again, just to advertise the dangers of whinging without any knowledge of the economics. Take voice effects. Could we just see this as a heterodox analysis based on the gains of democracy within the company? Actually, no. We can also refer to Hayek and his understanding of the dangers of economic planning. Corporations are necessarily hierarchical. This intensifies the problems associated with distributed knowledge (i.e. the manager, unable to understand all contingencies, will see increased risk of decision-making error). The Union then becomes a means to share information such that these problems are minimised. ​

Try critiquing that, rather than just endlessly repeating the 'we don't need to know economics when talking about economics' mantra.

​

This amused me, given you again just huffed and puffed in order to avoid the economic content. Let's repeat what I said. I referred to how unions could be effectively attacked (in a grown up way, mind you, such that we aren't just anti-union ranting because of petty ideological demands). The creation of wage norms can drive a wedge between wage growth and productivity wedge. Its different here. We're not talking about rent and therefore inefficient redistribution from employee to employer. Instead, we're referring to how unions can reinforce hierarchy in wage distributions such that supply-side signals are corrupted.

Without the economics (both theory and evidence), you have no means to contribute within any credible critique.

It makes you a salesman. That could explain, mind you, why you don't use scientific search engines and you're not aware of how to critique. I'm no economist. I do employ them mind you for their technical skills. I therefore have some understanding of what is involved. I see the complex techniques used to minimise empirical bias (which are also used, as standard, in health). I see the robustness checks. I see the interaction between research, demonstrating the importance of adopting full literature review methods.

In contrast, you have just hidden from the economics and pretended it was a valid thing to do.

Nothing of note here. You could try and moan about the social sciences attempted application of 'natural experiements'. It wouldn't hit home mind you. That's used more in areas such as minimum wage research. It also highlights how research is properly undertaken. There is necessarily comparison of results with other methodologies (time series, cross sectional, panel, mixed methods etc etc etc). Moreover, for this thread, hypothesis testing is key. That has already been correctly summarised. The efficient bargain could be rejected in the UK (arguably because of higher rent seeking behaviour of firms, with Britain having a high working poverty rate), but it couldn't be rejected in the US.

I've adopted obvious, and rational, behaviour. First, understand the labour economics. Second, understand how the labour economics has been tested. Third, ensure that any conclusions are soundly based on theoretical and empirical evidence. In contrast, you've just whinged about economics. How do you intend to derive a sound conclusion? Go for the standard "its true cos I say it is" non-economic approach loved by the right wing?

Good luck with the sales! It does explain why you're not aware of those 20,000 research articles though...​

It just amused me that you've done nothing but whinge about economics, despite health economics being such a key sub-discipline in the health field. You tripped yourself up somewhat, then blamed me for smiling.​

Back to your "I don't need to know any economics to debate economics" fallacy! If you were going to be credible, you'd refer to the importance of adopting a pluralist perspective. A Marxist, for example, will have a different understanding of union effects than a Chicago Economist. Anarchism, mind you, actually derived similar analysis as Thatcherism (with both acknowledging that globalisation, and therefore a corporate race to the bottom, is a means to minimise union power). I'm of course happy to acknowledge that the previous discussion was focused more on neoclassical insights (but with Austrian ideas thrown in). Of course I also ensured reference to empirical testing of those insights. Can we therefore 'accept' the neoclassical perspective? Nope. However, we can certainly reject the hypothesis that unions necessarily reduce employment. ​

I have no need to question the power of your pitch! However, it is 100% fact that you were completely unaware of how the medical profession embeds econometrics within its research.​

Some might say that the failure to have an economics debate (given its a forum and given this is an economics topic) is confusing. I don't. As I said, you've not provided any analysis relevant to the topic. You have neither theoretical or empirical insight.

Round and round you go. Why does the medical profession employ so many health economists?​

Please don't deliberately misrepresent! I've stated that we aren't having an economics debate. I've also explained why: you ave deliberately hidden from the economic analysis into unions and you've adopted a 'we don't need economics when talking economics' mantra. ​

Back to the question. Why does the medical profession employ so many health economists?

 

But economics is not science. It is social analysis and the subject of the analysis is humanity which, as we all know, is not consistent in anything. Economics deals with moving targets.

Because he understands the fact that economics is a collection of opinions with no proof of anything.