And I'm saying that will still happen even if we get rid of amazon. The knock-off phenomena is way more about easy access to low-cost, low-volume overseas production, drop shipping, etc. than access to proprietary sales data.

Yes unions almost always do that and in fact they would negligent in not utilizing their power to maximize gains for their members if they did.

The problem is the Union method is broken. Unions are good, but the model needs to change. Instead Unions should be encouraged and not fought but they need to be true stakeholders in the companies.

It is in the best interest of the company to give them a profit share and wage top up, connected to productivity and profits. Then the unions and employees are motivated to work efficiently. To keep employee numbers to the optimal need.

The system today pits unions and the employees Versus the Shareholders. Each side trying to grab up as much as the pie as they can leverage. Thus a union is incentivized to bloat employee numbers, slow down work efficiency, etc so that more employees are needed and more of the money is transferred to their members.

Problem is that is long term destructive to the companies. It makes it anti-competitive and eventually they go out of business or need massive restructuring and cut backs.

Unions don't hire employees, management does. Unions also don't stop incentives that get employees to produce more.

Unions are practically non-existent in the private sector today. Do companies not go out of business anymore ?

All anyone has to do is google and see that when unions are plentiful production and wages are tied together. When not, production goes up and wages stagnate. It's simple, no union = no place at the table when the spoils are divided up.

I do agree that the relationship shouldn't be an adversarial but that would mean random third party investors couldn't get rich off the labor of the employees and the ideas of management. In other words, the leisure classes would have to do something productive with their time.
That ain't happening.

I don't honestly know if that's true but assuming it is, everyone has the same access to overseas production and shipping. The access to proprietary sales data puts Amazon at an advantage. Along with it's vertical monopoly that should be at least examined. I mean, unless you don't think monopolies are harmful. They are the end game of any capitalistic system.

Once again, Scrooge McDuck shows his ugly little head. The "leisure class" largely make their money on the sale of stock....not the revenue of the company.

Speak of the devil and his little imp is sure to chime in.

Most of what you hear from the left about unions is about how they improve wages, and reduces their hours for their members, but is it sustainable? The stuff I found that was pro union stuff indicated clearly they did not address the broader economic impact, but rather the impact it had on wages.

I find that statement very naive. What ultimately dictates the number of people needed is worker output.

Less output = new hires.

Unions leaders and membership are not dumb. They understand this dynamic.

NO. But the adversarial system does. Like I said, in a better union system 'productivity goals' would be the key marker for AUTOMATIC profit share for employees. That would align the workers and Owners alike as no one would want extra people on staff not needed and thus cutting profitability and thus individual workers bonuses or top ups.




HUh? Not sure what you are replying to there??

No one is saying business is perfect with out a union and all businesses thrive without unions.

But what I will say is that i have never seen Unions rush in to unionize a business that is dying. To bring the 'union benefit' to that dying business to try and save it. It is invariably the biggest and most successful companies that are targeted for unionization as they best can withstand, for the longest, the inevitable decline in competitiveness this adversarial relationship causes.


I believe in Unions, as a model, just not the current one we too often see in N.America. I believe Germany and maybe Japan both have union philosophies more aligned to what I am promoting here.

Investors care about maximizing return. My union model would do just that.

If each employee knew that their monthly bonus pay and a profit share at year end was tied to productivity goals, each employee would want efficiency too. They would want no employee bloat. They would no excess hires.

The employees should have FIRST say over when a new employee is added to a department. They might have better ideas to address production needs. Once recommended or not then Management must sign off, but again based on production needs being met or not.

Germany has powerful unions and also manages to be a manufacturing/ exporting power house punching well above its weight, which it obviously could not do if Unions were unduly effecting its competitiveness.

This is due to the principle of codetermination.

"Codetermination in Germany is a concept that involves the right of workers to participate in management of the companies they work for. Known as Mitbestimmung, the modern law on codetermination is found principally in the Mitbestimmungsgesetz of 1976. The law allows workers to elect representatives (usually trade union representatives) for almost half of the supervisory board of directors. The legislation is separate from the main German company law Act for public companies, the Aktiengesetz. It applies to public and private companies, so long as there are over 2,000 employees. For companies with 500–2,000 employees, one third of the supervisory board must be elected.

There is also legislation in Germany, known as the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, whereby workers are entitled to form Works Councils at local shop floor level."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codete...f%20directors.

And the data piece is key.

I would not be against the gov't saying you cannot both be the 'marketplace' and be a 'competitor' in the market place within the same company.

There is a pretty clear conflict of interest whether it be a large grocery chain or Amazon. If these guys want to get into the 'selling goods in the marketplace' game do so by spinning out a new and separate company. That new company can launch all the products it wants, but make sure the 'Marketplace' gives no proprietary advantage to any 'retailer' in that market place that any other retailer could not get from them. Sell the data to ALL who want it.

Sure there would still be potential for abuse but you put in real penalties for that.

Ya I mentioned the German model above. Thx for putting some meat on that bone. I believe Japan has something similar too.

I do not blame the workers and Unions only as the US model of being antagonistic instead of synergistic also comes from the top, Management and Ownership.

The US has a real default position of 'fighting' over 'compromise' and then thinking nice people (charity) will share from that position of strength, after the fact.

The union wants new hires. The individual worker will take the incentives though. That's just the way it works on any job.




Oh. It sounded as though you were blaming unions (that pretty much don't exist) for the failure of any business.

That's a common Koch Brother meme.

Well, you're allowed to be a pessimist.
The biggest and most successful companies are making the most out of their employees labor so...yeah. They are the logical place to put your resources if you're a union.

A dying business is going to die no matter what.
A thriving business isn't going to die because the workers are unionized.
That's just passing the buck. Poor management drives companies into the ground and once they're failing unions may help them fail a bit faster. But blaming unions is just baby conservo babble.


Sure. I'm open to a German model since they seem to be kicking everyone's ass AND maintaining a thriving middle class. Good luck convincing your conservative friends though.




Plenty of companies offer bonuses. Unions don't prohibit that.
I think bonuses are a good motivator too.

You mean don't treat the employees as chattel ?

The investor class won't like that. tsk tsk.

So the Koch funded George Mason University came out with a faux academic article saying unions are bad ?

Tell me more you greedy little man.

Investor Class has been largely been taken over by a Day Trader type 'short term' profits model at the expense of 'long term value building'.

Short term profits say 'strip R&D, Sell off Assets, and gut employees to a minimal viable number for TODAY. Get that immediate bottom like Profit impact, spike the stock and cash out.

All while ignoring the impact of what that does to the company in the future. That is some other CEO's and Investors problem and we simply would have moved on by then to the next company.

But that can be changed. Warren Buffet proves every day that the long term, invest in the company, not strip it, model is actually more profitable over time. You just have to wait and stick with it.


(BTW that type of short term view is exactly how Trump bankrupted most of his companies and how he was giving Americans a sugar rush by piling debt into an already hot economy)

Article in Journal of Labor Research 23(1):105-130 · February 2002

You have backwards, the research led to the funding, not the funding to the research. But, discount the economist who produces results that are contrary to your deeply held views. Let's not pretend you guys actually care about bonafides, I mean, you all cite "expert" activist with no basis on actual research when it come gender issues, but a reputable economist who produces research that goes against your deeply held belief, has to be nefarious. (Nevermind those experts were contradicted just recently by updated NIS posting on gender treatment)

Uhh, that in no way says anything about whether Koch foundations funded the university before that time, it's just a statement of how much was donated in that period. In reality the Koch's have been funding GMU and what is now known as the Mercatus Center since the mid 80s:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ert-operations

https://publicintegrity.org/environm...litical-power/


Edit: After posting this I realised that I'm not actually sure why RFlush mentioned GMU in the first place. As far as I can tell the paper that itshot linked was from academics at Ohio University.

What I'm trying to get at is why you think it's wrong for Amazon to offer a private label iPhone cable but apparently don't have an issue with Best Buy doing the same.

I did not know that about Koch, so when I saw it I did a quick search about Koch funding GMU. I knew they were it OU, but did not think about that fact. Snuck premise.

You know why he brought up Koch, just like righties bring up Soros. The idea is to discredit the person/institution without contending with the argument/research/data, the veracity of the discredit is irrelevant. It's always about the character of the person/institution.

It is very anti competitive when Best Buy or a Grocery Chain does it too, but it is so much worse now in the digital/data age where Amazon is not just putting a competitive private label product on the shelf beside an established one but they also use their digital marketplace to ensure their product is found first, and they can utilize the mass amounts of data in ways that brick and mortar retailers never had access to.

Dude, you quoted a Koch funded think tank and then accused me of exactly what you yourself did (cherry picking one report that says what you like). And you're still trying to accuse me of posting in bad faith.

Grow up.

My actual problem with Amazon is that they're a vertical monopoly.
I'm not a big fan of stealing ip though, as I think it stifles innovation which is the only real benefit our system has. But I get it. The system is build on stealing the labor of others.

I still think you are missing the key point. You think the widget maker created something novel, and should reap the reward and we should restrict competition.


At it's logical conclusion, you are arguing that Coca-Cola should have a monopoly on cola soda. Do you think all these folks are ripping Coca Cola off, for selling their version of cola flavored soda?


Keep in mind, that list does not even get into the private labels.

Can't argue with that.

Stripping companies and making money off their demise should obviously never have been legal. I mean, if one believes in the market then you invest in a winner and are rewarded but in a loser and you should also lose.

Don't make it about me when it's pointed out your claim is full of ****. You need to cite something that proves it was funded by Koch (which you won't, because it was produced by Ohio University, not a think tank), and when you do that, you need to show that that invalidates the research (hint: that is impossible, because the funding does not invalidate the research).

Of course you make it about me, and the Koch brothers. I cited a research journal, not a think tank. You are ****ing liar. Your imagination is not the truth.
#toxiccult.

For the record, I don't think you post in bad faith, I think you post in full faith, it's just you have faith in bullshit, even when it's pointed out it's bullshit. You are member of a cult that rationalizes things that goes against your deeply held belief. You just knew this was from some think tank, and it wasn't, but you double down, you still have full faith this was produced by a think tank, you also have full faith that somehow invalidates the research. The rational way to refute research is to point out it's flaws, not erroneously guessing who funded/produced it.