Given we can look back at history and see direct causal links between industrial action and subsequent improvements, there is no way to take this seriously.
I have no doubt you're right that it correlates neatly with different income levels, but I find it comical that you think that addresses the issue.
I also note that you claimed working hours as a normal good whose demand would rise with income but ignored the point that the demand far preceded the economic ability to bargain for it with money, and that the demand was not constrained by lack of money. The notion that it fits your description at all is bizarre.
EDIT: I'll also note that after having had time to skim the article you linked, it does not appear to even attempt to make an argument aligned with yours. The author very specifically points out significant confounding factors, such as whether or not unions resistance in the specific given conditions affected productivity negatively or hindered productivity improvements.
A union certainly can make a wrong tradeoff - Indian unions prioritised keeping the intensity of the work down, at the cost of reducing their then-future ability to demand higher incomes. But they were only able to have that negative effect on future wages because their activism had a substantial effect on working conditions and by extension productivity.
That their goal was short sighted does not change that if anything it is a demonstration of the substantial impact unions do have.
That there is a risk that a too successful union can end up having an adverse effect by accident is nothing new either - it's if anything one of the historical conflicts within the labour movement in terms of outlook on the approach between seeing it as about conditions at individual workplaces or tied to local concerns vs. inherently a political and society-wide and international concern.
> I also note that you claimed working hours as a normal good whose demand would rise with income [...]
No, leisure is the normal good. And so is safe food and clean air etc.
> Given we can look back at history and see direct causal links [...]
How do 'see' direct causal links? Just because people work to achieve X, and then X happens, is not a direct causal link. Eg praying for winter to be over, doesn't mean that there is a direct causal link with spring coming eventually. And fans cheering for their sports team to win, don't have much of an influence on whether their team actually wins.
Or to give an example from history: the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is often seen as the event that triggered the Great War; but few people assign it much importance as an underlying cause.
> I have no doubt you're right that it correlates neatly with different income levels, but I find it comical that you think that addresses the issue.
If income levels explain all the variation between countries, and levels of union activism are just noise, I am not sure why you need to appeal to union activism as a cause?
It's like looking at the correlation between taking antibiotics and recovery from infection, but then adding fervent prayer as a causal explanation for some reason.
The tide eventually receded from King Canute, but that's not because of anything he did.
EDIT: I mostly agree with your edit. A parasite should be careful not to kill the host.
> No, leisure is the normal good. And so is safe food and clean air etc.
You got what I meant unless you're being obtuse. The point remains that the demand preceded the financial ability to bargain for it. It was independent of income.
> How do 'see' direct causal links?
By looking at when employers offered concessions in order to end strikes etc. Now you are being obtuse. Go back and look at newspaper archives from major labour conflicts and the concessions negotiated with the union actions as the direct and immediate reason cited by employers themselves, even at times after having spent fortunes on people like Pinkerton to try to intimidate and harm workers to get them back to work first.
> If income levels explain all the variation between countries, and levels of union activism are just noise, I am not sure why you need to appeal to union activism as a cause?
I've seen no evidence that they explain all the variation. I've agreed they likely correlate with much of it. Now consider that income-differences do not just magically spring into existence either, and while there are certainly multiple factors again we have extensive examples of direct cause and effect in terms of negotiation and subsequent agreements.
> A parasite should be careful not to kill the host.
When you describe workers as parasites, that is utterly vile and explains a lot. And so we are done here.
Unions are bureaucracies and have an organisational life of their own. You can't just equate them with workers. (In addition, there are also non-unionised workers.)
> but ignored the point that the demand far preceded the economic ability to bargain for it with money, and that the demand was not constrained by lack of money
You don’t know what demand means in an economic context here. Ops point is that as wages increase, people aren’t going to accept 70 hour workweeks if they can get by on 40.
> Given we can look back at history and see direct causal links between industrial action and subsequent improvements, there is no way to take this seriously.
Feel free to point them out and show how unions were required in every country to get the same thing. Things happening around the same time does not imply causation.
Union members were likely emboldened as pay increased because they could ride out strikes. At the same time, people could just get by on fewer shifts because pay increased. This creates downward pressure on required weekly hours (because many people to value their time), regardless of the union activities.
“The 8 hour work day was paid for in blood” is a great signal that you’re already very pro union (it’s literally union propaganda), so I don’t expect your view to shift much here. But consider that many professions flourished without unions (tech, law, banks, engineering, etc).
> You don’t know what demand means in an economic context here. Ops point is that as wages increase, people aren’t going to accept 70 hour workweeks if they can get by on 40.
Which misses the point that when these changes started being demanded and won people couldn't afford to walk away.
> Feel free to point them out and show how unions were required in every country to get the same thing.
Nice try, but that was not the claim I made, nor one I even agree with. The 8 hour working day was largely won by US unions, after which it became substantially easier to win elsewhere as the doom and gloom predicted by employers didn't materialise and reduced the perceived need to resist it.
With respect to US unions, there is plenty of material you can easily google, but you can start by looking at e.g. the 1835 Paterson textile strike, which was one of the first major ones, and which "failed" when employers only offered about half the reduction in working hours employers demanded, but it nevertheless gained them a significant reduction as a direct result of the strike.
> Union members were likely emboldened as pay increased because they could ride out strikes.
History largely shows the opposite. Workers coming to the cities facing lack of employment opportunities were relentlessly exploited, and were a major factor in the growth of labour unions.
In the US you also saw major effects of actual salary drops in some cases, e.g. the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.
Union members risked life and limb and imprisonment early on because the conditions they were working in were horrific. Unions have softened and their membership has cratered as pay then increased because if anything better paid workers are less interested in disrupting what they already have and tend to be less interested in putting effort into it.
> At the same time, people could just get by on fewer shifts because pay increased. This creates downward pressure on required weekly hours (because many people to value their time), regardless of the union activities.
This is just entirely counterfactual. Taking fewer shifts wasn't generally an option on offer, and didn't become an option until decades into the fight to lower working hours.
> (it’s literally union propaganda)
It's literally true, whether you're pro union or not.
See e.g. the Bay View Massacre, when the Wisconsin National Guard fired at strikers demanding an 8 hour working day and 7 people died as a result. It is by no means the only incidence of US government or Pinkerton agents and others firing directly at strikers.
The reason May 1st is the international day for labour demonstrations are incidentally a direct after-effect of the Chicago Haymarket Massacre, also an outcome of the eight hour working day demonstrations. I gave the Bay View Massacre because it's a simpler one - not nearly as murky. Preceding the Haymarket massacre police murdered workers the day before. During the demonstrations at Haymarket, someone - who is unknown - threw a bomb, and so while the police ended up killing multiple murders, it's unclear how to assign blame. Several union organizers were then executed without any evidence they had anything to do with the bomb.
> But consider that many professions flourished without unions (tech, law, banks, engineering, etc).
>
> They are by no means requisite for improvements.
Yes, in roles that are either highly regulated and/or high skilled so there is a reasonable balance of supply and demand people can do well, yes. Nobody has claimed no improvement can happen without them, nor that there are no groups who won't do well without them, so that is irrelevant to the claims I've made.
I have no doubt you're right that it correlates neatly with different income levels, but I find it comical that you think that addresses the issue.
I also note that you claimed working hours as a normal good whose demand would rise with income but ignored the point that the demand far preceded the economic ability to bargain for it with money, and that the demand was not constrained by lack of money. The notion that it fits your description at all is bizarre.
EDIT: I'll also note that after having had time to skim the article you linked, it does not appear to even attempt to make an argument aligned with yours. The author very specifically points out significant confounding factors, such as whether or not unions resistance in the specific given conditions affected productivity negatively or hindered productivity improvements.
A union certainly can make a wrong tradeoff - Indian unions prioritised keeping the intensity of the work down, at the cost of reducing their then-future ability to demand higher incomes. But they were only able to have that negative effect on future wages because their activism had a substantial effect on working conditions and by extension productivity.
That their goal was short sighted does not change that if anything it is a demonstration of the substantial impact unions do have.
That there is a risk that a too successful union can end up having an adverse effect by accident is nothing new either - it's if anything one of the historical conflicts within the labour movement in terms of outlook on the approach between seeing it as about conditions at individual workplaces or tied to local concerns vs. inherently a political and society-wide and international concern.