It is also funny that I can use your EXACTLY SAME sentence for the capitalism (instead of saying "union" I say "capital") and it will be 100% accurate.
Orestis Koutsos like we’re slaves...not 100%. i take the job or whatever bc i want to money and they want the work. they have to pay fair or else they dont get the work i give
@@keltonhutchison5951 not all business owners, construction trades benefit greatly on large projects. Need 50 plumbers tomorrow with medical gas certs, call the union. When the job is done lay them off. To your point, tons of union jobs are unskilled, and the NLRB screws business into being organized.
I could listen to him all day, he is the kind of professor that college must have, but I’m afraid a lot of those liberals that listened to him rejected his teachings and now themselves are the professors thus communism is here, God have mercy on this nation.
Especially when you can use your intelligence to pose arguments that protect companies from liability of dangerous products, and convince people that safety regulations, safe products and a decent wage are actually bad for them; and then receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the companies that paid you to make those arguments. That's awesome.
@@FKAAYA, Um.......no. I'm a conservative Democrat. Just because I'm not a troll who supports the mean spirited propaganda of a dishonest little dead troll doesn't make me a socialist. It's also kind of weird that a guy who calls himself "Pot head" is calling people "socialist". You don't meet a lot of uptight conservative potheads. If you're going to troll, can you please be consistent with your username? Don't be a lazy troll. Also, stop hiding behind a girl's picture if you're going to troll. That's just sad, bro....
A few years after this video was made ~1987, I was matched up in a golf tournament with two men from Detroit. One was a supervisor with 25 yrs working for GM. He was in his early forties and a 2 handicap. Over a several-hour period he reveal that his position enabled him to have a Country Club membership and play 3+ rounds a week. Imagine my surprise when he told me he was making $110,000 - $120,000 (with overtime) per year with just a high school education. I was surprised that the AFLCIO didn't make it into Milt's discussion. When I asked this man how he gotten his job, he said the same way everyone got their job, his father knew a guy who worked for the union. Historical productivity at GM was 20% lower than their Japanese non-union counterparts and yet they were paid 75% more (fully-loaded).
Not too bad for the richest country in the world. The problem is that is what they are trying to destroy. I am not to sure what your point is but I was a machinist in the steel industry and made close to that. It was piecework so you only got good money if you work like a sled dog. No complaints here it's just a shams it had to stop. Just another brick in the wall.
Uber Genie This is EXACTLY the case with Hyundai Motors union workers in South Korea, right now in 2016. In a country with a GDP per capita of approx. $30,000 usd, the workers there are getting paid close to $90,000, with stock options and other bonuses on top of that, AND they inherit their positions in the factory to their kids.
I find it hilarious when people compare the USA to Japan or China. We are americans and we are entitled to living wages and safe working conditions. Sorry that we dont get paid as terrible as Japan and have horrid working conditions.
"Entitled to living wages?" Did you watch the video? You seemed to miss the point where free individuals would rather have more wages and the living conditions they have. But why focus on the data from interviewing a bunch of "foreigners" from Japan and China? After all American liberals are don't need data messing up their economic opinions, and Japanese and Chinese need American liberals telling them how to think, not asking their opinion. I find it hilarious when people actually get to think for themselves. And make free choices. If Hillary had been elected she would have put an end to those pesky choices once and for all.
Your spelling and grammar make it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that regardless of the wages that people have, people want more? The middle class has shrunk with the lowering of union membership. RTW states also have higher poverty rates, lower wages and more injuries on the job. God bless unions.
A union worker told me, "try waiting 4 hours for an electrician to come and flip a breaker switch, with your entire line shutdown the whole time. Because if one of us flipped it, it's considered "taking someone else's job"."
But, were you on the clock getting paid while you were waiting or were assigned other tasks rather then being herded into the swing room and being taken off the clock or sent home without pay?
@@lynnwood7205 I've never experienced any of those things ...and I've also never been in a union. So please take your propaganda somewhere else. Pretending work conditions are like they were in the 1920's is all you have?
@@truckerenoch8824 Don't worry, those conditions will return with the twist of whatever technology is the fad. The working conditions of the 1940' s, 50's, 60's were an aberration of our history.
You forgot the part where without a union, you would have no benefits, no overtime, no vacation time, no sick time, no safety standards to protect you if you have a risky job working with hazardous materials, and no days off. You know, little things like that that you think companies always willingly provided.
@@Morbutt , Insurance and benefits did not exist before unions. They only came into existence after unions. You are riding on the blood, sweat and tears (literally) of those that sacrificed their lives, were jailed, beaten, and murdered to get you those benefits, that took decades of marching and striking to get. And without unions, those rights and benefits, and a fair wage, are slowly being stripped away. Now That's something to go "huh" over.....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 And all this time you're dodging the original post in this comment thread. So people died, bled, were beaten, etc. so Jose can sleep at his desk and still collect a paycheck. I'm sure you said "huh" at that, too. You're arguing in favor of what unions used to be, not really what they are now. It's like you're just making up your own debate here because I can tell you get a kick out of being a smarmy asshat in youtube comment sections. The only good thing I have ever heard about present-day unions is the nice wages you get. Too bad these places of employment which have these benefits ends up having lay-offs seasonally...
At its most fundamental, a union is nothing more or less than a group of people who have figured out that if they act together to place limits on the supply of their own labor, the businesses that have a demand for that labor will need to pay more. Unions are basically employee-owned businesses that sell labor. Like any good business, they try to both encourage demand and control the supply.
Except unions couldn't exist without government coercion. If a company could replace any striking worker and retaliate without legal repercussions, the company would not have to worry about the supply of labor because plenty of other people would be willing to accept the jobs.
Capitalism can't exist without government granting authoritative 'private property rights' and enforcing property laws in a coercive manner. Government coercion, violence, plunder, war and rape is at the heart of the capitalist socioeconomic system.
Fred Hampton's Ghost Private property rights are natural Lockean rights, under the idea that so long as property was obtained without infringing on the rights of others, the property rights should be protected. Labor unions infringe upon the rights of employers to employ people in a way that they see fit.
A very civic minded person (my father) who was born a tic before the Great Depression said to me, as I was becoming a young man; “The unions built the greatest country in the world, and the unions are now destroying it by their greed and protectionism.” RIP dad.
There are less unions now in this country than there were in the last 60 years. Did your dad know that? Median income fell in direct proportion to the decline of unions. Did your dad know that too?
The unions are still ran by the workers people are mistaken international trade is killing this country how much do machinist make in China how much do machinist make in the usa now let's look at cost of living just saying look at the big picture like politics and deregulation how that has helped industry in the usa
@@joev2654 International trade wouldn't be as big of an issue if there wasn't such a big difference in wages. Unions have done good things but they've also screwed up other things.
I'm fine with private workers voluntarily joining together for collective bargaining. Where I break with them is forcing people to join against their will and forcing them to pay dues to an a organization they don't or wish to associate with. I view voluntary collective bargaining as another mechanism of the free market. I view involuntary union membership and dues payments as an extension of slavery
So when you need counsel, get hurt and can't work, you go on strike or get locked out what happens then? That is why you pay dues. Without funding, like any organization, the Union goes broke. Right to work States are just an underhanded way to bankrupt Unions.
Freidman must have loved the neoliberal solution to unions: outsourcing and contractors. Now the workers do not even know the name of the company they work for, except that it is not the one where they work in person.
On paper, unions are fine until they insist that you don't own the business that you own, they own the business that you own. If you don't like the conditions of a job then quit. Don't presume to control what is not yours.
Demanding safe working conditions and a livable wage isn't "controlling the business". Giving workers a reason to stay with your company and preserve their retirement benefits gives them motivation to work better and not make mistakes that will endanger what they have...
@Ken MacDonald , yes, the "violent police state", forcing innocent businesses to serve blacks, give women equal pay for equal work, and not allow businesses to discriminate based on religion or race. That evil, evil police state. You sound like a bitter sweat shop owner who is angry basic protections came in. Dude, move to Mexico or China. You can treat human workers like the disposable refuse you want to treat them like....
Yes But you missed the point of second half of the video. Unions are able to dictate wages beyond what is reasonable to pay them for an employer to make profit. Unless the target market agrees to pay those wages. So you can collectively ask a group of carpenters to do their work for lower pay. That group of carpenters might agree to it, however, the quality will probably reflect that lower wage and lower quality and expediency of more products. However, by keeping the wage lower, you allow more individuals to enter the workforce to challenge the status quo of those carpenters. this creates demand. But when you force an employer of carpenters to raise wages, you inadvertently raise prices. You must so the employer can stay profitable.
@@garrettmeyer9771So the profit margin for workers diminishes as the profit margin for capitalists rises. And wouldn't you know it, prices are hiked all the same *GASP* and here we are with American families rationing healthcare & food spending.
Will Poundstone But it's not easy. Unions do, in many places, officially sort of represent the "working class", the ones in stress, those in need, those poor poor puppy-eyed romatic and degraded yet noble working men. As you probably suspect, I do not share that view of the unions. Anyhow. If a politican tries to critisize them it's hard to avoid being branded as evil incarnate.
Alot of selective criticism , and presenting hypothetical outcomes as real. His data is "believe him because he said so". "I'm not against unions" I'm just criticizing them. He objects to unions making more money for it's members. He also presents hypothetical outcomes that it lowers the pay of other jobs.
So, his point is to get rid of unions so more people can work for less money. Yeah, ok, just follow that logic along. If labor is a commodity, then capital will, according to him, and he is right, seek to pay the least it can for this commodity. Without unions and other labor organizations, your pay, unless you happen to have a high skilled job at Google or Apple or other similar company, will plummet. Why do you think American Corporations are sending jobs overseas? Because they want to spread their altruistic generosity to the huddled masses? Get real. Without unions, labor has no voice. "Right to work" is nothing more than union busting, and if and when this idea catches on, capital will squeeze every penny out of labor for profit. Yet without labor, nothing would get done. Without labor, capital would not exist. Without labor, there would be no wealthy class. But you folks here go on believing that capital will, out of the goodness of it's heart, pay you a "fair wage". Go on believing that the current minimum wage and safety standards and other labor laws will stay on the books. Sure they will. You keep on believing that. Unions need to be made stronger, not busted. This guy is a tool for capital, and anyone who agrees with him, who is not a wealthy capitalist, is a fool.
His point is when you restrict the supply of labor, it's cost goes up- which is what Unions do, they make labor more expensive. The reaction then is to replace the Union worker with a machine or a non Union worker. Unions like the UAW only thrive when there is no competition in an industry.
+george markunas Wrong. Read up on the history of the Ford Motor Company. Long before there was a United Auto Workers union, Ford found that it was to his self-interest to raise wages. He found that with too low of a wage, he had a very large employee turnaround. When he raised wages, he found he could retain his best workers, train them more, and his company became more productive and more profitable for him. And Milton Friedman is not saying what you say he said.And American companies are now sending jobs overseas because America's regulatory environment has become less business friendly. We have the highest corporate incoem tax of any developed nation and massive regulation. So the facts you cite are evidence that such government actions are BAD for workers.The onyl thing that can truly increase real wages for the long-term for everyone is increases in labor productivity. And when labor productivity increases, nothing CAN keep real wages from increasing, except maybe government siphoning off the product of that labor productivity.
+george markunas the issue with unions is that someone has to pick up the tab of who should pay the union's increased wages. It is either the rest of the non-union workers, as described by Friedman, or the consumer which he or she pays in higher prices of goods. Now, in a free market of competitive, numerous businesses, eventually wages should appreciate as companies need more workers to produce an increased demand by consumers. America did not see itself experience some of the best economic boom when it was a barren wasteland in the 1800s to the early 1900s through unions. Lives of individuals improved because the economy improved not because of minimum wages or unions.
corporations move jobs overseas to avoid paying the high cost of the unions - and to avoid excessive corporate taxation - and to avoid all the overly burdensome EPA regulations - its sad that its easier and cheaper for a US based company to produce a product overseas and bring it back to the US rather than to produce it here in the first place - the most powerful - successful unions today are PUBLIC Sector unions - where the tax payer is forced to pay the cost at the demand of politicians -
@@SaulOhio no, better re read up on ol hank ford. He didn't just raise wages out of the goodness of his heart or cause he was some brilliant thinker like you say. He did it because people stood up to the pittance they were making n said enough is enough. People literally died for those hikes in wages. They came together kinda like a union before that was a thing. If it was up to ol hank they would've still worked 12hrs a day 6 days a week. If it weren't for them coming together n showing that the worker who makes the product are equally as important as the businessman with the idea we'd still be stuck in early 1900s working conditions. That sounds great huh
I think people misunderstand Friedman's position on Unions. He didn't want Unions to not be allowed to exist, he just wanted government to stay out of it entirely.
One of the rare moments where I disagree with Friedman. Unions are an element of the free market. They are simply workers who band together to sell their labor at a higher price. Banning unions would be depriving people with their right to freedom of association. If you ban unions, you must also ban businesses from integrating or merging with each other. I doubt Friedman would have been in favor of that.
You misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't saying to ban unions. He was saying that government enforces unions are the problem. As a Libeterian he knows that all actions must be voluntary. So voluntary unions are ok because they can not force the business from hiring others. But government enforced unions give the unions unjust and unfair powers that they otherwise couldn't have achieved
Uniins were created by the literal mafia. All unions are total garbage. Ask any successful freelancer in any right to work state if they would ever even consider joining a union. They will laugh at you. Example: Union guys who do my exact job make $35 per hour, max. I charge $600 *day rate* ($60 an hour for 10 hours minimum) not, by the hour, and then *daily* OT after 10 hours @ $90. I stay busy almost year 'round. My friend joined the local hall at the same time Instarted freelancing. He was on their C-list for 5 years, only geyting one call per year because the union office workers would boom their own husbands and keep all of the work for theirselves, all wbile he owed "dues" every quarter. The one call he would gwt per year would be *at night* to report the next morning somewhere, a thing scoffed at at in my industry, because freelancers must book way in advance. All these years later he still only gets minimal work out of them for $35hr max, and has to work elsewhere to make a living all year. Another guy I know in a different union was a journeyman level 1 for over a decade, then moved to a new state, and he was no "brother" when he got there. They told him he would have to start all the way back over again at C-list like a beginner in the industry, that his level 1 only counted at his particular hall. He was so pissed he contacted local 1, filed a bunch of complaints, and never got anywhere with it. He reluctantly had to leave his lifelong career and start all over doing something totally different, because he could tell he wasn't going to ever gat any work out of them. Garbage. All of them.
Yes, the real world effect of unions. My grandfather was a coal miner in Virginia. People kept dying in the coal mines because of preventable accidents. The coal company refused to pay for filter masks to protect the miners from black lung disease, because they cost thirty dollars a piece. The miners went on strike. Instead of negotiating with them, the coal company paid goons to bash their heads in with clubs. My grandfather received a fractured skull. The strike was busted when scabs were brought in to fill the spots. My grandfather couldn't find work anywhere else. When he recovered, he had to take a job at the very same company that almost murdered him, in order to prevent his family from starving. He died 10 years later of black lung disease. My grandmother took care of him at home, where his children (my father, uncle and aunt) heard him wheezing and gasping for breath until he finally died an agonizing death. He received no payout from the company. The workers finally unionized the coal company years later (after once again being beaten down by company goons), and the coal company finally paid for the goddamned filter masks the coal miners couldn't afford. Black lung disease decreased dramatically after that. It was only because of the union that the workers were finally protected by filter masks. There is no doubt in my mind that Milton Friedman would have explained to them how having filter masks would only hurt them, how the union would only hurt them, and how suing the coal company AFTER your loved one dies of black lung disease is the "best way to regulate the company". And he would have done it with a smirk on his face, after receiving the same money he received from car companies for doing the same thing.....
Dude, chill. Even libertarians are not against private workers coming together to form a union. The whole point is a fair amount of unions are Compulsory in the US, and have become monoliths that have lost their way, being political machines more than union. A union for coal miners getting shit on by a company is the textbook reason for a union. He and most libertarians and conservatives when they talk about bullshit unions talk about people who can't rewire a house without being in a union, who can't be a teacher without being in a union, who are prevented from doing an easy repair or task at their job without a member of that union without getting sued, that unions use their dues for political donations whose workers may not align with their politics. In a way, big unions become corporations, but instead of selling cellphones, they sell access to work, and workers to companies.
@@Dogofwarno7 , I agree that unions can get in the way of their own stated purpose, and should never alienate their own members that way. Because of corporations and Republicans like Scott Walker in Wisconsin actively undermining them, unions have been declining in the US for the past 50 years, and the government's own statistics show a matching decline in average wages along with it....
Nice anecdotal story...I'm wondering, was your grandfather paying for a house he could not afford, or a car he could not afford, or any other necessity he could not afford on an incremental basis? Could he have taken out a loan to purchase a mask? There are countless jobs that require laborers to purchase and own their own tools. At what point do we draw the line at which the company is required to provide for the laborer to do their job up to their own arms and legs?
@@aliensoup2420 , Nice snarky response. I'm going to take a chance that you're just a bro with a 'tude, and not a simple troll. I don't think you care about any of the questions you asked me, but I'll answer them anyway. I'll start by assuming that you don't know much about the mining companies in West Virginia in the 1930s and 40s, and how they kept people in virtual slavery. First, the miners stayed in company-owned housing. Some of them were like tiny houses, some of them were apartments. None of them were luxurious. Secondly, my grandfather did not own a car. He walked to work, he walked home. Miners were expected to buy their own hard hats. If you lost yours, you were expected to buy another. Third, my grandfather was not paid in money when he began mining; he was paid in company scrip. Company scrip was the mining company's way of controlling miners. You could only use it to buy overpriced items in the company store. That way, the mining companies could keep miners from ever saving enough money to quit. Look it up. My family lived it. In 1938, the Federal government Finally clamped down on this practice and the miners were paid in actual dollars. The mining company that bashed my grandfather's head in when he joined a strike naturally felt no obligation towards him when he contracted black lung disease, and my grandmother and the adult children cared for him at home until he died. My father was in Vietnam when he died, and was not allowed to come home to attend the funeral, due to his older brother already being available to tend to the funeral arrangements. You can blame my grandfather for the circumstances of how he lived and died all you want, bro. I'll leave it to other people to form their own opinions as well.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Its true, Unions were formed originally to correct these obvious injustices, but today they are far from that. Now they function mainly as political entities - basically an arm of the Democrat party. Incidentally, I was initially introduced to the plight of the coal miners you describe, at the early age of 7 or 8, when my mother would play the song "Sixteen Tons" by Tennessee Ernie Ford, though at the time I was too young to understand what it meant. Only as an adult did I discover its true meaning, exactly as you described it.
Did you know that, whatever day off you eventually have every week/ month shluld be used to get the heck up, no matter how tired, and start hunting a different gig? That's literally how it gets done. Or, hey, keep yourself stuck there, so you can enjoy your day or two off every week.
Something that I find wild is that detailed empirical studies of how economies work weren't undertaken until the 90's. Everything before that point were largely theoretical "Grand Theories", that while detailed and logical, were derived from mathematical models.
Unions aren't just for people at the bottom. It is any worker who organizes. Why is it wrong for employees to improve their their benefits and increase wages. Is that only a thing that the investors are allowed to care about? Milton only wants his investors class to increase their earnings, but not employees.
I considered calling my union today. My new manager went behind my desk yesterday and rearranged all my binders so I couldn't find anything, even took my most important reference book with my important phone numbers to her office so I couldn't do my job for about an hour this morning. Then later talked to me like a kid saying she was going to have "expectations" of me. I've been doing this job longer than she's been a manager, I don't know who she thinks she is or where she got that tone of voice, but she's in for a fight. I think unions are good for ensuring you still have a job when it's jeopardized by a manager's inflated ego.
Trying to join the⚡ IBEW ⚡ myself. I'm trying to switch to a unionized field and retrain, because I'm so tired of working private and being treated like trash. Solidarity ⚒️.
I was an IBEW member for 7 years. It wasn’t until i left that my income and wealth started growing. Granted… i shifted from commercial to industrial. Still… the free market determines pay. The local couldnt put me to work but they sure came for my dues and assessments. Nah… im doing MUCH better marketing my skills on my own.
I was told during an apprenticeship it's not how skilled you are, it's who you know. And they who are aware of this are very cliquey and may decide they don't like you for any reason. Glad I helped those who appreciated it. Opportunity was more of a disappointment. Really were a few ungratefulls in there that treated apprentices like cheap laborers not worthy of a license.
Not sure why they would do that? We WANT new people in our trade. We'd all like to retire and would like the pension to keep rolling. For us and all members. As well as keep the skill, craftsmanship, and professionalism of our trade going. Apprentices do get some flack and do alot of the grunt (non-skilled) work. But if they pay attention and apply themselves, THEY will benefit when the complete apprenticeship. Really..if you are not catching some shit from the journeyman you need to step it up. The ones that are liked get the most.
Exactly. If it's just organised by the workers, it's just a means of creating balance between companies and workers, espacially in such jobs where the workers are highly replaceable. If the government gets involved and backs or empowers the unions, the balance goes to shit.
I will disagree with him on one point. The two most powerful unions start with the American Bar Association, followed by congress, then the American Medical Association .
It's funny how for a Capitalist the fact that many private companies can group up and form a Cartel (Trade Associations, Commerce Chambers, Consortiums) is a basic no brainer of capitalism. But when Workers do the same, in order to negotiate collectively (exactly in the same way companies do), they are shot down as Lazy or Communist.
butterflycaught900 im so glad someone pointed that out, i was about to write a comment myself not to mention the fact that "everyone acting in their self intrest as milton puts it, dosent actually forbidd unions in any way, its rather wierd that hes allowed to criticize something like this considering hes supposedly all for the "freedom" heh. Im guessing he mixed up freedom with being for hirarchy, who can blame him, most conservatives get it wrong aswell. as a last point, lazyness is as much a factor in unions as its a factor in being the leader of a company, its all about geting paid more, silly capitalists sometimes i lose all hope in rational thinking.
butterflycaught900 His argument was poor workers don't have the resources to devote in order to collectively negotiate, while those in more lucrative professions do. As a result, those in lucrative professions collectively negotiate and earn more at the expense of the common Joe who isn't able to do it. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. He goes much deeper, but the point must have flown over your head.
At this very moment, if she's still living, she's most likely living a luxurious lifestyle provided by capitalism while complaining to her facebook friends about how capitalism is so wrong.
Just the typical propaganda talk by a boss about how ineffective unions are and how you don't need to belong. The unions have always begun as voluntary organizations that faced fierce opposition from the bosses and the bosses government. They were able to push forward the struggle of not just few but the struggle of all the workers as a class for a better life and conditions despite employer opposition. The ability of any group of workers to win better conditions inspires others to demand the same.
His logic here seems like bullshit. We have the lowest union representation in America ever, but the working class is the poorest it's been in relativity to other classes.
Faffy Waffle you do understand that if workers stood up in the USSR they would be arrested, right? And it was the Polish workers who helped freed Poland from communist influence, right?
He is wrong, he said that unions result in a smaller job market and less demand. The airline union as he said is the strongest yet airline pilots are in high demand
Unions, and Government jobs actually create competition in wages, forcing private enterprise to pay the same as unions or Govenment in order to compete. Since we adopted Milton Friedman wages have dropped all across the board, 42 percent of all Americans make less than 15 dollars an hour. Business never went out of business as a result of higher wages. GM was the most profitable company in America before they got rid of there Unions and moved there jobs to Mexico.
@Jack McCabe The dropping of the gold standard happened in the 30's Over 90 years ago! Every westernized nation since then has done so, the effects were minimal, before we dumped the Gold standard it was worse! Also wage stagnation, and monopolization seem to only be happening here. Because of the hollowing out of Government, as well as Unions. Unions in the 70s made up to 60% of the work force, less than 20% now everyone else recognizes and actively fights monopolies ( killers of free enterprise and Democracy) in order to create competition, we don't. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher both dumped Keynes as the usage of his economic model for Friedman's in the 80's. Britain abandoned Friedman shortly there after and went back to Keynes.
@Jack McCabe No, a decade after the 70s would be the 80s. It is now forty years on and return on capital still VASTLY outstrips return on labour. I don't see how that weakens my point. Quite the opposite. Your ideas of prudent investment seem to ignore what actually happened, under the gold standard,around 1929.
Organized labor bad. Business organizations good. Friedman was first and foremost an ideologue. His ideological approach began with foundational assumptions that were fundamentally unsound. An unbalanced, dishonest, and ideologically biased assault on his subject matter followed.
To quote Kate Winslet, “If black could be turned into white by talking, you’d be the person for the job!” The problem with libertarian philosophy is that it’s just that, philosophy. I see it as similar to communism in that it assumes unbalanced distribution of power is better because man is inherently good. The biggest problem with libertarian philosophy of course is that even if unfettered capitalism was the best system for all, there’d be nothing preventing corporations at anytime from abusing their power and dragging a country into a third world state. Like JFK said, “Democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to build a wall to keep our people in.”
As a recently retired union construction tradesman, I am astounded at the number of negative comments. My wife and I are doing fine, I have not even asked or checked about Social Security yet because I have a UNION PENSION. Our wages have allowed us to travel overseas every year and we will continue to do so. Being a minority, I found the union to be exclusive.... if you were just plain stupid, don't even try to join...go flip burgers. As a side note, most union tradesmen and women are extremely patriotic. I was in good company.
@@ogzombieblunt4626 You think too small. That 85% of Americans aren't in a union nor are they seen as anything other than disposable to the places they work in. Either unionize or destroy the company as it isn't worthy of being in business anyway.
@@MeanBeanKerosene Muh wage theft. People consent to the wages they take for jobs. If you want a better paying job then get a more marketable skill. Are you seriously suggesting to make unions mandatory? Thats not consent, its authoritarianism.
+Kevin Lopez Libertarianism can be worse than statism, it creates a power vacuum that is usually filled by an Oligarchical Elite Super Class that ends up consolidating so much power whats left of the State ends up serving them, look at all the examples of this economics, Eastern Europe and Latin America, its voodoo economics. Unions can be absolutley pathetic, like the CAW (auto-workers) that was taking union dues off of bus boys at a restaurant that were making $8/hour, but it is the right of people to seek a better living and a larger middle class equals more freedom, oligarchy is Feudalism, and Libertarianism leads to this all the time. Socialism also has many faults too, the best is just plain old common sense, populism, and putting all ideology in the dumpster and USE COMMON SENSE.
+Владимир Ленин no doubt, that is what they would have you believe. The reality is they are about their members period. Competing workers, particularly the unskilled, are their enemies.
So they'd be out of business faster? You realize their wages have fallen in accordance with the shrinking profit margins with airlines post-9/11, right?
As a business owner, no one has the right to tell me who to hire, or not fire and how much to pay them. No matter their race religion, or creed, sex or appearance. the only thing I should be required is to have a safe working space.
If their had been no unions, the great middle class that we had in the 50s and 60s NEVER would have happened, because if all the "disenfranchised" workers unions did keep out had gotten to work for pittence wages, then the union workers would have worked for less as well, and every non management/non owner would have been working poor, and the US would have looked more like post-Cold War Poland than like the country we knew
that's right, those dastardly unskilled workers, how dare they not want to live in poverty, they should accept their breadcrumbs and 10 people to a 1 bedroom apartment and be happy about it, am I right?
One of you union cheerleaders explain to me how you justify REQUIRING an individual to join a union in order to obtain gainful employment. I'd love to hear it. (I could use a good laugh.)
Mickey Bitsko Your problem as usual you have things backward. First you get the job from the company after testing for mental qualifications. Then you go thru a six month period of skill and attitude evaluation. Then you get to join the union to guarantee fair treatment under a contract that both parties have agree to. If you were an honest business minded person you would honor the value of a contract. Instead you follow the right wing ideology that is destroying this country. Their purpose is a one world government. A complete dictatorship same as communism. Do you really think we would be better off with banks running the world?
James Brown I don't care if people join unions. But you ignored my question: Why should a citizen be REQUIRED to join a union as a condition of employment? But I'm sure you'll keep dodging the question.
James Brown And where is the UNFAIR treatment? I've been in a union, and I've worked outside the union. There was no difference, other than the union took a chunk of my money to give to Democrat candidates. I'm treated fairly because my employer is a fair person, and because if he WASN'T I'd simply take my services elsewhere.
Mickey Bitsko Because the present employees made a contract with the company, and because the government said that unions must represent all employees. If you get the representation you should pay for it. WHAT YOUR QUESTION REALLY IS WHY SHOULD WORKING PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE. If you want the best jobs you have to pay the price just like a college education. What are you some want to be manager. I got the picture the world will be a better place if everyone would just shutup and do what the right wing tells us. All that to make thing grate for them.
James Brown The government said that unions must represent all employees who want to join the union. Ever heard of a "right to work state"? There is no Federal law that requires employees to be unionized. Try again. Don't give me your "government said so" nonsense. I want to know how you would justify REQUIRING citizens to join a union as a condition of employment. Union thugs extorting people's money from them is NOT American. My contract with my employer is between the two of us. I don't CARE what you do. But don't presume to require me to cough up my hard-earned money to someone who didn't earn it. Communism failed. Look it up.
raising the pay of high paid workers and lowering the pay of low paid workers is exactly what you see in teachers unions and transit employees. NYC has people "driving" subways for several hundred thousand per year, but try getting in line for one of those jobs. Once you get hired you never leave, never grow, never move on
I find life to be too complicated an affair, and people are much too inconsistent or hypocritical, to take any ideological or theoretical position seriously. If our private thoughts and actions were to be registered to the world, and reflected back to us, I can’t help but to think that we would be ashamed and humbled by who we really are.
The day that professors like him who are in professors unions with Cadillac health plans and only have to work 10 months a year give up their privileges is the day I will start to listen to them.
academics are encouraged to do Independent Study, Research, Continuing Education and produce Academic Literature in what you refer to as "time off". those who DO, become Highly Respected Academics and advance the entirety of Civilization. those who DON'T stagnate in mediocrity and bitch about how poorly teachers are paid, join unions and ruin the education system.
@@lullabi3234 when you have a guy talking about being a Libertarian and advocating the free market that has never actually had a job, it under cuts his ideas. he literally was part of a union
Even tenured professors like Milton belong to union at their university, the union which negotiates with administration the condition of their employment.
This guy is full of it unions gave us the 8 hour work day and vacation pay .the more I've hear this guy the more I know he was misguided.after unions collapsed so did wages in the 80s.
Luckely I life in a country were strong workers unions its the norm. 9/10 cases were fired workers takes it to the court won their job back. Forced reinstatement by court. This its nothing wrong with! Its simple what every sivilised country should had.
Speaking from a student's perspective, I can say with absolute certainty that the teacher's union in New York has yielded devastating effects on the quality of education. Everything that's said about tenure's invincibility is true- I've had a math teacher, whose fail rate for the state exam was 65%, stumble into class sweating vodka after taking the student bus to school.
The government is effectively captured by corporate interests through lobbying and bribes. There has been little to no regulation from the government that helps the common man in over 30 years. Unions are needed now more than ever.
I usually agree with everything Friedman says, but not this. The point of unions is to make sure company profits are shared fairly among all employees, as opposed to corporate management sucking it all up. In theory, the total jobs available and price of goods/services should remain the same, just with less wage gap between the low and high paid workers.
The conflict between you and Friedman is the conflict between the unions mission statement and the real world reality. It is reasonable to consider unions exists solely for the well-being of their members, not the well-being of society at large. They are neither good nor evil. They just are what they are.
As this charlatan tried to mis-use Adam Smith, let me quote from Smith about the importance of unions: "It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate."
I admire your "balls", for calling this man a charlatan... now, can you provide an insight rather than a quote which does not really negate what mr Friedman is saying? It just points out the employers have an upper hand since they are the one with control over the resources. They do need the workers, nonetheless. I come from a country where unions have become a cancer... not saying that is all they are, but they quickly mutate into this state as time go by and they get their way. As Mr Friedman mentioned, the advancement of unions usually impacts those workers not in a union, quite negatively.
@@panchoperfulcro8708 why do you think Friedman is a sort of god? Majority of today's problems is due to this school of thought in economics. They are either charlatans or sell outs. Ask me exact question, I try to give my opinion. I had put two other comments, please read them as well. They will answer your question regarding my critique about his speech. Shortly, one of the requirements of "free market" ,if there is scientific concept as free market, is "equal bargaining power". Unions in their true sense are supposed to provide this bargaining power. Def capitalists need workers, but the waiting cost is very different for workers and capital owners. The unions would help to balance this issue. Please have a look at this plot 9 in this analysis www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/&ved=2ahUKEwj1r72zstbmAhW_BGMBHT46AuIQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0GXc9a9QE6BkhhkrlbgSKr
@@panchoperfulcro8708 Also as this charlatan tried to distort Adam Smith, let's have a look at the start of another book of Smith, theory of moral sentiment: How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it
@@shaahin6818 First of all, thank you for a good respectful response. Unfortunately, quite unusual in these days. I am uncertain whether the "free market" is a scientific term, beyond the Economic Sciences. I agree, that Unions provide bargaining power to a group of people, far greater than what leverage a single individual might have but, I also think this is only true for people whose skills are not vast enough to demand higher wages by themselves. Unions may help, the problem is their evolution ultimately leads to poorer conditions overall for the workers and the ones outside of unions. For example in Argentina, Unions are a business just as being a politician is a business there. There are a few, which have all the power and they neglect and sometimes deliberately go agaisnt other smaller unions interests. It is the only place in the world where unions handle the healthcare of their members and it is a bloddy mess. Sadly, the link you asked me to check, plot 9 , redirects me to a page which is no longer available. I am not for abolishing unions, not at all. I just think that individual responsibility also plays role in which is your own bargaining power and I do not think it is correct to force a worker into a union just to get a job. Not saying it is what you are trying to convey.
@@shaahin6818 Regarding this response I am still at a loss, at what you see as conflicting with what Mr Friedman said. I admit I know and have read very little of Adam Smith, so maybe my ignorance about his contributions is what is keeping me, from getting your point. What I got from Mr Friedman, is that in a free market, you will always have the option of choosing how to operate, which I would say does not go agaisnt that great paragraph you quoted here. The morality would lie therein, in the liberty. Indifferent to the morality felt or exercised by individuals, I believe there is virtue in Egoism.
In countries with a higher share of union members, strike frequencies tend to be significantly lower. This also holds for the a two-tier system, like in Germany. Turns out that unions and labour representatives benefit employers which is also consistent with the fact that the first unions in England were founded by capitalists.
Isn't a union functionally the same as enterprise bargaining? So depending on the cultural landscape unions exist in they can either function as ideological communist enemies, or they can work as equal forces of capital bargaining for beneficial compromises. I'm not sure how to really understand Milton's arguments, most of it to me seems narrow in scope and without much explanation for the mechanisms re-distributing wealth more so than a lot of assertions that require either blind trust or an equal educational experience and view.
@@davespanksalot8413 I agree. However, in reality we can see that the board of directors tends to collide with union reps (e.g. prostitute parties in Hungarian baths). Also, a higher degree of centralisation can both increase and decrease the frequency of strikes. The presence of a larger number of unions leads to larger competition between them while a single union strikes less but has a higher bargaining power (but is also easier to control). Essentially like any other monopoly.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct... Unless.... You're talkin about capitalist wise enough to interject themselves in the takeover of their own companies... Because that's what unions do. It is an insidious form of tyranny. Blind leading the blind... Every time we just go up for a few... Prices go up for everyone.... And that's all products.... (Higher production costs, higher prices)... And they always go up before you're making enough money to cover them... Always
Collective bargaining is fine. What he's talking about is the artificial control of labor supply in order to increase wages for the few. And even more sinister is the fact that they brand themselves as "pro-worker". @@davespanksalot8413
Adam Smith applied that statement of people seeking and advocating there own interest to "those that live by profit alone" (bankers, rentiers, merchants and manufacturers) and not unions and he saves his greatest scorn for them. When he wrote "Wealth of Nations" he was talking about "nations" not the individual, hence the title. Adam Smith believes that wages are not the simple product of supply and demand, bargaining asymmetries are key (A staunch advocate of some group representing labor). he also states that "wages should be high, profits should be low" he also say's "Taxes can be high, as long as equitable." and finally one of his many warnings " The rate of profit, he said, was “always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.” So who is this snake oil salesman distorting Adam Smith I am watching? Obviously he is not a Capitalist, I would assume more of a feudal mercantilist, and one I might add that dances with treason, in that he puts the "Corporate state, above the Civil State", a death far worse then by external forces like Communist, a death silently from within. BTW Adam Smith would be shocked to know that somehow inequalities or mass concentration of wealth are a byproduct of his theories, because Adam Smith also believes in a minimum wage that covers all necessities.
Tru love how the banker class distorts words to fit their interests. God can’t wait for the revolution already whether this decade or in a hundred years the banker class and their descendants will have their heads on a platter
Your professor did a great job convincing you of something that isn't true. If you listen to Milton Friedman and don't hear the virtues of Capitolism, you have been completely and thoroughly indoctrinated.
Employers, like all citizens in the United States, have the right to free speech. Although employers cannot prevent unions from soliciting to their employees or punish employees for supporting a union, employers can express their disproval of labor unions to employees. Employers can explain to workers why they dislike unions and how unionization might affect the company. Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935- This Act secures workers’ abilities to bargain as a group instead of individually. The NLRA prohibits employers from firing and disciplining workers for trying to organize labor! For the most part, employers cannot ban or discriminate against pro-union employees. If the employees want to be represented by a Union, they are free to make that choice. Employers must negotiate in collective bargaining if requested Both sides must negotiate in good faith, meaning that neither party can intentionally behave badly during negotiations Employers cannot prevent employees from organizing Employers cannot prohibit signs or symbols promoting the union Employers cannot promise or grant benefits to bribe employees Employers should not hold meetings about unions in a supervisor’s office U.S. employers are willing to use a wide range of legal and illegal tactics to frustrate the rights of workers to form unions and collectively bargain. Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Using more comprehensive measures, employers were charged with illegally firing workers in nearly a third (29.6%) of all NLRB-supervised elections, a violation of NLRA Section 8(a)(3)! Employers are charged with violating NLRA Section 8(a)(1) by making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, coercing, disciplining, changing work terms, threatening to remove benefits, threatening to close plants, questioning employees about their union activities or membership, spying or pretending to spy on union gatherings, granting wage increases deliberately timed to discourage employees from forming or joining a union, retaliating or harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns! Employers were more likely to be charged with violating the law where there were larger bargaining units. More than half (54.4%) of employers in elections involving more than 60 employees (roughly 25% of elections) were charged with violating federal law. Beyond this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/coercion-of-employees-section-8b1a Far more U.S. workers want unions than have the benefit of representation today. In 2018, only 6.4% of private-sector workers were union members (BLS 2019). That stands in stark contrast to the nearly half (48%) of all nonunion workers who say they would vote for a union if given the opportunity-a 50% higher share than when a similar survey was taken in 1995 (Kochan et al. 2018). When workers are able to win union representation and collectively bargain, their wages, benefits, and working conditions improve. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 13.2% more than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector. Union workers are more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and their employers contribute more toward those plans. They are also more likely to have paid vacation and sick leave. Union workers are more likely to have retirement plans, with their employers contributing more toward those plans than comparable nonunion employers do. Unions also create safer workplaces. And union workers are covered by due process protections, so that, unlike nonunion workers in the U.S., union workers cannot be fired “at will,” with no warning and for almost any reason.
It is remarkable that this video is from 1980 and yet Milton Friedman mentioned the 4th class of unions,the municipal unions. Today they represent 98 persent of union membership. Whereas the private sector unions represent only 6 percent of union membership.
I find that figure difficult to believe. Do you have a source for it? I have heard that the public sector Union membership has grown significantly over my lifetime.
Saw that first-hand after three years of film school in the early 90's. No one told us that if we wanted to work in film, we'd need to keep back at least $500 to buy our work permit from the Director's Guild of Canada - a union in all but name. I could have saved myself thousands of dollars in student loan debt if someone had told me that from the start.
Yes that is a cheap bargaining chip for a raise in wages. Big wheels like to single out one lone sheep that asks for a raise and get rid of them! In a group they don't and can't!
I'm not sure I get your meaning. Are you saying that you wouldn't have gone into film if you knew you had to be part of a union? Or are you saying you wouldn't have gone to school but simply joined by paying the $500, which seems unlikely to be allowed if it was proper union. Also you went to school for years without researching before hand what it's like to work in that industry? Even I've heard of screenwriters and actors guild and I have no interest in the film industry.
Its partly explained in the video. Also, police unions are a big reason for the current state of bad police practices from its militarization, monthly contact metrics and attrition of good officers.
Finland, sweden, Norway all are very high uniozed. There is much more equality, better healthcare, public schooling, much less poverty then in the United States. In fact, there is a direct link to the degree of unionization and equality.
@@gravypatron Standard of living is much higher in those country's. They pay more taxes yes, but they don't need to be taking expensive insurance for health care, don't need to loan a fortune to pay for college, kids don't need to grow in poverty, people are much better schooled and so on.
@@gravypatron bro really don't know that things like living standards, food expenses, etc. can be measured according to per 100,000 or 1,000,000. Therefore, have data of living standard of different population compared.
management. shareholders. workers. the first two are dedicated solely to profiteering. this is best achieved by paying the workers as little as possible, and providing the least conditions possible. the only defence against these predators is for the workers to unite, and demand a better share of the wealth they create. thats why the wealthy hate them, and try. ceaselessly to destroy them. the alternative to union is to rely on the kind-hearts and social responsibility of the bosses. good luck with that one.
+Gordon Bradley No you rely on competition among employers to set the correct wage. Also I sure hope you paid attention to the real world effects of unions to counterbalance your left wing idealism
+Владимир Ленин He cares about them that's why he brought the real world effect he mentioned, namely that their wages went down as a result of union action
+Gordon Bradley Then why isn't everyone paid minimum wage if those are the only factors? Because they're not, because labor has a value and better labor has a higher value. That's why higher skilled jobs in high demand pay the most, whereas lower skill jobs in low demand offer the least pay. Workers do not need to unite for this to occur, it already does, simply because a worker with a good skillset has many options where they can work and employers will compete with one another for their labor. This is why you negotiate salary, leverage your experience and skill at a company to gain other offers that can cause your current employer to offer you a raise to retain your skills. Do you think employers offer raises/promotions out of the kindness of their heart? No, it's to compete for the labor of their employee and avoid employee turnover costs such as training. Liberals, in my experience, tend to forget that workers bargain individually for themselves all the time, and that this is just a feature of a free market - not something out of the ordinary.
In 1940 unions membership in the US was 46%. One could leave school get married, get a job and earn a living wage. Today union membership in about 7% in the private sector. Here in Ohio where I live most jobs do not pay a living wage. One must depend on government assistance. The difference in wages go to the business owner, not the worker.
Louie did not say he was born in the 1940s. He is merely stating that education was not as important back then as it is now. One of the primary reasons that you cannot get a secure job with an acceptable income this way is especially due to automation and labor outsourcing. While it is true that there are manufacturing jobs out there that can pay a living wage without needing a complete education, these jobs are quickly disappearing. However, it is true that a good education was as important in the 1940s as it was now, so this does not mean that the process of learning itself is not a wasteful endeavor. This can be summarized by just one axiom that has been heard frequently: knowledge is power.
@bob wach I didn't say I didn't finish high school: dingbat. I was saying that if those 57,000 manufacturing facilities that has been outsourced were still here , folks could find a living wage job.
Oct 7th 2023. The citizens weren't armed. The military couldn't respond in time. Hamas was armed and unstoppable, save for the few kabutzs that had firearms. Can we learn anything from this?
In the US, Union membership dropped. So did average low and middle income wages. The countries with the best working conditions and low and middle-income wages are those with the strongest and largest Unions. To be fair those countries have the best protections for the unemployed the cheapest education and universel healthcare. As well as the best social mobility. And they have not crashed as Milton predicted... well, at least not as many times as the US.
I’ve seen some jobs where a non union contractor will slightly underbid a job and be awarded the job over the union contractor and then pay their workers shit and then the company just pockets the rest.
Jonathan Chaidez using illegal aliens, I see them building bridges here in Tennessee all the time, road crews for the state, jobs that were done by Americans in the past, now Americans don’t want those jobs if you listen to liar politicians. The illegals are destroying wages, thanks democrats and republicans for helping your business partners and the kickbacks.
My skilled construction trade union is run by political cliques. You are either in the " in crowd" or else you are out. If contribute to the business manager's campaign fund and he wins the election, then you will work most of the time in town. If you support a candidate who loses the election, then you will have to travel in order to find a union construction job. If you have relatives or friends in foreman positions, then you will work most of the time. Your knowledge or trade skills have little to do with your employment. It is mostly nepotism and cronyism that determines your employability.
I agree with you on the cronyism and nepotism part to an extent. My union basically works like this: Hard workers stay employed 100% of the time, the lazy guys, the ones who call in sick all the time, and the ones who other people can't stand to be around are the ones who sit on the bench. Side note: The lazy people others cant stand, that have relatives in the union, are usually made into union officials so they stay employed.
erick linder Unfortunately, nepotism and cronyism works in all sectors of the economy. How many business hire people whom they know, and have incompetent workers and managers? Unions, fortuatnely and unfortunately, elect people. Just like our politics, not the best candidates are chosen---popularity is really important
jetetarro yeah but they can fire the lazy and incompetent workers in private sector. Plus it they're way too cronyistic they go out of business because all the good workers leave them and go to their competitors for better work environment, since the management sucks balls. Public sector unions don't foot the bill for their sucky management, the tax payer does
The best way to explain this is as the law of supply and demand, just as Friedman did here. If you lower demand by increasing the cost of labor, the supply of laborers increases. The problem on the Keynesian side of this discussion is that they somehow think that labor isn't a commodity; that it's somehow exempt from the law of supply and demand. In reality, labor is no different than oranges or computer chips or sedans or slippers.
Jobs are created through the supply of money in the economy. If everyone was in the union, which is why they first started, then the corporate barons would have to give away some of their horded money in higher wages. People would spend that money in the economy increasing demand for goods and helping companies make profits, but corporatism is all about making the most money even if it costs the worker. Now most of the economy is in debt, broke, the middle class is disappearing, and all the jobs shipped overseas. That is corporatism. Why would I need you if I can hire the chinese for pennies? The money slowly trickles overseas and the chinese end up owning our debt. Yes, we still produce, but we are very dependent on other countries now. The elderly are retiring in mass and the social security system can't bare the load. You also have the medicare issue that will collapse as well. Don't get in the health industry.
I would have no problem with unions provided they meet the following conditions: 1. They are purely voluntary. No one should be coerced into union membership to keep their occupation. 2. All dues they receive should come from the pockets of members (or donors) only, not from taxpayers. 3. Unless a contract is under dispute, any bargaining between a union and employers should be kept strictly between those two parties without any government intervention. 4. Unions should have no more influence on our political process than corporations. Just as we have a separation of church and state, we should have a separation between state and business. 5. Union members should not intimidate, harass, or physically attack anyone for going against their interests. Unless performed in self-defense, violence should be regarded as intolerable.
@@stayswervin554 This is an awful take for a host of reasons. Seperating state from business is vital for both democracy AND free enterprise. You can't have a system that represents the will of the people where legislators kowtow to special interests. Likewise, you can't have a competetive market economy where the government favors certain groups (i.e. corporations and unions) over others. Seperating state from business is no more discriminatory than seperating church and state. Both entities would still be able to say and do anything they want, provided they don't violate the rights of others. Neither however should have any INFLUENCE over our politcal process. As in, neither should have any role in the PROCESS of creating and enforcing our laws. That role belongs to the people and to the Constitution.
@@rickysanders6487 only when you realize corporations have rights key word rights the 1st amendment allows corporations the right of association, and the right of free speech using money to influence legislation is free speech.
This argument is rooted in the assumption that the only two parties financially vested in employment are the employed and the customer. It does not account for an unbalanced market existing between the employed and the employer. For example, I worked for at a company (nonunion) that paid its CEO a $30 million package upon firing her for incompetence. The year before, she had increased her salary to $14 million, not including bonuses and other compensation. That year, they closed two small call centers, saying that the company could not afford to pay those workers and remain profitable. The problem with blaming the pay of the workers, it that it assumes that paying 1 person $44,000,000.00 in a single year, for being bad at their job, makes perfect sense, and is a valid distribution of the funds. It assumes there is a balance because the CEO legitimately worked 2,934 times harder and/or longer than the average worker at those call centers, or that they had a job more than 90 times more demanding than the U.S. President's job. Mr. Friedman's argument assumes that this is accurate, and that, the many other top grossing employees have earned their 7 and 8 figure pay, and that the only pay that can be affected, must therefore be the average workers. Simply put, that is a false assumption. There is room for balancing between employees of varying degrees. While I have great respect for the man and his theories, this is a miscalculation. If the CEO pay were reduced to $500,000 a year, more than the president of the united states gets, it would allow for thousands of pay increases, or quality of goods increases, or greater job creation; and all that only deals with a single over inflated salary, and not that of dozens of people who elect to give themselves pay raises. I am not proposing a solution to the problem, merely pointing out the flaw in this line of thinking. There are more places to draw these funds from than the existing worker pay pool and as such it does not have to be, as was implied in this video, a trade-off of higher worker pay in exchange for fewer jobs.
No. That is equivalent to saying that if a person has defective appendix then the surgeon must remove ALL the organs because we can’t let him remove just the appendix. The point I was making is that each company contains, and is itself, its own micro-economy. That economy, like any other, can suffer from a massive number of potential problems and those problems can be addressed by an even larger number of potential solutions. The argument presented in the video, ignores this. It takes away the surgeon’s scalpel and pretends that he has no other tool available to him other than a chainsaw. Addressing unbalanced pay, or imbalances in work versus reward, or innovation versus reward, are all valid ways of making the company’s economy healthier and are self-contained. If I am making too much and another employee is making too little and the amounts needed for both corrections are comparable then the problem can be solved internally without any financial transactions occurring outside of the company. The health of micro-economies are very important to the health of the macro economies that they inhabit, and yet they are micro-economies specifically because they are capable of this type of transaction. Another example would be a parent realizing they were giving one child an allowance of $20 and the other an allowance of $30. If the parent realizes the children deserve equal pay than then can shift the allowances of both children to $25 each, and they can do this without burdening the macro economy that they inhabit. I am simplifying this of course, but your argument is to simplify it to its furthest possible extreme, and that is simply not accurate.
Yes, but there is still the problem of overpayment. I understand being CEO of an entire company can be stressful, but a thirty million dollar severance package can be equated to robbery if using the example set by Den. And it isn't like fourteen million a year wasn't enough. The CEO could have lived a cushiony life on that. She could have even taken some to the side and invest in the market and have even more money. But again, this former CEO was incompetent, but this can still apply for smarter ones as well. It's not like there's anything stopping them from doing so. And sure, you could say that this is not the same for public servants, but that is an anti-corruption measure. How would you feel if you found out the people who are supposed to serve _you_ and that nothing else acted only to serve their stock numbers?
I guess you didn't know that the CEO raising their own salary and getting a firing bonus was actually a real business move. On cursory glance it might feel like it makes no sense, but in the world of stocks and business, paying one person 30mill is actually a small price to pay versus losing shareholder faith and them dumping your stocks. To the everyman, it looks like an asshole just made off with a lot of money, but in the eyes of the investors, if the CEO is taking pay cuts and is not earning more bonuses from the board of directors, then it's a sign of a declining company. This scares them into dumping their stocks and destroying not just two call centers, but the entire corporation.
@@the8u9 Nonsense. They have absolute power over the norm. So setting the norm absurdly high by artificially jacking it up over decades and then claiming normalcy doesn't work. Why 30 million, why not insist on 100 million, or a billion? Why not just 1 million? These are fill in the blank numbers. There are vastly successful companies whose CEO's make 20 times what their average employees make, and others whose CEO's make over 100 million after bonuses.
He’s wrong about the demand for healthcare the demand for it will be the same no matter the cost . The ability to afford said health care however is a different matter .
Notice how in all of his analyses, he never mentions the unaccountable concentrations of wealth and power dictating policy. If he continued his tangent about nationalising the industries in GB, those were absolutely worse off today after Thatcher, et. al. privatised them (railroad, prime example). The free market is good in and of itself, but capitalism demands that profits are maximised at all times. Still taking the example of trains, if a certain train service is unprofitable, the private company running it will discontinue it at the expense of the people relying on that train service for transportation. We're supposed to think this is normal and sensible (from the perspective of the private company). "Hey, uh, we're only making £ 200K in net profits here, not enough to give our CEO his 5th bonus of the year... So, uh, can you lot please buy cars for yourselves? Cheerio."
@@harshitmadan6449 Engineering and urban planning has come a long way from the 20th century. There's a way to break even or get profits somewhere else, but the priority is the bottom line of private companies instead of the general public. Again, capitalism demands maximising profits. If a capitalist projects a potential profit of 2 billion, getting only 1 billion in profit is considered a loss.
Unions themselves are not the problem. Unions have done much to help improve working conditions and pay. Its government involvement with Unions that is the problem. Let Unions compete with the free market. Sheldon Aldelson will give Union type benefits while being non union for example.
Then the next 40 years happens with the massive decline in unions and the deteriorating wage rates. Why then do pro sports - aka LeBron James - need a union? Simplistic interpretation of Adam Smith while trying to appear balanced. Milton Friedman's utopia - 0% unemployment; 95% poverty.
@@corban5146 Higher pay does not translate into decreased jobs for the occupation. That only happens in the classroom with diagrams. Certainly getting rid of unions for pilots or restricting them translate into lower pay. Yes, you lose efficiency in the labor market for the sake of the larger community and greater fairness.
For all the people wondering why cities are protesting and rioting right now during these times: thank your local police union who makes it difficult to fire bad cops and hold them accountable.
I am a supporter of free market Capitalism but im an American. I am willing to allow Government regulations sometimes because I know the reality is that some Government aid will always be here and will provide some help like roads, Social Security, etc. BUT only a country that gives people incentive to work harder and feel good about starting businesses can benefit from the consequences of doing so. Prosperity isn't free. We have to work for Prosperity. And free people know how to work for it than Government bureaucracy does.
Your words are at odds with one another. You're pro free-market but also pro Social Security? And surely you've driven on public roads versus private roads before, right?
Adam Smith also pointed out in 'The Wealth of Nations' that the ability of the owners to organize is much greater than the ability of the workers to work together.
You can solve that with a: Federal jobs guarantee program + robust unemployed insurance. Well-paid Federal jobs guarantee programs would outcompete the private sector if they refused to compete with the guaranteed benefits packages and much higher wages. Furthermore, you can also solve workforce reduction by implementing workplace democracy (i.e mass furloughs cannot occur without democratic permission from the workers).
@Jack McCabe - You’re dead wrong, Jack. A federal jobs guarantee program which increases the median income would increase the purchasing power and (drum roll) be invested directly into the economy-thereby compensating for profit loss-together with automation, which would be more of an incentive due to shifted workforce. To use an analogy, more money; more McDonald’s. Anyone booted from the market would be covered by a robust safety net. Successfully thereafter, the economy can transition to a workers owned democratically-lead freemarket.
@Jack McCabe Imagine calling the government inefficient and bureaucratic, and then turn around and call the private sector, which would supposedly need to artificially inflate prices as an immediate reaction, as “more effective organizations.”
@Jack McCabe Except It doesn’t-and a bountiful amount of economists, which are far beyond the horizon when it comes to diversity of viewpoints, have agreed with the proposal. The projection is that costs wouldn’t inflate because people spend more money, therefore profits are not diminished and the demand for goods and services increase, and with that, private sector jobs. It also fits nicely in with, and offsets the problem of, automation-which causes unemployment. Economic principles are only as good as the results they produce-and a brutal concern for profit is the gameboard that we have to move AWAY from, not towards.
@Jack McCabe You sound like a very well-mannered, intelligent individual. Completely not a closed-minded, arrogant moron not a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You know exactly what I mean when I say artificial inflation. It makes much more sense than you calling private enterprise efficient when they supposedly raise prices over the government setting a floor-minimum to protect against abject poverty. No one cares for your Friedman freemarket capitalism-it simply does not work except for capitalists.
I believe he's accurate about job cuts as a result of cost savings efforts by businesses (reducing total jobs) but he fails to mention that a business will cut jobs aka costs no matter the pay level. Unions ensure that the few workers that remain will have a middle class income. That being said I have first have seen the many flaws of unions and they should be reformed to modern work standards.
This is a very complicated issue, man. I can think really clearly about many economic aspects, but for some reason, on the union question, i can never seem to find the right answer
It's because you're both prudent people that understand that both unions and corporations consist of humans that are fallible and fight for their own gains. I tend to switch my gears and focus on accountability. If unionization somehow prevents accountability or the free market's ability to prune bad apples, then I think unions are doing more harm than greedy companies, purely based on the notion that I'd rather the corporations have the freedom to be greedy than the unions to take away freedom to question incompetence or inefficiency.
Maybe one way to think about it is to ask what would be achieved if all employees were part of a union, because that should represent the only consistent stance a non-hypocrite unionist can take (as without the call for everyone to be part of a one, unions quite obviously mainly function to systematically increase inequality on favor of union-members and union-officials, however favorably you try to phrase it.). So, if everyone is part of one, will it be the case that a) every employee will have some benefits that the union wrestles from someone (and whom exactly, if the general union-less public is not available anymore)? Or b) would there be nothing left but everyone having to pay for union officials? And allowing a shift of "power" in some way from market mechanisms to officials and more centralized planning? I lean towards the latter.
Of what relevance is the success of the Medical Association and Flight Pilot union? He spends the first 5 minutes talking about this as if it makes a point, but the only point this would seem to suggest is that workers here were successful due to their higher skill levels reducing their supply, making uniting under unions naturally more effective and easier. Their higher wages also likely contribute to their strength. Strong unions seem to historically do good for people, and there's no major reason to assume they would stop doing good
In France the primary function of unions is to strike whenever the demand doesn't meet the offer or when the cost of production gets too high... Production is stopped and employees don't get paid. Union officials spen their time party- I mean meeting the employers to "threaten" them with a strike.
Funny that he said 15% of people benefit at the expense of the remaining 85%, and there is a 15% dislike ratio for this video
It is also funny that I can use your EXACTLY SAME sentence for the capitalism (instead of saying "union" I say "capital") and it will be 100% accurate.
the only people who don't like unions are people who can't get a union job. fact.
@@subvet657 Unless your a business owner
Orestis Koutsos like we’re slaves...not 100%. i take the job or whatever bc i want to money and they want the work. they have to pay fair or else they dont get the work i give
@@keltonhutchison5951 not all business owners, construction trades benefit greatly on large projects. Need 50 plumbers tomorrow with medical gas certs, call the union. When the job is done lay them off. To your point, tons of union jobs are unskilled, and the NLRB screws business into being organized.
Being smart and able to articulate your point of view is awesome.
I could listen to him all day, he is the kind of professor that college must have, but I’m afraid a lot of those liberals that listened to him rejected his teachings and now themselves are the professors thus communism is here, God have mercy on this nation.
Especially when you can use your intelligence to pose arguments that protect companies from liability of dangerous products, and convince people that safety regulations, safe products and a decent wage are actually bad for them; and then receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the companies that paid you to make those arguments. That's awesome.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I'm guessing you're a socialist
@@FKAAYA, Um.......no. I'm a conservative Democrat.
Just because I'm not a troll who supports the mean spirited propaganda of a dishonest little dead troll doesn't make me a socialist.
It's also kind of weird that a guy who calls himself "Pot head" is calling people "socialist". You don't meet a lot of uptight conservative potheads.
If you're going to troll, can you please be consistent with your username?
Don't be a lazy troll.
Also, stop hiding behind a girl's picture if you're going to troll.
That's just sad, bro....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I'm not a troll
A few years after this video was made ~1987, I was matched up in a golf tournament with two men from Detroit. One was a supervisor with 25 yrs working for GM. He was in his early forties and a 2 handicap. Over a several-hour period he reveal that his position enabled him to have a Country Club membership and play 3+ rounds a week. Imagine my surprise when he told me he was making $110,000 - $120,000 (with overtime) per year with just a high school education. I was surprised that the AFLCIO didn't make it into Milt's discussion. When I asked this man how he gotten his job, he said the same way everyone got their job, his father knew a guy who worked for the union. Historical productivity at GM was 20% lower than their Japanese non-union counterparts and yet they were paid 75% more (fully-loaded).
Not too bad for the richest country in the world. The problem is that is what they are trying to destroy. I am not to sure what your point is but I was a machinist in the steel industry and made close to that. It was piecework so you only got good money if you work like a sled dog. No complaints here it's just a shams it had to stop. Just another brick in the wall.
Uber Genie This is EXACTLY the case with Hyundai Motors union workers in South Korea, right now in 2016. In a country with a GDP per capita of approx. $30,000 usd, the workers there are getting paid close to $90,000, with stock options and other bonuses on top of that, AND they inherit their positions in the factory to their kids.
I find it hilarious when people compare the USA to Japan or China. We are americans and we are entitled to living wages and safe working conditions. Sorry that we dont get paid as terrible as Japan and have horrid working conditions.
"Entitled to living wages?" Did you watch the video? You seemed to miss the point where free individuals would rather have more wages and the living conditions they have. But why focus on the data from interviewing a bunch of "foreigners" from Japan and China? After all American liberals are don't need data messing up their economic opinions, and Japanese and Chinese need American liberals telling them how to think, not asking their opinion.
I find it hilarious when people actually get to think for themselves. And make free choices. If Hillary had been elected she would have put an end to those pesky choices once and for all.
Your spelling and grammar make it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say.
Are you trying to say that regardless of the wages that people have, people want more? The middle class has shrunk with the lowering of union membership. RTW states also have higher poverty rates, lower wages and more injuries on the job. God bless unions.
A union worker told me, "try waiting 4 hours for an electrician to come and flip a breaker switch, with your entire line shutdown the whole time. Because if one of us flipped it, it's considered "taking someone else's job"."
But, were you on the clock getting paid while you were waiting or were assigned other tasks rather then being herded into the swing room and being taken off the clock or sent home without pay?
@@lynnwood7205 I've never experienced any of those things ...and I've also never been in a union. So please take your propaganda somewhere else. Pretending work conditions are like they were in the 1920's is all you have?
@@truckerenoch8824 Don't worry, those conditions will return with the twist of whatever technology is the fad. The working conditions of the 1940' s, 50's, 60's were an aberration of our history.
I have experienced this with the a union in San Diego lol
@@realJohnJohn How dare the serfs have economic rights! How dare they have labor contract rights.!
He forgot the part where with a union, terrible union workers cannot be fired
Very true. Most union workers are decent but there’s literally nothing you can do to fire a bad apple
You forgot the part where without a union, you would have no benefits, no overtime, no vacation time, no sick time, no safety standards to protect you if you have a risky job working with hazardous materials, and no days off.
You know, little things like that that you think companies always willingly provided.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Huh. My employer is union-free and has all of that. By the way I don't think OSHA has anything to do with unions.
@@Morbutt , Insurance and benefits did not exist before unions. They only came into existence after unions. You are riding on the blood, sweat and tears (literally) of those that sacrificed their lives, were jailed, beaten, and murdered to get you those benefits, that took decades of marching and striking to get. And without unions, those rights and benefits, and a fair wage, are slowly being stripped away.
Now That's something to go "huh" over.....
@@maskedmarvyl4774 And all this time you're dodging the original post in this comment thread. So people died, bled, were beaten, etc. so Jose can sleep at his desk and still collect a paycheck. I'm sure you said "huh" at that, too.
You're arguing in favor of what unions used to be, not really what they are now. It's like you're just making up your own debate here because I can tell you get a kick out of being a smarmy asshat in youtube comment sections.
The only good thing I have ever heard about present-day unions is the nice wages you get. Too bad these places of employment which have these benefits ends up having lay-offs seasonally...
At its most fundamental, a union is nothing more or less than a group of people who have figured out that if they act together to place limits on the supply of their own labor, the businesses that have a demand for that labor will need to pay more. Unions are basically employee-owned businesses that sell labor. Like any good business, they try to both encourage demand and control the supply.
Two words fit unions like peas in a pod; collusion and coercion.
Except unions couldn't exist without government coercion. If a company could replace any striking worker and retaliate without legal repercussions, the company would not have to worry about the supply of labor because plenty of other people would be willing to accept the jobs.
Capitalism can't exist without government granting authoritative 'private property rights' and enforcing property laws in a coercive manner. Government coercion, violence, plunder, war and rape is at the heart of the capitalist socioeconomic system.
Fred Hampton's Ghost Private property rights are natural Lockean rights, under the idea that so long as property was obtained without infringing on the rights of others, the property rights should be protected. Labor unions infringe upon the rights of employers to employ people in a way that they see fit.
Private property rights are subjective and artificial, imposed and enforced by violence and coercion. There is nothing natural about it.
A very civic minded person (my father) who was born a tic before the Great Depression said to me, as I was becoming a young man; “The unions built the greatest country in the world, and the unions are now destroying it by their greed and protectionism.”
RIP dad.
There are less unions now in this country than there were in the last 60 years. Did your dad know that?
Median income fell in direct proportion to the decline of unions.
Did your dad know that too?
Unions set the wage standards and osha's and l.i. standards
@@joev2654 Minimum wage was $2:35 in the mid seventies yet UAW members were making $12-15 starting. They sure did set an example.
The unions are still ran by the workers people are mistaken international trade is killing this country how much do machinist make in China how much do machinist make in the usa now let's look at cost of living just saying look at the big picture like politics and deregulation how that has helped industry in the usa
@@joev2654 International trade wouldn't be as big of an issue if there wasn't such a big difference in wages. Unions have done good things but they've also screwed up other things.
I'm fine with private workers voluntarily joining together for collective bargaining. Where I break with them is forcing people to join against their will and forcing them to pay dues to an a organization they don't or wish to associate with. I view voluntary collective bargaining as another mechanism of the free market. I view involuntary union membership and dues payments as an extension of slavery
So when you need counsel, get hurt and can't work, you go on strike or get locked out what happens then? That is why you pay dues. Without funding, like any organization, the Union goes broke. Right to work States are just an underhanded way to bankrupt Unions.
Curtis T I call it organized extortion.
Union dues that I've paid over the years , doesn't cost me anything . Union dues are tax-deductible in Canada .
al d Try reading his comment again, because you clearly missed the point.
steve hairston Legalized gangs.
I wish we still had a Milton Friedman alive today. There are people that smart, and people that persuasive, but they are not the same people.
Thomas Sowell is still kickin
He's not as persuasive as friedman tho
We still have Thomas Sowell.
No thanks, that man has already done enough damage to the world.
Too bad we can’t see the number of downvotes now publicly
Freidman must have loved the neoliberal solution to unions: outsourcing and contractors. Now the workers do not even know the name of the company they work for, except that it is not the one where they work in person.
No shit a millionaire doesn’t like unions. In other news the sky is blue.
On paper, unions are fine until they insist that you don't own the business that you own, they own the business that you own. If you don't like the conditions of a job then quit. Don't presume to control what is not yours.
Demanding safe working conditions and a livable wage isn't "controlling the business". Giving workers a reason to stay with your company and preserve their retirement benefits gives them motivation to work better and not make mistakes that will endanger what they have...
@Ken MacDonald , yes, the "violent police state", forcing innocent businesses to serve blacks, give women equal pay for equal work, and not allow businesses to discriminate based on religion or race. That evil, evil police state.
You sound like a bitter sweat shop owner who is angry basic protections came in.
Dude, move to Mexico or China. You can treat human workers like the disposable refuse you want to treat them like....
couldn't it be argued that collective bargaining is a individual pursuing his best interest with other like minded individuals of the same profession?
Yes it could be because that’s what it is
Yes But you missed the point of second half of the video.
Unions are able to dictate wages beyond what is reasonable to pay them for an employer to make profit. Unless the target market agrees to pay those wages.
So you can collectively ask a group of carpenters to do their work for lower pay. That group of carpenters might agree to it, however, the quality will probably reflect that lower wage and lower quality and expediency of more products. However, by keeping the wage lower, you allow more individuals to enter the workforce to challenge the status quo of those carpenters. this creates demand.
But when you force an employer of carpenters to raise wages, you inadvertently raise prices. You must so the employer can stay profitable.
@@garrettmeyer9771So the profit margin for workers diminishes as the profit margin for capitalists rises.
And wouldn't you know it, prices are hiked all the same *GASP* and here we are with American families rationing healthcare & food spending.
Try rhat in woke world
I'm glad we had Milton Friedman. It takes something special to critize the popular ideas in the way he did.
Robin Hansen It's easy for him to attack unions from the top of his ivory tower
Will Poundstone It's never easy to attack unions. If you believe that it's easy then you know nothing of politics.
Robin Hansen What are you talking about? The right has been going after organized labor for decades.
Will Poundstone But it's not easy. Unions do, in many places, officially sort of represent the "working class", the ones in stress, those in need, those poor poor puppy-eyed romatic and degraded yet noble working men. As you probably suspect, I do not share that view of the unions. Anyhow. If a politican tries to critisize them it's hard to avoid being branded as evil incarnate.
Robin Hansen If it's so hard, why do so many politicians do it?
Unions are corrupt and also make everything more expensive. Public sector unions are the worst and should be illegal.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 That was then. Irrelevant in the age of globalization.
Moron
Only those at the top that don't like unions.
Alot of selective criticism , and presenting hypothetical outcomes as real. His data is "believe him because he said so".
"I'm not against unions" I'm just criticizing them. He objects to unions making more money for it's members. He also presents hypothetical outcomes that it lowers the pay of other jobs.
So, his point is to get rid of unions so more people can work for less money. Yeah, ok, just follow that logic along. If labor is a commodity, then capital will, according to him, and he is right, seek to pay the least it can for this commodity. Without unions and other labor organizations, your pay, unless you happen to have a high skilled job at Google or Apple or other similar company, will plummet. Why do you think American Corporations are sending jobs overseas? Because they want to spread their altruistic generosity to the huddled masses? Get real. Without unions, labor has no voice. "Right to work" is nothing more than union busting, and if and when this idea catches on, capital will squeeze every penny out of labor for profit. Yet without labor, nothing would get done. Without labor, capital would not exist. Without labor, there would be no wealthy class. But you folks here go on believing that capital will, out of the goodness of it's heart, pay you a "fair wage". Go on believing that the current minimum wage and safety standards and other labor laws will stay on the books. Sure they will. You keep on believing that. Unions need to be made stronger, not busted. This guy is a tool for capital, and anyone who agrees with him, who is not a wealthy capitalist, is a fool.
His point is when you restrict the supply of labor, it's cost goes up- which is what Unions do, they make labor more expensive. The reaction then is to replace the Union worker with a machine or a non Union worker. Unions like the UAW only thrive when there is no competition in an industry.
+george markunas Wrong. Read up on the history of the Ford Motor Company. Long before there was a United Auto Workers union, Ford found that it was to his self-interest to raise wages. He found that with too low of a wage, he had a very large employee turnaround. When he raised wages, he found he could retain his best workers, train them more, and his company became more productive and more profitable for him. And Milton Friedman is not saying what you say he said.And American companies are now sending jobs overseas because America's regulatory environment has become less business friendly. We have the highest corporate incoem tax of any developed nation and massive regulation. So the facts you cite are evidence that such government actions are BAD for workers.The onyl thing that can truly increase real wages for the long-term for everyone is increases in labor productivity. And when labor productivity increases, nothing CAN keep real wages from increasing, except maybe government siphoning off the product of that labor productivity.
+george markunas the issue with unions is that someone has to pick up the tab of who should pay the union's increased wages. It is either the rest of the non-union workers, as described by Friedman, or the consumer which he or she pays in higher prices of goods.
Now, in a free market of competitive, numerous businesses, eventually wages should appreciate as companies need more workers to produce an increased demand by consumers. America did not see itself experience some of the best economic boom when it was a barren wasteland in the 1800s to the early 1900s through unions. Lives of individuals improved because the economy improved not because of minimum wages or unions.
corporations move jobs overseas to avoid paying the high cost of the unions - and to avoid excessive corporate taxation - and to avoid all the overly burdensome EPA regulations - its sad that its easier and cheaper for a US based company to produce a product overseas and bring it back to the US rather than to produce it here in the first place - the most powerful - successful unions today are PUBLIC Sector unions - where the tax payer is forced to pay the cost at the demand of politicians -
@@SaulOhio no, better re read up on ol hank ford. He didn't just raise wages out of the goodness of his heart or cause he was some brilliant thinker like you say. He did it because people stood up to the pittance they were making n said enough is enough. People literally died for those hikes in wages. They came together kinda like a union before that was a thing. If it was up to ol hank they would've still worked 12hrs a day 6 days a week. If it weren't for them coming together n showing that the worker who makes the product are equally as important as the businessman with the idea we'd still be stuck in early 1900s working conditions. That sounds great huh
I think people misunderstand Friedman's position on Unions. He didn't want Unions to not be allowed to exist, he just wanted government to stay out of it entirely.
One of the rare moments where I disagree with Friedman. Unions are an element of the free market. They are simply workers who band together to sell their labor at a higher price. Banning unions would be depriving people with their right to freedom of association. If you ban unions, you must also ban businesses from integrating or merging with each other. I doubt Friedman would have been in favor of that.
You misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't saying to ban unions. He was saying that government enforces unions are the problem. As a Libeterian he knows that all actions must be voluntary. So voluntary unions are ok because they can not force the business from hiring others. But government enforced unions give the unions unjust and unfair powers that they otherwise couldn't have achieved
Rex Xavier I agree with you.
Uniins were created by the literal mafia.
All unions are total garbage.
Ask any successful freelancer in any right to work state if they would ever even consider joining a union.
They will laugh at you.
Example: Union guys who do my exact job make $35 per hour, max.
I charge $600 *day rate* ($60 an hour for 10 hours minimum) not, by the hour, and then *daily* OT after 10 hours @ $90.
I stay busy almost year 'round.
My friend joined the local hall at the same time Instarted freelancing.
He was on their C-list for 5 years, only geyting one call per year because the union office workers would boom their own husbands and keep all of the work for theirselves, all wbile he owed "dues" every quarter.
The one call he would gwt per year would be *at night* to report the next morning somewhere, a thing scoffed at at in my industry, because freelancers must book way in advance.
All these years later he still only gets minimal work out of them for $35hr max, and has to work elsewhere to make a living all year.
Another guy I know in a different union was a journeyman level 1 for over a decade, then moved to a new state, and he was no "brother" when he got there.
They told him he would have to start all the way back over again at C-list like a beginner in the industry, that his level 1 only counted at his particular hall.
He was so pissed he contacted local 1, filed a bunch of complaints, and never got anywhere with it.
He reluctantly had to leave his lifelong career and start all over doing something totally different, because he could tell he wasn't going to ever gat any work out of them.
Garbage.
All of them.
Fascinating how well-respected he is so today, considering how expressly wrong he was.
Do explain how.
Yes, the real world effect of unions.
My grandfather was a coal miner in Virginia. People kept dying in the coal mines because of preventable accidents. The coal company refused to pay for filter masks to protect the miners from black lung disease, because they cost thirty dollars a piece.
The miners went on strike.
Instead of negotiating with them, the coal company paid goons to bash their heads in with clubs. My grandfather received a fractured skull. The strike was busted when scabs were brought in to fill the spots.
My grandfather couldn't find work anywhere else. When he recovered, he had to take a job at the very same company that almost murdered him, in order to prevent his family from starving. He died 10 years later of black lung disease. My grandmother took care of him at home, where his children (my father, uncle and aunt) heard him wheezing and gasping for breath until he finally died an agonizing death. He received no payout from the company.
The workers finally unionized the coal company years later (after once again being beaten down by company goons), and the coal company finally paid for the goddamned filter masks the coal miners couldn't afford. Black lung disease decreased dramatically after that. It was only because of the union that the workers were finally protected by filter masks.
There is no doubt in my mind that Milton Friedman would have explained to them how having filter masks would only hurt them, how the union would only hurt them, and how suing the coal company AFTER your loved one dies of black lung disease is the "best way to regulate the company". And he would have done it with a smirk on his face, after receiving the same money he received from car companies for doing the same thing.....
Dude, chill. Even libertarians are not against private workers coming together to form a union. The whole point is a fair amount of unions are Compulsory in the US, and have become monoliths that have lost their way, being political machines more than union. A union for coal miners getting shit on by a company is the textbook reason for a union. He and most libertarians and conservatives when they talk about bullshit unions talk about people who can't rewire a house without being in a union, who can't be a teacher without being in a union, who are prevented from doing an easy repair or task at their job without a member of that union without getting sued, that unions use their dues for political donations whose workers may not align with their politics. In a way, big unions become corporations, but instead of selling cellphones, they sell access to work, and workers to companies.
@@Dogofwarno7 , I agree that unions can get in the way of their own stated purpose, and should never alienate their own members that way. Because of corporations and Republicans like Scott Walker in Wisconsin actively undermining them, unions have been declining in the US for the past 50 years, and the government's own statistics show a matching decline in average wages along with it....
Nice anecdotal story...I'm wondering, was your grandfather paying for a house he could not afford, or a car he could not afford, or any other necessity he could not afford on an incremental basis? Could he have taken out a loan to purchase a mask? There are countless jobs that require laborers to purchase and own their own tools. At what point do we draw the line at which the company is required to provide for the laborer to do their job up to their own arms and legs?
@@aliensoup2420 , Nice snarky response.
I'm going to take a chance that you're just a bro with a 'tude, and not a simple troll.
I don't think you care about any of the questions you asked me, but I'll answer them anyway. I'll start by assuming that you don't know much about the mining companies in West Virginia in the 1930s and 40s, and how they kept people in virtual slavery.
First, the miners stayed in company-owned housing. Some of them were like tiny houses, some of them were apartments. None of them were luxurious.
Secondly, my grandfather did not own a car.
He walked to work, he walked home.
Miners were expected to buy their own hard hats. If you lost yours, you were expected to buy another.
Third, my grandfather was not paid in money when he began mining; he was paid in company scrip. Company scrip was the mining company's way of controlling miners. You could only use it to buy overpriced items in the company store.
That way, the mining companies could keep miners from ever saving enough money to quit. Look it up. My family lived it.
In 1938, the Federal government Finally clamped down on this practice and the miners were paid in actual dollars.
The mining company that bashed my grandfather's head in when he joined a strike naturally felt no obligation towards him when he contracted black lung disease, and my grandmother and the adult children cared for him at home until he died.
My father was in Vietnam when he died, and was not allowed to come home to attend the funeral, due to his older brother already being available to tend to the funeral arrangements.
You can blame my grandfather for the circumstances of how he lived and died all you want, bro. I'll leave it to other people to form their own opinions as well.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Its true, Unions were formed originally to correct these obvious injustices, but today they are far from that. Now they function mainly as political entities - basically an arm of the Democrat party. Incidentally, I was initially introduced to the plight of the coal miners you describe, at the early age of 7 or 8, when my mother would play the song "Sixteen Tons" by Tennessee Ernie Ford, though at the time I was too young to understand what it meant. Only as an adult did I discover its true meaning, exactly as you described it.
Yeah thanks I love working 14 hours a day under dangerous conditions and for less than living wage.
Find a new job pussy
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt YEP!
Did you know that, whatever day off you eventually have every week/ month shluld be used to get the heck up, no matter how tired, and start hunting a different gig?
That's literally how it gets done.
Or, hey, keep yourself stuck there, so you can enjoy your day or two off every week.
Thank Henry Ford for 8 hour days.
You don’t work...
Up next, why child labor laws are bad.
who else is here for Mr. Green
All my homies love Mr. Green
Something that I find wild is that detailed empirical studies of how economies work weren't undertaken until the 90's. Everything before that point were largely theoretical "Grand Theories", that while detailed and logical, were derived from mathematical models.
I always like that people have never been in unions or had anything to do with unions know everything about them
I always like that neurologists who have never had Parkinsons know everything about it.
I'm in a union now, and have had interactions with various unions... And they are all full of crap.
You don't need to be in a train wreck to know that they're bad.
I always like that gynecologist who never had a vagina know everything about them
Sounds like grub talk
Unions aren't just for people at the bottom. It is any worker who organizes.
Why is it wrong for employees to improve their their benefits and increase wages. Is that only a thing that the investors are allowed to care about?
Milton only wants his investors class to increase their earnings, but not employees.
@Anton Zuykov If it is so easy why is it not working? All investors have to do is to collude. And it is I their interest to do this.
I considered calling my union today. My new manager went behind my desk yesterday and rearranged all my binders so I couldn't find anything, even took my most important reference book with my important phone numbers to her office so I couldn't do my job for about an hour this morning. Then later talked to me like a kid saying she was going to have "expectations" of me. I've been doing this job longer than she's been a manager, I don't know who she thinks she is or where she got that tone of voice, but she's in for a fight. I think unions are good for ensuring you still have a job when it's jeopardized by a manager's inflated ego.
Sounds like you needed a good talking to, frankly.
Trying to join the⚡ IBEW ⚡ myself. I'm trying to switch to a unionized field and retrain, because I'm so tired of working private and being treated like trash. Solidarity ⚒️.
Maybe you should just try being better at your trade.
@@frankmanning3815 no, he should join the union.
Don't suck at your job and you won't get treated like trash.
I was an IBEW member for 7 years. It wasn’t until i left that my income and wealth started growing. Granted… i shifted from commercial to industrial. Still… the free market determines pay. The local couldnt put me to work but they sure came for my dues and assessments. Nah… im doing MUCH better marketing my skills on my own.
@@plop55Some of the best electricians I know, with journeyman and master licenses, vent about getting rushed, overworked, and underpaid.
Unions shouldn't be protected by the government. They should just be a way of negotiating for the worker, that the worker themselves organise.
I was told during an apprenticeship it's not how skilled you are, it's who you know. And they who are aware of this are very cliquey and may decide they don't like you for any reason. Glad I helped those who appreciated it. Opportunity was more of a disappointment. Really were a few ungratefulls in there that treated apprentices like cheap laborers not worthy of a license.
Not sure why they would do that? We WANT new people in our trade. We'd all like to retire and would like the pension to keep rolling. For us and all members. As well as keep the skill, craftsmanship, and professionalism of our trade going.
Apprentices do get some flack and do alot of the grunt (non-skilled) work. But if they pay attention and apply themselves, THEY will benefit when the complete apprenticeship. Really..if you are not catching some shit from the journeyman you need to step it up. The ones that are liked get the most.
As a Libertarian, I think Labor Unions are a valid market function as long as government doesn't get involved.
UNIONS ARE GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST
Ben Chesterman You're brainwashed.
As a fellow libertarian i believe you don't understand how unions work. Unions work hand and foot with the government.
Well without government involvement I don't suppose unions have any power to do anything at all, so... gov involvement is what I expect of any union.
Exactly. If it's just organised by the workers, it's just a means of creating balance between companies and workers, espacially in such jobs where the workers are highly replaceable. If the government gets involved and backs or empowers the unions, the balance goes to shit.
I will disagree with him on one point. The two most powerful unions start with the American Bar Association, followed by congress, then the American Medical Association .
It's funny how for a Capitalist the fact that many private companies can group up and form a Cartel (Trade Associations, Commerce Chambers, Consortiums) is a basic no brainer of capitalism.
But when Workers do the same, in order to negotiate collectively (exactly in the same way companies do), they are shot down as Lazy or Communist.
butterflycaught900 im so glad someone pointed that out, i was about to write a comment myself
not to mention the fact that "everyone acting in their self intrest as milton puts it, dosent actually forbidd unions in any way, its rather wierd that hes allowed to criticize something like this considering hes supposedly all for the "freedom" heh. Im guessing he mixed up freedom with being for hirarchy, who can blame him, most conservatives get it wrong aswell.
as a last point, lazyness is as much a factor in unions as its a factor in being the leader of a company, its all about geting paid more, silly capitalists
sometimes i lose all hope in rational thinking.
True capitalists are not in favor of collusion - and it's illegal in the United States.
Nouri Al-Kadhim Companies generally just cooperate when they can, see the thousand and one wage fixing 'scandals' in the past 150 years.
Nouri Al-Kadhim
no true scotsman
butterflycaught900 His argument was poor workers don't have the resources to devote in order to collectively negotiate, while those in more lucrative professions do. As a result, those in lucrative professions collectively negotiate and earn more at the expense of the common Joe who isn't able to do it. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
He goes much deeper, but the point must have flown over your head.
That fucking eye roll at 3:00
The seedbed of today's society.
She was pretty hot though.
+MaghoxFr no the one to the left of the hot one.
KIJIJI ALLIN
Missed her. That's probably the story of her life.
At this very moment, if she's still living, she's most likely living a luxurious lifestyle provided by capitalism while complaining to her facebook friends about how capitalism is so wrong.
Just the typical propaganda talk by a boss about how ineffective unions are and how you don't need to belong. The unions have always begun as voluntary organizations that faced fierce opposition from the bosses and the bosses government. They were able to push forward the struggle of not just few but the struggle of all the workers as a class for a better life and conditions despite employer opposition. The ability of any group of workers to win better conditions inspires others to demand the same.
His logic here seems like bullshit. We have the lowest union representation in America ever, but the working class is the poorest it's been in relativity to other classes.
RANDOM NESS BROUGHT ME HERE TO THIS VIDEO
onions will make people cry. theyre only good for food. stop making onions
I love onions.
The Soviets had a union too
Your mom needs a union to demand that you get off her computer and get a job....
Nyet komrad
MaskedMarvyl Lol
they also inhaled air, what's your point?
Faffy Waffle you do understand that if workers stood up in the USSR they would be arrested, right? And it was the Polish workers who helped freed Poland from communist influence, right?
This man is the reason why I want to study economics !!! I would give anything for an one hour conversation with him !
He is wrong, he said that unions result in a smaller job market and less demand. The airline union as he said is the strongest yet airline pilots are in high demand
Unions, and Government jobs actually create competition in wages, forcing private enterprise to pay the same as unions or Govenment in order to compete. Since we adopted Milton Friedman wages have dropped all across the board, 42 percent of all Americans make less than 15 dollars an hour. Business never went out of business as a result of higher wages. GM was the most profitable company in America before they got rid of there Unions and moved there jobs to Mexico.
@Jack McCabe The dropping of the gold standard happened in the 30's Over 90 years ago! Every westernized nation since then has done so, the effects were minimal, before we dumped the Gold standard it was worse! Also wage stagnation, and monopolization seem to only be happening here. Because of the hollowing out of Government, as well as Unions. Unions in the 70s made up to 60% of the work force, less than 20% now everyone else recognizes and actively fights monopolies ( killers of free enterprise and Democracy) in order to create competition, we don't. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher both dumped Keynes as the usage of his economic model for Friedman's in the 80's. Britain abandoned Friedman shortly there after and went back to Keynes.
@Jack McCabe
How come return on capital has massively increased since the 70s,then?
While wages have remained stagnant?
@Jack McCabe
No, a decade after the 70s would be the 80s.
It is now forty years on and return on capital still VASTLY outstrips return on labour. I don't see how that weakens my point. Quite the opposite.
Your ideas of prudent investment seem to ignore what actually happened, under the gold standard,around 1929.
Organized labor bad. Business organizations good. Friedman was first and foremost an ideologue. His ideological approach began with foundational assumptions that were fundamentally unsound. An unbalanced, dishonest, and ideologically biased assault on his subject matter followed.
To quote Kate Winslet, “If black could be turned into white by talking, you’d be the person for the job!” The problem with libertarian philosophy is that it’s just that, philosophy. I see it as similar to communism in that it assumes unbalanced distribution of power is better because man is inherently good. The biggest problem with libertarian philosophy of course is that even if unfettered capitalism was the best system for all, there’d be nothing preventing corporations at anytime from abusing their power and dragging a country into a third world state. Like JFK said, “Democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to build a wall to keep our people in.”
As a recently retired union construction tradesman, I am astounded at the number of negative comments. My wife and I are doing fine, I have not even asked or checked about Social Security yet because I have a UNION PENSION. Our wages have allowed us to travel overseas every year and we will continue to do so. Being a minority, I found the union to be exclusive.... if you were just plain stupid, don't even try to join...go flip burgers. As a side note, most union tradesmen and women are extremely patriotic. I was in good company.
Milton Friedman has always been inescapably right.
i know right, it's kinda surreal that a person of such insight existed once
Lukas Skliuderis
You're comment is surreal.
"Inescapably" maybe, but right? Not so much
Thanks to labor unions I can finally reach the American dream. I have 2 kids, a stay at home wife and 2 cars. I work hard pay my dues and I'm set.
"Thanks to 85 percent of americans sacrificing their wages"
@@ogzombieblunt4626 You think too small. That 85% of Americans aren't in a union nor are they seen as anything other than disposable to the places they work in. Either unionize or destroy the company as it isn't worthy of being in business anyway.
@@MeanBeanKerosene
Muh wage theft.
People consent to the wages they take for jobs. If you want a better paying job then get a more marketable skill.
Are you seriously suggesting to make unions mandatory? Thats not consent, its authoritarianism.
@@ogzombieblunt4626 I'm sorry but who are you? Why should I care? And why should I listen to someone who started off with such a cliché trope.
@@MeanBeanKerosene
If you don't care why respond? Keep it moving if you can't argue a point
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Ayn Rand
I love Milton Friedman. Statism be damned.
+Kevin Lopez Unionization can be just as much against statism as it can be for it.
Indeed .. For it in the beginning, and a casualty of it in the end. And deservedly so, if History and Basic Economics continue to be ignored.
+Kevin Lopez Libertarianism can be worse than statism, it creates a power vacuum that is usually filled by an Oligarchical Elite Super Class that ends up consolidating so much power whats left of the State ends up serving them, look at all the examples of this economics, Eastern Europe and Latin America, its voodoo economics. Unions can be absolutley pathetic, like the CAW (auto-workers) that was taking union dues off of bus boys at a restaurant that were making $8/hour, but it is the right of people to seek a better living and a larger middle class equals more freedom, oligarchy is Feudalism, and Libertarianism leads to this all the time. Socialism also has many faults too, the best is just plain old common sense, populism, and putting all ideology in the dumpster and USE COMMON SENSE.
+Richard Falk We like to think of libertarianism like a night watchman's state, rather than anarchy
+Владимир Ленин no doubt, that is what they would have you believe. The reality is they are about their members period. Competing workers, particularly the unskilled, are their enemies.
His arguments make sense, but look at the airline workers today. They would've probably been better off if they stayed unionized.
So they'd be out of business faster? You realize their wages have fallen in accordance with the shrinking profit margins with airlines post-9/11, right?
chbrules You do realize that airlines are heavily subsized business. They can't operate within the free market.
jetetarro Oh, my mistake. I guess airlines were subsidies from the get-go. Otherwise they clearly couldn't have operated profitably. My mistake.
they only make sense if haven't thought about these issues at all before, or are dogmatic
As a business owner, no one has the right to tell me who to hire, or not fire and how much to pay them. No matter their race religion, or creed, sex or appearance. the only thing I should be required is to have a safe working space.
Unions keep available workers out. By the same logic business licenses keep available businesses out. Ok for management. Not ok for workers.
If their had been no unions, the great middle class that we had in the 50s and 60s NEVER would have happened, because if all the "disenfranchised" workers unions did keep out had gotten to work for pittence wages, then the union workers would have worked for less as well, and every non management/non owner would have been working poor, and the US would have looked more like post-Cold War Poland than like the country we knew
that's right, those dastardly unskilled workers, how dare they not want to live in poverty, they should accept their breadcrumbs and 10 people to a 1 bedroom apartment and be happy about it, am I right?
One of you union cheerleaders explain to me how you justify REQUIRING an individual to join a union in order to obtain gainful employment. I'd love to hear it. (I could use a good laugh.)
Mickey Bitsko Your problem as usual you have things backward. First you get the job from the company after testing for mental qualifications. Then you go thru a six month period of skill and attitude evaluation. Then you get to join the union to guarantee fair treatment under a contract that both parties have agree to. If you were an honest business minded person you would honor the value of a contract. Instead you follow the right wing ideology that is destroying this country. Their purpose is a one world government. A complete dictatorship same as communism. Do you really think we would be better off with banks running the world?
James Brown I don't care if people join unions. But you ignored my question: Why should a citizen be REQUIRED to join a union as a condition of employment?
But I'm sure you'll keep dodging the question.
James Brown And where is the UNFAIR treatment? I've been in a union, and I've worked outside the union. There was no difference, other than the union took a chunk of my money to give to Democrat candidates. I'm treated fairly because my employer is a fair person, and because if he WASN'T I'd simply take my services elsewhere.
Mickey Bitsko Because the present employees made a contract with the company, and because the government said that unions must represent all employees. If you get the representation you should pay for it. WHAT YOUR QUESTION REALLY IS WHY SHOULD WORKING PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE. If you want the best jobs you have to pay the price just like a college education. What are you some want to be manager. I got the picture the world will be a better place if everyone would just shutup and do what the right wing tells us. All that to make thing grate for them.
James Brown The government said that unions must represent all employees who want to join the union. Ever heard of a "right to work state"? There is no Federal law that requires employees to be unionized.
Try again. Don't give me your "government said so" nonsense. I want to know how you would justify REQUIRING citizens to join a union as a condition of employment.
Union thugs extorting people's money from them is NOT American. My contract with my employer is between the two of us. I don't CARE what you do. But don't presume to require me to cough up my hard-earned money to someone who didn't earn it.
Communism failed. Look it up.
raising the pay of high paid workers and lowering the pay of low paid workers is exactly what you see in teachers unions and transit employees. NYC has people "driving" subways for several hundred thousand per year, but try getting in line for one of those jobs. Once you get hired you never leave, never grow, never move on
I find life to be too complicated an affair, and people are much too inconsistent or hypocritical, to take any ideological or theoretical position seriously. If our private thoughts and actions were to be registered to the world, and reflected back to us, I can’t help but to think that we would be ashamed and humbled by who we really are.
Nope
@@dagnabbitt1158-says an anonymous individual on the internet with no fear of his life actions being linked to this reply
The day that professors like him who are in professors unions with Cadillac health plans and only have to work 10 months a year give up their privileges is the day I will start to listen to them.
academics are encouraged to do Independent Study, Research, Continuing Education and produce Academic Literature in what you refer to as "time off".
those who DO, become Highly Respected Academics and advance the entirety of Civilization.
those who DON'T stagnate in mediocrity and bitch about how poorly teachers are paid, join unions and ruin the education system.
@@lullabi3234 lol
Ad hominem much?
You are part of the problem.
@@lullabi3234 when you have a guy talking about being a Libertarian and advocating the free market that has never actually had a job, it under cuts his ideas. he literally was part of a union
Even tenured professors like Milton belong to union at their university, the union which negotiates with administration the condition of their employment.
This guy is full of it unions gave us the 8 hour work day and vacation pay .the more I've hear this guy the more I know he was misguided.after unions collapsed so did wages in the 80s.
Can you give a source?
Luckely I life in a country were strong workers unions its the norm.
9/10 cases were fired workers takes it to the court won their job back.
Forced reinstatement by court.
This its nothing wrong with!
Its simple what every sivilised country should had.
@@heavensea141 where do you live? I’m working on economics for college so the comparison will be useful.
@@ianpage2509
Norway
@@heavensea141Been the twice visiting family. Came up through Denmark. Favorite part was when we took the hour long ferry to Oslo.
Speaking from a student's perspective, I can say with absolute certainty that the teacher's union in New York has yielded devastating effects on the quality of education. Everything that's said about tenure's invincibility is true- I've had a math teacher, whose fail rate for the state exam was 65%, stumble into class sweating vodka after taking the student bus to school.
wow milton. Just wow. I'm starting to just enjoy the sound of his voice at this point ! he's so good !
Yes, it's the same warm feeling you get when someone pees down your back, and tells you it's raining.
It's very comforting....
The creation of unions was an honorable one and a necessity.. Today the government through regulation has replaced the union.
I wouldn't say replaced, unions do a lot of things that government regulation doesn't, such as wage and benefit bargaining for employees.
The government is effectively captured by corporate interests through lobbying and bribes. There has been little to no regulation from the government that helps the common man in over 30 years. Unions are needed now more than ever.
I usually agree with everything Friedman says, but not this. The point of unions is to make sure company profits are shared fairly among all employees, as opposed to corporate management sucking it all up. In theory, the total jobs available and price of goods/services should remain the same, just with less wage gap between the low and high paid workers.
The conflict between you and Friedman is the conflict between the unions mission statement and the real world reality. It is reasonable to consider unions exists solely for the well-being of their members, not the well-being of society at large. They are neither good nor evil. They just are what they are.
small business are getting fucked over by left party and unions in Australia 50 yrs . wages have shrunk since 1970 look it up lefty
Ben Chesterman That is the CEO's fault for being so greedy.
As this charlatan tried to mis-use Adam Smith, let me quote from Smith about the importance of unions:
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate."
I admire your "balls", for calling this man a charlatan... now, can you provide an insight rather than a quote which does not really negate what mr Friedman is saying? It just points out the employers have an upper hand since they are the one with control over the resources. They do need the workers, nonetheless. I come from a country where unions have become a cancer... not saying that is all they are, but they quickly mutate into this state as time go by and they get their way. As Mr Friedman mentioned, the advancement of unions usually impacts those workers not in a union, quite negatively.
@@panchoperfulcro8708 why do you think Friedman is a sort of god? Majority of today's problems is due to this school of thought in economics. They are either charlatans or sell outs.
Ask me exact question, I try to give my opinion. I had put two other comments, please read them as well. They will answer your question regarding my critique about his speech.
Shortly, one of the requirements of "free market" ,if there is scientific concept as free market, is "equal bargaining power". Unions in their true sense are supposed to provide this bargaining power. Def capitalists need workers, but the waiting cost is very different for workers and capital owners. The unions would help to balance this issue. Please have a look at this plot 9 in this analysis
www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/&ved=2ahUKEwj1r72zstbmAhW_BGMBHT46AuIQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0GXc9a9QE6BkhhkrlbgSKr
@@panchoperfulcro8708 Also as this charlatan tried to distort Adam Smith, let's have a look at the start of another book of Smith, theory of moral sentiment:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render
their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except
the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion
which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made
to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from
the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances
to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human
nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they
perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest
ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether
without it
@@shaahin6818 First of all, thank you for a good respectful response. Unfortunately, quite unusual in these days. I am uncertain whether the "free market" is a scientific term, beyond the Economic Sciences. I agree, that Unions provide bargaining power to a group of people, far greater than what leverage a single individual might have but, I also think this is only true for people whose skills are not vast enough to demand higher wages by themselves.
Unions may help, the problem is their evolution ultimately leads to poorer conditions overall for the workers and the ones outside of unions. For example in Argentina, Unions are a business just as being a politician is a business there. There are a few, which have all the power and they neglect and sometimes deliberately go agaisnt other smaller unions interests. It is the only place in the world where unions handle the healthcare of their members and it is a bloddy mess. Sadly, the link you asked me to check, plot 9 , redirects me to a page which is no longer available. I am not for abolishing unions, not at all. I just think that individual responsibility also plays role in which is your own bargaining power and I do not think it is correct to force a worker into a union just to get a job. Not saying it is what you are trying to convey.
@@shaahin6818 Regarding this response I am still at a loss, at what you see as conflicting with what Mr Friedman said. I admit I know and have read very little of Adam Smith, so maybe my ignorance about his contributions is what is keeping me, from getting your point. What I got from Mr Friedman, is that in a free market, you will always have the option of choosing how to operate, which I would say does not go agaisnt that great paragraph you quoted here. The morality would lie therein, in the liberty. Indifferent to the morality felt or exercised by individuals, I believe there is virtue in Egoism.
In countries with a higher share of union members, strike frequencies tend to be significantly lower. This also holds for the a two-tier system, like in Germany. Turns out that unions and labour representatives benefit employers which is also consistent with the fact that the first unions in England were founded by capitalists.
Isn't a union functionally the same as enterprise bargaining? So depending on the cultural landscape unions exist in they can either function as ideological communist enemies, or they can work as equal forces of capital bargaining for beneficial compromises. I'm not sure how to really understand Milton's arguments, most of it to me seems narrow in scope and without much explanation for the mechanisms re-distributing wealth more so than a lot of assertions that require either blind trust or an equal educational experience and view.
@@davespanksalot8413 I agree. However, in reality we can see that the board of directors tends to collide with union reps (e.g. prostitute parties in Hungarian baths). Also, a higher degree of centralisation can both increase and decrease the frequency of strikes. The presence of a larger number of unions leads to larger competition between them while a single union strikes less but has a higher bargaining power (but is also easier to control). Essentially like any other monopoly.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct... Unless.... You're talkin about capitalist wise enough to interject themselves in the takeover of their own companies... Because that's what unions do. It is an insidious form of tyranny. Blind leading the blind... Every time we just go up for a few... Prices go up for everyone.... And that's all products.... (Higher production costs, higher prices)... And they always go up before you're making enough money to cover them... Always
That's contradictory. If you're pro-union you're not a capitalist by definition. It's like saying the first slaughterhouses were founded by vegans.
Collective bargaining is fine. What he's talking about is the artificial control of labor supply in order to increase wages for the few. And even more sinister is the fact that they brand themselves as "pro-worker". @@davespanksalot8413
Adam Smith applied that statement of people seeking and advocating there own interest to "those that live by profit alone" (bankers, rentiers, merchants and manufacturers) and not unions and he saves his greatest scorn for them. When he wrote "Wealth of Nations" he was talking about "nations" not the individual, hence the title. Adam Smith believes that wages are not the simple product of supply and demand, bargaining asymmetries are key (A staunch advocate of some group representing labor). he also states that "wages should be high, profits should be low" he also say's "Taxes can be high, as long as equitable." and finally one of his many warnings " The rate of profit, he said, was “always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.” So who is this snake oil salesman distorting Adam Smith I am watching? Obviously he is not a Capitalist, I would assume more of a feudal mercantilist, and one I might add that dances with treason, in that he puts the "Corporate state, above the Civil State", a death far worse then by external forces like Communist, a death silently from within. BTW Adam Smith would be shocked to know that somehow inequalities or mass concentration of wealth are a byproduct of his theories, because Adam Smith also believes in a minimum wage that covers all necessities.
Tru love how the banker class distorts words to fit their interests. God can’t wait for the revolution already whether this decade or in a hundred years the banker class and their descendants will have their heads on a platter
Your professor did a great job convincing you of something that isn't true.
If you listen to Milton Friedman and don't hear the virtues of Capitolism, you have been completely and thoroughly indoctrinated.
Employers, like all citizens in the United States, have the right to free speech. Although employers cannot prevent unions from soliciting to their employees or punish employees for supporting a union, employers can express their disproval of labor unions to employees. Employers can explain to workers why they dislike unions and how unionization might affect the company.
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935- This Act secures workers’ abilities to bargain as a group instead of individually. The NLRA prohibits employers from firing and disciplining workers for trying to organize labor! For the most part, employers cannot ban or discriminate against pro-union employees. If the employees want to be represented by a Union, they are free to make that choice.
Employers must negotiate in collective bargaining if requested
Both sides must negotiate in good faith, meaning that neither party can intentionally behave badly during negotiations
Employers cannot prevent employees from organizing
Employers cannot prohibit signs or symbols promoting the union
Employers cannot promise or grant benefits to bribe employees
Employers should not hold meetings about unions in a supervisor’s office
U.S. employers are willing to use a wide range of legal and illegal tactics to frustrate the rights of workers to form unions and collectively bargain. Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Using more comprehensive measures, employers were charged with illegally firing workers in nearly a third (29.6%) of all NLRB-supervised elections, a violation of NLRA Section 8(a)(3)! Employers are charged with violating NLRA Section 8(a)(1) by making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, coercing, disciplining, changing work terms, threatening to remove benefits, threatening to close plants, questioning employees about their union activities or membership, spying or pretending to spy on union gatherings, granting wage increases deliberately timed to discourage employees from forming or joining a union, retaliating or harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns! Employers were more likely to be charged with violating the law where there were larger bargaining units. More than half (54.4%) of employers in elections involving more than 60 employees (roughly 25% of elections) were charged with violating federal law. Beyond this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/coercion-of-employees-section-8b1a
Far more U.S. workers want unions than have the benefit of representation today. In 2018, only 6.4% of private-sector workers were union members (BLS 2019). That stands in stark contrast to the nearly half (48%) of all nonunion workers who say they would vote for a union if given the opportunity-a 50% higher share than when a similar survey was taken in 1995 (Kochan et al. 2018). When workers are able to win union representation and collectively bargain, their wages, benefits, and working conditions improve. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 13.2% more than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector. Union workers are more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and their employers contribute more toward those plans. They are also more likely to have paid vacation and sick leave. Union workers are more likely to have retirement plans, with their employers contributing more toward those plans than comparable nonunion employers do. Unions also create safer workplaces. And union workers are covered by due process protections, so that, unlike nonunion workers in the U.S., union workers cannot be fired “at will,” with no warning and for almost any reason.
Unions are for those who can't think or don't want to think for themselves.
@@plop55 fixated triggered people who cope & seethe by trolling 2 year old comments, are cluster b superiority seeking personality disorders… 😂
Modern day unions are a lot like the way guilds used to be in Europe centuries past.
mafias pretty much
Excellent point
?? are you stupid ?.
It is remarkable that this video is from 1980 and yet Milton Friedman mentioned the 4th class of unions,the municipal unions. Today they represent 98 persent of union membership. Whereas the private sector unions represent only 6 percent of union membership.
104%
I find that figure difficult to believe. Do you have a source for it?
I have heard that the public sector Union membership has grown significantly over my lifetime.
@@eddarby469 Its just made up righest propaganda.
Saw that first-hand after three years of film school in the early 90's. No one told us that if we wanted to work in film, we'd need to keep back at least $500 to buy our work permit from the Director's Guild of Canada - a union in all but name. I could have saved myself thousands of dollars in student loan debt if someone had told me that from the start.
Yes that is a cheap bargaining chip for a raise in wages. Big wheels like to single out one lone sheep that asks for a raise and get rid of them! In a group they don't and can't!
Fuck off bitch boy
I'm not sure I get your meaning. Are you saying that you wouldn't have gone into film if you knew you had to be part of a union? Or are you saying you wouldn't have gone to school but simply joined by paying the $500, which seems unlikely to be allowed if it was proper union. Also you went to school for years without researching before hand what it's like to work in that industry? Even I've heard of screenwriters and actors guild and I have no interest in the film industry.
Yea, "guild" is just a fancy name for union.
If union don't successful raise the conditions of workers then why do companies fight it so hard?
Its partly explained in the video. Also, police unions are a big reason for the current state of bad police practices from its militarization, monthly contact metrics and attrition of good officers.
Finland, sweden, Norway all are very high uniozed. There is much more equality, better healthcare, public schooling, much less poverty then in the United States. In fact, there is a direct link to the degree of unionization and equality.
Those countries are fiscal disasters. Besides, what the total population of all three, when compared to the United States? It's 16:1.
@@gravypatron Standard of living is much higher in those country's. They pay more taxes yes, but they don't need to be taking expensive insurance for health care, don't need to loan a fortune to pay for college, kids don't need to grow in poverty, people are much better schooled and so on.
@@gravypatron bro really don't know that things like living standards, food expenses, etc. can be measured according to per 100,000 or 1,000,000.
Therefore, have data of living standard of different population compared.
@@gravypatron "fiscal disaster" says the country that is 20 trillion or more dollars in debt.
management. shareholders. workers.
the first two are dedicated solely to profiteering.
this is best achieved by paying the workers as little as possible, and providing the least conditions possible.
the only defence against these predators is for the workers to unite, and demand a better share of the wealth they create.
thats why the wealthy hate them, and try. ceaselessly to destroy them.
the alternative to union is to rely on the kind-hearts and social responsibility of the bosses.
good luck with that one.
+Gordon Bradley No you rely on competition among employers to set the correct wage. Also I sure hope you paid attention to the real world effects of unions to counterbalance your left wing idealism
+Владимир Ленин He cares about them that's why he brought the real world effect he mentioned, namely that their wages went down as a result of union action
+Ross Shand " competition " ?
" correct wage " ?
Walmart ?
+Gordon Bradley Then why isn't everyone paid minimum wage if those are the only factors? Because they're not, because labor has a value and better labor has a higher value. That's why higher skilled jobs in high demand pay the most, whereas lower skill jobs in low demand offer the least pay. Workers do not need to unite for this to occur, it already does, simply because a worker with a good skillset has many options where they can work and employers will compete with one another for their labor. This is why you negotiate salary, leverage your experience and skill at a company to gain other offers that can cause your current employer to offer you a raise to retain your skills.
Do you think employers offer raises/promotions out of the kindness of their heart? No, it's to compete for the labor of their employee and avoid employee turnover costs such as training. Liberals, in my experience, tend to forget that workers bargain individually for themselves all the time, and that this is just a feature of a free market - not something out of the ordinary.
But workers United and bargaining together get much better deals.
Which is why the bosses hate unions.
Divide and rule.
In 1940 unions membership in the US was 46%. One could leave school get married, get a job and earn a living wage. Today union membership in about 7% in the private sector. Here in Ohio where I live most jobs do not pay a living wage. One must depend on government assistance. The difference in wages go to the business owner, not the worker.
Louie did not say he was born in the 1940s. He is merely stating that education was not as important back then as it is now. One of the primary reasons that you cannot get a secure job with an acceptable income this way is especially due to automation and labor outsourcing. While it is true that there are manufacturing jobs out there that can pay a living wage without needing a complete education, these jobs are quickly disappearing. However, it is true that a good education was as important in the 1940s as it was now, so this does not mean that the process of learning itself is not a wasteful endeavor. This can be summarized by just one axiom that has been heard frequently: knowledge is power.
@bob wach I didn't say I didn't finish high school: dingbat. I was saying that if those 57,000 manufacturing facilities that has been outsourced were still here , folks could find a living wage job.
@@j.grimes4420 You are aware that Friedman is teaching globalism, not economics, aren't you?
Oct 7th 2023. The citizens weren't armed. The military couldn't respond in time. Hamas was armed and unstoppable, save for the few kabutzs that had firearms.
Can we learn anything from this?
In the US, Union membership dropped. So did average low and middle income wages.
The countries with the best working conditions and low and middle-income wages are those with the strongest and largest Unions. To be fair those countries have the best protections for the unemployed the cheapest education and universel healthcare.
As well as the best social mobility.
And they have not crashed as Milton predicted... well, at least not as many times as the US.
I’ve seen some jobs where a non union contractor will slightly underbid a job and be awarded the job over the union contractor and then pay their workers shit and then the company just pockets the rest.
Jonathan Chaidez using illegal aliens, I see them building bridges here in Tennessee all the time, road crews for the state, jobs that were done by Americans in the past, now Americans don’t want those jobs if you listen to liar politicians. The illegals are destroying wages, thanks democrats and republicans for helping your business partners and the kickbacks.
Exactly. Non union companies don’t win those bids by much but they pay their employees much less for the same work. People need to wake up.
@@sniper60605 Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Beamer W. It’s a free country but nonunion employees need to make decisions based on reality and not a line of bs that their company is giving them.
how is this bad? why can't the Union compete?
My skilled construction trade union is run by political cliques. You are either in the " in crowd" or else you are out. If contribute to the business manager's campaign fund and he wins the election, then you will work most of the time in town. If you support a candidate who loses the election, then you will have to travel in order to find a union construction job. If you have relatives or friends in foreman positions, then you will work most of the time. Your knowledge or trade skills have little to do with your employment. It is mostly nepotism and cronyism that determines your employability.
That's true of NON-Union as well... or do you honestly think that in non-union jobs it's all based on skill instead of connections?
I agree with you on the cronyism and nepotism part to an extent. My union basically works like this: Hard workers stay employed 100% of the time, the lazy guys, the ones who call in sick all the time, and the ones who other people can't stand to be around are the ones who sit on the bench. Side note: The lazy people others cant stand, that have relatives in the union, are usually made into union officials so they stay employed.
erick linder
Unfortunately, nepotism and cronyism works in all sectors of the economy. How many business hire people whom they know, and have incompetent workers and managers?
Unions, fortuatnely and unfortunately, elect people. Just like our politics, not the best candidates are chosen---popularity is really important
If you're related to Donald Trump you might get to be Secretary of Defense. At least get a job in the White House.
jetetarro yeah but they can fire the lazy and incompetent workers in private sector.
Plus it they're way too cronyistic they go out of business because all the good workers leave them and go to their competitors for better work environment, since the management sucks balls.
Public sector unions don't foot the bill for their sucky management, the tax payer does
The best way to explain this is as the law of supply and demand, just as Friedman did here. If you lower demand by increasing the cost of labor, the supply of laborers increases.
The problem on the Keynesian side of this discussion is that they somehow think that labor isn't a commodity; that it's somehow exempt from the law of supply and demand. In reality, labor is no different than oranges or computer chips or sedans or slippers.
Jobs are created through the supply of money in the economy. If everyone was in the union, which is why they first started, then the corporate barons would have to give away some of their horded money in higher wages. People would spend that money in the economy increasing demand for goods and helping companies make profits, but corporatism is all about making the most money even if it costs the worker. Now most of the economy is in debt, broke, the middle class is disappearing, and all the jobs shipped overseas. That is corporatism. Why would I need you if I can hire the chinese for pennies? The money slowly trickles overseas and the chinese end up owning our debt. Yes, we still produce, but we are very dependent on other countries now. The elderly are retiring in mass and the social security system can't bare the load. You also have the medicare issue that will collapse as well. Don't get in the health industry.
I would have no problem with unions
provided they meet the following conditions:
1. They are purely voluntary. No one should be coerced into
union membership to keep their occupation.
2. All dues they receive should come from the pockets of members (or donors) only,
not from taxpayers.
3. Unless a contract is under dispute, any bargaining between a union and employers should be kept strictly between those two parties without any government intervention.
4. Unions should have no more influence on our political process than corporations.
Just as we have a separation of church and state, we should have a separation between state and business.
5. Union members should not intimidate, harass, or physically attack anyone for going against their interests. Unless performed in self-defense, violence should be regarded as intolerable.
U realize separating businesses from state will never happen it’s discrimination corporations have rights and freedom of speech as well
@@stayswervin554
This is an awful take for a host of reasons. Seperating state from business is vital for both democracy AND free enterprise. You can't have a system that represents the will of the people where legislators kowtow to special interests. Likewise, you can't have a competetive market economy where the government favors certain groups (i.e. corporations and unions) over others.
Seperating state from business is no more discriminatory than seperating church and state. Both entities would still be able to say and do anything they want, provided they don't violate the rights of others. Neither however should have any INFLUENCE over our politcal process. As in, neither should have any role in the PROCESS of creating and enforcing our laws. That role belongs to the people and to the Constitution.
@@rickysanders6487 only when you realize corporations have rights key word rights
the 1st amendment allows corporations the right of association, and the right of free speech using money to influence legislation is free speech.
As well as unions should be considered businesses, essentially they provide legal services.
This argument is rooted in the assumption that the only two parties financially vested in employment are the employed and the customer. It does not account for an unbalanced market existing between the employed and the employer. For example, I worked for at a company (nonunion) that paid its CEO a $30 million package upon firing her for incompetence. The year before, she had increased her salary to $14 million, not including bonuses and other compensation. That year, they closed two small call centers, saying that the company could not afford to pay those workers and remain profitable.
The problem with blaming the pay of the workers, it that it assumes that paying 1 person $44,000,000.00 in a single year, for being bad at their job, makes perfect sense, and is a valid distribution of the funds. It assumes there is a balance because the CEO legitimately worked 2,934 times harder and/or longer than the average worker at those call centers, or that they had a job more than 90 times more demanding than the U.S. President's job. Mr. Friedman's argument assumes that this is accurate, and that, the many other top grossing employees have earned their 7 and 8 figure pay, and that the only pay that can be affected, must therefore be the average workers. Simply put, that is a false assumption. There is room for balancing between employees of varying degrees.
While I have great respect for the man and his theories, this is a miscalculation. If the CEO pay were reduced to $500,000 a year, more than the president of the united states gets, it would allow for thousands of pay increases, or quality of goods increases, or greater job creation; and all that only deals with a single over inflated salary, and not that of dozens of people who elect to give themselves pay raises. I am not proposing a solution to the problem, merely pointing out the flaw in this line of thinking. There are more places to draw these funds from than the existing worker pay pool and as such it does not have to be, as was implied in this video, a trade-off of higher worker pay in exchange for fewer jobs.
No. That is equivalent to saying that if a person has defective appendix then the surgeon must remove ALL the organs because we can’t let him remove just the appendix.
The point I was making is that each company contains, and is itself, its own micro-economy. That economy, like any other, can suffer from a massive number of potential problems and those problems can be addressed by an even larger number of potential solutions. The argument presented in the video, ignores this. It takes away the surgeon’s scalpel and pretends that he has no other tool available to him other than a chainsaw.
Addressing unbalanced pay, or imbalances in work versus reward, or innovation versus reward, are all valid ways of making the company’s economy healthier and are self-contained. If I am making too much and another employee is making too little and the amounts needed for both corrections are comparable then the problem can be solved internally without any financial transactions occurring outside of the company. The health of micro-economies are very important to the health of the macro economies that they inhabit, and yet they are micro-economies specifically because they are capable of this type of transaction. Another example would be a parent realizing they were giving one child an allowance of $20 and the other an allowance of $30. If the parent realizes the children deserve equal pay than then can shift the allowances of both children to $25 each, and they can do this without burdening the macro economy that they inhabit. I am simplifying this of course, but your argument is to simplify it to its furthest possible extreme, and that is simply not accurate.
That is the problem with the business being run by idiots, not a problem with Milton's work. :)
Yes, but there is still the problem of overpayment. I understand being CEO of an entire company can be stressful, but a thirty million dollar severance package can be equated to robbery if using the example set by Den. And it isn't like fourteen million a year wasn't enough. The CEO could have lived a cushiony life on that. She could have even taken some to the side and invest in the market and have even more money. But again, this former CEO was incompetent, but this can still apply for smarter ones as well. It's not like there's anything stopping them from doing so. And sure, you could say that this is not the same for public servants, but that is an anti-corruption measure. How would you feel if you found out the people who are supposed to serve _you_ and that nothing else acted only to serve their stock numbers?
I guess you didn't know that the CEO raising their own salary and getting a firing bonus was actually a real business move. On cursory glance it might feel like it makes no sense, but in the world of stocks and business, paying one person 30mill is actually a small price to pay versus losing shareholder faith and them dumping your stocks. To the everyman, it looks like an asshole just made off with a lot of money, but in the eyes of the investors, if the CEO is taking pay cuts and is not earning more bonuses from the board of directors, then it's a sign of a declining company. This scares them into dumping their stocks and destroying not just two call centers, but the entire corporation.
@@the8u9 Nonsense. They have absolute power over the norm. So setting the norm absurdly high by artificially jacking it up over decades and then claiming normalcy doesn't work. Why 30 million, why not insist on 100 million, or a billion? Why not just 1 million? These are fill in the blank numbers. There are vastly successful companies whose CEO's make 20 times what their average employees make, and others whose CEO's make over 100 million after bonuses.
No idear why im watching this
I never realized how stupid Friedman actually is, Trump would be proud of him.....
He’s wrong about the demand for healthcare the demand for it will be the same no matter the cost . The ability to afford said health care however is a different matter .
Not quite. Have you seen Canada?
Notice how in all of his analyses, he never mentions the unaccountable concentrations of wealth and power dictating policy. If he continued his tangent about nationalising the industries in GB, those were absolutely worse off today after Thatcher, et. al. privatised them (railroad, prime example). The free market is good in and of itself, but capitalism demands that profits are maximised at all times. Still taking the example of trains, if a certain train service is unprofitable, the private company running it will discontinue it at the expense of the people relying on that train service for transportation. We're supposed to think this is normal and sensible (from the perspective of the private company). "Hey, uh, we're only making £ 200K in net profits here, not enough to give our CEO his 5th bonus of the year... So, uh, can you lot please buy cars for yourselves? Cheerio."
You can't run any entity at perpetual losses.
@@harshitmadan6449 Engineering and urban planning has come a long way from the 20th century. There's a way to break even or get profits somewhere else, but the priority is the bottom line of private companies instead of the general public. Again, capitalism demands maximising profits. If a capitalist projects a potential profit of 2 billion, getting only 1 billion in profit is considered a loss.
Unions themselves are not the problem. Unions have done much to help improve working conditions and pay. Its government involvement with Unions that is the problem. Let Unions compete with the free market. Sheldon Aldelson will give Union type benefits while being non union for example.
They got their way unions are almost gone along with the middle class.
Then the next 40 years happens with the massive decline in unions and the deteriorating wage rates. Why then do pro sports - aka LeBron James - need a union? Simplistic interpretation of Adam Smith while trying to appear balanced. Milton Friedman's utopia - 0% unemployment; 95% poverty.
What do you mean. I don’t understand your statement
@@corban5146 Higher pay does not translate into decreased jobs for the occupation. That only happens in the classroom with diagrams. Certainly getting rid of unions for pilots or restricting them translate into lower pay. Yes, you lose efficiency in the labor market for the sake of the larger community and greater fairness.
For all the people wondering why cities are protesting and rioting right now during these times: thank your local police union who makes it difficult to fire bad cops and hold them accountable.
I am a supporter of free market Capitalism but im an American. I am willing to allow Government regulations sometimes because I know the reality is that some Government aid will always be here and will provide some help like roads, Social Security, etc.
BUT only a country that gives people incentive to work harder and feel good about starting businesses can benefit from the consequences of doing so. Prosperity isn't free. We have to work for Prosperity. And free people know how to work for it than Government bureaucracy does.
Your words are at odds with one another. You're pro free-market but also pro Social Security? And surely you've driven on public roads versus private roads before, right?
“So in other words...Duh!!!”
I never thought I'd be a person that yelled at their TV until i saw this interview
Not only ineffective but harmful to the consumer experience
Adam Smith also pointed out in 'The Wealth of Nations' that the ability of the owners to organize is much greater than the ability of the workers to work together.
You can solve that with a: Federal jobs guarantee program + robust unemployed insurance. Well-paid Federal jobs guarantee programs would outcompete the private sector if they refused to compete with the guaranteed benefits packages and much higher wages.
Furthermore, you can also solve workforce reduction by implementing workplace democracy (i.e mass furloughs cannot occur without democratic permission from the workers).
@Jack McCabe - You’re dead wrong, Jack. A federal jobs guarantee program which increases the median income would increase the purchasing power and (drum roll) be invested directly into the economy-thereby compensating for profit loss-together with automation, which would be more of an incentive due to shifted workforce. To use an analogy, more money; more McDonald’s. Anyone booted from the market would be covered by a robust safety net. Successfully thereafter, the economy can transition to a workers owned democratically-lead freemarket.
@Jack McCabe Wow, educational comment!
@Jack McCabe Imagine calling the government inefficient and bureaucratic, and then turn around and call the private sector, which would supposedly need to artificially inflate prices as an immediate reaction, as “more effective organizations.”
@Jack McCabe Except It doesn’t-and a bountiful amount of economists, which are far beyond the horizon when it comes to diversity of viewpoints, have agreed with the proposal. The projection is that costs wouldn’t inflate because people spend more money, therefore profits are not diminished and the demand for goods and services increase, and with that, private sector jobs. It also fits nicely in with, and offsets the problem of, automation-which causes unemployment. Economic principles are only as good as the results they produce-and a brutal concern for profit is the gameboard that we have to move AWAY from, not towards.
@Jack McCabe You sound like a very well-mannered, intelligent individual. Completely not a closed-minded, arrogant moron not a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You know exactly what I mean when I say artificial inflation. It makes much more sense than you calling private enterprise efficient when they supposedly raise prices over the government setting a floor-minimum to protect against abject poverty. No one cares for your Friedman freemarket capitalism-it simply does not work except for capitalists.
I believe he's accurate about job cuts as a result of cost savings efforts by businesses (reducing total jobs) but he fails to mention that a business will cut jobs aka costs no matter the pay level.
Unions ensure that the few workers that remain will have a middle class income. That being said I have first have seen the many flaws of unions and they should be reformed to modern work standards.
This is a very complicated issue, man.
I can think really clearly about many economic aspects, but for some reason, on the union question, i can never seem to find the right answer
Same here, I'm generally able to think through macro-economic trends, but unions are difficult to make sense of.
It's because you're both prudent people that understand that both unions and corporations consist of humans that are fallible and fight for their own gains.
I tend to switch my gears and focus on accountability. If unionization somehow prevents accountability or the free market's ability to prune bad apples, then I think unions are doing more harm than greedy companies, purely based on the notion that I'd rather the corporations have the freedom to be greedy than the unions to take away freedom to question incompetence or inefficiency.
Maybe one way to think about it is to ask what would be achieved if all employees were part of a union, because that should represent the only consistent stance a non-hypocrite unionist can take (as without the call for everyone to be part of a one, unions quite obviously mainly function to systematically increase inequality on favor of union-members and union-officials, however favorably you try to phrase it.).
So, if everyone is part of one, will it be the case that
a) every employee will have some benefits that the union wrestles from someone (and whom exactly, if the general union-less public is not available anymore)?
Or b) would there be nothing left but everyone having to pay for union officials? And allowing a shift of "power" in some way from market mechanisms to officials and more centralized planning?
I lean towards the latter.
Of what relevance is the success of the Medical Association and Flight Pilot union? He spends the first 5 minutes talking about this as if it makes a point, but the only point this would seem to suggest is that workers here were successful due to their higher skill levels reducing their supply, making uniting under unions naturally more effective and easier. Their higher wages also likely contribute to their strength. Strong unions seem to historically do good for people, and there's no major reason to assume they would stop doing good
In France the primary function of unions is to strike whenever the demand doesn't meet the offer or when the cost of production gets too high... Production is stopped and employees don't get paid. Union officials spen their time party- I mean meeting the employers to "threaten" them with a strike.
good