Volunteer Recognition Sayings

anger unions and welfare

Gilles Saint-Paul says in an interesting discussion at the Economist to unions: unions generally reduce the welfare . Gilles Saint-Paul argues on the basis of textbook economics, that trade unions as cartels . Act Due to the excessive wage settlements lose unemployed and workers in industries which are not unionized. This has subsequently reduced living standards. This is evident across the wage differentials for work of similar skill across sectors. These inequalities are large and depend in part on the bargaining power of unions.

In general, unions are stronger in larger firms with market power and monopoly rents can be a part of the levy. This consequently leads to even higher prices and welfare losses. Unions, therefore, play a positive role, particularly in competitive industries, where only low Renten abgeschöpft werden können. In diesem Fall können Gewerkschaften zur Strukturierung von Lohnverhandlungen beitragen.

und in seinen Worten:

Given that unions tend to reduce the welfare of consumers in general, including some poor and precariouslypositioned workers, and increase the welfare of some specific categories of workers who are relatively well-off, it is hard to argue that unions play a useful redistributive role.
(....)
Unions do not provide a countervailing force to the supposed power of big business. Whenever big business gets rents from monopoly power, unions often manage to share some of those rents (this explains why unions are more present in concentrated industries like automobiles, as opposed to, say, retail trade). This benefits the employees of big business, and it has indeed been shown that these employees enjoy higher wages and greater fringe benefits. But by raising labour costs it further adds to the harm done to consumers (and workers in the competitive sector) by the monopoly power of business. In addition to being too high because firms collude, the price is also too high because employees collude. Furthermore, the interests of the union and their employers are convergent whenever they deal with the outside world: both want to increase the revenue that the firm or the industry can extract through lobbying activities. To the extent that union leaders provide additional voices, unionisation adds to the lobbying power of an industry. This has

Gilles Saint-Paul, of course, right. Insider-outsider problems are central problems of trade unions and trade union left, but also from industry associations of the industry.

But this is more to add. Unions determine social norms of fair pay and play this role in the redistribution debate. In particular, if the policy of trade unions, the unemployed and unorganized workers taken into account. But who else but interest groups of children would be for health insurance, pensions, job security, cheap housing, education policy and to use other Erungenschaften democratic market economy, the Mark Thoma would like to respond to the state. A strong ideal state of the social market economy, so to speak, the apolitical in the best interest of the general public is. The public's understanding of some economists confuses me sometimes. For if such a state is exactly Act so then I need unions and similar interest groups. Or not? Any ideas?