Some ideas on the future

[David Horn]

(06-28-2017, 06:06 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(06-27-2017, 06:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-27-2017, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [As long as there are a reasonable number of competitors, you can switch to a different corporation.  This threat keeps the corporations in line.

Assuming that the "you" refers to an employee, this is not generally true. It is only true if competitors are hiring. Hiring is strongest towards the end of business cycle expansions, so one can do this reliably only part of the time.

The point stands that there's a mechanism to keep corporations in line that doesn't apply to governments.  Governmental levels of coercion didn't develop over a single business cycle.

Can I assume that you disregard elections as a method of keeping government in line?  How about the courts?  

Warren Dew Wrote:

Mikebert Wrote:That this mechanism can "keep corporations in line" is disputed by the trend in fraction of output that goes to worker, which has steadily declined over the past 30 years showing that bosses have had the upper hand over the employees.  In general management typically has the upper hand as they are many (they represent shareholders and management who are thousands of people controlling billions of dollars) against one (the employee, who if he controlled significant wealth would not need the job).

The size disparity was just as true 50 years ago, and back then employees were getting a much larger share of productivity improvements, so that's not what's driving the issue.  What has changed has been high levels of immigration, undermining employees' bargaining position by providing more competition.  That has everything to do with government coercion and little to do with business coercion.

This is disingenuous.  We still had the remnants of activist government, liberal courts and real labor unions 50 years ago.  It took Ronald Reagan to destroy that paradigm, and its been downhill ever since.