One of the best things about JHM’s argument, such as it is, is that he neglects to recognize how the arrangement with foreign car companies is much loved by almost everyone – the foreign companies, the domestic workers who put their time in there (and often reject union idiocy) and the consumer. The only ones who hate it are the labor monopolists and fellow travelers.
But more to the point is the foolishness by which JHM and others like him equate unions with workers. Or unions with the poor. The fact is that unions exist to protect the jobs of those in the union. NOT to expand jobs to people who have not been so blessed. It’s a cartel. One effect of a cartel is to drive down prices for those unwilling or unable to play.
Black South Africans were notoriously locked out of jobs by white unionists. In the U.S. unions variously controlled by Irish, Italians, Poles and others effectively locked out other ethnicities.
Given any population of workers and a “natural” turnover and hiring rate, you can see pretty easily that the presence of a union will likely drive down wages throughout the rest of the market. If Company A, under non-union conditions, hires on 200 employees per year out of a given population, but under union conditions is only able to hire on 100 employees per year (due to the added labor costs that are the purpose of a union), what happens to the net 100 workers? They compete in the rest of the market for jobs. You now have a surplus of 100 workers. What happens to compensation? The union guys do well. Which is why they’ll sometimes act with thuggish violence to protect their loot. But everyone else – including the poor “scab” who just wants to work – will do worse.
So the question is, given JHM’s love of unions, why he hates minorities and poor, non-union workers so much.
Turnabout…
P.S. It’s been shown over and over that born wealthy tend to be liberal. Self-made wealthy tend to be economically conservative/libertarian. They have an adult’s appreciation for the mechanism that got them there.
