You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Based on those abstracts, I am not sure they produced a causal relationship between the two. While I like big picture analysis, there are too many variables in the studies to seriously hold things constant.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that more involvement in union wage negotiations increases unemployment of women, elderly and young people. Why would that be?

  1. Last hired first fired.

  2. With higher wages, some are free to do as described here. "Groups with the most extensive non-market opportunities to use time productively suffer the least when they lose employment."

  3. Higher union involvement also provides for more political power in obtaining government benefits.

  4. Deliberate union-busting through relocation. Detroit definitely comes to mind here.

Just outta my head ...

0
0

[–] catechumen ago  (edited ago)

If I had to assume it's through union restriction of the labor supply to inflate wages.

All I can say for certain is according to their full paper they were able to derive a mathematic model that does seem to be fairly predictive; I'd have to spend a much larger portion of time analysing it though to be completely certain.

0
1

[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I guess it's a battle of the experts because neither of us want to read this long paper.

But you know what's really funny about this? It's the same well-known funding sources. That would be Olin, Bradley and Scaife. Does anyone independent ever see things this way who is not funded by these most notorious sources (or the media that puts this stuff out to the general public)?

Also, this nonpartisan "bureau" is very partisan.

Now I really don't want to read it. This gives me a whole new perspective on who is running r/economics at Reddit too.