[HN Gopher] The cumulative advantage of a unionized career for l... ___________________________________________________________________ The cumulative advantage of a unionized career for lifetime earnings Author : tareqak Score : 60 points Date : 2022-10-12 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (journals.sagepub.com) (TXT) w3m dump (journals.sagepub.com) | cat_plus_plus wrote: | How about cumulative disadvantage to those who were willing to | work for non-union wages but were banned from being hired? | karaterobot wrote: | It's very frustrating that there's no actual article to read, | just an abstract. No SciHub access either. What kind of | discussion are we expected to have here, other than questions | about what the article would say if we could read it, or a | referendum on whether we like labor unions or not? | the_optimist wrote: | The data is right censored, rendering the analysis pretty | useless. Businesses that close (e.g. the entire US steel industry | for a generation), are absent, and their employees sure didn't | enjoy that bump. | VictorPath wrote: | Steel workers were unionized, and there are less US steel | workers now. Textile workers in the Carolinas were not | unionized, and there are a lot less Carolina textile workers | now. | | The difference is Larry Page's grandfather was at a union job | in Michigan in the 1930s and sent his son to college, and then | his grandson started Google. Textile workers in the Carolinas | got less education, and then the factories closed up. | SiempreViernes wrote: | What are you talking about? The workers at those business don't | disappear in a puff of smoke, they go on to work or not work | somewhere else so if the end of the industry makes them spend | the rest of their day unemployed that will of course impact | their total earnings. | | At most they end up in the "didn't work that long in a union | job" bucket, not sure where you get the idea that these peoples | experience is _excluded_ | dan-robertson wrote: | I'm curious how the distribution looks. (I'm also curious about | this in general but I haven't tried very hard to find data on it | and I'd guess it differs a lot depending on the type of work and | industry norms). I don't know if it's in the study as I could | only read the abstract. | | It also seems slightly difficult to reason about unions today | from this data; I think unionised work from when the study | started was somewhat different. But it would probably also be | unfair of me to say that e.g. becoming a unionised coal miner | (back when the study started) wouldn't be great for lifetime | earnings - becoming a non-unionised coal miner might be even | worse! | SiempreViernes wrote: | The data goes up to 2019, and while it is of course impossible | to say now what the gain _is_ for someone who works a unionized | job for 40 years starting in 2010, they tried to see if there | was some trend in the data for more recent cohorts: | | > Given strong declines in union membership, future cohorts may | see smaller cumulative gains from union membership; in | additional analyses, we find that this outcome is likely | channeled through declines in union membership, rather than | declines in the wage premium associated with union membership. | Our findings suggest that the increasingly rare group of | workers who are persistently unionized may nonetheless see | similar gains as observed in this study. | pessimizer wrote: | There's a difficulty with research like this (in the US at least, | although the US also offers us interesting contrasts) in a) that | something like 6.5% of workers are in unions, so they constitute | an extreme minority, and b) that the unions that lasted the | longest were probably the strongest, so the longer your union | career was, the better your union probably was. | | There's also a problem with applying it to the future, because | union jobs are largely in manufacturing (and government), and | manufacturing once paid a premium that it doesn't anymore. Since | 2006, the average non-management manufacturing job pays less than | the average non-management job. | | https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/80306414/fredgraph.png.html | | All that being said, I am downloading and having a look. | istjohn wrote: | Don't forget about construction. | hotpotamus wrote: | If unions decreased lifetime earnings, do you think companies | would fight them so vehemently? | kevinventullo wrote: | If they decreased lifetime earnings but increased the cost to | the company of each employee, the company still has an | incentive to fight them. | VirusNewbie wrote: | Possibly. Do you think salary is the main motivation for | companies? Do you think FAANG companies couldn't find 50k | engineers in the US that would accept 50% pay? Of course they | could, but they feel that they're getting more value by | paying more. | londons_explore wrote: | Unions might decrease lifetime earnings, while _also_ killing | off the industry entirely... | | For example, classically union heavy industries like coal | mining... And weaving... | pessimizer wrote: | Who said unions decreased lifetime earnings? | | edit: If you're trying to say that this study and the amount | that union membership earns a worker is obviously correct | without using any reference to the study, I disagree with | that method of processing new information. | kixiQu wrote: | Can someone who has access say if they count healthcare and | disability? Because WHOO that's a huge difference within the | sectors where you see bifurcation | SiempreViernes wrote: | This is purely measuring how much extra wage you get as a | unionised worker, value from any other benefits is not | included. | bryanlarsen wrote: | I can't see behind the paywall, but how much of that is the | pension? If one calculates how much money in retirement savings | you need to replace a good pension, one will come up with a | number very close to that of the $1.3M headline figure. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Lifetime here means "until age of 65" (or whichever age after | 58 is the last in the dataset for an individual), and the | measure is _earnings_ so before people get to spend it. Thus it | 's hard to see how any of it could be the pension. | ghaff wrote: | That was my reading as well. And, of course, there are also | quite a few non-union legacy defined benefit pensions as they | were pretty standard at big companies for a long time. | | As someone else commented, a lot of big unions aligned with | well-paying blue collar jobs (as well as at least solidly | paying public sector etc. work). I'm not sure that you can | conclude those jobs were better paying because of unions or | because you had relatively empowered organized groups of | workers who formed unions. | pessimizer wrote: | Depends on if it's total compensation or not. The money in | your pension is "paid" to you when you're old, but it's | ideally being released to you from a annuity that is already | paid up. Business-friendly laws usually enable companies to | keep these funds insolvent, and instead to maintain their | retirees as creditors indefinitely, but that's not the model. | tareqak wrote: | I found this article from the following tweet: | | NEW STUDY: Being in a union means a $1.3 million increase in | lifetime earnings - larger than the average gains from getting a | college degree. | | https://mobile.twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/158020922939... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-12 23:00 UTC)