A Unionized Tesla? UAW Considering a Push for Musk's Workers

That is exactly right. The non union plants know that if they treat the workers well, there is no reason to unionize. However, should the union disappear, the companies will either cut wages or let them stagnate. That is for sure.

@golden2husky What's the date I keep reading for the beginning of "real wage stagnation"? 197x? Gerald Ford's stagflation never went away.

@05lgt Depending on who you listen to it's 1970-74. I generally go with 1972 if I'm quoting something. It was the slow decline of manufacturing as income inequality grew and minimum wage stayed low. Had minimum wage kept up with either inflation or productivity we wouldn't have this issue today. Wage floors are the most significant factors we have when it comes to tools to combat this issue.

@Xeranar "Wage floors are the most significant factors we have when it comes to tools to combat this issue." The most common complaint of those of a certain political leaning is that there's too many people sponging off the government - well, a "living wage" would solve that problem. That said, prices for everything would be higher (businesses MUST satisfy shareholders) and the increased tax revenue would look like Christmas to corrupt politicians. This could start an inflationary spiral where those making the "new" minimum wage could still be priced out of buying the very goods/services that they produce, so they'd demand more money (and on and on). So, the bugaboo of "planning" comes into play, which to devout capitalists is tantamount to communism. Catch 22's everywhere - we seem to be stuck between two extremes, and the middle and lower classes take the hit.

@Xeranar There was an interesting article that looked at min wage in comparison to local median wage. It noted that once the min wage gets over a certain percentage of the median, the local economy grinds to a halt. Examples within US territories were given. The theory seems to have merit. Min wage really doesn't affect prices much because only ~4% of hourly workers earn min wage. Changes to min wage only affects the goods/services they provide. Thus, small changes have small effects. But big changes, such as if 25% of workers made min wage, more products must be affected. It also progressively limits the number of low wage earners that will be employed. Another interesting article pointed to "living wages" being arbitrary and informed by local standards of living. (The hyperbolic end of the argument is that half the world lives on

@Xeranar That argument only works shaker is all factors increase at the same rate. So assuming a car costs is 30% labor, 30% parts, and 20% overhead. That leaves you 20% profit. So your labor costs double (lets assume it's minimum wage we're working at). That means your cost for a car went up to 130% of the price. 30% of the parts now cost 30% more. So we're at 139%. Then we're at 20% overhead which shouldn't move much if at all. Given that the overhead is mostly loans, taxes, and the various management. Finally we reach your 'profit' for shareholders. Assuming that money decreases at around 40% (since your car only costs 39% more). To keep the same margin it would increase only 8%. So at the end of the day wages rose 100%, cars rose 50%. That leaves 50% total gain. That's why Big Macs in foreign countries with much higher wage floors don't cost triple. PS: Increasing minimum wage to $15 would increase take home income a minimum of $800 a month. That would essentially put our poorest workers into homeownership in many places or atleast get them into car ownership...

@Xeranar Xer, long time no post.