🚨🧵🚨 New survey from @AmerCompass, "Not What They Bargained For," paints a fascinating portrait of an American labor movement that has totally alienated the workers it purports to represent, thanks to its focus on political activism. Let's dive in... americancompass.org/essays/not-wha…
@AmerCompass 2/ Lower- and working-class Americans are much less likely than their middle- and upper-class counterparts to want politicians to speak favorably about labor unions. Not that they want to hear them speaking unfavorably. Most just don't care, or don't want to hear about it.
3/ Zoom in on the core that we call "potential union members" -- people working 30+ hours per week at a for-profit company -- and only 35% say they would vote for a union. They're almost as likely to say they would be undecided, or to say they would be opposed.
4/ Unions claim that workers can't organize because they fear employer retaliation. We didn't find evidence for that. We asked potential union members why they're not unionized and 69% said not sure or haven't thought about it. 2% (two percent!) cited threat of retaliation.
5/ Similar result when we ask potential union members opposed to a union to check off all the reasons they would vote no. Retaliation was by far the least-chosen option.
What was #1?
Union political involvement.
6/ Here we get to the heart of the matter. Workers really dislike union involvement in politics. By 74% to 26%, potential union members prefer a worker organization that devotes resources only to issues in their workplace over one also focused on national political issues.
7/ We asked workers to allocate 20 points across "different things a worker organization could do, based on how important each activity is to you." They allocated 65% to collective bargaining, benefits and training, and workplace collaboration.
Politics got 3% (three percent!).
8/ We listed the nearly 20 different political issues that the AFL-CIO and SEIU feature on their websites and invited workers to check off all that they'd want a worker organization to speak out on. Not a single issue got to 50%. Most got 20% support or less.
9/ We also asked potential union members whether they would prefer a worker organization run by employees alone or run jointly by employees and management. By 63% to 37%, they prefer a joint arrangement. Totally different conception from what today's unions and labor law assume.
10/ America needs a robust labor movement, but that requires political and union leaders listening to what workers actually want: a collaborative relationships, a focus on concrete economic benefits, and for goodness sake, enough with the politics. End. americancompass.org/essays/not-wha…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Happy 25th Anniversary of granting permanent normal trade relations to China, for those few who still celebrate!
Today I'm counting down 10 classic examples of the failed consensus that led us off the cliff (h/t @AmerCompass Wrong All Along project).
#10... This [U.S.-China WTO] Agreement will also strengthen our ability to assure fair trade and to defend our agriculture and manufacturing base from import surges and unfair pricing.”
— Lael Brainard, Under Secretary of the Treasury, Clinton admin. (2000)
#9. “This reinforces all the things we want to encourage in China ... If we want to be part of changing that in China, then openness to telecommunications, openness to the Internet is a central piece of that. On the other hand, if we want to repudiate all of those who are working in that direction, repudiate all of those who have reached out in favor of markets, then not taking the PNTR step is the way to do that.”
— Martin Bailey, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors, Clinton admin. (2000)
1/ Fascinating drama playing out over the past 24 hours as the very good GAIN AI Act from @SenatorBanks comes under fire from @nvidia, which seems happy to shred its credibility for the sake of getting more AI chips into China. 🧵
2/ The Banks bill takes the sensible and modest approach of requiring US chipmakers to offer AI chips to American customers before selling them to China. So it's just blocking sales where more chips for the CCP directly means fewer for American firms. theregister.com/2025/09/04/us_…
3/ Enter Nvidia, which is leveraging every ounce of influence with the administration to get its chips into China, even when there are American firms that want the chips, because it thinks it can gain a permanent toehold there (which never works and won't this time either).
1/10 I say this out of respect, not disrespect, for Sohrab, whose analysis is always careful and thoughtful: This makes no sense at all. If the best effort at constructing a case from within an assumption of U.S. hegemony leaves logical holes this gaping, that era is truly over.
2/ First, Israel is conducting a campaign against a country that has orchestrated unending terrorism against it for decades and called for its destruction. It is not America's place to grant permission for such a campaign, to take responsibility for it, or to stand in its way.
3/ Not having responsibility for the campaign, the U.S. likewise does not have responsibility for the smoldering ruins that Israel may leave behind, no matter how much people rend their garments and complain. Yes, this requires a mindset change. So make it.
1/ In an especially fun bout of market fundamentalism yesterday, @MattHennessey @WSJopinion argued that markets "are governed by the laws of economics the way the physical world is governed by the laws of gravity." I love this for two reasons... wsj.com/opinion/jd-van…
2/ First, because it's disastrously inapt. Economics is nothing like physics. Its principles are not generated from repeatable experiments, nor do they hold consistently across space and time. Believing otherwise is a quite literal example of blind faith and fundamentalism.
3/ Second, though, it's perfect. Yes, the physical world is governed by the laws of gravity. But it is not governed only by the laws of gravity. Indeed, anyone who thought he could reliably predict the motion of bodies with knowledge only of gravity would be quite disappointed.
1/ Today's Understanding America, You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Post Is About You, takes a look at the bizarre social media reaction to this @FrankLuntz tweet and what it says about the blinkered innumeracy and elitism of reindustrialization's skeptics.
2/ The Rorschach test here is one separating people who can think rationally and empathetically about the wide range of opportunities their fellow citizens might pursue, and those who lack that basic capacity. @scottlincicome apparently falls in bucket 2.
@scottlincicome 3/ See, if 25% of respondents say they’d prefer a factory job to their current job, that suggests an enormous opportunity for improvement in many lives. But @gtconway3d thinks only people who themselves see a factory job as their best option should support more factory jobs.
Tough crowd, sore subject I guess. Deleting tweet and archiving it here. Only point I was trying to make is that I think comparative advantage mostly determines composition of trade, other factors drive level. I was curious how people would describe it. You didn't disappoint...
I particularly appreciated Alex's enthusiastic ALL CAPS confidence that comparative advantage explains the slave trade.
Thanks also to everyone who thinks richer countries always run deficits with poorer countries because the poorer countries can't afford to buy as much. I must have missed that chapter in Ricardo.