🚨🧵🚨 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
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.
1/ If you don't like what Trump did on reciprocity, that's fine. But if you're claiming it's indecipherable, you're not trying very hard.
In February, in Understanding America, I explained exactly how this might look and why:
2/ "Some analysts have taken the threat of 'reciprocal tariffs' to mean literally holding a mirror up to the tariff regimes of other countries... there’s no reason to believe that’s what the administration is pursuing." understandingamerica.co/p/the-one-word…
3/ "Trump’s orders indicate a desire to assess the extent of imbalance in market access between the U.S. and each of its trading partners, and then use a tariff to counteract it."
1/ Some thoughts on how to understand the tariff kerfuffle, at the aptly named Understanding America.
To start with, you have to distinguish between four different uses for tariffs: 🧵
2/ Uses of tariffs:
#1: Funding. Tariffs can generate revenue.
#2: Decoupling. Tariffs can shift supply chains.
#3: Rebalancing. Tariffs can promote domestic production.
#4: Negotiating. Tariffs can provide powerful leverage.
3/ Notice that the first three uses of tariffs are fundamentally economic in nature and the policymaker’s goal should be to impose them in a stable and predictable way that minimizes economic costs domestically and creates confidence that they will remain for the long-term.
1/ The latest Understanding America, "Here’s How the Return of American Industry Will Actually Look," focuses on one of the most inexplicable realities of the U.S. economy:
Manufacturing productivity has been falling for more than a decade. 🧵
2/ The decline in manufacturing productivity is critical for how we understand the economic challenges we have faced and the economic opportunities in front of us.
The narrative goes that automation has been reducing employment and we just need better mechanisms for coping...
3/ But that’s exactly backward. Our problem is that we have been experiencing too little productivity growth, especially for the typical worker, including from automation. Only with incentives for, and investment in, much more of it will we get the nation back on track.
2/ The most important thing to recognize is the basic failure of reading comprehension. Is it rude to say they don't even understand the debate they're engaged in? Maybe. But I think it's nicer than concluding that they're lying.
3/ I wrote: "Trump’s proposal ... has drawn resounding mockery from economists, and, in turn, from the mainstream media."
Pino describes this as: "Cass misdirects the reader by suggesting the mainstream media and economists are in cahoots."