Matt Bruenig

They might have to experience Scandinavian market pressure. One story about how McDonalds choose to experience it : Once the sympathy strikes got going, McDonalds folded pretty quickly and decided to start following the hotel and restaurant agreement in 1989. This is why McDonalds workers in Denmark are paid $22 per hour. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

One of my favorite unionization stories comes from Denmark when unions in various industry sectors joined together to force McDonalds to adhere to union rules.[1] The US has so few weak and disparate unions that that story could never play out there - even up here in Canada we're pretty anti-union in general. 1. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

>the solution, in part, has a simple policy component: declare jubilee on all federally-originated student debt Unfortunately this is a pretty terrible idea. First of all it would cost about $1.4 trillion and second it benefits the already better off in society. [1] Not only do the children of wealthy parents have disproportionally more student debt, they're also far better equipped to actually pay it off. A trillion dollar welfare plan which gives money to Sandra A. who went to Wellesley but not to Sandra B. who only has her GED doesn't sound that great. It'd be better just to spread it out evenly. [1] http://mattbruenig.com/2012/08/10/student-debt-disproportionately-burd…

You may want to read this: When McDonald’s Came to Denmark — https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/ > … When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, but insofar as it is meant to imply that the different legal environment is what accounts for the labor radicalism, this obviously has things backwards. The laws aren’t driving the labor radicalism, but rather the labor radicalism is driving the laws. > […] > If we [in the US] are ever going to get to Nordic levels of equality, it is really hard to imagine doing it without building a similarly powerful labor movement. You can certainly get some of the way there, such as by copying certain welfare programs, but without the unions, you’ll always be missing a key piece. And while legal and policy reforms can help build the labor movement some, the power of organized labor is not ultimately rooted in the state, but rather in the ability to halt production and wreak havoc even when the state is aligned against it.

I think the more meta problem is that the people who agree that plurality is bad can't agree on what a better system should be :) IRV actually encourages strategic voting, see e.g. http://mattbruenig.com/2014/11/15/instant-runoff-voting-and-strategic-… For a concrete example, if in the USA we had an IRV election between Trump, Clinton, and Sanders in 2016, there are some (not unrealistic) scenarios where it's possible that your (honest) choice to vote 1. Sanders 2. Clinton 3. Trump would cause a Trump victory, whereas a strategic vote of 1. Clinton 2. Sanders 3. Trump would cause a Clinton victory. You can argue that approval voting also can lead to strategic voting, but at least with approval voting you won't accidentally cause your least favorite candidate to win by voting honestly. You should look at Condorcet methods, which as a group are conceptually similar to IRV but are more effective at capturing the intent of the electorate. For example, the above scenario can't happen with Condorcet methods. (Again the problem there is that there are actually many of them, and you have to agree on which specific one you want. But all are better than IRV). IRV isn't the way forward, and it's unclear to me why organizations like FairVote don't endorse another method. (They have an article about it here but the reasoning doesn't really make sense to me. http://www.fairvote.org/why-the-condorcet-criterion-is-less-important-…

Matt Bruenig (who I generally recommend to anybody interested in questions of economic justice because his writing introduces laypeople to brilliant and refreshing points) has a series on Uber surge pricing where, among other things, he makes that precise argument. He's the kind of guy who even includes (hints of) a sample calculation showing how the random distribution of a smaller number of taxis can lead to an objectively better outcome - it all depends on what your assumptions about people's utility functions are and what your objective function is. He also argues why it is in many people's self-interest to argue against surge pricing (a point which is, admittedly, much more obvious: many people prefer a low chance of getting an affordable taxi over a zero chance of getting a taxi they cannot afford). Here's a link to the last post in the series: http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii/

> a set of basic rights that aren't in conflict Do you have a reply to the arguments in these linked texts that property is inherently coercive? https://mattbruenig.com/2015/10/01/capitalism-is-coercive-and-creates-… https://mattbruenig.com/2014/05/07/property-and-conflict/

This is just how labor unions roll in the Nordic countries. McDonalds learned this in Denmark [1]. The sooner Tesla realizes they need to negotiate labor contracts through the unions to operate in Sweden, the more money they can make. [1]: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

Reminds me of the McDonalds in Denmark story: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/ Discussed 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28603398

A time honoured tactic in Scandinavian labor relations https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

It's very interesting. McDonald's tried this principled (anti-union) stance in Denmark. But now, they are still there, and the employees are very well compensated. However, they were able to keep the unionization consolidated away from the home country. So don't worry too much. > This is why McDonalds workers in Denmark are paid $22 per hour. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

Precisely. Matt Bruenig wrote a pretty compelling analysis of why the statistics in the book are either misleadingly presented or so banal as to be useless: https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-again/

This article is far too generous to the argument. Matt Bruenig’s analysis will likely appeal to some here. https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-again/ https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/30/response-to-douthat-on-two-parent-f…

When McDonald's came to Denmark: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

Not exactly. Here is the story of what happened, when McDonald's opened in Denmark (similar system to Sweden) - and thought they could avoid an agreement with the union. https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

A lot of it is confused, but they do have meaning of a sort, often with a touch of newspeak. For example, I like Matt Bruenig's take on "equity": https://mattbruenig.com/2023/03/05/equality-and-equity/

>I bet you also think that cutting executive salaries would somehow make major corporations like McDonalds be able to pay all of their workers a living wage. I would encourage you to do the math on that -- it literally never works out. Hmmm, in Denmark McDonald's manages to pay their workers ~$22 an hour[1], with 6 weeks of vacation, and paid sick leave without substantially increasing prices[2], and remaining profitable. 1: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/ 2: https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index

IANAL, but you may want to edit or amend this comment if you're in a leadership position because it might technically be illegal (assuming U.S.), even though it's satire. See Ben Shapiro's and Ben Domenech's recent NLRB ULP charges. Shapiro had his thrown out because he RT'd an Employees Rights poster (which is more or less the remedy anyway), and Domenech got lucky and had a judge reach a "no-coercion conclusion" in his case.[0] [0]: https://mattbruenig.com/2022/05/21/federalist-ulp-ends-in-big-let-down…

This is overall a comparison of "Purchasing Power Parity" which suffers from a few gotchas. One thing that complicates this is the value of services provided 'for free' by a person's government. The average citizen of the USA lives on $75 per day, but might use another $10 per day of interstate highways paid for by the government - something the citizen of Burundi doesn't get. Likewise, the Danish citizen lives on $50 a day, but may be receiving a free college education and healthcare while the US citizen spends a substantial fraction of their income on those two. If you're interested, here is a succinct write-up of the phenomenon https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-incomes-across-count…

Unions can negotiate more effectively by banding together. For an example, see this article: https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

If people respect pay for work, then they despise the opposite, including wealth earning income for no work. That saidd... This is consistent with believing owning less wealth is better than owning more wealth. Then that justifies groups with less wealth as better than groups with more wealth because they earn less income without work. Which then means the gender gap, racial gap, poor social immobility, etc are thus preferable because they imply not getting as much undeserved income. Only the belief that income without work is a priori bad forces this conclusion. The idea "compensating individuals honestly for their work produces a sufficiently fair world" isn't consistent with wanting to produce a fairer world. [0] [0] http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/22/some-opponents-of-ubi-necessarily-be…

Damore's NLRB claim is by far the most interesting aspect of this controversy. Counterpoint here: http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google… He walks through all the relevant points, concluding: "In basically all cases, a conservative NLRB will want to reduce the ways workers can coordinate with one another, and increase employer discretion to terminate employees. When I raised this point on Twitter, someone said that this might be different under Trump because wouldn’t such a ruling feed into the political correctness and whatnot that he hates. And to that I can only laugh: at the end of the day, what conservatives want to do is shift power to bosses over workers, and they are really good at keeping their eyes on the prize."

More good analysis here too: http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-singl…

Indeed. An alternative view on this: > The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles. > That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care. http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-singl…

>In the modern economy skills, training, and education are the surest means to success. Nope. Still land: http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-college-degre… actually it was never just land either. It used to be about owning land, debts, gold and slaves Now it's about owning land, debts (bonds), gold and shares.

Here is an interesting basic income calculator: http://mattbruenig.com/basicincomecalculator/ Happily, it suggests lots of proverty reduction is achievable with a very manageable percentage of GDP.

Neither your characterization of the mating behavior of primitive man nor your explanation for low birth rates in affluent societies are consistent with reality. Age of first pregnancy and number of children both tended to be higher in early agricultural societies than hunter-gatherer societies. Finland has a marriage rate above the OECD average[1], which suggests that its low birthrate isn't a result of women being unable to find partners. It's dropped since 1970, but the fertility rate has actually increased since then[2] and is now 1.8, not 1.5. [1]: http://mattbruenig.com/wp-content/uploads/marriagerates.png [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland

I mean that's definitely cherry picking portions of the wiki. Both of the articles refer to each other much more than those examples, not that that really matters. Plus the Supply Side Economics wiki article, right below the "Not to be confused with trickle-down economics", contains a huge box pointing out the many issues with the article, including but not limited to "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles." and "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information." I also was trying to google it and saw what the other commenter saw btw. The AI overview on Google says "Yes, they refer to the same core economic concept, but supply-side economics is the formal, academic term, while trickle-down economics is a popular and critical label for it. Both argue that cutting taxes and reducing rules for businesses and rich people will help the whole economy". And it references: https://mattbruenig.com/2013/01/07/on-trickle-down-economics/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/demand-side-vs-supply-side-econom… https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/supply-side-economics…

> Over the last 10 years or so, I have filed a number of high-profile unfair labor practice charges against coercive statements, with many of those statements being made on Twitter. I file those charges even though I am merely a bystander, not an employee or an aggrieved party. > Every time I do this, some individuals ask how I am able to file charges when I don’t have “standing” because I am not the one who is being injured by the coercive statements. > The short answer is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has no standing requirement. > Employees reasonably fear retaliation from their boss if they file charges. So we want to make it possible for people who cannot be retaliated against to do it instead. [1] I believe the Vox piece shared in this thread [2] is enough for anyone to hit submit on an NLRB web form and get the ball rolling. Snapshot in the Wayback Machine (all the in scope tweets archived in archive.today|is|ph), just in case. [1] https://mattbruenig.com/2024/01/26/why-there-is-no-standing-requiremen… [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40394955

> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. This is backwards, and I'm having trouble understanding how a more diverse, more transient population would find it easier to find common interests and unite. Suppose a factory unionizes - without borders, the owner will find it easier to import non-union workers. While moving a factory is challenging regardless of borders - it's a big, heavy thing, tied into local infrastructure and supply chains. It's even reflected in the rhetoric - "immigrants will do the jobs Americans won't". It's also reflected empirically: Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks - https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-w… (unpaywalled: http://archive.is/1khJw) And in the strong Danish unions as far back as 1981 (https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/) when Denmark had only 3.02% of immigrants and their descendants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark#Modern_minoritie…