Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?
That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.
So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.
|
It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.
As long as it is
possible for the two statements to co-exist there's not a logical problem with the argument, it just comes down to the data to back up the assertion. I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the answer, just the argument.
And srmom did miss the point of my post entirely which was that you can't claim to only care about the logic while making large logical errors. Or rather, you
can, but you're being ridiculous. (As is using unionization in apartheid South Africa as an honest reflection of unionization in the US, that just doesn't work.)
Threaded Mode
