اوباما و اتحادیه های کارگری

یکی دیگه از کارهای جدید اوباما واگذاری پروژه های ساخت و ساز به اتحادیه های کارگری است. کاری که زمان بوش ملغی شده بود. این حرکت اوباما باعث میشه که هرینه تمام شده پروژه ها بالا بره چون اتحادیه ها دستمزد بیشتری طلب میکنند. فکر نمیکنید مشاورهای اقتصادی اوباما با این طرح مخالفت کرده اند؟ پروفسور سامرز(مشاور اقتصادی اوباما) که استاد هاروارد بوده و پدر و مادرش استاد اقتصاد بوده اند و عمو و داییش هم نوبل اقتصاد برده اند(آدم باید خنگ باشه توی این خانواده اقتصاددان نشه!) و چند سالی هم خودش مشاور کلینتون بوده با این طرح مخالفت نکرده؟ شاید ولی به نظر میاد نقش لابی های دوروبر رییس جمهوری که از حمایت اتحادیه های کارگری برخوردار بوده و کلی از هزینه های انتخاباتیش را تامین کرده اند در تصویب این طرح موثر بوده اند. حالا این اوباما حرفهای قشنگ بزنه و سخنوری کنه و یه سری ادم ساده دل هم به امید این اقا منتظر تغییر باشن ولی تا وقتی که دوروبری ها و حمایت کننده هاش لابی های مشخصی باشن خوب معلومه در جهت منافع آنها نهایتا کار میکنه.

در رکود بزرگ دهه سی هم قانونی تصویب کردند که از اجرای قانون آنتی تراست صرف نظر میکرد به شرطی که کارخانجات مزبور از حد معینی بیشتر کارگر استخدام کنند. به این امید که مشکل بیکاری حل بشه. نتیجه هم این شد که انحصار های بیشتری در اقتصاد شکل گرفت و کالا ها گرانتر تولید شدند در مقدار کمتر و در نهایت مصرف کننده باید هرینه این طرح را تحمل میکرد. طولانی شدن رکود آن دوره را هم متاثر از سیاستهای شبیه این میدانستند که در ظاهر در حمایت از بیکاران اجرا شده بود.

Advertisements

5 پاسخ to “اوباما و اتحادیه های کارگری”

  1. Meysam Says:

    that’s actually a smart move, if we condition on the fact that Obama has to give something to the Unions, these temporary projects are the best type of pork he can ever give. Anything else would have a longer impact but temporary construction contracts will end and there is no Obligation afterward. It only has a distribution effect (like the tax cuts for the wealthy) and I think its good direction to go; So republicans give tax cuts to wealthy and receive campaign contribution, Democrats give temporary project to the unions and receive campaign contributions. neither will manipulate incentives (p.s. I don’t believe giving more or less tax cuts to the top wealthy will have any impact on their incentives, its just another type of pork)

    از طرف پویان:
    تو هم تو ایلینوی زیاد موندی داری کم کم چپ میزنیها.

  2. روزبه حسینی Says:

    Meysam,
    1- Why do we have to condition on giving something to unions?
    2- Who said these are temporary?
    3- Do you actually realize the distorting effect that unions have on consumption-leisure margin and on generating unemployment?
    4- Tax cut is only redistribution? Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard the word «incentive»? What are you talking about?
    5- Every single thing that you are supporting here has direct impact on incentives. It actually fucks it up! And there are many studies to back this claim up

  3. Ali Says:

    I find this terrifying that there is so little margin for error and yet we witnessed these decisions. No doubt unions expect something in return for their support however we are talking about a National Economy, not a republican or a democat one. The increase in union project will definitely reduce the jobs these funds could create in the society. Although at the moment I am not so sure to increase tax cuts.

  4. Meysam Says:

    Rouzbeh,
    1- Why do we have to condition is another story, I just gave, to the best of my own assessment, the optimal solution under that situation.

    2- I compared these projects to the other options that are in the air, like these new proposed legislation that facilitates union formations and increase their powers. Those are much harder to change in the future and have much worse impact.

    3- again, I refer to the above answer, If I understand correctly, these are stand alone projects that last 4 to 6 years to finish, the distortion effect, in my understanding, is much less than changing the minimum wage or the new employee health care proposals. We all know that once something is passed in this country its impossible to change it, look at social security. They didn’t pay Obama 600 million for nothing. Unions have a lot of leverage on Obama (like Journalists had on Khatami!) this one is the least harmful among all other options.

    4&5: What has more impact on incentive was to keep interest rates so low for so long by the fed and not a single Macroeconomist saying anything about it. Shall I post Friedman’s interview with Charlie Rose in 2005? I don’t think having an increasing marginal tax on Capital will distort incentives anywhere close to that. Show me some TRUSTABLE analysis.

    Pouyan: These are the effects of Northwestern my friend! In Champaing I was hanging around the ECE department all the time.

  5. روزبه حسینی Says:

    Meysam,
    1- You said «if we condition on the fact that Obama has to give something to the Unions…». FACT? FACT? what FACT? Who established that fact? Where did you get that?

    2- These things are never temporary. You and I know it.

    3- You are saying that «this one is the least harmful among all other options». How do you know that? Based on what? Gutt feeling? Unions were one of the reason that prolonged the recovery after big depression. Giving this historicl evidence do you still belive it is «the least» constly option. Read Cole and Ohanian to get an idea about the cost of unionization during «New Deal».

    4- According to Friedman, it is optimla to set nominal interest rate to zero. That is Friedman rule. You might say that is extreme and I agree. But my point is according to Friedman low interest rate is a good thing not bad. So of course Macroeconomist will not protest that. Why would they do that?

    5- There is huge literature (empirical and theoretical) on estimating cost of taxation and on dynamic optimal txation. The most robust lesson that comes out of this huge literature is that taxing capital income is very very bad idea. So you are absolutly wrong about «thinking icreasing marginal tax on capital have little distortiionary effect». These taxes distort intertemporal margins and their distortionary effects are permanent.
    Bottom line: unionization : bad idea, especially during a recesion (and this is backed by historic evidence).
    Taxing capital: bad idea.
    Tax cuts: always a good idea.

پاسخی بگذارید

در پایین مشخصات خود را پر کنید یا برای ورود روی شمایل‌ها کلیک نمایید:

نشان‌وارهٔ وردپرس.کام

شما در حال بیان دیدگاه با حساب کاربری WordPress.com خود هستید. بیرون رفتن / تغییر دادن )

تصویر توییتر

شما در حال بیان دیدگاه با حساب کاربری Twitter خود هستید. بیرون رفتن / تغییر دادن )

عکس فیسبوک

شما در حال بیان دیدگاه با حساب کاربری Facebook خود هستید. بیرون رفتن / تغییر دادن )

عکس گوگل+

شما در حال بیان دیدگاه با حساب کاربری Google+ خود هستید. بیرون رفتن / تغییر دادن )

درحال اتصال به %s


%d وب‌نوشت‌نویس این را دوست دارند: