You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO.

Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement.

In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out.

You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output.

To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).

You must have missed:

>> Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me.

I simply disagree that the government should be involved. If it turns out a factory is dangerous then no one will want to work in it and if they do? Well if they do want to work in dangerous conditions, let them.

The point is, most people wont work in awful conditions and its in the employers best interest not to hurt its employees anyways. In the 1920's when all this hoopla started because the workers rebelled and both the workers and employers were literally shooting at one another (this was also when communism was entering the scene).

Relating it back to this article, its a citizens duty to enact (or attempt to enact) change into the government because the government is there for its populous. A company is there for its own bottom line. The company wasn't forced upon you and you shouldn't force yourself upon it, unless it does so. AKA the company store was bad and forced something unreasonable upon you, for that a union is great and should be formed. In either case unions supported by government intervention are something a tad more draconian in my mind, by denaturing a company and making it about its employees rather than about its product. Leading to issues such as car manufacturers.

This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee.

Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the benefit to mankind. If you sacrifice people for the product, you are imbuing a product as god. That's completely the opposite of reality, in which products are the "product" of humans (and if we're continuing with deities as a part of this analogy, humans would therefore be divine, not products).

A company does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within many larger societal themes. When a company chooses to pursue profit while negatively impacting the aggregate economy, it is the point of regulation to punish such behavior. Without regulation, the whole world gets torn asunder, as it nearly has been many times in recent history.

TL;DR: The correct answer, IMHO, is People>Product. To think otherwise is to err morally.

>> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee.

That's an incorrect statement.

I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes).

For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.

> You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world.

That's been my big complaint with what I understand to be libertarian ideology. It comes down, in the end, to "f--- you, I already got mine" and a pyramid of people stepping on the throats of those unlucky souls below them. It's like a guy hitting a home run off a tee and thinking he's Babe Ruth.

There's always a pyramid, all that changes is who sits atop it and how everyone else is placed within the strata. All libertarianism says is that you can't initiate violence or take what's not yours to find your place in that pyramid.

You are saying that elitism is the product of a system that produces it. I am saying that elitism is inherent to the human condition. There are three ways to become elite: by force, by theft, or by merit. The only way to ensure it happens by the method of merit is to forbid theft and force.

Even if we stipulate that elitism is a product of the human condition, that does not mean that we cannot (or should not) try to ameliorate that. There are lots of 'products of being human' that we choose to control instead of allowing to go unfettered. E.g. conflict is a product of the human (and natural) condition but we strive to avoid violence anyways.

Additionally saying that elitism will happen anyways doesn't mean that structural factors play no role or should be ignored. You left out one of the biggest factors of elitism of all: dumb luck! Even if you forbid force and theft how can you claim that someone meritoriously became elite when they simply inherited what they had through no skill or effort of their own?

Likewise you can gain elite status by being given it (such as in a cartel or trust), without stealing it from anyone or using force. Does that fact that the rest of the cartel feel you're pliable enough to warrant being used as their lackey really serve as 'merit' in this situation?

So even playing in the logic you've laid out I've established ways to become elite without merit, and that's assuming your logic is right. I would say instead that the world of interpersonal relationships (politics and sociology) is in reality more complex than your logic allows for, which even further muddies what insights we might be able to draw and apply from that logic. For instance I don't think I'd agree at all that forbidding theft and force necessarily leaves only meritorious actions.

Another large question is how do you account for indirect force or theft? If I burn something noxious and it comes down on a farmer's field as rain and kills his crops, it's not like I stole it from him or used force, right? But the effect is the same for him, whether he even knows there is some single person responsible or not.

In order to ameliorate iniquity, you have to steal. Now you are in the position of saying who gets to do the stealing, who gets to be stolen from, and who gets to receive what was stolen. Voila, you've created a new power hierarchy which is supported by theft and force to those who resist the theft. The thieves become the elites, the stolen-from become the downtrodden, and the given-to become the politically favored. The underlying system hasn't changed, just how the players are arranged.

Addressing your more concrete examples:

1. The wealthy inheritor. While true that the sudden influx of wealth may confer an undue bump in social prestige, it won't last unless the individual knows how to keep it. Wealth is useless sitting in a hoard, it has to be expended; unwise expenditures will lead to negative returns. In other words, you don't stay rich for long unless you know what it takes to stay rich, which is in itself a form of merit. Even if that sounds distasteful to you, bear in mind that the alternative at which you hint simply involves stealing from this person and giving to those you favor, who are then placed in the same position: wealth, if you can keep it. If they're savvy enough to do that, then they will soon become either your next target or a new elite.

2. The monopolizing cartel. In order to monopolize a market in an environment where force and theft are forbidden, a company must offer a product that is most appealing to customers. That is a form of merit. Now, in order to maintain that position, the company must continue to offer the most appealing product. You might say: they could drive out competition by drastically undercutting their prices. Well, where is the harm in that? The competition either adapts if it can, or dies out; meanwhile, people pay lower prices. Then the cycle of raising prices, thus creating an incentive for competition, thus driving down prices, repeats until the cartel runs out of resources to play this game.

3. Negative externalities. If I pollute your arable land, then I have stolen it from you and replaced it with barren land. It is theft, albeit indirectly, and so falls under the category of forbidden things. The matter of appropriate remediation for crimes has not yet been addressed, so I'm not going to bring it up now.

Sidenote: Have you ever tried to hit a home run off of a tee? That's not an easy feat at all; the kinetic energy provided by the pitcher helps quite a bit.

You know I was afraid someone was going to call me out on that, but it was either leave it or stay longer at my work computer to lookup the actual quote before I went home. :)

But you're exactly right.

> If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please.

> Call me calloused,

Well, not so much calloused as much as completely, laughably, uneducated. The idea that someone in the 1920's-forward can just "get some skills or work someplace else" shows a complete lack of the most basic understanding of what life was like, and still is like today for the working class.

The solution to this is govt. supported training programs with a stipend that make it possible for people with no savings to learn a different trade, not paying them unsustainable amounts to do unskilled things.

i agree and disagreee. i think unions were a good idea, but yes, were given too much power. I don't think anyone can doubt that. I actually also agree with you that they don't benefit anyone in a company anymore. we have more regulations and restrictions than we ever did in (someone said this decade) the 1920s and that pretty much makes the unions benefits moot. I've worked in union and non union shops for the auto industry (detroit) and I think that the non union shops ran better, and were better to their employees. I know this is just my experience but i talked to many people that i worked with and they agreed. When your boss has to confirm with the union rep before he can make a change, that's a problem. when you can't fire an incompetent employee because he's union, is wrong. HOWEVER... dangerous jobs should be avoided regardless. there are jobs out there that will be dangerous regardless of regulations, but can be minimized. I don't think it's callous. i think the concept of everyone getting their hands held through the job market is the problem. "you don't want to work hard, no problem, here's your union card." is a concept that i've witnessed and if that fails, there's always unemployment. i'd prefer people felt some sort of drive to improve their living or working conditions. too much coddling. now i'm just ranting. ;)

>but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers

Sounds like you're against the US Government.

>Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull.

A clever businessman would organize all these replaceable parts into a cohesive whole, and then having cornered the market, set his own price. That's capitalism in action. The very people who decry it are the same ones cornering their own markets. When its telecoms, cable TV, healthcare, widgets, corn, DNA, etc, its ok, but when its "units of labor", oh, well now its anti-capitalist and anti-american.

So I'll go along with your idea that Unions are an illegal monopoly on labor after we've gotten rid of the government-created construct called the corporation.

I'm pretty sure the OP also disagrees with the monopolies telecoms, cable TV, healthcare etc have, so that's in line with his thinking already.