A friend of mine is a liberal lawyer and author. He sent me a draft of an article he is writing. Like all his stuff, it is well-written. One thing he discusses is how during the heyday of a unionized workforce in America people had contract rights in their jobs. If they were fired, they could arbitrate. Now, we have moved to a tort system where people sue for discrimination, which is way, way more expensive. He also mentions that he speaks to audiences in Europe they simply cannot grasp that most jobs in America are terminable at will. No matter how many times he explains it, they can’t grasp it. He also claims that during the era of a unionized workforce, workers got more vacations, and had retirement plans which paid fixed amounts of benefits, and workers had longer vacations, and worked shorter hours, etc. and generally people had greater faith in the country and thought they were getting a better deal in life. I am not doing justice to a draft of what promises to be a very, very interesting article. So, don’t spend too much energy arguing why these points are wrong. When it is published I’ll link to it and he can speak for himself. Anyway, as I was reading it, I was seeing more and more that the problem is not so much his analysis as the divergence between his and my basic understanding of the world, and how it works, and what is possible.
I started to draft a response, but it turned increasingly into a rant which was not really on point. So, I plunk it on here instead.