
Rent control is back. And that’s bad - patothon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rent-control-is-back-and-thats-bad/2019/09/21/31abb05c-dbdb-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html
======
wahern
Rent control is inevitable. The cited paper
([https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-
auth...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/457786))
synthesized a cost of a 5.1% increase in rental prices for San Francisco, but
that's for the period 1995 to 2012. 5.1% for that period is miniscule, dwarfed
by demand and non-rental control supply pressures. The political cost of an
army of voters worried about housing insecurity is incomparably higher.

The researchers suggest transfer payments instead of rent control, minimizing
negative effects on supply. But Americans, and I'd bet most people around the
world, dislike transfer payments. Nobody wants to be "on the dole", and in any
event signing up for those payments comes with its own form of social cost and
insecurity. Rent control is a silent tax that is relatively optimal from a
political-economic perspective (not just an economic one).

The same dynamics are at play with free trade. Academics said dislocation
costs of free trade could be ameliorated with transfer payments. But those
payments never came, and voters would never accept them as a substitute for
lost jobs. And for similar reasons--people don't want to feel forced to move,
they want to feel like their pursuing better opportunities. But when a factory
shuts down or a landlord effectively evicts you, it's not a choice. And even
if it only happens to a small fraction of people, many more feel insecure even
if they have no rational reason to feel insecure.

The question isn't whether rent control is good or bad, it's whether and to
what extent it's possible to extract in exchange zoning and development
concessions that promote supply increases. Unfortunately, the outlook doesn't
seem so good. The only other alternative is Federal pressure, which doesn't
seem too likely, either, unless it comes in the form of a Supreme Court
decision that constrains zoning practices.

~~~
geofft
> _The political cost of an army of voters worried about housing insecurity is
> incomparably higher._

Can't you make them stop worrying by building enough housing that they believe
the free market will give them affordable rents even without rent control?

This is different from a factory shutdown because there's much less of a
natural cap on housing supply than on job supply. You can build four-story
apartment buildings basically everywhere, modulo government interference
(zoning, permits, etc.), and they'll work, so you can just build enough to
pull down the supply/demand intersection to where people want it, that is, in
a free market you can just build residential buildings and expect them to turn
into housing. You can't just build a physical factory and expect it to turn
into jobs.

~~~
wahern
There's a time asymmetry at play. I think it's inevitable specifically in
those cities where costs are rising quickly and feelings of housing insecurity
are acute--the same cities we normally discuss in the context of rent control.
In that case you couldn't possibly build quickly enough to address the issue.
And let's not ignore one of the primary reasons communities often find
themselves in that situation--zoning and regulatory hurdles that limit supply,
demanded by the very same electorate suffering from lack of supply, yet which
isn't nearly as keen, if at all, at removing those hurdles.

Rent control is even on the table in cities like Chicago, which _relatively_
speaking has been pro development. But for a state law prohibiting it, Chicago
would now have rent control; and it seems likely that exceptions to that
prohibition will pass the legislature. That goes to show that time asymmetry
is problematic even without the scourge of single-family home NIMBYs.

Regarding the free trade analogy, the alternative I had in mind wasn't
building factories, but moving to new locales and finding new jobs. Which is
the de facto _existing_ alternative for housing supply-constrained cities,
which have been free all along to promote greater densification, but simply
incapable of doing so to the extent necessary.

------
mamon
„Rent control is the most effective way to destroy a city, other than
bombing”.

Rent control disincentivizes renovation of existing apartments and building
new ones. It also encourages people to stay in apartments that are too big for
them, because rent control typically locks price for existing, long term
tenants on lower level than paid by new tenants. All this makes housing crisis
worse.

------
adventureartist
The true solution is Zoning Reform. Property owners would build many more
units themselves, with their own capital, if allowed to build enough units to
make it worthwhile. This doesn't happen because many current property owners
(skewing older and wealthier) enjoy the current density and property values
based on the current scarcity of units. Rent control is a weak solution to
affordability, and has almost no or negative impact on gentrification, and no
or negative impact on housing stock growth. Rent control seems like it's for
the renter, but it's actually just the only political solution allowed by
owner-occupied current property owners. Zoning Reform is the free market
solution, allowing an owner of a property to build what they want on their own
land. (Solve the homeless problem too...). Time will tell if the democratic
scales tip from the NIMBY homeowners to those currently priced out of unit
ownership.

~~~
CryptoPunk
Rent control is for the renter, but the currently occupying renter, and not
those who would like to move to the neighbourhood in the future. It is also a
short-term solution, that provides the currently occupying renter with a
current advantage, but at the cost of making rent region-wide more expensive
for new lease agreements, which greatly constrains their options in the future
should they decide they want to move, or should the unit they are occupying
need to be vacated due to a need for reconstruction or repairs.

------
spyckie2
A lot of people argue for the ideal rather than the proposed solution, and
conflate the two.

In this case, the ideal is stable, affordable rent prices. The proposed
solution is rent control.

Rent control, from a policy standpoint, does not create affordable rent prices
by itself. It needs to be paired with a lot of other policies - supply
control, great city planning, landlord incentive adjustments via taxes, fines
/ punishments, enforcement of it, etc.

So, people espousing rent control as the solution are inaccurate semantically.
Rent control is part of the solution, but what's more important is how rent
control is paired with other policies.

Rent control is not an independent solution, but (as most policies are) its
complementary and needs to fit with the rest of the policy package. For
instance, if you had a policy to force housing to double every year (and
somehow it actually happened), rent control is not needed because supply would
reduce pricing naturally. And in a supply blocked economy, the issue is that
demand is high - rent control would do nothing to reduce demand.

If you're going to create a policy that creates stable, affordable rent
prices, you'll need to look holistically at the each sub-part of the issue.
Saying that we need stable, affordable rent prices is natural - it's a human
need, a moralistic ideal, and also great for many people. But it doesn't add
much to the conversation, and it makes it difficult to have dialogue with
actual proposed solutions over the loud, muddled public debate.

~~~
geofft
I mostly agree with you, except that rent control _can_ reduce demand by
disincentivizing people from moving to your city. I suspect this is one of the
reasons SF's rent control is popular.

But then, yeah, the real goal is "keep housing prices low, and keep newcomers
out," not "rent control."

~~~
spyckie2
"Rent control, no other changes" doesn't just disincentivize people from
moving to your city, it disincentivizes movement altogether.

I see rent control as a fix for a symptom. Answering the question about the
ideal living condition for a city and how to grow successful, long lasting
sustainable, healthy cities is the real issue. Rent control is a bandage, and
the collection of rent adjustment policies is not as elegant as just a strong
set of policies to promote healthy cities.

Admittedly this is really, really idealistic, it ignores the fact that we have
a lot of cities that need help right now, and it assumes that there is a
standardized way to build great cities.

------
8bitsrule
Too bad that housing-as-an-investment was allowed to spiral out of control. It
converted a moderated tradition into a gambling-den.

A prospective landlord might have been required to live in their building for
a minimum of a year first. That dampener would slowed down the fission
reaction. But oh no, regulation is bad. Trickle-down is good.

We've already experienced the result ... tens of thousands of homeless. Who
-should- pay?

------
WheelsAtLarge
I am not a fan of rent control but when housing construction solutions can't
be implemented due to home owner's needs to preserve home values and other
economic factors that vote down any solution then rent control is a solution
at least a short term one. Additionally there also needs to be added policies
that increase housing.

------
mishkinf
It’s only bad if you’re privileged enough to own property. Otherwise it’s
great!

~~~
Smaug123
The usual argument is that by imposing an artificial ceiling on price, you
cause the quality of the good/service to drop (in this case, you make rental
properties worse) and you prevent people from selling it (in this case, you
prevent owners from offering up rental properties, causing rental property to
become scarce).

To claim that something is great, you should at least address the standard
arguments that it's bad!

------
CryptoPunk
There's much ballyhoo made about the ignorance of the conservative base and
the misconceptions they hold due to the fake news and conspiracy theories that
circulates within their social circles.

But I see the ignorance of the left-wing base as just as dangerous. The idea
that there's a capitalist conspiracy to trick the populace into believing that
free markets are better for public welfare, and that price controls like
minimum wage and rent control harm the public, is extremely widely accepted.

Left-wing misconceptions about economics are even more consequential than
right-wing populist ideas about vaccines. They have the critical mass of
support needed to turn into policy in the most economically important housing
markets in the US.

~~~
eesmith
You are strawmanning.

1) Does Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" advocate a conspiracy?
Quoting it Wikipedia entry:

"The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is
greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is
concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social
and economic instability."

That is, there's no need for a conspiracy to get the results we see, and
leftists like me don't need to appeal to conspiracy theories.

2) You mention "believing that free markets are better for public". But what's
pushed isn't a "free market" \- what's pushed is a lack of constraints on
those who control capital. Few who push for a free market also push for
loosening constraints _on labor_.

Taft-Hartley should be seen as offensive to a real free market. So-called
"free market" advocates protest minimum wage laws, but omit mentioning that
labor power, when not hobbled by restrictive US laws, would be the free market
solution.

As an example, the Nordic countries don't have minimum wage laws. Instead,
minimum wages for a field are set by collective bargaining, which is possible
because of stronger labor unions in those countries.

As you can see, I _don 't_ believe that "price controls like minimum wage" are
the right solution to that problem.

~~~
CryptoPunk
1\. Ironically, you just strawmanned me. I never said all left-wing economic
theories are "conspiracy theories" or fallacies, or that all left-leaning
people are susceptible to such theories.

But to your strawman, Piketty's observation turns out to be entirely
explainable by real estate:

[https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-
gra...](https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-
turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-
actually-2a3b423e0c#.cdpw0fizt)

2\. I wasn't contradicting your assertion at all. I was just claiming that
it's a very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims
of the social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed
for the benefit of a capitalist elite.

This conspiratorial view of the economic science is similar to anti-vaxxer
theories about Big Pharma and Big Gov being behind the scientific opions on
the efficacy of vaccines.

>>As you can see, I don't believe that "price controls like minimum wage" are
the right solution to that problem.

Going back to 1, I wasn't generalizing all left-leaning people. Just as all
right-leaning people don't believe in anti-vaxxer theories, not all left-
leaning people believe in price controls like rent control and minimum wage.

~~~
eesmith
If you aren't strawmanning then your characterizations like "the ignorance of
the left-wing base" and "Left-wing misconceptions" are not informative as you
don't give a guideline how influential or proportional they are.

The specific validity of Piketty's observation is irrelevant. I mention it as
an example of an argument which is not based on the "idea that there's a
capitalist conspiracy".

Focusing on the weaker conspiratorial argument and leaving out any more
substantive arguments = strawmanning.

Criticizing sweeping language for its imprecision is not strawmanning.

You switched from "The idea that there's a capitalist conspiracy to trick the
populace into believing that free markets are better for public welfare" to "a
very common belief within left-leaning circles that economists' claims of the
social benefits of free markets are propaganda formulated by and pushed for
the benefit of a capitalist elite".

What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't
sound like a conspiracy to me.

My position is that people who advocate for a "free market" but don't advocate
removing the existing severe restrictions on labor power aren't really
promoting a free market, but rather want to give more power to capital owners.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>are not informative as you don't give a guideline how influential or
proportional they are.

My point was only that it exists in high enough proportions to be impactful,
and juxtapositioned it with the ignorance seen in the conservative base.

My broader point is that the widespread ignorance seen in the left-wing base
is largely ignored, in contrast to the ignorance seen in the right-wing base,
which is rightly ridiculed.

>>What makes something a "conspiracy"? Because your latter formulation doesn't
sound like a conspiracy to me.

The latter formulation is a conspiracy theory, and one that is completely
baseless and borne from ignorance of the economic science.

Economists, free from any undue influence, have almost universally come to the
conclusion that markets free of government intervention beyond enforcing
criminal and contract law, are more efficient, and effective at advancing the
public welfare, in almost all domains other than those subject to market
failure (e.g. natural monopolies, and markets subject to positive or negative
externalities best addressed by government provisioned public goods, etc).

~~~
eesmith
"Impactful" is such a wishy-washy term.

When done poorly - which I think you have done - another term for your
juxtaposition is "false equivalence".

I asked "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'". You have not answered
but only asserted.

To your last paragraph, I again point out that "markets free of government
intervention" must necessarily include being free of government intervention
with respect to labor power. Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a
union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop.

Anyone not supporting a repeal of Taft-Hartley and related labor laws cannot
be in support of a free market, _by your definition_.

But many of the people I hear who advocate for a 'free market' _support those
anti-labor laws_. Indeed, there is an almost complete lack of discussion on
the topic.

Ergo, they aren't actually supporting a free market.

You tell me - why aren't more free market economists calling for the repeal of
Taft-Hartley?

~~~
CryptoPunk
Supporting rent control and believing that the widely held view among
economists that free markets improve public welfare is a lie promulgated by a
capitalist elite is equivalent to believing all foreigners are evil and that
vaccines are a conspiracy pushed by Big Pharma.

It's not a false equivalence, and for me to explain to you how your theories
constitute baseless conspiracy theories is outside the scope of this
discussion.

If you'd like to have an indepth discussion about economics, please create a
post in another forum, and link me to it, and I'd be happy to carry it on
there.

>>Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract
to make the company a closed shop

Prohibiting companies from discriminating against unionized workers is an
infringement on the freedom of contract, as are several other legal
prohibitions relating to how companies are permitted to deal with workers
attempting to unionize, and unionized workers striking.

Laws relating to collective bargaining, which prohibit a company from
negotiating with any party other than the union, in the event that a work unit
votes to unionize, are blatant violations of the freedom of contract.

Unions would have no market power without said laws. If you support the
upholding of the free market, and the principle of contract liberty that
underpins it, then you are acquiesing to the total disempowerment of unions.

~~~
eesmith
"Unions would have no market power without said laws"

Well, that's a-historical.

Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt)
.

The union power in the late 1800s was not built on laws which supported them.
Often the government stepped in to fight the unions. And the unions sometimes
won power, and were able to get the laws changed to prevent, eg, bloodshed in
the future.

Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what
makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any
situation which restricts trade.

If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by
mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being
involved in the mediation.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the
exclusive supplier of temp workers.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only
hire members of B" when B is a _union_ is not fine?

Balderdash.

~~~
CryptoPunk
Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low
consequently.

Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal
activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to
setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'.

>>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what
makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum.

>>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by
mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being
involved in the mediation.

Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating
with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units
unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the
company agreed to.

~~~
eesmith
So, "no power" = "very weak"? You sure you haven't moved the goalposts?

The Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society won the labor action, and the
lawsuit. Why should I believe the Society was weak?

Wait employed five or six Society members, and only one not willing to be in
the Society. That sounds like the boot industry, at least, had a high
unionization rate.

Of course, that was a craft union. I think you are talking about industrial
unions. Which didn't, you know, really exist until after there were big
industries in the late 1800s.

"Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal
activity"

I don't think you read the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt that I
linked you to.

It was clear that the Society's power emanated from the threat of a walkout,
and _not_ from any sort of illegal activity. Indeed, the court decision was
that "labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a
legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals." (quoting
Wikipedia).

A walkout _must be legal_ in a free market. Otherwise it's forced labor to say
that someone can't quit if they no longer want to work a given job.

You write "as they stand". Which is _entirely my point_. We are not in a free
market. If people really want a free market, they need to advocate for
removing restriction on _both labor and capital_.

Those who only want to remove restrictions on the control of capital, and not
labor, are using "free market" hypocritically.

Edit: And remember, the union powers prohibited by Taft-Hartley were legal
until then, so those aren't examples of the illegal actions you refer to.

~~~
CryptoPunk
If unions have power in a free market, that would be absolutely fine with me
lol

But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that
union power wasn't vastly more limited before the advent of labor laws, and
that what power they did have wasn't disproportionately as a result of the
threat that they'd engage in the illegal acts that they were so well known
for.

So to clarify, while I predict any transition to a free market would result in
a drastic reduction in the power of unions, I would have no problem with a
scenario where my prediction proves wrong and unions have substantial power in
a free market. I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions
at the expense of investors.

~~~
eesmith
Do you, or do you not, support repealing Taft-Hartley as part of your advocacy
for a free market?

Why or why not?

Since you argue "I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage
unions at the expense of investors", I think you believe the current US laws
are too union friendly. Which is hilarious. Was there ever a time in US
history when you think the balance was right? Or have they always been pro-
union? If not, when do you think the balance changed, and what caused that
change?

Part of what makes it hilarious is that we only need to look at the recent
wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia to see that 1) their actions were
illegal - state law prohibits public employee strikes, 2) it was effective not
due to threat of physical intimidation but by threat of mass departure.

Companies _right now_ are disproportionately powerful, including as as a
result of actually doing illegal acts. Wage theft is one of the most common
crimes in the US, and it often goes unpunished.

About 10 years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems and others
conspired to refrain from soliciting each another's employees to keep their
salaries artificially low. Their fine was less than their profit from the
crime, no high-level exec went to jail, and all the companies are still geld
in high esteem.

Even if we stick to corporate involvement with unions, "U.S. employers are
charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns"
\- [https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-
opposition...](https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-
to-union-election-campaigns/)

> Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union
> election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a
> charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Employers are
> charged with making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, or
> harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns. Beyond
> this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union
> organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union
> avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This
> combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union
> elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect
> the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.

This is not surprising, because just like pro-union people engaged in "illegal
acts" \- and mind you, who had the biggest influence in creating all of those
laws? - companies also engaged in horrid, immoral, and illegal acts.

Or, do you defend the action of the government and coal mine owners involved
in the Ludlow Massacre?

Do you defend the actions of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency as they
hired goons to physically intimidate and attack union members? There are still
federal laws limiting the federal use of "The Pinks."

What is your take on the conclusions of the La Follette Committee? Did the
extensive espionage system of private corporations, as part of their union-
fighting efforts, indeed mean that "employees became subjugated to private
corporations and were denied constitutional rights"? Why did companies need to
use "[M]achine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs ... to prevent and disperse
union meetings"?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee)

So sure, you can bring up "the illegal acts that [unions] were so well known
for". "But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim
that" businesses weren't engaged in even more horrid behavior.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right?

Yes, in the 1880s, where there were no federal laws violating freedom of
contract, and state laws that did violate it frequently being struck down by
the Supreme Court under Lochner Era judicial doctrines.

Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of
labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?

I'm puzzled by your insistence on this absurd notion that labor laws that
violate freedom of contract don't disproportionately advantage unions. Your
Gish Gallop of off-tangent anecdotes notwithstanding.

~~~
eesmith
Then why can't a company sign a private contract with a union saying that the
company will only hire members of the union?

I mean, if companies can establish company towns, since under the freedom of
contract ideology employees are willing to live there as a condition of
employment (a la Pullman), then surely a closed shop contract must also be
acceptable.

My "Gish Gallop"[1] is because you keep cherry picking your history to justify
your specific pro-capital/anti-labor "free market" viewpoints. But you
_cannot_ point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier
term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses. This juxtaposition
is appropriate as union power grew as a response to bad employment conditions.

For example, yes, striking coal miners destroyed property and attacked the
National Guard in 1912. Bad coal miners - very naughty indeed. Oh, wait, it
was after the National Guard, along with business guards, machine-gunned the
strikers' tent city. Does the freedom of contract justify those murders?
Clearly, no.

You asked "Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the
advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?"

You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more
powerful if there are laws to support the unions. Just like businesses can be
more powerful if there are laws to support businesses. Try getting rid of the
laws which isolate shareholders from legal liability, and see what happens to
corporate power.

Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed. Since my
argument is that unions are legally prohibited from exercising their full
power as they would in a free market, then that means unionization rates
_should_ decrease because people aren't going to pay money for something that
doesn't help them.

Which is why the WV teachers had a wildcat strike - illegal actions were more
effective than being in a union.

[1] Personally, I think it's more an example of Brandolini's law than a Gish
Gallop -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle)

~~~
CryptoPunk
Again with your strawman, part of a pattern of extremely bad faith responses
to me. I never once said that in a free market, a company can't sign a private
contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the
union. I even said that earlier. The laws that currently prevent this should
be eliminated, as well as the laws that prevent companies from refusing to
negotiate with unions, and prevent them from firing workers who unionize
and/or strike.

>>But you cannot point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your
earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses.

Your characterization of the general behaviour of unions compared to
businesses is disingenuous. It's a lie invented by unions and their
beneficiaries to deceive the public.

Union workers commonly beat and murdered "scabs" who crossed their picket
lines, which resulted in replacement workers being intimidated into not
crossing those lines. The hiring of private security (e.g. the Pinkertons) was
primarily in response to the threat of violent actions like this by unions,
and the violent confrontations that did occur were primarily because unionized
workers refused to desist from threatening replacement workers and violating
the rights of the property owner to their own company premises by trespassing
and blockading it.

That was the general reality of the late 19th century, and not your out-of-
context anecdotes that you trot out to pull at heart strings.

And the violent and illegal actions of unions were justified by their
supporters, who used the same class-warfare narrative and false
characterizations you're trotting out now to justify the current bevy of anti-
contract-freedom-laws.

>>You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more
powerful if there are laws to support the unions.

You didn't even answer the question. You responded to a strawman. I asked if
you think unions are more powerful now than they were in the late 19th century
when contract liberty was less restricted by labor laws.

What you don't want to plainly admit to is that a return to a free market
would greatly reduce the power of unions.

>>Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed.

Changing the subject. I didn't ask about Taft-Hartley. I asked about the late
1800s, before drastic interference by labor laws to limit contract freedom,
and how unionization rates compared then to now. I'm not suggesting we keep
Taft-Hartley. I'm suggesting repealing all of the labor laws instituted since
the 1880s relating to how companies and unions may interact.

Your evasive propagandizing is quite typical any time the subject becomes
unions and their dependency on the government limiting the contract liberty of
employers.

