If there's something wrong with the statistics given in the source, point it out. If you've got statistics that you think are more accurate, give sources, and say why you think they're more accurate.
But this drive-by snide comment is pretty worthless. You can be better than that.
Given the flow of the argument in this subthread, it seemed at least somewhat relevant. You seem to be trying to dismiss the point, not by argument, not by evidence, but merely by being dismissive. That's not a very convincing approach.
because brining up youth unemployment and nothing else is an honest argument about the merits of unions?
It's low effort. It's not useful. It provides no evidence for the argument being put forth. Really it's not even making any sort of argument. It's just a fact presented in the hopes that people will buy a tenuous at best relationship without further insight.
So jahaja raised the question, "What do you have to lose?" (by unionizing). And in response, Kalium said, "Our industry". That is, unionization often raises costs for companies (better pay, fewer hours and more benefits cost), and those costs could result in fewer jobs.
jahaja replied that "this doesn't hold up to a straight forward comparison to many European countries. If labour costs would be so detrimental to employment we'd still be queuing to the transatlantic ocean liners." Which seems to be saying that unions in Europe aren't costing jobs, so why should they in the US?
In reply to that, AndrewGaspar compared unemployment rates between the US and Europe. They are relevant to the question of whether greater unionization will cost jobs.
So: It is very much making an argument - that greater unionization costs jobs. And Europe was introduced by jahaja, a union proponent, not by the anti-union types.
But you, why do you keep trying to dismiss the topic without actually answering the point? The question is whether greater unionization hurts employment, your side raised the comparison of Europe, and the European unemployment statistics are grimmer than the US ones. Are you actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you going to keep trying to distract from the question at hand?
(Many of us would take your approach to mean that you know you that unions can cost jobs, you know the European data supports the point, and you just want to hide behind smokescreens because you know you don't have an answer. That's the impression you're giving. So, last chance: Do you want to concede the point? Or do you want to try to refute it?)
I did however say "many countries" not Europe as a whole. Since there's vast differences both in unionization and recent economic developments. There's clear and obvious reasons why for example Greece is where they are.
I mean, if unionization (and in the end high labour costs) really significantly hurt the economy and employment numbers it would be trivial to see through comparisons and we would already empirically know it.
Hmm. Say, the US, Canada, and western Europe, on a scatterplot that shows unemployment rate vs union membership rate. Anybody got that data somewhere?
Best I could find: Union rates: France 8.8%, Germany 16.5%, UK 23.4%, US 10.1%. Unemployment: France 8.9%, Germany 3.3%, UK 3.8%, US 3.5%. I must admit, that doesn't look much like correlation.
