Matt Bruenig, a policy analyst and writer, covers labor, inequality, social welfare, and politics from a left perspective.
HN links his post on McDonald's in Denmark as a union story, and his piece on instant runoff voting; one commenter disputes student debt jubilee.
I think the more meta problem is that the people who agree that plurality is bad can't agree on what a better system should be :)
IRV actually encourages strategic voting, see e.g. http://mattbruenig.com/2014/11/15/instant-runoff-voting-and-strategic-voting/. For a concrete example, if in the USA we had an IRV election between Trump, Clinton, and Sanders in 2016, there are some (not unrealistic) scenarios where it's possible that your (honest) choice to vote 1. Sanders 2. Clinton 3. Trump would cause a Trump victory, whereas a strategic vote of 1. Clinton 2. Sanders 3. Trump would cause a Clinton victory.
You can argue that approval voting also can lead to strategic voting, but at least with approval voting you won't accidentally cause your least favorite candidate to win by voting honestly.
You should look at Condorcet methods, which as a group are conceptually similar to IRV but are more effective at capturing the intent of the electorate. For example, the above scenario can't happen with Condorcet methods. (Again the problem there is that there are actually many of them, and you have to agree on which specific one you want. But all are better than IRV).
IRV isn't the way forward, and it's unclear to me why organizations like FairVote don't endorse another method. (They have an article about it here but the reasoning doesn't really make sense to me. http://www.fairvote.org/why-the-condorcet-criterion-is-less-important-than-it-seems)
I mean that's definitely cherry picking portions of the wiki. Both of the articles refer to each other much more than those examples, not that that really matters.
Plus the Supply Side Economics wiki article, right below the "Not to be confused with trickle-down economics", contains a huge box pointing out the many issues with the article, including but not limited to "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles." and "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
I also was trying to google it and saw what the other commenter saw btw. The AI overview on Google says "Yes, they refer to the same core economic concept, but supply-side economics is the formal, academic term, while trickle-down economics is a popular and critical label for it. Both argue that cutting taxes and reducing rules for businesses and rich people will help the whole economy". And it references:
https://mattbruenig.com/2013/01/07/on-trickle-down-economics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/demand-side-vs-supply-side-economics-theories-differences.html
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/supply-side-economics/
> Over the last 10 years or so, I have filed a number of high-profile unfair labor practice charges against coercive statements, with many of those statements being made on Twitter. I file those charges even though I am merely a bystander, not an employee or an aggrieved party.
> Every time I do this, some individuals ask how I am able to file charges when I don’t have “standing” because I am not the one who is being injured by the coercive statements.
> The short answer is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has no standing requirement.
> Employees reasonably fear retaliation from their boss if they file charges. So we want to make it possible for people who cannot be retaliated against to do it instead. [1]
I believe the Vox piece shared in this thread [2] is enough for anyone to hit submit on an NLRB web form and get the ball rolling. Snapshot in the Wayback Machine (all the in scope tweets archived in archive.today|is|ph), just in case.
[1] https://mattbruenig.com/2024/01/26/why-there-is-no-standing-requirement-for-filing-nlra-charges/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40394955
You may want to read this: When McDonald’s Came to Denmark — https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/
> … When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, but insofar as it is meant to imply that the different legal environment is what accounts for the labor radicalism, this obviously has things backwards. The laws aren’t driving the labor radicalism, but rather the labor radicalism is driving the laws.
> […]
> If we [in the US] are ever going to get to Nordic levels of equality, it is really hard to imagine doing it without building a similarly powerful labor movement. You can certainly get some of the way there, such as by copying certain welfare programs, but without the unions, you’ll always be missing a key piece. And while legal and policy reforms can help build the labor movement some, the power of organized labor is not ultimately rooted in the state, but rather in the ability to halt production and wreak havoc even when the state is aligned against it.
> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise.
This is backwards, and I'm having trouble understanding how a more diverse, more transient population would find it easier to find common interests and unite. Suppose a factory unionizes - without borders, the owner will find it easier to import non-union workers. While moving a factory is challenging regardless of borders - it's a big, heavy thing, tied into local infrastructure and supply chains. It's even reflected in the rhetoric - "immigrants will do the jobs Americans won't".
It's also reflected empirically: Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks - https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-with-heat-map-2020-1 (unpaywalled: http://archive.is/1khJw)
And in the strong Danish unions as far back as 1981 (https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/) when Denmark had only 3.02% of immigrants and their descendants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark#Modern_minorities)
Matt Bruenig (who I generally recommend to anybody interested in questions of economic justice because his writing introduces laypeople to brilliant and refreshing points) has a series on Uber surge pricing where, among other things, he makes that precise argument.
He's the kind of guy who even includes (hints of) a sample calculation showing how the random distribution of a smaller number of taxis can lead to an objectively better outcome - it all depends on what your assumptions about people's utility functions are and what your objective function is.
He also argues why it is in many people's self-interest to argue against surge pricing (a point which is, admittedly, much more obvious: many people prefer a low chance of getting an affordable taxi over a zero chance of getting a taxi they cannot afford).
Here's a link to the last post in the series: http://mattbruenig.com/2014/12/28/uber-surge-prices-part-iii/