Thank you for giving the History Central article. I see the data you used to make your conclusion.

I will show you what data I used. I present to you a US Department of the Treasury article (Figure 1):

home.treasury.gov/news/feature…

And a US Congress Report (Figure 1):

congress.gov/crs-product/R4759…

The data in the History Central article is represented in the graph and table in the US Treasury article and the US Congress Report. Where else would they get it?

For home ownership rates, that data can be found here:

US Department of Housing and Urban Development:

huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr…

US Census:

www2.census.gov/programs-surve…

The greatest increase in home ownership rates happened during the rise, at the peak, and just after peak union membership.

I am not defending the view that unions don't force unnecessary jobs, they do.

But the viewpoint that union power is unnecessary to a good life for a majority of people is factually incorrect.

Unions power did increase the power of workers and gave the generations that built that movement (the Greatest and Silent generations) and the subsequent generation (the Baby Boomer generations) benefits such as the modern welfare state and larger share of the income of productivity that bought homes and feuled consumerism.

Baby Boomers had a preceding generation that had 33% union membership rates and the 1% taking a smaller share of income (10%). Gen Z does not (currently unionization is at about 9%). History is important, history does not start anew when you are born so saying Baby Boomers had below 30% while ignoring the history just prior to it is not honest.

The question your asking is why is it that Gen Z/Mellenials don't have homes but boomers do? Which is good.

But, your other question should be why did a higher percentage of the Greatest and Silent generation have home ownership as opposed to the Missionary generation?

Homes were simpler to build back then, you could built it your self in the middle of nowhere.

I will change my view if you can show a situation where industrialization occurred but without increased unionization rates nor worker/consumer friendly government policy leading to higher home ownership rates. Any country would do.

If you can do that then you would have shown that neither union membership nor worker/consumer friendly government policy are necessary for large home ownership rates.

I have provided primary sources with long historical views. I hope you keep to that same standard as opposed to secondary sources with short historical views.

I will address some of your points at the beginning and then go to an explanation at the end.

according to your graph

First. Not my graph. The actual data. And to clarify, data from the US, though similar effects occurred in Canada.

union membership rates were at their highest was 1957 @ 33% and would would have made the oldest baby boomer 11 years old

First not only are baby boomers homeowners, but so were the greatest and silent generations, see again the US Census data.

Even if the oldest baby boomer was 11 years old (1957 - 11 = 1946 (9 months after VE day) remember the baby boomers got their name from the large increase in births after WWII). Who were making the baby boomers? A "mommy" and "daddy" from the Greatest generation, when "they shared a 'special' hug". And guess what? "mommy" and "daddy" from the Greatest generation also owned their own home. High unionization and the G.I. bill. Unions and Government working together, oh la la. Maybe if the Unions and Government share that "special hug" again another middle class will pop out. This is highly rhetorical, of course.

interest rates were %3.11 and inflation about 3%

Interesting point. Union membership was 33% at that time and 9% today but the interest rates and inflation is similar.

Furthermore, in Figure 1 of the Department of the Treasury article (link: home.treasury.gov/news/feature…):

Percent of income going to the top 1% was about 13% in 1957. From roughly 1972 to 1982 the percent of income the top 1% had is below 11%. Currently the top 1% receive 19% of income. This means when the top 1% of income earners received 1 out of every 9 dollars the oldest baby boomers were between 26 to 36 years old (1972-1946 = 26 to 1982-1946 = 36) these are prime "buy your first house" years. But today the top 1% get about 1 out every 5 dollars. In other words, Baby boomers got 8 out of 9 dollars (89%) while Gen Z get 4 out every 5 (80%) also worth mentioning that out of the bottom 99% getting 80%, the bottom 60% now get less than 20% of income.

The reason why "correlation is not causation" is a thing is because you need a causal mechanism.

You are correct that unionization by itself does not cause wealth nor home ownership. After all union membership is merely an expression of Freedom of Association. But the point of association is its effects. Freedom of Expression is hollow if the effect of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, circulate ideas, affect social opinion were not present.

Likewise you can clearly see in Figure 1 of the US Department of the Treasury article shows the inverse affect on the income of the top 1% lags (follows) union membership. Or in a causal way, union density leads (affects), inversely, the income of the top 1%.

Why does this matter?

Because money is not a real resource, it is a relative resource. It is the method by which resources and labour are distributed.

You cannot do anything with money (even Bitcoin) by itself, it is by exchanging it with something else, you can then use that something else to do something. And therefore whoever controls that money can get the something else so that they can get the thing they want done.

So with less money in the top 1%, means less resource attention goes to the top 1% meaning more resources and attention go to the rest of the population.

Hence, it is union membership (freedom of association) -> changes distribution of money (affect of stated freedom) -> exchange money for resource/labour/attention (physical manifestation of the distribution) -> people who are union members or benefit from union density use the resources (materials/labour) to make a house (realization of control and why one owns a house)

Therefore it is the distribution of resources that needs to be looked at. The houses are present and people are living inside of them, why then are these houses not owned by the young population? So they rent or stay at home?

The distribution of resources is downstream from the distribution of money. The distribution of money is affected by power dynamics. Unionization uses the Freedom of Association to affect power dynamics (that is the stated effect of this freedom). In like fashion Freedom of Expression (should) affect Government policy (that is the stated desired effect).

Thus union density is a contributing factor and a pathway to increasing the resource share ownership of workers.

There are other ways, and maybe new ways need to be found with new material conditions made by automation and AI. However, it is up to you to showcase how the distribution of resources can be made more equally (or equitably depending on style) through another mechanism where social relations between people and resources and the power dynamics that occur in a predictable way can be made.

If you care about people not working and getting a pay cheque. Why are you not mad about rent seeking (economic rent and land rents), usury, dividends, etc.? Are you mad that people get something for nothing? Are you mad the Gen Z, in your eyes, don't work hard and want to get something? If the last two are true, do you attack generational wealth? Of legal monopoly on land, on machines, or future AI?

This bill is just the start, it by no means is the end. There are deeper problems.

Again I have given you the parameters to change my opinion. I urge you to be multi-variate in your historical analysis and showcase how material reality materializes as opposed to one line cliches.

You can't just say "boomer work hard" and "gen z does not" because when jobs were shipped over seas, a lot of foreign workers worked really hard and didn't get what the boomers did. They got what the Missionary generation got, bad conditions and low pay. Now they formed unions, went on strike and recently got a pay increase with which they will improve their lives. Example that happened 10 months ago in Bangladesh with textile (clothing/garments) workers (link to AP article: apnews.com/article/bangladesh-…). Thus the relation of freedom of association (union) -> power (strike/bargain) -> more money (relative resource) -> more goods (actual resource). You will now see that this current generation of garment workers will have more than the previous one. Thus Gen Z Bangladesh textile workers will own houses or better houses than their previous generation. Thus it is not "Gen Z" but a fact of material forces, of causes and effects, of power, the abstract and its realization.

You then have to provide a framework that explains the path of development through industrialization. Looking superficially does you, and everyone else, no good.

Again, you can state your states and explanation and falsification like I have or choose to not declare that you are mad about certain anecdotes of unions, which I do not deny.

Just your first paragraph shows why you cannot think. You made assertions without evidence nor data, nor causal reasoning.

You cannot have wasted disposal income if you do not have income.

Again, money is a relative resource not an absolute resource.

Even showing that waste of disposable income as a percentage of one's income going up does not refute my point.

You have to show that wasted disposable income by the bottom is growng as a percentage of the economy, not their own income.

If wasteful spending is the same percentage of GDP but income of the bottom goes down, they cannot save. There, right there, is the answer to your first paragraph.

What about the generation that got hooked on cigarettes (lower now than before), drugs (counter culture) and travelled domestically and internationally?

You haven't shown wasted spending was less as a percentage for Baby boomers. You have not provided that data, you are still anecdotal.

You also did not show union dues rise as a percentage of GDP or wages over the years.

If you want these laws repealed, then you have to provide an alternative means of wealth/incom equality.

You also have to show that wasted income of the bottom deciles increases as a percentage of GDP. Again statistics, not anecdotes.

I am not blindly defending unions, you on the other hand are blindly defending reducing in my wages directly, by not tacking inequality, and indirectly, by discouraging union density.

If you want to feel superior and yell at clouds you can do that, it is a tale as old as time.

First:
The presentation of data and framework and the changing of one's options are two different events that are not causally linked.

Now to rebut:

I do not pretend to defend all union action. I only protect them insofar as that union action redistributes money, a relative resource.

You have not shown unions improve the economy by lowering interest or inflation.

Only BoC can change interest rates, and corporation changes the price of goods. So by your own definition, if improving the economy can only improved by lowering interest rates or inflation, unions cannot do it.

However, increased labour costs can be eating by corporations profit margin (if available) instead of passed to the consumer.

Unions increase affordability, a word you have not stated once in your reply. Unions increase labour costs, but they increase purchasing power faster than increasing costs, as such affordability (relative resource) increases.

You have not shown inequality is the cause of low wages.

It is by definition. Inequality is the distribution of income between owners and workers. When a sale occurs, part of the value goes to owners, part to labour; the larger the owner’s share, the lower the relative wage. Money being a relative resource, high inequality and low wages are simply two sides of the same coin.