[quote=BGinRB]
You said it, where you stand depends upon where you sit.
I believe you might have misunderstood the dynamics that produces unions. While it is a popular spin, the labor does not organize to protect itself from competition. The labor is opposed to owners of capital and it organizes itself to achieve bigger share of the produced value.
Take a look at real wages, which are stagnant in this country since 2000. At the same time, the spread between executive and labor compensation tripled and you have people on this board who ‘earned’ money by trading stock. Where did that value come from? Why is not that value distributed to those who produced the goods?
[/quote]
Actually, labor unions arise for BOTH reasons, both to capture a larger portion of the economic profit AND to protect themselves from competition. As you must know, after all, in many unionized professions in the US, you simply can’t have the job if you’re not a member of the union. That’s about as straightforward a manner as you can find to restrict the supply of workers, thus driving up the price for said workers. So let’s not pretend that restricting competition isn’t one of the primary rationales for organizing. C’mon.
My suggestion is to cut the pay of BOTH union (line) workers AND executives in those industries – such as the auto industry – that are not able to compete with imports or non-union companies. Both employee groups should be eating significant pay cuts.
Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
