Total Members Voted: 29
and what happens when they don't? a kid dies from a cavity
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 02, 2007, 07:11:13 PMThat sounds nice ostensibly...who doesn't want an environment full of well-paying jobs? But I'm not convinced such an environment can be created so that there is a net benefit to our economy. Higher wages --> higher prices --> more consumer spending --> higher wages to maintain standard of living. Seems like a big circle to me, although the analysis is obviously simplistic.Your model is missing productivity gains which, after all, are the only means by which economic growth is achieved. Absent that it isn't surprising that you have a purely inflationary spiral.
That sounds nice ostensibly...who doesn't want an environment full of well-paying jobs? But I'm not convinced such an environment can be created so that there is a net benefit to our economy. Higher wages --> higher prices --> more consumer spending --> higher wages to maintain standard of living. Seems like a big circle to me, although the analysis is obviously simplistic.
Quote from: One Step Ahead on March 03, 2007, 02:23:40 AMand what happens when they don't? a kid dies from a cavityNah, that still would have happened. How many months/years do the British have to wait for dental care, especially if it requires surgery?
Hm. Maybe. Of course in practice shareholder revolts are as rare as electoral revolts.In any case, the key idea is the benefit of a carefully calibrated check and balance structure that benefits the health of the individual company, the sector/industry, and the economy as a whole. How? 1) Unions operating across multiple firms deter employers from seeking to gain advantages purely by slashing wages in a race to the bottom and instead encourages them to compete on innovation. 2) Partly because wages are taken out of competition, multi-firm unions have pioneered cooperation between firms on investments in "public goods" such as worker training and other services that improve productivity at all firms. 3) With a union, workers can gain a voice to improve production without worrying that they are merely contributing to their own loss of a job. 4) Lowering turnover and improving skills. Compare, for example, the total labor costs of Walmart and Costco, two otherwise similar firms. Walmart famously pays very little and Costco famously pays very well, and yet Walmart doesn't have a labor cost advantage because it pays an extraordinary amount due to the employee turnover that their labor practices induce.4) Higher wages paid to union workers encourages firms to invest in better technology and more capital to make the high wages pay for themselves. And higher productivity, of course, is key to growth across the economy. 5) Raising incomes of workers and thereby raising aggregate demand for goods & services, fueling a virtuous cycle of growth.There are probably additional advantages, but these alone show* the benefits of counterbalancing the otherwise myopic decision-making of corporate managers and short-term shareholders with the collective bargaining ability of unions. Too much managerial power is not good for the company/industry/economy; too much labor power is not good for the company/industry/economy. Balance is key, and, in this country at least, balance is best achieved by fairly-matched countervailing forces negotiating the conditions of work.*these are not speculative benefits: they are well-documented in rigorous panel studies. I can dig up cites, if you'ld like them.
If there aren't any arguments against my claims, then I'll depart gracefully. Feel free to continue the concordant attack on my character, it's funny.
Hugs, Look to the f-ing left.