No, the fair wage always increases. However, it is said fair because it really is unfair. Give me a dollar amount which is fair because it has to be to everyone. (UAW Union Rule 402) Do you really think the same 70k salary/income is going to be the same to a family of 4 living in North Dakota as to one living in New York City. Now, which family is better off financially?
Let me express my thoughts this way. Consumers want choice when buying goods and services. They want to those goods and services that give them the most value for their buck. Sellers want to restrice choice. They want to limit choice therefore reducing the level of competition. businesses are no different. Labor, capital goods, inventory, realestate, ect. are all costs of production and as such want the choice of purchasing these resources, getting the most for their buck. Why would you expect a union to buy a plaque from China? Answer is as a consumer, they wanted what they perceived as the most bang for their buck. Business would also like to create a manopoly of what they sell in order to limit choice. We as a gov. try to prevent this with laws. Unions do exactly the same thing. As a seller of labor they try to limit choice as to the supply of labor via manopolistic practices. Businesses try to hide their manopolistic position by broadening the definition of their product in order to avoid antitrust. Unions try to hide their manopolistic efforts by claiming higher wages, better work conditions, job security, ect. What you call the race to the bottom is really a race to the top. You talk about the lower wages in the south as the reason that businesses and ou are correct. What you fail to mention, is that the effects of reconstruction after the Civil War lasted more that 100 years. I will again cite the fantom freight cost of steel which hurt steel production in Ala. and protected steel production in Penn. Capitalists believe that free movement of those resources of production from one sector to another of an economy produces the biggest bang for the buck for the consumer. Union supporters tend to forget that labor is nothing more than one of the costs of prodduction and tend to restrict it's free movement from one sector to another. As you said geneally, if a business finds moe bang for their buck in another country and can move capital there then they will do so. To do otherwise would raise the cost of their product. I actually think that in the long run, Mich., Oh. and Wis as examples will be ok. All they have to do is recognize that they have to compete not only in the world market but here at home. When they do then, wages and jobs will stabilize in this contry. The only question is how nearsited they are.
By the way Ford is Best(I own a 150 and a 350) I also own a case tractor and I could care less where they were made of if the company was union or not. I just want the most bang for my buck.;-)
Of course you are joking :-P. Were it not for farm subsidies, JD would be just a run of the mill farm equipment builder, if they survived. But I do believe they have astute management that recognize the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JS
I'm learning there is a lot of chain-jerking on POTUS.
Murral, so now you're calling me a liar. Well somewhat of a liar. You are something else! What in the world do I need to lie about?
I work in an environment and in a field that has union and non-union workers. Not being deceptive about anything. Whatever you read into the situation is up to you. Remember you don't have to respond to my posts.