Bobcat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 3,646
- Reaction score
- 748
- Location
- The BIG easy
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Union may or may not make more money depending on the costs .. the Union bosses ... probably not, unless the workers elected them to have a higher pay, and as for the customers, not necessarily, although walmart unionizing would put upward pressure on wages all around.
Unions don't infate prices higher than the wages they gain.
Your assuming
A: people are not saving any money
B: consumption for necessary goods are unlimited (they arn't you can only eat so much food, a middle class household won't buy extra houses if they have some extra cash)
C: Your assuming That supply won't meet demand (of coarse it will move in that direction)
D: Your also leaving out tons of other factors, for example people with disposable income and more time can shop around more, thus putting a downward pressure, or the fact that they don't spend extra money on things like food or electricity, but rather more luxury goods, or say the fact that higher wages may mean you only need one person working rather than 2 and so on and so forth."
And when people have money to spend you have an incentive for investment to meet that demand, thus all teh excess capacity gets put to use ... thats where the production comes from ... We HAVE excess capacity, get that through your head, the capital is there, but without demand there is no incentive to put people to work.
ridiculous--unions have no "costs". strike funds etc are funded by the members, the more members, the more money for the bosses. Why do you support making union bosses very rich? I thought you guys hated rich people.