Now you're just being silly. Union membership may have peaked in 1945 but unions were at the zenith of their power and influence over the next 30 years.
Oh. It was one of those magical "zeniths". And being the only industrial center on the planet magically had nothing to do with it, just like how being forced to compete against more efficient forms of business organization had nothing to do with dinosaur unions dying out.
We can both cherry pick our favorite theory for the Great Depression. Methinks it had a lot more to do with monetary contraction than artificially inflated wages. This could make for a very interesting debate in itself. Unfortunately, I do not have the time for it presently.
Another time, though I wouldn't fight you on deflation - I would simply point out that wages are supposed to fall during Depressions and, thanks to Unions wages instead increased and so what
decreased was the demand for labor
.
We both know that competing companies are compelled to engage in a race to the bottom in regards to labor costs.
In some markets, certainly. In others, the opposite is true. Supply and Demand will affix different worths to different folks' labor dependent upon their abilities, education, skill set, and available resources that they can leverage. Someone who has been trained to be a really brilliant cow-herder isn't worth much on the trading floor of the NYSE, just as a really great software quant isn't going to be worth much on a farm.
Yes, lower labor costs translates into lower production costs which translates into lower market prices.
That is certainly part of it. Another huge part is increases in productivity and efficiency. If your per capita labor costs go up 20% over a decade, but your per capita productivity goes up 50%, you are doing quite well.
Of course, chattel slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude, and subsistence wages will yield the lowest labor costs and thus the lowest market prices.
A claim which is interesting not least because it seems to have few reflections in the real world. Like most folks who come from your side of this question, you appear not to realize that
labor costs are irrelevant.
Labor Costs To Productivity are what matters. The German costs $80K a year, but makes $1Million in high-performance Beamer Automobile, while the Chinese guy costs $5,000 a year, and makes $20,000 worth of toys.... guess what? The German guy
is actually cheaper than the Chinese guy.
So much for your supply/demand curve in regards to real world human morality, real world social stability, and real world politics.
You can stamp your foot and be as morally outraged as you like, it does not alter the
reality that labor, like every other good or service, exists on a supply / demand curve.
We have been through all of this already. Your way doesn't work. You can argue that management and labor unions need to be more cognizant of their symbiotic relationship. However, you cannot argue that collective bargaining is not necessary. It is very necessary. History attests to the fact.
History attests to the fact that where collective bargaining becomes dominant, businesses become overburdensome, resistant to change, cost-heavy, and die.
