Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (121153)	1/6/2001 7:56:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

Say what???? Then, pray tell, how is it that union members are largely lower skill, lower paying jobs- -classically blue collar, but these days including clerical- -and the "professions"- -engineers, accountants, etc.- -have been non-union? You don't think maybe the success of a good economic system- -capitalism- -has something to do with the creation of the middle class? And how about Mexico? Lots of union members; little middle class.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (121153)	1/6/2001 8:20:28 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

The way CA deregulated electricity in the state was to place a cap on the amount PG and E and SCE could charge customers, and then not let them enter into long term contracts with producers. When the spot rate of electricity spiked, the power companies could not get consumers to decrease their consumption because rates to them (customers) could not be passed through. Since the amount of electrical power the state needs to import (purchase from out of state producers) is probably enough to light the State of Washington (plus maybe Oregon), the losses to the power distributers became big enough, that the banking system in CA is now probably in danger. As far as Unions, my guess is that the greatest growth in Unions is now in the public sector. Like unionizing University of California TA's. Further, I bet that this country historically has had a large middle class - even before the age of unions. Americans have trouble with class distinctions anyway - we're probably the only people in the world that distinguish class with income. I have a question: If taxes increase, would a rich business owner 1. Cut back on his/her family's standard of living - move to a smaller house, take the kids out of private school and place them in a public school. 2. Cut back on the number of employees, or employee benefits so that the owner can preserve as much of his/her own standard of living as long as possible.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (121153)	1/6/2001 9:56:20 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Unions are nothing else than workforce cartels in the same sense as OPEC is an oil cartel. Cartels attempt to maintain artificially inflated prices for the goods and services they provide. This always encourages the emergence of non-cartel belonging competitors which gain market share. This is why unions have atrophied tremendously during the last 30 years as the industries they cover (steel, cars...) have either lost market share to foreign competitors due to lack of competitiveness, or have shifted jobs abroad to save costs. Unions in the private sector can only survive by making sure all market participants are unionized, which mean protectionism and pro-union labor rules. I am all for higher wages for individuals in the workforce, but this can only be accomplished by having a highly qualified and educated/skilled workforce, since this is the only way market forces can justify high wages. There is no space in a competitive economy for low skilled workers with high paying jobs. This is a fantasy of the left. The only way high income can achieved for the great masses is through relentless and permanent education and training. This is something that even Clinton understands (or at least pretends to).