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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron Bower who wrote (8060)	2/22/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9980

Ron: I've always thought that if Unions had not demanded better wages, then the market for manufacturer's goods would have been one tenth the size it became. This is in agreement with Steve Roger's point - that if poorer people had more buying power (if buying power were more evenly distributed) then lack of demand and excess capacity would not be a problem. It is ridiculous (and it will in the future be ridiculed) that excess capacity is a problem in a world where 50% of people live in dire poverty. If Asian wage earners made double what they now make, the prices of goods would not rise much, yet the buying power of millions would increase substantially. I have estimated that there is $1.50 of labor cost in a pair of Nike shoes. Regards, peter

To: Ron Bower who wrote (8060)	2/23/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: E Ramos	Respond to of 9980

Hello Ron, Your response, that Russia and China are examples of countries that did not grow even though they had unions is a false premise. Those two countries had governments that were in total control of the economic picture and almost fully controlled their peoples futures. Because they wanted full political control they subverted the natural desires of peoples and set back their countries progress. Look about. In Europe, there are unions. Would you not consider that they are prosperous? I consider that we are prosperous because unions did at one time contribute to the general good of the United States. But even more the general business condition and the almost hands off policy of our government has made the USA, number one. Peace. E.Ramos

To: Ron Bower who wrote (8060)	2/24/1999 8:23:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 9980

Ron and Folks Interested in Unions & OT Stuff- <<I offer the premise that the US attained economic growth because of a free education system that provided businesses with a skilled workforce.>> First, TANSTAAFL. An interesting premise- I wonder if the evidence is there to support it. I have my doubts. How much did the "free" educational system in this country contribute to the Golden Age of American Capitalism- roughly between our Civil War and WWI? Of far greater importance, I would guess, was capital's freedom from government shackles that so constrained European business (eg. consider the etymology of the term laissez-faire). I also dispute the notion expressed on this thread that unions were the engine of rising prosperity in the American middle class. More significant was the unleashing of the spirit of enterprise. When Henry Ford offered his non-unionized work force the unheard of wage of $5.00 per day, he did so out of enlightened self-interest, not from "pressures" from organized labor abetted by a coercive government. Ford wanted the best workers for his company, and he paid what he felt was necessary to get them. By this line of reasoning, Henry Ford was a far greater benefactor of the "common man" than was Samuel Gompers. Larry