cavalier said:
Bob wrote:
"what value can organized labor provide in a rapidly global zing economy and high technology workforce?"
CAV REPLY:
To keep it from growing even worse than it currently is maybe?
A sandbag wall only keeps the water out if the wall covers all possible points of entry. Otherwise, it's just a wall surrounded by water.
I can show you many shops that require skills that not everyone is capable of, one must know complex mathematics and understand properties of materials and basic physics. Some of these shops that HAVE unions pay less than $12.00.
Sounds to me like there are too many people wanting to do the work, relative to the demand for such people.
I will start with the last remark first. I agree Capitalism is not fair, but it was never meant to make exploitation the norm and acceptable practice is has become.
In a sense, it was. That was supposed to be the point of such regulatory bodies as OSHA and the FDA.
...a reality where Americans will see their standard of living driven into the ground while the rest of the civilized world is lifted out of poverty.
In the short run, certainly. Not in the long run. Incidentally, did it ever occur to you that the argument that the jobs should stay in this country is much the same as the argument that the wealthy should keep the money in their families? Shouldn't families in India and China have "livable" wages, too? Just because their version of livable involves a lower number than yours isn't a reason to deny them.
Not everyone can become a MBA, we need Indians as well as chiefs to make the world go around.
Of course. But it's scarcity that creates value. If you have too many Indians (of either type), you have low wages for them because there's a greater supply than demand. The same applies to MBAs, incidentally; the value of an MBA has diminished significantly over the past decade. Now it's much more important
where you got an MBA than simply
whether you got an MBA.
Trouble is the chiefs are exploiting the uneducated
In a sense, yes. But sometimes that's done as a defensive measure rather than an offensive one. If you don't do it, your competitor does and you and all of your employees are out of work. And, in the end, the result to the industry remains the same.
I am just pointing out facts and realities where checks and balances are absolutely needed
Yes, they are. But they have to be airtight or they are completely ineffective. The checks and balances of the United States government work most of the time because there is no competing government. By design, it's a monopoly. Those are airtight if they're regulated as mandatory monopolies.