Re: Paying for Schools

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 08:30:04 MDT

>From: "Mitchell, Jerry (3337)" <>

>>My point was that before Unions came along everybody DID make the
>>minimum, and it was a much smaller minimum.

>Actually, there wasnt a minimum wage back then, so Im not sure
>what minimum your referring to. The workers got paid based on
>supply and demand. The big problem was the over abundance of labor
>at the time. As the companies grew, this would have corrected

I should have put minimum in quotations, what I meant was they were
paid the very minimum the owners felt like paying. Since the
companies were monoposonys, they weren't paying a fair market or
"supply and demand" wage, they had control of the market and were
paying considerably less than a fair market wage.

Supply and demand is affected by whether or not a market is fair.

>Ill agree, but it would have happened in due time anyways. As the
>market grew, it would have created more jobs thereby again tilting
>the supply/demand into the favor of the workers. Once again, would
>have happened anyways.

I've actually been considering how it might have occured if unions
hadn't started the ball rolling.

>Im sure we would all like to think were worth a billion dollars an
>hour, but thankfully the market dictates your salary.
>I also dont have a problem with workers refusing to work unless
>they have union workers beside them, but what I do object to is
>using government force on the side of the workers to force a
>company to deal with a union.

I'm not worth a billion, but worth considerably more than I'm paid.
Actually the company is getting a bonus these days. As a network
engineer I could probably earn a good deal more than the Union
scale I'm making, so sometimes it works both ways.

>The company should in all rights, have the right to fire anyone it
>wants and replace them at will.

In a fair situation I would agree, but not if the situation is
unfair or arbitrary.

>Let me be more specific then. Unskilled labor most certainly can
>be moved offshore for most functions. Only where things need to be
>built on site are manual laborers needed here.

It's not mere manual labor for those of us who remain, most of my
work is troubleshooting.

Yes, much of this work is going to the cheapest labor markets
wherever they are.

This creates new problems in the form of an unemployed citizens.

>Commendable, long as government force isnt given to either the
>company or the union sides.

Actually as I posted before, the government often interferes on
what it sees as it's own behalf, effectively taking the side of the

>They would have been "enlightened" a lot earlier if there had been
>a labor shortage.

Labor shortage is usually a very temporary thing, and now with
globalization it may be a thing of the past.

>Like I was mentioning my before, my stock options I have are
>pretty good. It was a major factor in me deciding to work where I
>do. We get pretty good benefits otherwise and guess what, theres
>no union there at all.

Benefits originally won by union members were quickly distributed
to nonmembers as well (to keep them from joining a Union!) this has
evolved to the system we have today. Unions provide a check and
balance for all workers.

I'm delighted that a fellow list member is doing well, my own stock
portfolio has been taking a severe beating since last year. :(

>>There are a number of people including the government who say
>>that Microsoft engaged in practices that were illegal. I prefer
>>to wait till the courts finish with this.

>Doesnt matter if and when they finish with it to me. Any
>accusation of a coersive monopoly in the US is false by definition
>unless its made a monopoly by the government and afforded
>protection by them. Then I have a problem with it.

Well the legal definition may be different from yours.

>This goes back to the benefits I am obtaining from my company
>above any particular "minimums". They are in place because the
>company knows that if they dont compete with other buisnesses, the
>will lose their workers.

Or they might go Union? ;)

>Actually, when I was 19 I was union steward in an electrical plant
>that I worked at (yes, 19). It was only after a few years of study
>on various topics from history to economics that I saw the error
>of my ways and dropped them quick as a hot potato. My entire
>thrust here is that when the labor demand outgrows the supply,
>buisness will certainly have to provide goodies to keep their
>workers. This entire workers benefits thing would have happened
>anyways by market forces in time and without anyone using
>governmental force and the market would have been responsible for
>all these nice extras we like and have.

I was still a U.S Marine at 19. (aircraft electrician)

I think we agree on the benefits of a free market, I think we just
disagreed on how they originated, or maybe better to say if such an
origin was necessary.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <>
"Party of Citizens"<>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:22 MDT