XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: artclemons@aolSPAM.com   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
      
   > While unions played an important part in improving working conditions,   
   > it was only a secondary role.  The union basically forces the   
   > corporation to share more of its profits than it otherwise would.  If   
   > there are no profits to share, there is nothing a union can do.  The   
   > important thing to remember is that the profits have to be there first.   
      
   At its peak in 1953, the percentage of folks in union jobs was 32% or so,   
   but one third of the workforce meant that most large scale employers were   
   unionized at that time.  May I also suggest that the percentage of working   
   people in white collar jobs in 1953 was a fraction of what is now   
   considered white collar employment.   
   May I suggest that unions also were at the time a countervailing force to   
   the political power and sway of corporations, and also that corporations   
   were indeed a lot smaller with less political force than they now have.   
      
   It is indeed doubtful that political or social pressure would have been   
   sufficient to get the relatively short working hours now considered normal   
   without unions.   
   > The United States was in an excellent economic position after WW II.   
   > Three polices helped things along:  1) The GI Bill which enabled many   
   > people to go to college, (2) the Marshall Plan which allowed Europeans   
   > to import American goods, (3) cold war defense spending.   
      
   I'm rather cynical about the Marshall Plan actually economically benefiting   
   the US except in possible long term goodwill.  I cannot deny it was a   
   worthwhile program but the percentage of GNP was not all that great.  As   
   for number 3 in your list, I remind you of Eisenhower's warning about the   
   Military-Industrial Complex at the end of his presidency and note that   
   peacetime military spending rarely improves an economy.   
   > Unions never represeted that big a proportion of the workforce or the   
   > "middle class".  Much of the middle class is from white collar   
   > professionals.  These were the people who populated the new Levittowns   
   > and the postwar developments; only a few very well paid blue collar   
   > people participated.  Those white collar people were able to do so   
   > because they went to college and were worth more money to their   
   > employers.  They were also more productive and improved efficiency.   
   > The postwar corporation required brains as much as brawn to utilize new   
   > machines and processes.   
      
      
   One of the reasons that the Northeast and Midwest lost so many jobs was   
   precisely that the manufacturing and industrial sector was so outdated and   
   so lacking in investment that it made economic sense to close many plants   
   rather than investing in improvement or replacement of said plants in the   
   same locale.  I also remind you that 25% of the workforce in the 40's   
   probably represented at least 60% of the workforce involved in work   
   locations large enough to unionize.  Remember that much of the US was still   
   rural with lot of folks still involved in agricultural work or working for   
   small employers.  Things like supermarkets still were uncommon at the time   
   of peak unionization too.   
   > The postwar world also did well because we sent Europe money goods and   
   > services under the Marshall Plan.  Eventually this expired and even   
   > backfired as Europe developed its own industry.   
      
   Once again, it was a small percentage of GNP, besides there was the mistaken   
   belief that US goods would sell once Europe began reindustrializing, a   
   belief whose flaws should have been obvious.  Japan and Western Europe both   
   had industrial bases that were newer in 1960 than the equivalent in the US,   
   but the Marshall plan didn't pay for that industrialization.   
   > A third factor was massive govt defense spending, which had a big   
   > ripple effect through the economy.  New companies sprang up and they   
   > created a lot of middle class jobs.   
   >   
   > At the same time there was a huge multiplier effect as expanding   
   > factories required more construction and raw materials, etc.   
   >   
   > The economy matured and reached stagnation in the 1970s.  In the 25   
   > years since the end of WW II (actually longer in some industries), many   
   > had operated without serious competition.  The steel industry didn't   
   > sell steel, it allocated it.  In the 1970s the demand slowed down and   
   > foreign competition picked up.  Many companies were not able to handle   
   > it.  This all culminated in a nasty recession in the 1980s.   
      
   May I suggest that much of went wrong during the 70's was that industries   
   like steel, electronics and much of the rest that left the US in terms of   
   employment never bothered to invest in upgrading the industrial base where   
   it was.  The investment in the Vietnam war during the 1965 to 1975 years   
   also didn't help.  The 80's recession in part came about because the number   
   of jobs was shrinking just as women were coming into the workforce meaning   
   that the beginnings of real wages were about to drop if just because there   
   were now more people able to perform most types of work.  The structural   
   unemployment of the 80's also occurred while there was a president who was   
   apparently opposed to the concept of anything even remotely smacking of   
   socialism including unions despite Raygun having been the head of a union.   
      
   > Too many of the American people have gotten fat and lazy and lost their   
   > competitive edge.  There are horror stories of no work and even   
   > sabotage from established union workplaces.  It's no wonder mgmt can't   
   > wait to shut down those places and find a more productive workforce   
   > elsewhere (and that's nothing new).  As I've said many times, sometimes   
   > that's merely going outside city limits, sometimes to the South,   
   > sometimes overseas.   
      
   I'm tired of hearing and reading this nonsense.  I also note that until   
   relatively recently, workers in the southern part of the US were considered   
   lazy and unintelligent.  Of course, it's telling that Toyota for example   
   claims that its US plants produce really high quality cars and that   
   Mercedes claimed that US workers are more productive before it acquired   
   Chrysler.  May I suggest it's probably more like the US employers pretend   
   to pay the workers, and the workers pretend to work.  I also note that   
   economists still claim that US workers are the most productive.   
      
   > When multiple personnel officers tell me 30% applicants fail a drug   
   > test they know in advance they'll be taking, something is seriously   
   > wrong with our people.  (It's not only bad that so many people are on   
   > drugs, but they can't even stay clean for a week or so until they take   
   > the drug test.)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)