[Keith_McClary]

Then, even though workers faced abominable conditions and just above slave wages, they were earning more than they had on the farm, so they constituted a growing market. But in addition, they also began to understand the strength of the ownership was that employers essentially (if not literally) colluded to keep wages low. The result was a fairly quick movement toward unionization.

The same situation exists today in the newly industrialized countries of the world. It is exactly the same. Those people working in factories for a few bucks a day are making much more than they were out in the rice paddy a few years ago. They in turn are creating the growth market for consumption. How long will it take before they decided to organize just exactly like happened the now mature economies 100 years ago?

These countries achieved rapid growth by a policy of cheap labour, meaning that union organising was suppressed (at least for independent unions). People tolerated this as long as rapid growth continued, but if there is a "glut of capital and labour" and growth slows, they may lose patience. This could lead to political conflict, unless they can be sold on the "right to work" doctrine.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Like it or not, there are some things only government is equipped to make work.

Eh. And if they actually do it WELL and for reasonable cost, I'm happy to give them credit. Sadly, the great examples (like the interstate highway system) are far fewer than the examples of lots of incompetence, theft, corruption, and of course, ENDLESS excuses from the left (foremost of which is it's all the fault of the "evil GOP" or profit seeking job creators.)

[Outcast_Searcher]

Got that right Outcast. Katrina and the failure of the Army Corp was engineered by the anti-government insiders from the Bush Administrations. It's always been the right-wing playbook--destroy the one tool the poor have against their oppressors . . . good self government.

Otherwise the Corp does the bidding of large agricultural concerns channeling wild rivers into irrigation ditches. That is their job. It seems you right wingers can't help but to bite the hand that feeds you. Literally.

Well, pstarr, I could mostly agree with you if you could stop calling me a "right winger", just because I actually believe we need to pay for the stuff we consume (over time) and believe in property rights.

Now, if "right wingers" are for: legalization of drugs (as long as flagrantly high drivers are arrested), letting people choose their own sexual preference among consenting adults without ANY hindrance from government, women to be able to choose how they handle their reproductive rights without ANY hindrance from government, supporting all religions equally (not supporting any of them -- religion should be a personal matter, just like sex), and having socialized medicine AS LONG AS WE ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT AS WE GO, then fine -- call me a "right winger".

Otherwise, I state I am a moderate who leans left on social issues and right on economic issues, and dislikes the extremes of EITHER party, and tends to vote for an independent like a libertarian, as a matter of principle.

[Keith_McClary]

Now, if "right wingers" are for: legalization of drugs (as long as flagrantly high drivers are arrested), letting people choose their own sexual preference among consenting adults without ANY hindrance from government, women to be able to choose how they handle their reproductive rights without ANY hindrance from government, supporting all religions equally (not supporting any of them -- religion should be a personal matter, just like sex), and having socialized medicine AS LONG AS WE ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT AS WE GO, then fine -- call me a "right winger".

Otherwise, I state I am a moderate who leans left on social issues and right on economic issues, and dislikes the extremes of EITHER party, and tends to vote for an independent like a libertarian, as a matter of principle.

Which way do you lean on the cheap labour, union busting policies in those countries that are stealing all "our" jobs?

[Newfie]

Why only two options?

Maybe there are just too many people for the given job environment, supported by ff?

Take away ff and there will be plenty of work, hoeing gardens.

It's is a temporary, self correcting problem.

No worries.

[ennui2]

Take away ff and there will be plenty of work, hoeing gardens.

I think you mean...Take away ff and there will be fewer people.