From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 16:03:53 MDT
In a message dated 9/1/2002 3:04:09 PM Central Standard Time,
Spudboy100@aol.com writes: I am not sure that historically the unemployed
were ever viewed in this country as "valuable assets" except, perhaps in the
political rhetoric of the Democratic Party.
Spudboy,
Yes, and no. As far as having a lot of government programs directed at
them you are no doubt right.
However, there was a time in this country when labor was regarded as an
expensive commodity -- because it was scarce. Look at all the labor imported
in the late 19th century. The heck of it is that I am told the data shows
that even as we were importing all that labor wages and the scale of living
of the working class was rising. I believe that historically real wages have
risen in this country at a rate of about 3.2% per year. This in turn meant
broadly that our scale of living doubled about every 20 to 25 years. All
with minimum attention from the government.
What happened? The investors & employers saw those workers as assets.
As a worker ranted to me back when I was starting out, "Well, I know I am
worth more than I am getting paid." Of course he was right or they wouldn't
have hired him.
But then a worker could get high enough wages to have a surplus as well.
I began on the bottom in '51 but had enough surplus to marry in '56, buy our
first new car in about '59, get a BS from Washington Universitiy in St. Louis
in 64, and by late '72 I had an MBA from the University of Chicago in
Chicago. A kid could do that back then.
People hired us because they could start or expand a business, hire
labor, buy material, convert it to a saleable product and have a profit.
Apparently that is no longer possible at the rate our plants are going over
seas.
The question is why??
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:37 MST