A question: why does it hurt the economy when I allow blue-collar unions to strike, but help the economy when I allow white-collar unions to strike? Is there any sort of reason for this, or were the issuemakers simply operating from the assumption that anything that helps the poor is bad for the economy and anything that helps the rich is good for the economy?
An amusing consequence of this is that it simultaneously validates left-wing economic theory (i.e., the workers produce all wealth) and right-wing economic policy (i.e., the best route to a healthy economy is give all power to the rich).
SalusaSecondus
31-12-2003, 08:32
Are you really sure of those results?
Sal, are you asking that or saying that hes wrong?
That was the impression I had of those issues as well, individually.
Can anyone post them in their entireity?
Ooh, I do have one of them
Retail Workers Strike!
The Issue
Workers across the nation have gone out on indefinite strike over what they claim are substandard wages in the Retail industry.
The Debate
"We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader Colin Washington. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well Sophron's economy manages without any Retail, huh?
[Accept]
"We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative Peggy O'Bannon. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."
[Accept]