C'mon Terryray, you're obviously a well educated, but more importantly, a well read guy. So why the pretense of supporting a position based upon the limited and formulaic objective of "textbooks"?
my above post had a link which showed more than textbooks. And argued such. It wasn't limited, it was global and comprehensive in it's approach!
If you think it through. :0074
most certainly nothing as "limited and formulaic" as the phrases of union faith you trot over and over, unadorned by nothing but their majestic credo :0044
to restate:
I had a link to the most favorable book by labor economists who might support your analysis of changes in labor economics, and they can't come up with anything close to your extravagant claims.
Obviously, my point with that and textbooks that you are presenting an argument of historic development in labor economics that is not shared by any labor economist.
Not one who teaches this anywhere.
I hope you don't go to your dentist for a mechanical problem with your car. You don't go to a historian like Zinn, ranting on about Haymarket, when you need analysis in labor economics.
Freeman and Medoff do acknowledge all the harm unions cause workers (as a whole) and harm to the economy. But they also make arguments that unions do some good for all workers in certain areas. They posit if you balance the bad with the good a case can be made that tip the scales to argue that unions do bit more good than bad.
And this slight hurrah was, and still is, regarded as a big challenge to what economists believe is the settled understanding.
Freeman and Medoff are nice, and don't go on about what rapacious nasty greedheads many highly successful businessmen are. Adam Smith did that plenty. But Smith also pointed out what market forces exist that makes those assholes (very much against their will!) have to pay ever higher wages and benefits to workers. Workers who, in growing competitive and free labor markets, can quit and take their ever-increasing valuable labor elsewhere.
