Two observations.
1. The wages are not the same thing as employee compensation. The latter includes benefits, whose costs in the Etats Unis have been rising at higher than inflation rates. Some argue that the wage stagnation (in inflation adjusted terms) is a result of the higher cost of benefits. This is not to imply that the bosses do not want to drive wages down, but that there are other factors - such as bloated health care costs - over which the bosses have no direct control.
2. This points to a fundamental weakness of the "Anglo-Saxon" model of labor - capital relations that prioritized direct negotiations of wages with employers over providing collective security through government policy - as it has been the case of continental Europe, especially Scandinavia. The latter seems more efficient in keeping the rising cost of benefits in check - which has a huge effect on employee compensation - and also provides more safeguards against "employer strikes" (i.e. threats to move production elsewhere.)
Wojtek
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, MICHAEL YATES <mikedjyates at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://remappingdebate.org/sites/all/files/Putting%20the%20new%20GM-UAW%20contract%20in%20historical%20context_2.pdf
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk