Comments (7)

• George Gaskell

  The first paragraph sets up a strawman, the mysterious "some" who think that were unions to disappear, working conditions would revert to the horrors of the 19th century industrial factories. Let's be clear: nobody says this.

  Apparently, the good Mr. Blundell does not read very many Democrat-oriented websites.

  Now it pains me to have to instruct the eminent Dr. Block on such a basic fact of economics, but wages are driven primarily by bargaining power as dictated by supply and demand; productivity is virtually irrelevant (except as a soft ceiling).

  He also seems to misunderstand the meaning of the term "productivity." Might an employee's productivity have something to do with what he "supplies" to meet the employers' "demand"?

  Workers, especially lower skilled workers, generally need their jobs more than the company needs them

  This makes no sense. I don't see a reason to continue reading.

  Published: September 15, 2006 11:11 AM

• Mark Brabson

  I find that most union generated drivel is not worth reading. Even some of the rank and file can't deal with the moronic socialist tendencies of the union bosses.

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:22 PM

• Bill, Individual

  Mr. Blundell's article is based on the assumption that all workers produce the same amount of everything so an potiential buyer of work, an employer, will always choose the lowest price worker. This is bunch of crap. I am an example of a worker who could be replaced by someone cheaper but delivers more value to the owners of my company and they choose to pay me a higher salary.

  The employer will choose workers based on a variety of criteria ONE of which is the difference between the cost of the worker and the amount of revenue the worker will add.

  We may all be the same in the eyes of God but we are certainly not the same in the eyes of potiential employers.

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:22 PM

• Roger M

  I hope Prof Blundell isn't as ignorant about religion as he is about economics! He thinks productivity plays a small role in setting wages. But when an employer has dozens of people apply for a single opening, he hires the most qualified person, not because he likes to work around "quality" people, but because the most qualified will also be the most productive. In fact, his primary criteria for a candidate being "qualified" is the potential productivity of the applicant.

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:33 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  This loony should go no further in his analysis than questioning why he is paid almost nothing in the religious department while the business school is raking in the Benjamins.

  Published: September 15, 2006 1:14 PM

• Black Bloke

  Quotation marks should be out around the title of Blundell's piece in the sentence, "In Block's stance on unions not even wrong…" If quotation marks seem inappropriate, try italicization. Reading it as is seems confusing.

  Published: September 15, 2006 7:52 PM

• Christian G. Warden

  If an owner needs five workers but there are five hundred workers who need work, the owner will offer the lowest possible wages needed to attract five suitable workers in order to maximize profits. The more workers available, the lower that wage will be. If there are more workers than work, wages tend to go down; more work than workers, wages tend to go up.
  
  
  
  There seems to be a lump of labor assumption in there.
  
  
  
  xn

  Published: September 16, 2006 2:56 PM