Bill Bartlett wrote:
>Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
>
>>I said he [J. K. Galbraith] wasn't a *shill* for capitalism. Nuance,
nuance. Words matter.
>>Also, as Noam reminds his listeners, the truth value of a statement does
>>not depend on who's uttering it.
>
>Provided we are speaking the same language. That is not the case here,
>according to my dictionary "shill" is not a word.

shill [slang] the confederate of a gambler, pitchman, auctioneer, etc. who
pretends to buy, bet,, or bid so as to lure onlookers in to participating .
Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Edition
                [snip]
>Consider: if your competitor pays lower wages than you then his cost of
>production is lower - he can then undercut your price - nobody buys your
>brand so you must do the same or go out of business.

For most manufacturing in "first world" countries, direct labor cost is
_well_ under 1/3 of total cost.  Reducing the profit margin could be as
efficient as cutting the labor cost in half if a company wanted to compete
on price.  But this is unthinkable, especially as weak as labor is nowadays.
Profit and growth rates are higher now than ever.  It is the competition to
keep stock holders happy, rather than to sell an actual product you can hold
in your hand, that is driving real wages down.  Lowering wages is done
because it's easy.  The blue-suited sycophant can go to his boss's office
and say, "Look how much money I saved."
>
>The logic is implacable, but in case you're not convinced by logic alone
>just look around you - the proof is in the pudding.

Tell me about it.  Know anybody who needs a good machinist in the
Boston/Worcester/Nashua triangle?
Seriously.
        Larry Libby


  "Open your eyes
   And look within.
   Are you satisfied
   With the life you're livin' ?"
            Bob Marley