1. Well, that could be true of any thread that I look at and post to when I come back. Just saying.

2. Here: "Historically, transplants kept their wages to within a few dollars of union wages, but that has fallen apart and they've abandoned that fixed parity and have chosen to tie wages to regional wage standards. This has increased the gap between the wage rates."

Greg even commented on it.

3. But I've shown that isn't the case with real world examples, that's my point.

In the automotive world, when Japanese transplants lower wages relative to UAW wages, the Japanese clearly didn't feel the upward pressure. Then, the UAW had to lower wages themselves or keep them flat. In the trucking industry, you have a different dynamic going on. Some Teamster shops are decreasing wages or trying to decrease wages whereas some major non-union shops (i.e. FedEx) are increasing wages to a level that is higher than the Teamsters. So, where's the upwards pressure on wages by some of the largest unions in the world?

Here, I'll save both of us some time:

IS IT OR IS IT NOT HARDER FOR AN EMPLOYER TO OFFER LOW WAGES WHEN HE IS COMPETING WITH A UNION SHOP, WITH TYPICALLY HIGHER COMPENSATION, FOR THE SAME EMPLOYEES?

Yes or no. If you say "yes," we're done here. If you say, "no," it might be time to go back to school.

Given my examples in #3, I would say no. It may be perceived that way, but I'm not necessarily convinced.

So, because regional isolation tends to negate the competitive nature inherent in the drawing from the same pool of employees, you don't buy that where a union exists, wages go up? Whatever, broskies. Page ten says we're getting nowhere. Peace.