knew passed a frod wouldn't answer my Question,
Fair go... I don't just sit at my computer all Friday night
I tried to avoid the economics lesson. Here it is in laymans terms (taking it to extremes for illustration)
If a flight crew cost $1 an hour, how many routes would be profitable. The demand for pilots at that rate would me immense.
If a flight crew cost $500,000 an hour, how many routes would be possible. Not many, because pilots don't produce $500,000 in income per hour.
Here's the economics (in short) (trying to keep it simple)
Inclusive or Industrial Unionism
Inclusive or industrial unions try to unionize every worker in a certain union so they have the power to impose a higher wage than the employer would otherwise pay. Note that employers will hire fewer workers than they would if the workers were free to accept a lower wage
Your truck driving example highlights exactly what I'm saying. You are getting the employees that you pay for. Eventually if the industry continually lowers wages, the pool of
skilled aircrew will decline. Once they can't get the numbers required the pay and conditions will pick back up. Once it's attained equilibrium. Forcing QANTAS or any other company to accept higher wages reduces the number of people they will hire.
HIALS:
If we embrace the modern 'market economy' (p.s. which is demand side driven)
o.k... you are a Keynesian. I'm not sure how this relates to labour economics - The disequilibrium achieved by unions.
the number of jobs demanded in an industry is a response to consumer demand.
In part. What is more important is Marginal Productivity of Labour. An that is where imposed higher wages blow you out of the water.
the CAI and other employer organisations reduce the number of jobs in an industry".
How are you assuming that ? I'm not sure where that statement fits into labour market economics.
In fact, neither is true. They both have their rightful place in the modern labour market. It is a process of negotiation and compromise
No.. they are only required because of militant unionism.
Neither are reflected in your ignorant and biased views
Well, I'm not particularly worried about your opinion in that regard. I think your first statement said it best, and it's almost the only thing I agree with you on:
only have an incy-bitcy, tincy-wincy bit of knowledge