>>Agreed. But the next war isn’t going to be anything like WWII. Also, as a teacher, I have a hard time seeing auto workers making $52/hr with benefits while I worked for half that. If they want to keep their jobs and not find themselves displaced by machines or their jobs exported, perhaps they need to temper their wage demands. My last 5 years teaching I never did get a raise. Sorry, but that WWII protectionism just doesn’t play in today’s world.
The UAW contracts with Big Auto are a special case and we shouldn’t look at them as the standard. In the 1950s, when prosperity was an assumption in all business plans, the auto companies and unions didn’t care how much the workers made. So, the unions asked for the sky and the companies gladly gave it because the profit margins on cars were just that high. They knew that the wages of Americans were climbing steadily and people would pay whatever it cost to get a car, so you had this incestuous relationship between the company and the union.
So, I agree. The UAW needs to accept less, but not less than a non-union worker at Toyota or Nissan makes and they make over $30/hr with magnificent benefits.
As for teachers, I’m sorry that you chose your profession. Didn’t your teachers in high school warn you that you would not make a six figure salary? When I was a kid, the teachers complained constantly about their low pay, so teaching was not something I was interested in doing. I live in Florida, which has pretty bad schools, but an entry level teacher starts at $52k/yr, with good benefits and two months off in the summer, 2 weeks off for “winter”, a week for thanksgiving, a week for “spring”, and a teacher “work day” about every 3 weeks where their “customers” (the kids”) stay home. By comparison, a union electrician at our best industrial employer in town makes about $52k/yr with 2 weeks off a year—period.
On a supply vs demand scale, universities churn out thousands of teachers every year, but an industrial electrician is very hard to find and retain.
As for the charge of “protectionism”, why does it always have to be all or nothing? You either have to be in favor of unfettered borderless globalism or you are a “protectionist”. What if a person is in favor of globalism, but with restraints—like the circuit breakers they use on stock trading? Have you considered that as an alternative to the “all or nothing” perspective?
It used to be that teachers were primarily married women with husbands who made more than enough to support them. So pay wasn’t an issue, they did it simply because they enjoyed teaching.