I haven't the time to wade through a dozen pages of posts so if it has already been mentioned my apologies, but on the subject of house prices professor Robert Shiller of Yale University pretty much busted the myth of houses being a cast iron certainty in terms of long-term investment in the US (and - he claims - most of Europe). Using a colossal data set covering all US mortgages since 1890 he concluded that barring a couple of (very) short term bubbles (amounting to around 4% of the 110+ year period) there was little evidence to suggest that house prices had risen in real terms. You can find a summary of his evidence here (excel spreadsheet) or check out his site at www.irrationalexuberance.com (or buy the book - which comprehensively analyses the relationship between debt, credit bubbles and economic depression).

I haven't the time to wade through a dozen pages of posts so if it has already been mentioned my apologies, but on the subject of house prices professor Robert Shiller of Yale University pretty much busted the myth of houses being a cast iron certainty in terms of long-term investment in the US (and - he claims - most of Europe). Using a colossal data set covering all US mortgages since 1890 he concluded that barring a couple of (very) short term bubbles (amounting to around 4% of the 110+ year period) there was little evidence to suggest that house prices had risen in real terms. You can find a summary of his evidence here (excel spreadsheet) or check out his site at www.irrationalexuberance.com (or buy the book - which comprehensively analyses the relationship between debt, credit bubbles and economic depression).

Out of interest, when was the last time anyone saw a serious show on prime-time television or a piece on national radio which portrayed trade unions as a force for positive social reform (as they have unquestionably demonstrated at various points in British history) whilst refraining from painting individual members as stereotypical shifty, self-interested Trotskyite rabble-rousers hell bent on squeezing every last drop of lolly out of fair-minded, well-meaning trans-national corporations (where - presumably - "self interest" is a dirty word)?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that corporations are uniformly beatified by all sections of the media - but the "successful businessman" has never been short of copious admiration, praise - even worship within the industry. And the trend is most certainly upward. I mean, prior to the eighties corporate CEOs were just about unknown to the public (with the exception of yer Victor Kiams and Jack Welsh's). Now they are treated like celebrities, sex symbols - deified (look at shows like Dragon's Den). The media hangs upon their every word at product launches where they swagger onto the stage amid deafening applause like rock stars (with accompanying rock music) to hawk some piece of fetishised S.E. Asian sweatshop circuitry for a hundred times production cost.

Meanwhile the head of your average trade union and individual members still cannot escape a media stereotype which was never the truth thirty years ago and is so hopelessly out of date now anyone who repeats it in debate (the usual suspects in this thread) only demonstrate how stupendously ignorant they are.

Given the overwhelmingly disproportionate level of positive media coverage (and endless legislative bashings by successive governments since Thatcher) current Union membership levels really must speak for themselves or else be explained away as a miracle.

Interesting but completely flawed analysis - without the CEO's/wealth generators you dont need parasitic union bosses. If the union bosses are so good and they are so much more valuable than the CEO let them demonstrate it by starting their own businesses and showing us all how to do it?

It is easy to sit on the sideline and critisise - especially when it is not your livelehood or money you are risking, much harder to stick your head above the parapet!!. The reason union bosses get little credit is because they don't add enough value to earn it. Brendon Barber is a prime example - he has never had a job outside of the closeted union environment yet he lecture businesses on how to best manage their labour. If he had actually demonstrated his abilities in a risk situation then maybe you could take him more seriously.

Union membership is in the minority - which demonstrates that the vast majority of workers are more than capable of happily agreeing their T&C's with their employer. There is legislation in place and sanctions to ensure H&S standards etc. The idea that unions provide collective bargaining is a myth, employers decide a cost of living increase that is applied to 99% of their workforce.

Very well said.
We generally only get to see or hear Union leaders on the news when there is an unresolved dispute, hence the negative image.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times that I've seen business(wo)men who have made their money from buying and selling in the domestic market (who only see employees as a cost to be reduced and have little knowledge outside of the confines of their business), being worshipped as the oracle whilst telling us about how Europe is the devil strangling his/her business with red tape.
That'll be why Germany is so poor, I guess.

Where did the legislation come from ... did the business leaders demand it?
No, it came from governments who were slightly to the left.


What is this "cost of living increase" you mention?
Most companies these days look at the market rate and take that into account with whatever attrition rate they feel is appropriate.

Not so - political change is almost always a result of grass roots activism applying pressure like a tourniquet. Politicians are usually protectors of the business class (and the status quo) before the people and switch sides when the straw breaks the camel's back. Unfortunately, history rarely recognises the role of grass roots activism and mostly attributes change to the "heroic" actions of noble politicians.

Sal Paradise wrote: <more of the same old guff> You have still yet to explain why German manufacturing companies can succeed in a highly unionised environment. Do you think it's because German union organisers are different, or could there possibly be a difference in the mindset of British company CEOs and owners? Look at the German Mittelstand companies. Organisations that prefer to retain family control, as opposed to selling out to the first vulture capitalist that comes along. Where the CEO is quite at ease rubbing shoulders with the workforce. These are companies that appreciate the assets of the workforce and work with them to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just a quick return for institutional investors.

Sal Paradise wrote: <more of the same old guff> You have still yet to explain why German manufacturing companies can succeed in a highly unionised environment. Do you think it's because German union organisers are different, or could there possibly be a difference in the mindset of British company CEOs and owners? Look at the German Mittelstand companies. Organisations that prefer to retain family control, as opposed to selling out to the first vulture capitalist that comes along. Where the CEO is quite at ease rubbing shoulders with the workforce. These are companies that appreciate the assets of the workforce and work with them to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just a quick return for institutional investors.

cod'ead wrote: Sal Paradise wrote: <more of the same old guff> You have still yet to explain why German manufacturing companies can succeed in a highly unionised environment. Do you think it's because German union organisers are different, or could there possibly be a difference in the mindset of British company CEOs and owners? Look at the German Mittelstand companies. Organisations that prefer to retain family control, as opposed to selling out to the first vulture capitalist that comes along. Where the CEO is quite at ease rubbing shoulders with the workforce. These are companies that appreciate the assets of the workforce and work with them to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just a quick return for institutional investors. But don't you realise you poor bitter twisted parasitic trades unionist apologist. Sal is talking about the real world. You know, where minimum-wage carers have expense accounts.

cod'ead wrote: Sal Paradise wrote: <more of the same old guff> You have still yet to explain why German manufacturing companies can succeed in a highly unionised environment. Do you think it's because German union organisers are different, or could there possibly be a difference in the mindset of British company CEOs and owners? Look at the German Mittelstand companies. Organisations that prefer to retain family control, as opposed to selling out to the first vulture capitalist that comes along. Where the CEO is quite at ease rubbing shoulders with the workforce. These are companies that appreciate the assets of the workforce and work with them to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just a quick return for institutional investors. But don't you realise you poor bitter twisted parasitic trades unionist apologist. Sal is talking about the real world. You know, where minimum-wage carers have expense accounts.

If this is so how do you explain the fact that many businesses and unions share mutually beneficial relationships? If business is ALWAYS better placed to make decisions then surely there is no point in engaging. Better to bust the unions and run the show from the boardroom. Clearly THEY seem to think unions serve a valuable purpose. Which leaves your argument on rocky ground.



I agree. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the (often bloody and sometimes deadly) battles unions have fought to secure many of the benefits workers today take for granted. Yes, it's tough to run a successful business and sticking your head above the parapet can be risky. But throughout history there are innumerable examples of workers sticking their heads above the parapet to fight for their rights and having them beaten to a bloody mess.



I'm willing to bet that what you know about Brendon Barber (I'm talking facts - not speculation, accusations etc.) wouldn't fill a sheet of A4.



Evidence please.



Evidence please.

Is this the same world where I advised against buying bananas?