George McGovern: The End of "More"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcgovern22may22,0,5962975.story

The end of 'more' By George S. McGovern

I HAVE NEVER wavered in my support for policies that relieve poverty and improve the standard of living of American workers. As a lifelong liberal, I supported Medicare and Medicaid, civil rights, Social Security and workplace safety requirements. Today, I strongly support universal healthcare. And I have always been a supporter of the labor movement. But lately I have seen developments that have me worried. And I have been reminded of legendary union leader John L. Lewis, who was once asked what his miners were after. His answer? "More." We are seeing some unfortunate and unintended consequences of Lewis' "more" philosophy.

..."More" has, unfortunately, become "too much" in a global and far more competitive economy.

...Liberals must never abandon their core principles of justice and equality. But union leaders who still see American businesses as the enemy must update that vision.

(Mr. McGovern also talks about universal health care as being essential for the worker in today's global economy.)

I think he means our economy is no longer sustainable. And that is right. Particulaily with the US being the worlds for most debtor country and capital is being exported along with jobs... Question is how to create wealth when everyone is in debt , cost of living is going through the roof. Containing health care costs and providing all with health care would be a good start. Because no, under this system can afford health care.

I don't think alot of people realize just how much it costs above and beyond the hourly-wage or salary a business may pay an employee. I'm all for sharing the wealth, but the best way to do that is having employees own stock in their company, and take the risks right along with the execs, but conversely share the pay off. The caveat here is that since the execs control the stock, they usually find ways to screw the employees. If something needs to change, I would think that would be it.

I see the logic of what McGovern is saying. Simpy put, there's only so much labor cost you can add to your product. There is a point where 'more' of something is an inflated value of what that something may be.

IT would be a tremendous help for employers. Something like 1/3 of labor costs go to benefits. With them being socialized, they would be more secure for all and less costly to all. Employers would of course have to pay up their share of these costs, but that would still be a tremendous savings for them. Never happen, insurance companies and pharmeutical companies more influential than manufacturers. Unless , the people finally revolt.