Is There A FLAW In the so-called "Classical Wage Theory of Economics [Austrian School]???"

Thanks for posting a great rebuttal. Let me clarify, I stated that right to work laws allow an employee the option of joining a union. If a union exists, meaning that the vote you keep mentioning has already taken place before an employee is hired, he must join the union. In other words, they became a "closed shop" the instant the vote ended in favor of the union. I think it should be obvious from an individual point of view that a 51% yea vote should not determine whether or not I wish my labor to be represented by a union. It is my right to enter into a contract with an employer regardless of what my fellow employees demand of me. I am exchanging my labor for a certain wage, and unless my fellow employees are paying me, it is not their contract to determine. (c) "In other words, are you telling me that if 85-90% of INDIVIDUAL employees democratically/collectively vote to join a union, ONE "loosecannon" has a "right" to bust that union b/c he doesn't want to join??? Of course not!!!" I think the emotional argument is on your side. However, I would merely point out that if 85% wished to form a union then that 85% can form a union. It is wrong to force someone to join a union, which by the by involves paying union dues, if they do not so elect. I will answer your question directly, if one person disagrees with unionization, it should be possible that a union be formed by the other employees. I am merely stating that everyone has a right to choose to enter into a contract regarding their own labor. They do not have a right to make that decisions for others. If 49% of employees wished to form a union, then that 49% should form a union. You must respect the individual determination both ways if you truly value an individual right of contract. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government." -Thomas Jefferson (I think this quote is more applicable to our discussion) Which, in other words, means you allow the individual to choose what to do with his or her own labor. "In other words, the PEOPLE (collectively/democratically) vote for a President and is his/her "boss," if you will." No, sorry, I will not. The President has no Constitutional authority over my labor; The rest of your argument is non sequitur as libertarians obviously do not believe the government should regulate economic affairs between private citizens. 2)"more accurately than it has been the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve since 1913 [the PRIVATELY-owned Central Banking cartel (monopoly) of the United States]. Here, we agree and that is precisely the reason that we are BOTH committed supporters of Ron Paul for President." HEAR HEAR! (b) "Nevertheless, your reasoning again is CIRCULAR b/c how can the workers "rectify" the situation of being paying wages that are BELOW the rate of inflation ("Sub-standard," if you will) if you would turn right around and NOT support their right to organize and collectively bargain with their employer in the FREE MARKET???" I have never attacked their right to collectively bargain at all. I merely stated that it is up to each individual whether or not they should engage in collective bargaining. "You cite the "example" of ONE person ("you") getting offered a job in menial labor that paid higher wages than the other." I stated myself as an example because I am not an exception. I really have nothing special to offer when it comes to menial labor. I merely demonstrated that the logic holds in reality. (3) "We were fighting World War 2. That should be sufficient explanation."--JA First, on Mises interpretation, I honestly have never heard that before. I would merely say, again, that World War 2 was responsible for an anomalously low unemployment rate. As for the unionization, many people underestimate the power of a war to unite a nation. It may simply be that labor unions made few demands during the war and therefore applied little if any upward pressure on wages. It may also be due to the shortage of labor, i.e. many men (no sexism here, simple fact of the day) were fighting overseas, and thus there was a shortage of labor (in comparison to what would otherwise have been available). (4) This point seems tenuous at best. I would merely submit that businesses will more than likely raise prices to absorb costs. This accounts for the inflation accredited to the minimum wage laws, as opposed to the mom n' pop stores that tend to go out of business as a result. This is exactly what happened in Colorado Springs as a result of the Colorado minimum wage increase (specifically mom n' pop restaurants). Big Businesses tend to make their own deals with Congress. I cannot speak for every large business, but as long as Congressman can be purchased there is little reason to believe the free market paradigm applies.