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

Thanks, J, for your rebuttal. I appreciate it greatly. (1) "The right to work laws exist precisely because of what I stipulated above. Before these laws it was a requirement of employment to join the union if a union existed at the company you were applying to. Right to work laws end this requirement...hence the name. That information comes from the same wikipedia sources you mentioned above."--JA (a) Well, actually, if you read the wikipedia links, you read them very CURSORILY (or you simply "perused" them). The so-called "Union Shop" that existed in places of employment PRIOR to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was a direct RESULT of the union being organized by a 51% majority of INDIVIDUAL workers in a secret-ballot election. In other words, if a MAJORITY of the INDIVIDUAL workers voted AGAINST joining a union, neither the power of the "Union" nor the "government"(State) has "ONE penny in this nickel," so to speak. (b) In fact, this was the case with Wal-Mart in which a majority of the INDIVIDUAL workers voted AGAINST the union b/c Sam Walton "campaigned" by insisting that if they were to vote "Yes," he would have taken the 25% Profit-Sharing plan from the employees. Therefore, in pursuit of the workers' own economic SELF-interest, joining a union was UNNECESSARY. I support this kind of "union busting," if you will, by employers. (c) However, the so-called "right to work" states is nothing more than pure EMOTIONAL PROPAGANDA that feeds on people's feelings of "individualism." In reality, the "National Labor Relations Act of 1935" was "technically" a "Right to Work" law b/c it gives each individual worker CHOICE, collectively/democratically etc. Nevertheless, the so-called "National Right to Work" laws that are supported by Bush, McCain, and Guilani--[at the EXPENSE of Rep. Ron Paul; we can discuss this later (haha)]--are NOT respectful of "individualism" moreso than it respects pure ANARACHY. 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!!! That is NOT "individualism" but ANARACHY. In fact, one of the "Founding Fathers" and political supporters of the man that you herald the picture of (Thomas Jefferson), Thomas Paine, once penned the most revolutionary phrase: "We are a Nation of LAWS and not of MEN!!!" In other words, the PEOPLE (collectively/democratically) vote for a President and is his/her "boss," if you will. Nevertheless, does that imply that if the President is enforcing a law passed by Congress, that ONE "nutball," if you will, has a "right" to disregard and/or disobey that law??? Of course not!!! If you disagree, then you are an ANARCHIST and not a libertarian. (2) "I did not say the wage was substandard nor did I say it was substandard because of inflation (which if you read mises you know who is responsible for inflation, but that is an entirely different debate). I simply stated that if workers believe their wage had become insufficient they would logically attempt to rectify the situation."--JA (a) First and foremost, I apologize for confusing your words. And you are 100% accurate in alluding to the fact that the #1 cause of inflation is NOT the "upward pressure of wages by unions in the FREE MARKET" 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. (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??? You cite the "example" of ONE person ("you") getting offered a job in menial labor that paid higher wages than the other. Yes, that's great, but what about the 99 workers BEHIND you??? Like I said, it is IMPRACTICAL to suggest that if they all "quit" their jobs (and RISK the fact that they can't put food on the plates of their children and families) that they would very "easily" find a job at the competition paying a livable wage. Btw, when I say "livable wage," I just simply mean wages "at" or "above" the rate of inflation *De Facto* as opposed to the so-called "Living/Minimum Wage" set by the Government. (3) "We were fighting World War 2. That should be sufficient explanation."--JA (a) OK, first and foremost, I thank you for attempting to answer my question explaining how unemployment was ONLY 1.2% when the Unionization rate was ~35%. Ironically, I can very easily refute that argument by citing a video documentary that was given to me by Mr. Brandon P. Adams of Facebook.com from the MISES' Institute (haha); btw, Mr. Adams--to be certain--is a likewise supporter of Ron Paul and AGREES with your position on Unions: cf. http://video.google.com... According to the Mises' Institute, America's entry into WWII did NOT (contrary to the view of historians) get us out of the "Great Depression." Therefore, World War II (according to the Mises' Institute) is NOT a "sufficient" explanation. (b) Nevertheless, I will answer your critique "in good faith" b/c the Mises' documentary is irrational (on a lot of points) b/c historians are nearly UNANIMOUS in affirming that WWII is what got America out of the Depression. However, that actually PROVES my point in the beginning that there is a "FUNAMENTAL FLAW" in the Austrian School's "Classical Theory of Wages." Ask yourself the following relatively simple question: if there were "no flaw," how could an unnatural example (WWII) NULLIFY the dogmatic and INFALLIBLE "Law of Supply & Demand"??? On the contrary, if there were no flaw, PRIVATE-sector unemployment would have remained at ~25% and grew even LARGER at the onset of aggressive unionization. The rapid demand for labor during WWII would have automatically created a VACUUM in which the State would have had to fill by NATIONALIZING (socialize) major industries in order to create the necessary employment to get us through the "second war to end all wars." Unfortunately, and thank God, it did not happen that way. In fact, America herald 1.2% unemployment DESPITE the fact that the TOP Tax Rate that Big Business was paying during the Roosevelt Administration was an UNBELIEVEABLE 90% in addition to the Corporate Tax Rate being around ~60-70%--until those tax rates were reduced by JFK!!! (4) (a) Ironically, the wage theory is perfectly rational as I said; nonetheless, here is the major flaw: when applied to the "real world," it can ONLY be applied to SMALL business and not "Big Business." That is why economists can effectively argue that the Minimum Wage law would create cyclical unemployment b/c the majority of businesses that actually pay "minimum wage" are either "Mom n' Pop" stores and independent franchises like McDonalds' etc. (b) On the contrary, BIG businesses (e.g. Wal-Mart, Toys "R" Us, Ford Motor co., General Motors, etc.) are (literally) "big" enough to ABSORB the "extra costs" from pressure from Unions, strikes, etc. by "subsidizing" the price(s) of their products in the market and extra employees in the labor pool with the MILLIONS of Dollars in PERSONAL SAVINGS that they have stored away in Swiss Bank accounts all over Europe, and in banks, etc. "WHY?," you or someone might logically ask. Well, the fact of the matter is that they will just simply "absorb the cost" because they know good and well that it will be IRRATIONAL and COUNTER-productive to reduce supply and production.