Guest, Sally, are you also "fairminded Sally". Regardless, keep contributing to the thread. Your words may appear to be ignored and yet you'll find someone will glom onto this thread and appreciate them. Also, I believe most of the people on this thread are in fact fairminded (in the long run). I just watched an American public television show, FRONTLINE, episode titled "Is Wal-Mart good For America?" I liked the show because I think it presented both sides and did not draw its own conclusion. It did not deal with union issues at all, rather it dealt with the changes in the American economy wrought by Wal-MART as being such a large consumer goods force that it now dominated its suppliers, which is a major change in the order of economic structure in the US. And driven by (extremely) cheap overseas labor, Wal-Mart has chosen (rather recently, beginning in the 90's) to be supplied by overseas suppliers (read: China) directly supplanting local labor, from blue collar to white collar as entire companies go under or are bought by other companies.

Wal-Mart representative justly said that consumers are the big beneficiaries because they can buy goods at lower prices. Displaced workers say the United States is the loser as goods are produced overseas and jobs go with them.

I don't think it is obvious who is right or wrong just yet. As usual, the economy is like a deadly serious game of Musical Chairs, and the rewards go to the adaptable. But is there enough raw material to keep all the adaptors going? The balance of trade suggests the answer is: "no", but that's my first cut answer. The US economy has proven to be quite ruggedly adaptable before and there may be surprises in the old gal yet.