without unions there will be no strong middle class, http://www.unionworld.us

Certain combinations of flavors have an amazing synergy. One of my favorites is
to dissolve a tiny piece of dark chocolate in your mouth and after your taste
buds are saturated with the flavor, take a sip of good single-malt Scotch. It's
WONDERFUL!

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class, http://www.unionworld.us


Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

wrote:

Yes, unions are very important. Expecally in long runs of piping with elbows.

On Jul 25, 8:12 pm, Wes wrote:
wrote:

Yes, unions are very important. Expecally in long runs of piping with elbows.

An old man I knew called them the plumber's friend

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Nope. That wasn't what the guy said. Read it. I didn't say or imply
that there is as many as in the West, Just that there is a middle
class and no, or government, controlled unions.

By the way, your last comment about the excesses of capitalism I
assume refers to the low salaries in the developing countries
vis-a-vis the high salaries in the West. The argument is spurious as
the wages paid in S.E.A., when compared with the cost of living is
probably roughly comparable, on a percentage basis, with the West.
Note that I am not including China as I have no direct personal
knowledge of the country.

In fact the more factories that open the larger the "middle class"
becomes as the problem is not low salaries, it is lack of jobs, which
a union cannot solve.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.


In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

And all things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds...

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Actually, thats total crap, - the regime changed because the king
supported change and told the existing lot to bugger off.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:58:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Actually, thats total crap, - the regime changed because the king
supported change and told the existing lot to bugger off.

Andrew VK3BFA.

You may say it is total crap but I was in Bangkok and saw what was
happening while you were, where? And, got your information from?

True that ultimately the King did intervene...after the army had
attacked the protesters and shot a number and entered the Royal Hotel
and attacking both Thais and foreigners there. With your call sign you
should have seen that as the most provoking scenes were shot by BBC
cameramen. .

As neither the army nor the protesters were prepared to back down the
King took it upon himself to resolve matters by calling both Suchinda
and Chamlong to the palace and admonished them which was enough to
cause the coup to collapse, which without the intervention of the
middle class protesters would not have happened.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

And all things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds...

Andrew VK3BFA.


Nobody has said anything about "the best of best worlds". All that has
been said is that there is a viable middle class in Asia and some
examples.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:58:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Actually, thats total crap, - the regime changed because the king
supported change and told the existing lot to bugger off.

Andrew VK3BFA.


Nobody knows what the King said. It was not reported. The only report
of the audience was a short TV news film of the King sitting in a
chair and Suchinda and Chamlong sitting on the floor while the King,
looking very serious, talked to them.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Jul 26, 9:04 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:58:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Actually, thats total crap, - the regime changed because the king
supported change and told the existing lot to bugger off.

Andrew VK3BFA.

You may say it is total crap but I was in Bangkok and saw what was
happening while you were, where? And, got your information from?

The ABC (thats the Australian Broadcasting Commission), SBS, BBC
World service, etc.) - yes, there are real reporters out there, not
just CNN and Murdochs empire. We take some interest in the world
around us, can even identify countries on the map.

True that ultimately the King did intervene...after the army had
attacked the protesters and shot a number and entered the Royal Hotel
and attacking both Thais and foreigners there. With your call sign you
should have seen that as the most provoking scenes were shot by BBC
cameramen. .

Why wasnt CNN there? - not enough blood? - and I am not disputing the
FACTS of the matter, just your jaundiced opinion.

As neither the army nor the protesters were prepared to back down the
King took it upon himself to resolve matters by calling both Suchinda
and Chamlong to the palace and admonished them which was enough to
cause the coup to collapse,

Yep, thats what happened.

which without the intervention of the
middle class protesters would not have happened.

You want to quote a reference to that, or do I take your word for it?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Yep,
I repeat -total crap - if you were there, were you getting your news
off CNN - given the obvious knowledge and insight of the culture you
live in, you would have to be working for one of the American
intelligence agencies - either that, or sequestered in an American
base somewhere, safe from the outside world.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Jul 26, 9:06 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

And all things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds...

Andrew VK3BFA.

Nobody has said anything about "the best of best worlds". All that has
been said is that there is a viable middle class in Asia and some
examples.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)



And all I asked was what percentage of the population would be
described as middle class -its axiomatic that a large, educated middle
class is the best protection against tyranny and dictatorship. If it
hasnt reached critical mass, then you have the situation of, say
Thailand where
".. the army had attacked the protesters and shot a number and entered
the Royal Hotel and attacking both Thais and foreigners there......"

Sorry Bruce - I forgot you were American , didn't explain myself
simply enough.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Jul 25, 8:55 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

yeah but there is also some form of fascism there, what are your
thoughts of unions being associated with being socialist?

http://www.unionworld.us

On Jul 25, 9:12 pm, Wes wrote:
wrote:

Yes, unions are very important. Expecally in long runs of piping with elbows.

unions dont use elbows , they bend them using prefab material is a
DISGRACE!

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 9:04 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:58:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Actually, thats total crap, - the regime changed because the king
supported change and told the existing lot to bugger off.

Andrew VK3BFA.

You may say it is total crap but I was in Bangkok and saw what was
happening while you were, where? And, got your information from?

The ABC (thats the Australian Broadcasting Commission), SBS, BBC
World service, etc.) - yes, there are real reporters out there, not
just CNN and Murdochs empire. We take some interest in the world
around us, can even identify countries on the map.

Except that these intrepid reporters weren't reporting as there
weren't any communication lines open during the height of the
activities. So, if you got any news out of Bangkok during those hours
it must have been straight from God's mouth to your ear.


True that ultimately the King did intervene...after the army had
attacked the protesters and shot a number and entered the Royal Hotel
and attacking both Thais and foreigners there. With your call sign you
should have seen that as the most provoking scenes were shot by BBC
cameramen. .

Why wasnt CNN there? - not enough blood? - and I am not disputing the
FACTS of the matter, just your jaundiced opinion.

As neither the army nor the protesters were prepared to back down the
King took it upon himself to resolve matters by calling both Suchinda
and Chamlong to the palace and admonished them which was enough to
cause the coup to collapse,

Yep, thats what happened.

which without the intervention of the
middle class protesters would not have happened.

You want to quote a reference to that, or do I take your word for it?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Yep,
I repeat -total crap - if you were there, were you getting your news
off CNN - given the obvious knowledge and insight of the culture you
live in, you would have to be working for one of the American
intelligence agencies - either that, or sequestered in an American
base somewhere, safe from the outside world.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Andrew, you seem lacking in reading comprehensive. I told you that I
was in Bangkok and observing what was going on. I didn't depend on
CNN, BBC, Aussie News, etc. I went down town and had a look for
myself.

My point is that while I was here watching and you were God knows
where, but obviously not here, you seem to feel that your second hand
information is more viable then my first hand observations. A bit
arrogant aren't you?

As far as my insight into the culture I live in I can only say that I
have lived in Thailand for nearly 40 years. I'm married into a large
Thai-Chinese family, and have been for over thirty years. I have both
children and grandchildren here. I speak a fair amount of Thai and
probably have more acquaintances in the Thai community then I do in
the Farang community.

So, yes I probably have more knowledge of Thailand then you do. That
may sound arrogant but it isn't really as your knowledge of the
country is so obviously limited.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:51:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:55 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

yeah but there is also some form of fascism there, what are your
thoughts of unions being associated with being socialist?

http://www.unionworld.us

Sure, in Singapore, who's leader Lee Kwan Yu was a rabid socialist in
his younger days and as soon he gained power became a dictator, or at
least as much of one as Soeharto, in Indonesia.

The Singapore Government formed a union to control the workers. It
exists today and in fact most of the grocery stores in Singapore are
run by the union.

Thirty years ago when Singapore was actively beating the bushes to
entice foreign companies to locate in Singapore they used to guarantee
"no labour problems".

In Thailand they just buy the union officials.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by 2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5 trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around 45% of
households -- well over 100 million people.

--

Ed Huntress

wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class

If you get invited to your first orgy, don't just show up nude. That's a
common mistake. You have to let nudity "happen."

- Jack -

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage
of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place
to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

And all things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds...

Andrew VK3BFA.


Nobody has said anything about "the best of best worlds". All that has
been said is that there is a viable middle class in Asia and some
examples.

As I pointed out in the example to Gunner, it's actually quite small
compared to the middle class in western developed countries, and calling
them "middle class" requires looking at it from the point of view of
purchasing-power parity (PPP), not their status in the world economy.

There's an argument for looking at it either way. Considering the way we
define "middle class," which generally is by lifestyle, rather than by
comparative income, the case for PPP is a strong one. That puts India's
middle class at around 50 million -- 1/2 that of the US, and a MUCH smaller
percentage of their population. By any definition, most people in India
still live in poverty. Other Asian countries vary in that regard, but,
overall, the Asian middle class is tiny as a percentage of the total
population.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 9:06 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 7:23 pm, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:43 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in
many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage
of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT
place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several
orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens
their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.

In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

And all things are for the best in the best of all possible worlds...

Andrew VK3BFA.

Nobody has said anything about "the best of best worlds". All that has
been said is that there is a viable middle class in Asia and some
examples.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)



And all I asked was what percentage of the population would be
described as middle class -its axiomatic that a large, educated middle
class is the best protection against tyranny and dictatorship. If it
hasnt reached critical mass, then you have the situation of, say
Thailand where
".. the army had attacked the protesters and shot a number and entered
the Royal Hotel and attacking both Thais and foreigners there......"

If we're still using India as the example, it's about 4% of the population.
The US middle class is between 40% and 45% of the population.


Sorry Bruce - I forgot you were American , didn't explain myself
simply enough.

Now, now....d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 26, 12:43*am, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be *a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

As far as my insight into the culture I live in I can only say that I
have lived in Thailand for nearly 40 years. I'm married into a large
Thai-Chinese family, and have been for over thirty years. I have both
children and grandchildren here. I speak a fair amount of Thai and
probably have more acquaintances in the Thai community then I do in
the Farang community.


Bruce, were you stationed in Thailand during the Vietnam war? Have you been back to the
USA since? I'm just a bit curious, I've seen your sig for ages, once I was thinking Maine
but that is Bangor. What did you do for a living in Thailand during the last 40 years?

Wes

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by 2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5 trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around 45% of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:25:51 -0400, Wes wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

As far as my insight into the culture I live in I can only say that I
have lived in Thailand for nearly 40 years. I'm married into a large
Thai-Chinese family, and have been for over thirty years. I have both
children and grandchildren here. I speak a fair amount of Thai and
probably have more acquaintances in the Thai community then I do in
the Farang community.


Bruce, were you stationed in Thailand during the Vietnam war? Have you been back to the
USA since? I'm just a bit curious, I've seen your sig for ages, once I was thinking Maine
but that is Bangor. What did you do for a living in Thailand during the last 40 years?

Wes

I first came to Siam in somewhere in the mid 50's. I say that jokingly
as I was actually a member of a three B-29 flight that the U.S.
Government sent to Siam to make a fly over in honor of something to do
with the King. I have no recollection of what the reason was since as
a young airman I was far more interested in booze and broads then
Kings and have only a hazy, but pleasant, recollection of the trip.

I then re-visited the country in 1970 for a year, again at Uncle Sam's
request and returned in 1973 as a civilian. Since then I have not been
back to the U.S.

Initially I worked for a company that provided air base maintenance
for the USAF in Thailand and when that evaporated worked in Indonesia
for a company doing support for (mainly) international oil companies.

I'm now retired and we live about 50% of the time in Bangkok and the
other 50% in Phuket.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by 2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around 45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development of
large unions.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:17:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by 2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around 45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

You are correct that as beginners in progress in most Asian countries
the "middle class" is largely made up, as you say, of "bureaucrats,
military, professionals, and entrepreneurs", but that wasn't the
subject of the original conversation. It was the statement that
"without unions there will be no strong middle class". That was what I
was responding to.

But really, in the context of the O.P. what/who makes up the middle
class is immaterial. the important fact is that it is there and it
does have, at least,some political influence.


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development of
large unions.

I can only comment that the original post credited unions with
creating the middle class... which is quite simply false.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:17:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the
United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living
is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more
like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by
2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of
total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half
the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over
the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around
45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the
world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

There's a definition in the quote above, from Business Week, that's a
reasonable one for economic comparisons: a purchasing-power-parity
equivalent of USD $23,000 to $118,000. In India, for example, it's an income
that equates to USD $4,376 - $21,882, according to BW (I didn't check the
PPP values, but we'll assume BW got it right.)


You are correct that as beginners in progress in most Asian countries
the "middle class" is largely made up, as you say, of "bureaucrats,
military, professionals, and entrepreneurs", but that wasn't the
subject of the original conversation. It was the statement that
"without unions there will be no strong middle class". That was what I
was responding to.

OK. I didn't follow the earlier messages in this thread but it would have
been more accurate to say that the only systems that have produced large
middle classes, in which working people made it into the middle class, have
depended on unions pressing for higher wages to get it done. It certainly
wasn't happening in the US or Europe before we had large and effective
unions. From my reading of history, it's unlikely that it would have
happened without them.

We'll have to see how Asia develops in this completely new environment. So
far, according to BW's figures, India's middle class makes up only 4% of the
population -- roughly 1/10 the percentage of the US population that's middle
class. China's is much smaller as a percentage. I don't know about Thailand.
It's a unique country, economically, historically, and demographically, and
it's hard to get dependable, detailed data on Thailand. Apparently the
middle class is concentrated almost entirely in Bangkok.


But really, in the context of the O.P. what/who makes up the middle
class is immaterial. the important fact is that it is there and it
does have, at least,some political influence.


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development
of
large unions.

I can only comment that the original post credited unions with
creating the middle class... which is quite simply false.

In a strict sense that's certainly true. Even in ancient Rome there was a
middle class. In Europe, the middle class grew rapidly as the countries
reached out to trade and colonize the world. Their middle class was largely
the class of merchants.

What's relatively new is a middle class of workers.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:50:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:17:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the
United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living
is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more
like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by
2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of
total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half
the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over
the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around
45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the
world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

There's a definition in the quote above, from Business Week, that's a
reasonable one for economic comparisons: a purchasing-power-parity
equivalent of USD $23,000 to $118,000. In India, for example, it's an income
that equates to USD $4,376 - $21,882, according to BW (I didn't check the
PPP values, but we'll assume BW got it right.)

If you use income as the sole criteria for "middle class" then you are
correct. However I had a look at Wiki (certainly not the last word)
and it appears that in the context of the U.S. many sociologists feel
that the U.S. society is better described by dividing it into as many
as six classes based partially on income but with some degree of
education and position factored into the equation.

This makes better sense to me then an arbitrary division based only on
money as apparently there is no official measurement of middle class.

According to one site I found (www.pbs.org) the middle class appears
to be simply the middle 20%, or so, of the population, based on
income.

Quote
America is sometimes called a "middle-class country," but nobody — not
economists, sociologists, or the U.S. Census Bureau — seems to have a
clear definition of who the middle class actually is. The notion of
where a dividing line between "middle class" and "working class" might
be is an elusive one. In November 2003, Chris Baker of THE WASHINGTON
TIMES reported in "What is middle class?" that the Census Bureau shows
the middle 20% of the country earning between $40,000 and $95,000
annually. The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan
and non-profit organization, reports that the middle class has
conventionally come to mean families with incomes between $25,000 and
$100,000 each year.
Unquote

If the classification of "middle class" is that simple then the same
criteria can be applied to any society - take the middle 20% and the
number depends on total population.

There has to be more to it then that.

You are correct that as beginners in progress in most Asian countries
the "middle class" is largely made up, as you say, of "bureaucrats,
military, professionals, and entrepreneurs", but that wasn't the
subject of the original conversation. It was the statement that
"without unions there will be no strong middle class". That was what I
was responding to.

OK. I didn't follow the earlier messages in this thread but it would have
been more accurate to say that the only systems that have produced large
middle classes, in which working people made it into the middle class, have
depended on unions pressing for higher wages to get it done. It certainly
wasn't happening in the US or Europe before we had large and effective
unions. From my reading of history, it's unlikely that it would have
happened without them.


Undoubtedly true.

We'll have to see how Asia develops in this completely new environment. So
far, according to BW's figures, India's middle class makes up only 4% of the
population -- roughly 1/10 the percentage of the US population that's middle
class. China's is much smaller as a percentage. I don't know about Thailand.
It's a unique country, economically, historically, and demographically, and
it's hard to get dependable, detailed data on Thailand. Apparently the
middle class is concentrated almost entirely in Bangkok.

As a general statement some 60% of the population is employed in
agriculture and contribute about 11% to the economy. Some 13% of the
population live in Bangkok and generate approximately 45% of the
country's economy.

Given these figures the bulk of the middle class are located in
Bangkok. Interestingly, the bulk of the anti-Taksin movement is in
Bangkok and his major support lies in the, much poorer, N.E. farming
region.

I suspect that other developing nations have this same variation in
population and income so the same deviation will occur in any
measurement of "middle class".



But really, in the context of the O.P. what/who makes up the middle
class is immaterial. the important fact is that it is there and it
does have, at least,some political influence.


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development
of
large unions.

I can only comment that the original post credited unions with
creating the middle class... which is quite simply false.

In a strict sense that's certainly true. Even in ancient Rome there was a
middle class. In Europe, the middle class grew rapidly as the countries
reached out to trade and colonize the world. Their middle class was largely
the class of merchants.

What's relatively new is a middle class of workers.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

There's a definition in the quote above, from Business Week, that's a
reasonable one for economic comparisons: a purchasing-power-parity
equivalent of USD $23,000 to $118,000. In India, for example, it's an
income
that equates to USD $4,376 - $21,882, according to BW (I didn't check the
PPP values, but we'll assume BW got it right.)

If you use income as the sole criteria for "middle class" then you are
correct. However I had a look at Wiki (certainly not the last word)
and it appears that in the context of the U.S. many sociologists feel
that the U.S. society is better described by dividing it into as many
as six classes based partially on income but with some degree of
education and position factored into the equation.

This makes better sense to me then an arbitrary division based only on
money as apparently there is no official measurement of middle class.

Ha-ha! Well, if you want to get into it in a big way, it's easy to get
yourself thoroughly confused. I was reacting to Gunner's comment that
India's middle class is "several orders of magnitude" larger than that of
the US. In fact, it's about half as large, so Gunner's error here was even
larger than usual: He was off by a factor of about 2,000. d8-)

"Middle class," in economic comparisons, usually is calculated based on
comparable PPPs. One country's "middle class" may mean people who have a
metal roof over their head and two pairs of socks. Unless you use a
PPP-comparable basis, there's no meaningful way you can compare one
country's middle class with another.


According to one site I found (www.pbs.org) the middle class appears
to be simply the middle 20%, or so, of the population, based on
income.

That's a meaningless definition, though, if you're comparing countries.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

without unions there will be no strong middle class,
http://www.unionworld.us


Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.


Do Asian countries lack businesses that exploit workers too? Because if you
know anything about the history of business in the US it's replete with
business exploitation of labor. Unions are not necessary where business
owners are fair with the workers. Our bosses have a history like our slave
owners, which is to pay the absolute minimum for labor, create workplace
environments that are dangerous and dirty, and take all the profits for the
themselves. That is why we have unions. I guess it's a workers paradise in
Asia. Like for all those children rolling cigarettes or breaking down ships
in India. They don't need a union or child labor laws, right?

Hawke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude


Figures you would point that out. Also that you would neglect to mention the
largest class of people in abject poverty that lives there as well. Never
give a fair picture of things, right?

Hawke

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.


In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.


Why don't you tell us what the net worth is of the average middle class
Thai? I'm guessing that it doesn't amount to jack ****.

Hawke

without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place
to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000
rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the
United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living
is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more
like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by
2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent
of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of
total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half
the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over
the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around
45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the
world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

You are correct that as beginners in progress in most Asian countries
the "middle class" is largely made up, as you say, of "bureaucrats,
military, professionals, and entrepreneurs", but that wasn't the
subject of the original conversation. It was the statement that
"without unions there will be no strong middle class". That was what I
was responding to.

But really, in the context of the O.P. what/who makes up the middle
class is immaterial. the important fact is that it is there and it
does have, at least,some political influence.


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development
of
large unions.

I can only comment that the original post credited unions with
creating the middle class... which is quite simply false.


That's true. Because what really created the middle class was the US
government. It did this by putting people to work in WWII, paying them high
wages, and making it legal for unions and collective bargaining to work.
Without that most Americans would still be in the working class or working
poor class.

Hawke

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:49:04 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:



without unions there will be no strong middle class,
http://www.unionworld.us


Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.


Do Asian countries lack businesses that exploit workers too? Because if you
know anything about the history of business in the US it's replete with
business exploitation of labor. Unions are not necessary where business
owners are fair with the workers. Our bosses have a history like our slave
owners, which is to pay the absolute minimum for labor, create workplace
environments that are dangerous and dirty, and take all the profits for the
themselves. That is why we have unions. I guess it's a workers paradise in
Asia. Like for all those children rolling cigarettes or breaking down ships
in India. They don't need a union or child labor laws, right?

Hawke


I think you first have to define "exploit workers". If you use the
usual touchy feelie statement "Oh! My God! they only pay them $1.50 an
hour, Oh! Oh!" then probably they are exploited, but if you use the
explanation "they are paid more money then they ever made before in
their lives", then I'd say no.

So define "exploited" first.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:55:11 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:



without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.


In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.


Why don't you tell us what the net worth is of the average middle class
Thai? I'm guessing that it doesn't amount to jack ****.

Hawke


In what currency? In US dollars? Or in terms of the cost of living?
Quality of life?

If I quote in US dollars what do you compare it to? US prices? Asian
prices?

If you are really interested in a valid comparison then you first have
to state the criteria.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)