Why did the united states face rising prices and labor unrest during the late 1940

The labor history of the United States describes the history of organized labor, US labor law, and more general history of working people, in the United States. Beginning in the 1930s, unions became important components of the Democratic Party. Some historians question why a Labor Party did not emerge in the United States, in contrast to Western Europe.[1]

The nature and power of organized labor is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions. Organized unions and their umbrella labor federations such as the AFL–CIO and citywide federations have competed, evolved, merged, and split against a backdrop of changing values and priorities, and periodic federal government intervention.

As commentator E. J. Dionne has noted, the union movement has traditionally espoused a set of values—solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. From this followed commitments to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, and to a belief that democracy and individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room. Dionne notes that these values are "increasingly foreign to American culture".[2] In most industrial nations the labor movement sponsored its own political parties, with the U.S. as a conspicuous exception. Both major American parties vied for union votes, with the Democrats usually much more successful. Labor unions became a central element of the New Deal Coalition that dominated national politics from the 1930s into the mid-1960s during the Fifth Party System.[3] Liberal Republicans who supported unions in the Northeast lost power after 1964

the industrial development of cities in the ruhr area in the nineteenth century is described. the research was based on english and german language sources. several factors that shaped growth and paths of the cities were categorized and analyzed. they are locations, resources, traditions, entrepreneurs, and technological developments. locations and resources were the most important among them; other factors may be regarded as consequences from locations and resources. among the cities, bochum, essen, gelsenkirchen, and dortmund had the richest resources and most favorable locations in the transportation network and grew to be the largest cities in the ruhr area near the end of the nineteenth century. riverside location was also a favorable factor for the development, as shown in the development of duisburg on the confluence of rhine and ruhr. resource distribution can explain the rise of textile industry, metallurgical industry, and coal and iron industries, and the northward progression of the mining industry. tradition was an important factor for cities such as krefeld, barmen, elberfeld, solingen, and remscheid, which experienced development based on their traditions through the nineteenth century. various entrepreneurs exerted influences within and beyond the local level over the ruhr area. technological development stimulated the northward progression of the mining industry and the deep connection between the coal and the iron industries.