If the workers become satisfied, why should they pay big union dues? Therefore, the union bosses must continue to demand and get more and more-- until the employer can no longer compete.
Printable View
If the workers become satisfied, why should they pay big union dues? Therefore, the union bosses must continue to demand and get more and more-- until the employer can no longer compete.
Right Ben with 7% of the American workforce and that is the problem...
This is funny. A thread started about the decline of cheap unskilled manufacturing in China has turned into those claiming (illegitimately) to be conservatives getting upset about unions in America instead of excited at the idea that with the correct training we can get a cut of that high end techno manufacturing pie.....
We do get a cut of the pie. We just have to outsource the physical labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
Actually we are third in the world for Tech manufacturing and as the OP article indicates China is trying to vie for that pie too...
it is simply not the case in any shape or form that unions are somehow responsible for the current decline. the current world decline is based on illegally vouched for derivatives that originated in the US and because of the corrupt republican party not a single soul has gone to jail for having ham stringed the entire planets economy.
The US has seen many manufacturing jobs return to the States over the past four years.
Toyota has also been the "most American" car the past several years - by government manufacturing criteria,
which does NOT include final assembly.
Tech Support is starting to come back from the subcontinent as their standard of living and wages increase, and our dissatisfaction with the service decreases.
The ratio of Wealth held by the rich vs the AVERAGE, as I previously mentioned, has "trickled UP" the past 12+ years to change from a 125:1 ratio to a 275:1 ($$/RICH vs $/AVERAGE). This is NOT Rich to Poor, it's Rich to AVERAGE.
When you suck that much wealth out of the consuming portion of the economy - High volume Food, Clothing, Shelter, etc. vs.
Maserati's, Lear Jets, etc. that very few can afford, and even those who can afford don't need very many, you have a recipe for disaster to a healthy economy.
The Wealthy were very comfortable at the 125:1 ratio. The 275:1 ratio is obscene. Don't take my word for it. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet think so, too.
People like Eric Cantor, on the other hand, are adamantly against campaign finance reform, and was a prime beneficiary of the LEGAL (for them but not us) Insider trading that Congress was privy to. He also is in love with Big Oil and it's Corporate Welfare programs - what else would you call an Oil Depletion allowance program that was intended to help a FLEDGLING industry way back when, but is against Wind, Solar alternative energies (even though some of the Big Oil companies are fairly heavily invested in the green alternatives to oil).
The main thrust of this thread was pointing out how China is running afoul of the same labor/production issues that we have - and we are even seeing the benefit of the return of some of those jobs - enhanced by increased automation and push back, perhaps, but it is happening.
"Big union dues".Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
:rotflmao:
A cashier at the grocery just down the street pays less than a third of one percent of monthly salary as union dues.
You know Kuli... the local talk radio Occasionally has interesting stuff... so the l;ib host the other day pointed our she paid 66 a month for premium healthcare and a pension while she belonged to the union... whereas the conservative guy said he had mid grade insurance and no pension for 100 a month... and then he said someone is obviously getting screwed...
The entire discussion was on self negotiation versus collective bargaining. The conservative guy claiming he was perfectly fine with negotiating for himself and why cant teachers do it for themselves as well. He never came back around to the concept that he negotiated for himself and got a shitty deal.
Of course not.
And, corporations negotiate with Insurance Companies and suppliers, using their size for clout - why shouldn't labor?
Oh, that's right, because labor isn't a for profit corporation.
No one doubts that unions get a better deal for their members. But they don't know when to stop, and Federal law requires the company to negotiate with the union. Meanwhile in other countries the workers don't get such lucrative deals, so their employers can undersell American.
Isn't the problem that in "other countries" that don't recognize labor rights, a worker who organizes a union or goes on strike could end up dead or in jail? It isn't an unfair trade practice to suppress democracy or labor rights, but shouldn't it be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
I think of it this way: if someone thinks he should negotiate for himself, then why doesn't he also insure himself, sell his house himself, serve as his own attorney, draw the blueprints for an addition to his house himself, build his car himself, install his plumbing himself, rewire his house himself, etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
Not everyone can do everything. That's why we have professionals who know how to do things, so we can focus on what we are good at. Any worker who thinks he can negotiate his own compensation deal is either a fool or is in the wrong job: a fool, because going up as one person against an entity with lawyers and executives experienced in getting their own way is eminently foolish; in the wrong job, because if he can handle that he should be doing it for a living.
When it comes to unions, conservatives and water cooler Joes NEVER see it as: hey, how come we all aren't getting decent benefits from our employers. They see it as: hey, how come UNION people are getting benefits and I'm not?! And then, lazily, somehow the conclusion is drawn that the union people are getting it out of everyone else's pocket somehow, or at the expense of their benefits, even when one has nothing to do with the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
Out here in CA when there was the chain of grocery store strikes several years back, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard people say things like "why should THEY get that? I have to pay xx $$ for MY health insurance at work!" As if what Albertsons was paying its stockers and cashiers somehow in any way took from the pot that Northrop or (insert other employer) employees were getting.
Wait -- you mean they aren't the center of the world, and everything revolves around them? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
:lol:
Material goods constituted less than 25% of the U.S. economy in 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuixote
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
The first part of your contradictory sentence is correct. Construction and services are the engines that drive the U.S. economy. Manufacturing in the U.S. is a supplement today.
Real economy and paper economy aren't the same thing.
A part of the 2008 crisis was that the paper economy wasn't in touch with the real economy.
In what way, precisely? I agree, but I have yet to find anyone that agreed with me for the same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geiri85
If the paper economy has purchasing power, it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geiri85
Unless the paper is a title or deed to a property. ;) Then by your definition, it is real and it is valueless based on certain variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by JockBoy87
This discussion is deviating on tangents and focusing on a smaller part of a whole. The service sector is not restricted to the trade in real estate lending. Even financial services is only a part of the entire service sector, which encompasses literally any action in contract given as legal detriment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonPirate
But while we are discussing this, it is obvious to me that people often only associate power and wealth by what they can touch or see.
Such explains the movement to return to specie currency, which would be an utter disaster because not all that is wealth can be felt or seen.
I agree with that. Money and metals are no longer interchangeable for monetary values. Fiat currency is well.... valued at what the gov't decrees. That dovetails into the issues with Quantitative easing.. three rounds so far. It's also the problem we have with Chinese currency.Quote:
Originally Posted by JockBoy87
However, the value is set by a gov't, and the most important reason being is a means to raise revenue from the population in an even and equitable way.
I do agree that the use of precious metals as money is a thing of the past. There is not enough metal to go around for all the trade that occurs.
I think it has something to do with stocks, printing money and the banks. Those combined manage to create a bubble far bigger than the actual economy. All of these fields somehow make money out of nothing.
I'm no expert though but this is how I see it. Wish I would have more detailed knowledge but I don't.
I'm always eager to learn more though so please share your thoughts on this.
I think what you are referring to in bold is the corporeal economy that doesn't manifest in any other way than the shelves at Walmart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geiri85
Paper is indeed real power. You have it in your pocket. Anything not intrinsic is as valuable as the opinion of the next person. That values can change doesn't mean they aren't real.
At this point it is a matter of philosophical debate, but I have offered a link to a government website to backup my previous claim. Factually, manufacturing is a small minority of the U.S. economy that contributes real purchasing power to real people.
Industry Week, Policy Archive, and a number of others agree that manufacturing is the basis of any economy -- although the latter makes a good case that agriculture counts as well, because it is producing goods, and housing, because it is an "on location" form of manufacturing. It seems to me that all forms of construction have to be counted if housing is, so there's another chunk of the economy to add in. I don't know what portion of the US economy those together make, but it seems to me it has to be substantial. Nor do I know what the parameters are of what counts as manufacturing -- does crushing rock count? what about composting sewage? recycling cardboard and yard waste to make topsoil? Those are all instances of making something useful out of raw materials, but are they included?
Anyone know what the definition is, and what it includes?
JockBoy,
I think we have a semantics issue - I may "broad brush" the term manufacturing more than you do.
To me, anything physically produced for use/consumption - more than simply cooked and served up, is part of manufacturing - including Construction - it, like BIG Ship building, is manufacturing of a quantity of one.
No, it's not Hardlines, Autos, electronics, softlines, but it is a tangible, physically produced product.
Benvolio sure knows how to derail a thread. If he wants to start a union bashing thread, he can start a topic on his own.
Anyways, I have an online friend that works at Lockheed Martin as an aerospace engineer. Sure he reluctantly admits that he hopes the military complex in the US doesn't die (that would mean he would lose his job) but as long as it doesn't, he will always have a job. Those "ultra-tech" [cause "hi-tech" isn't sophisticated enough] jobs are quite secure too but go unfulfilled due to the high specialized requirements.
Agriculture gets its own section of employment/economy but it technically falls under the umbrella term of manufacturing as it is a good being shipped to market. However, the reason agriculture doesn't get lumped into manufacturing is that it misses out on one part: food is not a durable good.
That's what I was driving at above. I'd call crushing rock to make gravel manufacturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuixote
I often find that ignoring is more powerful than engagement.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpowr9
Willful disrespect is not worthy of a response or any attention at all. It is more deflating to a troll to be ignored, than to lose an argument, which to a troll is impossible.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was interesting last night - touched on Unions -
Wal-Mart, Hostess.
Then, the guests of the night was this no name guy who thinks he's an expert on the economy and tax rates.
What does he know - he's lived in the same house in Omaha that he bought when he got married over 46 years ago.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...--carol-loomis
You want to discuss the decline in manufacturing without discussing unions? What else would you talk about? Excessive government regulation? Or is that also derailing? I think you want to control the direction and content of the discussion by labeling positions you disagree with as "derailing".Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpowr9
What you are missing is that union workers get paid more than they would in a competitive market, and they get it at the expense of consumers. If the two manufacturers of "widgets" get together and agree upon the price they will charge, rather than competing on price, the consumers end up paying more for the things than they would in a market where the manufacturers competed. Unions have exactly the same purpose and effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
I'm not even sure China has unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
Anyone?
Your parallel fails: corporations are already an amalgamation of individuals agreeing to do things a certain way. For your comparison to be valid, there would be no corporations, only individuals manufacturing widgets by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
Now, to go back to the original topic -- do you have any evidence that unions have played a part in the severe loss of manufacturing jobs in China?
Unions are virtually dead and have been rare for decades and the outsourcing continues so you'll have to dig up something more relevant to the last 30 years if you want to defend global economic outsourcing by U.S. companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
Outscourcing is not the only effect. More important is the decline in US manufacturing from foreign competition. The decline in unions resuls from the decline and death of their victims, the unionized businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
Hey Benvolio-- do you know that some of that competition comes from countries that have nationalized healthcare, so that their workers don't have to unionize and collectively bargain to get their employer to help cover healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
Maybe you should look a little deeper before you assign scapegoats.
China is a Communist country, trying to maintain Communism while catering to Capitalists.
The only Union they have is the Army threat to squash them if they fight back against shitty work conditions, growing pollution, etc.
Yes, that's a gross overstatement, but it's probably conservative compared to the only barely relevant comments made by some.
Meanwhile, here's some information on how the US Industry is viewing our current situation.
Quote:
http://www.mmh.com/article/mapi_econ...utm_medium=NLT
MAPI Economic Forecast: Moderate growth likely pending fiscal cliff compromise
Forecast predicts GDP growth of 1.8% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, and 3.3% in 2015.
Read What's Related
MAPI comments on durable goods report
Commerce, NRF report annual gains in October retail sales
ELFA’s monthly leasing and finance index shows new business volume up, confidence down
ISM reports continued growth in manufacturing in October
Robots prove their mettle in the warehouse
Manufacturing Skill Standards Council modules to equal college credit
By Modern Materials Handling Staff
November 28, 2012
Major issues still need to be addressed, but presuming the United States gets its fiscal house in some semblance of order, the U.S. economy could be in a transition from sluggish growth to a longer period of moderate growth, according to a new report.
[Quote truncated by moderator] © Copyright 2012 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc
That is what has been predicted since the collapse ... a recovery between 2014 and 2016. Republicans knew it and figured they could obstruct, blame it on Obama and not have to do much work to regain control and dump money from America into rich off shore bank accounts and the out of control military industrial complex.
We will be chugging along just fine. I hope Obama has no second term curse or it is another contrived situation republicans use to embarrass themselves more than convince america they are worth voting for in 2016. That will result in a Hillary 2016 and Hillary 2020....
I took the liberty of refining your question a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulindahr
Good amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by bankside
Notice the prediction is predicated upon the US getting its fiscal house in order. THAT is what the Republicans have been working for. Obama's plan to soak the rich and continue to spend a trillion a year deficit ad infinitum does not qualify as getting our fiscal house in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
This is so divorced from reality it's beyond lu8dicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benvolio
All it takes is reading the independent examinations of policies to show that what the Republicans have really been working for is total economic disaster -- that's what the Ryan Plan would have given us -- a job drop of over four million in just the first two years of its implementation. And they've been fighting furiously to keep the deficit high by refusing to let the Bush cuts expire as they were supposed to.
The continued lie that Obama plans to "soak the rich" doesn't fly, never did. Obama's idea of taxes for the rich is LESS THAT RONALD REAGAN'S. Do you get that? Either Ronald Reagan was a rich-hating socialist, or the whole GOP is willingly and knowingly lying about tax rates.
Of course the problem is that there aren't any conservatives in the GOP any more. Conservatives know that if you have a debt to pay, you do everything possible to pay it. Eisenhower knew that, which is why he had very patriotic taxes rates with 90% on the upper bracket. Even Gerald Ford knew that when he got the top rate jacked up over 37% -- Nixon, starting a good solid Republican tradition of borrow-and-kill, had been funding the Vietnam War with IOUs; Ford, much more a conservative, believed that you should pay for things if you're going to do them.
The icing on the cake is that Republicans killed bills that would have reduced regulations on small businesses and generated five million jobs in just two years. So in reality, Boehner and company have been fighting for regulations and against jobs.
Maybe when the GOP becomes an honest party again instead of a batch of liars, they'll deserve to sit at the table.
Solid reasoning, JayHawk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulindahr
Of course they don't. The individual has no value in that state. One human's life has no value; Murder goes unchecked.
Chairman Mao said 'My people are ants!'.
What an uninformed statement steeped in a half century old viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by pat grimshaw
Their rush to become a first world economy reveals a "Robber Baronesque" attitude towards the environment - the pollution levels there are atrocious and downright dangerous.
They've learned the EARLY lessons of Capitalism from us well. Now let's see how long before they learn that the environmental destruction is a major cost of doing business and "green" thinking counts.
East China is filthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuixote
I don't believe that for a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuixote
They worship the dollar just like everyone else. They will put melamine in their milk and pesticides in their vegetable if it brings an extra dollar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_sa...ublic_of_China
http://pop.org/content/poisoning-of-...and-drugs-1923
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/chin...ng-298904.html
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/th.../B.cereus.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonig...c-food-imports
So, you don't believe they'll come to understand the economic costs of destroying their environment, or you don't accept the premise at all?
Maybe, perhaps, sometime way way into the future, by which time my country's manufacturing industries —and yours— will be dead. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuixote
Ours is starting to make a resurgence, actually.
The cost of living/labor abroad has been increasing, add in the shipping, and the push back.
Still a long way to go to parity, but baby steps.
There are other pressures present as well. Tesla Motors moved its manufacturing of electric motors back to California after their cost assessment found the cost of shipping the units from overseas was more than paying US labor wages.