From the article: "After setting three consecutive monthly records, U.S. exports edged down 1.1 percent in July to $120 billion - still the second-highest level in history."
Okay, not all bad news. We had 3 consecutive months with records for EXPORTS with July down by 1.1% (but still 2nd highest level of EXPORTS in history).
Want some more not-so-bad news?
"The politically sensitive deficit with China did decline a slight 0.7 percent in July to $19.6 billion"
Okay, not terrific but the deficit with China DID decline...
Seems to me as though most of the increase in the trade deficit was due to the increased price of oil, and NOT due to manufactured goods. But most of the crabbing that was going on was from the Citizens Trade Campaign, a labor, environmental and consumer coalition.
rorr, while you make good points, the trade deficit is still way to high and just because their is a very small improvement doesn't mean we need to do nothing.
But before we "do something" we need to understand WHY the trade deficit is too high AND understand ALL the ramifications of whatever it is we "do".
I also noted that all the squawking in here SEEMS to be about how China is the big problem, yet of the $68B trade deficit for July, China represented 'only' $19.6B, less than a third of the deficit.
Also to consider, while we have roughly a $20B trade deficit with China, what this means is that the average American pays LESS for his consumer goods EVEN IF THEY AREN'T FROM CHINA. This is because goods from ALL manufacturer's are cheaper due to the Chinese competition. And this is good because it makes ALL consumer's dollars go further.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about the trade deficit due to foreign oil rather than foreign labor.
I wouldn't call it a free market, rather a free-for-all market where every unfair advantage is exploited. Some textile mills were recently shut because they couldn't compete with cheap Chinese imports even if they paid their employees nothing. The Chinese don't have to respect safety or environmental laws. Their factories can chew up workers like a meat grinder and can pollute the land, water, and air to the point the area would become uninhabitable. I guess we can compete with them if we revert back to the methods used by 1890s coal barons, but I sure wouldn't want to live in that world either.
I guess we can compete with them if we revert back to the methods used by 1890s coal barons, but I sure wouldn't want to live in that world either.
lemko, I'm afraid we are headed that way again. I expect at some point OSHA and the UAW will be chained and taken away to a concentration camp, and all guards on machinery will be removed to speed up the machines. Your overseer, will whip you with a bull whip on the back as he threatens to fire you and screams at you we need to be competitive in this free-for-all market.
The safety guards on machines really were removed when factories in North America and Europe were closed and the equipment shipped to China. I hear you get a princely $40 and get fired for losing hand in a Chinese factory.
"Hey Mom! Why are my Power Rangers covered in blood?" "Gee, I guess Chang got his fingers caught in the injection mold because the safety override was removed!"
I wished the UAW, could go over there and film those guys making those non-union Chin-E cars in those sweat shops and put it on american television. Maybe a wake-up call is what this country needs ?
"...rid ourselves from a unregulated "free market" is unamerican ?"
Historically? Yes.
I'm curious about your use of the 'scare quotes' above.
If a market IS unregulated, isn't that by definition a "free market". Or does a market somehow become "freer" as it becomes more regulated?
How does imposing trade sanctions and/or sanctions against U.S. companies using foreign labor make a market 'freer'? Or are you simply AGAINST the idea of a free market in any fashion?
Just exactly what IS your definition of a "free market"?
Yeah, a video of how it REALLY IS - not one sanitized by the Chinese government. I could imagine the horror Americans would feel if they saw a Chinese worker lose a limb in a machine that stamps door panels for those Chin-E-Classes because the safety guards were removed! Then we can see the disfigured man and his family being thrown out of the company dormitory to schlep back to the countryside to die in abject poverty.
Back about 100 years ago in the anthracite coal mines in NE Pennsylvania, if a miner was killed, the company would drop the dead body at the doorstep of his family's home and go on. If the family couldn't pay the rent on the company home, they were evicted with nowhere else to go. This was your so-called "ownership society."
Or are you simply AGAINST the idea of a free market in any fashion?
I am totally against a free market and the reasons are obvious. Americans can't compete because the playing field with a 3rd world country and its wages aren't fair. The result has historically been a lost of manufactoring jobs.
Can we compete with Canada and most of Europe ? Sure can because they have similar standards of living even though they still tariff our exports to protect there domestic buisness's.
The "free marketeers" Golden Eutophia was the United States become a service sector economy and even those jobs are becoming rapidly exported or being replaced with cheap India labor on visa's.
rorr, I know we strongly disagree, and your arguments are correct that the "free market" can yield benefits for the customer. However what happens when the customer is being replaced or his good paying job gets exported then who is going to buy these cheap goods. The free-market has pluses but not without many negatives to our long-term economy. This is something I see wrong with my generation. It seems "whats good for me now" is more important than "what good for me in the long-term or my children" :sick:
Yeah, a video of how it REALLY IS - not one sanitized by the Chinese government.
I have seen the video's lemko. A Nike Factory and it was sad to see human beings slave away and young chidren chained to a machine sold by her parents to work. I would say that video, helped shape and change my personality lemko. It had a very big impact on me as I teared up.
It's as if the braying unwashed masses have finally adopted the same "think of today, not tomorrow" mindset that our corporate cowards have used for some time now.
This "free market" talk is nonsense. There's no such thing...it will only equal "free" for that segment who will end up being introduced to the guillotine. Don't let the right wingers see that!
Being forced to compete with regimes who do not abide by social and environmental concerns is not a "free market", it's just a way to develop a new set of robber barons.
That is why we need to have unions like the UAW, IMHO to keep pushing back. It's sort of a check and balance. To bad most folks are getting pushed so hard that they are beginning to tumble.
"I am totally against a free market and the reasons are obvious."
Perhaps before I go further, I should try to define what I think is a free market. I define a 'free market' as one in which two entities trade something (be it labor or a product/service) on mutually agreeable terms, without coercion on either side.
I'm not sure how YOU define 'free market'. And I have NO idea how fintail defines it.
So, from MY standpoint (based on MY definition of a 'free market'), then what you SEEM to be saying is that you believe two entities should trade either labor or a product/service on NON-mutually agreed terms, or it should only operate under coercion. And I KNOW this is not how you feel. Which is why I want to know how you define a 'free market'.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
But for some reason, we can't seem to discuss Unions without the discussion meandering into labor practices (both here and abroad) and THAT opens up the whole 'free labor market' can of worms.
Maybe rocky could e-mail me, because I'd REALLY like to know just what he thinks a 'free market' is?
...with their original purpose and intent. The UAW, and many other unions, were organized to protect the rights of their members from unscrupulous tactics by employers, as well as ensure a fair wage. What they are doing now is comparable to many parasites in the wild who attach themselves to a host victim, and cannot be removed, after which they suck the very blood from it until it dies. Unable to further sustain itself, the parasite dies as well.
Does the UAW no longer realize that their original goal was to level the playing field between employee and employer? They've gotten so greedy that they will bring the company down around them, but as long as they get their exorbitant packages and benefits, they don't really mind, failing to think of tomorrow. They need to better balance the give and take relationship between employee and employer alongside their own needs. I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
What I'm saying is not at all tantamount to suggesting the UAW be disbanded. Not at all. However, they need to realize that they need to realize they are not entitled to make excessive demands just because that's "how it's always been." The operative word here is SUSTAINABLE. Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll. If they aren't careful, they will rob their employers of their patience and ways around the union will be found. Admittedly, if the UAW doesn't clean up their act, they will find themselves in that position and I will open a bottle of champagne and make a toast to the first company that makes such a step.
When the domestic and once largely union industrial workforce is forced to compete with other (read: of questionable morality and zero responsibility) labor practices via pseudo-capitalism, the labor practice offshoots are pertinent and relevant.
A IMO a 'free market' is just like any other economic theory...a nice idea, relying on ethics. We all know those don't come in to play when the real world is involved.
"...were organized to protect the rights of their members from unscrupulous tactics by employers, as well as ensure a fair wage."
The problem comes from trying to determine what a "fair wage" is.
If an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and gets few to zero qualified applicants, odds are he is not offering a fair wage. In other words, the 'supply' of qualified labor at that price is too low. He can either reduce his 'demand' (not hire) or he can increase his wages.
Conversely, if an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and is COMPLETELY SWAMPED by qualified applicants, odds are he is offering too HIGH of a wage.
Just as it isn't 'fair' for a large number of businesses in an area to ALL get together and decide that NONE of them will pay more than 'x' in pay/benefits for a certain type of labor, it also shouldn't be 'fair' for a large number of laborers to all get together and decide that NONE will work for less than 'x'. Both practices (colusion on the business side and colusion on the labor side) seek to artificially set what the 'fair' level is for a wage.
rorr said: The problem comes from trying to determine what a "fair wage" is.
If an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and gets few to zero qualified applicants, odds are he is not offering a fair wage. In other words, the 'supply' of qualified labor at that price is too low. He can either reduce his 'demand' (not hire) or he can increase his wages.
That is true, but when the company is suffering deeply and is facing the possibility of bankruptcy, maybe the time has come to consider that maybe the price of qualified labor is too high.
Yet, it's interesting to note, that hard-edged entreprenurial Americana some 80-100 years ago was what led to the United States becoming the most prosperous nation and the dominant power of the world. Compared to, say, France of about 80-100 years ago, where protectionism and labor union actually did take sway of the economy and society . . . the result was conquest by the you-know-who.
Competition exists, whether we like it or not. Losers in a competition of course do not like competition. Protectionism only serves to bring down the whole ship with the losing segment. A far better alternative is to incentivize the population involved in the losing segment to find a more profitable endeavor instead of moaning about it. Bring the subject back to cars a little: yes, mechanical horses are slaves compared to the real horses with their own spirit . . . heck even the real horses were slaves compared to the human plough pullers that the horses displaced eons ago. We all want something for next to nothing (ie. higher standard of living without having to do extra work for it). . . so someone has to be "slaving" away to bring us the fruit of labor . . . better it be foreigner than Americans . . . better it be animals than humans . . . better it be machine than any living beings.
If you don't like the labor practices in India or China, go open a shop there yourself . . . shouldn't it be obvious that your new shop would instantly attract applicants because you offer better working conditions? What alternative is there? Short of sending in the US Army to enforce holidays (the equivalent of what French do regularly on an international scale, passing laws banning work), the Chinese workers are bent on hard working . . . so, would it be better that they make consumer products for us or would it be better if they turn that energy towards the building of some commie war machine?
So, what's wrong with this picture? Why should we be upset for getting textile without paying any price in environmental damages in our own country? What's the big loss here?
A IMO a 'free market' is just like any other economic theory...a nice idea, relying on ethics. We all know those don't come in to play when the real world is involved.
No, free market does not rely on ethics at all. Free market ideals are built upon the understanding that those in power to "regulate"/meddle in the market place inevitably use the powers of the state to their own personal advantage. There, if you are a realist about human nature and the fundamental lack of ethics when profit is dangled in front of most people, you certainly do not want the same flawed human nature to be endowed with monopolistic regulatory power . . . regulatory power is by definition monopolistic (when two political entities try to tax the same geographic region to the exclusion of each other, it's called a war).
You answered your own question quite eloquently. If the Chiense-made cars importing into the US turn out to be as abysmal in quality as you are speculating, they simply won't sell. Yugo and the original Hyundai Excel never took the US by storm, despite their low low prices.
On the other hand, chances are that they will improve over time even if their first tries are sub-par compared to contemporaries. The orignal Datsun and Toyopets were quite laughable rustbuckets of rolling parts back in the early 70's. Over time however, the same brands eventually help making the auto fleet in the US much more pleasant to live with than if they had never shown up on our shores.
Cool, more pie in the sky fantasyland theory. Idealistic, indeed, but not in a good way. Thanks for the credential-free teachings.
In reality, take all regulation and organization from the market, and today's hellhole known as China will look like a paradise as the robber barons rule with an iron fist. Nothing will be able to stop them.
Like the old saying goes, nobody is forcing you to work there.
Interesting statement from someone who berates labor practices in China . . . nobody is being forced to work in those factories. BTW, what people in the surveys complain about is not having to work, but having to join the union in order to work . . . that coercion is truly Pathetic and Tasteless.
It's pointless to throw around content-free phrases. A few very simple questios:
(1) Who are the "robber barons" that you keep talking about?
(2) How can they rule without regulations?
(3) How do you know "they" are not already ruling with an iron fist with existing rules and regulations? and bent on more absolute control with more rules and regulations? After all, "robber barons" obviously have more influence on regulation making than we do, right?
No at all. Do you change oil in your own backyard and dump the used oil in the ground? Why isn't it better to get the benefit of an oil change without having to deal with the pollution . . . by outsourcing oil change to somewhere else? Likewise, if textile making is inherently bad on the environment, why not let someone else do it somewhere else?
Apples to oranges comparison. Oil changes can be done in facilities where impacts are minimal, esp compared to some slob dumping it into the ground.
Environmental damage exists no matter where it takes place. Damage is damage, it's one planet. If first world firms are put in a position where they are required to take some measure of environmental responsibility (there's a good dose of morals involved in doing so as well), then the second-and-a-half world competitors should be forced to do likewise, or find a new market to play in. And I won't even start on the human rights/societal abuses (yet).
It's amazing how you perpetually ask questions when you can never answer to your fairytale prophecies. It would behoove you to answer things before you ask. But as it is obvious you lack the mettle to answer anything asked of you, I'll answer anyway. In order.
That top couple % of society who control 97% of the means.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Organized labor has kept at least a long loose leash on the robber barons, perhaps for their own well being.
So why aren't you buying a full oil detox facility instead of outsourcing your oil change? Heck you can change oil without dumping it in the yard by turning used oil into an existing facility . . . the only local pollution in your house would be your clothing . . . so why are you outsourcing to get some poor grease monkey's clothing soiled instead of having your own soiled? My answer is, for a very good reason: your labor and time is worth more. That's the same damn reason why textile, or any other manufacturing job, is beign outsourced: American worker's labor and time is worth more than the products.
Interesting to note how easily you used the "one planet" argument to support foreign intervention . . . how easily the phrase "should be forced to" came into play . . . pray tell, a world government enforcing rules on behalf of a mute "one planet" . . . how long will it be before it is run by a bunch of "robber barons"?
I agree with you that organized labor has been serving for the well being of the robber barons . . . if you define "robber baron" as the top couple % of the society . . . in two ways:
(1) Organized labor helps keep out domestic compeition . . . that's the way GM managed to consolidate the domestic auto industry in the 60's and 70's. The benefit packages bankrupted the small players and erected barrier of entry to would be new comers
(2) The cut-off line for top couple % is about $200k a year according to government data (http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf#search="income tax distribution") . . . quite a few union bosses are making close to that, and practically all Senators and Congressmen are making more than that. Organized labor is one of the biggest contributors to political campaigns.
In other words, how do you know organized labor is not just another tool for "robber barons'" control over the rest of us?? BTW, if you want to ask me any specific question, go on ahead, and I will try my best to answer them.
It's all about efficiency. Why buy a whole facility for two or three oil changes per year? I could handle changing and transporting it all if I wanted to, but I have my shop recycle the oil for me. It's not the same as comparing that to me dumping it in a hole in the corner of my backyard. Having my oil changed in a shop does not support an amoral regime, environmental catastrophe, and human suffering. Apples to oranges again.
I like how you use "foreign intervention" to demonize any thought of raising a voice against the despicable environmental and human conditions in repressed places such as China. Nice PR move, you should be a political strategist.
A world without regulation will never exist. Give it up.
Those who want ZERO regulation serve the robber baron most of all.
I'm talking about wealth, not income. They are not one in the same. That deflection won't sway me.
Question for you...why do you think your free-of-regulation dreamworld could ever exist, not to mention actually be a benefit for anyone but that top 1%? There's no basis in reality for it. I live in the real world.
I forgot what this was like...I'm sorry, that's enough for me. Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs (or union workers) bite. Don't waste time replying to me, I won't return the favor.
A world without hunger, poverty, environmental damage or repression will never exist either, so why aren't you giving up on the very much worthy pursuits of reducing all four of them? Likewise, a world that is entirely free is not a realistic goal for the time being; that however does not mean that we should give up on incremental expasion of freedom. Heck, if you are too sick of living free, you are welcome to sign up to be my slave (just kidding).
Buying a product made in India or China does not mean support an amoral regime, environmental catastrophe or human suffering any more than going to work or tour in the World Trade Center was support for American Imperialism or Zionism (whatever either label means). In fact, given the fact the workers choose to work in those factories instead of staying in the villages and engage in subsistence farming, removing that option of working in the factories would only increase human suffering . . .
But, we both know, protectionism is not about being nice to Indians or Chinese ;-)
Wealth and income are intricately related simply because we live in a economic system with constant inflation. $10k could buy a very large flat in downtown NYC 30 years ago; today the same flat would cost $2.5 million. If you have been holding onto that $10k in cash wealth for 30 years without generating income on that, well, you wealth has vaporized. If you hold onto that flat, your wealth will show up as income both in the form of rental income and capital gain when you sell it. Wealth is meaningless if you can not generate income on it, especially in an inflationary system. You actually understand the real value of "capital stock" quite well as evidenced by your definition of "robber baron" as "controlling 97% of means." That "means" is a short-hand for "means of production." That's what wealth or capital stock is. When means of production is doing what it's supposed to do, producing, income shows up.
To answer your question, why less regulation is better (whether the ultmate logical extreme of no regulation at all is achievable or even desirable is an issue I never even mentioned, so please do not put words in my mouth). The top 1% certainly has far more influence on how rules and regulations are made than the rest of the population. Even you have stated several times, "he who has gold makes rules" . . . whenever rule making is in the offing. So why occasion the need for more rule making? There is actually a very good historical record of more and more regulations making life more and more miserable for the overwhelming majority of the population: India, China, France and the US itself are all prime examples of how reducing regulations making the economy more vibrant, and increasing regulations making life more miserable in the economy . . . all four countries went back and forth in the last couple hundred years.
I perhaps didn't make myself clear enough. rorr, I know what a "free market" is. It's suppose to be when both side relieve each other of "trade barriers" like tariffs pal.
The capatalist want to make it so simple that we form a NAFTA money system called a "Amero" which would be similar to the "Euro". The next thing to come will them a a open borders plan that will allow workers from Canada and Mexico to come accross and work for corporate america. However we all know the majority will be from Mexico, since their citizens have the most to gain since they are a 3rd world country.
I as a protectionist of the american worker am against this type of pseudo-capatalist, ideaology.
#1 If wages are reduced that means the standard of living will go down. It's a proven fact that all things made in a cheap labor market yields a significant reduction in price for the consumer. However the capatalist, want us to believe this theory. People like myself can and do see through the "smoke and mirrors" and the once to benefit are big buisness and their bottom line. The other negative to the free market is big buisness will build plants over in Mexico, exploit the population and the enviroment, and then ship those goods back across the border. The ones whom lose are the american worker. I haven't seen refridgerators prices drop when Electralux moved it's plant from Greenville Mi. to Mexico. The same is true about automobiles. If a car was 100% made in Mexico, China, or some other 3rd world country, Ford, etc, will still charge the same as it would of been made here in the U.S.
I don't see how that is a benefit to the consumer and country rorr. ?
I am not afraid of trade, but we need to enforce or trade laws we have on the books and create new trade laws to "level the playing field" for buisness that operates within the United States. Our standard of living depends on it. The UAW, and other unions promote "buy american" because jobs, and what not depends on it.
The buisness's that stay here are squeezed since they aren't making as much profit as one in mexico, thus they close down and leave to join there competitor. A simple few strokes of the pen could solve these simple problems. The Europeans have tariffs and other barriers to protect it's buisness's. I know many people will reply and say they have a higher unemployment rate. Well most european country's like Germany, also have a high illegal immigration percentage and really are over populated. In Germany, for example they get alot of workers that come in from foreign country's like Poland. If I was Germany, I'd reduce the number of visa's allowed per yr.
Germany, and other european country's also have laws on the books to protect wages, and benefits. In france it's law that workers get 6-weeks of vacation. In this country one is lucky to get 6 days of vacation anymore. :sick: If a union goes out on strike, scabs workers are illegal. Their system has flaws like being to liberal like us on immigration, however European buisness's and workers do enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. Look at European automobiles. The craftsmenship, put into them is second to none. I think we as a nation can do better and our future generation is depending on us rorr. :surprise:
No, free trade is not "both sides relieve each other . . ." That's called regulated quid pro quo . . . a page out of mercantilism. Free trade means not imposing import tariff on your own people regardless what other countries do to theirs. Free trade delivers its own benefit. Experience show that countries that impose tarrifs to protect domestic industries only end up creating cronyism and massive capital misallocation.
Cheap imports certainly drive down price at the consume level. Just look at the price of TV's, Air conditioners, yes, even Fridges at Walmart or Costco. Yet another way of looking at it is: the relative price of those consumer products compared to the price of oil (energy and plastic) and metal that went into making them. Dollar is dropping in value, the cost of almost everything else in life is going up, but those consumer products are not going up in price . . . in fact going down dramaticly over the past decade, largely because of the import effect . . . that means higher standard of living for average consumers than otherwise would have been the case.
European automobiles are routinely ranked at the bottom of quality surveys nowadays . . . behind even the domestics. French cars have been foreclosed from the American market, the largest car market in the world, for nearly two decades. Yes, the union rules and regulations are part of the problem.
...with their original purpose and intent. The UAW, and many other unions, were organized to protect the rights of their members from unscrupulous tactics by employers, as well as ensure a fair wage. What they are doing now is comparable to many parasites in the wild who attach themselves to a host victim, and cannot be removed, after which they suck the very blood from it until it dies. Unable to further sustain itself, the parasite dies as well.
I can't name a union and company where wages and benefits I'd say are unfair. You will be able to find many CEO's that are like lamprey's and suck a company dry of million$ and in some cases billion$.
Does the UAW no longer realize that their original goal was to level the playing field between employee and employer? They've gotten so greedy that they will bring the company down around them, but as long as they get their exorbitant packages and benefits, they don't really mind, failing to think of tomorrow. They need to better balance the give and take relationship between employee and employer alongside their own needs. I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
Working GM, which is considered by some as the 2nd biggest buisness in the world behind General Electric, one shouldn't ask for a $50-60K a yr. paycheck, have some vacation, retirement and health benefits, is greedy ? :confuse:
If Ford, for example built cars people wanted to own and Ford was making billions in profits instead of losses the wage/benefit issue would be moot. Ford, can't be struggling to bad as they just gave that new CEO $16 million bonus and $3 or $4 million a yr. salary minus any bonuses. That is the definition of greed in my book. The guy is going to get nearly $20 million, and he is yet to lift a pen. :confuse:
Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll.
Well the Big 3, here in the U.S. and Europe, along with all the Sweden, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, build their cars with "union labor" in there country. The European cars like VW and Audi, BMW, all speak Quality. The Japanese like Lexus, are top rated which are built by union laborers. So what our problem or excuse ? As you've seen we are building better cars currently and it will get better because people like Rick Wagoner, were finally willing to spend a few bucks more to make it happen.
I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
I think the workers that are taking the buy-out most whom are very close to retirement age (50's and 60's)have worked long enough to be offered a retirement package. Just think you won't have to support them with your tax dollars when they go to the hospital.
What I'm saying is not at all tantamount to suggesting the UAW be disbanded. Not at all.
It sure sounds like it to me buddy. You are ripping them. The benefits and wages that UAW, worers enjoy are crap when compared to the benefits European and Japanese union workers have. Like I said in France it's law new employees get 6-weeks of vacation. Is that to much, or is have we as a nation become obsessed with working way to many hours for our bread and butter, and put our family's on the back burner ? If I had 6-weeks of vacation, just think of all the road trips I could do.
Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll.
Who, the Russians and Chinese ? :surprise:
If they aren't careful, they will rob their employers of their patience and ways around the union will be found.
The Yale grads that went to buisness for dummy's 101 are already and have for the last 2-decades been gradually moving plants and out-sourcing to cheap over-sea's labor markets.
Admittedly, if the UAW doesn't clean up their act, they will find themselves in that position and I will open a bottle of champagne and make a toast to the first company that makes such a step.
I was right, you are really anti-UAW and anti-union. :sick:
Comments
Rocky
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/15504056.htm
Instead we are all
Rocky
From the article: "After setting three consecutive monthly records, U.S. exports edged down 1.1 percent in July to $120 billion - still the second-highest level in history."
Okay, not all bad news. We had 3 consecutive months with records for EXPORTS with July down by 1.1% (but still 2nd highest level of EXPORTS in history).
Want some more not-so-bad news?
"The politically sensitive deficit with China did decline a slight 0.7 percent in July to $19.6 billion"
Okay, not terrific but the deficit with China DID decline...
Seems to me as though most of the increase in the trade deficit was due to the increased price of oil, and NOT due to manufactured goods. But most of the crabbing that was going on was from the Citizens Trade Campaign, a labor, environmental and consumer coalition.
Rocky
Yes.
But before we "do something" we need to understand WHY the trade deficit is too high AND understand ALL the ramifications of whatever it is we "do".
I also noted that all the squawking in here SEEMS to be about how China is the big problem, yet of the $68B trade deficit for July, China represented 'only' $19.6B, less than a third of the deficit.
Also to consider, while we have roughly a $20B trade deficit with China, what this means is that the average American pays LESS for his consumer goods EVEN IF THEY AREN'T FROM CHINA. This is because goods from ALL manufacturer's are cheaper due to the Chinese competition. And this is good because it makes ALL consumer's dollars go further.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about the trade deficit due to foreign oil rather than foreign labor.
Your more of a "free marketeer" Capatalist.
I guess I'm a "protectionist" pro-union socialist as some would call me.
The weird thing is we both want whats good for our country and its citizens but only one of is right.
Deep down you know who really is right
Rocky
I'm actually very shocked by that large of a number.
I'm not sure what's up with this over paid former Boeing CEO, but it's not looking like there will be many plant closings to follow I'm sure of it.
Rocky
Ain't that what the America is all about?
guess I'm a "protectionist" pro-union socialist as some would call me.
That doesn't sound so "America".
I guess that depends on your political view.
That doesn't sound so "America".
Wanting to keep jobs here in this country and rid ourselves from a unregulated "free market" is unamerican ? :confuse:
Rocky
lemko, I'm afraid we are headed that way again. I expect at some point OSHA and the UAW will be chained and taken away to a concentration camp, and all guards on machinery will be removed to speed up the machines. Your overseer, will whip you with a bull whip on the back as he threatens to fire you and screams at you we need to be competitive in this free-for-all market.
Rocky
"Hey Mom! Why are my Power Rangers covered in blood?"
"Gee, I guess Chang got his fingers caught in the injection mold because the safety override was removed!"
Rocky
Yep. Sure do. Just study your history...
Rocky
Historically? Yes.
I'm curious about your use of the 'scare quotes' above.
If a market IS unregulated, isn't that by definition a "free market". Or does a market somehow become "freer" as it becomes more regulated?
How does imposing trade sanctions and/or sanctions against U.S. companies using foreign labor make a market 'freer'? Or are you simply AGAINST the idea of a free market in any fashion?
Just exactly what IS your definition of a "free market"?
Back about 100 years ago in the anthracite coal mines in NE Pennsylvania, if a miner was killed, the company would drop the dead body at the doorstep of his family's home and go on. If the family couldn't pay the rent on the company home, they were evicted with nowhere else to go. This was your so-called "ownership society."
I am totally against a free market and the reasons are obvious. Americans can't compete because the playing field with a 3rd world country and its wages aren't fair. The result has historically been a lost of manufactoring jobs.
Can we compete with Canada and most of Europe ? Sure can because they have similar standards of living even though they still tariff our exports to protect there domestic buisness's.
The "free marketeers" Golden Eutophia was the United States become a service sector economy and even those jobs are becoming rapidly exported or being replaced with cheap India labor on visa's.
rorr, I know we strongly disagree, and your arguments are correct that the "free market" can yield benefits for the customer. However what happens when the customer is being replaced or his good paying job gets exported then who is going to buy these cheap goods. The free-market has pluses but not without many negatives to our long-term economy. This is something I see wrong with my generation. It seems "whats good for me now" is more important than
"what good for me in the long-term or my children" :sick:
Rocky
I have seen the video's lemko. A Nike Factory and it was sad to see human beings slave away and young chidren chained to a machine sold by her parents to work. I would say that video, helped shape and change my personality lemko. It had a very big impact on me as I teared up.
Rocky
This "free market" talk is nonsense. There's no such thing...it will only equal "free" for that segment who will end up being introduced to the guillotine. Don't let the right wingers see that!
Being forced to compete with regimes who do not abide by social and environmental concerns is not a "free market", it's just a way to develop a new set of robber barons.
Rocky
Perhaps before I go further, I should try to define what I think is a free market. I define a 'free market' as one in which two entities trade something (be it labor or a product/service) on mutually agreeable terms, without coercion on either side.
I'm not sure how YOU define 'free market'. And I have NO idea how fintail defines it.
So, from MY standpoint (based on MY definition of a 'free market'), then what you SEEM to be saying is that you believe two entities should trade either labor or a product/service on NON-mutually agreed terms, or it should only operate under coercion. And I KNOW this is not how you feel. Which is why I want to know how you define a 'free market'.
C'mon folks... you know better.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
But for some reason, we can't seem to discuss Unions without the discussion meandering into labor practices (both here and abroad) and THAT opens up the whole 'free labor market' can of worms.
Maybe rocky could e-mail me, because I'd REALLY like to know just what he thinks a 'free market' is?
Does the UAW no longer realize that their original goal was to level the playing field between employee and employer? They've gotten so greedy that they will bring the company down around them, but as long as they get their exorbitant packages and benefits, they don't really mind, failing to think of tomorrow. They need to better balance the give and take relationship between employee and employer alongside their own needs. I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
What I'm saying is not at all tantamount to suggesting the UAW be disbanded. Not at all. However, they need to realize that they need to realize they are not entitled to make excessive demands just because that's "how it's always been." The operative word here is SUSTAINABLE. Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll. If they aren't careful, they will rob their employers of their patience and ways around the union will be found. Admittedly, if the UAW doesn't clean up their act, they will find themselves in that position and I will open a bottle of champagne and make a toast to the first company that makes such a step.
A IMO a 'free market' is just like any other economic theory...a nice idea, relying on ethics. We all know those don't come in to play when the real world is involved.
The problem comes from trying to determine what a "fair wage" is.
If an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and gets few to zero qualified applicants, odds are he is not offering a fair wage. In other words, the 'supply' of qualified labor at that price is too low. He can either reduce his 'demand' (not hire) or he can increase his wages.
Conversely, if an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and is COMPLETELY SWAMPED by qualified applicants, odds are he is offering too HIGH of a wage.
Just as it isn't 'fair' for a large number of businesses in an area to ALL get together and decide that NONE of them will pay more than 'x' in pay/benefits for a certain type of labor, it also shouldn't be 'fair' for a large number of laborers to all get together and decide that NONE will work for less than 'x'. Both practices (colusion on the business side and colusion on the labor side) seek to artificially set what the 'fair' level is for a wage.
If an employer is looking to fill positions and publishes what the pay and benefits are, in addition to what the job entails, and gets few to zero qualified applicants, odds are he is not offering a fair wage. In other words, the 'supply' of qualified labor at that price is too low. He can either reduce his 'demand' (not hire) or he can increase his wages.
That is true, but when the company is suffering deeply and is facing the possibility of bankruptcy, maybe the time has come to consider that maybe the price of qualified labor is too high.
Competition exists, whether we like it or not. Losers in a competition of course do not like competition. Protectionism only serves to bring down the whole ship with the losing segment. A far better alternative is to incentivize the population involved in the losing segment to find a more profitable endeavor instead of moaning about it. Bring the subject back to cars a little: yes, mechanical horses are slaves compared to the real horses with their own spirit . . . heck even the real horses were slaves compared to the human plough pullers that the horses displaced eons ago. We all want something for next to nothing (ie. higher standard of living without having to do extra work for it). . . so someone has to be "slaving" away to bring us the fruit of labor . . . better it be foreigner than Americans . . . better it be animals than humans . . . better it be machine than any living beings.
If you don't like the labor practices in India or China, go open a shop there yourself . . . shouldn't it be obvious that your new shop would instantly attract applicants because you offer better working conditions? What alternative is there? Short of sending in the US Army to enforce holidays (the equivalent of what French do regularly on an international scale, passing laws banning work), the Chinese workers are bent on hard working . . . so, would it be better that they make consumer products for us or would it be better if they turn that energy towards the building of some commie war machine?
No, free market does not rely on ethics at all. Free market ideals are built upon the understanding that those in power to "regulate"/meddle in the market place inevitably use the powers of the state to their own personal advantage. There, if you are a realist about human nature and the fundamental lack of ethics when profit is dangled in front of most people, you certainly do not want the same flawed human nature to be endowed with monopolistic regulatory power . . . regulatory power is by definition monopolistic (when two political entities try to tax the same geographic region to the exclusion of each other, it's called a war).
On the other hand, chances are that they will improve over time even if their first tries are sub-par compared to contemporaries. The orignal Datsun and Toyopets were quite laughable rustbuckets of rolling parts back in the early 70's. Over time however, the same brands eventually help making the auto fleet in the US much more pleasant to live with than if they had never shown up on our shores.
In reality, take all regulation and organization from the market, and today's hellhole known as China will look like a paradise as the robber barons rule with an iron fist. Nothing will be able to stop them.
Interesting statement from someone who berates labor practices in China . . . nobody is being forced to work in those factories. BTW, what people in the surveys complain about is not having to work, but having to join the union in order to work . . . that coercion is truly Pathetic and Tasteless.
Is this a joke? Am I on candid camera?
(1) Who are the "robber barons" that you keep talking about?
(2) How can they rule without regulations?
(3) How do you know "they" are not already ruling with an iron fist with existing rules and regulations? and bent on more absolute control with more rules and regulations? After all, "robber barons" obviously have more influence on regulation making than we do, right?
Environmental damage exists no matter where it takes place. Damage is damage, it's one planet. If first world firms are put in a position where they are required to take some measure of environmental responsibility (there's a good dose of morals involved in doing so as well), then the second-and-a-half world competitors should be forced to do likewise, or find a new market to play in. And I won't even start on the human rights/societal abuses (yet).
That top couple % of society who control 97% of the means.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Organized labor has kept at least a long loose leash on the robber barons, perhaps for their own well being.
Interesting to note how easily you used the "one planet" argument to support foreign intervention . . . how easily the phrase "should be forced to" came into play . . . pray tell, a world government enforcing rules on behalf of a mute "one planet" . . . how long will it be before it is run by a bunch of "robber barons"?
(1) Organized labor helps keep out domestic compeition . . . that's the way GM managed to consolidate the domestic auto industry in the 60's and 70's. The benefit packages bankrupted the small players and erected barrier of entry to would be new comers
(2) The cut-off line for top couple % is about $200k a year according to government data (http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf#search="income tax distribution") . . . quite a few union bosses are making close to that, and practically all Senators and Congressmen are making more than that. Organized labor is one of the biggest contributors to political campaigns.
In other words, how do you know organized labor is not just another tool for "robber barons'" control over the rest of us?? BTW, if you want to ask me any specific question, go on ahead, and I will try my best to answer them.
I like how you use "foreign intervention" to demonize any thought of raising a voice against the despicable environmental and human conditions in repressed places such as China. Nice PR move, you should be a political strategist.
A world without regulation will never exist. Give it up.
I'm talking about wealth, not income. They are not one in the same. That deflection won't sway me.
Question for you...why do you think your free-of-regulation dreamworld could ever exist, not to mention actually be a benefit for anyone but that top 1%? There's no basis in reality for it. I live in the real world.
I forgot what this was like...I'm sorry, that's enough for me. Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs (or union workers) bite. Don't waste time replying to me, I won't return the favor.
Buying a product made in India or China does not mean support an amoral regime, environmental catastrophe or human suffering any more than going to work or tour in the World Trade Center was support for American Imperialism or Zionism (whatever either label means). In fact, given the fact the workers choose to work in those factories instead of staying in the villages and engage in subsistence farming, removing that option of working in the factories would only increase human suffering . . .
But, we both know, protectionism is not about being nice to Indians or Chinese ;-)
To answer your question, why less regulation is better (whether the ultmate logical extreme of no regulation at all is achievable or even desirable is an issue I never even mentioned, so please do not put words in my mouth). The top 1% certainly has far more influence on how rules and regulations are made than the rest of the population. Even you have stated several times, "he who has gold makes rules" . . . whenever rule making is in the offing. So why occasion the need for more rule making? There is actually a very good historical record of more and more regulations making life more and more miserable for the overwhelming majority of the population: India, China, France and the US itself are all prime examples of how reducing regulations making the economy more vibrant, and increasing regulations making life more miserable in the economy . . . all four countries went back and forth in the last couple hundred years.
The capatalist want to make it so simple that we form a NAFTA money system called a "Amero" which would be similar to the "Euro". The next thing to come will them a a open borders plan that will allow workers from Canada and Mexico to come accross and work for corporate america. However we all know the majority will be from Mexico, since their citizens have the most to gain since they are a 3rd world country.
I as a protectionist of the american worker am against this type of pseudo-capatalist, ideaology.
#1 If wages are reduced that means the standard of living will go down. It's a proven fact that all things made in a cheap labor market yields a significant reduction in price for the consumer. However the capatalist, want us to believe this theory. People like myself can and do see through the "smoke and mirrors" and the once to benefit are big buisness and their bottom line. The other negative to the free market is big buisness will build plants over in Mexico, exploit the population and the enviroment, and then ship those goods back across the border. The ones whom lose are the american worker. I haven't seen refridgerators prices drop when Electralux moved it's plant from Greenville Mi. to Mexico.
I don't see how that is a benefit to the consumer and country rorr. ?
I am not afraid of trade, but we need to enforce or trade laws we have on the books and create new trade laws to "level the playing field" for buisness that operates within the United States. Our standard of living depends on it. The UAW, and other unions promote "buy american" because jobs, and what not depends on it.
The buisness's that stay here are squeezed since they aren't making as much profit as one in mexico, thus they close down and leave to join there competitor. A simple few strokes of the pen could solve these simple problems. The Europeans have tariffs and other barriers to protect it's buisness's. I know many people will reply and say they have a higher unemployment rate. Well most european country's like Germany, also have a high illegal immigration percentage and really are over populated. In Germany, for example they get alot of workers that come in from foreign country's like Poland. If I was Germany, I'd reduce the number of visa's allowed per yr.
Germany, and other european country's also have laws on the books to protect wages, and benefits. In france it's law that workers get 6-weeks of vacation. In this country one is lucky to get 6 days of vacation anymore. :sick: If a union goes out on strike, scabs workers are illegal.
Their system has flaws like being to liberal like us on immigration, however European buisness's and workers do enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. Look at European automobiles. The craftsmenship, put into them is second to none.
Rocky
Cheap imports certainly drive down price at the consume level. Just look at the price of TV's, Air conditioners, yes, even Fridges at Walmart or Costco. Yet another way of looking at it is: the relative price of those consumer products compared to the price of oil (energy and plastic) and metal that went into making them. Dollar is dropping in value, the cost of almost everything else in life is going up, but those consumer products are not going up in price . . . in fact going down dramaticly over the past decade, largely because of the import effect . . . that means higher standard of living for average consumers than otherwise would have been the case.
European automobiles are routinely ranked at the bottom of quality surveys nowadays . . . behind even the domestics. French cars have been foreclosed from the American market, the largest car market in the world, for nearly two decades. Yes, the union rules and regulations are part of the problem.
I can't name a union and company where wages and benefits I'd say are unfair. You will be able to find many CEO's that are like lamprey's and suck a company dry of million$ and in some cases billion$.
Does the UAW no longer realize that their original goal was to level the playing field between employee and employer? They've gotten so greedy that they will bring the company down around them, but as long as they get their exorbitant packages and benefits, they don't really mind, failing to think of tomorrow. They need to better balance the give and take relationship between employee and employer alongside their own needs. I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
Working GM, which is considered by some as the 2nd biggest buisness in the world behind General Electric, one shouldn't ask for a $50-60K a yr. paycheck, have some vacation, retirement and health benefits, is greedy ? :confuse:
If Ford, for example built cars people wanted to own and Ford was making billions in profits instead of losses the wage/benefit issue would be moot. Ford, can't be struggling to bad as they just gave that new CEO $16 million bonus and $3 or $4 million a yr. salary minus any bonuses. That is the definition of greed in my book. The guy is going to get nearly $20 million, and he is yet to lift a pen. :confuse:
Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll.
Well the Big 3, here in the U.S. and Europe, along with all the Sweden, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, build their cars with "union labor" in there country. The European cars like VW and Audi, BMW, all speak Quality. The Japanese like Lexus, are top rated which are built by union laborers. So what our problem or excuse ? As you've seen we are building better cars currently and it will get better because people like Rick Wagoner, were finally willing to spend a few bucks more to make it happen.
I see Ford offering buyouts just to ease themselves, to an extent, of the lamprey-like mentality of the UAW. In very few other corners of the economy, though there are exceptions, does the workforce so effectively, greedily and blindly hold their employers hostage.
I think the workers that are taking the buy-out most whom are very close to retirement age (50's and 60's)have worked long enough to be offered a retirement package. Just think you won't have to support them with your tax dollars when they go to the hospital.
What I'm saying is not at all tantamount to suggesting the UAW be disbanded. Not at all.
It sure sounds like it to me buddy. You are ripping them. The benefits and wages that UAW, worers enjoy are crap when compared to the benefits European and Japanese union workers have. Like I said in France it's law new employees get 6-weeks of vacation. Is that to much, or is have we as a nation become obsessed with working way to many hours for our bread and butter, and put our family's on the
back burner ? If I had 6-weeks of vacation, just think of all the road trips I could do.
Many other auto manufacturers do not employ union labor, which makes it difficult for domestic manufacturers to put money into quality and other aspects instead of payroll.
Who, the Russians and Chinese ? :surprise:
If they aren't careful, they will rob their employers of their patience and ways around the union will be found.
The Yale grads that went to buisness for dummy's 101 are already and have for the last 2-decades been gradually moving plants and out-sourcing to cheap over-sea's labor markets.
Admittedly, if the UAW doesn't clean up their act, they will find themselves in that position and I will open a bottle of champagne and make a toast to the first company that makes such a step.
I was right, you are really anti-UAW and anti-union. :sick:
Rocky
Rocky