I might not see the worst of it in my lifetime but my kids and grand kids sure could
You, your children and grandchildren are not going to have the same benefits and working conditions that your dad and I have had. We still have a higher overall standard of living than any major country in the World. We have flaunted our good fortune on TV and Movies to every corner of the Earth. What do you expect someone in Mexico, China or India to think when they see that everyone in the US lives like a Movie Star? They want in on the Bonanza. They are envious of US, just like you are envious of the bonuses handed out to management at big companies.
I think what several of us are trying to get across is the Unions in general and the UAW in particular do not make it conducive for the Big 3 to continue manufacturing in this country. You think that giving in on a couple points on a contract should be good enough. It may be only time will tell. You do not like the bonuses given to management. Maybe finding good engineers and management is harder than finding line workers. Then you add state and Federal regulations make it tough for companies to survive in the USA. There are parts of some cars that cannot be built here due to regulations. So we send our pollution to China or elsewhere. Many states have taken the position that CA took a long time ago. If your industry is not squeaky clean we don't want you here. It is going to get worse with all this GHG regulations coming down the line. Auto plants that are operating in Michigan today could be shut down by regulations tomorrow. With computers and robots we have become more productive with less manual labor needed. UAW members have had it better than any other industry with job banks. Those that took advantage and got training while in them are ahead of the game. Those that sat watching cartoons and reading the paper are likely to be left out in the cold.
I believe that IBM was the last major corporation to succumb to the reality that they could not compete being "Made in the USA". They sold their whole PC business to Lenova, a multinational corporation with most of the employees in China. I believe they kept 25% of the employees in NY.
IBM benefits from the deal by getting rid of a business -- PCs -- that defined the company in the 1980s, but later became a drag on profit margins. Over the past decade, IBM has transformed itself into a services and software company, and set its sights clearly on China as a potentially huge market. It has shed disk drives, displays, desktop manufacturing and network processor businesses while adding PricewaterhouseCoopers' services firm PwC Consulting. IBM has also acquired software companies such as Tivoli, Rational and Informix.
You, your children & my children will have to learn to change with the times or end up on the welfare roles. The US still offers many opportunities to live the dream.
So I'm the one who has my head buried in the sand ????
In a manner of speaking Rocky, the answer is: "Yes--You Do". Rocky, no one is mocking you. Please---don't take offense at what some are trying to get across here. You really need to really think through and try to better understand causes and effects of what is happening to your world. What we're seeing in the US manufacturing sector (and affecting the UAW, among others) is due to a variety of issues--and many of these issues are beyond the control of our govts., industry leaders, and unions. Your view of "elitist manipulation, capitalistic fat cats", etc., or whatever terms you choose as responsible for what's happening is far too narrow and simplistic. What you suggest are "ruthless and selfish motives" by our bureaucrats and technocrats are in fact reactions to a changing busines and economic climate world wide. Like it or not,we are faced with a rapidly changing world, and as much as I respect your feelings about perceived wrongs, change is here no matter how strongly you feel about it. As I said earlier, we are currently faced with major economic challenges--but these can be met because we have the potential to do so. The most important ingredients in dealing with these challenges are (a) creativity and (b) proactive adaptation, and not just ranting about the "bad guys". You might consider doing more listening Rocky--one can learn much by doing so.
On another note--I strongly agree with concerns voiced here for future generations. But not about threats to manufacturing, economics, or the UAW. Unless the world does something collectively and soon about our deteriorating environment, I fear for the survival of the human race!! Now, there's something to get VERY concerned about!!
Unless the world does something collectively and soon about our deteriorating environment, I fear for the survival of the human race!! Now, there's something to get VERY concerned about!!
I think the path the World is taking is a precarious one. I don't think the earth has the natural resources to grant 6-10 billion people the standard of living the USA has achieved. The best example is China. They are building a new coal fired generation site every week.
Coal-fired generation accounts for 82 percent of China’s total power supply and has been chronically wasteful and dirty. Smaller and older generators, which are also the most inefficient and polluting, comprise a large share of the total installations. Currently, nearly 30 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power installations are generators of less than 100,000 kilowatts.
According to Li Junhong, a power expert in Nanjing, generators under 50,000 kilowatts consume 200 grams more energy per kilowatt of electricity generated than those above 300,000 kilowatts. China’s larger “ultra-supercritical” thermal power generators, with over 1 million kilowatts of generating capacity, consume roughly 290 grams of coal per kilowatt, while some smaller generators use around 1,000 grams per kilowatt. The coal used to produce only 1 kilowatt of electricity in small plants will generate as many as 2–3 kilowatts in larger ones.
Statistics also reveal that small plants emit 20 times more particulate matter and smog-forming pollutants than larger ones, and three times the sulfur dioxide. In 2006, coal burning was responsible for 90 percent of China’s sulfur dioxide discharges and 70 percent of its emissions of particulate matter and other smog-forming pollutants, according to World Watch magazine.
This is a result of our desire to have it all. We want cheap shoes, toys, electronics and next it will be electric cars. I will go on record saying the bulk of the batteries for any future electric vehicles will come from China or India. That will be the most expensive component in these EVs. The content of the proposed Chevy Volt will be mostly Chinese. The UAW will get to assemble the parts coming in from China.
As I said I understand WHAT is going on and why the things that have happened, well have happened. I do get what you said but because you and others have said it doesn't mean I have to roll over and die and conform without a fight. I have very strong beliefs and union blood runs through my veins. Whether, you like it or not I will always be very anti-capitalist as we have it now. It breeds to much corruption !!!!
In a perfect world my country would build all it's stuff here in the U.S. and if any one wants to trade with us it's going to be on our terms and conditions. We would not get involved in any un neccessary world affairs but if you mess with us you better be prepared to give up your land cuz we are conquering it and making it a U.S. territory via use of Neutron Bombs :mad:
We are the only nation on earth who can self support. At one time we really didn't depend on anyone for supply's but now we have given the farm away to others and rely on them to deliver. Like Duncan Hunter, has implied what's going to happen if we are in a war with a opposing country who makes some of our military equipment ???? Do you think they are going to deliver it ????
My mind silverfox, will never be changed. I guess I have morals and can't openly support slavery !!!!
The U.S. pretty much was like that until WWII. We wanted to stay out of the affairs of foreign countries and didn't get involved until we were pretty much dragged into it. Even during WWI wer didn't get involved until pretty late in the war. We could've been dragged into it as early as 1915 with the torpedoing of the Lusitania.
What I'd like to see is that if a company outsources its manufacturing to another country that they can no longer sell their product in the U.S. or they have to pay a hefty import duty to comfortably support all the factory workers it idled for the rest of their lives. I'd make outsourcing so unattractive, no sane manufacturer would dare think of it.
Like I said their are many folks in this country who share our belief lemko. Even a few politcians on both sides of the aisle are talking about this. They are of course not leading in the polls but at least they brought the issue up and like issues up so they can be been talked about.
Rocky, the isolationist economic strategies you and Lemko advocate is a recipe for economic extinction! Life as we know it would change so drastically that even you wouldn't be able to tolerate it! None of us would be able to support ourselves sufficiently to even sustain the next generations. Their very survival would be at grave risk. Plus, you both need to crack the history books a bit more re events leading to the US involvement in WWII. Start with General Motors' operations (plus huge profits) in Germany before--and throughout--the war!! You might find it enlightening.
Just conform to the upcoming serf 'n elite society we are heading for...certain forces have been working hard for this reality for the past 60+ years, and show no signs of losing ground.
the PRINCIPLE of moving jobs overseas, and on that principle, I actually agree with rocky's fantasy world...it WOULD be nice for everything that is sold here (USA) to be manufactured here...my problem is that rocky lives from day to day, thinking (and posting here)that if he just wishes hard enough, and the UAW stands firm enough, that all will change to the way it was in the 1950s, when we made it all and we could do no wrong...
The problem is that rocky fails to understand the economics of what he advocates...he wants to bring back the textile industry, unionized of course, and pay shirtmakers $20 and hour, but he expects the shirts to be sold at WalMart for the same $9.00 that they sell the Chinese-made shirts...like most who fail to understand economics, they want the makers to receive high, unionized wages, but expect the product to sell cheap...
That is what caused the textile industry to go overseas to start with...an Arrow or Van Heusen shirt, made with union labor, would cost over $40 or $50, and most folks could only afford one or two...in essence, the average American could not afford to buy enough shirts to keep these companies in business at the high wages they were paying, so they went overseas, pay a dollar and hour, and can sell the shirts for $15, and folks can buy more...
That is the elusive concept that rocky cannot or will not comprehend...he acts as tho no matter what we pay our workers, the American consumer will always buy the same amount of the product...but that is where the inelastic part comes in...it sounds nice to have unionized workers making shirts at $20/hour, but the market, that is you and I, cannot afford to buy 10 shirts if they are $50 each, so we only buy 2...but the factory is churning out shirts nonstop...so, while rocky is pleased to see all those union workers leaving the plant on Friday with their inflated union paychecks, he fails to understand that department stores cannot sell the shirts because they cost too much because the labor is overpriced and the market is speaking...and the market is rarely wrong...
But rocky fails to accept when the market is speaking...he just keeps his head in the sand and tells the union workers to hold out for higher wages, or strike because they have to do 3 job classifications instead on one, as though he is living in the Wizard of OZ (just click your heels and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home")...
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
But you just keep telling everyone that the company is lucky that the workers have "conceded" to alter their job classifications for the good of the company...crap...you almost sound like you believe that, or your brain is truly stuck in the Leave It to Beaver world of the 1950s...
The only way for your world to actually exist is to FORCE the consumer to buy union made shirt at $50 each, and give up all his disposable income to buy 10 shirts for $500 rather than let him decide whether to buy only two shirts and then take his family out to dinner, or Disney world, or whatever...
You cannot raise the cost of something at the factory level (high labor costs) and expect the retail price to remain the same...
Simply put, the textile workers put themselves out of a job, it is THEY who forced the work overseas, simply because it just ain't worth $20 per hour to make cotton shirts...you can argue with ME all you want, but you cannot, and will not, argue with the market...and when sales went in the tank (years ago) because the shirts cost too much because the unskilled labor cost too much, the MARKET spoke and said that something must change, because we will not buy your product at that price...
The market spoke and the textile workers put themselves out of a job by failing to adapt to changing market conditions...
Your wishing it to be so ranks up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...wish all you want, but your daily thinking needs a serious dose of reality...
It is time you brought your head out of the sand...your whining for the good old days of the union are over, and, regardless of management problems (of which there are many), the union screwed itself and is still too damn ignorant or stupid to see what they did to themselves, and they have cheerleaders like you who see thru the same rose colored glasses they do, failing to see the world change right under their noses...
Just conform to the upcoming serf 'n elite society we are heading for...certain forces have been working hard for this reality for the past 60+ years
I agree with you. Just not sure if we would agree on who the elitists are... Though I am sure they cross the line in the sand to join forces...
To these folks we are speaking of, the middle class are a threat. They are not the capitalists that Rocky seems to detest. They are far above capitalism...Many are Monarchs in their own little world.
Rocky, the isolationist economic strategies you and Lemko advocate is a recipe for economic extinction!
silverfox, I consider myself pretty sharp on this subject pal. Hey, I like you a lot but you do not have all the information you need to make a accurate judgement on where I'm going with this. I ask you to read carefully what I have to say and I'll explain why I believe my so-called fantasy world is a realistic proposition if we had people like Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, at the helm along with a like minded congress so it could be 1950 all over again. You will not find another american who cares about this country's people more than me. I might dislike some of them but they are mine and that is all that matters.
Life as we know it would change so drastically that even you wouldn't be able to tolerate it! None of us would be able to support ourselves sufficiently to even sustain the next generations. Their very survival would be at grave risk.
I strongly disagree and in my follow up posts I will explain in detail.
Plus, you both need to crack the history books a bit more re events leading to the US involvement in WWII. Start with General Motors' operations (plus huge profits) in Germany before--and throughout--the war!! You might find it enlightening.
silverfox, I do know all to well about GM & especially Fords, involvement with [non-permissible content removed] Germany. Ford, actually had positive feelings torward [non-permissible content removed] Germany. What we and the the rest of Europe, did to Germany after WWI, I can understand why the German, people supported Adolf Hitler. If I would of been alive as a poor German citizen with my physical characteristics during that time starving, dead broke, I would of probably intially would of supported The National Socialist German Workers Party, as it would of benefited me.
Just conform to the upcoming serf 'n elite society we are heading for...certain forces have been working hard for this reality for the past 60+ years, and show no signs of losing ground.
Well Fintail, you obviously "get it" and understand what I've been trying to say. Why I'm in fear of the future if we keep on this path. You can see the writing on the wall and unless things change your serf 'n elite society will become a reality. To some it has already became a reality as the good paying union job they once had went to China, or Mexico, displacing good folks. :sick:
Okay, Marsha7's post is where I'm going to lay down my stand........
the PRINCIPLE of moving jobs overseas, and on that principle, I actually agree with rocky's fantasy world...it WOULD be nice for everything that is sold here (USA) to be manufactured here...my problem is that rocky lives from day to day, thinking (and posting here)that if he just wishes hard enough, and the UAW stands firm enough, that all will change to the way it was in the 1950s, when we made it all and we could do no wrong...
Can I do it all by myself ? Of course not but that doesn't mean I should let my beliefs die and be forgotten. Maybe the message will survive and get passed on to a new generation ??? If I can accomplish that then I feel we as a nation have a fighting chance.
The problem is that rocky fails to understand the economics of what he advocates...he wants to bring back the textile industry, unionized of course, and pay shirtmakers $20 and hour, but he expects the shirts to be sold at WalMart for the same $9.00 that they sell the Chinese-made shirts...like most who fail to understand economics, they want the makers to receive high, unionized wages, but expect the product to sell cheap...
That is the elusive concept that rocky cannot or will not comprehend...he acts as tho no matter what we pay our workers, the American consumer will always buy the same amount of the product...but that is where the inelastic part comes in...it sounds nice to have unionized workers making shirts at $20/hour, but the market, that is you and I, cannot afford to buy 10 shirts if they are $50 each, so we only buy 2...but the factory is churning out shirts nonstop...so, while rocky is pleased to see all those union workers leaving the plant on Friday with their inflated union paychecks, he fails to understand that department stores cannot sell the shirts because they cost too much because the labor is overpriced and the market is speaking...and the market is rarely wrong...
Alright buddy I'm going to hit you hard !!!!! I never once said I thought we could sell items as cheap as they are now but with automation it takes less people to make "things" than it did in the 1950's thus making it very cost effective to do business here in the U.S. if we would rid ourselves from 3rd world slave labor and the un free market.
Perhaps this will help you understand ? Let's say imidazol97, is UAW member working at Delphi Corp, building "roller lifters" for GM, making $27.50 bucks an hour. That is $1,100 a week. Let's say Lemko, is a union member working a Levi Strauss, in Philly making $20 bucks an hour throwing togeather quality 505 Blue Jeans at $35 dollars a pair. Imidazol97, is going to buy those union made blue jeans and lemko, is going to buy that GM, car with Delphi, parts in it. So they both are going to benefit. Yeah the car cost alot more than the blue jeans but it also takes far less people to manufactor a pair of blue jeans and while they might not cost as much imidazol97, is going to buy many pairs for his kids, himself, his wife, not to mention matching shirts.
I know that was a rough explanation of my point but I like to think of the economy like the "life cycle" diagram we saw in school. I buy from you, you buy from me, my neighbor buys from me and you, we both buy from our neighbor. Get it ? This was sort of the way it was in the 1950's. It wasn't until one of us decided to buy from somebody who relocated to Mexico or China, to gain a unfair advantage that put a wrench in our american "life cycle". The problem is the Chinamen, nor the Mexican, is buying from either of us puting us both out of a job.
I blame the monopolist powers "elites" for not enforcing our anti-trust laws making it virtually impossible for new company's (small business) to form and compete internally. If Studebaker, Packard, etc, would of been allowed to survive we might of had enough internal competition to bring outbetter products. The problem was the Big 3 squashed everybody else and had enough clout politically to keep others from joining the ranks. Again that is a political issue that could of been solved. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volvo, etc, paid it's union workers very well and they didn't have a currency advantage on us so they are not as responsible for the damage we see today. However they did tariff our goods and that same "duty" should of been applied to their imports. What we should of done was tariff the hell out of the japanese imports to make up the difference in currency manipulation plus added anadditional "duty" like they used on our stuff and put up the same trade barriers as they did to our stuff. There are plenty of articles on this "subject" dating back to the 60's and 70's. The bottom line is Japan, made it virtually impossible for american manufactors to do business in their country. We did nothing about it and stillour doing nothing about it. :sick: Bill Clinton, with pressure from the UAW, threaten to impose a 100% tariff on all Japanese imports the right-wing pseudo-capitalist called Bill Clinton, a commie, a protectionist, isolationist, and he finally caved in because so many americans thought "Free Trade" was the "vehicle" to job creation and it was for the short-term. Ross Perot, said we would create a lot of new jobs over a 10-20 year period and then a manufactoring collapse of good jobs going over sea's, or being replaced by lower wages, would happen which we have been seeing.....
We have the most natural resources of any country in the world. We really don't need anyone else's stuff to survive. We have some of the finest education insitutes in the world and have some of the most skilled people in the world. We work harder, faster, and longer hours than most anyone else in the world and have sacrificed our family time for our employer which has been a benefit and a disaster for our culture depending on how you look at it. With all the good it has caused it has also caused a lot of bad. What I'm saying is we can return to a 1950 like culture where we are a nationalistic society. We protect our country, and screw everybody else. We protect our workers, our business, from un fair trade. Is it worth risking the safety of our country to make that extra buck in China. I know many of you believe giving other people jobs in foreign country's and a means to support their family's is our responsibility as a leader. I believe giving them the tools is all we should do. Anything more than that is a huge risk and China, building up their military with our money is one of many reasons why I'm against trading with 3rd world country's like communist China. How are we going to benefit if we are dead after a major military conflict??? Hell they tariff the crap out of our stuff and in most cases you are not allowed to sell it there unless you build it there !!!!! How is that mentality fair to us when all they have been doing is dumping their cheap shoddy goods on our market and have no regard to trademarks, copyrights, etc. For god sakes there automobile industry is making copy cat Chin-E- Class "Mercedes Benz" like automobiles. Sure I and Fintail, can see the difference but it's a blatant attempt to copya trademark design. They've done it with plenty of other consumer goods and since they have no respect for international law then why shouldwe give them the privledge of doing business here in our country ?????
'm not saying we shouldn't trade with other country's but at the very least lets protect us first !!!! If we can come to a compromise and they have human rights, real livable wages, etc, then I'm all for trade. That is one reason why I'm not so against doing business with Europe and Canada, because they have a similar standards of living and trading does build repore, and relationships.
I do hope you understand where I'm coming from in my beliefs. This is the way I want the world to be. I might not ever experience a reality like this in my lifetime but I do not think I'm wrong at all for having faith we can someday experience my dream and every U.S. citizen can have a great job whether it be union in some manufactoring plant, or as a professional white collar suit in a ivory tower. :shades:
But you just keep telling everyone that the company is lucky that the workers have "conceded" to alter their job classifications for the good of the company...crap...you almost sound like you believe that, or your brain is truly stuck in the Leave It to Beaver world of the 1950s...
I'm not stuck in the "Leave it to Beaver" world but that was not such a bad era as far as business ethics go.
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
If that was the case then all ofour high payingmanufactoring jobs would be gone. the simple fact is that 26% of our economy is still made up of manufactoring jobs and not all of them are low paying ones. The reason why many of them are able to compete is their competition is still doing business here in this country and building there goods here. If Tom, Dick, and Harry, (my competition) is here their is no reason why I can't be either if I have a competitive product.
But rocky fails to accept when the market is speaking...he just keeps his head in the sand and tells the union workers to hold out for higher wages, or strike because they have to do 3 job classifications instead on one, as though he is living in the Wizard of OZ (just click your heels and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home")...
I understand that business exist to make a profit and that is fine but it's the greed and corruption that exists at the top is where I have a problem. My father busted his butt for GM & Delphi. He had a lot of responsibility and often didn't get his lunch break because the machinery broke down and he had to fix it to keep production going. I'm just saying people use to have to work hard but not to the point where they are ergonomically killing themselves. Why do you think the UAW, finally supported working in small groups to do multiple jobs ??? It was proven to reduce injury's. However at the Lansing, MI. Delta plant the injury rate is very high because the workers are being over worked. The UAW, is fighting GM, trying to protect it's workers. This was the one principle that unions were formed on and that was working conditions and with the high injury rate at that plant has resulted in a lot of people being put on medical to recover from work injury's. Something will have to be done.
But you just keep telling everyone that the company is lucky that the workers have "conceded" to alter their job classifications for the good of the company...crap...you almost sound like you believe that, or your brain is truly stuck in the Leave It to Beaver world of the 1950s...
I'm not stuck in the "Leave it to Beaver" world but that was not such a bad era as far as business ethics go.
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
If that was the case then all ofour high payingmanufactoring jobs would be gone. the simple fact is that 26% of our economy is still made up of manufactoring jobs and not all of them are low paying ones. The reason why many of them are able to compete is their competition is still doing business here in this country and building there goods here. If Tom, Dick, and Harry, (my competition) is here their is no reason why I can't be either if I have a competitive product.
The only way for your world to actually exist is to FORCE the consumer to buy union made shirt at $50 each, and give up all his disposable income to buy 10 shirts for $500 rather than let him decide whether to buy only two shirts and then take his family out to dinner, or Disney world, or whatever...
You cannot raise the cost of something at the factory level (high labor costs) and expect the retail price to remain the same...
As I said automation is the tool that has changed that. The shirts might cost a buck or two more but is it not worth it ??? For god sakes the Sean John brand is charging $70 bucks for a shirt made in Malaysia. If you have checked out union made clothing sites their shirts are not $50 bucks a piece. I think you are using severly artificially high numbers to try to prove your point but I know the difference because I have baught union made clothes on several occassions from Nemesis and King Louie and they are alot cheaper in price than the brands I saw in the mall a couple days ago Christmas Shopping.
Simply put, the textile workers put themselves out of a job, it is THEY who forced the work overseas, simply because it just ain't worth $20 per hour to make cotton shirts...you can argue with ME all you want, but you cannot, and will not, argue with the market...and when sales went in the tank (years ago) because the shirts cost too much because the unskilled labor cost too much, the MARKET spoke and said that something must change, because we will not buy your product at that price...
The market spoke and the textile workers put themselves out of a job by failing to adapt to changing market conditions...
The market did not speak. The only difference now is the company that made $1 billion yesterday has made $1.25 billion moving shop over sea's. In most cases the products did not get cheaper. A pair of Levi's that cost $30 bucks a pair made by union workers in the U.S. still costs $30 bucks made in Mexico.
Your wishing it to be so ranks up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...wish all you want, but your daily thinking needs a serious dose of reality...
I don't need a dose of reality. Why do you keep on saying that ??? I told you I know the un free market, and pseudo-capitalism, is reality and the unions are weak, and the working people have virtually lost all there rights. I'm living it first hand. I have realatives who have lost their good paying union jobs to over sea's slaves. I hope we have this finally settled. I can't be any more clear.
It is time you brought your head out of the sand...your whining for the good old days of the union are over, and, regardless of management problems (of which there are many), the union screwed itself and is still too damn ignorant or stupid to see what they did to themselves, and they have cheerleaders like you who see thru the same rose colored glasses they do, failing to see the world change right under their noses...
I love it !!!! Just because union folks didn't want to work for $0.42 an/hr., 16 hours a day for straight time, 7 days a week, like they do in China, we screwed ourselves. :confuse: I assume you are mighty high on the totem pole at work and must be one of those multi-millionaire elites I might of rubbed the wrong way.
Hey I would apologize but then I would be conceading my beliefs are wrong and that is something I will not do. I suppose if you aren't one of those greedy suits I spoke about you should really have nothing to be offended about.
-Rocky
P.S. You and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well.
Oh, it created high-paying jobs for execs. The workers kind of got it in the pants. Hey, Wal~Mart sure benefitted from free trade and created LOTS of jobs. However, the quality of those jobs is dismal and far removed from the well-paying manufacturing jobs many of their associates once had.
What I'm saying is we can return to a 1950 like culture where we are a nationalistic society.
I don't think you will find many Americans that want to return the 1950. Again you are looking at this whole trade issue through a very narrow scope. Automotive was one of the last things to fall to foreign MFGs. How about the wealth of the Kennedy's. The old man smuggled millions of dollars worth of Irish Whiskey into the US. Was that not foreign made taking jobs away from US citizens. Old man Joe made enough money that 3 generations have not had to work a lick. I think that fortune was about $400,000,000 when JFK was elected. The eltists that are threatening the Middle class are the old money people that have their fortunes tucked away in offshore accounts. They do not need to have widgets built in China to make money. The leading money man in the Democratic Party is George Soros. What has he manufactured in the USA with American Labor. I can tell you, NOTHING. He makes his billions exploiting the old Soviet bloc countries. He manipulates currencies with NO regard for the people he will destroy.
You said that Buick and several other GM cars were built with 75% or more USA content. I would like to know which vehicles are Really 100% Made in the USA. I do not think any are.
But there are more of them, so it is good. Job creation! For every 50K a year job lost, two 20K a year jobs are made. This will create a healthy demographic condition, really!
"I'm not stuck in the "Leave it to Beaver" world but that was not such a bad era as far as business ethics go"...rocky, I will agree that things WERE simpler, nicer and fairer back in the 1950s, when we ruled the world and we could do it all ourselves...heck, we HAD to, as the rest of the world (Japan, Europe, England) was bombed to rubble from WWII...
It was probably a great era, but it seems like you persist in living in it, and it just does not seem feasible...
As afr as the shirt numbers, none of them are actual numbers, I was just trying to make a point...and, as long as the workers are paid more than buyers will pay for the shirt, that is the economics that is undeniable...regardless of automation...
The robots they use to make cars have mostly displaced some of the most dangerous jobs that cause the most serious work injuries, eyt labor still makes up a large part of the cost of the automobile...
I truly question whether we could simply shut our doors to the outside world and live on our own...we may have various resources, but do we have enough for the 300 million people we now have???
Bob, check this out. While it is ONLY 1 article, I think this is where our workplace frustrations come from.
Awhile back, you posted this:
your statement alone reveals that you mistakenly think business exists to create jobs, rather than the true reality, business exists to create profit for the owners or shareholders
While that statement may be true, the fact remains that the byproduct of a successful business are JOBS, as no entrepeneur can be successful without help to get their product/service to market.
Where are visions seem to differ is the amount of respect that is given to either side of the equation.
All these arguments and the argumentative examples given on both sides of the UAW are just a micrcosom of the entire US economic spectrum. For example, your argument about the $50 union made shirt would be correct, ONLY if that were the only thing to change. But in reality, you added a whole group of $20/hr garment workers to the equation, workers that would spend their US dollars in the US. By spending the $500 instead of $90 on those shirts, you would have to raise prices on your products to give yourself a raise to afford those shirts.
Another faullt in that argument is that you are adding a $50 shirt to the economy, and comparing it to the $9 Honduran equivalent, as opposed to showing that shirt costing $17, 25 yrs ago when the garment worker made $7/hr, and having been a part of the equation all along.
Again, just a microcosom of the entire US economy that I believe, while chugging along, is suffering from some VERY uncomfortable gas pains of a "world economy".
of a successful business CAN be jobs, but not necessarily mandated...if a small office of 10 people, 1 owner, were to double sales in one year, and also double profit, it may not create one additional job, as the profit may go solely into the owner's pocket (as the profit he had been hoping for when he established the business) or it may be shared with the current workers...it does not have to create any more jobs at all...
Obviously, when I used my shirt example, momentarily I must assume that it is the only thing to change, otherwise every post would truly be a dissertation...
The article you link is interesting, but I think it misses an important point..."What explains the weak and unequal wage results?
Changes in real compensation result from a broad set of factors, including:
• workers' bargaining power, which is closely related to the tightness of the job market and the strength of unions and other labor market institutions, including the minimum wage;
• changes in the rate of inflation;
• the cost of fringe benefits, including health care; and
• productivity growth."
Health care IS an important factor...when the premium for a family goes from $5K yearly to $7K yearly, if the employer pays it all, then each employee just received a $2,000 wage increase, even tho no one saw another dime...we know this much...THE EMPLOYER'S COST OF EACH EMPLOYEE JUST WENT UP BY $2000 YEARLY WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE SAW ANY MONEY OR NOT...so, overhead went up but each employee IGNORANTLY states to his friends that his cheap boss didn't give anyone a raise this year, which is why employees can often be quite stupid at times...
The article also left out something that I have read about for the last 5-6 years...numerous articles in business magazines have written about how employer's costs of overhead have been increasing over the years (rent, electric, health care, parts, components, etc.), but due to the heavy competitive environment they cannot increase their prices or their competition will eat them alive...in other words, the cost of making their product has been going up, but the retail cost has remained the same due to competitive market pressures...
Well, if the costs are going up but prices are not, it means that profits are also not rising...and, if wages are going to rise, where is the money supposed to come from...the owner's back pocket???...wages can only stagnate because there may not be enough money to go around...
And, as far as productivity is concerned, I am sure you have walked into various business establishments and see employees standing around doing nothing...if productivity is increasing I would be surprised indeed...
I believe productivity is defined as "units made per worker hour" or something like that...when you talk about union restrictive work rules or even nonunion work rules, do you really believe that workers are working more and making more???...and, even if they are, isn't it simply possible that the "increased" productivity is what allowed the company to stay in business, offsetting the increased overhead in the other areas...in other words, the business would have shut down due to increased overhead but for the workers who could have made more product in the same time frame???
And, if true, while in a perfect world the workers might share in the profit, amybe there was no extra profit, as it was consumed by the other overhead...and, while someone like rocky would say that the workers deserve more money, another view is that by increasing productivity the workers simply guaranteed their continuing employment, rather than watch half of them being laid off due to lower profits from increased overhead...
Productivity is only one frame of the movie...if all other costs go up but you cannot raise your selling price, either the workers make more widgets to make up the difference, or workers are laid off to make up the difference...either way, the worker is lucky to have the job because whenall other things are equal, the first item to go is the worker, because the power bill won't change and the cost of materials goes up, but labor cost can be cut by dumping workers...
If it comes to survivability of the company, the worker is the least important factor in the equation...bonuses are sweet and nice, but if the money isn't there, screaming that workers deserve a bonus is worthless, when they are lucky to have the job to start with...
Hence, a business is created for the purpose of profit, and only profit...job creation is a nice side benefit, but no one ever started a company to create jobs for their fellow man, they started the company to put money in THEIR pocket, and that is what capitalism is, anything else is simply mouthing Karl Marx...
I believe productivity is defined as "units made per worker hour" or something like that...when you talk about union restrictive work rules or even nonunion work rules, do you really believe that workers are working more and making more???...
Productivity is defined is defined in many ways. One of the most commonly used is Output per Hour. The US ranks highly internationally, exceeded only by Korea, Taiwan and Sweden (highly unionized). However the rate of increase in this output is starting to lag behind behind. Korea, Taiwan, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway and the UK have rates of increase in productivity that exceed ours. They are also not far behind in total productivity per man-hour. link title
All this is simply to suggest that the presence of unions does not bear much relationship to productivity or the potential of productivity. In fact there is numerous data suggesting that 'happy' workers are more productive. However frustrating union work rules may be to those on the ownership side, they form a useful function in allowing a more level playing field in the relationship between ownership and labor. Without unions, ownership would be able to fire at will and keep wages for everyone (except themselves) as low as possible. That is not a recipe for a productive work-force.
Lets not forget also that when we talk about 'ownership', that is frequently not the heroic small-businessman. It is frequently a governing board paid handsomely to lunch with an executive board whose income has risen to more than 300 times that of the average working man or woman in the country.
It is a rare business these days that is truly led by an inventive/ extraordinarily bright/ far-sighted individual. Capital is the main qualifier for success now.
"Lets not forget also that when we talk about 'ownership', that is frequently not the heroic small-businessman. It is frequently a governing board paid handsomely to lunch with an executive board whose income has risen to more than 300 times that of the average working man or woman in the country."
On this, I have posted before, and I do agree with you that many of our large corporations are no longer led by the "brilliant entrepreneur" (Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) that founded the company way back when...and, executive boards are a problem unto themselves...
But many smaller businesses are run and controlled by the person who founded it...
Also, an independent point...for all the complaining about executive pay, if you reduced all executive pay by 90%, you would not save enough money to do anything, except make a point...only the reduction of the labor force will achieve actual gains in reducing the cost structure of most businesses...after all, if every Ford exec was only paid $1.00 per year, Ford would still be closing plants, laying off workers due to poor product demand, and borrowing $23 billion to keep the company afloat...doing away with mgmt salaries would not have changed that one iota, because ecex salaries are simply a drop in the bucket in the mega-corps...
Thanks for the definition(s) of productivity, BTW...
for all the complaining about executive pay, if you reduced all executive pay by 90%, you would not save enough money to do anything, except make a point
I agree. However at the same time that jobs are out sourced, eliminated, hours increased or (conversely) plants closed, making that point could be a valuable effort. I believe that part of what inflames the ownership / worker relationship is the perception that while the survival of 'the company' requires sacrifice for the workers, that sacrifice is not only not asked of the executive level but so many struggling companies in fact spend more to hire a 'big gun'. That big gun may or may not be a smart guy, but who among us would disagree that it is a rare company that is so poor in its hiring that someone from within the ranks cannot be promoted? It seems almost as if there is a small group who simply recycle themselves through different companies.
Finally, small businesses are virtually never unionized. The impact of unions on small business is, like the impact of reducing executive pay, negligible.
I hope everybody had a wonderful Christmas yesterday!!!!
The article also left out something that I have read about for the last 5-6 years...numerous articles in business magazines have written about how employer's costs of overhead have been increasing over the years (rent, electric, health care, parts, components, etc.), but due to the heavy competitive environment they cannot increase their prices or their competition will eat them alive...in other words, the cost of making their product has been going up, but the retail cost has remained the same due to competitive market pressures...
The question is why can't they raise their price? Is it because all the competition is coming in from a third world country? If so, does the gov't step in to protect our jobs from disappearing? If it is market indifference to the product, then maybe they should try to expand their market by delving into other areas. Let me give a couple examples:
Writing instruments: Most of us get by w/ a 10 cent Bic pen just fine. here in RI, there is a company you may have heard of, AT Cross. Makers of fine writing instruments since 1865. One could say the "Rolls Royce" of writing instruments. Yet, from what I see, an influx of foreign competition, coupled with what one could say as consumer indifference (see my first sentence in the paragraph), they were forced to move ALL manufacturing to China. Now, when I walk into Staples and see Cross pens and pencils ranging in price from $20-60, I can see where this benefits them, as that is about what their competitors charge. Yet, when I walk into a jewelry store and see the higher end products ranging from $40 for the ball point pens to $365 for fountain pens, I can't see how they can justify that price for a Chinese made fountain pen. Yet, if the consumer is THAT indifferent about what they write with, then it probably doesn't matter where they're made, or how much they cost, as VERY few people will pay those prices for a pen.
Cars: We have talked till we're blue in face about it, and rest assured, NOBODY in the US is indifferent about their cars, thats for sure!!! Yet all this talk about union vs. non-union, currency manipulation, gas prices, etc. we all know that a good product will sell, and a lousy one won't. The Malibu and Camry are priced the same (retail), yet the Camry sells better because of Toyota's reputation for quality. It doesn't matter how much they get rapped in the press for being as exciteable as a dishwasher, You get in, and it starts, and you get good coin for it when you trade it in. If the Malibu is as good as the press claims it to be, and fairly reliable, it WILL sell, and sell well regardless of who makes it and how much they make.
Now, in my industry, up here in RI (telecommunications) I find it to be an interesting story. I work for Verizon, the Baby Bell here. We too are union. I make over $30/hr, have fully paid healthcare, dental, and vision. Our chief competition here is Cox cable. Surprisingly, they have about 40% of the local phone market here in RI, FAR more than anywhere in the country. By no means are we a monopoly anymore. Cox can offer discounts and bundle services to make their phone service cheaper because they have their own network. We can't just drop our prices in response, because our service is still regulated by the PUC, and anything we do has to be ok'ed by them. We have begun to roll out a new service, called FiOS, which is fully fiber optic, right to the side of your house. Part of this new service is our own cable television. Where it is available, we offer the same TV, internet and phone service for the same price, $99/mo for all 3, even though our loaded rate is about TWICE what Cox pays it's employees.
So, I ask, if the PRODUCT is the same, and the PRICE is the same, who's getting a raw deal??? The consumer buying the Chinese fountain pen??? The employee who lost his job, yet sees the price remain the same???
Personally, I don't think that union rules matter as much as the quality of the product, the price of the product, and consumer interest in the product.
>Where it is available, we offer the same TV, internet and phone service for the same price, $99/mo for all 3, even though our loaded rate is about TWICE what Cox pays it's employees.
Verizon's technique will be like with every other upgrade to service I've experienced from them through the decades. They'll provide a competitive product in certain areas offering high profit; charge those in other Verizon service areas an increase in fees for their phone service to subsidize their competitive service somewhere else on the premise that higher quality things are coming for you. And then your area is the last that gets anything from Verizon resembling technology up-to-date or high quality service. I know. I've had them for phone service in Ohio.They'll talk about FIOS, FIOS, Fios, and we'll never see it.
So, I ask, if the PRODUCT is the same, and the PRICE is the same, who's getting a raw deal???
I agree. And I can think of no product that this is more exemplified in than Tennis shoes. The Prices keep going up and they are just junk shoes from China. Shoes that should sell for $10 are some times marked up close to $100 or more. I refuse to buy them. My last pair of tennis type shoes were Van's made here in So CA. I bought several pairs when I found out they were closing the factory. I should be good for the rest of my life.
Verizon's technique will be like with every other upgrade to service I've experienced from them through the decades. They'll provide a competitive product in certain areas offering high profit; charge those in other Verizon service areas an increase in fees for their phone service to subsidize their competitive service somewhere else on the premise that higher quality things are coming for you. And then your area is the last that gets anything from Verizon resembling technology up-to-date or high quality service. I know. I've had them for phone service in Ohio.They'll talk about FIOS, FIOS, Fios, and we'll never see it.
While it may be true that you may not see it for awhile, the fact remains that the old copper network is a regulated industry, with profits capped by the PUC (here in RI, it's capped at 12.5%). So, as separate entities, profits from the copper newtork can't subsidize FiOS.
The union comment for Verizon also got me. They have greatly improved their ability to react to customers who stomp their feet over how they did 10 years ago--perhaps like the US auto companies and the UAW.
I wish I had the cites for you, as I have read about this in magazines all over...supposedly, prices could not be raised simply because whichever company raised its prices would be hammered by its competition...
Was this supposition or fact???...I do not know, but in the last year, business mags have been saying just the opposite, that companies can no longer hold off price increases despite competition, and that they were afraid "inflation" would rear its ugly head again...
There is also the factor of status/image of quality vs commodity image...Lexus/Toy/Honda have apparently earned/created an image of quality that the Big 3 only wish they had...so, one can easily charge more if the company has the image that it is "worth it"...it also proves that people often have more disposable income than they admit, simply because they will often pay more if they believe they are getting more...the auto is a case in point...they will pay more for the Lexus because they believe they are getting more, whether it is longevity, quality, reliability, or whatever...
And, whether it is unions or mgmt, it seems that Fords and Chevrolets do not have an image of reliability, quality or whatever...is it fair???...not at all, but I still maintain that the Big 3 squandered any image they ever had of quality in the years 1975-2000 (+ or -) and it is haunting them to this day...
For all those who say that was so long ago most younger buyers would not even know of it, I tend to disagree...folks over 40 either have bought American and had their past problems, or their parents bought American and the child (at the time) witnessed the aggravation their parents had with a GM/Ford or Chrysler...those memories linger today, and the Big 3 are simply reaping what they have sown, for all those years they made crap...
They have to earn our trust, and now they have competition that spent the last 20 years earning our trust while the Big 3 squandered theirs, and some of us simply have long memories...
Folks like me, and I am not alone, place more blame of poor quality on the union workers, and, with those long memories I mentioned, are quite reluctant to believe that the union has gotten the message about their attitude, work habits, and quality control, and the market share of the imports is ample proof of that...
I was reading back issues today and found this quote:
"Brands appeal to the underconfident."
I hesitate to post the article since we get so far afield in here as it is, but maybe you could think about the "UAW" as a brand in similar terms as you think about Ford and GM and the image that those brands convey.
who are of similar mind as me, and have a bad taste of what the UAW hath wrought in the last 25 years, no amount of rebates, ads, or discounts will bring them back...
I also have heard it said that the lousier the product, or the lower the class you appeal to, the louder the screamer ads are on TV...
Listen to the Chevy ads, and then listen to that deep accented voice for the "Lexus December to Remember" ads...it is obvious that Lexus seeks a different customer than the Chevy ads...
I guess that depends on just how much the attitude and work rules actually change...if someone who only installed right front wheels now installs only right and left front wheels, the restrictive work rule problem has not changed at all...if that same person can be sent to anywhere in the plant he/she is needed, and they don't sabotage product with their rotten entitlement attitude, we may see something worth remembering...
if that same person can be sent to anywhere in the plant he/she is needed, and they don't sabotage product with their rotten entitlement attitude
Got a question for you marsha7: Are union members the only group that has this entitlement attitude you speak about ??? I guess I haven't met to many people union and non-union who don't have somewhat of a entitlement attitude. I guess the suits in the ivory towers who are paid multi-million dollar salary's, scheduled bonuses whether or not they succeed or fail don't have entitlement attitudes either.
-Rocky
P.S. I do think you are at least a distant kin to brightness04 :P Speaking of him he hasn't been on in forever. Has anyone seen him ?
Listen to the Chevy ads, and then listen to that deep accented voice for the "Lexus December to Remember" ads...it is obvious that Lexus seeks a different customer than the Chevy ads.
I must say, when I hear the "This is Our Country" truck ads, I feel as though I, an ordinary blue collar American am being spoken to. Those "December to Remember" ads w/ their cutsie bows and perfect snows seem to be talking to a pompous, arrogant person living in Pleasantville. :P
I guess the suits in the ivory towers who are paid multi-million dollar salary's, scheduled bonuses whether or not they succeed or fail don't have entitlement attitudes either
There is a big difference between the management and Union worker. Management can be fired if they don't have their tie straight. It is much more difficult to get rid of a Union member with seniority. Would you rather the Union worker was given raises dependent on their perceived value to the company? Or Union member A getting a bonus because he is liked by management. While Union member B gets nothing because he refused to bow down to the boss. You are somewhat obsessed with how much management makes. That can only be addressed by the guy above them. Is the spread from the top to the bottom getting wider? I would say it is. It started a long time ago and has not decreased in the last 30 years. I think if you research the subject you will find that the gap widened radically during the dot.com bubble. It keeps growing wider.
No, Steve, I was trying to point out that union or no union, the product is what is going to make or break a company's success. If the Big 3 are to turn things around, then cars like the Malibu and Enclave are what's going to do it, and not ridding themselves of the union.
IIRC, Nissan has had some quality issues w/ the vehicles coming out of the Mississsppi (non-union) plant. If that keeps up, Nissan will take a (sales) hit for that, although I don't believe it will be as big a hit if the product is still contemporary and stylish. A products styling and panache are just as important as quality and reliability.
For the record, I have commented previously on the "suits" and I agree with you that they are a problem, too...
But, when the company must cut costs, getting rid of the board of directors would probably run the company for about, oh, 30 minutes...getting rid of 10,000 unneeded line workers, unneeded because of silly restrictive work rules that forced the company to employ six workers to do the work of 2, will save the company billions, make each worker more productive simply by having them do more, and actually improve the worker by making thejm feel more productive, whether they understand it or not...
Also, just from reading your posts, you might have trouble seeing that attitude in workers, simply because you are as biased to the union and their attitude as I am biased against it...I just believe that I see the forest for the trees, and the pro-union folks, IMO, seem to live in deep denial of what the market is telling them...no insult intended, but reading your posts one can come to no other conclusion...
Have you sold any policies yet???
Worker problems, by their sheer numbers, are much larger than mgmt problems, but the your point about the suits is valid...
Nissan has had some quality issues w/ the vehicles coming out of the Mississippi (non-union) plant. If that keeps up,
Yeah, the vehicles coming out of Canton were put together shoddily, at least for the first couple of years. Maybe it was the workers or the new factory, but it definitely hurt Nissan's rep.
My Quest, on the other hand, has a Japanese drivetrain in it (I think) but the components were all assembled by Ford in Ohio in a union plant. I'm pushing 125k on it and it hasn't broken down once, in spite of lousy maintenance on my part. Villagers were made in the same factory btw.
I don't have a problem so much with lower and middle management gagrice, but it's with the top dogs who are making 7 figures a year while they fire, lay-off, close plants, etc. If a union guy does not meet his rate he will be eventually fired. If a executive does not perform he is given a golden parachute. That is the difference !!!
it's with the top dogs who are making 7 figures a year while they fire, lay-off, close plants, etc.
I kind of look at companies like GM as a Monarchy. Not unlike Norway. You have all the princes, princesses, cousins, aunts & uncles living off the people. They have done nothing to deserve their place in the monarchy. Big companies many times operate in a similar fashion. I knew from the time I went to work for Pacific Telephone in 1961 that it was not what you knew, it was who you knew.
The key to a big golden parachute is getting a good attorney to write your contract. Not unlike the UAW contract that guaranteed you would get paid if they did not need you any longer.
Here are a few losers/winners that had good contracts:
Stanley O'Neal, Merril Lynch: $160 million, including more than $129 million in stock and options. O'Neal takes the fall for failing to adequately control the firm's credit and market risks, which resulted in a stunning $8 billion-plus write down in the third quarter.
Philip Purcell, Morgan Stanley: $43.9 million plus $250,000 a year for life after being forced out. He angered a group of shareholders who had already called for a break up of the firm by reorganizing management and promoting some executives who were seen as loyal to him. The dissident shareholders won out.
Richard Grasso, New York Stock Exchange: Took $140 million in deferred compensation and the disclosure of that payment sparked a furor that led to his departure. The pay also provoked an investigation and lawsuits, which are still being worked out. Grasso has vowed to fight.
Douglas Ivester, Coca-Cola: Took $120 million when he stepped down in 2000 in his mid-50s. The departure was deemed a "retirement," but Ivester had presided over a period of stagnant growth, declining earnings and bad publicity.
Robert Nardelli, Home Depot: $210 million. He fixed up the home products retailer using techniques he learned as an executive at General Electric, but by 2006, he was starting to seriously irritate shareholders. The final straw was when he told the board to skip the annual shareholder meeting and prevented shareholders from speaking for more than a few minutes. He was ousted in January 2007.
Bruce Karatz, KB Homes: Gets up to $175 million. The former chief executive of the home building company resigned in November 2006 after an internal investigation into whether he and other executives backdated stock option grants.
Stephen Hilbert, Conseco: Took an estimated $72 million. Hilbert bought GreenTree Financial in 1998, just as the subprime lending business was about to go topsy turvy. The purchase left Conseco, an insurance company, with big write downs and ultimately contributed to its 2001 bankruptcy. The company has since reemerged from reorganization.
My alltime favorite: Michael Ovitz, Disney: $140 million after less than two years on the job. A former big-time Hollywood agent, Ovitz was recruited to Disney to work under Chairman Michael Eisner, but the two couldn't play nice. The pay was disputed in a Delaware court, which decided in 2005 that the board didn't violate its fiduciary duty in awarding that much severance.
Hank McKinnell, Pfizer: $198 million, including $78 million in deferred compensation he built up in 35 years at the pharmaceutical company. Pfizer shares sank 40% on his watch, which ended last year. The company had to cut billions in costs and fire thousands of employees, and said it wouldn't see revenue growth until 2009.
Frank Newman, Bankers Trust: $55 million. A former deputy Treasury secretary, Newman was brought to Bankers Trust to restore confidence after the 1994 derivatives scandal. He made aggressive moves into technology banking and lending (buying boutique Alex. Brown & Sons in 1997). But that push plus a big position in Russian government bonds, put the bank on the brink. Newman left in 1999 after selling the company to Deutsche Bank.
Comments
You, your children and grandchildren are not going to have the same benefits and working conditions that your dad and I have had. We still have a higher overall standard of living than any major country in the World. We have flaunted our good fortune on TV and Movies to every corner of the Earth. What do you expect someone in Mexico, China or India to think when they see that everyone in the US lives like a Movie Star? They want in on the Bonanza. They are envious of US, just like you are envious of the bonuses handed out to management at big companies.
I think what several of us are trying to get across is the Unions in general and the UAW in particular do not make it conducive for the Big 3 to continue manufacturing in this country. You think that giving in on a couple points on a contract should be good enough. It may be only time will tell. You do not like the bonuses given to management. Maybe finding good engineers and management is harder than finding line workers. Then you add state and Federal regulations make it tough for companies to survive in the USA. There are parts of some cars that cannot be built here due to regulations. So we send our pollution to China or elsewhere. Many states have taken the position that CA took a long time ago. If your industry is not squeaky clean we don't want you here. It is going to get worse with all this GHG regulations coming down the line. Auto plants that are operating in Michigan today could be shut down by regulations tomorrow. With computers and robots we have become more productive with less manual labor needed. UAW members have had it better than any other industry with job banks. Those that took advantage and got training while in them are ahead of the game. Those that sat watching cartoons and reading the paper are likely to be left out in the cold.
I believe that IBM was the last major corporation to succumb to the reality that they could not compete being "Made in the USA". They sold their whole PC business to Lenova, a multinational corporation with most of the employees in China. I believe they kept 25% of the employees in NY.
IBM benefits from the deal by getting rid of a business -- PCs -- that defined the company in the 1980s, but later became a drag on profit margins. Over the past decade, IBM has transformed itself into a services and software company, and set its sights clearly on China as a potentially huge market. It has shed disk drives, displays, desktop manufacturing and network processor businesses while adding PricewaterhouseCoopers' services firm PwC Consulting. IBM has also acquired software companies such as Tivoli, Rational and Informix.
You, your children & my children will have to learn to change with the times or end up on the welfare roles. The US still offers many opportunities to live the dream.
In a manner of speaking Rocky, the answer is: "Yes--You Do".
Rocky, no one is mocking you.
Please---don't take offense at what some are trying to get across here.
You really need to really think through and try to better understand causes and effects of what is happening to your world.
What we're seeing in the US manufacturing sector (and affecting the UAW, among others) is due to a variety of issues--and many of these issues are beyond the control of our govts., industry leaders, and unions.
Your view of "elitist manipulation, capitalistic fat cats", etc., or whatever terms you choose as responsible for what's happening is far too narrow and simplistic.
What you suggest are "ruthless and selfish motives" by our bureaucrats and technocrats are in fact reactions to a changing busines and economic climate world wide.
Like it or not,we are faced with a rapidly changing world, and as much as I respect your feelings about perceived wrongs, change is here no matter how strongly you feel about it.
As I said earlier, we are currently faced with major economic challenges--but these can be met because we have the potential to do so.
The most important ingredients in dealing with these challenges are (a) creativity and (b) proactive adaptation, and not just ranting about the "bad guys".
You might consider doing more listening Rocky--one can learn much by doing so.
On another note--I strongly agree with concerns voiced here for future generations.
But not about threats to manufacturing, economics, or the UAW.
Unless the world does something collectively and soon about our deteriorating environment, I fear for the survival of the human race!!
Now, there's something to get VERY concerned about!!
Now, there's something to get VERY concerned about!!
I think the path the World is taking is a precarious one. I don't think the earth has the natural resources to grant 6-10 billion people the standard of living the USA has achieved. The best example is China. They are building a new coal fired generation site every week.
Coal-fired generation accounts for 82 percent of China’s total power supply and has been chronically wasteful and dirty. Smaller and older generators, which are also the most inefficient and polluting, comprise a large share of the total installations. Currently, nearly 30 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power installations are generators of less than 100,000 kilowatts.
According to Li Junhong, a power expert in Nanjing, generators under 50,000 kilowatts consume 200 grams more energy per kilowatt of electricity generated than those above 300,000 kilowatts. China’s larger “ultra-supercritical” thermal power generators, with over 1 million kilowatts of generating capacity, consume roughly 290 grams of coal per kilowatt, while some smaller generators use around 1,000 grams per kilowatt. The coal used to produce only 1 kilowatt of electricity in small plants will generate as many as 2–3 kilowatts in larger ones.
Statistics also reveal that small plants emit 20 times more particulate matter and smog-forming pollutants than larger ones, and three times the sulfur dioxide. In 2006, coal burning was responsible for 90 percent of China’s sulfur dioxide discharges and 70 percent of its emissions of particulate matter and other smog-forming pollutants, according to World Watch magazine.
This is a result of our desire to have it all. We want cheap shoes, toys, electronics and next it will be electric cars. I will go on record saying the bulk of the batteries for any future electric vehicles will come from China or India. That will be the most expensive component in these EVs. The content of the proposed Chevy Volt will be mostly Chinese. The UAW will get to assemble the parts coming in from China.
In a perfect world my country would build all it's stuff here in the U.S. and if any one wants to trade with us it's going to be on our terms and conditions. We would not get involved in any un neccessary world affairs but if you mess with us you better be prepared to give up your land cuz we are conquering it and making it a U.S. territory via use of Neutron Bombs :mad:
We are the only nation on earth who can self support. At one time we really didn't depend on anyone for supply's but now we have given the farm away to others and rely on them to deliver. Like Duncan Hunter, has implied what's going to happen if we are in a war with a opposing country who makes some of our military equipment ???? Do you think they are going to deliver it ????
My mind silverfox, will never be changed. I guess I have morals and can't openly support slavery !!!!
-Rocky
The U.S. pretty much was like that until WWII. We wanted to stay out of the affairs of foreign countries and didn't get involved until we were pretty much dragged into it. Even during WWI wer didn't get involved until pretty late in the war. We could've been dragged into it as early as 1915 with the torpedoing of the Lusitania.
What I'd like to see is that if a company outsources its manufacturing to another country that they can no longer sell their product in the U.S. or they have to pay a hefty import duty to comfortably support all the factory workers it idled for the rest of their lives. I'd make outsourcing so unattractive, no sane manufacturer would dare think of it.
Like I said their are many folks in this country who share our belief lemko. Even a few politcians on both sides of the aisle are talking about this. They are of course not leading in the polls but at least they brought the issue up and like issues up so they can be been talked about.
-Rocky
Life as we know it would change so drastically that even you wouldn't be able to tolerate it!
None of us would be able to support ourselves sufficiently to even sustain the next generations. Their very survival would be at grave risk.
Plus, you both need to crack the history books a bit more re events leading to the US involvement in WWII.
Start with General Motors' operations (plus huge profits) in Germany before--and throughout--the war!!
You might find it enlightening.
The problem is that rocky fails to understand the economics of what he advocates...he wants to bring back the textile industry, unionized of course, and pay shirtmakers $20 and hour, but he expects the shirts to be sold at WalMart for the same $9.00 that they sell the Chinese-made shirts...like most who fail to understand economics, they want the makers to receive high, unionized wages, but expect the product to sell cheap...
That is what caused the textile industry to go overseas to start with...an Arrow or Van Heusen shirt, made with union labor, would cost over $40 or $50, and most folks could only afford one or two...in essence, the average American could not afford to buy enough shirts to keep these companies in business at the high wages they were paying, so they went overseas, pay a dollar and hour, and can sell the shirts for $15, and folks can buy more...
That is the elusive concept that rocky cannot or will not comprehend...he acts as tho no matter what we pay our workers, the American consumer will always buy the same amount of the product...but that is where the inelastic part comes in...it sounds nice to have unionized workers making shirts at $20/hour, but the market, that is you and I, cannot afford to buy 10 shirts if they are $50 each, so we only buy 2...but the factory is churning out shirts nonstop...so, while rocky is pleased to see all those union workers leaving the plant on Friday with their inflated union paychecks, he fails to understand that department stores cannot sell the shirts because they cost too much because the labor is overpriced and the market is speaking...and the market is rarely wrong...
But rocky fails to accept when the market is speaking...he just keeps his head in the sand and tells the union workers to hold out for higher wages, or strike because they have to do 3 job classifications instead on one, as though he is living in the Wizard of OZ (just click your heels and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home")...
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
But you just keep telling everyone that the company is lucky that the workers have "conceded" to alter their job classifications for the good of the company...crap...you almost sound like you believe that, or your brain is truly stuck in the Leave It to Beaver world of the 1950s...
The only way for your world to actually exist is to FORCE the consumer to buy union made shirt at $50 each, and give up all his disposable income to buy 10 shirts for $500 rather than let him decide whether to buy only two shirts and then take his family out to dinner, or Disney world, or whatever...
You cannot raise the cost of something at the factory level (high labor costs) and expect the retail price to remain the same...
Simply put, the textile workers put themselves out of a job, it is THEY who forced the work overseas, simply because it just ain't worth $20 per hour to make cotton shirts...you can argue with ME all you want, but you cannot, and will not, argue with the market...and when sales went in the tank (years ago) because the shirts cost too much because the unskilled labor cost too much, the MARKET spoke and said that something must change, because we will not buy your product at that price...
The market spoke and the textile workers put themselves out of a job by failing to adapt to changing market conditions...
Your wishing it to be so ranks up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...wish all you want, but your daily thinking needs a serious dose of reality...
It is time you brought your head out of the sand...your whining for the good old days of the union are over, and, regardless of management problems (of which there are many), the union screwed itself and is still too damn ignorant or stupid to see what they did to themselves, and they have cheerleaders like you who see thru the same rose colored glasses they do, failing to see the world change right under their noses...
Merry Christmas
I agree with you. Just not sure if we would agree on who the elitists are... Though I am sure they cross the line in the sand to join forces...
To these folks we are speaking of, the middle class are a threat. They are not the capitalists that Rocky seems to detest. They are far above capitalism...Many are Monarchs in their own little world.
silverfox, I consider myself pretty sharp on this subject pal. Hey, I like you a lot but you do not have all the information you need to make a accurate judgement on where I'm going with this. I ask you to read carefully what I have to say and I'll explain why I believe my so-called fantasy world is a realistic proposition if we had people like Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, at the helm along with a like minded congress so it could be 1950 all over again.
You will not find another american who cares about this country's people more than me. I might dislike some of them but they are mine and that is all that matters.
Life as we know it would change so drastically that even you wouldn't be able to tolerate it!
None of us would be able to support ourselves sufficiently to even sustain the next generations. Their very survival would be at grave risk.
I strongly disagree and in my follow up posts I will explain in detail.
Plus, you both need to crack the history books a bit more re events leading to the US involvement in WWII.
Start with General Motors' operations (plus huge profits) in Germany before--and throughout--the war!!
You might find it enlightening.
silverfox, I do know all to well about GM & especially Fords, involvement with [non-permissible content removed] Germany. Ford, actually had positive feelings torward [non-permissible content removed] Germany. What we and the the rest of Europe, did to Germany after WWI, I can understand why the German, people supported Adolf Hitler. If I would of been alive as a poor German citizen with my physical characteristics during that time starving, dead broke, I would of probably intially would of supported The National Socialist German Workers Party, as it would of benefited me.
-Rocky
Well Fintail, you obviously "get it" and understand what I've been trying to say. Why I'm in fear of the future if we keep on this path. You can see the writing on the wall and unless things change your serf 'n elite society will become a reality. To some it has already became a reality as the good paying union job they once had went to China, or Mexico, displacing good folks. :sick:
-Rocky
the PRINCIPLE of moving jobs overseas, and on that principle, I actually agree with rocky's fantasy world...it WOULD be nice for everything that is sold here (USA) to be manufactured here...my problem is that rocky lives from day to day, thinking (and posting here)that if he just wishes hard enough, and the UAW stands firm enough, that all will change to the way it was in the 1950s, when we made it all and we could do no wrong...
Can I do it all by myself ? Of course not but that doesn't mean I should let my beliefs die and be forgotten. Maybe the message will survive and get passed on to a new generation ??? If I can accomplish that then I feel we as a nation have a fighting chance.
The problem is that rocky fails to understand the economics of what he advocates...he wants to bring back the textile industry, unionized of course, and pay shirtmakers $20 and hour, but he expects the shirts to be sold at WalMart for the same $9.00 that they sell the Chinese-made shirts...like most who fail to understand economics, they want the makers to receive high, unionized wages, but expect the product to sell cheap...
That is the elusive concept that rocky cannot or will not comprehend...he acts as tho no matter what we pay our workers, the American consumer will always buy the same amount of the product...but that is where the inelastic part comes in...it sounds nice to have unionized workers making shirts at $20/hour, but the market, that is you and I, cannot afford to buy 10 shirts if they are $50 each, so we only buy 2...but the factory is churning out shirts nonstop...so, while rocky is pleased to see all those union workers leaving the plant on Friday with their inflated union paychecks, he fails to understand that department stores cannot sell the shirts because they cost too much because the labor is overpriced and the market is speaking...and the market is rarely wrong...
Alright buddy I'm going to hit you hard !!!!! I never once said I thought we could sell items as cheap as they are now but with automation it takes less people to make "things" than it did in the 1950's thus making it very cost effective to do business here in the U.S. if we would rid ourselves from 3rd world slave labor and the un free market.
Perhaps this will help you understand ? Let's say imidazol97, is UAW member working at Delphi Corp, building "roller lifters" for GM, making $27.50 bucks an hour. That is $1,100 a week. Let's say Lemko, is a union member working a Levi Strauss, in Philly making $20 bucks an hour throwing togeather quality 505 Blue Jeans at $35 dollars a pair. Imidazol97, is going to buy those union made blue jeans and lemko, is going to buy that GM, car with Delphi, parts in it. So they both are going to benefit. Yeah the car cost alot more than the blue jeans but it also takes far less people to manufactor a pair of blue jeans and while they might not cost as much imidazol97, is going to buy many pairs for his kids, himself, his wife, not to mention matching shirts.
I know that was a rough explanation of my point but I like to think of the economy like the "life cycle" diagram we saw in school. I buy from you, you buy from me, my neighbor buys from me and you, we both buy from our neighbor. Get it ? This was sort of the way it was in the 1950's.
I blame the monopolist powers "elites" for not enforcing our anti-trust laws making it virtually impossible for new company's (small business) to form and compete internally. If Studebaker, Packard, etc, would of been allowed to survive we might of had enough internal competition to bring outbetter products. The problem was the Big 3 squashed everybody else and had enough clout politically to keep others from joining the ranks. Again that is a political issue that could of been solved. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volvo, etc, paid it's union workers very well and they didn't have a currency advantage on us so they are not as responsible for the damage we see today. However they did tariff our goods and that same "duty" should of been applied to their imports. What we should of done was tariff the hell out of the japanese imports to make up the difference in currency manipulation plus added anadditional "duty" like they used on our stuff and put up the same trade barriers as they did to our stuff. There are plenty of articles on this "subject" dating back to the 60's and 70's. The bottom line is Japan, made it virtually impossible for american manufactors to do business in their country. We did nothing about it and stillour doing nothing about it. :sick: Bill Clinton, with pressure from the UAW, threaten to impose a 100% tariff on all Japanese imports the right-wing pseudo-capitalist called Bill Clinton, a commie, a protectionist, isolationist, and he finally caved in because so many americans thought "Free Trade" was the "vehicle" to job creation and it was for the short-term. Ross Perot, said we would create a lot of new jobs over a 10-20 year period and then a manufactoring collapse of good jobs going over sea's, or being replaced by lower wages, would happen which we have been seeing.....
con't............
'm not saying we shouldn't trade with other country's but at the very least lets protect us first !!!! If we can come to a compromise and they have human rights, real livable wages, etc, then I'm all for trade. That is one reason why I'm not so against doing business with Europe and Canada, because they have a similar standards of living and trading does build repore, and relationships.
I do hope you understand where I'm coming from in my beliefs. This is the way I want the world to be. I might not ever experience a reality like this in my lifetime but I do not think I'm wrong at all for having faith we can someday experience my dream and every U.S. citizen can have a great job whether it be union in some manufactoring plant, or as a professional white collar suit in a ivory tower. :shades:
-Rocky
I'm not stuck in the "Leave it to Beaver" world but that was not such a bad era as far as business ethics go.
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
If that was the case then all ofour high payingmanufactoring jobs would be gone. the simple fact is that 26% of our economy is still made up of manufactoring jobs and not all of them are low paying ones. The reason why many of them are able to compete is their competition is still doing business here in this country and building there goods here.
-Rocky
I understand that business exist to make a profit and that is fine but it's the greed and corruption that exists at the top is where I have a problem. My father busted his butt for GM & Delphi. He had a lot of responsibility and often didn't get his lunch break because the machinery broke down and he had to fix it to keep production going. I'm just saying people use to have to work hard but not to the point where they are ergonomically killing themselves. Why do you think the UAW, finally supported working in small groups to do multiple jobs ??? It was proven to reduce injury's. However at the Lansing, MI. Delta plant the injury rate is very high because the workers are being over worked. The UAW, is fighting GM, trying to protect it's workers. This was the one principle that unions were formed on and that was working conditions and with the high injury rate at that plant has resulted in a lot of people being put on medical to recover from work injury's. Something will have to be done.
But you just keep telling everyone that the company is lucky that the workers have "conceded" to alter their job classifications for the good of the company...crap...you almost sound like you believe that, or your brain is truly stuck in the Leave It to Beaver world of the 1950s...
I'm not stuck in the "Leave it to Beaver" world but that was not such a bad era as far as business ethics go.
rocky, you seem like a great guy, and I wish you well in your new job, but your failure to understand simple economics amuses me...you fail to understand that the cost to make something will have an absolute effect on the unit's final retail cost, and one of the biggest costs of making anything is labor...when that labor makes the unit cost more than another consumer (or millions of "another consumer") is willing to pay, either the plant finds a way to cut costs or it goes bankrupt...
If that was the case then all ofour high payingmanufactoring jobs would be gone. the simple fact is that 26% of our economy is still made up of manufactoring jobs and not all of them are low paying ones. The reason why many of them are able to compete is their competition is still doing business here in this country and building there goods here.
The only way for your world to actually exist is to FORCE the consumer to buy union made shirt at $50 each, and give up all his disposable income to buy 10 shirts for $500 rather than let him decide whether to buy only two shirts and then take his family out to dinner, or Disney world, or whatever...
You cannot raise the cost of something at the factory level (high labor costs) and expect the retail price to remain the same...
As I said automation is the tool that has changed that. The shirts might cost a buck or two more but is it not worth it ??? For god sakes the Sean John brand is charging $70 bucks for a shirt made in Malaysia. If you have checked out union made clothing sites their shirts are not $50 bucks a piece. I think you are using severly artificially high numbers to try to prove your point but I know the difference because I have baught union made clothes on several occassions from Nemesis and King Louie and they are alot cheaper in price than the brands I saw in the mall a couple days ago Christmas Shopping.
Simply put, the textile workers put themselves out of a job, it is THEY who forced the work overseas, simply because it just ain't worth $20 per hour to make cotton shirts...you can argue with ME all you want, but you cannot, and will not, argue with the market...and when sales went in the tank (years ago) because the shirts cost too much because the unskilled labor cost too much, the MARKET spoke and said that something must change, because we will not buy your product at that price...
The market spoke and the textile workers put themselves out of a job by failing to adapt to changing market conditions...
The market did not speak. The only difference now is the company that made $1 billion yesterday has made $1.25 billion moving shop over sea's. In most cases the products did not get cheaper. A pair of Levi's that cost $30 bucks a pair made by union workers in the U.S. still costs $30 bucks made in Mexico.
Nice Try !!!! :P
con't.........
I don't need a dose of reality. Why do you keep on saying that ??? I told you I know the un free market, and pseudo-capitalism, is reality and the unions are weak, and the working people have virtually lost all there rights. I'm living it first hand. I have realatives who have lost their good paying union jobs to over sea's slaves. I hope we have this finally settled. I can't be any more clear.
It is time you brought your head out of the sand...your whining for the good old days of the union are over, and, regardless of management problems (of which there are many), the union screwed itself and is still too damn ignorant or stupid to see what they did to themselves, and they have cheerleaders like you who see thru the same rose colored glasses they do, failing to see the world change right under their noses...
Hey I would apologize but then I would be conceading my beliefs are wrong and that is something I will not do. I suppose if you aren't one of those greedy suits I spoke about you should really have nothing to be offended about.
-Rocky
P.S. You and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well.
I know but many folks believed it would create high paying jobs also. :confuse:
-Rocky
I don't think you will find many Americans that want to return the 1950. Again you are looking at this whole trade issue through a very narrow scope. Automotive was one of the last things to fall to foreign MFGs. How about the wealth of the Kennedy's. The old man smuggled millions of dollars worth of Irish Whiskey into the US. Was that not foreign made taking jobs away from US citizens. Old man Joe made enough money that 3 generations have not had to work a lick. I think that fortune was about $400,000,000 when JFK was elected. The eltists that are threatening the Middle class are the old money people that have their fortunes tucked away in offshore accounts. They do not need to have widgets built in China to make money. The leading money man in the Democratic Party is George Soros. What has he manufactured in the USA with American Labor. I can tell you, NOTHING. He makes his billions exploiting the old Soviet bloc countries. He manipulates currencies with NO regard for the people he will destroy.
You said that Buick and several other GM cars were built with 75% or more USA content. I would like to know which vehicles are Really 100% Made in the USA. I do not think any are.
It was probably a great era, but it seems like you persist in living in it, and it just does not seem feasible...
As afr as the shirt numbers, none of them are actual numbers, I was just trying to make a point...and, as long as the workers are paid more than buyers will pay for the shirt, that is the economics that is undeniable...regardless of automation...
The robots they use to make cars have mostly displaced some of the most dangerous jobs that cause the most serious work injuries, eyt labor still makes up a large part of the cost of the automobile...
I truly question whether we could simply shut our doors to the outside world and live on our own...we may have various resources, but do we have enough for the 300 million people we now have???
Bob, check this out. While it is ONLY 1 article, I think this is where our workplace frustrations come from.
Awhile back, you posted this:
your statement alone reveals that you mistakenly think business exists to create jobs, rather than the true reality, business exists to create profit for the owners or shareholders
While that statement may be true, the fact remains that the byproduct of a successful business are JOBS, as no entrepeneur can be successful without help to get their product/service to market.
Where are visions seem to differ is the amount of respect that is given to either side of the equation.
All these arguments and the argumentative examples given on both sides of the UAW are just a micrcosom of the entire US economic spectrum. For example, your argument about the $50 union made shirt would be correct, ONLY if that were the only thing to change. But in reality, you added a whole group of $20/hr garment workers to the equation, workers that would spend their US dollars in the US. By spending the $500 instead of $90 on those shirts, you would have to raise prices on your products to give yourself a raise to afford those shirts.
Another faullt in that argument is that you are adding a $50 shirt to the economy, and comparing it to the $9 Honduran equivalent, as opposed to showing that shirt costing $17, 25 yrs ago when the garment worker made $7/hr, and having been a part of the equation all along.
Again, just a microcosom of the entire US economy that I believe, while chugging along, is suffering from some VERY uncomfortable gas pains of a "world economy".
Obviously, when I used my shirt example, momentarily I must assume that it is the only thing to change, otherwise every post would truly be a dissertation...
The article you link is interesting, but I think it misses an important point..."What explains the weak and unequal wage results?
Changes in real compensation result from a broad set of factors, including:
• workers' bargaining power, which is closely related to the tightness of the job market and the strength of unions and other labor market institutions, including the minimum wage;
• changes in the rate of inflation;
• the cost of fringe benefits, including health care; and
• productivity growth."
Health care IS an important factor...when the premium for a family goes from $5K yearly to $7K yearly, if the employer pays it all, then each employee just received a $2,000 wage increase, even tho no one saw another dime...we know this much...THE EMPLOYER'S COST OF EACH EMPLOYEE JUST WENT UP BY $2000 YEARLY WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE SAW ANY MONEY OR NOT...so, overhead went up but each employee IGNORANTLY states to his friends that his cheap boss didn't give anyone a raise this year, which is why employees can often be quite stupid at times...
The article also left out something that I have read about for the last 5-6 years...numerous articles in business magazines have written about how employer's costs of overhead have been increasing over the years (rent, electric, health care, parts, components, etc.), but due to the heavy competitive environment they cannot increase their prices or their competition will eat them alive...in other words, the cost of making their product has been going up, but the retail cost has remained the same due to competitive market pressures...
Well, if the costs are going up but prices are not, it means that profits are also not rising...and, if wages are going to rise, where is the money supposed to come from...the owner's back pocket???...wages can only stagnate because there may not be enough money to go around...
And, as far as productivity is concerned, I am sure you have walked into various business establishments and see employees standing around doing nothing...if productivity is increasing I would be surprised indeed...
I believe productivity is defined as "units made per worker hour" or something like that...when you talk about union restrictive work rules or even nonunion work rules, do you really believe that workers are working more and making more???...and, even if they are, isn't it simply possible that the "increased" productivity is what allowed the company to stay in business, offsetting the increased overhead in the other areas...in other words, the business would have shut down due to increased overhead but for the workers who could have made more product in the same time frame???
And, if true, while in a perfect world the workers might share in the profit, amybe there was no extra profit, as it was consumed by the other overhead...and, while someone like rocky would say that the workers deserve more money, another view is that by increasing productivity the workers simply guaranteed their continuing employment, rather than watch half of them being laid off due to lower profits from increased overhead...
Productivity is only one frame of the movie...if all other costs go up but you cannot raise your selling price, either the workers make more widgets to make up the difference, or workers are laid off to make up the difference...either way, the worker is lucky to have the job because
whenall other things are equal, the first item to go is the worker, because the power bill won't change and the cost of materials goes up, but labor cost can be cut by dumping workers...
If it comes to survivability of the company, the worker is the least important factor in the equation...bonuses are sweet and nice, but if the money isn't there, screaming that workers deserve a bonus is worthless, when they are lucky to have the job to start with...
Hence, a business is created for the purpose of profit, and only profit...job creation is a nice side benefit, but no one ever started a company to create jobs for their fellow man, they started the company to put money in THEIR pocket, and that is what capitalism is, anything else is simply mouthing Karl Marx...
Productivity is defined is defined in many ways. One of the most commonly used is Output per Hour. The US ranks highly internationally, exceeded only by Korea, Taiwan and Sweden (highly unionized).
However the rate of increase in this output is starting to lag behind behind. Korea, Taiwan, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway and the UK have rates of increase in productivity that exceed ours. They are also not far behind in total productivity per man-hour.
link title
All this is simply to suggest that the presence of unions does not bear much relationship to productivity or the potential of productivity.
In fact there is numerous data suggesting that 'happy' workers are more productive. However frustrating union work rules may be to those on the ownership side, they form a useful function in allowing a more level playing field in the relationship between ownership and labor. Without unions, ownership would be able to fire at will and keep wages for everyone (except themselves) as low as possible. That is not a recipe for a productive work-force.
Lets not forget also that when we talk about 'ownership', that is frequently not the heroic small-businessman. It is frequently a governing board paid handsomely to lunch with an executive board whose income has risen to more than 300 times that of the average working man or woman in the country.
It is a rare business these days that is truly led by an inventive/ extraordinarily bright/ far-sighted individual. Capital is the main qualifier for success now.
On this, I have posted before, and I do agree with you that many of our large corporations are no longer led by the "brilliant entrepreneur" (Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) that founded the company way back when...and, executive boards are a problem unto themselves...
But many smaller businesses are run and controlled by the person who founded it...
Also, an independent point...for all the complaining about executive pay, if you reduced all executive pay by 90%, you would not save enough money to do anything, except make a point...only the reduction of the labor force will achieve actual gains in reducing the cost structure of most businesses...after all, if every Ford exec was only paid $1.00 per year, Ford would still be closing plants, laying off workers due to poor product demand, and borrowing $23 billion to keep the company afloat...doing away with mgmt salaries would not have changed that one iota, because ecex salaries are simply a drop in the bucket in the mega-corps...
Thanks for the definition(s) of productivity, BTW...
I agree.
However at the same time that jobs are out sourced, eliminated, hours increased or (conversely) plants closed, making that point could be a valuable effort. I believe that part of what inflames the ownership / worker relationship is the perception that while the survival of 'the company' requires sacrifice for the workers, that sacrifice is not only not asked of the executive level but so many struggling companies in fact spend more to hire a 'big gun'. That big gun may or may not be a smart guy, but who among us would disagree that it is a rare company that is so poor in its hiring that someone from within the ranks cannot be promoted? It seems almost as if there is a small group who simply recycle themselves through different companies.
Finally, small businesses are virtually never unionized. The impact of unions on small business is, like the impact of reducing executive pay, negligible.
The article also left out something that I have read about for the last 5-6 years...numerous articles in business magazines have written about how employer's costs of overhead have been increasing over the years (rent, electric, health care, parts, components, etc.), but due to the heavy competitive environment they cannot increase their prices or their competition will eat them alive...in other words, the cost of making their product has been going up, but the retail cost has remained the same due to competitive market pressures...
The question is why can't they raise their price? Is it because all the competition is coming in from a third world country? If so, does the gov't step in to protect our jobs from disappearing? If it is market indifference to the product, then maybe they should try to expand their market by delving into other areas. Let me give a couple examples:
Writing instruments:
Most of us get by w/ a 10 cent Bic pen just fine. here in RI, there is a company you may have heard of, AT Cross. Makers of fine writing instruments since 1865. One could say the "Rolls Royce" of writing instruments. Yet, from what I see, an influx of foreign competition, coupled with what one could say as consumer indifference (see my first sentence in the paragraph), they were forced to move ALL manufacturing to China. Now, when I walk into Staples and see Cross pens and pencils ranging in price from $20-60, I can see where this benefits them, as that is about what their competitors charge. Yet, when I walk into a jewelry store and see the higher end products ranging from $40 for the ball point pens to $365 for fountain pens, I can't see how they can justify that price for a Chinese made fountain pen. Yet, if the consumer is THAT indifferent about what they write with, then it probably doesn't matter where they're made, or how much they cost, as VERY few people will pay those prices for a pen.
Cars:
We have talked till we're blue in face about it, and rest assured, NOBODY in the US is indifferent about their cars, thats for sure!!! Yet all this talk about union vs. non-union, currency manipulation, gas prices, etc. we all know that a good product will sell, and a lousy one won't.
The Malibu and Camry are priced the same (retail), yet the Camry sells better because of Toyota's reputation for quality. It doesn't matter how much they get rapped in the press for being as exciteable as a dishwasher, You get in, and it starts, and you get good coin for it when you trade it in. If the Malibu is as good as the press claims it to be, and fairly reliable, it WILL sell, and sell well regardless of who makes it and how much they make.
Now, in my industry, up here in RI (telecommunications) I find it to be an interesting story. I work for Verizon, the Baby Bell here. We too are union. I make over $30/hr, have fully paid healthcare, dental, and vision. Our chief competition here is Cox cable. Surprisingly, they have about 40% of the local phone market here in RI, FAR more than anywhere in the country. By no means are we a monopoly anymore. Cox can offer discounts and bundle services to make their phone service cheaper because they have their own network. We can't just drop our prices in response, because our service is still regulated by the PUC, and anything we do has to be ok'ed by them. We have begun to roll out a new service, called FiOS, which is fully fiber optic, right to the side of your house. Part of this new service is our own cable television. Where it is available, we offer the same TV, internet and phone service for the same price, $99/mo for all 3, even though our loaded rate is about TWICE what Cox pays it's employees.
So, I ask, if the PRODUCT is the same, and the PRICE is the same, who's getting a raw deal??? The consumer buying the Chinese fountain pen??? The employee who lost his job, yet sees the price remain the same???
Personally, I don't think that union rules matter as much as the quality of the product, the price of the product, and consumer interest in the product.
Verizon's technique will be like with every other upgrade to service I've experienced from them through the decades. They'll provide a competitive product in certain areas offering high profit; charge those in other Verizon service areas an increase in fees for their phone service to subsidize their competitive service somewhere else on the premise that higher quality things are coming for you. And then your area is the last that gets anything from Verizon resembling technology up-to-date or high quality service. I know. I've had them for phone service in Ohio.They'll talk about FIOS, FIOS, Fios, and we'll never see it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I agree. And I can think of no product that this is more exemplified in than Tennis shoes. The Prices keep going up and they are just junk shoes from China. Shoes that should sell for $10 are some times marked up close to $100 or more. I refuse to buy them. My last pair of tennis type shoes were Van's made here in So CA. I bought several pairs when I found out they were closing the factory. I should be good for the rest of my life.
While it may be true that you may not see it for awhile, the fact remains that the old copper network is a regulated industry, with profits capped by the PUC (here in RI, it's capped at 12.5%). So, as separate entities, profits from the copper newtork can't subsidize FiOS.
Just trying to connect this to the UAW - let me guess, having a union will "cap" your company's profits? :shades:
There, it is connected for me at least.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Was this supposition or fact???...I do not know, but in the last year, business mags have been saying just the opposite, that companies can no longer hold off price increases despite competition, and that they were afraid "inflation" would rear its ugly head again...
There is also the factor of status/image of quality vs commodity image...Lexus/Toy/Honda have apparently earned/created an image of quality that the Big 3 only wish they had...so, one can easily charge more if the company has the image that it is "worth it"...it also proves that people often have more disposable income than they admit, simply because they will often pay more if they believe they are getting more...the auto is a case in point...they will pay more for the Lexus because they believe they are getting more, whether it is longevity, quality, reliability, or whatever...
And, whether it is unions or mgmt, it seems that Fords and Chevrolets do not have an image of reliability, quality or whatever...is it fair???...not at all, but I still maintain that the Big 3 squandered any image they ever had of quality in the years 1975-2000 (+ or -) and it is haunting them to this day...
For all those who say that was so long ago most younger buyers would not even know of it, I tend to disagree...folks over 40 either have bought American and had their past problems, or their parents bought American and the child (at the time) witnessed the aggravation their parents had with a GM/Ford or Chrysler...those memories linger today, and the Big 3 are simply reaping what they have sown, for all those years they made crap...
They have to earn our trust, and now they have competition that spent the last 20 years earning our trust while the Big 3 squandered theirs, and some of us simply have long memories...
Folks like me, and I am not alone, place more blame of poor quality on the union workers, and, with those long memories I mentioned, are quite reluctant to believe that the union has gotten the message about their attitude, work habits, and quality control, and the market share of the imports is ample proof of that...
"Brands appeal to the underconfident."
I hesitate to post the article since we get so far afield in here as it is, but maybe you could think about the "UAW" as a brand in similar terms as you think about Ford and GM and the image that those brands convey.
I also have heard it said that the lousier the product, or the lower the class you appeal to, the louder the screamer ads are on TV...
Listen to the Chevy ads, and then listen to that deep accented voice for the "Lexus December to Remember" ads...it is obvious that Lexus seeks a different customer than the Chevy ads...
Which Way Is Up?
-Rocky
Got a question for you marsha7: Are union members the only group that has this entitlement attitude you speak about ??? I guess I haven't met to many people union and non-union who don't have somewhat of a entitlement attitude. I guess the suits in the ivory towers who are paid multi-million dollar salary's, scheduled bonuses whether or not they succeed or fail don't have entitlement attitudes either.
-Rocky
P.S. I do think you are at least a distant kin to brightness04 :P Speaking of him he hasn't been on in forever. Has anyone seen him ?
I must say, when I hear the "This is Our Country" truck ads, I feel as though I, an ordinary blue collar American am being spoken to. Those "December to Remember" ads w/ their cutsie bows and perfect snows seem to be talking to a pompous, arrogant person living in Pleasantville. :P
There is a big difference between the management and Union worker. Management can be fired if they don't have their tie straight. It is much more difficult to get rid of a Union member with seniority. Would you rather the Union worker was given raises dependent on their perceived value to the company? Or Union member A getting a bonus because he is liked by management. While Union member B gets nothing because he refused to bow down to the boss. You are somewhat obsessed with how much management makes. That can only be addressed by the guy above them. Is the spread from the top to the bottom getting wider? I would say it is. It started a long time ago and has not decreased in the last 30 years. I think if you research the subject you will find that the gap widened radically during the dot.com bubble. It keeps growing wider.
IIRC, Nissan has had some quality issues w/ the vehicles coming out of the Mississsppi (non-union) plant. If that keeps up, Nissan will take a (sales) hit for that, although I don't believe it will be as big a hit if the product is still contemporary and stylish. A products styling and panache are just as important as quality and reliability.
But, when the company must cut costs, getting rid of the board of directors would probably run the company for about, oh, 30 minutes...getting rid of 10,000 unneeded line workers, unneeded because of silly restrictive work rules that forced the company to employ six workers to do the work of 2, will save the company billions, make each worker more productive simply by having them do more, and actually improve the worker by making thejm feel more productive, whether they understand it or not...
Also, just from reading your posts, you might have trouble seeing that attitude in workers, simply because you are as biased to the union and their attitude as I am biased against it...I just believe that I see the forest for the trees, and the pro-union folks, IMO, seem to live in deep denial of what the market is telling them...no insult intended, but reading your posts one can come to no other conclusion...
Have you sold any policies yet???
Worker problems, by their sheer numbers, are much larger than mgmt problems, but the your point about the suits is valid...
Yeah, the vehicles coming out of Canton were put together shoddily, at least for the first couple of years. Maybe it was the workers or the new factory, but it definitely hurt Nissan's rep.
My Quest, on the other hand, has a Japanese drivetrain in it (I think) but the components were all assembled by Ford in Ohio in a union plant. I'm pushing 125k on it and it hasn't broken down once, in spite of lousy maintenance on my part. Villagers were made in the same factory btw.
-Rocky
-Rocky
I kind of look at companies like GM as a Monarchy. Not unlike Norway. You have all the princes, princesses, cousins, aunts & uncles living off the people. They have done nothing to deserve their place in the monarchy. Big companies many times operate in a similar fashion. I knew from the time I went to work for Pacific Telephone in 1961 that it was not what you knew, it was who you knew.
The key to a big golden parachute is getting a good attorney to write your contract. Not unlike the UAW contract that guaranteed you would get paid if they did not need you any longer.
Here are a few losers/winners that had good contracts:
Stanley O'Neal, Merril Lynch: $160 million, including more than $129 million in stock and options. O'Neal takes the fall for failing to adequately control the firm's credit and market risks, which resulted in a stunning $8 billion-plus write down in the third quarter.
Philip Purcell, Morgan Stanley: $43.9 million plus $250,000 a year for life after being forced out. He angered a group of shareholders who had already called for a break up of the firm by reorganizing management and promoting some executives who were seen as loyal to him. The dissident shareholders won out.
Richard Grasso, New York Stock Exchange: Took $140 million in deferred compensation and the disclosure of that payment sparked a furor that led to his departure. The pay also provoked an investigation and lawsuits, which are still being worked out. Grasso has vowed to fight.
Douglas Ivester, Coca-Cola: Took $120 million when he stepped down in 2000 in his mid-50s. The departure was deemed a "retirement," but Ivester had presided over a period of stagnant growth, declining earnings and bad publicity.
Robert Nardelli, Home Depot: $210 million. He fixed up the home products retailer using techniques he learned as an executive at General Electric, but by 2006, he was starting to seriously irritate shareholders. The final straw was when he told the board to skip the annual shareholder meeting and prevented shareholders from speaking for more than a few minutes. He was ousted in January 2007.
Bruce Karatz, KB Homes: Gets up to $175 million. The former chief executive of the home building company resigned in November 2006 after an internal investigation into whether he and other executives backdated stock option grants.
Stephen Hilbert, Conseco: Took an estimated $72 million. Hilbert bought GreenTree Financial in 1998, just as the subprime lending business was about to go topsy turvy. The purchase left Conseco, an insurance company, with big write downs and ultimately contributed to its 2001 bankruptcy. The company has since reemerged from reorganization.
My alltime favorite:
Michael Ovitz, Disney: $140 million after less than two years on the job. A former big-time Hollywood agent, Ovitz was recruited to Disney to work under Chairman Michael Eisner, but the two couldn't play nice. The pay was disputed in a Delaware court, which decided in 2005 that the board didn't violate its fiduciary duty in awarding that much severance.
Hank McKinnell, Pfizer: $198 million, including $78 million in deferred compensation he built up in 35 years at the pharmaceutical company. Pfizer shares sank 40% on his watch, which ended last year. The company had to cut billions in costs and fire thousands of employees, and said it wouldn't see revenue growth until 2009.
Frank Newman, Bankers Trust: $55 million. A former deputy Treasury secretary, Newman was brought to Bankers Trust to restore confidence after the 1994 derivatives scandal. He made aggressive moves into technology banking and lending (buying boutique Alex. Brown & Sons in 1997). But that push plus a big position in Russian government bonds, put the bank on the brink. Newman left in 1999 after selling the company to Deutsche Bank.