← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jay
Thread ID: 3865 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2002-12-05
2002-12-05 17:35 | User Profile
Devil's advocate here. I am not so hot about Buchananite support for unions - even tho my grandfather benefited from them at GM. Like most things, they start off well but become corrupt. $100K dockworkers going on strike last month? Insulting. Anyway, here is an article about US manufacturing. Is it really as bad as Buchanan and some of you OD'ers think? -Jay
[url=http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,370295,00.html]http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/...,370295,00.html[/url]
The Big Myth About U.S. Manufacturing Imports are pouring in, and 'everybody knows' that a service-oriented America is retreating from manufacturing. The reality: By a wide margin the U.S. is still the world's No. 1 industrial superpower.
FORTUNE Monday, October 29, 2001 By Philip Siekman, Laurie Windham
It's like one of those tales you heard from your brother who got it from his friend whose wife's college roommate actually knew the sister of a guy who was on the elevator. In this case, the story is that the U.S. has abandoned manufacturing; making things isn't what we do anymore.
What's surprising is how many people believe this--union leaders, politicians, even the occasional business journalist. "Making things is out of fashion," said a front-page column in the Wall Street Journal not long ago. "Everyone...seems to be ditching factories." According to these people, the U.S. is a service economy. So it's obvious that manufacturing has been dwindling. Look at all those fleeing companies putting up factories in China and Mexico, where they pay $1 an hour or less for labor and then ship products back here. Hasn't this thrown millions of American factory workers out of jobs, forcing them to become hamburger flippers?
There's just one problem. The U.S. retreat from manufacturing is as much a myth as the one about alligators in the New York City sewers. Though it may come as a surprise to folks accustomed to seeing deserted, graffiti-sprayed factories from commuter trains in the Northeast and elsewhere, manufacturing output is higher than at any other time in the nation's history. It has also been growing faster than in any other advanced industrial country. And factory workers reduced to hamburger flipping are the rare exception. Manufacturing jobs--better paid than most people realize--are just about as numerous as ever.
It's true that manufacturing's relative share of the economy may be declining, though economists are wont to battle over this point. It depends on which of two calculations is used to measure trends in the contribution of various sectors to the gross domestic product, or GDP. Both come from the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). By one measurement, based on each year's "current prices" for each sector, manufacturing accounted for 16.4% of the GDP in 1998, the latest year for which the calculation has been made. That's a decline from 18.7% in 1987 and 26.9% in 1947.
The story is different, however, if the trend is measured in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. Economists like Mickey Levy, chief economist at Banc of America Securities, believe that the BEA's constant-dollar data "are probably more accurate than current-dollar numbers in telling you manufacturing's contribution to real output." These show that manufacturing's share of the GDP, in constant 1996 dollars, has held steady since 1977--17.4% back then, 17.1% in 1998. The BEA has not done a constant-dollar calculation for the years before 1977, but some economists believe that manufacturing's share has declined little if at all since the late 1940s.
What really counts is that U.S. manufacturing, which contributed a staggering $1.43 trillion to GDP in 1998, is huge in absolute terms. It has been growing at a fast clip, especially since 1992, when the economy shook off the post-Desert Storm blues. From 1992 to 1999, in a period when the economy as a whole grew by 29%, the Federal Reserve's index of manufacturing output climbed 42%. In the same period, durable goods production--which includes tough-to-make high-ticket stuff such as computer equipment and motor vehicles--was up by an even greater 73%.
Not bad for a supposedly postindustrial society.
For sheer size and steep growth, no other country comes close to the U.S. in manufacturing. International comparisons are tricky because of different definitions and adjustments in currency exchange rates. However, using 1998 figures from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the value of goods manufactured annually by America's 380,000 manufacturing companies is more than 50% greater than what's turned out in Japan and a third larger than the combined output of France, Germany, and the U.K. No major industrial nation has matched the U.S. rise in manufacturing output since the early 1990s.
Manufacturing does employ a declining share of the U.S. working population, but that's not necessarily bad. A country's manufacturing prowess isn't measured by the number of people working in factories. If it were, China and India would be the world's leaders. In 1993, 111 million Americans were employed in non-agricultural jobs, 16% of them in manufacturing. Today the total payroll has grown to 132 million and manufacturing's share has declined to 14%.
That said, factory jobs are not disappearing. After peaking at an all-time high of 21 million people in 1979, U.S. manufacturing employment declined in the '80s, during all the restructuring and leaning down. But since 1991 the total number of men and women on the payrolls of U.S. manufacturing companies has hovered around 18.5 million--a period during which France and Germany lost two million manufacturing jobs. Right now, many American plants are turning down orders because they don't have enough workers.
The U.S. today actually has more manufacturing jobs than the payroll data suggest. Many jobs once included in the total are hiding under services. In the last decade, manufacturing companies have been paring away as much internal service activity as possible. When they haven't shrunk them, they have outsourced plant-maintenance staffs, computer-network support teams, and other services from lawyers to transportation experts. Counted under "manufacturing" when the workers were on the manufacturer's payroll, they're now in some other economic sector. Though they are contributing to the growth of services, it's manufacturing that they are serving........
2002-12-05 22:19 | User Profile
My thanks to Jay for proving that Fortune remains as ignorant of manufacturing now as it was 30 years ago.
The raw numbers here mean nothing if you are aware that US industry is hollowed-out and then some. The Fortune statistics include the infamous "border plants" where temp workers remove made-in-China baubles from crates and place them in plastic baggies to ship to Walmart. Technically, they are indeed "adding value" to the product in economic terms. In point of fact this sort of this only adds to the dangerously dependent situation in durable and consumer goods the US is becoming enmeshed in.
For situations like this Americans are usually practical and follow their instincts. They are right. There is a flood of manufactured goods in America and it's stamped foreign-made, whether it's bedsheets or forklifts. Even amateurs know that "American" plants usually are the last link in the chain of a mostly-foreign assembly process.
BTW, this same article ran 8 years ago in The New Republic* for the benefit of then-president Clinton, with minor changes suiting the moment. The eggheads are not fooling the people much less the engineers. But I love watching them try.
*I believe it was called "America's New Industrial Revolution" or some-such, touting Labor Secretary Robert Reich's asinine notion that robotics was some sort of panecea at the very time we were losing our machine tool industry to the Japanese.
2002-12-06 20:53 | User Profile
I'm perpetually amazed that some people like to bash affirmative action, quotas, aid to Israel, and women's programs.....but then turn around and demand special treatment for union workers.
Isn't that a contradiction? If a black isn't qualified for a position, we all agree he should not get it. It angers us that government orders he be given the job. We hate preferential treatment for minorities. Yet, when Daddy Bush protects $80K steelworkers jobs, that's a good thing?
I'm getting married in May and am starting a family at that time. I have no job, but am educated, responsible, and hard-working. If I struggle while I read more about the $100K dockworkers going on STRIKE, I'll be very angry.
[url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=19&ItemID=2204]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=19&ItemID=2204[/url]
Think about it.
-Jay
2002-12-06 21:21 | User Profile
Jay,
Like everything else in life and politics, there aren't many blanket rules. Only the libertarians and marxists try to fashion a world based on pure ideology. In stark contrast, conservatism fashions it's ideology from the real world. There was a time in our history where unions were very necessary as a counter to greedy capitalism run amok. I will agree with you that there is no place for federal employee unions or anyone else on a government payroll. But looking over some of the current fights over trade and industry, I find myself siding more and more with union rank and file, whether it be an open border with Mexico and Mexican trucks on U.S. highways or NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. Plus, blue collar folks are a natural constituency for political social conservatives. So all this to say I wouldn't outright dismiss unions or their membership. Instead sing the praises of our vaunted freedom to associate!
2002-12-07 16:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 6 2002, 15:21 Plus, blue collar folks are a natural constituency for political social conservatives. So all this to say I wouldn't outright dismiss unions or their membership.
TD:
I myself struggle with the issue of unions. Again, my grandfather benefited from them. But I cannot accept double standards. "My job is guaranteed, but screw you guys."
But I don't necessarily agree they share our conservative slant. I've talked with many of them, and all they care about is their paycheck. Honestly, that's it. THey think people with money have "stolen" it, and they actually tell each other not to work harder b/c it raises worker expectations.
Finally, if they were so 'conservative', why do they vote so heavily DEM? That should prove to you they only care about their jobs. They couldn't give two shits about conservatism, immigration, or abortion. Like blacks, they may be nomially conservative but that's not their overriding goal.
-J
2002-12-07 18:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Dec 7 2002, 16:48 **
Finally, if they were so 'conservative', why do they vote so heavily DEM?**
Do you mean public unions here? God, the trades were all Wallace men when I came on (the statistics bear me out -- George Wallace got 600k votes in Ohio in 1968, coming heavily from places like the Youngstown & Akron area which were all steel and rubber workers.)
The fact that industrial workers are conservative I've seen close up too often. When I was in business in the 80s I took a night job at a non-union foundry because I needed experience with aluminum molds, which is what they made. There was zero difference between these fellows and their union counterparts up the road except that the union guys were more pro-Reagan, which makes me laugh to this day.
Public unions were created by the Democrats, which is why they will always be in the same sack. The trades and industrials are lots different; John L. Lewis even told the AFL-CIO to back Republicans.
2002-12-07 19:39 | User Profile
Ragnar: Union voters are 60-40 DEM voters. Not just civil servant unions. Union voters detroyed Bush's campaign in 2000 by turning out in droves to deliver PA, WI, IL, and MI to Gore. The AFL-CIO puts in $50M/cycle to defeat the GOP.
I'm not a GOP voter anymore, but I damn sure prefer them over the DEMS. Unionites care about their jobs. They do not care about low prices for the rest of us. And if you disagree with them, they'll punch you in the face. (My friend's dad gets angry, red-faced when you argue against unions)
-Jay
2002-12-07 20:51 | User Profile
Jay,
The people you know are evidently not like the people I know. Statistics are misleading and there's room for practically all the trades in that 40%. And what choice has the AFL-CIO got? The GOP denies Americans the right to organize.
I'll not get bogged down in this. My working life has been mostly heavy industry, businesses I've owned and operated, and professional security which I picked up in the military. About a third of the time I was in unions and the difference between the union shops and non-union was simply not that great. Given the current stats, your experience will probably be lots different since the old unions are basically gone. In a decade you will probably where I was when I managed mall security 15 years ago: My problems were with ethnic pressure groups, not with unions.
Just the same my sentiments are the same on this issue as G. Gordon Liddy's: Unions add a level of comraderie and solidarity that is useful. Given the destruction of communities in American life, every little bit helps.
2002-12-08 00:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 7 2002, 14:51 Just the same my sentiments are the same on this issue as G. Gordon Liddy's: Unions add a level of comraderie and solidarity that is useful. Given the destruction of communities in American life, every little bit helps.
I agree. It's one of the few areas of life where Americans show any grit anymore. The fight has been sapped out of most of our countrymen, and the powers that be are quite aware of this.
Now, if we could only get the Unionites to get enraged by illegal immigration the way they get angry about job status.
-Jay
2002-12-08 17:29 | User Profile
TD is right. Conservatism is often cast by the mainstream GOP as a philosophy of, by, and for the rich, but in reality our true American constituency is blue collar.
As to Jay's question about blue collar voting patterns, it's true that they tend to vote for the Dems for economic reasons. This voting bloc is not into intricate political punditry and analysis, they're down to earth people, and they vote based on what they've always heard: "the Republicans are for the fat cats." So they vote for the Dems, even though the Dems are filled with other "cause of the month" clubs that the traditional family life of the blue collar voters wouldn't approve of, like the abortionists and the sodomite lobby.
Of course, the whole Dem v. Repub dichotomy is moot anyway, since the two parties are largely indistinguishable these days. Both tend to favor their corporate constituency over all else (heck, lots of the bigger corps. hedge their bets by donating to both the Dems and the Repubs at the same time) and both are shafting the White man by promoting open borders and the like.
Actually, since we're talking about counterintuitive positions for people to take (like pro-union conservatives), there's a related topic raised in the latest The American Conservative: the case for animal rights.
TAC has an excerpt of a book called Dominion that discusses the horrible practices taking place in the pig farming industry. The pigs--for their whole lives--are confined to 22-inch crates and can never move or walk and have no straw to lie down on, no soil to root around in and no sunshine. They lead painful, unnatural lives and are filled with antibiotics and growth hormones. The practice is called "mass confinement farming" and is banned in Sweden, where they use older, more humane practices. I doubt that even the Democrats will try to ban this practice in the U.S., as beholden as they are to the megacorporations.
And that's what this is all about: the bottom line. They've reduced the lives of the pigs to something horrific because of that profit motive. I don't think the quality of life of Americans would suffer if we returned to the older practices where the pigs could go outside and have straw and actually be able to walk around and such. It seems unnecessary to me that mass confinement farming has to happen just to squeeze out a few more pennies. I mean, the author of Dominion makes a good point: this really does debase our civilization--we really will do anything for a buck. Enough is enough.
I'm generally opposed to, and skeptical of, impulses issuing from liberalism and things associated with the Left side of the aisle. Liberalism is generally utopian, doesn't work, and suicidal to Western interests. But I think people like Ralph Nader have a point when it comes to these types of things, like mass confinement farming. In all truth, Nader would have been a better president than Bush (I voted for Buchanan, of course)--Nader at least cares about regular people and isn't a tool of the New World Order, unlike Bush and his oil buddies and the like.
2002-12-08 17:32 | User Profile
Now, if we could only get the Unionites to get enraged by illegal immigration the way they get angry about job status.
I think the rank and file union members understand the immigration problem. The problem is that their leaders are sell-outs and don't want to upset the apple cart of the Dems they work with.
Some say this is because the leaders think more immigrants means more union members. But they have a big shock in store for them: Third Worlders are harder to unionize because they're docile. They're used to being sh*t upon and working for beans and not complaining. Union membership and influence will shrink, not grow, with the introduction of Third Worlders since the Third Worlders have no impulse or desire to bargain collectively.
The Unions are much like the GOP in this regard with its pursuit of the "Hispanic Vote:" it's a quixotic endeavor. American unions and labor leaders are in Mexico and the rest of S. America trying to teach the locals how to unionize, etc., and the results aren't spectacular. Plus, American businesses down there use goons to break up any potential unionization, and the companies also threaten to close down and move elsewhere, so that keeps the workers (read: slaves) in line. The use of goons used to happen in this country, too. It may resurface at the rate things are going.
2002-12-09 00:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 8 2002, 17:32 The use of goons used to happen in this country, too. It may resurface at the rate things are going.
I think it already has. The unofficial leg-breakers have been black, Mexican and more recently Somalian. I know barkeepers who are being shook down by "Russian" mobsters. More coming everyday. They don't bother with union charters they just break legs.
Does anyone have links on this subject? Curiously, the only one who's brought this up is Eric Thompson at FAEM. He notes how the new ethnics drive white workers out wherever they go. White workers are all individualists now, but others run in packs. This needs to be more generally known.
2002-12-09 08:28 | User Profile
It's hard not to feel bitterness towards unions if you've never been in one, but by the same tack non-union workers would jump at the chance to enter an existing union. And why not? For once you don't have to watch your back constantly....you have a measure of wage protection, medical insurance, the right of collective-bargaining...in real-world terms of living and planning for the future, it means fewer sleepless nights. Best of all, you can be as stupid as you like without having your earning power impacted. There is, in fact, zero incentive in improving yourself or achieving anything with your life. Just keep your delegate informed of anybody working harder than they ought to be, and you're free to plan your next tailgating party!
Of course it helps to be in a strong union, too. A dockworker is sitting a lot prettier than a garment worker or meat packer these days. A pro athlete, or elected 'public servant' is of course sitting prettiest of all.
For those of us working for a living and not in unions, every day is a kind of Darwinian microcosm, every bill a fire to put out, every tax hike a shaving cut, and God forbid anyone in your house gets seriously ill. You tend to stare at the ceiling at 3am, adding and subtracting figures, sometimes with a shiver. The problem is nobody whatsoever gives a toss about us. We don't represent a deliverable voting bloc, we're too demographically discombobulated for advertisers to zero in on us, we tend to drift towards anti-government positions (everything from political dissidence to working off the books to paying for EVERYTHING in cash - ie, we look for ways NOT to comply with Big Brother) and, if you haven't noticed, we're the people being replaced by those waves of brown-skinned H-1B 'bargains' neither party can get enough of. We know govt is Not Our Friend, unlike our Newest Americans who will be relatively docile when the time comes to implant monitor-chips in all freedom-loving Americans.
2002-12-09 14:32 | User Profile
I was in a union years ago, wastewater treatment for a local county. I left after only 4 years on the job. You can NOT advance in those positions unless you have rabbis in high places, or maybe after 17 years you may get a promotion. I can only say, unions are a scourge to mulitcultural hellholes like the USA. Between the quotas and stupidity and laziness, it's a lost cause for an ambitious White man.
2002-12-09 16:33 | User Profile
The Government says production is rising!!! I don't see how. Every day factories are leaving the country. The only thing going on is that Americans are working more hours and getting paid less.
The sh*t is hitting the fan in the computer industry. All the work is being outsourced to India. Computer Engineers have the highest rate of unemployment in the country.
2002-12-09 16:55 | User Profile
The sh*t is hitting the fan in the computer industry. All the work is being outsourced to India. Computer Engineers have the highest rate of unemployment in the country.
And YET! - nearly 1 million foreign IT workers in the USA right now! I just cannot believe this is allowed to continue. Imagine what Thomas Jefferson would think about 1M Chinese & Asians allowed to work in America while our citizens go unemployed.
Then again, we are to blame. Most people I talk to in IT still haven't heard of H-1B visas. Unreal. Here's a Christian who says "Get them out" (for the Linderites)
[url=http://www.mere-christianity.org/policy/Immigration/H1BVisas/H1B-EpidemicLevels.htm]http://www.mere-christianity.org/policy/Im...demicLevels.htm[/url]
-J
2002-12-09 17:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Dec 9 2002, 10:55 **And YET! - nearly 1 million foreign IT workers in the USA right now! I just cannot believe this is allowed to continue. Imagine what Thomas Jefferson would think about 1M Chinese & Asians allowed to work in America while our citizens go unemployed. **
There you go, jay. American IT workers need to unionize.
Unchecked capitalism is just as much an enemy to nationalist, traditionalist conservatism as is Marxism.
2002-12-09 18:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Current93@Dec 9 2002, 18:01 **Pat Buchanan wisely sought to safeguard American jobs. **
Very true but the issue of unions can be very divisive. Roosevelt politicized it and Taft-Hartley-Eisenhower followed suit, you can't repeal those things.
Safeguard American jobs? Right now shutting the border will do more than anything else. If we can agree on that and work for that, the other parts of the agenda will take care of themselves.
2002-12-09 20:37 | User Profile
Jay, I wonder why no one has commented about such things as low-skilled workers making 80 or 100 grand/year.
United Airlines just filed for bankruptcy. Their labor costs are 2 to 3 times higher per mile than the costs at most other airlines. Bankruptcy could have been avoided if the unions just agreed to more reasonable pay. But, the unions don't care about the workers or about fairness. So, thanks to the unions, a bunch of union workers will lose their jobs as the airline downsizes under bankruptcy protection. Some of these who lose their jobs will get hired at other airlines for less than half of what they make now, some will be flipping burgers for minimum wage. Those who don't lose their jobs will get much bigger pay cuts that what the unions were asked to agree to, thanks to a federal judge who will dictate pay cuts. Everyone loses, thanks to the corrupt and greedy union that wouldn't agree to more reasonable pay.
I'd take Furtune magazine's claims with a grain of salt. Many of these so-called manufacturing jobs are just "adding value" to imported products. These jobs are not worth what real manufacturing jobs are worth. Manufacturing and farming is where real wealth is created. Every other industry just spends the wealth.
And, these so-called manufacturing jobs don't protect America from a dangerous degree of dependence on foreign products. There are whole catagories of products that are no longer produced in America. Should we go to war with a region that produces these products, or should 100 years from now the World Government decide to punish us with a trade embargo, the US would be really hurting when we lose those whole product catagories.
Unions vote Democrat for the same reason that blacks vote for Democrats, they want special treatment by the government and the Democrat party is the party of special treatment. But, I don't think that union members are hopelessly Democrat the way blacks are. The GOP should support moderate trade tariffs because trade is the most legitimate souce of federal (the feds should eliminate other taxes) revenue and tariffs would provide a buffer. Also, many union members would more likely support the GOP if the GOP took a stand against so-called Affirmative Action. And, of course, a stand against unchecked immigration would delight union members across America.
2002-12-09 20:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 9 2002, 17:32 Unchecked capitalism is just as much an enemy to nationalist, traditionalist conservatism as is Marxism.
Hello:
My defintion of capitalism is private ownership of property and a free market. I don't see how lax immigration laws or our government giving tax breaks to companies that leave America (Free Trade, etc.) as being part of capitalism, even if many fat capitalists are for mass immigration of the poor for cheap labor.
Capitalism means I get to own my store and set my price. It doesn't mean that I get to dictate to the government that the Mexican border should be wide open so I can hire cheap immigrant labor (while letting other taxpayers subsidize me by paying for government services that the immigrant can't afford).
2002-12-09 23:59 | User Profile
**Given that "bourgeois capitalism" of the sort favored by libertarian ideologues is essentially obsolete (for those who doubt this is true, where are all of the "free market societies" today?), the choices we face seem to be whether we want to live under Left, Center, or Right managerialism. **
One could just as easily say that "Right managerialism" is obsolete. I do not think you have made your case here.
2002-12-10 04:14 | User Profile
**I wonder why no one has commented about such things as low-skilled workers making 80 or 100 grand/year. **
I wonder, too...but about different things.
Few years ago, I'd read a 'salaries-of-executives' report in one of the financial magazines. They'd noted that the president of an HMO (since gone to earth) was pulling down $29 million in salary....plus stock options.
I don't know the duties of an HMO president but I know it ain't seeing patients or applying Unguentine. Though I'm sure some publicist-cum-apologist would assure me that said exec was in charge of vitally important and incredibly-intricate areas of the company that simply couldn't be accomplished on, say, a [u]$27[/u] million dollar salary.....I wonder. But whatever he did wasn't good enough, as that HMO is now history. Maybe if they hadn't been so tight with a buck and paid him 30 or 35 mill, he might've been able to keep the ship afloat....?
America now more than ever is ruled by a mentality of the Sunday punch: get it all now and fck "later". No offense to Happy but an overpaid worker who does something* seems less a part of the problem than the quietly tasteful empty-suit executive front-loading his 'compensation package' to pull down 20, 30, 50, 100 million dollars a year...who, incidentally - should the whole shebang come crashing down after he bails with the plane's only parachute - can always count on economic-policy wonks to 'explain' it all in soporifics that nobody can stay awake through, let alone fuel their anger from; and of course, the things-couldn't-be-better sunshine patriots like Jonah G who repeatedly de-emphasize such matters because they distract us from our glorious mission of propagating freedom abroad and besides, these things fuel racism and resentment of illegals.
I could be wrong. It could be the guy with the 3 kids earning 75 or 100 grand whose fault it all is for not taking a sizable pay cut. The $29 million a year CEO might be underpaid for his contributions. But I wonder just the same.
2002-12-10 04:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 10 2002, 04:14 ** I could be wrong. It could be the guy with the 3 kids earning 75 or 100 grand whose fault it all is for not taking a sizable pay cut. The $29 million a year CEO might be underpaid for his contributions. But I wonder just the same.**
The trend is what worries. Very rare to see a 100k workers; not so rare the executives draining the pool.
At the same time let's note that dockworkers organized for cost-of-living pay, and living costs in the SF area are the most expensive on the North American continent. Also note that the shipping companies they work for are worth billions.
Anyone live in the Bay area? I got relatives there and I can barely afford to visit. Those wages might not be out of line. 100k ain't what it used to be, folks.
2002-12-10 18:00 | User Profile
Few years ago, I'd read a 'salaries-of-executives' report in one of the financial magazines. They'd noted that the president of an HMO (since gone to earth) was pulling down $29 million in salary....plus stock options. The $29 million a year CEO might be underpaid for his contributions. But I wonder just the same.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it any better.
Truth is, most "shop-workers' don't add much value to organizations. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true. Most studies prove that an exec will add perhaps 10 to 100 times the value that a worker will.
You are paid in this economy based SOLELY on what you are worth to the firm. This is why Barry Bonds gets $15M/yr and the middle reliever gets $200K. They may be human equals but they are not economic equals.
-J
2002-12-10 18:03 | User Profile
** There you go, jay. American IT workers need to unionize.**
Until the firm just decides to move all IT work overseas. Then what good will that union do?
The truth is, we will not find our saving graces in forming unions and DEMANDING things economically. We have to change the minds of people and show them how destructive they are being. And tell the pols that H-1Bs are going to get them thrown out of office.
(Sen Brownback, are you listening?)
-J
2002-12-10 18:39 | User Profile
Until the firm just decides to move all IT work overseas. Then what good will that union do?
That's a different problem. We need to hobble the ability of those sorts of companies from relocating overseas to escape accountability to their unionized workers. High tariff walls can help with that, as can putting an end to the governmental outfits that grease the skids for these companies. Lots of people don't know the government gives loans to companies to move overseas through its Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and, to a lesser extent, the Agency for International Development (AID).
2002-12-10 18:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 10 2002, 12:39 Lots of people don't know the government gives loans to companies to move overseas through its Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and, to a lesser extent, the Agency for International Development (AID).
You're exactly right, PCA. They also have lots of loan opportunities for minorities (especially a minority woman: wow, best of both worlds there) THey get access to capital at low rates. Hell, a Chinese friend who lives in the USA can be very beneficial to a Chinaman wanting business in his land.
And whitey here will pay for it.
-Jay
2002-12-10 19:16 | User Profile
YES! The last two posts are bringing this thread to the right direction.
The answer in this case is less about tariffs or unions than it is about controlling our own destinies on a much more local level. It's about devolution.
Like this: If we could re-create the situation that existed under the Articles of Confederation, or a modern version thereof, states could go about the business of reflecting the wishes of their own people instead of breaking their backs attaining some national/global ideal.
In practical terms it means just what you think it means. States above the snowline, such as Massachusetts and Michigan, will go back to a protectionist and high basic wage posture because they've always been more Icelandic on this subject anyway. And Bentonville, Arkansas can import Third Worlders to the max -- if their people let them -- turning their state into Brazil without affecting the rest of us.
Devolution could very well mean that Minnesota might vote itself socialist. So what? I'd rather they have the freedom to do that than the freedom to do nothing, which is what they have now, especially since they got that celebrity governor of theirs.
2002-12-11 00:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Dec 10 2002, 17:54 Now, perhaps you can explain to me how it is that today's CEO's are creating 10 times the added value that their exact counterparts contributed five decades ago, or how a Japanese or German CEO contributes less "added value" than his modern American counterpart.
AY: Corporate execs are rewarded based strictly on meeting corporate goals. You need to read up on this process. Nobody - and I mean nobody - has ever been given a $29M salary. Their base salaries are public. They may have made that in bonuses, but if that occurred it was only b/c they so egregiously surpassed their board's expectations. Don't shareholders have the right to pay people what they want?
Don't I have the right to associate with whomever I want?
Also, US execs are adding more value than German & Japanese execs (who ain't starving, btw) Look at the stock markets of the nations and you'll see.
So, if Jack Welch brings GE's value from 20B to 200B, should he not receive a % of that? Sure. And shareholders will pay $10M if a person is worth $50M more than another guy would be.
Today they make several thousand fold of their worker's salaries.
I don't know where you're getting that. If a worker makes $40K, one thousand fold would be $40M. Who makes that, let alone "several thousand fold"?
-Jay
2002-12-11 00:32 | User Profile
Oh, one more thing about exec wealth:
Let's say a guy makes 10M in one year. Here's what happens:
Salary: 10M - Taxes: 5M Total: $5M
Not too bad, you say. Then remember when he dies:
Estate: 5M -Taxes: 3M Total: $2M
Hell, a worker putting $2,000 into his 401(k) for 30 years would have $2M. And he had nowhere near the education, stress, or skill that the CEO had. Most CEO's are 50+ years of age, so they're not making this kind of money for long periods of time. And they're fired if there's any issue - contrasted with union cats.
-Jay