Absolutely!

Or do you mean the average Joe who cannot get another job that he lost to free market economics?

And if so, who should be responsible for him? Should we stop progress to protect Joe?

That's a great example that shows goes well with Buff's post re: comparative advantage. More of a good produced world-wide lowers prices for that good.

Wig, your oil example is a good one and I'd agree with you.

But don't get me wrong, I don't take a hard line stand on the issue. American simply must import oil because it does not have enough of it's own to go around. It actively protects it's global oil interests as well (on so many levels).

But in terms of simple manufactured goods, (like your coffee cup, why not?) wouldn't you, if you had a clear choice, prefer to put down an extra 80 cents for a cup that was made in the USA and support those people that made it? I would.

If only it were that simple. :D

well, shit. They don't get it the dismal science for nothing.

well, shit. They don't get it the dismal science for nothing.[/b][/quote]
:okthumb:

No one ever said there would be no price paid for progress.

I buy all my stuff from China! :)



Last edited by Peaches at May 19 2004, 12:02 PM

:okthumb:

No one ever said there would be no price paid for progress.[/b][/quote]
If there were no price it would happen faster.

Yeah, the overall impact on having things made here in the States is higher prices --> Purchase less products --> Worse overall economy

Absolutely!

Or do you mean the average Joe who cannot get another job that he lost to free market economics?

And if so, who should be responsible for him? Should we stop progress to protect Joe?[/b][/quote]
Arguably, yes, we should.

My knowledge of business science is limited at best (non-existant would be closer to the truth), so Im not stating anything as fact, but I enjoy having ideas tossed around.

Lets say you work at a large, privately owned plant. You're 40, 45. Plant is moved to Pekin by the boss who obviously follows your ideology that its for progress and its natural. so why not do it?

What do you do than?

Of course finding another job is very hard because most of the town you are living in was built around that plant. Most connext(sp?) business are now closed. You also cant really sell your house and move because no-one is buying and you could not even cover your morgage.

So you have 5000 people that society will now have to care for. For the good of that one owner who acted in the name of progress.

Of course, the other side of the medal is that if he didnt do it, some chinese person would have started a similar company and driven that US based company out of business...



Last edited by DrGuile at May 19 2004, 11:38 AM

One of the things often forgotten in the whole "made in some-other-country" debate is that the making of the product is just a step in a long chain.

The raw materials came from somewhere. Then there is the issue of shipping (who made the container, the boxes, the boat, who runs the boat, who refined the fuel, who pays the dock workers at each end, the truck drivers, the warehouse people, etc), and all the transactions on the way (bulk importer to distributor to retailer).

No matter where something is made, there are people on all sides making money from selling the product. In many caes, it ain't the chinese making the big money, but rather the distributors taking a $1 part and marking it up to $2 or $3 on the way by.

It's not simple... and can't be explained only by the label on the bottom of the item.

Alex

Also, on a side note.

Should you wonder why it is so much cheaper to manifacture things in other country.

Child labor, slave wages, no environment laws, etc...

Or is this just progress?

I disagree entirely.

Your choice of words and examples seem to solely pit the rich boss against the poor worker.

You use language like "For the good of that one owner who acted in the name of progress".

What about the shareholders? There are many "Joes" who own stock in these companies.

What about the survival of the business as you pointed out, almost answering your own question?

I can give you hypotheticals all day.

The bottom line is that if they are out of a job, they go find another one just like you or I would.

You wouldnt. You're the evil owner

:agrin:

And I agree I answered my own question... But I disagree that its as 'black and white' as you claim it to be.

Also, on a side note.

Should you wonder why it is so much cheaper to manifacture things in other country.

Child labor, slave wages, no environment laws, etc...

Or is this just progress?[/b][/quote]
This is a good question. An equally good question would be...

should you wonder why it is so expensive to manufacture things in this country?

The world isn't perfect. I am not trying to advocate as much as I am stating the obvious...

Capital will always find the path of least resistance.

That does not mean I am for Joe losing his job, child labor, pollution, etc.

I am just not going to have a bleeding heart for shit you cannot stop.

Chinese kids are people too. They need jobs ;-)

You wouldnt. You're the evil owner

:agrin:

And I agree I answered my own question... But I disagree that its as 'black and white' as you claim it to be.[/b][/quote]
There is nothing black and white... the world is grey. ;-))

Here's some food for thought on possible consequences of trying to manage "Joe's" job.

There has to be a balance, sure.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nw...s-france18.html

You wouldnt. You're the evil owner

[/b][/quote]
I would not go out and find a job??

How do you think I got where I am at? :blink:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe it means you're the evil man and I'm the righteous man and Mr. 9mm here, he's the Shepard protecting my righteous ass in the Valley of Darkness.

Water will flow to the path of least resistance too.

Sometimes man finds that creates problems, and he invented dams to channel the flow.

Only the truly insane environmentalists (and I don't deny there are plenty) would advocate that there should be no dams at all.

I don't see a lot of difference, personally, between the wackos that advocate there be no attempt to channel water and the wackos that advocate there be no channel for capital.

Taken to extreme, allowing the markets to control EVERYTHING without regulation is no different than a soviet-style "workers paradise" except for the rhetoric employed to defend it.

PD,

I totally agree, which is why I stated there needs to be balance.

However, on the topic of global trade and the consequences, I think it is a no brainer to see that the benefits far outway the costs.

Then it becomes, is one capable of drawing the distinctions and accepting the good with the bad?

We both agree there is no utopia. What losses as a society are we willing to accept??

If a country produces on it's own, and consumes their own products and hopefully exports some as well, then the people at home work more, earn more, and spend more. This scenario strengthens the economy. How can it weaken it?

Finding the balance is the difficult thing.

I try to "buy American" where I can ... on a micro level, my neighbor is a lot more likely to be working for Acme widgets than he is for WhoFlungPoo Ltd; or to put it another way, MORE of my neighbors are likely to be working for Acme. Oh, I can understand the appeal of cheap Chinese shit to those that figure they are better than their neighbors, or those so into this or that philosopy of Economics as to depart from the practical level, but I think they are as wacked out as the folks who advocate we trade our cars for horses and go back to nature.

I see too many people who seem to think that the way to "level the playing field" for American workers is to lower their expectations instead of using access to the biggest market in the world to force changes in other places. One only has to read any post by Grogan on "style" to get an idea of how well trained the consumer base is here.

Look, EVERYTHING has a cost somewhere along the line. You get enough Joes who get frustrated after the fourth carreer they've trained for goes to Bumfuckistan, and you'll be taxing a dwindling portion of the population to pay for more of Mr. 9mm, and the folks to carry them.

Yes, I realize that both the above and the following are vastly overstated examples ... but at what point does Walmart become GUM?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at May 19 2004, 01:56 PM

me be very inarticulate.

but me be enjoying the discussion and learning.

Me too.

PD,

Not sure what you mean by this. maybe you can elaborate.

And to your point about lowering the expectations, I say REALITY CHECK. Yes, your examples are extreme.

And if you are serious about the future for these folks, forget about the "lowering expectations" excuse and concentrate on increasing adaptation through education!

This is why I think education is the only long term answer!

give a man a fish, he eats for a day. teach a man....

(edited to stress that teaching responsibility, work ethic, common sense, etc. is as important as a skill or degree)




Last edited by wig at May 19 2004, 04:21 PM

teach a man to fish today and he loses his job to an Icelander.

the glass is half empty in the dog house, huh?

the glass is half empty in the dog house, huh?[/b][/quote]
I know my examples were extreme. That's why I said they were extreme. Not sure what you mean by "reality check", however...

Actually, the Walmart example is a lot less extreme than the other one, depending on where you live.

The glass is just what it is ... half. That's both half full and half empty.

Two more factories in the local area are going overseas.

A young guy I know just got his notice from a major ISP that he can either move and take rupees or he's out of a job. This comes six months after he was assured that his job was safe.

The oldest daughter's job (with 3M) went to Singapore ... after she went over there for 3 months a year for the last three to train them in the process. Now, she's already landed a better job, and her husband has enough seniority to be switched to another project - but several hundred of her coworkers have not been so lucky.

Here's an example why, IMO:



To All SBC Employees:
After more than three months of negotiations - including more than 60 days of bargaining in Washington, D.C. - we are disappointed that we still do not have closure on the very strong proposal we have on the table.

We came into negotiations this year knowing that we would face tough issues. We have now gone as far as we can go in modifying our proposal in response to union demands, while still achieving some of the cost containment that we know we must realize in this round of bargaining.

We have respected the bargaining process and tried to keep you as fully informed as possible. I believe we have now reached a point where you have a right to know the details of what we have offered.

Following are some highlights of our proposal for a five-year agreement:

Wages and pensions
Our wage proposal provides for wage increases even better than those negotiated by the CWA last year with Verizon.
Specifically, our proposal calls for the following wage adjustments:
1st year: 4 percent lump sum
2nd year: 2.5 percent base wage increase
3rd year: 2.5 percent wage increase
4th year: 2.25 percent wage increase with a cost of living adjustment
5th year: 2.25 percent wage increase with a cost of living adjustment
The proposal also includes pension band increases in similar ranges and addresses some particular concerns unique to our SBC East region.

Health care
As you know, health care is our single fastest rising cost - an expense that rose to nearly $3 billion in 2003 for the 700,000 employees, retirees and dependents covered under SBC health care plans.

Our health care proposal provides continued coverage under SBC's excellent health care plans with no monthly contribution required and copays of only about 10 percent of the total cost of health care, far less than what most
Americans and all SBC managers pay, and a small increase over the 4 to 7 percent of the total cost that CWA-represented employees currently pay.

The impact of the proposed copay increases would average only about $35 per month.

Some of the specific elements of the proposal include:
* Office visit copays at $15 in 2005 and 2006; $25 in 2007 and 2008; and $30 in 2009.
* Emergency room copay at $50 in 2005 through 2007, and $75 in 2008 and 2009
* A three-tier drug plan starting in 2005 at $10 for generic drugs, $20 for formulary drugs and $40 for nonformulary brands for prescriptions filled at network retail. Mail order copays for the same years and classes of drugs are $20, $40 and $80, respectively; mail orders provide triple the supply of medication at only twice the copay. Maximum increases have
been set for each of the subsequent years of the contract.
Note: Copays which are already higher by contract will not be
reduced.
With the modest cost sharing of less than 10 percent and no monthly contribution, this compares very favorably with national averages. On average, most Americans with health insurance pay about 38 percent of the cost of their health care and 90 percent of those with company-provided
health care are required to pay a monthly contribution.

Employment security
The union requested, and we agreed, to return the issue of job offer guarantees to the regional bargaining tables. At the regional tables, we will remain committed to the proposal we had presented at the national table of a guaranteed job offer in the state in which an employee works if the employee's job is surplused. Essentially, this means no layoffs for
three years.

Our national proposal still contains strong elements enhancing job security.

For example, we propose utilizing union-represented employees for future new technology work such as Fiber to the Premise, WiFi, Video, DataComm and DSL Technical Support, as long as the labor agreements for this work
are competitive on wages, benefits and overall costs with those of outside contractors.

We also propose a mechanism that would allow qualified surplused employees to move to wholly owned subsidiaries before those subsidiaries hire from outside.

We believe that this is a very comprehensive, very fair and very
reasonable proposal. We intend to continue to respond to union questions about this proposal, which remains on the table.
So, what do YOU think is going to happen if the union doesn't take this offer and pushes the limits on what SBC is willing to pay them? Why WOUDLN'T they move as many jobs as possible offshore? :o

Pull the string, the little dolly talks - but in this age of hi-tech, you'd think they'd learn more that 10 phrases.

Neither of the factories that I was speaking of are union (the two in the last 60 days, nor any of the 9 or 10 over the last 18 months). People around here are as brainwashed as Peaches - so fucking proud of being not union that they'd rather make $9 an hour with no benefits than unionize.

My daughter was not union. She was in a very high tech manufacturing envrionment (as much programmer as manufacturing).

BTW ... since we're going to post the press release from the people who run SBC, here's the one from the CWA.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Communications Workers of America announced that a 4-day strike involving 100,000 union employees of SBC in 13 states will begin at 12:01 a.m. local time in each time zone on Friday, May 21. Workers will return to their jobs at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, May 25.

Among key issues in the contract dispute, CWA members are seeking to strengthen their employment security, including gaining access to new jobs in growth areas of the company, and to preserve their health care benefits in the face of substantial cost-shifting demands by SBC management.

National bargaining that has been taking place between the parties in Washington, D.C. over health care, wages, pensions and employment security will cease, and these issues will now be referred back to the four regional tables in New Haven, Conn., Chicago, Austin, Tex., and Pleasanton, Calif.

"We appreciate the hard work of Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director Peter Hurtgen in helping us try to work out an agreement on these issues, but unfortunately these efforts have failed to achieve a settlement," said CWA President Morton Bahr.

"We are making this a limited job action right now to drive it home to SBC that our members are serious about securing their future at SBC," said Bahr. "We know that a prolonged strike could cause a loss of major customers and do significant damage to the company, and hopefully that can be avoided."

CWA also is ratcheting up other mobilization activities in the field and is being supported by the AFL-CIO and other major unions in mounting a carrier-switch campaign that potentially could shift substantial business from SBC to another union carrier, AT&T, which operates in 11 of the SBC states. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka personally is spearheading carrier-switch efforts aimed at labor organizations and the 5 million union families who are SBC customers. Customers are being asked to give CWA their "proxy" to implement a carrier switch if the union deems it necessary.

CWA members, who have lost 29,000 jobs at SBC over the past three years, are seeking access to the new growth jobs in Internet data services, installation of Wi-Fi hotspots, voice over the Internet (VOIP), DSL broadband and other areas. Virtually all of this SBC work, amounting to thousands of jobs, is being outsourced, including going offshore to countries such as India and the Philippines.

"SBC continues to refuse to give this work to our members, the frontline workers who have built SBC into the nation's most profitable telecom company," said Bahr. SBC's profits last year were more than $8 billion.

CWA also noted that SBC's latest bargaining proposal called for members to receive no base wage increase upon settlement, but instead receive a one-time lump sum payment of 4 percent. A cash payment instead of a 3 percent base wage increase equates to a savings to SBC of more than $1 billion over four years.

"Incredibly, SBC wants to take $1 billion out of our members' pockets in wages, not to pay for rising health costs, but just to fatten its profits. At the same time, SBC is still demanding that workers also start paying tens of millions more out of pocket for their health care," Bahr stated.

Negotiations began in mid-February. These contracts cover SBC workers in Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, California and Nevada.

The simple fact remains - businesses exist to make money. Period. Not to make sure everyone in their home town is employed. If they can do both, wonderful. But if they can make more money paying someone less to do the same job, they'll do it. It's been like that since the beginning of time. Will everyone adapt? Of course not. There were a lot of people who lost jobs and never recovered when horse and buggies were replaced with cars. When ships were replaced with planes. When paper was replaced with computers. Losing jobs because it's cheaper and/or easier to do it another way isn't ANYTHING new.

The job market says what you should get paid. If a job used to pay $6 an hour has more openings than people, then of course that payscale will increase. Witness the medical profession. If a job used to pay $50 an hour has more people than openings, then of course that payscale will decrease. Witness the IT profession. To keep paying people $X just because that's what they used to make or think they should make just doesn't make economic sense. Again, this isn't anything new - I studied it 20+ years ago in college and I suspect you studied it too - even longer ago. :nyanya:

I have taken a HUGE cut in pay over the last two years. A cut in pay that I bet 99% of the "employees" out there would be up in arms about. I have adapted. That's what people who will survive do :)

And I still haven't figured out why businesses are expected to pay for employee's health insurance, but that's another argument for another day. :awinky:

Because god-damned nigger-loving commie pinko bastards forced it on them - that's why businesses have been paying for health care, isn't it? Didn't the Jew Roosevelt legalize the unions as part of the ongoing plan to establish a Soviet America?

And the decline of civilization here in America has been profound since that happened, hasn't it?

Compensation can take a number of forms - wages being one of them, health care being just another. Or did you miss that day in school? :rolleyes:

First of all, I don't have a horse in this race. I trust the CWA no more and no less than I trust SBC.

I think it is very likely that SBC will meet the CWA in the middle, like they have done in the past. I think that SBC will continue to outsource and move as many jobs overseas as they possibly can - like they have always done.

Having had a certain amount of experience with SBC on a number of levels, if I were a member of the CWA, my personal approach to SBC would be to read a chapter or two from the IWW, and take their kind of job action.

Dynamite ... it's not just for fishin'.

I know my examples were extreme. That's why I said they were extreme. Not sure what you mean by "reality check", however...

Actually, the Walmart example is a lot less extreme than the other one, depending on where you live.

The glass is just what it is ... half. That's both half full and half empty.

Two more factories in the local area are going overseas.

A young guy I know just got his notice from a major ISP that he can either move and take rupees or he's out of a job. This comes six months after he was assured that his job was safe.

The oldest daughter's job (with 3M) went to Singapore ... after she went over there for 3 months a year for the last three to train them in the process. Now, she's already landed a better job, and her husband has enough seniority to be switched to another project - but several hundred of her coworkers have not been so lucky.[/b][/quote]
PD,

I was not surprised when I read your comments this morning. Pretty much what I expected.


You don't care to elaborate on your meandering insinuations, so I'm not going to help you understand two words.

The simple fact is that all you want to do is look at one side. Yes, the glass is both half full and half empty, and you know what it means and what side you are on.

If you want to be a bleeding heart and focus on only half the argument, then that's fine. If you think that some casualties of global trade / outsourcing outweigh the benefits, that's fine too but tell us why. Don't just keep reciting sob stories. We are all aware they exist.

Maybe you can call all your examples and tell them they can sit around on a computer posting about their plight on porn message boards. Seems to work for you and I don't see your job being outsourced to China!

Why do I get the feeling that your girlfriend is the bread winner in the family?

Well, feel free to wear my ass out with more drivel. I am off to the airport and won't be around for a few days.



Last edited by wig at May 20 2004, 06:43 AM

Actually, it's a benefit. At least that's what it's been referred to since I've been working. :awinky: Yet apparently many employees think it's a right. :rolleyes:

I just did an experiment.

I went to the kitchen and checked out our new electric Wok....

Made in Australia.

About the only damn thing in the house that is though!

:blink:

I just did one too. My son's Angelcare baby monitor. Made in China.
But the head office is on Nun's Island (Montreal)...

Wages are one form of compensation; benefits are another.