On 11/2/10 07:49 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 11/1/2010 6:05 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Probably us falling into 'third world status' has nothing to do with
your 'guilt and deception'.

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The USA is just too expensive
any more. First to Mexico, now China and India and probably Africa after
that.

A race to the bottom. :-(

On 11/1/2010 11:55 PM, John Smith wrote:

You are simply telling me what my treasonous-criminal-public-servants
are doing ... yes, we are going to have to tell them NO! Put high
tariffs on all imports, bring jobs back to American...

In -theory-, you are absolutely correct. However, in actual practice,
tell me when the cheap Chinese labor and cheap Wal-Mart prices go away,
how long do you think it will be until the American consumer starts
rioting? (You do realze that when the 15 cent an hour Chinese labor goes
to $15 dollars an hour American labor, that prices WILL go up, waaay up.)

And yes, the public servants who think they have usurped power are
racing us towards the bottom and economic slavery ... I want them and
the banksters and wall street there ...

Also correct...but unfortunately, you are forgetting the "Golden Rule":

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Quite a conundrum. Any suggestions as to a solution?



Ooh..ooh...[waving hand}...Teacher!, I've got this one.

Yes. Actually, we need to rethink the nature of wealth, in THIS
country. Where the real root of wealth is. Over the last century,
well, 60 years of it, we've gone from a manufacturing economy, to a
merchant economy. Rather than building and selling, we've elected to
buy and resell. Shifting the liability of labor to other entities as
a cost saving measure. Even though we still have robust
manufacturing activity in this country. We still build most of the
world's cars, for instance. With more foreign plants being built on
American soil even as we discuss this.

But, it's HOW we use labor that renders the difference in how
we're ranked in the Global Economy.

In our own MBA driven business culture, we've attempted to
offload all costs to other entities, to drive up profits, and the
stock price. Because we've looked at labor as a liability. Rather
than an asset. Shifting the cost of labor to overseas manufacturers.
Attempting, as it were, to conserve our way to prosperity, by
eliminating most, if not all, production costs.

In this way, we've allowed other cultures to do our manufacturing
for us on their home soil, in plants owned by foreign companies. WE
simply place orders, buy commodities, and take a markup. Avoiding
labor, benefits and pension liabilities, and saving, often--though
not always--a huge tax burden.

Those same other nations, on the other hand, come to this country
for non-union labor, and build their own products, for sales and
export, in factories of THEY own. Saving some on labor, benefits and
pension costs, and snapping up huge tax incentives, but retaining
the true source and origination of wealth: The engine of production.
Because they view labor as an asset. The major car companies come to
this country and purchase our labor, but build in their own plants.
From raw materials, to end product. The finished product, in that
case, is owned by themselves. To be sold by themselves. With all
markups, handling fees, retained by the company. They have higher
costs, in that they have physical plant overhead, but, they have
control over the profit produced by the product at each stage of
handling.

In the US MBA driven model, only the cost of the commodity is
borne by the company. With profits controllable at stages between
purchase of the finished product and beyond. Where as the foreign
model, the profits begin with the acquisition of raw materials. And
along each stage of production. Further, labor at each stage
produces wages at each stage, which produces economic vigor that the
'merchant' economy does not.

What this means, is that we do have cheaper products on the
market, in many cases than could be produced by our own hands.
However, QC, and the enormous infrastructure of production, which
injects robust economic yield into our own GDP, belong to foreign
nationals.

Put in a single sentence: We purchase products. THEY purchase labor.

In the end, business people are business people, foreign or
domestic, and we still pay the infractucture costs of the foreign
manufacturer through wholesale prices, but we then, also pay for
costs of replacement (and rarely, repair) of inferior products,
while at the mercy of suppliers who may not be as interested in
meeting our demands as we are theirs.

An on-topic reference: The Lex-Tecs-Pass-dig-sahn line of Grundig
receivers. QC has often been dreadful. Repair is difficult to come
by. RNW's Tom Sundstrom's review of SAT 800 required how many units
to get to ONE that worked?

(Drake could have built the same radio for only a modest price
increase in their own plant in China, and avoided the QC issues.
Instead of Lextronix allowing Tecsun to not only build the radio,
but then steal the design and release it worldwide under their own
brand. Good decision, Lextronix. Go, team.)


But not all American companies work according to today's MBA
driven model. Aspen Pittman, of Groove Tubes fame, built his
products in China, with parts garnered from around the world, and
with subsystems built in the US, but in plants that he built, and he
retained ownership of. Purchasing local labor, as a raw material.
For Groove Tubes, the engine of production was retained by the
company, not subcontracted to a foreign partner. IN this way, Groove
Tubes retained QC, and all the profits along the way from
acquisition of raw materials to market sales. Granted, his products
were not dirt cheap. But they were better than competitively priced,
and they were of distinctively high quality.

But the key was that GT retained the engine of production. Labor
was of foreign hire. But the actual WORK done by labor, was
considered an asset, and that was retained in ownership by the company.

So, if we really wanted to end the race to the bottom/economic
slavery of today's American economy, we'll start putting a value on
labor, again. Because labor is the very foundation of wealth. We
need to see it as an asset. Not a liability.

Prices would rise, to be sure. But, but because we could still
build offshore but in American owned plants, prices would not rise
as cataclysmically as if we simply shut off the spigot of foreign
labor and built everything here.

Further, by building in American owned plants offshore, and
working, now, hand-in-glove as equal entities with foreign ownership
in the manufacturing realm, American companies would become more
competitive with domestically produced goods, and even, as Toyota
and GM had done for decades, build each other's products, wherever
the plant best equipped to do so was located.

So, to address your question, to begin the transition back to an
American manufacturing economy, which we could do tomorrow, if we
wished, the infrastructure is still in place, we'd simply have to
begin looking at labor as an asset, instead of a liability. Once
harnessed, that asset would drive what was to follow.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

tariffs on all imports, bring jobs back to American...

In -theory-, you are absolutely correct. However, in actual practice,
tell me when the cheap Chinese labor and cheap Wal-Mart prices go away,
how long do you think it will be until the American consumer starts
rioting? (You do realze that when the 15 cent an hour Chinese labor goes
to $15 dollars an hour American labor, that prices WILL go up, waaay up.)


You made a big ass incorrect assumption that manufacturers would pass
their savings on to their customers; they don't. They pocket the
difference. You get ****ed, or you get ****ed.

On Nov 2, 4:11*am, John Smith wrote:

So? *Didn't you just describe the solution to your problems, which you,
yourself, describe?

Let me sum that up; *Move! *Go off the grid. *Use your freeplay in a log
cabin in the deep woods. *Simple ... really ...

That creates two even bigger problems than not being able to listen to
shortwave in the comfort of my own living room:

a) no friends nearby, and
b) no jobs nearby.

So, aside from being stuck by my lonesome with no source of income,
it's a simply perfect solution.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
An on-topic reference: The Lex-Tecs-Pass-dig-sahn line of Grundig
receivers. QC has often been dreadful. Repair is difficult to come
by. RNW's Tom Sundstrom's review of SAT 800 required how many units
to get to ONE that worked?

A good example is Ten-tec's new Chinese CW rig. Originally designed by
a Chinese ham who owned an electronics factory, they sold as kits on eBay for
$100.

Then they were imported to Canada as finished units by a relative of the
factory owner and sold to US hams without the relevant FCC approval, for
$150.

Ten-Tec now buys them, obtained FCC approval and re-sells them for $250.
The difference between the original units is that they were three band,
but would not pass FCC approval, and the Ten-Tec ones do, but are two band.

They also come with full Ten-Tec support, a warranty, and probably some
sort of QA testing in the US.

Quite simply, you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

A 100% markup is not unusual for radios. For computers, it's much lower
which is why so many computers don't work out of the box. :-(

BTW, at the same time, Ten-Tec announced a US designed and made rig with a
lot more capability and features at a much larger price.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)

On 11/2/2010 9:53 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
I disagree. If we did, it would be suicide for the entire world. Got a
less fatal solution?


How about a genetic altered bacteria/virus which only kills asians and
quickly mutates into a harmless strain within a few generations? This
way, we could disperse it in china in some vehicle and have asian
populations in other nations realtivly save from any infection(s.)

Or, else, if HAARP is really a weather modification weapon, we just
"weather-em' to death?" grin

Regards,
JS

On 11/2/2010 9:53 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

I disagree. If we did, it would be suicide for the entire world. Got a
less fatal solution?

On 11/2/2010 1:51 PM, John Smith wrote:

How about a genetic altered bacteria/virus which only kills asians and
quickly mutates into a harmless strain within a few generations? This
way, we could disperse it in china in some vehicle and have asian
populations in other nations realtivly save from any infection(s.)

Why punish the Chinese working man? Why not lay the blame on the greedy
American business owners that went to China -- or gasp! blame it on
the American consumer that just loves those cheap prices.

Like Pogo Possum always said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

On 11/2/10 07:49 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 11/1/2010 6:05 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Probably us falling into 'third world status' has nothing to do with
your 'guilt and deception'.

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The USA is just too expensive
any more. First to Mexico, now China and India and probably Africa
after
that.

A race to the bottom. :-(

On 11/1/2010 11:55 PM, John Smith wrote:

You are simply telling me what my treasonous-criminal-public-servants
are doing ... yes, we are going to have to tell them NO! Put high
tariffs on all imports, bring jobs back to American...

In -theory-, you are absolutely correct. However, in actual practice,
tell me when the cheap Chinese labor and cheap Wal-Mart prices go away,
how long do you think it will be until the American consumer starts
rioting? (You do realze that when the 15 cent an hour Chinese labor goes
to $15 dollars an hour American labor, that prices WILL go up, waaay up.)

And yes, the public servants who think they have usurped power are
racing us towards the bottom and economic slavery ... I want them and
the banksters and wall street there ...

Also correct...but unfortunately, you are forgetting the "Golden Rule":

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Quite a conundrum. Any suggestions as to a solution?

On 11/2/2010 10:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Ooh..ooh...[waving hand}...Teacher!, I've got this one.

Yes. Actually, we need to rethink the nature of wealth, in THIS country.
Where the real root of wealth is. Over the last century, well, 60 years
of it, we've gone from a manufacturing economy, to a merchant economy.
Rather than building and selling, we've elected to buy and resell.
Shifting the liability of labor to other entities as a cost saving
measure. Even though we still have robust manufacturing activity in this
country.

Robust? On this we differ. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of manufacturing jobs
lost in this country and still going in the wrong direction. Virtually
the entire tool & die industry gone (maybe because there is no
manufacturing here to support it?) It seems almost -everything-, from
brake pads to bed pans, is "Made in China". I would respectfully
disagree with your definition of "robust".

We still build most of the world's cars, for instance. With
more foreign plants being built on American soil even as we discuss this.

Maybe some plants are being built here, but all the published literature
I've seen says we are playing second fiddle to Toyota, Korea and China.

But, it's HOW we use labor that renders the difference in how we're
ranked in the Global Economy.

In our own MBA driven business culture, we've attempted to offload all
costs to other entities, to drive up profits, and the stock price.
Because we've looked at labor as a liability. Rather than an asset.
Shifting the cost of labor to overseas manufacturers. Attempting, as it
were, to conserve our way to prosperity, by eliminating most, if not
all, production costs.

Huh? "Conserve our prosperity"? Is that why our middle class is rapidly
disappearing? Why tens of millions of people are without work? THAT
"prosperity"? I think the MBAs dropped the ball on this one.

In this way, we've allowed other cultures to do our manufacturing for us
on their home soil, in plants owned by foreign companies. WE simply
place orders, buy commodities, and take a markup. Avoiding labor,
benefits and pension liabilities, and saving, often--though not
always--a huge tax burden.

Again, I have to say "Huh?" I believe American manufacturers are
receiving quite generous tax BREAKS for moving overseas, not your tax
burden.

Those same other nations, on the other hand, come to this country for
non-union labor, and build their own products, for sales and export, in
factories of THEY own. Saving some on labor, benefits and pension costs,
and snapping up huge tax incentives, but retaining the true source and
origination of wealth: The engine of production. Because they view labor
as an asset. The major car companies come to this country and purchase
our labor, but build in their own plants. From raw materials, to end
product. The finished product, in that case, is owned by themselves. To
be sold by themselves. With all markups, handling fees, retained by the
company. They have higher costs, in that they have physical plant
overhead, but, they have control over the profit produced by the product
at each stage of handling.

In the US MBA driven model, only the cost of the commodity is borne by
the company. With profits controllable at stages between purchase of the
finished product and beyond. Where as the foreign model, the profits
begin with the acquisition of raw materials. And along each stage of
production. Further, labor at each stage produces wages at each stage,
which produces economic vigor that the 'merchant' economy does not.

What this means, is that we do have cheaper products on the market, in
many cases than could be produced by our own hands.

That is a fair statement. Wal Mart, the Master of Cheap, claims that 85%
of the items on their shelves are from China.

However, QC, and the
enormous infrastructure of production, which injects robust economic
yield into our own GDP, belong to foreign nationals.

Put in a single sentence: We purchase products. THEY purchase labor.

In the end, business people are business people, foreign or domestic,
and we still pay the infractucture costs of the foreign manufacturer
through wholesale prices, but we then, also pay for costs of replacement
(and rarely, repair) of inferior products, while at the mercy of
suppliers who may not be as interested in meeting our demands as we are
theirs.

An on-topic reference: The Lex-Tecs-Pass-dig-sahn line of Grundig
receivers. QC has often been dreadful. Repair is difficult to come by.
RNW's Tom Sundstrom's review of SAT 800 required how many units to get
to ONE that worked?

(Drake could have built the same radio for only a modest price increase
in their own plant in China, and avoided the QC issues. Instead of
Lextronix allowing Tecsun to not only build the radio, but then steal
the design and release it worldwide under their own brand. Good
decision, Lextronix. Go, team.)


But not all American companies work according to today's MBA driven
model. Aspen Pittman, of Groove Tubes fame, built his products in China,
with parts garnered from around the world, and with subsystems built in
the US, but in plants that he built, and he retained ownership of.

Again, we differ on the meaning of a word -- 'ownership'. It is common
knowledge that no foreigner can "own" a plant or business in China;
rather, they have to partner with the Chinese government.

Purchasing local labor, as a raw material. For Groove Tubes, the engine
of production was retained by the company, not subcontracted to a
foreign partner. IN this way, Groove Tubes retained QC, and all the
profits along the way from acquisition of raw materials to market sales.
Granted, his products were not dirt cheap. But they were better than
competitively priced, and they were of distinctively high quality.

But the key was that GT retained the engine of production. Labor was of
foreign hire. But the actual WORK done by labor, was considered an
asset, and that was retained in ownership by the company.

So, if we really wanted to end the race to the bottom/economic slavery
of today's American economy, we'll start putting a value on labor,
again. Because labor is the very foundation of wealth. We need to see it
as an asset. Not a liability.

Amen! and Amen!!! again.

Prices would rise, to be sure. But, but because we could still build
offshore but in American owned plants, prices would not rise as
cataclysmically as if we simply shut off the spigot of foreign labor and
built everything here.

Further, by building in American owned plants offshore, and working,
now, hand-in-glove as equal entities with foreign ownership in the
manufacturing realm, American companies would become more competitive
with domestically produced goods, and even, as Toyota and GM had done
for decades, build each other's products, wherever the plant best
equipped to do so was located.

So, to address your question, to begin the transition back to an
American manufacturing economy, which we could do tomorrow, if we
wished, the infrastructure is still in place, we'd simply have to begin
looking at labor as an asset, instead of a liability. Once harnessed,
that asset would drive what was to follow.

Yes, I guess we could start up the American manufacturing economy
tomorrow, but per my original contention, it may not be economically
viable. Labor costs go from pennies per hour to dollars per hour, health
costs, virtually zero in China, are a very expensive item here,
environmental controls, a large and expensive issue here, are virtually
nil in China, ditto for pension liabilities, the tax breaks for going
overseas would be lost. Why would any manufacturer in their right mind
want to start producing here again given the issues above?

Of course, what the overseas manufactures seem to be failing to realize
is that, if you don't have a job, it ultimately will make no difference
how cheap a product is.

On 11/2/10 14:12 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 11/2/10 07:49 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 11/1/2010 6:05 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Probably us falling into 'third world status' has nothing to do with
your 'guilt and deception'.

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The USA is just too expensive
any more. First to Mexico, now China and India and probably Africa
after
that.

A race to the bottom. :-(

On 11/1/2010 11:55 PM, John Smith wrote:

You are simply telling me what my treasonous-criminal-public-servants
are doing ... yes, we are going to have to tell them NO! Put high
tariffs on all imports, bring jobs back to American...

In -theory-, you are absolutely correct. However, in actual practice,
tell me when the cheap Chinese labor and cheap Wal-Mart prices go away,
how long do you think it will be until the American consumer starts
rioting? (You do realze that when the 15 cent an hour Chinese labor goes
to $15 dollars an hour American labor, that prices WILL go up, waaay
up.)

And yes, the public servants who think they have usurped power are
racing us towards the bottom and economic slavery ... I want them and
the banksters and wall street there ...

Also correct...but unfortunately, you are forgetting the "Golden Rule":

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Quite a conundrum. Any suggestions as to a solution?

On 11/2/2010 10:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Ooh..ooh...[waving hand}...Teacher!, I've got this one.

Yes. Actually, we need to rethink the nature of wealth, in THIS country.
Where the real root of wealth is. Over the last century, well, 60 years
of it, we've gone from a manufacturing economy, to a merchant economy.
Rather than building and selling, we've elected to buy and resell.
Shifting the liability of labor to other entities as a cost saving
measure. Even though we still have robust manufacturing activity in this
country.

Robust? On this we differ. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of manufacturing jobs
lost in this country and still going in the wrong direction. Virtually
the entire tool & die industry gone (maybe because there is no
manufacturing here to support it?) It seems almost -everything-, from
brake pads to bed pans, is "Made in China". I would respectfully
disagree with your definition of "robust".

We still build most of the world's cars, for instance. With
more foreign plants being built on American soil even as we discuss this.

Maybe some plants are being built here, but all the published literature
I've seen says we are playing second fiddle to Toyota, Korea and China.

But, it's HOW we use labor that renders the difference in how we're
ranked in the Global Economy.

In our own MBA driven business culture, we've attempted to offload all
costs to other entities, to drive up profits, and the stock price.
Because we've looked at labor as a liability. Rather than an asset.
Shifting the cost of labor to overseas manufacturers. Attempting, as it
were, to conserve our way to prosperity, by eliminating most, if not
all, production costs.

Huh? "Conserve our prosperity"? Is that why our middle class is rapidly
disappearing? Why tens of millions of people are without work? THAT
"prosperity"? I think the MBAs dropped the ball on this one.

In this way, we've allowed other cultures to do our manufacturing for us
on their home soil, in plants owned by foreign companies. WE simply
place orders, buy commodities, and take a markup. Avoiding labor,
benefits and pension liabilities, and saving, often--though not
always--a huge tax burden.

Again, I have to say "Huh?" I believe American manufacturers are
receiving quite generous tax BREAKS for moving overseas, not your tax
burden.

Those same other nations, on the other hand, come to this country for
non-union labor, and build their own products, for sales and export, in
factories of THEY own. Saving some on labor, benefits and pension costs,
and snapping up huge tax incentives, but retaining the true source and
origination of wealth: The engine of production. Because they view labor
as an asset. The major car companies come to this country and purchase
our labor, but build in their own plants. From raw materials, to end
product. The finished product, in that case, is owned by themselves. To
be sold by themselves. With all markups, handling fees, retained by the
company. They have higher costs, in that they have physical plant
overhead, but, they have control over the profit produced by the product
at each stage of handling.

In the US MBA driven model, only the cost of the commodity is borne by
the company. With profits controllable at stages between purchase of the
finished product and beyond. Where as the foreign model, the profits
begin with the acquisition of raw materials. And along each stage of
production. Further, labor at each stage produces wages at each stage,
which produces economic vigor that the 'merchant' economy does not.

What this means, is that we do have cheaper products on the market, in
many cases than could be produced by our own hands.

That is a fair statement. Wal Mart, the Master of Cheap, claims that 85%
of the items on their shelves are from China.

However, QC, and the
enormous infrastructure of production, which injects robust economic
yield into our own GDP, belong to foreign nationals.

Put in a single sentence: We purchase products. THEY purchase labor.

In the end, business people are business people, foreign or domestic,
and we still pay the infractucture costs of the foreign manufacturer
through wholesale prices, but we then, also pay for costs of replacement
(and rarely, repair) of inferior products, while at the mercy of
suppliers who may not be as interested in meeting our demands as we are
theirs.

An on-topic reference: The Lex-Tecs-Pass-dig-sahn line of Grundig
receivers. QC has often been dreadful. Repair is difficult to come by.
RNW's Tom Sundstrom's review of SAT 800 required how many units to get
to ONE that worked?

(Drake could have built the same radio for only a modest price increase
in their own plant in China, and avoided the QC issues. Instead of
Lextronix allowing Tecsun to not only build the radio, but then steal
the design and release it worldwide under their own brand. Good
decision, Lextronix. Go, team.)


But not all American companies work according to today's MBA driven
model. Aspen Pittman, of Groove Tubes fame, built his products in China,
with parts garnered from around the world, and with subsystems built in
the US, but in plants that he built, and he retained ownership of.

Again, we differ on the meaning of a word -- 'ownership'. It is common
knowledge that no foreigner can "own" a plant or business in China;
rather, they have to partner with the Chinese government.

Purchasing local labor, as a raw material. For Groove Tubes, the engine
of production was retained by the company, not subcontracted to a
foreign partner. IN this way, Groove Tubes retained QC, and all the
profits along the way from acquisition of raw materials to market sales.
Granted, his products were not dirt cheap. But they were better than
competitively priced, and they were of distinctively high quality.

But the key was that GT retained the engine of production. Labor was of
foreign hire. But the actual WORK done by labor, was considered an
asset, and that was retained in ownership by the company.

So, if we really wanted to end the race to the bottom/economic slavery
of today's American economy, we'll start putting a value on labor,
again. Because labor is the very foundation of wealth. We need to see it
as an asset. Not a liability.

Amen! and Amen!!! again.

Prices would rise, to be sure. But, but because we could still build
offshore but in American owned plants, prices would not rise as
cataclysmically as if we simply shut off the spigot of foreign labor and
built everything here.

Further, by building in American owned plants offshore, and working,
now, hand-in-glove as equal entities with foreign ownership in the
manufacturing realm, American companies would become more competitive
with domestically produced goods, and even, as Toyota and GM had done
for decades, build each other's products, wherever the plant best
equipped to do so was located.

So, to address your question, to begin the transition back to an
American manufacturing economy, which we could do tomorrow, if we
wished, the infrastructure is still in place, we'd simply have to begin
looking at labor as an asset, instead of a liability. Once harnessed,
that asset would drive what was to follow.

Yes, I guess we could start up the American manufacturing economy
tomorrow, but per my original contention, it may not be economically
viable. Labor costs go from pennies per hour to dollars per hour, health
costs, virtually zero in China, are a very expensive item here,
environmental controls, a large and expensive issue here, are virtually
nil in China, ditto for pension liabilities, the tax breaks for going
overseas would be lost. Why would any manufacturer in their right mind
want to start producing here again given the issues above?

For exactly the reasons I stated: If we put a value on labor
here, and stop selling that asset in this country, while buying it
overseas, we can start benefiting from the chain of wealth created
by the labor on our own soil. Labor costs can be exchanged with
other manufacturers. Few realize how many Toyotas, for instance,
were built in this country by General Motors, and American workers.
While at the same time, Hyundai, BMW, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubish and
Mercedes-Benz was building in this country with American labor. The
difference being that they retained owership of that labor product.
In other words, instead of buying a commodity and then reselling it
on home soil, they produced the commodity retaining owership of it
throughout the chain of production, and profited at each stage. But
always owning the engine of production, and using labor as an asset,
not a liability.

While GM, and Chrysler, but to a lesser extent, Ford, looked at
labor strictly as a liability, and attempted to offload much of it
to foreign manufacturers because of the legacy costs.

There is no doubt that labor in this country is expensive. With
legacy costs that extend far beyond the assets of current work
product. That cannot be sustained. Primarily, especially in the auto
business, when the legacy costs of pension and benefits are shifted
from the Unions, to the manufacturers. That's economic suicide. And
it's had the auto industry on the ropes since the late 50's. But,
there is a correction for that.

Before that shift, and in other unions as well, pension and
benefits were handled by the Union, not the manufacturer. That was
one of the benefits of membership. It did two things, immediately.
One was that the company had a manageable budget for labor costs,
with contractually contained wages. Higher than non-union in many,
but not all cases. But predictable, and containable. Which kept
final prices manageable, and quality higher. The other thing it did,
was allow for fluctuations in the market without putting the
viability of the company at risk.

For instance, when Ford's sales slumped, but GM's peaked, workers
would be laid off at Ford, while GM was hiring. But Ford still had
legacy costs of labor that could not be scaled back with down
trending sales. And vested workers would be penalized with loss of
benefits if they moved from Ford to GM to take advantage of the
shifted corporate fortunes and new hiring. When Chrysler would boom
and Ford and GM would slump, workers, again, would be penalized if
they moved to where the work was. Because the companies were paying
the benefits and pension costs. But if the Unions were paying
benefits and pensions, the workers would be able to move between
companies to take advantage of openings, without loss of benefits or
pensions. And through Union organization, even seniority could be
retained.

I'm a member of two Unions. In each case, pension and benefits
are paid by the Union out of dues collected. The companies only hire
my labor, and pay me a wage. So I'm free to work where I choose.
Where the work is. And move between opportunities at will.

Spreading that model throughout the labor force, would change
much about the liabilities of purchasing labor in the US. It would
also allow companies, again, to see labor as an asset, not as a
liabiilty.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 11/1/2010 11:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
Why these sick b*st*rds are left unchallenged to coax Americans,
through
guilt and deception, into failure and 3rd world status simply disgusts
me ... but we seem to have an abundance of these fools here with us ...

Regards,
JS

Probably us falling into 'third world status' has nothing to do with
your 'guilt and deception'.

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The USA is just too expensive
any more. First to Mexico, now China and India and probably Africa after
that.

A race to the bottom. :-(

On 11/2/2010 10:14 AM, dave wrote:

That's finished. We lost.

I agree with those two statements.

Nuke China.

I disagree. If we did, it would be suicide for the entire world. Got a
less fatal solution?

If we are to survive we're going to need to lose some of these extras.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:


Why punish the Chinese working man? Why not lay the blame on the greedy
American business owners that went to China -- or gasp! blame it on
the American consumer that just loves those cheap prices.

How much more do you think it would cost, per item, if they were
manufactured here? I think it's like 70 cents for a shirt and $4 for a
$150 pair of Nikes. We have nickeled-and-dimed ourselves into extinction.