Misquoting is not an honest argument on your part. The next sentence in my post contains examples of government regulations that are commonly accepted and affect everyone equally. If you pretend to ignore it just to steal my own reasoning and throw it back at me, what's the point of an argument?
Poppycock, Miko and you know it too. So what sort of "arguing" is that. You said:
"The only fair way to affect everyone equally is to have anti-trust laws and limit the working hours - and that has been done."
There's the part I left out for brevity. I figure anyone that has read this thread this far is smart enough to recall what's been said for at least 10 posts.
Anyway, that hasn’t been done internationally AT ALL. And you’ve been focusing on jobs moving overseas. Anti-trust, working hours.. the same in Viet Nam as here? The same as Mexico as here? No way. THAT’S the point…. IT’S NOT EQUAL!
That is a news to me. In my building my firm cannot hire our own contractor to paint the walls - we must use the union. I think it is somewhere in the contract.
If firing workers who refuse to work, or workers who join union was so easy, the unions would be just like clubs - with political but no legal power.
Read what I said again… "at the end of the bargaining road".. you have a contract AFTER you negotiate on with a union. And you have to abide by the contract until it is completed, expires or is re-negotiated. Are you complaining that it’s not fair that you have to abide by the contract you signed? That would be pretty typical of management.
Bet you expect the Union to abide by the contract IT signed, don't you? Or is that different?
Since the risk of different investments is different, those with higher risk must offer higher return to be attractive.
Point is the RISK does vary BECAUSE of what Governments and people do. Capital DOESN’T necessarily "free flow". Governments, trade agreements and cheating ALL alter the "free flow" of capital.
"All things being equal"… but they aren’t. And that's the point. If you skew the risk/reward decision by cheating....
That is true. It would make sence to make a legislation allowing US companies to operate and goods imported/exported from countries with the same level of development as ours.
But you know this will NEVER happen.. and if it DID, there’d be no point in moving the jobs out, would there? Because labor costs wouldn’t be different enough to make it worth the effort.
That helped create new jobs and offset the job loss by moving the production...
The point you so casually ignore is that the stats all say that these "new jobs" you are so proud of are paying far, far less than the previous jobs. That’s going to make the economy grow?
Tell me Miko, how will the US economy be when we’re all working at the drive in window at Burger King serving fast food to each other? Think we’ll still be the world’s most desirable market?
When the vast majority are all making minimum wage, how will that be a plus?
Other brands - Ford, Crysler, etc. would not be able to compete and would be pushed out of the market, would have to close their plants and lay off the workers. So the consumers would be hurt by losing their jobs even more.
Ignoring the fact that Ford and Chrysler have done essentially the same thing as GM, aren’t you? They moved the jobs out along with the rest. More burger flippers now.. a great thing, eh?
but try to keep in mind the whole picture.
Indeed. You might want to try it as well.
The example of other countries selling cars for much more then tehy sell in US is not an example of dumping. It is an example of making people pay more for something through legal means rather then free-market.
Dumping is selling cars here for far less than they cost to produce in the home country AND for less than they sell for in the home country. Dumping is protectionism. There’s two schools on that. If they want to subsidize your car purchase, let them. The other school is they can ruin YOUR car industry this way.. and then charge what they like.
Japan used to "dump" pretty routinely until we finally got the trade agreements worked out. It wasn’t a good thing for our industry and that’s why it attracted the politicos attention.
You just want some people to pay more for labor as long as that benefits you
No, actually, I’d like to see working people make enough money to own a home, raise a few kids, have decent health insurance, be able to send their kids to college without bankrupting themselves and also have a decent retirement. ALL working people.
And if you wait for management to raise the pay that far, you’ll never, ever see it.
If you let the government do it, it’ll be done through high taxation and it’ll be done poorly for all concerned.
Maybe we should just pay people that much for giving their life to a company? Nah...... screw 'em.
Unfortunately unions are not interested in either fixing the labor disbalance or corporate incompetence.
Come on now! Fixing corporate incompetence? I have to laugh. I’d love to see the look on the faces of the Board Members when the Union guy strolled in and said, "hey, we’ve got some really sharp folks that have analyzed your business and we have some suggestions for you".
Management looks down on ANYTHING a Union proposes until the Managers get themselves in so deep they have to screw the working guy again to get out of the sh*t. Then they’ll
pretend to talk with and listen to the Union guys… until they get what they want.
As for the "Unions" getting us the 8-hour day and 5-day week and pension plans, that is quite different. That was mass movement of most of the workers to change laws of the country, not some group to get a bigger piece at the expence of others.
Those unions and modern unions are not the same thing.
Some of those Unions are EXACTLY the same Unions that fought for those working conditions. And RIGHT NOW they’re working to improve other aspects of working conditions and benefits. Look for 401K revisions to be heavily supported/pushed by Unions after Enron. And without the Union support, it would never get done. Look for further efforts to secure decent reliable medical benefits for workers… and without Union support that will never get done either.
There’s plenty of work still to be done…. And it isn’t Management that’s out trying to improve the lot of the worker and his family… it’s the Unions.
That is why more money is offered - to attract better work force.
Agree.
That would never work for unionised public school - however much you pay, the bureaucrats do not care to select the best for the job and union would not let them sack the worst anyway.
Disagree. It works just about everywhere. Administrators want the best teachers they can get.. it makes their job easier and makes them look better.
The NEA, as I mentioned upthread, IS going to have to change on teacher evaluations if they ever expect to get significantly better wages. However, the reason the "hard to fire" aspect of Unions evolved is simply because of the way Management treated the workers.
They’d fire on a whim, they’d fire to dump senior workers in order to employ cheaper new hires, etc. Pendulum effect. It got way too one-sided when Management was pushing the pendulum in their favor and now there has been an equal and opposite reaction. Now the Union aspect is out of line in some industries.
How come MS in biology and years of experience not sufficient to grant a job after a regular job interview? I bet union rules had a lot to do with it.
More likely, it was state law. Standards and Standardization. Licenses for professionals are pretty common. My dad taught me how to fly a long time before I got a license. Should someone have hired me as a commercial pilot at that time?
The teachers in NYC are mostly losers that cannot get a job anywhere else and it will never change while the school system is huge and public.
I think this gross generalization and defamation pretty much speaks for itself.
The current unions more resemble a flock of dumb sheep headed by crooks with their own agenda.
So how would this make them different from say.. Management types? Use the Enron leadership for your example. Because the Enron types are probably the norm now. They guys who built companies and industries to benefit the nation as well as themselves are about all gone.
Anyway, check upthread. I’ve said over and over that the only thing worse than a Union is NO Union.
You have to have them to balance out the low-life in the management pool.. simple as that.
