Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to FOUR THOUSAND MORE JOBS LOST -- WHO'S to BLAME for THIS????
Janes
Good one. I saw in the history of the Macy's Parade where it did not happen two years of the war. You know the war, that war where people cut down to rationing stamps to get gas, we cut back on many things so our troops would have what they needed. I don't remember anyone expecting a free thanksgiving and a hotel room so they would not have to live in a rent free house, there you will have to at least load the dishwasher. I don't remember people during that war having any free money coming in to them. We just stuck together and helped one another. Nothing was too big to give up to support our military away at war and their families at home without them. No one would have thought white or blue collar gouging. Do they know what outsourcing means and why they have brought it about? Hey come see me:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Justsouno2128/
posted by
Justi
on November 27, 2005 at 4:15 AM
| link to this | reply
the laws you mention
were passed eventually from public pressure -- it was a long, hard, effort. It took the massacre of American citizens by other American citizens (union workers by local police and others) and standing up in the face of great opposition and illegal tactics on the part of companies and their political allies to eventually have the laws enacted.
odd that you should mention these.
are you blind?
look around
you see those laws being eroded as time goes on. overtime, weekly hour limitations, even age limitations -- these are all going by the boards and it would seem with the suppport of our government.
there is talk of hiring people younger than 16, allowing older pepole to work -- the strictures are being eroded.
we are repeating the past mistakes.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 26, 2005 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you Corbin. The feeling is mutual!
God bless.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 24, 2005 at 7:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes.....
I hope you have a very good Thanksgiving.......in the short period of time I have been here, I think I am lucky to have met you.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 24, 2005 at 8:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Offbeats, yes, I fear you are correct. So please, Dr, why do I keep beating my head against a wall? Do I look like I need a hematoma?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 24, 2005 at 5:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
Your beating your head against the wall trying to tell them anything. They have already make up their minds to blame, hate and I honestly think they wear blinders and hearing plugs.
posted by
Offy
on November 23, 2005 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
writers journey, thanks for some concise, well thought out comments. I appreciate reading your take on the subject.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 23, 2005 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, I agree that corporations need to adapt. Well said!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 23, 2005 at 7:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Xenox, you are overcome with your own anti capitalist angst and bitterness here. There are so many anti-child labor laws, and general labor laws on the books to prevent the majority of the pre-union working conditions you mention. Unless a person enters the country illegally and is forced by the ganglords who smuggled him/her in to work in a sweat shop for 10 years before freedom is granted (which is how some Chinese and others are entering the country) -- these conditions you mention do not exist today. At least not to my knowledge or on a big scale.
I am all for reasonable wages; however, I'm not for big unions. They refuse to adapt and negotiate. They refuse to be flexible with changing times. They look out for their own interests and not for the interests of an entire company. That's what I'm against.
Have I ever said that I'm for big CEO wages? You and your son are way too good at jumping to conclusions, making huge erroneous assumptions and being, well, downright wrong.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 23, 2005 at 7:17 PM
| link to this | reply
this teaches one lesson
those who do not learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat its mistakes.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 23, 2005 at 8:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Henry Ford knew what prosperity really was
paying his owrkers twice the ogng raqte.
you know why?
because, he said, "They would have money enough to buy the cars they made."
good thinking.
but the history of corporations has always been to reap as muchg in the way of profits as possible at the expense of those who work for them
historically, workers have been chattel to use jusat as the mechanical equipment is used -- use it up and when it is all used up, be finished with it.
turn of the 20th Century -- the scenario:
no age limits -- workers ranged from 8 yrs old to 90 -- no retirement.
hours: about 12 - -16 a day.
days off? . . . maybe one -- Sunday.
wages -- about $0.25/day.
workers' living conditions: atrocious -- several families living in a 3 or 4 room tenement -- upwards of 20 some people.
working conditions: just as atrocious: poor lighting, opressive air to breath, no fire protecton systems -- the environment was very prone to accidents, fire, other disasters -- doors were locked -- there are records of fires killing scores of people and they couldn't get out because of locked doors (something similar happend not too long ago in one of the SE Asia sweatshops) -- oh yes -- what did they call these? sweatshops.
It took unionization and demands for better conditions and wages, etc., aqnd standing up to these companies -- in the face of local and other governments sending police in to stop workers demanding their rights by various means -- clubbing with nightsticks, shooting, etc. Check out the Haymarket Square incident.
workers had NO rights.
it seems that what you are saying here.
workers have NO rights -- right?
You are in your words promoting a return to these times.
you are saying that corporations have the right to all the profits they can make and that the gap between corporate heads and the working class should get wider.
that's what I hear.
this philosophy is a throwback to times that no one wants to have repeated.
it took a lot of blood, sweat and tears for workers to garner the rights they have now -- and it seems they are letting these rights be eroded.
problem is -- Henry Ford was right -- give workers benefits and those benefits will circulate through the economy.
the affluence of the 50's is a prime example of this.
unions were prominent, workers received top wages (didn't need more than one person's income in a family to have a good life), the economy boomed.
Vietnam was the first thing to drain the economy. Nixon's policies, Reagan's policies, conservative policies -- and now we have both adult members of the family working (some of them more than one job) to maintain the same standard of living that one worker could in the 50's.
and as wages and benefits decrease, it h as a ripple effect throughout the economy.
lets see: fewer purchases (called consumer confidence, by the way), fewer trips to the doctor -- means less income for the medical profession --
let's see what we can have here -- housing market slump, auto market slump, consumer markets slump. employment cugtbacks, more peole on unemployment -- or taking jobs at fast food places or in menial jobs with lower pay -- this is happening -- more people unable to pay the higher rents -- more homeless families.
this all is happening.
I really don't think that this is what you want.
it will affect you if you consider it.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 23, 2005 at 7:59 AM
| link to this | reply
The Industrial Crisis is Systemic, Not Cyclical
Actually there is a qualitative difference between the cyclical changes in the 70s and the systemic demise of the auto and other industries that we are seeing today. The 70s was an adjustment; today we are seeing industrial shut-down. The historic balance of trade and current accounts deficits show a great deal about the direction of the US economy.
Likewise with gas prices. The 70s price rise was due to the oil embargo, today it is due to derivatives speculation primarily, and secondarily to failure to upgrade refinery capacity since the 1970s – another sign of a systemic industrial melt-down. In fact the entire premise of the so-called “new economy” is deindustrialization.
When you have an industry that is as essential to the US economy as the auto industry is you preserve its productive capacity by retooling it for other forms of transportation such as rail transport – which we are in dire need of, particularly freight rail. The excessive inventory is the result of the CEOs who have excessive salaries and golden parachutes to match.
Yes, you re-tool the industry to meet the other infrastructure needs of our economy if you want to have an industrial economy 25 years from now.
As for Toyota, it is still a Japanese owned company that does most of its manufacturing overseas; the only value-added from its operations in the United States is assembly, not manufacturing. The decline of manufacturing in this country is reflected in the decade-by-decade decline in highly-skilled machine tool designers and builders. The decline of these industries, and the skilled labor that goes along with them, is irreplaceable. Either there is a federal response to this crisis or our industrial capacity will go under.
And as the auto industry declines we are placing more stress on our pension system across the board because the first thing a bankrupt industry gets rid of are its pension obligations – that means the federal pension insurance system picks up the tab, and they are already nearly maxed out from the other industrial bankruptcies (including those in the airline industry).
The auto industry is vital to our national economy – the current crisis it faces is systemic rather than cyclical – we have a national interest in preserving this industry rather than allowing it to go under.
posted by
writersjourney
on November 22, 2005 at 11:45 PM
| link to this | reply
WritersJourney
Two things....the auto industry has gone through several periods like this. Each time it was the result of outside pressures. During the 70 when we had another crazy oil market and shortages. Americans increased their infatuation with Japanese cars and somewhat with European brands. They had to re-think their whole model offering.
We were lulled back into our comfort zones, the gasoline problems were behind use and along comes......MINIvans!....... But wait, after time, the soccer om fade faded from the news and we needed BIGGER, safer cars....so we go crazy over SUVs.......all the while consuming more and more gasoline........
Now, we have higher oil prices....and several major natural disaster that impacted the supply chain. meanwhile in the background China has been buying millions of barrels of oil (using all of those American Dollars) and putting it in reserves for future needs. Demand up....price up.
Again, the (American) auto companies have bulging inventories, because sales drop dramatically. What are they supposed to do, keep the plants open and run the cars out, take them apart, and then rebuild them?
Second...who sale the auto industry as a whole is declining? Toyota is about to become the world's largest automaker, and most of their cars are made right here in the US. It's like I said before.....it's industrial evolution.....you adapt or you go away. General Motors is going through a mutation.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 22, 2005 at 7:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, fantastic comments and so very well thought out. Thanks for sharing. I hope xeno-x read what you had to say? It's doubtful, but one can always hope.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 22, 2005 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
writer of light, Amen. A few days after writing this I heard on the news about GM and wondered how many of these jobs would be in Michigan -- where I live? That's a huge number and certainly a bitter pill to swallow.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 22, 2005 at 6:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x I'm not sure how to respond to your comment (several comments ago) except to say that you're becoming more and more bitter. Is that how you really want to be? Fact is, I don't agree with all the fiscal decisions Bush et al have made over the last few years. They have been spending as if there's no tomorrow -- and I don't mean as it pertains to the Iraq war or Katrina. I mean regarding our national economy.
But you, I must say, are becoming ever more socialist in your comments so I'm thinking perhaps a retirement to China or France would suit you well. Of course, in China, state sponsored health care is pretty nonexistant and in France you might have your car torched but hey, France has all the Muslims you seem to prefer and China enough communist socialism to last the rest of your life. So go for it!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 22, 2005 at 6:43 PM
| link to this | reply
mystic, you mention the reality in China being that an engineer can hardly afford to feed his family, but what does that have to do with an engineer here? Or union here? Besides the fact that China subsidizes its auto industry? Apples to oranges?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 22, 2005 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
So once again I leave for a few days and come back to a bazillion comments -- and of course the same number of varying opinions. I appreciate the thoughtful responses -- thanks.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 22, 2005 at 6:37 PM
| link to this | reply
The Fault Lies in the Way We Think About Industry and Economics
Whose fault is it? The executives who took huge salary increases while they mis-managed their companies. Don't blame the auto-workers, at least they work and produce a product. Now General Motors is laying off 30,000 workers. This is a trend. It is a trend based on a policy orientation toward de-industrialization. Who is to blame? Those who favor an economy of consumption (at cheap prices from slave labor) and short-term speculative trade, rather than a productive economy.
No self-respecting nation would allow their auto industry to go under. They we see such industry as a strategic national resource. They would re-tool it for other forms of mechanical manufacturing, such as rail production. Only a nation bent on long-term economic suicide would allow corporate executives to run a key industry, such as auto, into the ground -- costing the U.S. both jobs and productive capacity.
posted by
writersjourney
on November 22, 2005 at 5:56 PM
| link to this | reply
yes, I see
you want to go back to the Laissez-faire doctrine of the 1800's.
where corporations can get away with murder.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 22, 2005 at 3:08 PM
| link to this | reply
writer
i see you want us to return to the sweatshops of the 1800's when working people were just slaves to the companies -- and the companies made obscene profits from that -- no health insurance, unhealthy working conditions, etc.
good for you!!! a fine argument for Marxism!!!
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 22, 2005 at 2:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Ooops
dinosaur.....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 22, 2005 at 7:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Jane....
These problems can be traced somewhat to the American consumers decade long obsession with the SUV...... A very profitable item for the automakers....but not so appealing with $3.00+ gasoline prices here in the states. The bottom has fallen out of the market.......losses are now on the plate put before America's automakers.........
The socialist minded will proclaim the need for the Re-Unionization of the industry. A poorly thought out suggestion for a solution.
Some here, say it's the profits of the companies.....uh, if they're making record profits, it would be carrying over to the workers situations. It's sales and the profits derived from those sales that provide the payment for the benefits(expenses). Sales down, profits down, benefit (expenses) cut, labor costs(expenses) cut.
The socialist mind regards those labor costs and benefit packages as entitlement programs, that should be there forever. Both Europe and Japan are now quickly learning the lifetime job and benefit scenario is a thing of the past.
The number one expense for most of this "evil corporations" is labor. When sales (cash flow/ income) decreases, labor cost (expenses ) must be reduced. How hard is that to understand?
Socialist reaction is usually: "Why do we give CEOs 500 times what the lowest-paid worker makes?
WE? You are only a part of the "we" if you are a stockholder of the company, if not what right or say do you have in the decision making process? Amazing, that people think that "evil corporations" are a public institution under the control of the people. Your only control is in the decision making process is whether you are going to buy the company's product. Beyond that, you don't have a dog in that fight.
Is this all fair? Now there's a Top Ten Hit on the Liberal Top 40.....
Fair? Hell, life's not fair......who should we whine to about that?
When autos were invented....buggy makers went out of business. When movies came along, vaudville disappeared and the theater suffered. Just as animals evolve institutions evolve.....
Has anyone here bought a typewriter lately?
You have to either adapt or walk the path of the dinasaur.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on November 22, 2005 at 6:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Comment for xenox:
And, of course,
all profits are obscene, unless it's the government profiting through taxation.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 21, 2005 at 7:41 PM
| link to this | reply
And you think that's bad . . .
How about GM cutting 30,000 jobs and closing nine plants? I think you nailed it - far too generous benefits causing the product to be uncompetitively priced. I understand health care is GM's highest single cost.
posted by
WriterofLight
on November 21, 2005 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Maybe the answer is for more workers to join unions,
including white-collar workers.
Let's face it, big industry executives are organized, like unions. They call themselves corporations. Without unions to check their power, organized business execs can control their workers' wages, working conditions, and access to health care!
So certainly, union workers have to accept sacrifices, but so should the higher-ups (those higher than the mid-level white-collar workers whose problems you understandably decry). Why do we give CEOs 500 times what the lowest-paid worker makes? What sacrifices do they have to make?
If union workers hurt non-union workers, I think the best answer is not to drop unions, but for the non-union workers to organize and join unions, so they can get the same kind of protections. We cannot let industry execs decide everything! They are organized - and a very pro-corporate government in Washington D.C. is mostly on their side. Regular people need to be organized too!
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on November 21, 2005 at 1:11 PM
| link to this | reply
actually its corporate america trying to save money all right
on the backs of the working class.
obscene profits -- they want more --
of course you probably don't think you are affected -- you kmust have a job (or no job?) that isn't involvedin al lthis.
let's watch the economy falter more and more
you keep backing ol;' Bushie and watch us sink further nto a devastating oblivion of economic depression -- with no way out and no government safety nets for all the former middle class dropping precipitously to rock bottom.
you are getting what you want -- maybe what you deserve.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 21, 2005 at 10:56 AM
| link to this | reply
The reason why Delphi is in bankruptcy ...
and Ford is on the ropes is because the Chinese government is subsidizing the creation of automotive parts. Interesting that all the right wing know-it-alls are so quick to blame the "overpaid" union, but the reality is that an engineer in China barely makes enough to feed his family. I know because my former company does multi-millions with the Chinese in the auto industry. We've hosted some of their engineers.
By slamming the union, what in effect is happening is all manufacturers are getting tax breaks to move jobs out of the country. What jobs are going to be left here? What made the US great was the someone without a college education could feed his family!
posted by
fwmystic
on November 21, 2005 at 5:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Yeah, I agree.
The union workers for the NHL make multimillion dollar salaries. Talk about greed. I think sports people should be paid well, because their careers are shorter on average, but it's getting a little ridiculous.
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on November 20, 2005 at 8:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Trevor, you make a valid point, although I think that the cost of labor could be decreased a little in this country if union workers were willing to cut back some. Their demands are frequently over the top and unrealistic.
At the same time, I think Toyota has done well because it has produced a really solid, high quality car. The American made vehicles have been catching up, thanks to this tough competition.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 20, 2005 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Taps, I love Ford too and drive a Ford and have done so for the past 13 years or so. I'm sure your dad and I would have gotten along just fine -- even if he was UAW. Perhaps I'm a little hard on the UAW. There was a time when unions were desperately needed, when "blue collar" workers were abused and taken advantage of and forced to work for a pittance in deplorable conditions. Now, however, I still think they could scale back a little.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 20, 2005 at 3:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Well.
Your brother-in-law's situation aside, I don't think that blue-collar workers should pay more for benefits. I don't think you can blame a person so much as the free-trade economy. Besides Americans preferring toyotas (a company who pays their workers very well), the outsourcing of labour to other countries where labour is cheaper, combined with increasingly mechanized modes of production causes such layoffs.
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on November 20, 2005 at 3:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting post, JanesOpinion. My dad worked for Ford MC and swore by the UAW but that was years and years ago. I think he retired somewhere around 1965. I think things must have been a bit different then?
posted by
TAPS.
on November 20, 2005 at 9:58 AM
| link to this | reply