guyy

All the Japanese auto makers are cutting jobs. For example, Nissan is letting go of all it's contract (= temporary/seasonal) employees. That's Nissan in Japan. I don't know what they're doing in the US and elsewhere, but in general, they are cutting more in the US because for the moment, the depression is worse in the West.
-----Added 20/12/2008 at 12 : 08 : 13-----
Right. So for the economy as a whole, there is in fact a net loss. It's just that those costs are held at arm's length from the big guy. It's a net loss because just-in-time is pretty wasteful when you get down to it, particularly in transportation/energy expenditures. But it could be worse than it is in Japan, where industries are spatially located in a semi-rational manner and where the transportation infrastructure is much more efficient than in it is in the US.

Yakk

Company A: makes makes people work for 1200 units of work to build 1200 coconuts in January. Then shuts down production for 11 months of coconuts, and works on other stuff. 5 people are, however, employed each month after the first to deal with the inventory management of coconuts.

Company B: makes people work for 100 units of work to build 100 units a month for the entire year.


Differences in available labor, B-A:
-1100 in January, 95 each month afterwards.

Now, lets suppose there are other productive things people could do. Let's suppose these things have a 0.5% monthly return on investment -- ie, doing the work 1 month earlier is 0.5% better than doing it now, and now is 0.5% better than doing it next month.

At the end of the year, both companies have 1200 coconuts they consumed.

There is a difference in the 'unused labor' of both companies. We will presume that people went off and made something useful when not employed.

1100 more free people in January under B. They produce 1100 units of work somewhere.

By the end of the year, this grows to 1.005^11 * 1100 =~ 1162 "units of usefulness".

In Febuary, A has 95 more people free to work on other projects. They produce 95 units of work somewhere.

By the end of the year, this grows to 1.005^10 * 95.

March is the same, which grows to 1.005^9 * 95.

Etc all the way to december, with A accumultating an advantage of:

(1.005^10 + ... + 1.005^0) * 95
= 95 * (1 - 1.005^11) / (1 - 1.005) =~ 1071.5 "units of usefulness" over those 11 months.

Which means that B is about 90.5 man-months of labor output ahead of company A. By implementing JIT delivery. (Note that the 55 man-months of manning the warehouse do not account for the entire gap)

The basic idea is that if you can do something efficiently, then _you can use the resources involved on other things_. And there are lots of useful places to spend resources.

And if you can defer your use of resources until it is needed, it means that things which have a time-pressing need for resources have more free resources to be used _now_.

This results in higher efficiency -- higher output per unit labor -- which makes society as a whole richer.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

guyy

Yakk: You're only looking at one employer. There is a whole raft of workers that is off of MegaKorp's books, but which is nevertheless employed by someone. The parts aren't made by elves. Moreover, i do not buy the assumption that MegaKorp's workers produce something capitalistically quantifiable during layoffs. Toyota isn't based in Toyota for nothing.

JIT is imposed on suppliers and workers because MegaKorp can. GM & Furd probably would if they could, but they can't. It's a question of political power.

roachboy

a couple more general comments:

you can think about the detriot manufacturers as having done more or less the same thing as the american steel industry after world war 2, at the point they had exported continuous casting technologies in the context of the marshall plan---short term profits--in the long term, you go away. the technology puts you under, once logistics and trade rules and--particularly--reactionary politics relative to labor change the rules of the economic game away from the social and toward the movement of capital understood as autonomous.

the regulation school folk characteried the united states in a general sense as being trapped in a nostalgia for fordism, unable to come to terms with flex accumulation even as they became the main driver for globalizing capitalism/cowboy capitalism...one way of thinking about this is through the shift from the type of dominance the united states exercised under bretton woods to a different type, the conditions of possibility/outline of the project for which was put unto place by the nixon administration--the states shifted from a more socially oriented regulatory function to that of a governor for a system which gradually took shape that substituted capital flows for social consequences...

this second model was never sustainable--it was not even about sustainability.
you can see initiatives like the bush people's "ownership society" as attempts to use debt as political coercion explicitly...if the socio-economic consequences of cowboy capitalism were increased economic instability within the united states, the reconfiguration of manufacturing in many sectors whcih soon gave way to an logic of concentration concentration concentration, you'd think people would react politically to this politics of the economy--but they didn't---primarily i think because of the extension of debt as a device to enable folk to sublimate their politics into consumption.

the automakers are an almost perfect symptom of all this.

that you can run out this type of narrative while drinking a cup o joe in the morning is in a circular relation with how you see what's happening--i keep arguing here and elsewhere that the current economic and social problems--crises--that the americans face are the direct result of the model of capital accumulation that was put into place across the 1970s and 80s, and so is the result of the history of the united states since that period. so contrary to what you read in the american corporate press, the problem is not only a few sectors or individuals (madoff) who come to symbolize excess, but rather the entire model within which they operated.

it is interesting in this regard to notice the extent to which the mainstream press, particularly the newspapers (television seems to have a medium-specific form of ADD in this respect) are already focused on obama's economic agenda as if all that we need do is stumble from here to there and thigns will be hunky dory. but what i think is going on beneath that is a discourse shift. this is what the pulverization of neoliberalism looks like---a change in discursive weather.

i am surprised by the lack of reaction on the part of the people to this--you know, out in the streets kind of reaction. i think this passivity does not bode well. i think this passivity is a real problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

shakran

Goes back farther than that. Once we changed our laws to view corporations as legally individual people, we were on the road to disaster because once they are individuals in the eyes of the law, they suddenly have rights, instead of privileges. It should be a privilege to operate a business in this country - a privilege granted to everyone provided they follow certain rules, but a privilege nonetheless. The rules are simple. Pay your people a living wage, make their workplace as safe as possible, and don't screw over the customer. As it is, should a corporation do any of these misdeeds, their right to remain in business remains unchallenged. At most they'll have to pay a fine which, stacked up against corporate bankrolls, is a pittance. And since the fine comes from corporate coffers rather than the pockets of the bastards who committed the violation, there's no real incentive to be a decent "corporate citizen," a phrase which in itself should be abolished.

Because the media is owned by corporations and is therefore part of the shell game to distract the American people from the real problem, which is that corporations have been allowed to take over the government. Who has more influence over the politicians - you, or a megabillion dollar corporation which can donate to campaigns and hire lobbyists and exert all sorts of other influence over every aspect of government. I won't even dignify that question with a question mark because the answer is obvious.

Yes, it is, but you shouldn't be surprised. No one reacted to Hitler either until it was far too late, and Hitler started off by declaring a war against a nebulous and intangible enemy (specifically, terrorists - this was before he unveiled his Jewish eradication desires), and corporatized the government (btw a corporatocracy is also known as a fascist government) and thereby locked up power for himself and kept the people from being able to stop it.

I'm not saying the US government is getting ready to go kill Jews, but the other aspects of the Nazi party's domination of German politics have frightening parallels to our current state of affairs. Both governments 1) declared a war on terror following a catastrophic attack on a landmark building, 2) established a Department of Homeland Security (in Germany it was the department of Security for the Homeland, or the Schutzstaffel, better known to us as the SS), 3) declared that opposition to the government was unpatriotic, 4) used private corporations to achieve governmental goals, and 5) evoked extreme nationalism and "patriotism" - "You're either with us, or you're against us.

The very concept of a war on terror would make Orwell quake in his boots. Terrorism is not an enemy - it is a tactic. You can't declare war on a tactic, because that war by definition can never end. This is why real wars are one nation against another nation. But wars are excellent things to distract people with, and they're also excellent re-election strategies, and so a war that can never end in the "victory" W and his cronies supposedly seek is a very good strategic move, as long as you don't really care about the long-term fate of your democracy.

There's more to be said here, but it's Christmas so I'll give y'all a break

aceventura3

Some characteristics of a "normal recession" includes:

Contracting employment.
Increased unemployment.
Decline in demand for goods and services.
Decline in Corporate profits.
Decline in consumer confidence.
Decreased capital investment.
Increasing inventories.
Price discounting to reduce inventories.
Lower inflation or possible deflation.
Increased government borrowing.
Falling demand for imports.

So given we are in a recession, the question becomes how do the numbers for this recession compare to historical norms. I think those saying that this recession is abnormal have an obligation to show what they mean by the statement. Without being too simplistic I would think if those who really believe our current recession is abnormal, they would be calling it a depression. I would think by definition that would be true.

What I really think is that we have had strong economic growth over the past several decades with relatively short minor recessions here and there and we forgot or never knew (for the younglings) what a normal recession feels like.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Xazy

It is the UAW, heck when they were in front of the senate commitee they had a UAW rep next to them, and was asked point blank "Why are you profitable in Europe but not here" they hesitated and answered politically correct by saying they have other obligations. They have paid over 100 billion to the union over the past 15 years in benefits, that is insane!

william

I'm sorry - I've been out of the loop for awhile. I have to ask - is this really about the UAW or the big three? Seriously? I'm just a simple man from SoFla, so I have no vested interest in this. But my homework tells me the average starting rate for UAW is $14/hr compared to imports (non-union) @ $12/hr. What is wrong w/the union? Someone watching out for your back? So you work for more than minnimum wage and have some benefits? Concessions? Like the UAW paying medical? Matching pension funds? Why should the UAW pay DOWN, and the imports not pay up? In Alabama, the average cost per worker to build a plant was over $250,000 an employee - why not invest that in "Made in the U.S.A."?
The real question should be why do banks NOT have to answer where the money is going (or not - for the bonuses[Thank you Mr. Bush for that provision]), but why Congress is so set on union busting!

Dead_man

Part of the problem is the union. The latter half of the problem consists of a poor business model and being located in a state that has been in a lone recession for years.


I hate to say this, but a big step to helping out the poor union..err...car companies would be to move to a state that is more open for business and will not tax the fuck out of you to stay alive. If any of those idiots had any balls, they'd declare bankruptcy and instantly nullify the union contracts, then uproot and leave.

Sadly, they look like they're going to get a bailout, so since they already got some of my tax money, they won't need me to buy a new car any time soon. I'll be supporting a southern state car manufacturer by buying a new Nissan this year.

Call it reactionary if you want, but this isn't free market capitalism. This is corporate welfare. I'm already paying for it, so that's the extent of the money they're going to get from me.

shakran

Get rid of the unions and you get rid of any incentive to pay auto workers any more than Walmart wages. That's great for GM and the other corporate fatcats, but not so hot for the American middle class, which has already endured nearly 3 decades of egregious attacks. Unions are one of the few things standing between an absolute divide between the "have mores" as Bush calls them and the rest of us, who would be doomed to an existence of poverty while we toiled for the ruling elite.

Willravel

It seems a common solution among more conservative elements in the US is to destroy something completely if it's malfunctioning in any way, be it anything from a multitude of government programs to unions. Some unions in the US do have problems, I'll give you that. Shoot, I'd even say that some auto unions have problems (though it would be wrong to say those problems contributed to the state which required a bailout). Some unions don't work, but most do, and more importantly most are necessary in order to prevent abuse of workers by management. As Shakran said, without unions many, many people would be living in poverty. Unions are an instrument of protection.

All I'm saying is if you see a problem with something, try to fix it first.

Dead_man

Wrong. A new business model and the complete and utter nullification of union contracts would be a great first step. Businesses can come back, but no business should be getting controlled to the point of collapse by government and a union.

Did you know that the UAW is legally the only union allowed to exist in Michigan and a few other states? That's not a free market solution. Unions should also have competition, but they don't. Since they don't, they "protected" the workers to the point of their jobs going under. How much is the head of the UAW suffering? I'll bet not a lot. Did anyone call for him to have his salary cut off? hell no.

and worker protection does not explain why right-to-work states are seeing steady business. Sure there is some belt tightening going on, but any smart business is going to do that when the half of politics who are not pro-business takes office.

Most of us conservative people don't see it as cutting something off, we see things as inefficient and top heavy and in need of removal or being streamlined. The liberal solution is to throw other peoples money at it so you feel better even if you get nothing done.

shakran

For the corporations, yes. For the workers, no. Or did I miss the announcement that Walmart workers were suddenly flush with cash?

Since when was business getting controlled by government. It's the other way around.

First you say kill the unions, then you complain that there's only one. Which is it?

Bull. Misguided idiot management and penny-pinching beancounters insisting on mediocre, not to say downright crappy, product is what got the workers to the point of their jobs going under. The workers are told to put bolt A into hole B. It's not their fault that the accountants insist on shitty parts in a shitty design.

Nowhere is seeing steady business right now. People are getting laid off left and right. Union, non union, at-will, and right-to-work. Doesn't matter. What are you talking about?


And the conservative solution is to kill off the middle class, enrich only the already rich, and then expect the rest of us to be content taking the leftovers that the wealthy choose to bestow upon us. To allow corporations to rule unfettered, and to have vast and far reaching influence upon government. That's not free market either. It's a corporatocracy and it's custom-designed to increase the financial gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

roachboy

conceptual and historical problems aside--i don't have the energy to go through all of them which attend conservative pseudo-theory on labor questions--and besides, shakran has outlined some of them already (i just think they're problems of a more fundamental level with the whole of conservative or neoliberal thinking)--what's obvious is that the right is looking to use this to destroy the uaw because the uaw has opposed the right politically.

nothing more, nothing less.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

shakran

Agreed. I just didn't have time to go into it. . Still don't, unfortunately, but this is something that's been going on since before the USA was a country.



Not quite broad-scope enough. The UAW is in the business of ensuring that people who are not the wealthy ruling class get a piece of the pie. The conservative philosophy is completely opposed to this, because only with a large wealth gap can their purchasing power be sent to meteoric heights. Yes, it's a political opposition, but it's not like the UAW is for gay marriage and therefore must be destroyed.

Willravel

The interesting thing is to see how many middle class and lower middle class conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to kill the middle class. And the even more odd thing is that the purchasing power of these people, as well as everyone else, is already being changed by their own policies. You'd think that the obvious outcome we're currently sinking into like a ship that sailed right into a whirlpool. It turns out the sirens are just old, rich, white men...

shakran

They bought the rhetoric started by Reagan and furthered by every president since, including Clinton. Give the rich everything, and they'll take care of the rest of us. If that theory were actually true, we'd be just fine.

But then if Communism worked as it should have, the USSR would be fine, too.

Economic theories almost never take into account the greedy bastard effect - namely, if you give a billionaire a million dollars, he's gonna stuff it under a mattress. He's not gonna let it trickle down out of his bank account to help the masses.

The difference between communism and our own corporatism is that communism really was conceived by a guy who thought it would be good for everyone. It just had the misfortune of getting ruined by the greedy bastards. Corporatism was conceived by the greedy bastards themselves, who then said anything they could think of to convince the masses that they were enriching them, all while they took money out of our pockets.

From massive deregulation of industries in the reagan/both bushes administrations (thereby giving lie to the absurd statement that government controls business, btw) to Clinton's signing NAFTA and GATT, it's all been a targeted plan to transfer money from your pocket to the treasure vaults of the very wealthy.

But just as it has every time in the past, the plan worked too well. Now regular people can't buy stuff from the rich guys, and so the economy is stagnating for everyone. Added to that is the fact that the lower and middle classes are finally starting to figure out that the last 3 decades worth of economic policies has lead to personal and national financial disaster. They are therefore rather pissed off about it, hence this last election.

Obama has a hell of a task ahead of him. He literally needs to be FDR 2.0. He needs to singlehandedly recreate and strengthen the middle clas, and unlike FDR, he's got a max of 8 years in which to do it. It's going to be a damn hard job. I hope he's up to it.

Dead_man

Are you simply blind or just that ignorant? Seriously, i'm asking the question not as an insult, but as an inquiry.

Government gets involved through "standards" the manufacturers will have to meet by certain deadlines.

Nice deflect on the "kill the unions" thing, which incidentally, I never said. You always put words in peoples text to try to win an argument on the internet or is it something new? The key here is following the money. The UAW and ...cough...it's monetary benefactors...cough... have helped run these companies into the ground. By not answering with anything other than a deflection means you either are willfully ignorant and a hypocrite, or just one of those people who argue for the sake of argument without much to back it up.


3. Not bull. First, you guys always throw that class envy shit around like it's a marx rally and Stalin is making the first speech. lol. No one on the right is destroying or wanting to destroy the middle class. (who was it that said the right consists of a bunch of fear mongers...really...with stuff like that going around? ). No one here hates the workers. Businesses exist for the people that run them to create wealth for themselves. period. No one starts a business to create jobs. Jobs are a by-product of business growth. Economics 101.

Unions were a great idea back in the 20's, when there were monopolies and such to deal with. Today, they are leeches and criminals stealing money without a gun. Since they donate a lot of money to not-right (get it?) politicians, they get to be the monopoly and can exert a whole bunch of strain on a company until you get things like having to pay workers 90% of their salary until retirement because you were cutting the fat and closing a plant and this prick didn't want to find a new job. Seriously though, who, but the insane or really honest would find a new job over taking 90% of his 56k a year for no work?

4. Sure, companies are cutting some fat because the non-pro-business side is in charge. People are slowing down, but you don't see issues like this in the southern car manufacturing states because of the right to work laws.

5. Finally... More class warfare rhetoric? Please. I will refer you to the first paragraph in part 3 regarding Economics 101. Simply because you enjoy suckling the government teet and hate the fact that capitalism works better than communism doesn't mean you're right. I know, I know...libs do what makes them feel good vs what is actually right.... hence the condition of public schools, but that's another story for another day.



I really decided to go out there on the anti-lib wing because socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, everytime it's been tried. You folks need reminding of that from time to time.

Willravel

This doesn't strike me as a productive or friendly question.
That's how I also interpreted "complete and utter nullification of union contracts". Maybe you can elaborate on how this would not kill unions?
Most experts are not blaming the unions for the failures of the auto industry. Why? You can see the sales numbers going back years. It's poor design and an unwillingness to stay modern and competitive with foreign cars. If you don't believe me, go test drive a Cavalier late today and then a Civic. You'll get it immediately.
Seriously, this isn't necessary.
Jobs, yes, but not necessarily high paying jobs. Those all center around the very, very top, and those rest upon the very low salaries and wages of the workers towards the bottom. That's Corporations 101.
You don't seem to be familiar with modern unions. Can you demonstrate that the average union is criminal? Or that they create monopolies?
What are worker incomes in the right to work states? How about injury rates? Why would an ethical free market company need to shield itself from wrongful termination suits?
This is an interesting primer on class warfare, you may want to read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/bu...y/26every.html
That's not really true. If you mean 100% pure socialism, it's never been tried on a national scale. If you mean socialist (government run and funded) programs, many, many have been successful (even here in the US).

shakran

If you mean no insult, how about we sweeten the tone. Especially the sarcasm in your "quote."


What standards? MPG standards? Hell, that's easy. The Japanese have been meeting them for years. So has Europe. Why can't we? And for what it's worth, if the government does not impose standards on businesses, then they won't have any. A business's job is to maximize income and minimize expenditures. Such does not necessarily result in good things for society as a whole. We've tried the "businesses have absurd amounts of power and little to no government regulation" thing before. Mussolini was a big advocate of that. We saw where that went.


Well, without a contract, the union has no power whatsoever, and is therefore dead. So yes, you did say that.


You are wrong. If GM/Ford/Chrysler made a decent product that people actually wanted to buy, the auto industry could afford the union wage packages.

I'm about ready for you to stop deflecting from the issue in favor of personal attacks. I myself am deflecting nothing. The fact that I happen to think that you are wrong, because you are, is not a deflection. It's a refutation of your argument.



Again, bull. Prove me wrong. Every economic policy instituted since Reagan has been designed to erode labor and therefore the middle class. Trickle down economics is custom designed to give lots of money to people who already have lots of money in the theory that they will "take care" of the rest of us. 3 decades later, and it simply doesn't work. Your party's economic theories have been in play for nearly 30 years. Our debt is staggeringly high, our economy is in the toilet, our workers are getting laid off, our citizens are losing their homes, their jobs, their savings, their livelihoods, their retirements, and their future. Your way Doesn't. Work.




They are. That's why they declared war on a tactic, rather than a nation. A "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs." Neverending. Only the terror "war" is designed to keep us afraid so that we will keep electing the people who are fighting to "keep us safe." In both of the last 2 presidential elections we were told that electing a democrat would make us unsafe. How is that not fearmongering?



Correct.

Again correct. And businesses will seek to pay as little to the people doing those jobs as they possibly can. That means that, if permitted, they will go to a 3rd world country where the wages are a fraction of what they are here. And that's exactly what they have done. It still creates jobs, but employing a bunch of sweatshop workers in Asia does not put food on the tables of our workers. Also Economics 101.


Ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you put forth false and misleading statements like that with nothing to back them up.

Yes, I get it. The right wants to kill the unions. Would you give a guy money so that he could buy a gun and shoot you?

Show me that contract. Assuming you can, tell me how that's worse than a 25 million dollar golden parachute for a CEO that's kicked out for failure to perform. Or worse yet, why Richard Wagoner still has an 8.5 million dollar a year job after piloting GM straight into the ground. and you complain about 50 grand going to workers who are laid off through no fault of their own?

Since when were Bush and Cheney non-pro-business?

Again, you seem to have forgotten who has been in charge of the public schools for the last 30 years. I find it amazing that the conservatives have run them for 3 decades, and yet you blame the liberals for their failings.



When did I advocate socialism? And by the way, no it hasn't. We are the only 1st world nation without socialized medicine. The others are doing just fine. Better than us, in fact, for while we do have the best medical care on the planet, 50 million people cannot get access to it.

And we have socialism right here, or do you drive to work on only private roads?

n0nsensical

Let em go bankrupt like the airlines. Just like any other type of company in any other industry (oh, wait, except finance too..) And be liquidated or merge if necessary particularly Chrysler. Its the end of the line for the big three, I'm not saying the entire American auto industry should be eliminated but something has to change for the leaner. I thought this kind of situation is what bankruptcy protection is made for, not government handouts? Its not like bankruptcy means they're going to fire the whole workforce and cause an economic calamity. Just means both management and labor will be forced by a COURT to make concessions. And IMO they are both out of line right now.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Dead_man

Le'sigh

Okay...

and why is that? Because when you keep whoring the middle class out to pay for every conceivable government program, there is usually an uprising of some sort. That's why it hasn't happened. Too many good people get tired of being raped. Remember the whole "no taxation without representation" thing? Applies here.


mmmhmm... the free market fixes those things by letting people move to ANOTHER JOB! A company who pays shit gets shit for workers. There can be no denial of that. ...but I know, you want the government, the big baby bottle, to help these poor workers with unions who have really fair things like card checks and trying to ban secret ballots. Totally protecting the workers. Give me a break, please.


Card Checks.
Trying to get rid of secret ballots.


lol please. That stuff works at Daily Kook, but not with anyone with a lick of common sense (read: not liberal)


____________________________________

Because it's true? Obamessiah better watch out. Hamas and Hezbollah are getting ticked because he hasn't denounced Israel for defending itself against over 50 days of rocket attacks that weren't reported.


So, they could afford to pay people not to work?


Wow, don't get too worked up about a mini-recession that will fix itself within a year or so.

I'm reminded of the words of a conservative right here. I think he says:

It is said that Republicans are a party for the rich, which means they need to keep the rich, rich to keep their power.

On the other hand, the Democrats are a party for the poor, which means they need to keep the poor, poor, in order to keep their power.

You can have the rest of the BS. It's laughable at best. The packed shopping malls this Christmas told me that you're a bad actor.


3 points here...

1: I agree a fraction of a bit with you here.

2: Tax reduced incentives keep businesses here. I know that a few folks want government to run these businesses or force them to stay, but that breeds resentment. You don't tell a man who poured his life into his business how to run it.

3: What is the difference between moving labor offshore and 850Billion dollars to Africa as Obamessiah has proposed? Tax money that could stay right here and help streamline programs or help "our economy out of the toilet, employ workers, help our citizens save their homes, their jobs, their savings, their livelihoods, their retirements, and their future"!11!one!1

No, I don't subscribe to any of that garbage, it just sounded good.



Businesses that thrive create jobs. Jobs create wealth for the middle class. Wealth can be taxed to support people who don't want to work.
-Yoda

shakran

True? Yes, it's true that terrorism exists. We may as well declare a war on sex. We'll never get rid of terrorism. Period. The war should be on the states that sponsor and harbor the terrorists that attack us. (hint: Not Iraq.)



Hey, if they can afford to pay the fired-for-cause CEO's not to work. . .

the worst stock market and housing plummet since the depression and you call it a mini recession. And did you not note where I talked about the debt, too, or do you think we'll have that paid off in a couple of years as well?


Holiday 2008: Retailers Suffer Dismal Christmas Sales - Retail * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

Making shit up does not help you win arguments.





If that's true then why are they outsourcing so many jobs to places that are not here?


1) the bill says:

It does not say "lets throw 850 billion at Africa RIGHT NOW!

2) If you can't see the difference between helping a foreign continent with funds gotten from gainfully employed above-poverty-line Americans, and encouraging US companies to fire US workers in favor of foriegn workers, then there's little more I can really say.



Businesses that legitimately thrive create jobs. How will they legitimately thrive if no one can buy their crap because all the jobs are sent overseas?

Willravel

Actually, it's the norm. No society or country I'm aware of uses a pure form of any economic or governmental system. They're all combinations of different theories, tweaked in order to be the best. Even here in the US, we have many interesting combinations of economic theories, including both socialism and capitalism.
If this was correct, we'd see 100% socialism followed by revolution. We don't. And most theories of socialism and communism have democracy of some kind built in, therefore providing representation for taxation.
Unless in a given economy there are an equal or greater amount of high paying jobs to the amount of hard and smart workers, this simply isn't the case.

As someone that's been in one higher management or another for the past 4-5 years I know without a shadow of a doubt that hard work and even smart work doesn't equal good pay. There aren't enough opportunities for people, and creating opportunities requires capital and venture capitalists and other methods by which to acquire capital for a startup are scared of their own shadow right now.

Unions exist in the real world, where MOST corporations are more interested in profit than their workers. Put that into your equation. What if most businesses are wiling to pay low wages? What if that decision is systemic? Then one simply can't find another job. One needs to stay where he or she is and demonstrate to the management and owners that even the grunts are absolutely necessary. And it works. Unions prevent exploitation of workers.
This isn't an acceptable method of argument. I'm not associating you with National Review or Drudge in order to make you look like a right wing sheep, so I expect the same treatment.

william

Holy cow! This has become quite a thread since I last looked. A few points I'd like to make:
The Republican party does not want to do away w/the middle class? Alan Greenspan came up w/the theory that Reagan set into motion. Just look at cost/ownership since the 80's and now.
I still say the foreign motor companies (invested in this country - really, when they made no investment?) should pay up their employees to match the UAW. In Germany and Japan they pay union wages (Japan hires you fulltime until death! [now their hiring is parttime, because they're about to be in the tank there too]), and they have socialized medicine. They don't pay for that. The UAW made concessions to cover the med costs.
I do not want the Government to be the bottle to feed the employees. Government should ensure we do world-wide business on a level playing field. Business should be able to provide for it's own employees. Bring back tariffs, and make this the biggest manufacturing country in the world again. Bring back "Made in the U.S.A.",make it viable, and mean what it used to mean (not some cheap ass lapel pin - made in Japan or China [are you kidding me - China?]).
We have become a service economy. Why? Cheap labor costs. Are you telling me that if I have a problem w/my computer, I can't talk to someone in the U.S. over a dell problem? A United States citizen does not understand my computer - I thought they were built here? And someone who actually understands the language?
As far as manufacturing - cars. And I hope Dingo boots, because I'm about to look for a new pair. Other than small busineses, I do not see it. The U.S. should be investing in the U.S. For all of those that say this is wrong - where is your investment?

notdead

I'd first like to fix the ailing auto industry by talking about exactly why there are cars and trucks and buses. Getting to point Y from point B is first and foremost not the point,
the point is to get anywhere whenever you want to and all the places in between that are all worth driving by as well as you tune out with a big Cheverolet Suburban underneath your command.


You see we want this and that and well they will make this and that and this and that is out of control and it makes all of it an imperfect world.

So the first thing I would do is make an invisible car. You would wear it on yourself like it wasn't actually there. You'd look where you were and then you would go to all the places you needed to and with all the finest luxury.

Once in awhile perhaps you would bump into another invisible car, perhaps it might even be a love connection.


I think that would be a good enough place to start though.

Munchiezzzz

you have to sell cars. I'm going to do it!!
-----Added 15/1/2009 at 02 : 12 : 45-----
you have to sell cars. I'm going to do it!!

will you be there to buy them?

aceventura3

It was very predictable that GM could not come up with a viable plan to restructure and survive. The Obama administration is on the verge of making a courageous stand on this issue, no more bailout funds and let the company file bankruptcy.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

CharlieW

We need to let the system work, if a company is unsuccessful, let it go. Someone else will take up the slack out of what is left. The GM's and Fords will continue, in a more streamline efficient form. The current companies are too fat with management, labor and overhead to change themselves. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. If it were true we would own the Middle east by now...

aceventura3

It is interesting listening to Obama on this subject. If I connect the dots, I think his position is further evidence of his double speak.

If I were really interested in changing the automotive industry, getting the US off of dependence on oil, and committed to "green" jobs, I would not put billions into the old failing, smoke stack, SUV emphasis company, GM, but I would put billions into new start up companies developing making alternatives in alternative ways (i.e. - "green"). Aren't these the companies more deserving? If so, why bailout GM? Why give them more time and money to come up with a plan, that they can not come up with? I don't get it.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

shakran

I tend to agree, Ace. (get up, stop laughing, I was serious )

I don't feel the corporations should be bailed out, at all. They love to run around crying foul whenever "gubmint" "interferes" in the market (by doing such dastardly things as safety inspections and truth-in-advertising requirements), yet they're very willing to have gubmint interfere such that they get money out of the deal. It's idiotic. If you want a free market, fine. Make it a free market, and that means that if a big corporation fucks up and crashes, then they fail. Use the bailout money to help the people the big corps hurt until they can find someone else to employ them.

flstf

Like textiles, steel, rubber, finished wood products, etc... There is little the government can do for the auto industry unless we close our markets. Labor rates are just one of the problems along with a host of other things like labor laws, environmental restrictions, taxes, etc... As we found out with all the other industries that left our shores it is hard to compete with the third world and/or government subsidized companies.

ASU2003

The thing I would like GM/Saturn to do is talk to Tesla, Fisker or some other small EV car maker, and say, we will produce your car at our plant for a small amount. They would be able to mass produce lots of cars, and would be able to lower prices.

They could also use Honda or Toyota parts in order to keep prices down if needed.

samcol

I think we should just force the big three to retool there dyes to make firearms and ammunition. It will singlehandedly get us out of the depression, save millions of jobs, and allow me to shoot much more affordably.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

blahblah454

Ahh just like the World Wars eh samcol?

I think they should just be aloud to fail, and someone who knows how to make a good product will rise out of the ashes.

flstf

It seems like there are many who think the auto industry should file bankruptcy in order to rework their labor contacts because their workers make too much and have great health insurance and retirement plans. It occurs to me that our broke government is in a similar situation with the millions of government workers who have benefits and job security that are envied by most of those in the private sector. Perhaps our politicians and government workers should also have their remuneration and benefits reduced to that of the average taxpayer.

silent_jay

I know this is an old post I'm quoting, but seriously you're going to play the 'it's a dangerous job card'? I worked in a nickel mine which is a fuck of a lot more dangerous than making cars and made no where near $28 an hour or whatever it is they make in their auto factory. Also worked in a factory that made office furniture had to operate punches, presses, brakes and all the other fun shit to make the furniture that can take an arm off, or take your life, and made o where near $28 an hour.

So them having a cunt hair of risk in their job and making a stupid amount of money for what is basically unskilled labour trying to justify it by saying 'they have a dangerous job' is well funny shit to me.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

QuasiMondo

A lot of people like to believe that automotive assembly is (to paraphrase) "so easy, a caveman can do it." I find great irony in such a statement made by folks who in most cases are completely auto illiterate and wouldn't know how to perform as much as an oil change on the car they own.

This isn't Ikea furniture we're talking about here, and something as mechanically and electronically complex as an automobile requires a bit more skill than what you've assumed it does. Spend some time around your car. Take it apart (if you dare), and when you've failed to put it back together, ask yourself if assembly line work should be given the same lack of consideration as a fast food employee or gas station attendant.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

Tully Mars

So your compliant is you had a job(s) more dangerous then the auto workers and they made more money? It almost sounds like your solution to this is lower their pay. Wouldn't raising your pay make it better for you and the auto workers?

And $28 an hour isn't a whole lot of money.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

silent_jay

I watched a guy on TV today who worked at a GM plant in Southern Ontario, his job on the line was to put in 10 screws on the firewall to attach the console, you want to tell me that isn't Ikea? Brainless labour, it may not all be like that, but too many people are making more money for doing mindless unskilled labour than they should be.
No my complaint is that saying 'they have a dangerous job' to justify their pay is funny to me, plenty of other people have more dangerous jobs and make far less, so the argument it's dangerous makes no sense. Ummmm raising my pay when I was a miner would have caused me to no longer be employed as a miner, so it wouldn't have helped me out in the least, may help out the autoworkers, though I have no clue how. Raising peoples pay doesn't always make things better, sometimes it means the job you have goes up in fuckin smoke.
No shit $28 isn't a whole lot of money, but for putting 10 screws into 10 holes it sure as fuck is.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder