|
Posted by Ed Huntress on April 15, 2008, 12:07 am
Please log in for more thread options
> The Davenport's wrote:
>>>>> So, what's the correct wage for them, Mike? How much can they be
>>>>> paid so they won't be "pricing themselves out of a job," so that
>>>>> things will be made here again instead of in China?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>> All very nice, Mike. Now, I'll ask again: what should they be paid
>>> so they don't price themselves out of the globalized market?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> And can you honestly say that over the top wage demands by unions had
>> NO impact on the jobs going away?
>
> No, not really. The only way to compete with chinese labor is to work for
> what Chjinese laborers will work for, all things else being even.
>
>>
>> I wasn't trying to say that that was the only reason, but it was a
>> contributing factor, along with the work rules and the
>> owners/stockholders being greedy.
>
> You are confusing greed with what you practice in your every day life and
> call common sense.
>
>>
>> And let us not forget the American people, bless their little hearts,
>> for thinking that saving a few bucks on that color TV wasn't going to
>> have any effect on the world...right up until you couldn't find an
>> American made TV anymore.
>
> You two can have a sensible conversation about this only when you are
> willing to talk about value added by labor and acceptable living
> standards.
>
> The question that needs to be asked and answered is this one:
> What would an auto workers job have to look like to be able to pay him
> enough to have a decent standard of living. Lowering his or her wage to
> reflect the value they currently add is meaningless. There is an answer to
> that question, however, and the answer is - whatever the cheapest labor
> rate
> is in the world.
> Everything else is just hoo haa.
Only if you allow "free trade." Then you have, as Alan Tonelson puts it, a
race to the bottom.
There is nothing like free trade going on now, of course, but it almost
looks like we wanted to stack the deck against ourselves. If we're going to
mess with markets, which we do already, we at least ought to mess with them
in a way that puts a brake on the radical dislocations we've been
experiencing over the past decade or so.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by John R. Carroll on April 14, 2008, 10:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> So, what's the correct wage for them, Mike? How much can they be
>>>>> paid so they won't be "pricing themselves out of a job," so that
>>>>> things will be made here again instead of in China?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>>> Ed, I think that you're still missing my point, and the point is
>>>> that I do NOT believe that someone that bolts the bumper on a
>>>> truck...and actually, just half the bumper because someone on the
>>>> other side of the line does the other side...should be paid twice
>>>> the wages that a skilled tradesman/woman gets paid.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you said that, that your sense of propriety and fairness
>>> apparently has been offended, and that's somehow tied into what
>>> labor has to do to keep their jobs from going overseas. And I'm
>>> asking you how much they *should* be paid, so that they don't price
>>> themselves out of a job, and no one has given me an answer that
>>> actually will save those jobs. How much should it be?
>>>
>> OK...maybe I was wrong...you didn't miss my point, you seem to be
>> ignoring it...
>
> I'm not ignoring it.
Sure you are. Either that or you are unwilling to state the obvious.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on April 14, 2008, 10:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> So, what's the correct wage for them, Mike? How much can they be
>>>>>> paid so they won't be "pricing themselves out of a job," so that
>>>>>> things will be made here again instead of in China?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed, I think that you're still missing my point, and the point is
>>>>> that I do NOT believe that someone that bolts the bumper on a
>>>>> truck...and actually, just half the bumper because someone on the
>>>>> other side of the line does the other side...should be paid twice
>>>>> the wages that a skilled tradesman/woman gets paid.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you said that, that your sense of propriety and fairness
>>>> apparently has been offended, and that's somehow tied into what
>>>> labor has to do to keep their jobs from going overseas. And I'm
>>>> asking you how much they *should* be paid, so that they don't price
>>>> themselves out of a job, and no one has given me an answer that
>>>> actually will save those jobs. How much should it be?
>>>>
>>> OK...maybe I was wrong...you didn't miss my point, you seem to be
>>> ignoring it...
>>
>> I'm not ignoring it.
>
> Sure you are. Either that or you are unwilling to state the obvious.
The obvious is that unions and high wages are the scapegoat for a trade
imbalance that can't be solved by the solutions that several here have
proposed. The problem is structural -- two vastly disparate economies
pretending that they can conduct balanced trade if everyone would only "play
fair."
Nonsense.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by John R. Carroll on April 14, 2008, 11:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> So, what's the correct wage for them, Mike? How much can they be
>>>>>>> paid so they won't be "pricing themselves out of a job," so that
>>>>>>> things will be made here again instead of in China?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed, I think that you're still missing my point, and the point is
>>>>>> that I do NOT believe that someone that bolts the bumper on a
>>>>>> truck...and actually, just half the bumper because someone on the
>>>>>> other side of the line does the other side...should be paid twice
>>>>>> the wages that a skilled tradesman/woman gets paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you said that, that your sense of propriety and fairness
>>>>> apparently has been offended, and that's somehow tied into what
>>>>> labor has to do to keep their jobs from going overseas. And I'm
>>>>> asking you how much they *should* be paid, so that they don't
>>>>> price themselves out of a job, and no one has given me an answer
>>>>> that actually will save those jobs. How much should it be?
>>>>>
>>>> OK...maybe I was wrong...you didn't miss my point, you seem to be
>>>> ignoring it...
>>>
>>> I'm not ignoring it.
>>
>> Sure you are. Either that or you are unwilling to state the obvious.
>
> The obvious is that unions and high wages are the scapegoat for a
> trade imbalance that can't be solved by the solutions that several
> here have proposed. The problem is structural -- two vastly disparate
> economies pretending that they can conduct balanced trade if everyone
> would only "play fair."
>
> Nonsense.
Well OK Ed but I'm going to stick with the "What do we want our lives to
look like" thing.
That's where the rebuild ought to start.
We've been "Robber Barroned" over and over.
Here, let me start a meaningful dialogue.
Make a damned list.
Get out an actual pice of paper and do this.
On one side, put down where America wants to "be". This will be a soul
searching excercise.
On the other, put where you think we are. That ain't so hard.
Take a year or more to think about it. Mull the entire thing over
thoughtfully. Then, get your pad out and on a third sheet, write what it
will take to get from where we are to where you think we ought to be and add
what it will take to do the job.
That's the excercise America ought to be participating in.
In fact, our very survival as the nation you and I grew up in depends on
such a "hold the phone" moment.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on April 15, 2008, 12:09 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>> So, what's the correct wage for them, Mike? How much can they be
>>>>>>>> paid so they won't be "pricing themselves out of a job," so that
>>>>>>>> things will be made here again instead of in China?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed, I think that you're still missing my point, and the point is
>>>>>>> that I do NOT believe that someone that bolts the bumper on a
>>>>>>> truck...and actually, just half the bumper because someone on the
>>>>>>> other side of the line does the other side...should be paid twice
>>>>>>> the wages that a skilled tradesman/woman gets paid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you said that, that your sense of propriety and fairness
>>>>>> apparently has been offended, and that's somehow tied into what
>>>>>> labor has to do to keep their jobs from going overseas. And I'm
>>>>>> asking you how much they *should* be paid, so that they don't
>>>>>> price themselves out of a job, and no one has given me an answer
>>>>>> that actually will save those jobs. How much should it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK...maybe I was wrong...you didn't miss my point, you seem to be
>>>>> ignoring it...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not ignoring it.
>>>
>>> Sure you are. Either that or you are unwilling to state the obvious.
>>
>> The obvious is that unions and high wages are the scapegoat for a
>> trade imbalance that can't be solved by the solutions that several
>> here have proposed. The problem is structural -- two vastly disparate
>> economies pretending that they can conduct balanced trade if everyone
>> would only "play fair."
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Well OK Ed but I'm going to stick with the "What do we want our lives to
> look like" thing.
> That's where the rebuild ought to start.
> We've been "Robber Barroned" over and over.
>
> Here, let me start a meaningful dialogue.
> Make a damned list.
> Get out an actual pice of paper and do this.
> On one side, put down where America wants to "be". This will be a soul
> searching excercise.
> On the other, put where you think we are. That ain't so hard.
>
> Take a year or more to think about it. Mull the entire thing over
> thoughtfully. Then, get your pad out and on a third sheet, write what it
> will take to get from where we are to where you think we ought to be and
> add
> what it will take to do the job.
>
> That's the excercise America ought to be participating in.
> In fact, our very survival as the nation you and I grew up in depends on
> such a "hold the phone" moment.
Well, that's not a bad idea. Having recently read Bill McKibben's _Deep
Economy_, I might have to keep whapping myself in the head to get down to
it. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap