Text 43299, 211 rader
Skriven 2006-11-27 12:01:00 av bob klahn (1:275/311)
Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt
Ärende: (1/2) Insults
=====================
Is an addendum placed before the text a predendum?
Anyway, putting this in after writing the below response.
In researching this material I got a surprise, and a shock.
The surprise was, most of the material I found on job growth was
dated in 2004. The first thing I found in 2006 was a transcript
of Bill Maher's program, "Real Time", on HBO. Even at that the
best info I found was an article in the Seattle times from 2004.
The shocker was data I had never seen before. I knew the poverty
rate went up under anti-labor administrations, and down under
pro-labor administrations. What I did not know was the number of
people living below 50% of the poverty level. It runs around 5%
of the population. That, again, rises and falls, going up under
Bush, down under Clinton, and trending that way through out.
However, it stays near 5%. IOW about 5% of the population of
this country lives at less than half the poverty income. That's
about 15 million people.
Damn!
End of predendum.
...
TR>>> It would take only a few months to fill their jobs with new
TR>>> workers; by years end production would be almost up to the
TR>>> same scale it was previously, and people would be standing
TR>>> in line waiting to fill out applications!
...
bk>> You have no idea how modern manufacturing works. Any company
bk>> that tried your idea would be likely to put itself out of
bk>> business.
RW> Solar Turbines in San Diego, CA put the IAM out of business
RW> in that town (with my blessing as an ex-employee). Solar
RW> Turbines is still going as strong as ever with government
RW> contracts to enhance their commercial contracts. See, when
Either they are a small company, or the IAM represented a small
portion of their workers. Or their work is very simple. Firing
your entire skilled workforce is a good way to go under.
Hell, the company I work for fired almost all their experienced
managers, and have been struggling to bring the place up to
expected performance for years. Too stupid to realize you can't
hire people who know nothing about the business and let them
tell the workers what to do.
Ok not too stupid, the management that fired the experienced
workers then sold the company. Guess they sold it with the claim
that they had low pension liability for managers. From what I
heard the manager for the buyer who was supposed to vet those
claims got fired.
RW> you don't have to pay overly-inflated union wages, but
RW> still pay a decent wage a family can live on, that company
RW> will be successful.
Which is a contradiction in terms. Union wages are still far
below CEO wages, or other high level management. A fraction of
it.
RW> If you don't believe that, take a look
RW> at Toyota and a few other foriegn auto manufacturers who
RW> have built plants in the US that don't entertain the unions.
I have looked at them. A Japanese auto company built a plant in
Mississippi, a non-union state, and was paying $25/hr for
skilled workers. And not finding them. By that standard,
northern, higher cost of living state, union wages are not that
much higher.
It isn't the wages where the Japanese companies get their
advantage, it's pensions and medical benefits. Japanese plants
have no pension liabilities to start out with, and no medical
liabilities for retirees. American companies do. In Japan
they have national health care, so they never have any
additional liability for their workers or retirees. A big
competitive advantage for them.
In this country retirees are losing their company provided
medical benefits, leaving many without any coverage beyond
medicare. If you retire at 62 where does that leave you?
bk>> And if you did destroy the unions you would probably put this country
bk>> well on the road to third world status.
RW> That is very unlikely, as lower overhead costs are passed
RW> on to the consumer. The consumer, as long as he's being
RW> paid union inflated wages, will spend more for the same
RW> product than products made by a non-union manufacturer
That holds to the view that declining wages don't matter if
prices decline along with them. In reality, that has never been
the case. Prices may decline, but, in the long run, they do not
decline in line with wages. Look back at the 40's through the
70's. The great expansion of American wealth was in line with
the growth in real incomes. Higher incomes meant greater
national wealth. Those with higher incomes can buy more,
producing more jobs. Investment means nothing if the market is
destroyed.
RW> whose overhead is less costly. And labor is overhead right
RW> up there with management personnel. As long as the workers
RW> are making a decent but not inflated wage, the country
RW> would be much better off. That's why there is a minimum
RW> wage law.
The minimum wage is no where near a decent wage. It is deep into
poverty. And companies that are not union, or incompetition with
union companies to recruit workers, tend to drive to the bottom.
The fallacy is in the idea that companies will pay a decent wage
if they don't have to. Competition alone drives them down.
Note how poverty rates increase under anti-labor
administrations, and decline under pro-labor administrations.
Consider that the administration in power controls the people
doing the measurements. So it's hard to fake in the long run.
Look at the years during which the unions became so strong. From
1947 to 1970 the percentage of families with an inflation
adjusted income below $5K/yr fell from about 57% to about 24%.
Remember, this is inflation adjusted, so it indicates real
improvement.
Numbers from the "Historical Statistics of the United States,
colonial times to 1970". Dept of commerce pub.
Looking back before that you see union wages rising like that,
back to the early 1900s, and pulling all other wages with them.
IOW, I submit that the growth of unions was a major factor in
the great increase in wealth in this country.
Oh, and the growth of national wealth and family and individual
incomes drew to a close starting in 1970 or thereabouts. And I
don't ascribe all the failure to the presidents, or even the
majority. I see the Federal Reserve as the great culprit, as
they have tried to manage the economy, and been as successful as
the commissars of the USSR AFAICS. However, I do give blame to
the presidents for bad economic policies, and, most of all, for
not recognizing the failings of the FED. That includes Clinton.
bk>> Or worse that GW Bush has already done.
RW> LOL! With the best economy this country has ever seen going
RW> on right now, you sound rediculous.
The best? Not even near what Clinton had. Not even near what
JFK/LBJ had. You may look at short term results and call it
good. That's like calling two games a winning streak. The
administration, on the dept of commerce website, was bragging
about a monthly job growth of 92,000 for October. On the website
they proclaim a job growth of 148,000 in Sept, and 230,000 in
august. And they had to revise the August total *UP* by 139,000
to get that figure. Under Clinton it averaged 236,000 jobs per
month.
That's an average. Note the decline in the current rate of
increase?
And all of Bush's "achievements" are in the context of exploding
national debt and deficits, an increasing debt load, and
declining wages and increasing uninsured.
Clinton's were during a reduction in Federal employment, a
declining deficit and projecting a real decline in the national
debt.
Bush reversed all that.
Then look at the real employment picture:
Data downloaded Nov. 2006.
**************************************************************************
All these numbers for population 16 and older, Bureau of Labor
statistics doc empsit.cpseepa1.txt - From www.bls.gov.
Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of 6.9%. In 2000 that was
down to 4.0%. You are touting a Sept rate of 4.6% as "down much
more."
You do have to consider that the workforce increased about 9
million over that period, 2000 to 2006.
Then figure the work force participation rate for that period,
from 67% in 2K to 66% in Sept 2006. One percent loss right
there.
The percentage of the population employed went from 64.4% in
2000 to 63.1% in sept 06
The number not in the labor force went from 70 mill in 2K to
77.6 Million in sept 06.
**************************************************************************
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
... It would be better for mankind... that the rich be tossed into the sea. A.C
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)
|