Union--non Union

W,

I was working on my masters in Economics before I burned out.

 

Just to quickly address these two points. I speak as a Plant Controller of a tire factory that closed:
- Labor represented the largest single cost for us (at about 40%), and raw materials came in second. Power was prob one of the larger overheads (especially in California), but pennies compared to labor.
- We moved to Brazil because labor rates are lower and environmental regulations are not as tight. Brazil wages are lower because the workers there do not need the same amount of money as US workers. They cycle to work, they do not have an SUV payment to make, they also do not need to make payments on satellite/tv, college fees, fishing boat payment, second car payments, mortage payments, private healthcare. They also do not shun the opportunity to work overtime in order to play a round of golf after work most days. I'm not saying the Brazilian dont have a worse deal in life, they do. As for environmental, you cannot run a tire factory in California and stay profitable with the fees, and emmissions controls work you need to do there. We had a salaried guy working full time on emmissions compliance alone.

 

I can sure understand the burnout working on a masters in Economics! I majored in History, but found it difficult to provide compensable value by making history - - though I did try. :up:

 

Gresham's Law would contradict your position. Aside from that, I disagree with your definition of money, as since the abandonment of the gold standard the value of money is directly related to the ability of the issuing country to pay creditors. If your definition was correct, then international exchange rates would be based on labor productivity, not on the credit worthiness and financial stability of the issuing country.

 

I think we are both right. Using printed currency will always have an impact on the relative value of the currency itself, particularly when measured against other printed currencies. At the end of the day; however, macro economic influences will prevail, just as tides and currents will ultimately overcome sand castles.

If the money supply exceeds the growth in gross domestic product, ultimately, you get inflation. Conversely, if the money supply contracts relative to gross domestic product, you will ultimately get deflation. Of course, these moves are moderated by an uncountable number of variables, not the least of which is the supply of unapplied capital (money sitting on the side, looking for a place to be used).

The United States has been able to combat cheap labor through the application of technology, and the overall cost of transportation. Both of these advantages are eroding rapidly as under developed countries apply productive technology. One ironic element is that capital equipment is being sold to underdeveloped countries at deeply discounted prices because of domestic industry loosing market share to imports.

Artificial barriers have been erected, but they will fall under the pressure of Untied States consumers demanding cheap products combined with our habit of rewarding articulated need in stead of value produced.

The ultimate impact will not be felt in my lifetime, but my children will feel it.

 

My knowledge of the issues come directly from Union men that were displaced so you decide the slant I've been given. I'm sure I don't know all of the details since it did happen in the 70s but it is the basic situation that took place. Nice conspiracy theory though. I would say they were sick of the damn bullshit strikes every time the union asked for more bullshit. The employees were way overpaid when this took place. The union was needed when first started but just got way out of hand and thanks to their greed and the company's greed it became more economical produce goods in Brazil.

Environmental issues weren't a big deal back then. I won't blame it on Clinton unless I need to.

I've been dealing with unions for my entire adult life so don't make too damn many assumptions about my point of view or level of knowledge.

I do know how companies operate too. I'm the Environmental Safety and Health Manager for a government contractor and we have union workers. You aren't the only one that lives this shit every day.

I should say though that I have dealt mostly with govenment work and Unions. They seem to be the bad one now vices the Unions in private industry. I actually have alot of respect for some of the private industry Union members I've worked with.

I think alot of the Unions are headed back in the right direction.

 

Damn and I thought Xenon equilibrium was hard.

That's a nuclear joke for you economics rocket scientists.

 

You assumed something you shouldn't have. What you don't realize I am a bitter S.O.B. I haven't seen my wife in almost two months. Why? Because I am attempting to make a living wage. Not just make ends meet. I work in Baltimore, MD my home is in Franklin, OH (500 Miles AWAY) The company I was working for was going to lay me off but they asked me if I would be interested in working at the BALTIMORE facility. Since I REALIZED the ECONOMY is slow and there are limited opportunities (ALTHOUGH THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN PERSUING THEM) I accepted their offer. So for the past 10 months I have been attempting to find a job back home while saving enough money to make it for a few months if I decide to go without a job. It has been a SHITTY year but I felt I needed to do that.

Maybe my HANDS OFF, BUYER BEWARE, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST WORM took over but I chose to SEIZE THE DAY. Que Serra Serra I guess.

 

Warning to economists - cynicism ahead

Wow, I had a graduate school flashback. My second economics professor is greatly responsible for my becoming such a prolific BBS poster a few years ago. Everything he said flew right over my head and made no sense to me. So I could do during class to stay awake was get on the Internet. To measure the extent of the damage, add my post count to everything that was posted under "Thiam1" and factor in a year of inactivity after my accident. That's the measure of my opinion on economics. Any "science" that looks at a given state of affairs and can offer completely opposite explanations of how things got there has that effect on my limited amount of brain space. Anyway, no matter how economists put it, what you will want from your employer this Friday is a paycheck. Not bread, a shirt and a set of racing tires. Unless you live in a country where incompetent government keeps printing money every week making what's in your wallet worthless, I would argue you can safely say we work for money and it has value. Even if it is just "storage" value. At the very least, it allows you to avoid carrying food away from work on Friday. Also, I can put money in the bank and earn interest. If I store my food in a savings account for a year, all I am going to get is a bad case of diarrhea or something worse. Okay, I am being a little sarcastic here with everything. But what I am saying really is that economics generates a lot of nice words and theoretical formulas that never seem to work anywhere. I think there should be a Nobel Prize for common sense instead.

 

Papa: you made the argument!

You made the argument in common sense terms. Money (or currency) is what we use, because barter of goods is not effective. I think the key point is that if you receive money that is does not correlate with a value you have provided, someone else is getting the short end of the deal.

If you work, and receive a paycheck at the end of the week, you have been compensated for the value you afforded your employer. If your compensation exceeds that value, your employer is over-paying you. Eventually, your employer will go broke, because he is paying more for a value than he can pass on to the consumers of his product or service.

Conversely, if your employer is not compensating you at a level that correlates with the value you have provided, his profit is short term, because someone else will compensate you on an equitable basis, and the employer will lose the value you can provide.

This whole thread is built around the relative value of labor unions. The heart of the issue is whether labor unions afford a value that correlates with the compensation they demand. Clearly, in cities where the unions control the convention centers, the costs of a trade show becomes astronomical when compared to other facilities. It is impossible to justify paying an "electrician" $45.00 to plug in an extension cord, or a "carpenter" $50.00 to tighten a screw in a display. Experiences of this type tend to bruise people's perceptions of labor unions.

 

was mostly joking around.

 

no one here is an alan greenspan.

racers race.

workers work.

liberals cry.

unions suck.

 

Re: Warning to economists - cynicism ahead

Guns & butter, baby, guns & butter....

Did you know he attended Julliard and played a sax professionally before his career in economics? His first job in the financial sector was as the chief economist with a ceiling wax company? And he's paid less than you?

 

Re: Re: Warning to economists - cynicism ahead

damn, the president AND the most powerful man in the world make less?!?! saweeeet.

 

3rd world labour results in 3rd world quality. Didn't GM learn that in Mexico?

 

Sorry, but thanks for playing.

Ford has two Super Duty truck plants: one in Kentucky and one in Mexico. The trucks from Mexico are as good or better than the ones coming out of Kentucky.

 

Micheal, you're basing that on what?

Which GM plant had the best quality record in N. America last year??

 

who cares? the best GM can't hang with the worst toyota.

 

You maybe right on that one. Wonder how Toyota will do in the NASCAR truck series next year. I wouldn't think GM, Ford, or Dodge is looking forward to them coming.

 

i imagine that I-force V8 will be sweet properly tuned.