Ford reports surprise $1 billion 3rd quarter profit

[onelove221]

The free market still works you know. Companies that offer higher wages and better benefits will get more better workers. Companies have an incentive to treat their workers better. Unions throw a wrench in the system.

This ignores that pesky thing called logic and reality.

Econ 101.

When there is a shortage of qualified employees, this incentivizes companies to provide more for their workers in order to retain and attract the kind of talent they need to remain profitable.

When there is a surplus of qualified employees (this certainly applies in the larger economy right now) this incentivizes companies to seek out the lowest cost labor it can find.

Econ 201.

In the case of modern capitalism, the worker is at a much greater disadvantage than capital, as the worker is far more constrained by things like borders, whereas capital is much freer to move about the globe in search of favorable conditions.

[Hites]

I'll sum up everything by saying this:
99% of people, if you give them more power or assemble them into a larger group with other people, they're just going to get greedier and more short sighted. Everybody is out for their own interests and only those interests that are right here right now, and our lack of foresight will be our downfall as a society.

[HaTReD]

Originally Posted by Hites

I'll sum up everything by saying this:
99% of people, if you give them more power or assemble them into a larger group with other people, they're just going to get greedier and more short sighted. Everybody is out for their own interests and only those interests that are right here right now, and our lack of foresight will be our downfall as a society.

whoa! whoa! whoa! wait a minute, there, buster. where is the clumsy, off-hand dig? where are your imaginary credentials? i'm afraid you have no place here.

[onelove221]

I'll sum up everything by saying this:
99% of people, if you give them more power or assemble them into a larger group with other people, they're just going to get greedier and more short sighted. Everybody is out for their own interests and only those interests that are right here right now, and our lack of foresight will be our downfall as a society.

Umm,

What you just espoused is a common position of authoritarian governments througout history. You would fit right in in the Politburo of the PRC.

Accepting the premise that self-interest is human, and recalling that one of the pillars of Keynesian economics is the concept of the worker as "rational man"; an economic actor whose principled self-interest is what drives him to compete and participate in the larger economy.

On the other side, you have the corporation, a perpetual, legal "person" (in the eyes of the law) which is actually comprised of more than one individual, whose sole purpose is to provide profit for its owners.

We also recall that the purpose of collective bargaining and organized labor, was and continues to be a way to provide indivduals with a democraticcally organized means with which to counter the negative actions of corporate entities.

So remind us again, why individuals should not have the means to protect themselves from entities which are, by the very legal framework which allows them to exist, are going to be more powerful than any one person.

And then you call tell us, on the one hand unions are distorting the market but why the corporation, as it is currently constituted is itself not a distortion of the free market.

I eagerly await your response.

[HaTReD]

Originally Posted by onelove221

The original purpose of collective bargaining and organized labor, was to provide indivduals with a democraticcally organized means with which to counter the negative actions of corporate entities.

very true, however, unions (or the general unionized workforce) has come full circle. they have traded one master for another; the union's governing body/president.

[sxotty]

JC if you know anything about the free market and economics tell me what happens when unemployment goes up.

[onelove221]

very true, however, unions (or the general unionized workforce) has come full circle. they have traded one master for another; the union's governing body/president.

Again,

I'm all for having a rational discussion about how to reform both unions AND corporations to benefit larger society.

What you are describing (and what I have no problem acknowledging) is a pervesion of unions, in which a corporatized union managment rather than utilizing labor to produce goods and services, have instead funnelled the rent (in the Riccardian sense) it collects from its member wages into benefits for an elite group of labor executives.

Unions aren't all bad, nor are corporations. The problem is corruption.

[JC]

Originally Posted by onelove221

There is a sane, rational, argument to be made for a modification in the way organized labor and corporate management interact in a modernised economy.

This unfortunately, is not that argument.

Let me explain:

The problem, as sxotty rightly pointed out, in the long term, it is utterly destructive to America's middle class to both have states and workers racing each other to the bottom with subsidizes and undercutting each other's wages.

In the end, the right-to-work states are going to have their own throats slit by the next emerging labor market that decides it can get by with a less robust tax base and fewer (if any) environmental protections.

It's a race to the bottom in which America as whole ultimately loses.

Not really, there are still plenty of jobs that can't be outsourced like all of the service industries. You can't have a mechanic in India fix your car or a worker in China drive the shipping truck to Wal-Mart. That's not to mention the entire "information" economy. Americans are still the most innovative people on the planet. That however depends on education and the drive to succeed. Which is something that unions hamper. Why would you go start your own company or go to college if you could make $28/hr bolting on fenders at the local Ford plant? The inability of those jobs to provide everything a person could want is precisely what drives the new American economy. What if the next Larry Page is putting door panels on Corvettes instead of off starting the next Google? Innovation is the way forward for the American economy not grasping hopelessly at our manufacturing past.

Originally Posted by onelove221

It is a laughable position to hold that in order to compete with companies such as AIRBUS or VW; companies like Boeing and Ford have to eviscerate domestic unions and constantly demand state subsidies/cheaper workers.

Say what you will about the UAW and American labor, they are absolute pushovers when compared to unionized labor in the EU. Again, I speak from first hand experience. Go to the EU. You will never, ever see the givebacks and concessions American unions like the UAW grants to domestic corporations occuring in places like Germany, France or Italy....or South Korea for that matter.

There is a reason our economy is near that of the entirety of the EU. But the real question is not whether Boeing can compete with Airbus it's whether they can compete with COMAC and whether GM can compete with BYD. If it was just the EU and America in the economy maybe your point would have more merit.

Originally Posted by onelove221

As far as the assertion that work by organized labor is of inferior quality, this is not backed by any real evidence. Unionized Buick for example (and to a lesser extent, Ford) are competetive with unionized foreign brands in terms of quality (if you look at the JD power numbers at least), which leads me to the conclusion that the problem lies not with the workers but with the management.

I never said anything about quality I said efficiency. If I build 10 cars an hour with .25 defects per car is that better than 30 cars an hour with .30 defects per car?

Originally Posted by onelove221

Meanwhile, I recall very distinctly the harsh lesson VW learned when it started building Golfs MKIIIs in Mexico to cut costs (closing its unionized plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio IIRC). The quality was so bad they had to revert production back to Germany, a country where the union will call a general strike if management even sneezes wrong. Yet somehow, they have been able to remain profitable.

That proves my point. Production moved to where their was superior labor inspite of the higher cost.

Originally Posted by onelove221

IMO, it is not just unfair, it is criminal to allow the elites of both the industrialized West and the developing world to use low cost workers, most of whom labor under intolerable conditions and whose access to real democracy is limited, to wage a proxy war against the free citizen workers in the West in what is nothing more than a profit seeking exercise.

Moreover, it is haltingly stupid for the state governments inside the US to mimic this flawed model domestically.

No one is advocating slave labor. But the reality is an unskilled worker in China can live a full and rich life under the same working conditions than an unskilled American worker can for a much lower cost. I agree that labor laws in developing countries need to be reformed and working conditions increased but don't kid yourself into thinking that will create cost parity with the US, or even be close.

Originally Posted by onelove221

This ignores that pesky thing called logic and reality.

Econ 101.

When there is a shortage of qualified employees, this incentivizes companies to provide more for their workers in order to retain and attract the kind of talent they need to remain profitable.

When there is a surplus of qualified employees (this certainly applies in the larger economy right now) this incentivizes companies to seek out the lowest cost labor it can find.

Econ 201.

In the case of modern capitalism, the worker is at a much greater disadvantage than capital, as the worker is far more constrained by things like national borders, whereas capital is much freer to move about the globe in search of favorable conditions.

Originally Posted by sxotty

JC if you know anything about the free market and economics tell me what happens when unemployment goes up.

Thank you for the freshman econ lesson. You'd also recall that hiring lower cost labor will allow the company to lower costs to the consumer which encourages consumption and raises profits. That allows the company to expand and hire more people until the labor pool shrinks and creates a labor shortage.

[HaTReD]

Originally Posted by onelove221

What you are describing (and what I have problem acknowledging) is a pervesion of unions, in which a corporatized union managment rather than utilizing labor to produce goods and services, have instead funnelled the rent (in the Riccardian sense) it collects from its member wages into benefits for an elite group of labor executives.

Unions aren't all bad, nor are corporations. The problem is corruption.

you are absolutely correct in identifying the real root of the problem as corruption. however, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge such a state exists within many (not all, i'm certain... i will only speak of those i have had direct contact with) unions does not change that fact that it does. the corrupt union boss is not a boogie man, nor is he an abstract. this person exists and uses his minions as a bludgeon against the company. it is a power struggle, and generally very ugly in practice. many unions strike like clockwork the minute their contract runs out. this is to benefit the union boss, as he denies offer after offer from the company. i have seen some schools and businesses taking union negotiations public to expose this corruption (realistically, a clever tool for negotiation).

out of curiosity, are you skeptical of the existence of this corrupt union model?

[sxotty]

Originally Posted by JC

Innovation is the way forward for the American economy not grasping hopelessly at our manufacturing past.

JC you were the one earlier bemoaning how unions are killing manufacturing in America. Think about your logical inconsistency. If it is hopeless then why are you upset Unions are killing American manufacturing. They would simply be hurrying it up instead of lowering the standard of living so that the workers end up living on tax dollars directly as manufacturing slowly wastes away.

Anyway I apologize for the prior posts tone, as I wasn't trying to imply you did not know about lesser bargaining power of workers in times of high unemployment. I just do not think a lot of people in general actually think these things through.

[Hites]

Originally Posted by onelove221

Umm,

What you just espoused is a common position of authoritarian governments througout history. You would fit right in in the Politburo of the PRC.

Accepting the premise that self-interest is human, and recalling that one of the pillars of Keynesian economics is the concept of the worker as "rational man"; an economic actor whose principled self-interest is what drives him to compete and participate in the larger economy.

On the other side, you have the corporation, a perpetual, legal "person" (in the eyes of the law) which is actually comprised of more than one individual, whose sole purpose is to provide profit for its owners.

We also recall that the purpose of collective bargaining and organized labor, was and continues to be a way to provide indivduals with a democraticcally organized means with which to counter the negative actions of corporate entities.

So remind us again, why individuals should not have the means to protect themselves from entities which are, by the very legal framework which allows them to exist, are going to be more powerful than any one person.

And then you call tell us, on the one hand unions are distorting the market but why the corporation, as it is currently constituted is itself not a distortion of the free market.

I eagerly await your response.

Yes, workers are rational men, but unionized labor is too lazy to work, thus making them irrational. I win.

[onelove221]

:sigh:

So many bad arguments, so little time.

Let's start here.

Not really, there are still plenty of jobs that can't be outsourced like all of the service industries. You can't have a mechanic in India fix your car or a worker in China drive the shipping truck to Wal-Mart. That's not to mention the entire "information" economy.

Are you saying the plan is to employ a workforce of 230 million with services and information jobs? Didn't we just have two back to back economic meltdowns which proved such a model is unsustainable?

Sorry, this doesn't even pass the laugh test. You cannot have a prosperous, stable economy without producing tangible goods that are of value to your fellow man.

Americans are still the most innovative people on the planet. That however depends on education and the drive to succeed. Which is something that unions hamper.

How? and based on what evidence?

Why would you go start your own company or go to college if you could make $28/hr bolting on fenders at the local Ford plant?

Know why? Beacuse manufacturing line work is repetitive, boring, sometimes grueling and depending on the industry, dangerous. I used to watch my ex father-in law come home from his job at a Pratt-Whitney plant covered in metal shavings and so physically spent that he could barely kiss his wife on the cheek.

Assuming the college enrollment statitics are accurate, it's obvious that lots of people prefer would prefer NOT to live that way for 30 years if they can help it, even if it means deferring a good income right out of high school in order to invest in the the benefits provided by a post secondary education.

There is a reason our economy is near that of the entirety of the EU. But the real question is not whether Boeing can compete with Airbus it's whether they can compete with COMAC and whether GM can compete with BYD. If it was just the EU and America in the economy maybe your point would have more merit.

Look, the Japanese and the Koreans produced a better product at a lower price than their American competitors, whose management (I am purposely making the distinction between managment and workers) had grown fat and arrogant after years of having the market to themselves. This led them to make short sighted decisions which ultimately left them unable to compete (initially) with foreign competition.

The Germans (and other Europeans) did a similar job with better design and better percieved quality to the extent that consumers were often willing to pay a premium for their products.

Neither one of these scenarios applies to China, which cannot compete on quality and only gains market share through pricing - a feat which they accomplish by refusing to let their currency exchange rate float on the world markets, instead as a directive of Chinese state policy, its value is ALWAYS artificially constrained to be a fraction of the US Dollar.

To put it simply, the quality of BYD sucks, and I wish China luck in growing its domestic market to the point that it can consume COMAC's initial offerings as I can forsee a few pretty horrific crashes in their future.

I never said anything about quality I said efficiency. If I build 10 cars an hour with .25 defects per car is that better than 30 cars an hour with .30 defects per car?

Are you making the argument that American carmakers are .33 as efficient as say, Toyota? Umm okay.

That proves my point. Production moved to where their was superior labor inspite of the higher cost.

This also proves my point that labor unions do not automatically equal a disfavorable operating environment.

No one is advocating slave labor.

Yet that is exactly what is going on in many cases. Jobs which were previously performed by free citizens of democratic nations have been continuously sent to places where slave labor is common and democracy is not even an option.

But the reality is an unskilled worker in China can live a full and rich life under the same working conditions than an unskilled American worker can for a much lower cost.

You. must. be. joking.

Does this full, rich life include worker protections (e.g. OSHA)?

Or access to representative democracy?

Or the freedom to organize if he so chooses?

Or the ability to relocate?

Does he even have the right to anything resembling due process of law as we understand it in the West?

And do his employers have to comply with the environmental laws that prevent corporations in the West from completely despoiling the commons?

The answer to these questions, in case you didn't know is NO.

I agree that labor laws in developing countries need to be reformed and working conditions increased but don't kid yourself into thinking that will create cost parity with the US, or even be close.

Cost parity (or something approaching it) is EXACTLY what would be the result of forcing the developing world to create the kind of hard won legal, political and social infrastructures which we have instituted here in the West.

Cost Parity.

This would then force companies and workers to compete on quality & innovation vs. labor cost arbitrage.

You'd also recall that hiring lower cost labor will allow the company to lower costs to the consumer which encourages consumption and raises profits.

This is true as long as you have a solid base of consumers.

Undercut that base, by say oh, I don't know; enacting policies which lead to their unemployment or which cause a reduction in their buying power, and you damage the very market you need to sell your products to. This is not rocket science.

I believe the saying is "So goes the middle class goes America"

[Hites]

No **** it's not rocket science. Rocket science is actually interesting.

[onelove221]

out of curiosity, are you skeptical of the existence of this corrupt union model?

Oh not at all. What you describe is entirely representative of what happens in a lot of situations.

I however, am more sympathetic to the worker, in spite of their corrupt leadership, than I am to the executive class which has too often run a company into the ground and then used the unions as a scapegoat for poor management, shoddy product planning and outright incompetence.

I'm thinking of Cerebus' tenure as owners of Chrysler as one glaring example.

Ford and Chrylser are both UAW shops. One faced bankruptcy and needed federal assistance to be able to put itself in a position where it was worth purchasing by foreign investors, while the other rejected federal assistance and just turned a $1B profit.

One is also known for poor quality products (Chrysler) while the other is competitive with global brands (Ford) from a quality perspective.

In both cases, I think the difference lay in the corporate management and the quality of union representation.

[Not-EWRX]

Hope the government got some of their money back.

[mh_WRX]

Originally Posted by Not-EWRX

Hope the government got some of their money back.

Ford didn't take any of the money from latest bail outs.

[JC]

Originally Posted by sxotty

JC you were the one earlier bemoaning how unions are killing manufacturing in America. Think about your logical inconsistency. If it is hopeless then why are you upset Unions are killing American manufacturing. They would simply be hurrying it up instead of lowering the standard of living so that the workers end up living on tax dollars directly as manufacturing slowly wastes away.

Anyway I apologize for the prior posts tone, as I wasn't trying to imply you did not know about lesser bargaining power of workers in times of high unemployment. I just do not think a lot of people in general actually think these things through.

That's definitely not what I meant. I'm home sick the eloquence doesn't flow so easily. I think sophisticated manufacturing (cars, planes, complex electronics) is essential to have in the US. I just don't think the unions are helping anything. You shouldn't be content being a mediocre line worker which is what the UAW ultimately strives for. Whether that causes you to go to college or move up in the company people need to be motivated to achieve professionally. Unions prevent top performers from being rewarded and poor performers from being pushed into more appropriate jobs.

No worries, it's just the internet it's hard to read tone on way or the other.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Are you saying the plan is employ a workforce of 230million with services and information? Didn't we just have two back to back economic meltdowns which proved such a model is unsustainable?

Sorry, this doesn't even pass the laugh test. You cannot have a prosperous, stable economy without producing tangible goods that are of value to your fellow man.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that unions are subsidizing certain jobs that shouldn't be subsidized.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Know why? Beacuse line work is repetitive, boring, sometimes grueling and depending on the industry, dangerous. I used to watch my ex father-in law come home from his job at a Pratt-Whitney plant covered in metal shavings and so physically spent that he could barely kiss his wife on the cheek.

Assuming the college enrollment statitics are accurate, it's obvious that lots of people prefer would prefer NOT to live that way for 30 years if they can help it, even if it means deferring a good income right out of high school in order to invest in the the benefits provided by a post secondary education.

I would argue that more people are enrolling in college because they know that manufacturing is not a growth industry in the US.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Look, the Japanese and the Koreans produced a better product at a lower price than their American competitors, whose management (I am purposely making the distinction between managment and workers) had grown fat and arrogant after years of having the market to themselves. This led them to make short sighted decisions which ultimately left them unable to compete (initially) with foreign competition.

The Germans (and other Europeans) did a similar job with better design and better percieved quality to the extent that consumers were often willing to pay a premium for their products.

I don't disagree but I fail to see how a union helps that.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Neither one of these scenarios applies to China, which cannot compete on quality and only gains market share through pricing - a feat which they accomplish by refusing to let their currency exchange rate float on the world markets, instead as a directive of Chinese state policy, its value is ALWAYS artificially constrained to be a fraction of the US Dollar.

To put it simply, the quality of BYD sucks, and I wish China luck in growing its domestic market to the point that it can consume COMAC's initial offerings as I can forsee a few pretty horrific crashes in their future.

China is not competitive on quality (as a whole) yet. That is quickly changing. I know how much you love anecdotal evidence but our Chinese supplier produces much higher quality products at a much lower price. Mind you are talking moderately complex machined and welded parts (not a car or anything) but the knowledge is growing and growing fast.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Are you making the argument that American carmakers are .33 as efficient as say, Toyota? Umm okay.

No simply refuting your insinuation that quality is the measure of manufacturing prowess. That's not necessarily the case as you can be high quality but still not cost effective.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Yet that is exactly what is going on in many cases. Jobs which were previously performed by free citizens of democratic nations have been continuously sent to places where slave labor is common and democracy is not even an option.

You. must. be. joking.

Does this full, rich life include worker protections (e.g. OSHA)?

Or access to representative democracy?

Or the freedom to organize if he so chooses?

Or the ability to relocate?

Does he even have the right to anything resembling due process of law as we understand it in the West?

And do his employers have to comply with the environmental laws that prevent corporations in the West from completely despoiling the commons?

The answer to these questions, in case you didn't know is NO.

You are missing my point. The cost of living and labor in developing countries is lower than the US irregardless of labor regulations. You might have to pay a Chinese worker $5/hr for a living wage but it will never be the $28/hr that UAW folks make. I'm all for pushing for more regulation on labor and environmental on overseas suppliers but don't toil under the illusion that it suddenly make American workers cost competitive again.

Originally Posted by onelove221

Cost parity (or something approaching it) is EXACTLY what would be the result of forcing the developing world to create the kind of hard won legal, political and social infrastructures which we have instituted here in the West.

Cost Parity.

This would then force companies and workers to compete on quality & innovation vs. labor cost arbitrage.

That's not at all true. Massive unskilled labor pools with low cost of living will keep developing countries cheaper.

Originally Posted by onelove221

This is true as long as you have a solid base of consumers.

Undercut that base, by say oh, I don't know; enacting policies which lead to their unemployment or which cause a reduction in their buying power, and you damage the very market you need to sell your products to. This is not rocket science.

I believe the saying is "So goes the middle class goes America"

I dunno if that's a dig at me (I'm a rocket scientist) but I'm well aware. However I disagree with the implication that the UAW is somehow helping this. My point is not that America shouldn't have a middle class just that unions don't facilitate that.

[onelove221]

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that unions are subsidizing certain jobs that shouldn't be subsidized.

'

How so? Please explain how unions are subsidizing jobs, using the accurate definition of the word subsidy. No offense, but this seems like a pointless use of jargon to me.

I would argue that more people are enrolling in college because they know that manufacturing is not a growth industry in the US.

You still haven't provided much in the way of evidence that unions are hampering innovation. Or more importantly, what differentiates unionized labor from non-unionized labor with resepct to innovation and educational attainment.

I don't disagree but I fail to see how a union helps that.

That is not the purpose of unions. The union is not there to design the car, pick suppliers, develop marketing campaigns or anything else. It's sole purpose is to represent the interests of the people who work on the line building the cars.

As I've illustrated and as you've sort of agreed, you can have unions and make good products or make crappy products. It's all in the management.

The cost of living and labor in developing countries is lower than the US irregardless of labor regulations

And you keep missing the point.

It's not just the absence of labor regulation, it is the absence of ALL the factors that make the West free modern, industrialized and democratic.

Once you correct for the gaming of currency exchange rates, I guarantee you that a democratic China that even remotely approached having the same human rights, civil rights, worker rights, labor protections and regulatory environment as the West would most certainly approach wage parity with the West.

The free markets are being distorted by unchecked wage arbitrage and the white elephant that is human/worker rights in the developing world.

Correct for these factors and all manufacturers would have to compete on is quality, efficiency and innnovation - as it should be.

Unfortunately, no one in the executive class of arbitrageurs wishes to have wage parity because that means less profit for them.

That's not at all true. Massive unskilled labor pools with low cost of living will keep developing countries cheaper.

As poor countries raise their standards of living, their cost of labor increases.

Remember, at the dawn of the industrial revolution it was the US that was the cheap source of labor compared to Europe. Of course we also took a much more difficult path than China is, by increasing our own standards of living, we created internal demand for our increasing productive capacity.

It wasn't until our prime competition; industrialized Europe, destroyed itself with two World Wars that we were able to wholly justify building up even more export capability.

I dunno if that's a dig at me (I'm a rocket scientist) but I'm well aware. However I disagree with the implication that the UAW is somehow helping this. My point is not that America shouldn't have a middle class just that unions don't facilitate that.

No dig at you, I like rocket science :-)

My point is that the problem is not the unions. The problem is with how our manufacturing sector has been managed and executive culture in general.

Unions came into being to combat the exploitative nature of corporations in the early industrial period of the West. Since then, we've seen the installation of a regulatory structure to prevent the type of egregious abuses commited by employers that were commonplace in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the unions still represent a bulwark, a floor if you would, for the kind of wages, benefits and treatment workers would expect, even in non-union shops.

The math is out there...once you correct for pension and health care obligations of the Big Three and their unionized workforces, the cost to build a car is pretty much equivalent to what other non-union foreign manufacturers incur. Moreover, the very threat of an organized workforce is what compels non-union shops to offer wages that are competetive (once again corrected for non-wage obligations and regional cost of living factors) with unionized companies.

Now, we can talk about union corruption and how best to reform it, but I can guarantee that in the absence of a strong, organized labor force, corporations are empowered to drive labor costs to the point that a middle class will simply not ever develop amongst its workers.

For every UAW giving organized labor a black eye, there's a Walmart acting as a shining example of why unions exist in the first place.

PS, I'd also like to thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I shall try to follow your example and I encourage other NASIOCers to take note and do the same.

[sxotty]

Originally Posted by onelove221

Moreover, the very threat of an organized workforce is what compels non-union shops to offer wages that are competetive (once again corrected for non-wage obligations and regional cost of living factors) with unionized companies.

Now, we can talk about union corruption and how best to reform it, but I can guarantee that in the absence of a strong, organized labor force, corporations are empowered to drive labor costs to the point that a middle class will simply not ever develop amongst its workers.

For every UAW giving organized labor a black eye, there's a Walmart acting as a shining example of why unions exist in the first place.

PS, I'd also like to thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I shall try to follow your example and I encourage other NASIOCers to take note and do the same.

That bolded part is something many overlook.

Basically my point of view is this.

By law the company (if publicly traded) represents the interests of many stockholders. Management is rewarded for increasing stock prices, everything is going toward that goal. Unions are the only thing representing the workers in these low skill situations.

If part of the profit doesn't go to the line workers to pay them decently then part of our tax dollars will go to pay for medicaid. That is why Walmart is fighting healthcare reform. Right now they can count on the taxpayers to take care of the workers that they choose not to take care of. That is not an efficient way to do things from an overall economic perspective IMO.

Now on an entirely separate point, you have the whole argument about whether we should be trying to retain these low skilled manufacturing jobs or not. That is a different argument IMO.

[Lboogie]

sooooooo, how about that new Mustang?

[paul_shark]

Originally Posted by Lboogie

sooooooo, how about that new Mustang?

I dig the retro sequential turn signals