|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 4, 2007 15:09:51 GMT -6
MSN money has a new section on Corporate Greed. Much of the focus is on exorbitant CEO compensation. The author of the following MSN Money article by Michael Brush, titled "The 5 Most Outrateously Overpaid CEOs, shows the 5 CEOs with the worst payment-to-performance ratio. Below is an excerpt from the article. " The upshot: Some boards award breathtakingly large pay packages to CEOs even as the executives trash their shareholders’ investments.
The worst:
Top honors go to Gary Smith at Ciena (CIEN, news, msgs). His shareholders have been virtually wiped out -- losing 93% in the past four years. His compensation over that period: $41.2 million.
Jure Sola, the CEO and chairman at Sanmina-SCI (SANM, news, msgs) collected $26.4 million during the past four years while Sanmina shares fell 78%. The bulk of Sola's pay came in the form of a performance bonus of $19.9 million, paid for hitting one recent quarter's targets.
Sun Microsystems (SUNW, news, msgs) paid Scott McNealy, its CEO, chairman and founder, $13.1 million a year over the past four years, even as Sun's shareholders lost 76% of their money.
Shares of supermarket chain Albertson's (ABS, news, msgs) fell 39% over the past four years. Despite this dismal record, Albertson’s CEO and Chairman Larry Johnston collected a total of $76.2 million in that time.
Under CEO Peter Dolan’s watch at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY, news, msgs), shareholders have seen the stock decline by 48% over the past four years. Dolan took home $41 million. ..."
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 4, 2007 21:17:12 GMT -6
All the while closing US plants and sending jobs offshore.
Albertson was a once great supermarket chain run into the ground. If kroger hadn't stepped in and bailed them out they would be totally gone
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 5, 2007 13:22:55 GMT -6
"All the while closing US plants and sending jobs offshore." mEconomists at Alliance Capital Management in New York took a close look at employment trends in twenty large economies recently, and found that since 1995, more than 22 million factory jobs have disappeared. www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.aspHere’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs. What’s going on? In two words: Higher productivity www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.aspSo next time you hear a politician complain that American manufacturing jobs are fleeing to low-cost countries like China or to Latin America, watch your wallet. Everyone’s losing factory jobs. www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.asp
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 7, 2007 23:20:23 GMT -6
"All the while closing US plants and sending jobs offshore." Here’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs. Only according to the unsubstantiated propaganda from an investment company. What’s going on? In two words: Higher productivity Wrong again. In 2 words: Cheaper Labor. Try Viet Nam & North Korea. Besides that, you still haven't cited any verifiable statistics, just the mythological heresay from an investment company, who has every reason in the world to lie about something like this. Meanwhile, here in the good ol' USA where we have verifiable statistics, manufacturing employment has declined 19% since 1997, and that is completely verifiable through statistics. I'll take verifiable statistics over the unsubstantiated propaganda of an investment company any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 8:11:48 GMT -6
"Only according to the unsubstantiated propaganda from an investment company. " Robert Reich Here’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs. What’s going on? In two words: Higher productivity www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.asp"Wrong again. In 2 words: Cheaper Labor. Try Viet Nam & North Korea. " Wrong again: Robert Reich So next time you hear a politician complain that American manufacturing jobs are fleeing to low-cost countries like China or to Latin America, watch your wallet. Everyone’s losing factory jobs. www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.asp"Meanwhile, here in the good ol' USA where we have verifiable statistics, manufacturing employment has declined 19% since 1997, and that is completely verifiable through statistics. " Never said it wasn't, only that we have lost them due to higher productivity through AUTOMATION. Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent, Miklovic noted. But at the same time, Japan’s manufacturing employment base has dropped by 16 percent, while the number of manufacturing jobs in countries including Brazil have declined by some 20 percent, he pointed out. “And one of the largest losers of manufacturing jobs has been China,” Miklovic added. “We like to pick on China and say that all of these jobs are going to China, but they’re losing jobs in manufacturing as well.” www.automationworld.com/view-320
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2007 15:42:37 GMT -6
"Meanwhile, here in the good ol' USA where we have verifiable statistics, manufacturing employment has declined 19% since 1997, and that is completely verifiable through statistics. " Never said it wasn't, only that we have lost them due to higher productivity through AUTOMATION. No. American job loss is not due to "automation." Once again it is due to lower labor costs in other countries like China, North Korea, and now Vietnam. Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent, Miklovic noted.... Again, you continue to quote sources that are understating verifiable numbers. Technically it is correct to state that U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined "more than 11%." However, this suggests a much lower job loss than the verifiable 18% loss over the last decade, as per the numbers given by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this source can't even state the correct numbers for U.S. manufacturing loss, then he has no credibility when he gives his "guess-timate" of Chinese job loss. He's simply pulling numbers out of thin air to make his point.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 15:54:50 GMT -6
"No. American job loss is not due to "automation." Once again it is due to lower labor costs in other countries like China, North Korea, and now Vietnam. " I will go with somebody who knows economics over somebody who keeps making claims but never provides any proof. Robert Reich "Here’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs. What’s going on? In two words: Higher productivity www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.asp"Again, you continue to quote sources that are understating verifiable numbers. Technically it is correct to state that U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined "more than 11%." However, this suggests a much lower job loss than the verifiable 18% loss over the last decade, as per the numbers given by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this source can't even state the correct numbers for U.S. manufacturing loss, then he has no credibility when he gives his "guess-timate" of Chinese job loss. He's simply pulling numbers out of thin air to make his point. [/quote] You DO understand that 18% IS "more" than 11% don't you? Second we do not know what his source is and whether or not is it more accurate than the gov't numbers or by what method the data is collected.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 10, 2007 15:16:33 GMT -6
Communist China, being a very closed and secretive society does not readily share ANY of their economic numbers, so any numbers that may be cited are usually guesstimates at best. And there is no substantiated information to show any large scale job loss in China, only some speculation of capacity corrections and normal attrition.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 11, 2007 14:38:05 GMT -6
I will go with somebody who knows economics over somebody who keeps making claims but never provides any proof. ( from unlawflcombatnt): I will go with someone who provides actual verifiable statistics. And I'll disregard anyone who estimates numbers for which no reliable source is even available (i.e., the Chinese government). Robert Reich "Here’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs.... www.robertreich.org/reich/20031105.aspReich's source of information??? The Chinese government? Fox News? The National Enquirer? The Globe Star? Aliens? ( from unlawflcombatnt)"Again, you continue to quote sources that are understating verifiable numbers. Technically it is correct to state that U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined "more than 11%". However, this suggests a much lower job loss than the verifiable 18% loss over the last decade, as per the numbers given by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this source can't even state the correct numbers for U.S. manufacturing loss, then he has no credibility when he gives his "guess-timate" of Chinese job loss. He's simply pulling numbers out of thin air to make his point. You DO understand that 18% IS "more" than 11% don't you? Yes, I do understand that "18% IS more than 11%". A lot more than 11%, in fact. And that's why I make the point that if someone states that "job loss was over 11%", they're implying a much smaller job loss than the actual, documented job loss of 18%. Second we do not know what his source is and whether or not is it more accurate than the gov't numbers or by what method the data is collected. Generally speaking, most people do consider government statistics more reliable than those from a completely unknown source, especially when the government numbers are freely available to the general public. Again, the 18% number is documentable, and has already been documented several times in this thread alone.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 11, 2007 15:07:24 GMT -6
Actually it is more correct to say that automation has been job enhancement in manufacturingthan a primary source of job loss. automation is resposible for technology gains and therefore the rise from simple bolt turning jobs to more skilled and technical jobs in mfg. so when a plant closes or downsizes, these skilled technical workers become surplus.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Feb 13, 2007 11:17:36 GMT -6
Reich's source of information??? The Chinese government? Fox News? The National Enquirer? The Globe Star? Aliens? Id back Reich's numbers. China used to be a very labor intensive market. Their plants are now modern. In some cases, more modern than ours. automation is a major part of their double digit gains in productivity. you wouldnt have the bucks pouring in via FDI without some return on that. just look at the advances in chip and wafer technology. At one point companies like motorola and phillips shred production lines because of the added capacity.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 13, 2007 13:55:15 GMT -6
Reich's source of information??? The Chinese government? Fox News? The National Enquirer? The Globe Star? Aliens? Id back Reich's numbers. China used to be a very labor intensive market. Their plants are now modern. In some cases, more modern than ours. automation is a major part of their double digit gains in productivity. you wouldnt have the bucks pouring in via FDI without some return on that. just look at the advances in chip and wafer technology. At one point companies like motorola and phillips shred production lines because of the added capacity. My point about Reich's numbers is that there is no reliable source for them. And since his numbers were wrong on U.S. manufacturing job loss, which is very easy to verify, there's no reason to trust his numbers when it comes to China. In other words, if he is wrong about the numbers when a reliable source is available, why would we trust him with numbers when no reliable source is available. I'd say his inaccuracy about U.S. numbers eliminates his credibility when "guess-timating" China's numbers. Another point is worth mentioning. Investment in labor-saving and automation is far more prevalent when labor costs are high. And far less prevalent when labor costs are low. This point is illustrated by the relative lack of investment in automation in the U.S. farming industry where illegal immigrant labor is available. If the cost of automation is greater than hiring more labor, then less automation takes place. It is very likely that less money is spent on automation in China's low-wage labor market, than is spent in the U.S.'s high-wage market. As such, it is very unlikely that automation has cost China as many jobs as it has cost the United States. It's really not cost-effective to invest in automation when workers make $2/day, if the cost of increased labor is less than that of automation. One of the reasons China has been so "labor-intensive" is because labor is so cheap and abundant there. There's just no reason to invest heavily in automation when an equivalent investment in more labor results in more production increase.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Feb 13, 2007 15:03:37 GMT -6
we import parts from there and I went for a visit to see the facility. believe it or not it was nut forming plant with state of the art 245 forming machines.
when you r cranking out 7200 pcs per hour labor is a very small cost but someone did fork out a hell of alot of money to put 15 machines in this plant with tapping equipment.
their quality isnt up to snuff but there are bringing sorters (electronic) on line to do it.
China wants efficiency to reduce their reliance on imports. They will soon be building cars (2008 i believe)
Even if their dollar strengthens and I suspect it will they will protect that trade surplus by increasing their productivity. Thats up over 10% a year.
The strengthening yuan will make raw materials less expensive. and increase the ROR of capx.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 13, 2007 15:40:38 GMT -6
when you r cranking out 7200 pcs per hour labor is a very small cost but someone did fork out a hell of alot of money to put 15 machines in this plant with tapping equipment. Yes, the labor cost is small. My previous point was that if the cost of the machine is more than the labor it replaces, it's not cost-effective to "replace" that labor with a machine. That's my point about job-loss from "automation." If a machine can do the work of 100 Chinese workers, but costs 1,000 times as much as those 100 workers, the machine will not be purchased to replace the workers. Machines are used to enhance the production of workers, not replace them. The same is true when producers are simply trying to increase production at the lowest possible cost. If it costs more to increase production with a machine than it does to hire more workers, then more workers are hired (instead of purchasing the machine.) Again, this is well-exemplified in the California agricultural industry, where hiring illegal aliens is cheaper than upgrading machinery. Again, if $10,000-worth of labor produces as much as $100,000-worth of automation, it is cheaper to hire the extra workers. Thus, if an additional $10,000-worth of labor produces as much as purchasing $100,000-worth of machinery, more workers will be hired instead of purchasing the machine. Furthermore, $2/day Chinese workers are less likely to be replaced by automation, than are $130/day American workers. The potential cost-savings is much greater when replacing the American workers than replacing the Chinese workers. As such, American workers are much more likely to be "replaced" by automation than Chinese workers. Thus, claims that more Chinese workers have been replaced by automation than American workers doesn't make any sense. Automation is employed to reduce production costs. If it raises costs, instead of reducing them, it will not be used. If production can be increased more by hiring $10,000-worth of labor than from $10,000 worth of machinery, workers will be hired instead of purchasing machinery. To sum this up, it doesn't make any sense that more $2/day Chinese workers would be replaced by automation than $130/day American workers.
|
|
|
Post by Grapple on Feb 16, 2007 13:48:07 GMT -6
I would split the difference on the subject of automation in China.
I would suspect that there is automation in those jobs which cannot be done with more labor, for example making chips, you can’t replace some of those machines with labor since the labor can’t do the job. However any job in the factory where expensive machines can be replaced by cheap labor would have cheap labor doing the job. So you will have an expensive automated machine sitting next to a cheap laborer who puts the product in a box.
Also another factor is the export of Western machinery out of Western factories when they are shut down and production moved to China which would once again increase automation in those jobs in China, though only because of the availability of the used equipment.
Finally there would be increased automation in China because of using automation technology developed in high wage countries which the Chinese can get at a discount price since they did not have to pay the development costs or take the risk on failure in the development. Where the problem comes up is will there be the same push to improve productivity when factory work is reduced to low wages all over the world since then the high cost and risk in development is not matched by the rewards of increasing productivity of a $20 an hour worker.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 16, 2007 14:47:05 GMT -6
Where the problem comes up is will there be the same push to improve productivity when factory work is reduced to low wages all over the world since then the high cost and risk in development is not matched by the rewards of increasing productivity of a $20 an hour worker. That's my point exactly. If wages are low enough, there's little benefit to buying expensive machinery to replace cheap workers. It may be still more cost effective to hire the additional workers. It's only when the cost of the increased mechanization/automation is less than the cost of hiring additional workers that it becomes cost effective. As you've stated, some items can't even be made by hand. And others might take so much labor that even a $2/day worker is not cost effective. In general, the higher-priced the labor, the more monetary incentive there is to replace it with a machine. The effects of illegal immigration are a perfect parallel to the effect of wages on mechanization. In the California agricultural industry, much work is done by hand that could be mechanized. Much harvesting work is done by low-paid illegal immigrant workers, because it's cheaper to hire them than to invest in the equipment to replace them. In this case there would be more mechanization/automation if employers were only able to hire more expensive, legal American workers. More American jobs are still being lost to cheap labor than to automation.
|
|
|
Post by Grapple on Feb 16, 2007 19:42:39 GMT -6
I agree, and even some of the equipment that they do have looks not much different then pictures from the end of the 19th century, just change what pulls it from a horse to a tractor. Luckily for the US we had labor shortages during and after WW2 so that cotton picking machines could be developed and financed or today we would be having illegals imported in to do that as well. Here is a quote from a website about it. I am sure that you will notice how labor shortages pushed the financing of the machines www.oldstatehouse.com/educational_programs/classroom/arkansas_news/detail.asp?id=550&issue_id=29&page=7
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 16, 2007 20:01:05 GMT -6
I do agree that a large part of the automation in china is equipment that has been crated up and shipped there as US factories get shipped overseas, or out of business companies assets get auctioned off cheap. When Rubbermaid went belly up from walmart's bullying, the chinese where the major buyers of their surplus molding equipment.
In the industrial equipment world we have a saying about chinese capital equipment purchases - they always come in threes - one to use, one for spare parts and a third to copy
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 17, 2007 14:23:06 GMT -6
I do agree that a large part of the automation in china is equipment that has been crated up and shipped there as US factories get shipped overseas, or out of business companies assets get auctioned off cheap. When Rubbermaid went belly up from walmart's bullying, the chinese where the major buyers of their surplus molding equipment. Re-using American equipment certainly makes it cheaper for American companies to move their operations overseas. The cost savings is even greater if American multinationals can exploit cheap foreign labor without even having to buy new equipment.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 18, 2007 8:47:20 GMT -6
This ties back to the R&D, it is often said by the offshoring proponents that R&D and other technology jobs will replace the labor jobs, which of course has proved pute fantasy.
With less and less manufacturing occuring "onshore" there is little need for R&D of new technologies and automation for domestic production, and why would there be when there is an unlimitied pool of cheap workers offshore. So therefore acutally technology will begin to decline rather than move forward as there is less need for the technology in the first place!
|
|