|
Post by redwolf on Aug 26, 2007 10:20:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Aug 26, 2007 18:13:20 GMT -6
bws, this could go under outsourcing or malfeasance - I think malfeasance is the most appropriate. Its not just newton Iowa feeling the pain of the Whirlpool takeover of Maytag.
Cleveland TN, Galesburg and Herrin IL all lost Maytag plants and also each one of these communities Maytag was the primary employer. And its not just the direct employees that are losing out, but also the service suppliers like the laundry, transport and vending, as well as tool shops and material suppliers - so for every one direct manufacturing job lost three or four more are negatively affected. And each community looses a major part of its tax base. Something I understand that Canada does is require a closing or moving factory to give compensation to the communities that lose tax revenue - we should be doing that here.
I used to be a die hard Maytag customer because they used to make a high quality product - now its just generic whirlpool (a lower end appliance maker) and mostly made in Mexico. No more Maytag for me.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Sept 1, 2007 8:06:28 GMT -6
The Maytag name is history. I got the very last dishwasher of a mid-level model out of their warehouse in June. It was a deal from Home Debt, who I really dislike, due to their being "Bush Pioneers."
rdr
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 1, 2007 18:42:24 GMT -6
I'd say the overall problem is that of wage arbitrage--from both the outsourcing of jobs to Monterey, Mexico, and transfer of jobs to a lower-paid, non-union location. Unionized Newton workers' wages and jobs are being undercut by non-union workers in Clyde, Ohio, and even more by lower-waged workers in Mexico.
Princeton sociologist Katherine S. Newman describes the biggest obstacle to "fixing" the job loss and wage suppression problems.
"“It is amazing to me how much we have come to accept that there is nothing to be done about this loss of income.”"
Amazing indeed.
The acceptance of globalization's "inevitability" is a major problem. And such acceptance is a complete mistake.
There is nothing "inevitable" about globalization. Job loss from outsourcing could be stopped dead in its tracks. Multiple actions could be taken, though there are definite obstacles. Lack of political will is one such obstacle. Widespread media disinformation is another. The Corporate media, along with our elected representatives, have made tremendous efforts to convince us of globalization's "inevitability", and that the resultant job loss and wage suppression are also "inevitable."
Worse still, media propagandists and our elected representatives espouse the myth that "better training" and "more education" is the solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Better training will not prevent a $190/day American worker from being replaced by a $5/day Chinese worker, or by a $2/day North Korean worker. More education and training will not compensate for the wage differential. Such claims are not only ridiculous, they're flagrantly dishonest.
There are many effective actions that can be undertaken to reduce outsourcing. Any one of them would help some. Most would help a lot. Combining several would help even more.
Here are a few suggestions:
#1. Impose Tariffs on all goods made by foreign companies with American ownership. Make tariffs high enough to off-set the labor-cost advantage of using foreign workers. For example, put tariffs on Whirlpool's Mexican-made washing machines--make them high enough to offset the labor-cost savings from replacing American workers with Mexican workers.
#2. End all government loans, and government backing of loans, that are given to American entities to build production facilities in foreign countries. An example of such an agency is the Export-Import Bank, which assists American companies in the transfer of American production facilities to cheap-labor countries. Eliminating the Export-Import Bank is completely justifiable, as its loans are funded by American taxpayers, or at least backed by American taxpayers. Why should working American taxpayers help Corporate America replace working American taxpayers with foreign workers, while reaping huge profits from the elimination of American taxpayers' jobs? Does that make any sense? Should government be FORCING Americans to finance the elimination of their own job?
#3. Eliminate ALL tax deductions and credits for foreign-earned income by American-owned, foreign-located companies & subdivisions. Better still, increase taxes above those assessed on American-located entities, especially on those who's main "export" market is the United States. (The Corporations whose main "revenue stream" comes from those very same American consumers whom they refuse to employ.) If an American-owned company sells goods to American taxpayers, then American Federal income taxes should be paid on those sales. And at the same rate (or higher) than companies located in the United States.
#4. Penalize China for currency manipulation, which makes their cheap exports even cheaper than they would be otherwise (from the use of low-paid Chinese workers.)
#5. Permanently eliminate the Presidential Fast-Track Authority. The Constitution stipulates that Congress, not the President, is the prime regulator of trade. (Consider amending the Constitution if necessary, such that Congress cannot EVER be allowed to give away their Constitutionally-mandated trade regulation powers and obligations. ) If Congress had retained its Constitutionally mandated power, fewer job killing, wage-suppressing trade deals would exist today.
#6. Cancel NAFTA and the WTO. Assuming Dennis Kucinich is correct, the President CAN cancel both, in as little as 6 months. America has been trading since it's beginning. International trade organizations and "agreements" are completely unnecessary to do so. They simply grant special advantages to certain parties, mainly to Corporations and big money interests, and ALWAYS to the detriment of workers, as well as the people. These agreements were never designed to promote trade. They were designed to pick winners and losers. They're designed to increase the profits of investors, at the expense of labor, consumers, and national sovereignty. They were designed to facilitate capital flow to the locations of the cheapest labor, replacing the highest paid and most protected workers, with the lowest paid and least protected workers. These agreements were designed to facilitate capital investment in areas where labor conditions approached outright slavery as much as possible. (And they've pretty much succeeded at the latter, in the Gaesong Industrial Park in Korea)
There are many more steps that could be taken as well. Any one of the above would help. More than one would help tremendously.
_______
It's also worth reviewing previous U.S. policy toward labor, and how it addressed labor shortages.
It used to be common for the Federal government to subsidize wages for numerous "on-the-job-training" programs for workers. This occurred in areas of perceived labor shortages. In such programs, the government paid some part of the wages of new workers, while they were learning a new job.
I had personal experience with one such program. Back in the 70's, the Federal government determined there was a shortage of shipyard workers. More shipfitters, welders, and burners were needed for America's shipbuilding industry. As a result, the Federal government subsidized the pay of on-the-job trainees for several months after they began work.
My own experience was with Bethlehem Steel's shipbuilding division in Sparrows Point, Maryland. (a Baltimore suburb). I was given 5 days (or 40 hours) of training in both welding and burning, inside Bethlehem Steel's shipyard. I was paid during this time at a rate of about 90-95% of what a 3rd class Shipfitter was paid (the lowest shipfitter grade). After 5 days, I began actual work in the shipyard, learning the trade over time. Some, if not most of my pay was funded by the Federal government. After several months, my pay came entirely from Bethlehem Steel. (Also worth noting, is that shipfitter pay in those days was equal to the average wage of all American workers.)
Thus in the 70's, the "solution" to a labor shortage helped both business AND workers, by filling labor "shortages" with American workers, and subsidizing their training if necessary. The "70's solution" had an added benefit for labor. It didn't increase the total labor supply. This policy brought many "not-in-labor-force" classified Americans back into the labor force. Though it reduced the number of "not-in-labor-force" Americans, it did not increase the total number of working age Americans. As a result, it caused little wage suppression. The total true "labor supply" was not changed. (The total number of working age Americans remained the same.) But more of the total "labor supply" was employed, leaving less workers unemployed, and less surplus labor to drive wages down.
In summary, unlike today, the Federal government had previously helped fund worker training in areas of worker shortages.
Today's "solution" is entirely different. The current "solution" to labor shortage claims (and mostly false ones at that), is to allow big business and Corporate America to import foreign labor through avenues such as H1B and L1 visas. Today's "solution" helps only Corporate America, while hurting American workers.
The solution to today's phantom labor shortage results in an increase in the total number of working age persons available. In contrast to previous years, today's "solution" increases the total supply, by adding foreign workers to the 232 million-person supply of American workers. Unlike the past, today's "solution" has no benefit for the 85 million working age Americans who are not employed. In fact, it worsens their situation. It increases their number, by replacing many who were previously employed with a lower-paid foreign Visa worker. It suppresses wages by increasing the total labor supply, as well as providing workers willing to work for less. Today's "solution" fills job openings by bringing in workers from outside the American labor pool, instead of putting not-employed American workers back to work.
Despite the numerous claims of "labor shortages," there are none whatsoever-- not anywhere in this country. There are no labor "shortages" at any level-- not unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, or highly skilled fields. The only "shortage" is in workers who'll work for less than the market rate for American labor. There's no "labor shortage", only a "cheap labor shortage".
The phony free-market hypocrites love to espouse the "free market" when it works to their advantage (and increases their profits). But they despise free markets when they work against them. Such is the case with the "free market" application to labor. When it comes to labor prices, they refuse to take the free market solution to a supply shortage problem-- by offering a higher "price" for labor to increase the "supply".
It's no surprise that these pseudo-free market hypocrites won't use the free market solution for labor shortages. It reduces their profits. As a result, they'll stop at nothing to avoid paying a higher "price" for labor, which would increase the supply available, and resolve any "labor shortage" problem.
Again, increasing wages is exactly what free markets dictate as the solution. With Corporate profits at record levels, there's no justification for not increasing wages. There's plenty of money available to increase wages, thus utilizing the free market solution. But instead of using the established free market solution, which they can easily afford, Corporatists beg for government intervention in the free market. They beg government to allow them to circumvent the higher-cost free market solution, and allow theme to use a less costly, non-market solution.
Their non-market solution involves going outside the legally-defined American labor market, and supplementing it with currently non-legal, non-American workers. The Corporatists want an expansion of the legally-defined American labor market, by adding currently non-legal workers to the total supply. Once again, when free markets work against the Corporatists, they try to circumvent it. In this case, by extending it's boundaries and expanding its limits. They're not content with the limits of their legally-defined labor supply. They want more, and they want it for less.
This "highly selective" use of the free markets is not free enterprise. It's Corporate Socialism. It's welfare for the rich. It's a scheme to transfer wealth from workers to Corporate plutocrats. These Corporatists constantly bemoan government intervention into the free market, unless the intervention is to their benefit. In reality, most market interventions are to their benefit. Most market interventions assist business and Corporate America, not consumers or workers.
In a true democracy, when the government must intervene in markets, it should be on behalf of those needing it the most, those benefiting society the most, and on behalf of those whose assistance will benefit the overall economy the most.
None of these criteria apply to Corporate America today. None of those criteria apply to American international investors. In fact, most assistance on their behalf is harmful to the economy, as well as the people of the United States. Assisting them by facilitating foreign investment, and with the replacement of American workers with foreign workers, is detrimental to the nation as a whole.
Current Corporate Welfare actions benefit the wealthy few, at the expense of the non-wealthy many. And the 2 do not "balance." There is, in fact, a net loss The upward redistribution of wealth reduces consumer spending power, production demand, and labor demand. Though this upward distribution may increase capital available for investment, it's of no benefit without productive investment opportunities--that is, investment opportunities producing increasing real wealth in the United States, and increasing overall wellbeing of the American people.
Capital in excess of productive investment opportunities is harmful. It goes into non-productive areas, non-capital investment areas, and counter-productive areas. It inflates asset prices, without increasing true value. It goes into debt purchase, allowing expenditure of wealth to exceed production of wealth. Mis-investment of excess capital distorts every market, creates never ending asset-bubbles, and allows the rich to extract wealth from the non-rich, by using the excess capital to purchase debt, and collect interest from the debt. Mis-used excess capital allows the most affluent to profit from financial transactions that produce absolutely 0 real wealth. Instead of being used to create "new" wealth, capital is used to extract the existing wealth from the less affluent. Nothing is created. It is only redistributed, and only redistributed upward.
|
|
|
Post by rjfliberal07 on Sept 1, 2007 20:43:32 GMT -6
Right now, now only canidate(s) that I could support and probably will vote for come election day is either Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. I cannot stomach the idea of a Hillbilly Clinton, or a Rudi Ghouliani. I don't care of DK or RP are not "electable", I will vote my conscience for once. Look at how Abraham Lincoln lost and lost and lost every election until his determination paved the way to his election as President in the 1800s. I might even register Green party or some other party in protest if the Democrats keep acting like a bunch of spineless cowards. Also I think Americans best chance at less biased News media is for the government to break up some of these Monopolies that occurred via all this media consolidation over the last several years. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine also will give people like Limbaugh some competition on the radio where there is currently none. Also I think Nafta/ WTO/ and other American worker destroying agreements need to be thrown in the trash. Globalization will only work long term if the Chinese people can live and work in conditions similar to America/Europe.
|
|