How to create more manufacturing jobs - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    7,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    303
    Likes (Received)
    1806

    Post

    Sorry, I never did get around to saying that the above mentioned Rich must have been the worst "Shop Stewart" ever, a Company man from the start. Him, I would have fought to have thrown out of the Union.
    Perfect example of Union attitude.
    Got news for you: In my company, if you are not a company man, then get the hell out! Similarly, if I can't or don't honor your efforts for MY company, get the hell out as I don't deserve you!
    Please do not misunderstand, I'm not bashing unions and the unionized workers. I am however bashing the typical union mentality, not unlike what you've showed here.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Post

    Gene,
    1: the value of the US dollar needs to be on the low side -- making it easier for people using other currencies to buy our goods;

    Only if we are not importing raw materials. Given that half of our energy comes from abroad I'm not sure a "weak" Dollar is a good idea. For example, I wonder how much of the $70 paid for each barrel of oil is due to inflation of the dollar? So far oil is priced in dollars.

    I think the biggest booster of a weak Dollar is our Government, who uses the inflation as a backdoor tax.
    You make a great point and prove that I'm no economist. It's that little detail about oil. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    5,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    728

    Post

    SaymoreExpectevenmoreandgiveless,

    I see what you are saying. If the workforce will not give more than you demand, and bow down to you, get the hell out.

    Most likely true, you don't deserve the efforts of your employees.

    If you are a boss, you are probably another who claims to pay his employees 15 bucks or more.

    As to Unions, were there never any, and there almost were none, ie, the Homestead Strike, you would be paying even less than you have to, now.

    I cannot understand how you, the boss class, can have poisoned the new members of the work force against Unions.

    You HAVE to know that without ANY Unions, you, the boss class, would offer whatever you want, and the new hire would have to take it or leave it. Been the norm for hundreds of years. "You want a nickle more? Get the hell out!!!"

    Now you, apparently a mfg concern, are crying about the makers, GM, Ford, whoever, saying you get a nickle cut per piece and cry, and pass it to your employees.

    I probably should not be in this forum, the Manufacturers. All boss types, I guess, we gotta learn how to screw them milhunks, and sychronize our efforts, as the steel mills and the coalmines did 75 to a 100 years ago. Keep a "Blacklist. You're a rabble rouser, you ain't gonna work in this industry anymore.

    Fine bunch the boss class is, isn't it?

    Cheers,

    George

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    5,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    728

    Post

    Bob--Am,

    A man I listened to a week or so ago said that the price of oil is NOT supply and demand. It is speculators. Futures and options traders. They jack up the price of a Contract, make a ton of money, sell their option when it is "In the money"

    Oil is NOT 75 bucks a barrel in Saudi Arabia. What it is, I do not know, but the Saudis do not sell us crude, directly, the speculators control the crude.

    I hate, again, to be political, but, either this is a new wrinkle that the Futures and Options people have dreamed up, or it is specifically approved of by the GWB Administration.

    Untold billions have been removed from the economy to enrich traders. And, come Tuesday, next, we'll go to the polls and re-elect their favourite politico to run in the November elections. All the Reps and one third of the Senators, 99 % of whom should be thrown out.

    We'll see how many lose their party's vote and how many get replaced for the General Election in November. A midterm, to be sure, but this year should be interesting.

    Cheers,

    George

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    66
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Post

    gotta pitch in...

    perhaps could hire more people by opening company sponsored vocational schools and leaving the gvt out of it???? (think of it this way, your company trains future employees and attract them, and get them before their jobs get shipped or they get sent to the liberal institutions of colleges)

    myself, i am not part of any union, still a young'un, and i would rather work to earn money my way, and how they see fit rather than sit around and collect social secuity because im deaf. (i plan on opting out of social security anyways..no use for it once i get out of college and into jobs)

    i dont know unions. i hear both good and bad, but i feel like theyre frats basically. i prefer to be able to earn my own wages, pay my own way, get out my own way without answering to union bosses or the gvt. i prefer to answer to the shop bosses instead. now, i do not know the benefits of union or non union work, so i might change my opinion later on as i get more experience. anyways, enough rambling for now.

    create more manufacturing jobs? open up paintball shops who does custom milling for customers per customer. ( service job) and sell goods on the side as well...could work i guesS? (it worked for Glenn Palmer in california, and it worked for Doc. Nickel in Alaska, why cant it work for some of us?)

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Post

    GeneH-
    They make more money on the income taxes. In 1916 the Gov't started a flat income tax on anyone making over $50,000 a year. By the end of World War II I think the "marginal" rate on high income brackets was over 90 percent.

    This is probably why the tarrif income fell to a percent around 1950 and hasn't come back up since that time.
    Free trade dogma in our government has lead to the virtual elimination of tariffs.

    As of Fiscal Year 2005, from the OMB come these numbers:

    U.S. Gross Domestic Product = $12,479.9 billion
    Imports = $2,024.9 billion
    Total U.S. Receipts = $2,153.9 billion
    U.S. Receipts from Duties = $23.4 billion

    Imports as percent of GDP = 16.2 %
    Taxes paid on imports as percent of total receipts = 1.0%

    Duties paid as percent of imports = 1.1 %

    Name ONE U.S. MANUFACTURER that gets away with paying 1% tax rate.

    FWIW, the US Civil War was in part fought over the tarrif income. The South felt they were getting a raw deal, since they were exporting cotton to England and importing finished goods from overseas. There was also talk of a second Civil War during debates on the Income taxes.
    Which is why a one world, one size fits all trade policy is stupid. Even the U.S. had such diverse intersts from north to south to make it almost impossible to enforce a trade policy that wouldn't rip the country apart.

    Now take that socialist mentallity to a global scale and see what a mess you will create. Some nations will be destroyed (like ours) to the benefit of others (China) by this new world order trade policy. But that's what it was designed to do.

    "In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

    Richard N. Gardner

    Columbia University law professor and veteran State Department official (most recently, the Clinton administration’s ambassador to Spain). The article was entitled “The Hard Road to World Order,” and appeared in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, a journal which Time magazine calls “the most influential periodical in print.” The influence of Foreign Affairs derives, of course, from the fact that it is the official house organ of the organized one-worlders at the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR.

    Fun fact: Every U.S. Secretary of State since 1944 has been a CFR member.

    Steve

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Post

    Steve,

    I still feel American Industry could compete, even with low wage workers, if we didn't have Class Warfare types in regulatory positions. It's one thing to actually prevent harm to people by your actions, it's quite another when the regulators HATE you.

    As I've said before, you can have it fast, good or cheap - take any two of the three.

    I can only really see one benefit of raising tarrifs - the average working stiff would have to strain harder to maintain their lifestyles. They might also start to notice the aforementioned class warriors and their mischief. The pain might wake a few folks up out of their slumbers.

    The downside is that some countries might decide to reciprocate, such as what happened when Smoot Hawley was passed in the 1930s. Notice, if you will, that the rate of income generated from tarrifs didn't go up in the 1930s, but Smoot Hawley definitely raised the costs of imports and encouraged other governments to raise their tarrifs.

    I could understand reciprocal tarrifs - we play "tit for tat". For example, China has a hefty tarrif on some imports - so we do the same. Unfortunately we have the best Congress that money can buy. So do most other governments of the world.

    Gene

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    downhill from Twain\'s study outside Elmira, NY
    Posts
    11,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4126
    Likes (Received)
    3851

    Post

    Steve, since you are so good with digging correlations out of historical texts (and contexts) have you ever thought about graphing the rate of increase in technolgy against the decrease in tarifs? Include also a line graphing the real cost of contemporary technology to "middle class and poorer consumers" on the same graph. I'd be curious to see what it looks like.

    I agree with the tit for tat model. But not sure tariffs are a "better" or worse tax on average consumers than income tax. And they do tend to stifle or delay technology development. The problem is that government has grown to an insatiable size and it is hard to see how we the average people are getting our money's worth however tax is collected.

    smt

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hernando, FL
    Posts
    6,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1511
    Likes (Received)
    2169

    Post

    The problem is that government has grown to an insatiable size and it is hard to see how we the average people are getting our money's worth however tax is collected.
    That's for sure and certain. The question then is, how can that be reversed?

    Seems like the politicos love to promise a reversal, but it just keeps growing instead.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Post

    GeneH-
    I still feel American Industry could compete, even with low wage workers...
    You can "feel" right up to the day America goes broke.

    I deal with numbers.

    Here are some to look at:
    YEAR----------TARIFF % (TARIFF REVENUE / TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUEx100%)
    1789------------99.5%
    1800------------83.7%
    1825------------92.0%
    1850------------90.9%
    1875------------54.6%
    1900------------41.1%
    1925------------15.0%
    1950------------1.0%
    1975------------1.3%
    2000------------N/A*

    source: Statistical Abstract of the United States www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html
    *1997 is the last year that the U.S. Statistical Abstract published customs revenues


    YEAR---TP--------EM---------PP
    1920-----106.0-----10.658-----10.0%
    1930-----123.2------9.562------7.8%
    1940-----132.1-----10.985-----8.3%
    1944-----139.8-----17.602-----12.6%
    1950-----151.3-----15.241-----10.1%
    1960-----179.3-----16.796-----9.4%
    1970-----203.3-----19.367-----9.5%
    1980-----226.5-----20.285-----8.9%
    1990-----248.7-----19.076-----7.7%
    2000-----281.4-----18.473-----6.6%
    2004-----293.9-----16.484-----5.6%

    TP = Total U.S. population (millions)
    EM = People employed in manufacturing (millions)
    PP = Percent employed in manufacturing of total population
    source: Statistical Abstract of the United States


    There is no statistical evidence showing even a hint of a turn around in the manufacturing employment, and judging by the "made in China" labels I see on everything in Walmart, it's not because our 5.6% are now so productive that they are making everything.

    And I won't even go into how those employed are losing ground to inflation, working more hours and spending less time with our kids, losing their health insurance, and we now have more millionaires and billionaires. This isn't rocket science, everywhere I go people know what's going on. We are firing Americans and moving the jobs to China and bringing the junk back here because they don't have to pay a tariff that would raise the price to where it can't compete with an American product.

    Steve, since you are so good with digging correlations out of historical texts (and contexts)
    Since when am I digging statistics out of context?

    have you ever thought about graphing the rate of increase in technolgy against the decrease in tarifs?
    Anything keeping you from doing that? I spend more time paging through statistical abstracts than ten pro free trade members in this forum put together. motionguru is the only one I've seen put numbers up and he avoids most of the topics listed above like the plague.

    Include also a line graphing the real cost of contemporary technology to "middle class and poorer consumers" on the same graph. I'd be curious to see what it looks like
    And how many of those poor people can't afford a home, have no healthcare, and are declaring bankruptcy at historic rates? What good is a DVD player if you need your teeth fixed but don't have the money to pay for a dentist? And I know people who are exactly in that situation.

    What good are cheap tennis shoes at Walmart if you can't afford your doctor bills because the American shoe factory closed down and put half the town out of work?

    The problem is that government has grown to an insatiable size and it is hard to see how we the average people are getting our money's worth however tax is collected.
    Now I agree that is part of the problem. The nanny-state will tax us to death trying to take care of us. But they don't dare tax imports, only U.S. citizens enjoy that burden.

    Steve

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    downhill from Twain\'s study outside Elmira, NY
    Posts
    11,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4126
    Likes (Received)
    3851

    Post

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steve, since you are so good with digging correlations out of historical texts (and contexts)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since when am I digging statistics out of context?

    --------------------------------------------------

    Poor choice of words on that one, Steve, but possibly to the point anyway. My intended meaning was ""since you are so good at digging correlations *from* historical texts and contexts"

    Why don't I do it? Because you are the one constantly harping on the tariff isssue. And if you are going to make simplistic correlations, it might be worth digging deeper for meaning. You may or may not prove yourself right, but it would broaden the perspective.

    For instance, from your last round, what you seem to demonstrate clearly is that lowering tariffs correlates well with increased population. On that ground alone, maybe we should re-instate heavy tariffs. Or wait, maybe increased population correlates almost perfectly with decreased tariffs, so probably we better get that morning after pill out on the market pronto.

    Quote:"And how many of those poor people can't afford a home, have no healthcare, and are declaring bankruptcy at historic rates? What good is a DVD player if you need your teeth fixed but don't have the money to pay for a dentist? And I know people who are exactly in that situation."

    Hell, I'm related to people in that situation. It existed pervasively when tariffs were in full flower, too. My guess is that for non-cosmetic dentistry, there has not been a huge change in real costs since my parents day. And an awful lot of dental problems could be prevented by education and good habits. I have posted in the past my feelings about health and dental care in this country, but it does not have a lot to do with the current discussion about tariffs.

    There is too much to want in this country, for there to be a good model of living decently on a low income. In an urban environment, it may be impossible. But again, is this correlated to tariffs? My understanding of history is that joblessness and mass despair was higher in the past (during times of tariff) than it has been for quite a few recent years since the late 70's. One thing that has changed is that evermore training and education are needed for entry level "good" jobs. All those human musclepower jobs are gone, supplanted, and largely unlamented; again no relation to tariffs.

    smt

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6

    Post

    Just to interject my usual consumer activism viewpoint here...I'm afraid the average consumer feels defeated by lists of policy ills (manufacturing, trade, etc) that need fixing.

    I feel more in control of my own spending, so I focus on raising awareness etc. At the risk of becoming the PM Room Mother , here is my latest idea for getting people to pay attention to American manufacturing...

    http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/blog/2...undraiser.html

    Is that just too OT for you guys? [img]smile.gif[/img]

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Post

    smt
    And if you are going to make simplistic correlations, it might be worth digging deeper for meaning. You may or may not prove yourself right, but it would broaden the perspective.
    These "simplistic" correlations have been pointed out since the beginning of our country by the leaders who built this country.

    I'm gonna throw this back at you.

    What evidence would YOU accept that trade without tariffs has resulted in reducing our manufacturing capacity, thus our national security, and lowered the standard of living for the majority of Americans?

    My understanding of history is that joblessness and mass despair was higher in the past (during times of tariff) than it has been for quite a few recent years since the late 70's.
    And what do you base that on?

    I know I've posted this before and nobody could deny these facts or the sources:

    http://www.sharedcapitalism.org/

    A small sampling:

    The financial wealth of the top one percent of households now exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent.

    The wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans grew by an average $940 million each from 1997-1999 while over a recent 12-year period the net worth of the bottom 40 percent of households declined 80 percent.

    For the well-to-do, that's an average increase in wealth of $1,287,671 per day. If that were wages earned over a 40-hour week, that would be $225,962 an hour or 43,876 times the $5.15 per hour minimum wage.

    The Federal Reserve found in its latest survey of consumer finances that although median family net worth rose 17.6 percent between 1995 and 1998, family wealth was "substantially below" 1989 levels for all income groups under age 55.

    From 1983-1997, only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while wealth declined for everyone else.

    And the list goes on and on.

    Now when you talk about "out of context" you don't even quote one statistic. Here is an entire web site of statistics about the decline of the standard of living of the median family.

    Yet you make a statement to the contray without any factual data to back it up.

    What is the reason?


    Steve

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    5,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    728

    Post

    Machinehead,
    '
    Bravo.

    Now who is smt? I'd like to know who you are excoriating.

    I am out of the workforce, you young'uns still have to make a living. For the BOSS class to screw you is what has always been.

    And, most likely, will always be the same. You guys are moochers, you want the BOSSES to finance your high class lifestyle.
    You give them 60 70 hours a week, you expect enough to pay for the gas and electric bill and have a few bucks for food.

    They think you should get a second job to cover those "nonessentials". Or get the wife to do that part of the Family Thing.

    I think kids straight from school are sure they will slay all the dragons till they get to be about 30 years old, then they discover they are dispensable, and they desire Union protection.

    Hell of it is, they have had at least 2 elections, in which they have managed to F++K things up, so they are really screwed, aren't they?

    Now they got to live like the rest of us. All them Business School grads wil NOT instantly become CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies.

    Cheers,

    George

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,299
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    26
    Likes (Received)
    27

    Post

    Categories of lies:

    1:Lies
    2amned Lies
    3:Statistics

    (Samuel Clemmons I belive)

    [ 05-08-2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: DFW5914 ]


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •