| Author |
Message |
    
Ryker77
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:15 am: | 
|
Can you even buy shoes that are made in America?
Can you even buy a computer/cell phone that is completly made in America?
I'd bet that Buell has more than one non-American part on it,. |
Ducxl
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:01 am: |
|
Can you even buy shoes that are made in America?
Certainly!! Both my Redwing brand boots AND my New Balance branded sneakers are labeled "Proudly made in U.S.A."
I feel i owe that much to MY fellow American laborer.. |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:22 pm: |
|
If shopping at walmart brings down union manufacturing in the US than Iam a full supporter
That's such a completely ignorant statement that I'm almost inclined not to respond but I shall because I can't help myself. The percentage of U.S. workers that were unionized in 2002 was 8.5%. The percentage that were union in manufacturing was 14%. Keep in mind this was 5 years ago. I'm sure it's less today. The fact is 14% is such a dismally low percentage that it has almost no bearing on the price structure of goods made in the U.S. Furthermore, what unionized manufacturing jobs are left tend to be in the more technical manufacturing sector like aerospace and machining. Broom makers and clothing left decades ago. I think it's time to stop demonizing unions for all of society's economic woes. That ship sailed long ago. The fact is, Americans will never be able to compete in a completely open free trade market against people living in grass huts or tin shacks making 50 cents an hour. |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:44 pm: |
|
According to the Dept. of Labor in '05 the largest representation of unions was for government employees. Almost 40% including teachers, police, etc. The manufacturing segment was slightly less than 14% overall with an equal mix of workers making durable and non-durable items. Wholesale & Retail trade workers are less than 5% unionized, and are the fastest growing segment of the workforce. This segment represents a tremendous potential for the unions. Wal*Mart is the largest company in this segment and is non-union. Ergo: a concentrated program against Wal*Mart by the unions (and their political representatives).
While union representation is very low across the entire range of American manufacturing, in some industries it is dominant. In these industries it has a very dramatic impact on the cost structure. In the auto industry the US has become less and less competitive as time goes by. Certainly some part of this un-competitive position has been caused by their labor costs. Harley recently endured a strike rather than end up with a long term situation similar to the big three.
The fact is, Americans will never be able to compete in a completely open free trade market against people living in grass huts or tin shacks making 50 cents an hour.
In the first place, Americans have, can and must compete against all comers. That is the nature of the global marketplace. If we are not set-up to compete as we are now, we must change. This is an absolute fact of life and the sooner we get used to it the better. Our idea of a level playing field was formed in the '50s & '60s when much of the worlds industry was in ruins and ours was at full steam. Today our products have to be better or cheaper or both to compete. Protectionist policies are not an option. Protectionism cuts both ways. The USA is still the world's largest TOTAL exporter (although China passed the USA in manufacturing exports in '06). In recent memory US steel tariffs, which were put in place to protect the steel industry from foreign dumping, caused billions in extra costs for manufacturers who used steel (e.g. auto makers). In addition, the WTO and some of our major trading partners threatened similar tariffs on US products.
|
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Buellshyter, I'll admit that what I said was a little over the top as it was made in angst at the stories I hear around my area from big companies in auto and steel manufacturing. Im sure there are some union manufacturing workers who really strive for excellence.
We have alot of manufacturing in Ohio and its my bread and butter. I see trends however in the mindset of alot of workers in this market that are piss poor even in a market that isnt competitive.
We need a stronger work ethic and more accountability coupled with technological advances in manufacturing if we are going to lead the way and keep jobs. Sink or swim.
Health insurance costs are a whole other can of worms that has a big affect on this as well. I thought the tort reform in medical malpractice would help this but I havnt followed it enough to know if it has.
Build better products cheaper than the competition. Clean up your own mess while your machine is cycling you lazy fart. Get another machine running while the other one is cycling. If your not rewarded for saving the company money over time than move on.
These are simple work ethics that seem to be lacking in union strongholds in my area. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:32 pm: |
|
So true about the work ethics part and it seams that the future is has less of it.
--Tort reform is a bad idea. The health care system needs a major overhual. |
Etennuly
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:43 pm: |
|
Prior to about fifteen years ago Walmart didn't accept credit cards and they only bought and promoted made in USA. When Sam Walton was alive they were a proud American company.
After Sam died the sharks that he held back for years took over and business boomed a hundred fold.
I don't know the figures, but Walmart has probably produced more millionaire employees than any other American company, through employee stock programs and such. I personally know of three, none of which are above the assistant manager position.
It doesen't matter who you are if you become too successful you piss people off even by doing just what this Democracy is about. |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:46 pm: |
|
Protectionist policies are not an option. Protectionism cuts both ways.
Once again, I can't help myself. Sounds like someone might be overdosing on Rush Limbaugh. Protectionism is alive and well - for our competitors !!!! There is no such thing as free trade. China maintains substantial barriers to trade. Did you know a foreign company (i.e. - the U.S.) can't own a Chinese company outright? For God's sake, it's a communist country. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Wal-Mart gets singled out for bashing because they are the largest. K-Mart, Target, Dollar General, Freds, Costco, Walgreen, CVS, and others buy products from the same suppliers, same products.
Why are we not bashing them as well?
Many towns complain about Wal-Mart coming to town. You can't control your competition. You can only seek to differentiate yourself from your competition. We have a thriving local retail store environment in spite of two Targets, a Super Wal-Mart, a Costco, and a Sam's.
Why?
Each of these successful stores provides a good or service that none of those stores provides. That is America. That is what makes us great! That is what Sam Walton did with his five and dime store in the beginning. BTW, he did it in the shadow of Woolworth's and Sears & Roebuck.
I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart not because of their practices but because the local store manager hires the dumbest human beings to ever fog a mirror. I can't take the stress and heart palpitations from dealing with their knuckledragger "associates". |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:14 pm: |
|
Once again, I can't help myself. Sounds like someone might be overdosing on Rush Limbaugh.
You should try. Not the concerns of Limbaugh, but Greenspan and lately Bernancke.
True enough there are many protectionist policies on both sides of US/China trade. Rather than signifying economic warfare, they are warning signs to prevent a serious rift in trade which would be very damaging to both parties.
China desperately needs the markets available only in the US to continue its growth and modernization. If something were to radically disrupt that trade, China would potentially face a revolution. In addition, China needs a healthy US economy because it needs a place to invest its money. As you probably know China is very heavily invested in US Treasury instruments.
Similarly, the US needs China on multiple levels as well. The abundance of high quality/low cost consumer goods has raised the US standard of living. Of this there can be little argument. Losing these goods might not cause a revolution, but would have a severe impact on our lives. More importantly, without Chinese investment in the US, financing our current account balance (deficit) would be tougher and more expensive. If it were necessary to do this, short term interest rates would rise significantly. When you see the impact of a 1/4 point rise in the Fed rate, imagine the impact of a 2 or 4 or 5 % increase.
Finally we have Social Security. The Social Security system has been collecting more in the form of FICA than it is paying out. It should be building a surplus so it has reserves to pay the baby boom generation. It doesn't. What is has is non-marketable Treasury certificates that were exchanged as IOU's for the SS dollars. These are payable from the Treasury's general fund on demand when SS needs them. The Treasury will have to borrow the money. Understand that the mere fact of printing currency is a loan against future US goods and services. When the SS needs to redeem its certificates to make payments the international flow of capital better be going at full speed, or again we are in for trouble.
These economic issues are neither liberal nor conservative. The exact same situations existed during the Clinton years as during the Bush Presidency. If a Democrat is elected President in '08 they will still be there. Political demogoging inflames the issues and gives people something to be upset about, but does little to resolve anything. |
|
