Wrong, wrong, wrong again.Follow

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10tanker.html?em&ex=1205294400&en=4b2b9cebef679eb5&ei=5087%0A

If Tax Traitors, massively growing outsourcing of American Jobs by Coporate America isn't bad enough, now the DoD is doing it.


A contract, which could (and most likely will) grow over $100b, has been outsourced. That is money the government should be spending in to our declining economy, not pumping it in some foreign nation. Nay a cent of that will get taxed (by our government anyway).

Seriously, 3 things that we can do to bolster the economy significantly and wouldn't actually effect tax payers:

1. Stop Tax Traitors by making it unprofitable via penalties.
2. Penalize companies that outsource American jobs.
3. No NOT buy DoD products overseas.

Boeing tried to push a plane based on the aging 767 platform under the assumption that good ole nationalism would get them the contract and they could squeeze some more years out of the machinery. Airbus offered a plane superior in almost every way with quicker turnaround because they were actually trying to create a competitive product. Boeing hung themselves in this instance and they have no one to blame but their own arrogance for losing the contract.

I would rather the plane was produced domestically but not the way Boeing was trying to do it.

I agree with Rime. Why buy a better quality product from a foreign nation when you can support your own economy? I mean, it's not like better quality will save lives or anything. Besides, it's the bottom 10% out there anyways... and plenty more where that came from.

Yeah, 30 years of corporate deregulation has really worked for the American manufacturing sector and the American worker.

That's sarcasm, in case you are wondering.

Um, you do realize that Boeing doesn't exactly have a history with making crappy (military) jets right? The Super Hornet was a mistake, but that wasn't Boeing's fault, that had a lot more to do with the DoD buying into something that wasn't really needed but didn't know it until afterward. I mean sure, it's new, it's sophisticated, and whatnot, but the DoD will not get out of the Super Hornet what it did with the Hornet. The Hornet however, is probably the most maintenance friendly aircraft that is out there. Why is this important? Less maintenance = more fly time = more operational commitments made = less money the gubberment had to spend.

Not to mention the over 5 decade streak the ever notorious B-52 has.

So your point is that the government should purchase an inferior product because the company has a good history?

Oh yeah, and the domestic thing.

Remove the corps with heavy unionized labor from the equation, and you find that competition works wonders for the bottom lines of the companies, the quality of the products they make, and the pay for their workers.

The reason the "manufacturing sector" is so uncompetitive is because it's almost entirely union labor. Cause. Effect...

History argues with you.


Prior to labor unions, profit margins soared (for the company) while labor pay did not change or even went down in most cases. Not to mention the responsibilities to the worker the companies have (now, and should have in regards to safty) were dismal at best.


Isn't it funny that worker deaths are much lower in unionized labor than they were before labor unions?


Hmmm.

Also some rumors that there was some, uh, incentive for McCain to push so hard for the open bidding process at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/mccain-advisers-lobbied-f_n_90953.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/mccain-received-defense-f_n_90951.html

You're looking at a very short period of history though...



You're talking about the rise of industrialization, right?

You are correct that for a brief period as economies adjusted to industrialization, labor rates and conditions dropped, while profits soared for the owners. This was, after all, the driving reason why folks like Marx came up with alternative ideas.

However, this was the result of the adjustment to industrialism, not a feature of it for all time. Modern companies have no more reason to pay their employees low wages then the smaller private businesses that existed prior to industrialization. The reason wages and conditions were so bad was because there was limited competition among the workers themselves. Factory work was so new that you didn't have specialized skill sets yet. One worker was usually just as good as another, and there were plenty more to replace anyone at any time.

Labor unions helped curb that. Labor laws did even more. But today, the laws in conjunction with larger specialization of labor in our industries means that labor can compete and win in a free market. Unless you happen to be in a field in which the labor has been artificially kept from competing (like those with heavy union presence). In those fields, the same conditions that existed back in the 19th and early 20th centuries still exist today. More people who can do a job then there really is need for that job.

Unions perpetuate that lack of competition and prevent labor from being able to compete on their own. In fields without unions, the labor to work equation has balanced out and workers can command good salaries based on their individual skills. They don't need unions because they know that if one employer wont pay them what they're worth, another will.




And there were more pirates then too!

You don't think there might have been some other factors involved, do you?...


We're also talking about workplaces *today*. As in "right now". And right now, non-union workplaces represent much greater worker freedom, much greater worker competition, and much greater worker opportunity then union workplaces.


You could make an argument that unions were needed at one time. But today? They're largely worthless. They serve no purpose other then to artificially inflate the cost of some types of labor. They don't even benefit their members that much, since in the long term, their jobs are less secure then someone who's competing in an open labor market. If you're in that open market you *know* that what you're being paid is what you're worth (at least). You know that if you lose your job, you can find another for a similar amount of money. In the union world, it's harder to lose that job, but often when you do it's impossible to get another since there's already more people working then are needed, and often you are simply no longer able to compete with more recently trained workers.


Unions are a bad idea. They may have served a purpose at one point in the past, but not today.

Hmmm... I'm looking at "competition" a different way though. You're correct that more people competing for the same job will drive the wage down. However, over time, if the field is "competitive" those who have skill sets that are more in demand will receive better pay. Those who don't will then "compete" with those who do by improving their skills and therefore their ability to compete in the job market.

In the short term, competition hurts labor. But in the long run, it helps it. It ensures that the labor force adjusts to the actual needs of the job market. Over time, this normalizes and wages come back up. What labor unions did is stop the competition. This initially helped the laborers because they could be assured a wage regardless of how many others could do the same job. However, it prevented that field/job from ever getting past that point.

As a result fields with strong labor union presence are "stuck" in the bad stage of industrialism, while everyone else has moved on to the "I can get businesses to fight over my skills and get a higher wage" phase of the process. Unions perpetuate a state in which more people can do the job then are needed. As a result those in the field are harmed by unions, not helped. Sure. They make more money they they would have, but if the union didn't exist in the first place, they'd have developed different skills instead and not have needed a union to make sure they made enough to live on.

Is someone honestly confused by this? Competition is good for the consumer. It's bad for the worker.

Unless this is communisim, consumers = workers

How is that untrue in communism?