Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mjyoung

In Reply To
Skrull

Subj: Re: Book Recommendation
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:45:02 am EDT (Viewed 583 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Book Recommendation
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 06:08:57 am EDT (Viewed 641 times)


>

> I would love that! What a nice offer! \(geek\)

Everytime I've been in the mood to read it, it's been checked out at my local library, so I just end up getting something else. Not a good excuse though, since I've should have read it by now. I even attended one of the writer's lectures.

> While I of course support labor unions because they're good for workers, the rest of your comment resonates with me very strongly. My solution would be to fire the top five officers in each company, give the people who fill the vacancies one fifth the salary of whomever each one replaces - they'll still be making more money than the President of the United States - and give the newbies three years (or they're fired with no severance) to make efficient production and leading edge R&D the signature attributes of their companies. To make this possible, I would make it illegal for a company's CEO or other officer (or a family relation thereof) to be a member of that company's Board of Executives. This one reform would revolutionize America.

There comes a point where labor unions do more harm then good. And you have to decided if we have reached that point yet. I think we have in this labor union. For instance, one of the union requirements was that so many people had to be working at a factory at one time. So since the company couldn't reduce the number of workers anymore, they decided to just shut the whole factory down.

There are lots of problems I have with your solution. The capitalist in me has a problem with the government telling an individual company what kind of decisions it can make.

If you reduce the salaries of a job, you get people less qualified for the job. Simple supply and demand.

And while it might revolutionize America, it would be bad overall. Obviously you think these are all great changes, but they aren't in reality. You can't force a company to spend billions in R&D if they don't want to.

> I agree with you whole-heatedly. See my comments above.

Just to review. The problem with jobs going overseas is that those jobs can be done more efficiently if done in another country. The solution is to increase the efficiency of the American worker.

> > Another thing to look at are manual labor jobs that american workers refuse to do, such as pig raising and fruit picking in California. In some cases, it's as simple as americans refusing to do the job, because they think its degrading, it's too hard, or doesn't pay enough. Everyone thinks they deserve to get $50/hr, but that's not how it works.
>
> But those jobs could certainly pay more than they do, and offer medical benefits unless the federal or state government takes that on. Anyone in America who works a full forty hours, at any job at all, should be above the poverty line and be ensured affordable health care. Working and poverty should not be simultaneously possible in America.

They can't really afford to pay more, unless you want the price of these products to go up. Most food items have an extremely low profit percentage.

And there is a prevalent attitude in American that it's better not to work then to work for less than you think you deserve. Even something like unemployment benefits encourages people to not actually work.

> > But to directly answer your question, outsourcing is better for the US worker because it allows us to buy cheaper imports. Let's use fruit as an example. They can sell bananas cheaper in Brazil than we can in the US. In any business, each person should do what they can do more efficiently than anyone else. And the problem in the US is that we don't do things efficiently. That's a reason why we have a trade deficit.
>
> If we stopped outsourcing, would we lose the ability to buy cheap imports? Why?

Outsourcing is directly related to things like imports.

Let's use the example of steel. American steel jobs have been going overseas since the 1950s. So let's say that the government wants to increase the US steel industry. They would have to increase the tax on imports on foreign steel. Those other countries will get mad because they can't compete on an even playing field, and in return they will raise the tax on imports of American goods to their countries. So America has even less exports going out. Which raises the price of their imports.

Countries have a vested interest in their own economies and their nation's products. They aren't going to allow another country to impose fees for buying their products, and not do anything in return.

Hope I was clear. It all makes sense in my head.

>



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software