fatbloke,
FUD? No. Observation and discussion. My comment here would be - name one thing that a Union does that cannot be done by the employees themselves, or the courts. The employees can leave one company and go work for another if they are not being compensated fairly. May be hard for them, but when a company loses qualified staff, they take notice. The courts will ensure there is protection for the employees should the company be breaking any labor laws. So what is left? What role do the Unions perform that cannot be acheived by a fair and open market, supported by a just legal system?
Right here in Wisconsin, there is a GM plant that is closing because they are moving their manufacturing to another State where it is cheaper. The Automobile Manufacturer's Union is not blocking this move. Rather, they see that the welfare of the entire company will suffer if the move does not occur. If the entire company suffers, it could go out of business. If this happens, all of the workers will be without work, and the Union will die. Therefore, in an act of self-preservation supported by the fact that there will be no net loss of employees, the Union is letting it happen. The hypocrisy comes in the Union's reaction when management makes the decision to move overseas to acheive the same result, i.e. the company not going out of business. The Union opposes this vehemently. What's the difference? Answer - If the jobs go overseas, the Union has fewer members and will eventually become extinct.
What is the lesson I take from this? Any group, be it management or the Union, will make a decision as long as it benefits them. Nobody will do any more than they have to, want to, or need to unless they get something out of it. That is human nature. Now I agree that the ideal situation for our society is socialism, where all people earn the same, receive the same, and pay the same. A Utopia will exist when this occurs. Unfortunately, this will only happen when the science fiction of 'I, Robot' is made a reality and all of the work is being done by robots. Being paid the same as everyone else sounds great, unless you are the one crawling around inside a septic tank whilest someone else is teaching a supermodel how to Jet-Ski. Fair distribution of work for equal pay? Hardly. And as for the fair distribution of wealth, every person wants more than someone else. Our egos demand that we have a bigger house, faster car, more expensive Rolex. If we are all made to have the same as everyone else no matter how hard we work, we lose the desire to do more than the next guy, and our lives and economy stagnate. The collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by economic pressures, not idealistic ones. As Sandman states:
Sandman said:
There'll always be a contingent of people that'll realize they can do little to nothing and still get "their share" when working through a collective. While I agree with the Utopian societal concept it just won't work when reality bites.
It is therefore up to the global businesses of this world to provide a service or product that people want, and to provide it as cheaply as possible without exploiting the workers. But, "exploitation" is a very delicate subject since the other side of that coin is "competition". For a company to succeed, it must find a way to cut costs, or convince the buyer that it is worth paying more for the product. Ferrari or Rolls Royce will always be able to charge a mint for their vehicles since the name brand recognition is so valuable that they have no incentive to manufacture a "common man's" car. They still have to be careful not to price themselves out of the wealthy person's market though. Toyota, Fiat, and Ford on the other hand must reduce their costs or die, since we the consumers are unwilling to spend more than we can afford. This means that the large companies must cut costs where they can. Since one of the biggest costs is transportation, it does make sense to move to the natural resources. But then there is the resultant cost of transporting the finished product to the consumer. Do these cancel each other out? To some degree. One of the natural resources a company has to pay for is labor. If a company can 'mine' the human resource cheaper in one location than another, they simply must since it is an absolute that their competitors will. If this location is in another country, what social or geopolitical reason could there be that would incentivize the company to remain patriotic in the face of economic pressures to build their product cheaper than the next? Hanging the biggest flag on the outside of an empty factory acheives nothing.
In conclusion - we all know what the right thing to do is. We all know that capitalism is the only motivational force that will eventually lift the 3rd World countries up to the same level of wealth and comfort that we enjoy in our developed nations. We also know that greed is an inherent principal of capitalism. It is therefore up to us to moderate our greed so as not to destroy ourselves or others, whilst at the same time allowing the gears of progress to slowly drive our economy, and the economies of the 3rd World, such that all people can acquire that which they not only need, but want.
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
Angus - my 2 cents worth (which is the only change I expect to see should a certain party win this November
)
to the banks, and these guys are lining up like pigs at a trough to get their snouts in. So you make a car that I don't choose to buy, then you come back to have the government take my money (essentially at gunpoint) to give it to you. I feel quite confident that if they could just jettison the car-making and close all the plants, and take the $34 Billion each year, they'd be just thrilled to do it - wouldn't have to be bothered by those pesky meetings and would have more time for golf - Woo, Woo, Woo, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!
