feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Pure Michigan ... come and exploit our available labor...

(103 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago by edust1958
  • Latest reply from edust1958

  1. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    The State of Michigan has co'oped the tourism slogan, "Pure Michigan" to promote the "right to work" statute in Michigan to potential employers. The tourism branding of the state is very effective but the reaction to this use of the branding for the "pro-business" (read anti-labor) stance of the current legislature has prompted strong backlash...

    It is almost like "Coke... the pause the refreshes" being used to promote cocaine...

    http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/michigan-injects-politics-tourism-slogan

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 01:49 PM #
  2. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,724

    Yeah, better that the "available labor" remains on the government dole.

    That way all the LIEberals can pat themselves on the back and say what a good job they are doing.

    Good for them telling the unions to shove it.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 01:58 PM #
  3. They figured out that the job creation is happening in the right to work states. No company with any smarts at all would have located in the old Michigan.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 02:02 PM #
  4. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    Right to Work

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 02:21 PM #
  5. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    Right to Work... how to recreate the slave labor state of China within the borders of the United States!

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 02:23 PM #
  6. edust1958, do you really think that is what will happen? We have a lot or Right-to-Work States now, have had for years. Is the change in Michigan going to change everything? I sort of doubt it.

    "Slave labor state" is reaching just a little far.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 03:31 PM #
  7. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    Again, RACE * TO * THE * BOTTOM"

    "One careful study conducted by Hofstra’s Lonnie Stevans in 2007 found that right-to-work laws do help boost the number of businesses in a state — but the gains mostly went to owners, while average wages went down. ”Although right-to-work states may be more attractive to business,” Stevans concludes, “this does not necessarily translate into enhanced economic verve in the right-to-work state if there is little ‘trickle-down’ from business owners to the non-unionized workers.”

    So business owners gain, and workers lose. One possible retort is that these states could simply set up new safety-net programs to compensate workers who are hurt. But that leads to another question: Without strong unions in place, who will push for these policies?"

    http://fcir.org/2012/12/13/what-right-to-work-has-meant-for-states-like-florida/

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 03:37 PM #
  8. So, is the argument that non-existent high paying union jobs are better to have than lower paying available jobs? Were the unions really making Michigan a great place to work? Or, maybe not work? Help me here.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 03:42 PM #
  9. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    "Help me here."

    Been trying for years.
    You don't want it.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 03:43 PM #
  10. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    Deane,
    I think that when you legislate away the ability to collectively bargain, the result is that businesses that can effectively collude without any interference from government have no balance on the labor side of the discussion... the last time that imbalanced existed in this country was when the Ol' South plantations had government approved slave labor... so yes, the proliferation of "right to work" is that same slippery slope the gun advocates tend to use... it either works in this argument or it doesn't... if it doesn't work in this argument then it does work in any other argument and government can pass ANY regulation that the legislature supports and it definitely won't lead to abuse and additional regulation...

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 03:57 PM #
  11. I live in a Right-to-Work state. I've never heard of anyone complaining. We have union employers, we have non-union employers. Works just fine. Our unemployment rate was something like 3.6% last time I heard. I wonder what the unemployment rate among those union workers in Michigan is?

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 04:07 PM #
  12. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    The bigger question Deane is what is the average wage rate in your state and are the majority of people eking by on the minimum wage? Slaves had a really low unemployment rate -- 100% were employed (the rest were dead)...

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 04:14 PM #
  13. I'm not completely certain that comparing the average wage rate of our state vs Michigan is relative, as living cost also differ from state to state. Actually, I don't even know what the two are, don't care.

    I go back to wondering how healthy the situation is when the unions drive the jobs out of the state and to Right-to-Work states. Does being a union worker with no job rank pretty high on your list of goals?

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 04:25 PM #
  14. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    Unions do NOT drive jobs out of a States.

    States compete for jobs from other states by cutting wages and benefits for workers in their states.
    (and by removing regualtions on things like workplace safetey and environment)

    The companies can then relocate to states with lower wages and benefits and pocket the difference.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 05:04 PM #
  15. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    Deane...
    I am not asking for a comparison of your state's average wage with any other state... I am asking if the average wage in your state has dropped (and therefore the general welfare of those who work)...

    Full employment is a admirable goal... China has full employment... so does North Korea... and so did the slaves...

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 05:08 PM #
  16. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,724

    "Full employment is a admirable goal... China has full employment... so does North Korea... and so did the slaves..."

    The USSR probably did to; Everybody worked for the state.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 05:10 PM #
  17. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    "Slave labor state" is reaching just a little far.

    Not much but if that's what the CONs want then so be it....

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 06:33 PM #
  18. "I am asking if the average wage in your state has dropped"

    I really don't know, but we have been a Right-to-Work state for decades, so it's unlikely there has been any drop.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 06:39 PM #
  19. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states.

    The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states.

    The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states.

    In 2009, the unemployment rate was 8.6% in the RTW states; 9.6% in the non-RTW states.

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 07:13 PM #
  20. That's what all the tension is about? 3.2% lower wages, 2.6% less health insurance? That difference justifies driving jobs away? Wow!

    And what percentage of the 3.2% higher wages goes for union dues?

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 07:43 PM #
  21. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,991

    Let's see a comparison of which states are right to work states and which states are the biggest welfare states. Anybody wanna bet there's a strong correlation between red states, right to work, lower wages, and states that receive more Fed taxes dollars than they contribute?

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 08:57 PM #
  22. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    Doesn't the South have some of the biggest welfare states in the union?

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 09:12 PM #
  23. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    And what percentage of the 3.2% higher wages goes for union dues?

    .0000123%

    Posted on January 15, 2013 - 09:12 PM #
  24. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,541

    Right to work for less States are funded by those that structure things toward sustainable wages.

    The problem with a purist cheap labor policy is that it results in wages lower than it costs to live a reasonable, modest life. People who are paid those wages are typically:

    -forced to labor the vast majority of their waking hours to meet needs, unable to obtain most wants, living an undesirable and arguably unjust life

    (And that's a subsidy that they pay for with their quality of life just so others can get cheap shit)

    -needy, dependent on safety net programs

    -costly, due to inability to do basic things and or avoid common risks.

    Those are not sustainable wages. In order to justify that as a policy, we must believe that people have no basic value and or needs and that it's OK for some to labor too much, die early and basically endure economic slavery so that the rest of us can live well.

    Come on guys, this is just not OK. Really.

    A common argument is, "just go get a better job", but the reality is places with right to work for less policies simply do not offer enough living wage and even fewer family wage jobs for that to be possible. There is always an enslaved, over exploited underclass who have near zero upward mobility.

    Another common argument is the market simply doesn't value basic labor well enough to live on, but there is a basic problem with that nobody seems to want to talk about much and that is the ongoing and consistent need for basic labors!

    This is a conflict. Again, nobody really wants to think about it or talk about it much and that's not OK either.

    Some will say, "but if we pay them more, my sandwich or salad will cost more", and the answer is yes, it does cost more. But it should cost more. Here's how that works:

    In a right to work for less state, labor gets devalued very quickly, race to the bottom style. On one hand, this is great for employers who enjoy consistent pressure to get high labor volumes for low dollars. And in the case of basic labors, it's a sure thing!

    Take that sandwich. When it's really cheap, people like to buy a lot of sandwiches. The result of that is shops everywhere serving sandwiches! Those of us not currently at the bottom enjoy a posh life where we never make our own sandwiches because it's cheaper to have somebody else make them.

    But when we eat those sandwiches, the person making them is getting screwed, unable to meet needs and wants despite significant labor on their part. How is this just? Anyone can open up a shop and employ people with little risk because the labor is undervalued meaning it's really easy to sell! There are lots of shops, because a sure thing always attracts a crowd.

    When we put a reasonable bottom on wages and we allow unions to organize and pull wages up to living wages, it makes far less sense to produce so many sandwiches, and more of us make our own, or pay what a sandwich is really worth, knowing people aren't screwed over by making them.

    Really cheap labor also doesn't force the business person to add real value. Making only sandwiches makes sense, because the labor itself is a steal, that sure thing! On the other hand, actually having to pay somebody enough to make it in a modest way means adding value or simply not doing the business. Fewer sandwich shops, but much higher demand for higher value things results, and that increases standard of living, lowers the dependence on safety nets and so on.

    Frankly, we always need basic labors and when we don't pay people enough to make it doing them, we are enslaving some of us so the rest of us have it easy, and we all get devalued over time because the people blind, skills only value model fails to value people properly or well enough for them to be viable people in society. Not OK.

    If I end up making my own sandwiches more often, but I know people can make it on basic wages, great! I'll do that, because that establishes baseline values for people that insure that I am valued well as a person in addition to the added value personal skills provide.

    Why people don't see that is beyond me.

    There is nothing wrong with paying somebody enough to make it. Nothing. There is everything wrong with over exploiting some of us to benefit the rest, and that is what right to work for less laws do.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 08:20 AM #
  25. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,541

    The announcement here is simple:

    "We've passed the laws needed to over exploit people. Come on in and get all you can eat!"

    Push back on this should be brutal and consistent because it will impact everybody in the State and left unchecked, will turn MI into one of the needy states that get funded by the ones that don't fuck their people over for profit.

    Again, right to work laws basically assign people zero value and where that's true, you are simply worth less no matter who you are. For those worth a lot, it's easy to ignore because you get cheap shit. For those who are worth less, it means slavery. There is no getting around this.

    Support that? Yeah, you are willing to fuck your neighbor over to get more for yourself and you should feel really shitty about that, as you should I won't have any part in that. None. Economic slavery is unjust, cruel and a profound expression of greed and ignorance that does a lot of harm in this world.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 08:26 AM #
  26. We can probably all agree that when the middle class worker is earning good money, we're all happier with the way things are going.

    Trouble is unions can't fix that, they can only damage companies into bankruptcy. They don't create success for the company.

    What we need to have is companies doing so well that there is a shortage of workers that causes higher wages to be implemented to attract the workforce.

    That means what we need is to get jobs back "on shore". I haven't heard of a single idea offered to accomplish this by either political party.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 09:49 AM #
  27. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,637

    "That means what we need is to get jobs back "on shore". I haven't heard of a single idea offered to accomplish this by either political party."

    Then you're not paying attention AT ALL.

    http://nreionline.com/property/industrial/what_onshoring_means_for_cre_04112012/

    "...American manufacturing lost more than two million jobs during the recession, accelerating a decline that had begun long ago in the 1970s.

    Yet since then, manufacturing has been one of the biggest drivers of job growth in the US, adding more than 500,000 jobs.

    While much of that job growth could be attributable to post-recession pent-up demand, that is not the whole story.

    According to the Reshoring Initiative, a group of companies and trade associations trying to bring factory jobs back to the US, about 10% of those job gains - 50,000 jobs - were created by companies bringing back manufacturing from overseas."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20983620

    FRom AP this morning:

    US factory output rose 0.8 percent in December, led by gains in autos and business equipment

    WASHINGTON (AP) — US factory output rose 0.8 percent in December, led by gains in autos and business equipment.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 09:57 AM #
  28. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,541

    "Trouble is unions can't fix that, they can only damage companies into bankruptcy. They don't create success for the company."

    This is a lie. Sorry.

    BTW: Companies who do depend on economic slavery to be viable are not themselves viable companies and deserve to go bankrupt.

    Insuring we have enough economic demand out there for companies to add value and prosper IS creating success for said companies. Unions play a significant role in insuring this success is possible.

    Like I said, lie.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:02 AM #
  29. duxrule, what is the proposal for getting jobs on shore, and which politician made it?

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:16 AM #
  30. Missing, everyone has a viewpoint, and ours are different on this subject.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:17 AM #
  31. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    "everyone has a viewpoint, and ours are different on this subject."

    And time after time, after time, it has been demonstrated that yours is not backed up by the facts.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:26 AM #
  32. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,637

    "duxrule, what is the proposal for getting jobs on shore, and which politician made it?"

    At the risk of being accused of "word games" once again, I'll say it's the guy you love to hate:

    President Obama Touts ‘Onshoring’: Is Made in America Back?
    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-obama-touts-onshoring-made-america-back-221759270.html

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:46 AM #
  33. But, what is his proposal for bringing the jobs back? I don't seem to find it in the articles you link.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 10:55 AM #
  34. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,637

    Jesus...Do I have to do all of your work for you? In the 10th graf:

    "To encourage the trend, the Obama administration wants to scrap tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas, and offer new incentives for returning them to the United States. The administration is also pushing for a $2-billion-per-year tax credit to encourage manufacturers to invest in struggling communities."

    Also:

    Administration Support For Insourcing and Increasing Investment in the United States
    Increasingly, businesses are making the decision to ‘insource’ production back to and expand operations within the United States. While the talent and hard work of America’s entrepreneurs, innovators, and workers will continue to be the main drivers of these encouraging trends, there is a critical role for government policies that support new investments. The Obama Administration is working to encourage this trend by taking measures – through tax, trade, financing, energy, and education policy – that allow American businesses to thrive.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/1_10_2012_fact_sheet_on_past_support_for_insourcing_final_2.pdf

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 11:02 AM #
  35. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    Jesus...Do I have to do all of your work for you?

    When it comes to Deane, YES!

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 11:04 AM #
  36. duxrule, thank you for posting those excerpts. I'm glad he's doing that. I applaud any good results he is able to achieve. We really need a full out effort in this regard.

    If the government would do what it could, and private enterprise would do it's share, we might get somewhere.

    Frankly, I don't see enough enthusiasm for the project from either side. I wish Obama would get as hot on on-shoring as he is on gun control.

    I'd like to see it become very politically correct (imagine that) to move jobs here, and very politically incorrect to move them off shore.

    What we don't want are import tariffs, which would only invite retaliatory tariffs and we'd end up with a losing game.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 01:40 PM #
  37. stevethedj

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,103

    I see both sides of the union question vx. right to work. Now lets get to the real issue. The job creators are the consumer with money to spend. The biggest problem business faces now is lack of orders. People whoare unemployed, underemployed or working for min. wage will not be buying the following itims. any house,most cars,new finiture,most big ticket items. They will be just paying their monthly bills. These are the things that drive the ecomony. And create jobs.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 02:22 PM #
  38. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,991

    That's why it's called a "race to the bottom".

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 02:23 PM #
  39. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    "The job creators are the consumer with money to spend. The biggest problem business faces now is lack of orders.

    Right there you have encapsulated the fallacy of the Supply-side economic theory.

    Any real economic growth must be driven by demand.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 02:27 PM #
  40. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,541

    Bingo, and there is why cheap labor policy makes no sense. we don't want to overpay, because that is over valuing people and not good, but we don't want to under pay because that is bad for everybody.

    We need fair labor wage policy. Good for everybody.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 02:53 PM #
  41. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,648

    But the CONs want everyone working for low wages and no benefits. And when everyone is working for those said jobs they will also be on the Government tit and they'll bitch about that as well.

    Posted on January 16, 2013 - 02:57 PM #
  42. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,163

    Not too long ago, I heard a report that in China, the average pay for factory workers is one half that in other Asian countries. The surprise was that this report aired on China Radio International. (Perhaps, the actual figures are even worse.)

    On the one hand, if China is full of people who are willing to work for a bowl of rice a day (pardon the exaggeration), the rest of the world is going to be forced to adapt with some combination of lower pay and/or more automation. On the other hand, if most of the world is forced into poverty to compete with low-cost labor in China, then virtually nobody will be able to afford luxury goods made in China, such as TVs, MP3 players, etc., and the whole house of cards will collapse. By the way, those "Flying Pigeon" bicycles that were ubiquitous in China in decades past cost what the average Chinese worker made in four months.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 03:42 PM #
  43. "I heard a report that in China, the average pay for factory workers is one half that in other Asian countries."

    I expect one would have to figure into the equation what the cost of living was in China vs the other countries.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 03:53 PM #
  44. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    I would expect the cost of living would be fairly low if you're warehoused in factory housing and working 15 hour days.

    But it doesn't seem like a very good life.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 04:10 PM #
  45. I'm sure that there are some horrible situations in China that the people have to endure. It's been going on for a long time and takes many forms.

    While I find this sort of situation distressing, it's not our job to try to fix it. There is nothing we can do. It has to come from within the country.

    Our pouring money into the country to buy Chinese made goods does provide some employment. I wonder what these same people would be doing for a living if we weren't pouring money into the country to buy the goods they make.

    Perhaps one thing that would be happening is that they wouldn't be buying our debt and we'd have to stop spending.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 04:23 PM #
  46. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,324

    "it's not our job to try to fix it"

    But we do have tax poicies encourage companies to send jobs to other countries, by allowing them to deduct the cost of moving there.

    Should we be doing that?

    Last summer Democrats attempted to end that deduction.
    Republicans killed it.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 04:48 PM #
  47. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    Did anyone watch the 60 Minutes story that aired last Sunday on automation?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job-growth/ for those who missed it and want to read rather than watch it.

    One of the big pieces of that story was that when manufacturing returns to the U.S. ("mainshoring") that it returns as the application of advanced automation because the capital cost of robots amortized over their productive life is about $3.40/hour which apparently (according to the article) the average wage of an industrial employee in China. So even if mainshoring took off, our unemployment problem is CHRONIC! Robots either hardware or software are getting good enough to displace most, if not all, of the low skill labor and most of the semi-skilled labor. So the economy recovers with corporations earning massive profits but little or no increase in employment. The folks that are unemployed that are in the older age brackets are facing permanent unemployment with little or no financial ability of the government to fund even a subsistence living. Retraining is not a real alternative because there will always be younger, healthier labor who already have the higher skills needed in an automated world available for employers to hire.

    This scenario is getting uglier and uglier as the Republicans lead the charge to a society of a small number of haves and a large number of have-nots... Once the Republicans realize where this is going they are going to flip on gun control because people who realize that they have no future will use the easy access to weapons to take what they believe has been stolen from them by the economic system from the robbers of the 1%...

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 05:13 PM #
  48. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,637

    I've mentioned it several times before. America "makes" more than than ever before, yet they're doing it with far fewer people. It's just easier for the haters to blame unions and the "greenies" for shutting down jobs than it is to face reality.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 05:32 PM #
  49. "But we do have tax poicies encourage companies to send jobs to other countries, by allowing them to deduct the cost of moving there.

    Should we be doing that?"

    No we shouldn't, but for a different reason.

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 06:36 PM #
  50. edust, what is it that the Republicans are doing to encourage automation? Isn't that kind of a stretch.

    It's probably a legitimate issue you bring up. What should be done?

    Posted on January 17, 2013 - 06:38 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.