Senate Sweatshop Bill Gains Bipartisan Support

This is an issue that is being dealt with from an emotional standpoint. Like most emotional issues, this will not be dealt with from a realistic point of view.

Do Democrats really care about sweatshops? Probably not. The real problem with sweatshops is that they create cheap competition to US labor union costs. Unions can’t allow this and so they go to their puppets in Congress and push for bills banning sweatshops. Sure, who can argue with keeping “children” safe, right? They hide their protectionist agenda behind some weak moral argument.

If Democrats and labor unions were truly concerned with sweathshops, child labor and foreign working conditions, they would encourage even more outsourcing to foreign countries. You will not improve the lot of average workers by making it more expensive for their employers. You will help them by buying their products and giving them a chance to build wealth. Free trade is the best way to give the maximum amount of people a shot at a better life. Demanding that foreign countries do this and that has only one goal: to make cheap foreign labor less competitive against US labor.

The great outsourcing worry is overblown. Even now, companies are moving from China and India to Vietnam and some are not outsourcing at all, due to political instability and a labor shortage. Believe it or not, China, with 200 million unemployed and 250 million underemployed, has a labor shortage. This is driving up wages and making sourcing in China more expensive.

Again, if Democrats and unions were truly concerned about foreign working conditions, they would encourage the same free trade that helped to improve the lives of workers in the US.

“Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined four Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont...”

You only see what you want to see, Ellis.

EllisW,

“This is an issue that is being dealt with from an emotional standpoint. Like most emotional issues, this will not be dealt with from a realistic point of view.”

I agree fully!!  All one has to do is mention ‘child labor’ and the Democrats and unions go off on a rant.  But, one thing is overlooked, when I was young, my parents tried to instill the ‘work ethic’ in me, how did they do that?  They had me “WORK”!!!  I did not get an allowance, I had to work for my money, doing chores.  Also, I at times ran a lemonade stand in my front yard, mowed lawns in the summer, shoveled snow in the winter, and had a paper route when I was 13.  Recently, in an effort to teach my younger grandchildren this ‘work ethic’, they set up a kool-aid stand in my front yard, after about an hour, they were shut down by the police, for not having a permit.  Heaven forbid nowadays, that a child should have to do ‘labor’.  No wonder they are growing up, thinking the world owes them a living!!  Think about it, working at Wal-Mart has been called working at a ‘sweatshop’!!!  Give me a break!!!

Bob

You are right, the way most young people are raised these days, they want everything handed to them.
It is the fault of parents, and the goverment, both are guilty of allowing kids to grow up lazy and think they should get what they want without working for it.

Our goverment will give help to people that dont deserve it.

What can we expect out of young people, when they see what there parents are doing.

At age 11 i was doing work that our goverment would not allow today. i was happy to work like that and learn what life was all about, I WANTED TO help my parents, and make some spending money.

When two of my boys were 12 and 14 i made them mow the grass with a motor powered push mower, a neighbor threatened to call the police on me for treating my kids mean, and thought it was awful that my daughters had to wash dishes--- thats what kids want want to hear, even tho it hurts them in the long run.

If kids arent taught to work when they are young, then they will grow up not wanting to work.
Why do we start kids in school so young, we know what that answer is,

Hard work never hurt anyone, even kids.

Unbelievable!

“The real problem with sweatshops is that they create cheap competition to US labor union costs.”
EllisW.

Sir the real problem with sweatshops, is duh…They are sweatshops!
The real problem with sweatshops, is people like you trying to cram the problem down the throats of American politicians and unions, making this some amateur political/ anti-union/anti-democrat debate you devise.
You are a joke.

Your entire lame argument?
I repeat your statement sir: “The real problem with sweatshops is that they create cheap competition to US labor union costs.”

‘Sweatshops’ make products not only sold in the USA, but Europe, and around the globe as well. They are used quite vibrantly in ‘free trade’ around the world by many nations.

Your entire lame argument that if we somehow just give these nations who harbor sweatshops more business, we will somehow as if by the magic of ‘free trade’, radically transform their entire socio-political systems, and again by magic somehow ensure we give more money to the sweatshop labor, that is if their profiteers allow us that, and not just take even more profits to themselves, all the while driving their sweatshops harder to deliver us and the entire world goods.

Are you a child sir?
You certainly seem to think like one.

I agree with cazar in, I believe that if we give more trade to these countries through free trade it is only increasing a disparity between the rich and the poor. They are not going to chang the conditions. I think that legislation like this is a start if we show we care about our workers and their workers, they have no choice but to start caring too if they want to make any money with free trade.

*quick edit*

What I meant to say in that first line: I believe that if we give more tradeto these countries through free trade but do not do anything about the way they are treating their factory workers then we are only going to increase the disparity between the rich and the poor.

Another note of free trade and globalization...I think whileit has proved effective in certain areas it can be done better with better living conditions for all involved. Do not be fooled by statistics they are slanted just as anything else is.

Actually, cazar, we CAN improve the lives of foreign workers by buying the goods they produce. Do you really think that Chinese workers were better off before they had jobs? Most Chinese were living on farms and in villages, in poverty. They are happier and earning money now. The working conditions might not be up to our standards but neither is living on an unproductive farm, waiting to starve.

You cannot improve living standards by throwing money at the problem. We’ve thrown money at poverty in Africa, education in America and rebuilding homes for Katrina victims who refused to buy their own insurance. The results are sad. We can help end sweatshops by engaging in free trade with other countries and by encouraging our corporations to adopt certain standards. Our corporations can, if they want to, lean on foreign manufacturers to improve conditions. We can move production from China to Vietnam, if need be.

What it boils down to is this: you can only improve the lives of people by engaging in free trade with them. With trade, we exchange currency for merchandise. We get something we want and they get something they want. Where would countries like China be without trade? What would be the fates of the 500 million people with no jobs, no government aid and no food? By trading, we can give them value and make their workers successful. They can climb out of poverty just as our workers did.

Call me optimistic but I truly believe in the power of free trade capitalism to improve life for everyone.

By the way, I never thought you of all people would stoop to bitter, emotional, unproductive name calling.

Very few things cause me to really ‘lose my bliss’, and lash out at anyone.
But I have to admit Ellis really did push my tolerance for ignorance.

I began my evening by reading the post in which he stated:
“…the Constitution does not guarantee:
…-The right to join a union.”

Well, I sort of gave him a pass, thinking perhaps he was sleepy ( at 1:27 pm?). Or perhaps has not read the Constitution? Or has he become so radically biased, his judgment is now impaired?
In any case we all are prone to lapses of judgment, yet this to me seemed a major ‘whopper’, and perhaps indicative of the type individual I am now dealing with.

Peeved as I was about this person’s blatant disregard, lapse of judgment, or ignorance of our great Constitution, I then had the displeasure to turn to another post and read:

“The real problem with sweatshops is that they create cheap competition to US labor union costs.”

Such a statement causes my ‘blood to boil’, and If it were given in my physical presence, no doubt some violence would have occurred.
For I personally have ‘zero tolerance’ for any blight of commerce that involves the exploitation of children.
Irregardless of one’s political views of Democrat v. Republican, Union v. Anti-Union, Free Trade v. Mercantilism, this issue to me is not one open to debate in these arenas.

Looking back, perhaps this person made poor choice of the English language, I hope that the case, for the ‘real’ problem of sweatshops is the willingness of individuals to exploit those less powerful than them.
The ‘real’ problem of sweatshops is that within these shops worldwide, children are often found, innocent as they are, slaves to adults, knowing nothing more than doing what these absolute scum tell them they must do.

And then we have Bob.
Bob, have you lost your mind entirely?
How can you possibly have your nose up this post, and somehow equate how your parents required some ‘work ethic’ from you, to the brutal treatment children receive in sweatshops?  I continue……..

How we move from ‘sweatshops’ and forced child labor, and the abuse of children, to the rants of Bob, and how he ran a lemonade stand, shoveled snow, mowed lawns, and delivered newspapers, makes me want to puke.

I am so dismayed, to the point, I would not recognize you guys as fellow Americans.
What is wrong with you?
Have you all become so ‘politicized’ and ‘radicalized’ that you have absolutely lost your humanity?

If so, then Goddamn you and all your ilk, if you consider child labor and abuse as some factor or metric in achieving free trade objectives.

For until the leading nations of the world, of which in the United States, thanks to a few senators like Graham and Dorn, decide to actually do something about the problem,
Idiots like some of you will rely on the good nature of supposed ‘free trade’ to eventually solve the problem.

But in the meantime while you are waiting, 10, 20, 30, 50 years for the ‘trickle down’ and ‘floating of all boats’ scenario?
How many children will suffer raising those tides?

Cazar,

What is the answer then?  Aid money just doesn’t work.  It usually goes to helping some dictator.  How do you lift billions out of poverty?

I don’t like sweatshops.  However, the numbers coming out of China are amazing.  They have had a 3,400% increase in GDP in the past 30 years.  At this rate, they will equal our current rate in another 30 years.  How else can they possibly do this? 

I would like to agree with the idea of “‘zero tolerance’ for any blight of commerce that involves the exploitation of children,” and that “this issue to me is not one open to debate in these arenas. “ However, for many people in the world it isn’t a matter of debate.  It’s a choice between long hard hours or starving to death. 

Tell me a better way to lift those people, and I’m with you.

“I don’t like sweatshops.  However…”

So what exactly are you saying sir?
That you have a tolerance for child labor in sweatshops?
Is that your position?

Are you one of those that believes a child need be exploited, for commerce?

For it seems to me, that is your implication.
Are you suggesting there is a lack of adults in these countries, so much to the fact that they can only get children to do the work?

“I would like to agree…”

You seem to hedge.
Perhaps you should send your son or daughter into a sweatshop, to help these countries.

Excellent idea!

All of you who feel that ’child labor’ is a legitimate factor for developing any economy, we should develop a ’draft’ in America, and send our sons and daughters, grandchildren overseas to help out developing these economies.

Age? Oh, no less than 4 years old.

You want to make me your worst enemy? Keep it up.

Cazar,

I’m saying that hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of abject poverty in the past 30 years, almost all of which can be attributed to trade.  Many of these were children.  It is a fact that China is better off with our trade than without.

Should there be child labor laws in China?  Yes.  Should they be clones of our laws?  No.  You should know that a 17 year old person cannot operate a baler at Wal-Mart.  Laws like these would cause more harm then help for a developing country like China.

You ask, “Are you one of those that believes a child need be exploited, for commerce?”
No, I don’t.  I answered your question.  Here’s one for you.  Do you believe it is better to send a child to work in a factory or let him/her starve to death? 
Or maybe this one:  Do you realize that for those children (to the extent that free trade involves child labor.  It’s overblown, by the way) it’s a choice between working in a factory for 12-16 hours a day, or a farm for 16-20 hours a day?  If you were in that position as a parent, which would you choose for your child?

So it comes down to a choice.  First, are the Chinese people better off with or without trade?  Clearly with.  Second, should the trade be regulated by Byron Dorgan?  That’s the only question I can think has merit.  I’d side with NO.  My reason:  With the system we have now, China has double digit increases in income.  I think tinkering by our politicians will do more harm than good.

“Do you believe it is better to send a child to work in a factory or let him/her starve to death? “

Neither, sir, nor do I think ‘red herring’ arguments effective, except for those ignorant enough to fall for them.
I was not aware there was severe starvation among children in China since about 1981, other than from the repressive Communist regime, their ‘one child’ policy and their ‘dying rooms’ for orphans.
All the while I might add, we are busy doing business as usual with China, despite their horrid human rights record.

But you strike me sir, as one with an agenda, or one somehow constrained.
I on the other hand, am free, therefore better than you.
Not necessarily a better person, but much more free than you are.

I’m curious, are you paid for postings?

Cazar,

Is it a red herring to say that those children who end up working in factories either work there or work more hours on a farm?  This seems to be the case with the vast majority of cases. 

I don’t know how to rephrase this to get my point across.  In the last 30 years, since trade liberalization took effect, the average income has increased by 3,400%.  While official the official Chinese poverty level is low even by the standards of developing countries, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Chinese people have been lifted from their poverty level.

So, question for you.  To attain the purpose of helping the poor in China, should there be trade or no trade?  I say trade.  It’s working.  Empirical data confirms this.

Then another question.  What degree of control should Congress have over the trade?  I think they will become overzealous and end up causing the rate of growth to decrease.  This is harmful to the Chinese children you want to help.  Therefore bad.  I have no empirical data on this.  I just think that they will go overboard trying to do good, and ending up doing bad.  I’d be willing to discuss this with you though if you want.

To answer your last question, no I’m not a paid poster. 

Cazar, I must say that I’m disappointed with you on this thread of postings.  I usually find myself half agreeing with you.  I am in complete agreement with your ends.  I just think that there are different means to get there.  Please try to keep the discussion in the form of ‘will x means be successful in attaining y ends.”
I lack an adgenda.  I just think free trade is a better way of removing poverty than any other method I know of.  If you know of one, I’m all ears.

cazar,

“But you strike me sir, as one with an agenda, or one somehow constrained.  I on the other hand, am free, therefore better than you. Not necessarily a better person, but much more free than you are.”

You are the one with the agenda, to solve the world’s problems, with your emotional pleas.  Sorry, life is more complicated than you wish to envision.  Sure, you dropped out of the ‘rat race’, so you think you are “free”, but how ‘free’ are you really?  What you really did, was “drop out’ and then sit by and crititize others who are out there trying to make things work.  It is easy to think that you know all the answers, but, it is quite another to actually solve them.  You made a choice to drop from a good job to a poor one, some people in other countries don’t have that luxury, they either have to work (that includes all able bodied family members) or go without eating.  Your advice is to turn your head, look the other way and then the problem will go away, I assure you sir, it won’t.

Cazar,

“Irregardless” and “Looking back, perhaps this person made poor choice of the English language”

Need I say more?

-Richard K

If I may to try elucidate a previous posting, which seems to contribute to this string of emotionally-charged postings:

Ellis, in his first posting, said: “The real problem with sweatshops is that they create cheap competition to US labor union costs”. I think this statement was misinterpreted by some posters. In reading this, I take this NOT to be a statement that he believes himself, but rather as a viewpoint of democrats and unions that would lend credibility to their arguments, and to divert attention away from what their true goals are: higher wages for union workers. In other words, Democrats can SAY that their primary goal is to eliminate sweat shops (which sounds great to the public), but in reality, what they care most about is more $$ for themselves, which would be a direct consequence of eliminating sweat shops (which is selfish in nature, and therefore sounds bad to the public). So it’s a matter of true motivation versus the official, on-paper explanation. I think that’s what Ellis was trying to say. Of course, lending credibility to this notion is the fact that 20-40 years ago, before the U.S. was engaging in extensive free trade with China, no one made a peep about sweat shops - it was only when they felt it had an economic impact on them that they jumped on that bandwagon.

As an analogy, the local hospital is currently undergoing union negotiations with the nurses. The nurses want a decreased nurse-to-patient ratio. Why do they want this??? . . . PATIENT SAFETY - at least, that’s what they say. Of course, lowering the ratio would result in the nurses having less work to do. Now does anyone actually believe for a second that nurses really, truly care about patient safety more than their own paychecks??? But no one can argue that patient safety is good, and so they have an iron-clad argument.

Yes, sweatshops are bad. I don’t know if increasing trade with China would improve working conditions there - I just don’t have the knowledge of trade economics to decide either way, but as a fairly objective person open to evaluating all solutions, I do have to consider it as a possibility. Is is somewhat counterintuitive?? yes, but that doesn’t mean it should be immediately disregarded with emotional tirades (I’m talking to you, cazar). A “free” person should consider all possibilities before dismissing them.

Ellis, where are you?? try to clear this up for us . . .

Rico Mas-

Knowing Ellis, my guess is you are correct.

Regardless of anyones view, on so called child labor, we need to remember one point.

Here in the united states we also had what by todays standerds would be called child abuse, or child labor, just 60 or 70 years ago, all family members worked in order to have a home and something to eat, that was a way of life for a large portion of the american people.( i lived in that time)

If you dont think i know what i am talking about, just go out and talk to older people that lived in that period of time.

In my lifetime we have came a long way here in this country, other countries can do the same thing in time.

It makes me sick when i see on tv or read about all those kids starving to death in many countries.

Even tho i dont agree with so called child labor, i sure dont agree with letting them starve to death.

Anyone have a better idea, i want to hear it.

cazar,

You accuse some people on this board of making “amateur political/ anti-union/anti-democrat debates” and “red-herring” arguments, but you don’t make a strong counter-arguments, nor do you offer objective, reasoned arguments of your own. Behind those fancy 50-cent words and emotional responses, what is your solution of sweatshops sir?? Spell it out for us unenlightened people . . .

Rico Mas & Someone

You are 100% correct regarding my post. I do not condone or encourage child labor and/or sweatshops. I wish we had a world in which children in all nations could live in peace and safety. That said, I know that my emotional wish is not in harmony with the cold logic of the world.

You are correct in your statement regarding my views on this matter. I really, truly believe that Democrats & Labor Unions don’t really care about sweatshops and child labor per se. Maybe they feel badly deep down but would they raise such a fuss if it didn’t directly affect them? I am absolutely certain that the issue is not one of morality but of trade. We always hear about the “children” because that is the ultimate cover. Gun control laws, outrageous school spending, limits on parental discipline, etc. are all examples of liberal policy masquerading as “child protection”. Children are used in the discussion of sweatshops because no human being will come out and say “well, I think child sweat shop labor is great!”. The Democrats and their union masters do not like competition. They will not tell you that the great majority of their labor force competition around the globe are not children. If all the world’s children are working in sweatshops, what are the billions of adults doing?

Here is the bottom line: US labor unions don’t like foreign competition. Labor unions control the Democrats. Democrats complain about foreign labor costs. Using the term “child labor” labor unions and the Democrats raise an outcry. They could never hope to get widespread sympathy by saying “foreign adults work cheaper than US adults” so they whine about “child labor” and “sweatshops”. They are, in effect, using children to advance their own selfish agenda.

Children in India and China are smarter than our children and, due to their economic problems, are more willing to work hard. We cannot compete with their work ethic. You can complain about sweatshops all you like but a brilliant, hungry, motivated and goal oriented person will be more productive than a person who lacks these qualities. Given equal costs, with logistics and time figured into the equation, foreign labor is still worthwhile. Scientists in India and factory workers in China are doing more with far less. They are more productive. Why wouldn’t a US company have a factory there?

cazar was way out of line in his attack and in his “threats”. I despise child labor but you have to put it into context. I personally think that our children should finish school when they are 16 and enter the workforce full-time. We spend 12 years on our children’s education and most of them can barely read. We are not very efficient.

I do not defend, and in fact despise, the exploitation of children, seniors, the handicapped, animals or unborn children. I defend those who can’t defend themselves. I agree morally with the argument against child labor. I disagree with the political aims of such an argument. Both side exploit children for economic gains. At least foreign manufacturers are honest about it. Why aren’t US labor unions as forthcoming?

I cannot believe, there are people out there, that support such vial labor practices, not to mention any names, (Ellis and Bob)!!!

Bob - I have one line for you, “Kool-aid stands and 12 hour days in a factory, are two total different things!!!

Ellis - Charging someone with murder, has an “emotional standpoint” to it, just as do sweatshops. However, they both have one thing in common, “THEIR ILLEGAL!!!” At least in this great country of ours. Whether or not Democrats and labor unions care about sweatshops, is “not” the point here. The point is however, obviously the “GOP”, could give a rat’s a#@ about children in sweatshops, seeing that they have constantly “Turned a blind eye”, just as long as American corporations are financially benifitting from these types of foreign labor practices!

Spoken in true white collar crime fashion, you point your finger at anybody but yourselves, any time your backed into a corner, after being caught red-handed! Your trying to turn the tables here, and it’s “NOT” working in your favor!!!

No tariffs, and $2 dollars a day in wages in China, is the reason why, American companies cannot compete with foreign countries, unless they jump on the same “band-wagon!” The reprecussions of these “unfair” labor practices, is American job loss, period. You can blame unions all day, until your blue in the face, but the fact will remain the same; “MORE NON-UNION JOBS HAVE LEFT, THAN UNION JOBS!!!” What American companies compete against $2 dollars a day in wages you ask? The answer is simple; only the ones that relocate overseas, period! Apparantly, the GOP has this “Fairy Tale” philosophy, that all Americans, are going to run out and become CEO’s and top shareholders, after losing their jobs to foreign competition. America needs “REAL” solutions, to “REAL” problems, not just some “Fairy Tale” plan that the GOP has thrown out there, for the past 12 years!!!

To all you defenders of “Unlimited” free trade -

If your “really” concerned about the financial future of the vast majority of Americans, and “not”, just the top 1% of wage earners, then you must be acknowledging several facts, surrounding our current “unlimited” free trade system. Since the first trade agreement (NAFTA) went into effect (Jan.1,1994), the intended main benifactor of this agreement, was Mexico. You have to ask yourself, if the economy in Mexico really benefitted from this, then why are the Mexicans, beating down “Our” door for jobs? Our $700 billion dollar trade deficit, has “RED FLAGS” all over it! In the past 5 years alone, well over 3 million American manufacturing jobs, have been lost, due to overseas competition alone! President Bush said it best, when explaining what was happening to American jobs, “Manufacturing is being replaced by jobs in the service sector.” The service sector??? The last time I checked, that meant anything from telemarketing to McDonald’s. You know, the jobs that couldn’t feed a family of mice! The defenders of “unlimited” free trade, claim that jobs are being created everyday. However, they fail to mention, that these jobs (ie. telemarketing and Mc’Donald’s) are replacing jobs that offered a living wage, and affordable health care, something that these “new” jobs, simply don’t offer. You can’t replace a GM plant that employees 2,000 individuals, with a Mc’Donald’s that employees 40 individuals at part-time/minimum wage! Now, America is faced with an ever growing poverty rate, and a health care crisis! The job growth rate, is entirely “flawed”, seeing that it only counts the deposits, and not the withdrawls. With no tariffs on imported goods into America, what “incentive”, does American corporations have, to stay in America? There are none! They cannot compete against $2 dollars a day in wages in China. “Nobody” competes against that! You have to keep in mind, free trade, was “suppost” to create good jobs. This has “not” happened as it should have! Ross Perot said it best, when referring to job loss associated with “unlimited” free trade, “You’ll hear a giant sucking sound!” Free trade is a good thing, just as long as the “Playing Field”, is level for American jobs, via controlled tariffs. No Tariffs, No jobs, it’s that simple!!!

POWER

Where are you getting your information? American homeownership has reached record levels. Since the beginning of the current economic expansion under President Bush (helped partially by his tax cuts) we have created a net 7.2 million new jobs. Poor infastruture, legal and political instability, language barriers and logistics issues have all combined to limit the outsourcing issue. The government collected more than $400 billion more in tax revenue than it budgeted for this year, despite tax cuts.

It is not important that your CEO earns 400 times more than you do and it doesn’t matter if he only earned 20 times more than you 20 years ago. What matters is how YOU ARE DOING. The average American worker has seen their standard of living and income rise quite a bit over the last 30 years.

Oh, the percentage of the private sector workforce that belongs to a union has hit a low of 7.4%(325,000 members lost in 2006). Hardly a great demand for union representation. With union membership at record lows in a booming economy, the necessity of unions comes into question.

As to our middle class and “poor” people, you need to take a look around. Even our “poor” today have housing and are more than likely to own their own home. The “poor” have at least 1 car and many have 2. The “poor” have cable TV, access to free health care, utility assistance, free food, cash payments, discount clothing and other taxpayer financed goodies. The “poor” can go to college. If you want to go to college and don’t, it is not for lack of money. The “poor” also have TV’s, DVD players, dishwashers, refrigerators, microwave ovens, stoves, computers and other items. Our “poor” live better than the upper middle class in most countries. It does not matter that our workers earn X wage while Lee Scott earns Y; Lee Scott’s Y has nothing to do with X wage. No company’s workers take a pay cut to finance grand compensation schemes for their CEO. Our “poor” live better than royalty did just 200 years ago. So the fact that they don’t earn as much as Lee Scott means nothing. CEO pay is up because corporations are desperate to attract talented leadership that will manage the company well. It must make sense, since the rise in CEO pay just happens to coincide with record profits for US industry.

By the way, the top 1% of wage earners pay 34.27% of all taxes in this country. The top 50% pay 96.54%. So, the 50% of workers in the bottom half of the earnings table pay just 3.46% of all taxes. If anything, the rich are paying too much!

The class envy thing is just plain stupid. Stop worrying about what your neighbor has and work to get what you want. If your neighbor grosses $200,000 and has a $700,000 home, two new cars and 4 kids and you earn $100,000, have a $300,000 home, 1 new car and 2 kids, who is better off? And does it really matter as far as you’re situation is concerned?

POWER,

“I cannot believe, there are people out there, that support such vial labor practices, not to mention any names, (Ellis and Bob)!!!”

Where did you see anyone here SUPPORT vial labor practices, I think I can speak for everyone, when I say that we all deplore ‘Child labor sweatshops’!!!

“America needs “REAL” solutions, to “REAL” problems,”

And, what is your “REAL” solutions, impose tariffs on imports and walk away from China, India, etc., right?  Will that make the ‘sweatshops’ go away or will you just not have to look at them anymore?  Don’t forget, America is not the only country that buys from China, so the ‘sweatshops’ will continue, or people will be put out of work.  The alternative, we are supporting, is continue trade and just like we did with Japan in the 50’s and 60’s.  While I agree, that the government of China, is different than that of Japan, it is very likely that the people of China will become accustomed to a capitalistic system and switch from those ‘sweatshops’ to a more realistic business system.

One thing that bothers me, is how some people here cannot equate the fact that it is hard to compete with $2.00 labor when we keep RAISING wages here.  Think about it, higher wages mean higher prices, higher inflation and both are bad for the ‘poor’, then, tack on tariffs which raise the prices on imports and you put another burdon on the ‘poor’.  As I have said in the past, just look at the past, how did we get from $1500.00 cars to $30,000.00 cars?  And, how many ‘poor’ people can even think about paying $30,000.00 for a car, even if they were making your proposed ‘living wage’ of $15.00 an hour?  Why do you want to damage ‘poor’ people even more?  I thought you wanted to reduce poverty, not increase it.

You want a good “REAL” solution, but, it will never happen?  Use the Wal-Mart practice of “ROLLBACK”, the government should mandate a rollback of all wages and prices back to the 1950 equivilent or at least 25% of what they are today.  That way, we would be able to compete on the world stage on a more level playing field.  Problem is, they would still want to spend at todays budget levels and wouldn’t be getting enough taxes in.  Also, mentally, people wouldn’t like to have their wages cut by 75%, even though it would be the same, price wise.

Power,

Wow.  You speak of ‘Fairy Tale’ GOP.  There is just so much wrong with what you wrote.
Please, PLEASE back something up with a fact, or a link, or something.  Please.
Fact:
Manufacturing jobs have decreased.  However, total manufacturing output has steadily increased.  Job loss is primarily due to increased productivity.  Many of the jobs that are now done by Chinese were already overseas somewhere else for decades.  They’ve just shifted from Korea to China. 
Real median income has shown a very steady trend of increase, with the exception of a couple years after each recession. 
Poverty is not on the increase.  It’s fluctuated, but again, this happens for a couple of years after a recession.
Unemployment is near an all-time low. 

Overall, things aren’t looking too bad for Americans. 
The one thing I could agree with is health care.  However, if you are so simple as to attribute that just to overseas competition, please at least show some statistics or something to back up your argument.

Take one glance at the GM plant you mentioned, or a Ford plant, and you will see that UNIONS caused their downfall.

<i>”...and you will see that UNIONS caused their downfall.”

Poor management caused their downfall.

“Poor management caused their downfall. “

Ken V, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  The poor management at Ford and GM who negotiated the unbearable costly union contracts with often too generous pay and benefits has cost them dearly.  Thanks for pointing that out.

-Richard K

Get Out of the “Rat Hole,” Cazar!

My sympathy is with you, Cazar.  Oh, wait… was that too “emotional” of a statement to make for certain posters here?

Unfortunately, you’ve allowed yourself to be lured down a Rat Hole by one of the more inflamatory posters on this blog.  When you or others see one of these regular posters say something that is clearly so annoying, so inciting, and so blatantly offensive, the thing to do is to bite one’s lower lip, walk away from the computer, and go have a good cup or two of tea or coffee.  The worst thing you can do is to make any attempt to logically “debate” with these individuals.  This sometimes takes tremendous willpower-- I know!

The intractable and myopic views of people like Nick (Ellis W) and “Bob in,” have been a staple on this blog for far too long!  Your points will never get through to these types of individuals, Cazar.  Why?  Because they have a neurosis.  They both cling to a pathetic world view that somehow must give then a sense of security.  They are incapable of conceding any point, and will never admit that they are wrong!  Save your intellectual, emotional and physical energy for more worthy causes Cazar--don’t continue to encourage them by engaging them.  Both Nick and “Bob in” came to this blog site, because they lost their “audience” on WakeupWalmart.com

I’m not a big fan of Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, but even he says something that makes sense once in awhile.  I believe he had people like “Ellis W” and “Bob in” in mind when he was talking about “Extremists.” He said, “In my opinion extremists have a neurosis.  They really don’t want to hear anything other than the conclusion they’ve already arrived at, no matter what the evidence suggests.”

No thanks to Rico Mas for providing the backdoor out, so that “Ellis W” could try to spin his way out from his initial comment.  It really doesn’t matter though, because sooner or later, his true feelings are betrayed by his own words.  Example: Nick said in a follow-up post: “I do not condone or encourage child labor and/or sweatshops. I wish we had a world in which children in all nations could live in peace and safety.” Then his true feelings emerge when he refers to this sentiment as nothing more than “an emotional wish.”

On the other hand, Rico Mas is to be commended for his reference to keeping an open mind!

Why would anyone want to “debate” with a person who considers protecting the rights and safety of children to be “a weak moral argument?”

Lastly, Cazar… don’t take the bait from “Sol in.” I don’t recall seeing too many of his or her posts here.  For all we know… this is just another Pro Wal-Mart Troll.

More often than not, I find myself in total agreement with you Cazar, not because you take my side of the issue, but because you take the RIGHT side of the issue.

SCREWEDBY, I THOUGHT THEY WERE MAGGOTS. THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.

Screwedby,

“When you or others see one of these regular posters say something that is clearly so annoying, so inciting, and so blatantly offensive,”

Sorry, but sometimes things in the “real world” are that way and they don’t change just because you want to “wish” them away.  You can’t just pretend that things will get better if you ignore the reality of a situation.

“The worst thing you can do is to make any attempt to logically “debate” with these individuals.  This sometimes takes tremendous willpower-- I know!”

And, how would you know this, when you have stated a number of times that ‘debate’ doesn’t belong on this site and you don’t do it?

“Both Nick and “Bob in” came to this blog site, because they lost their “audience” on WakeupWalmart.com”

It amazes me how often you can be wrong and still want people to believe that you are on the right side.  1.) You claimed gas would go to $5.00 a gallon by the end of 2006, WRONG. 2.) You claimed the Maryland “Fair Share” bill would hold up, WRONG. 3.) You claimed the $10.00 (Wal-Mart mainly) minimum wage would hold up, WRONG and now, 4.) You claim that I came to this site when I lost my ‘audience’ on WakeUpWalmart.com. WRONG!!!  You as well as I know that I was on this site first and then blocked, so I went to the WUWM site and was eventually blocked there, so I came back here, I did not ‘lose’ my ‘audience’, I was prevented from posting, there’s a difference, but, you don’t know that.

“ They really don’t want to hear anything other than the conclusion they’ve already arrived at, no matter what the evidence suggests.”

What are you talking about, you guys don’t bring evidence, you just quote emotional views with nothing to back it up.  You are the ones who don’t want to hear anything that flies in the face of your forgone conclusions, in fact, you have even said that this is an anti Wal-Mart site and other views should not be allowed here.

You know that ‘debate’ makes you look foolish, that’s why you don’t want to do it!!  Debate is an exchange of ideas, you want everyone to think you are always right, so you don’t like debate, mainly because you can’t back up your views with facts.

Richard K wrote: <i>"Thanks for pointing that out.”

Not a problem, Richard.  The same bunch that “negotiated the unbearable costly union contracts” also failed to respond to a changing market while ignoring engineering improvements to their product.

Did the cost of union labor aggravate the mismanagement? Sure. Just like high rent will close your doors if you have no sales.

Ken V

Union and management share equal blame for Detroit’s decline. However, in the domestic steel industry, I would say the blame is 60/40 in favor of the steelworkers union. They threatened strikes to get their way in the 1950’s and 1960’s. There were far too many people in the mills because the union members would get their family members hired. Men would take home toilet paper, pencils, paper, tools, etc. if they needed it. My father worked in the mill. He worked with a guy whose job it was to sit in a chair and check out a piece of steel when it came down the line every 8 to 10 minutes. If the piece didn’t have any glaring defects, he’d mark it with a special marker and go back to sleep until the next piece came down the line. A man I know who currently works in the mill tells me that crane operators intentionally wreck their cranes into equipment or the building itself. This causes a 4-6 hour shutdown and the guys get paid while they sit on their asses. They leave items for the next shift so that they don’t have to work hard. They refuse to go outside the mill and do welding and maintenance jobs, saying “I’ve put my time in. Let the younger guys do it. I will not do it”. The unions pushed for high employment and then they slowed down production in order to stretch out the work, mistakenly believing that they could spread the work out and justify the size of their work crews. This was very inefficient, however. The union steelworkers were the highest paid workers in the industrial world for a very long time. They only agreed with technological innovations if they had a guarantee that no workers would be displaced. What’s the point of productivity increases if you can’t get rid of people? Workers had gold plated pensions, paid vacations, health, dental and vision coverage for their entire family at no cost. Retirees also enjoyed these benefits. Workers received a 13-week paid vacation every 5 years. Workers also received guaranteed COLA increases each year. When times got tough in the steel business, the USW refused to bend, giving up cosmetic concessions while fighting true reform. The companies share blame only in that they did not properly control their workforce and their costs. They had too much capital tied up in plant and they had stockholders demanding a steady return on investment and so they gave into the union, passing along costs until domestic minimill and foreign competition made that a thing of the past.

I know that of which I speak, firsthand. I personally know numerous people at three steel companies and I have toured several plants. I have also done a great deal of research on this subject.

A company needs flexibility and control in its costs, including labor. Workers should never dictate policy to the company. It’s a recipe for disaster and it’s one of the reasons why ESOPs often fail.

As for Detroit, GM & Ford could have gotten away with less than quality products if they had kept their costs down. Honda and Toyota originally did not have better quality. Their initial attraction was that they met a demand for good gas mileage during an oil crisis. Detroit has always put too much faith into gas guzzlers. Very few domestic models turn a profit, outside of trucks and SUVs. With high gas prices, these sales dry up or become unprofitable due to incentives. Management ALWAYS shares some of the blame when a company takes a dive but the union also shares blame for its failure to see that changes are preferable to bankruptcy and unemployment.

EllisW,

“Union and management share equal blame for Detroit’s decline.”

Much the same as your examples of the steel mills problems, the auto industry has very similar union problems.  I had 2 brothers, father-in-law and an uncle, that worked for American Motors and I hauled into there (and toured the plants, while waiting for my truck to unload), when I drove truck.  Here is an example of what I saw, that has stayed with me all these years:  I was making a delivery to AMC.  The dock supervisor told a forklift driver to unload the 2 pallets I had for them.  The forklift driver said he would get to them when he had time (He was busy, sitting on his lift talking to another lift driver at the time).  A half an hour later, the supervisor told him again, this time the lift driver got upset and asked to see his union steward, because the supervisor was “Badgering him”.  At that point, everybody stopped working until the union steward got there (about 20 minutes), then the union steward told the supervisor that the workers will do things when they find time and unless he wanted a walkout on his hands, he had better stop giving the workers a hard time.  All told, this was about a half hour work stoppage, because a lift driver didn’t want to be bothered by having to do HIS JOB.  Sometimes, management has it’s hands tied.  Also, AMC always negotiated it’s contract based on what GM and FORD workers got, even though AMC was a very much smaller company.  As you notice, AMC is no longer in business.  I could tell you hundreds of stories about what I saw there and what my brothers, father-in-law and uncle told me.

As always, Bob, you write in absolutes. Everything with you is an either/or situation and because of it the characterization of your views as “extreme” is a fair one.

Can you cite cases of union abuse?  Sure you can.  Can the pro-union side counter with examples of business misconduct?  Sure they can, but all it proves is the struggle between capital and labor is most constructtive when conducted on a level playing field with a parity of power.

After the days of sweatshops and but before featherbedding this country went through a period of prosparity that was the envy of the world.

“After the days of sweatshops and but before featherbedding this country went through a period of prosparity that was the envy of the world. “

Um… Ken.... The US is STILL the envy of the world that’s why everyone STILL wants to come here or emulate american life.  And if Bob’s views are “extreme” (albeit just REAL LIFE stories so how you classify them as extreme is beyond me), then you could also say every pro-union story based on historical fact is “extreme” as well.  If “extreme” means telling the truths then bring them on pro and anti because they are just that facts and much better then rethoric.

On your point about Detroit mismangement.... I agree with you that mismanagement occured on multiple fronts, not just union contracts.  But those union contracts are going a long way to killing the industry today.... Ford… 11 BILLION $ loss in 2006????  Are you kidding me?

-Richard K

Richard K wrote: “The US is STILL the envy of the world that’s why everyone STILL wants to come here or emulate american life. ”

What planet are you from?

Ken V,

“Everything with you is an either/or situation and because of it the characterization of your views as “extreme” is a fair one.”

No, not an either/or situation, just what I have observed.  They are not extreme, because if you ever worked or visited a union shop, you would see these practices as SOP on a daily basis.

As for it being managements fault for the decline of the auto industry, Richard K is right, both sides contributed to it, but, you must remember, if it were auto style, quality or customer demand, those things can be corrected in a short time, but, union demanded, outrageous wage scales and benefit structures, are hard to stop or reverse.  Once a person gets used to a 4% COLA, it is hard to get them to accept a 2% COLA.  You can redesign, increase quality and listen more to the customer without much objection, but, just try to reduce wages and benefits and see what objection that causes.  Overpaid employees, don’t think they are overpaid, therefore they would rail against any re-evaluation of their pay and benefits, and the union would back them up. Concessions only come about, when the company is at the brink of disaster, until then, increases will continue to be demanded.

“Richard K wrote: “The US is STILL the envy of the world that’s why everyone STILL wants to come here or emulate american life. ”

What planet are you from?”

This is exactly why your side cannot see any country (like China) following our lead, you see our country as falling off a cliff, so why would some other country want to copy us.  You refuse to see things the way they really are, but rather the way you THINK they are.  That is why you say things like, ‘there is no industry left in the U.S.’, which is truly false, there are many industries left in the U.S., you just refuse to see them, because to do so, would kill your arguement.  This country went from 0 to the greatest country in the world, in less than 200 years and still is the greatest, most other countries have been around for thousands of years and still don’t come close to us.  How long have China and India been around?  And neither one has an economy at a level that we had in the 70’s.

Bob - Are you willing to “Rollback” your monthly income??? Your whole, “Let’s go back to the 50’s” spill, is a little out of touch with reality, just as the entire Republican Party is!!! “Inflation”, has occured since the beginning of man, so stop blaming the unions!!! Did you ever stop to think that America has gained all of this “UNEEDED” wealth, through a capitolistic society??? You know, the type that “you” support???