Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

 

2006-05-09 10:40:56
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7013|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Can you honestly tell me that shoes costing Nike $10 or less to produce and put on shelves couldn't be made in the US without changing the prices?
Didn't say they COULD not.  Said they WOULD not, and I stand by that.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

So how do you keep companies competitive and keep the incentive of moving up in life while also de-emphasizing profit motive?
You don't.  Humans are selfish creatures.  The only thing you can be sure of is that people will act in a way that maximises their own self interest.  If you rely on their kindness or philanthropy, you will fail.  This applies to the rich, the poor, and everyone in between.  That is why I don't believe that the government should do anything other than ensure that the playing field is level.  Any attempt to adjust outcome is destined to be perverted or fail outright.
Then let them cost more, and let the market decide if the extra cost is worth it.  Nike is not the only shoe company.  If the market will bare the cost, then so be it.  If the market won't bare the cost, then let supply and demand move the price Nike charges.

On your other point, can you be more specific.  What government intervention makes the playing field level, and which attempt to specifically influence an outcome?
2006-05-09 10:44:55
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6924

whittsend wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

On a side note, I also acknowledge that a big part of our wealth as westerners comes from the exploitation of cheap labor in our homelands and abroad. You think you'd be able to afford Nike clothing if they were produced in the US ?
Yes, we would easily be able to afford them if they were produced in the U.S. You know how many hugely profitable companies there are in the U.S. that don't use foreign labor? The problem is greedy fucking people in charge of these corportations.
Please enlighten us as to how many 'hugely profitable companies' actually manufacture their products in the US.  I think B.Schuss is right - we'd be paying $300 for a pair of sneakers if they were made here.
Um... what? Americans do have jobs you know. And they work for companies that are profitable. We wouldn't need pay $300 if sneakers were made here. You sound like you fucking work for NIKE.
2006-05-09 10:49:59
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|7012|California

whittsend wrote:

Hmm.  Thought you said you were a libertarian?  Do I have the wrong person?  One would think that a libertarian would believe that a chance to make more money here than is possible where they are from, would be an opportunity for improvement.  It isn't slavery if they can go home whenever they want; if they were to be paid a 'living wage' (code for 'more') there is no inducemet to hire them, because there are already many people here who can (and probably would) work legally for that.

I suspect that you will find that many illegals do improve their situation, and the reason that you continue to see illegals doing the work they do is that more illegals keep coming.  Why do you suppose they would do that if the situation here is not an improvement for them?  Hmmm.
I never said it wasn't possible, I just think that the avenues offered to immigrants isn't as glamorous as most think. The American Dream is very possible, but.... the way it is being offered to illegals does not make it very likely that they will attain it. It is enough to make it seem like they are getting a better life. By third world standards I am sure it's great, but it's not the American Dream.

I would just like to see that everything is done fairly and according to the law. It will never happen, but you can always dream.

Why bother legislating anything when we can't enforce laws already on the books?
2006-05-09 10:53:47
IRONxWyvern
Member
+14|7118|Atlanta, GA

Erkut.hv wrote:

Why bother legislating anything when we can't enforce laws already on the books?
Amen, That can be applied to almost all of the laws and regulations we have.  I submit that most of our laws are created as a knee jerk reaction by our politicians to curry the favor of us, the unwashed masses.
2006-05-09 11:19:13
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Then let them cost more, and let the market decide if the extra cost is worth it.  Nike is not the only shoe company.  If the market will bare the cost, then so be it.  If the market won't bare the cost, then let supply and demand move the price Nike charges.

On your other point, can you be more specific.  What government intervention makes the playing field level, and which attempt to specifically influence an outcome?
Most of what I said was supposed to be generic, but for the sake of argument, I will use Nike as a discussion point.  Are you saying they should have cheaper shoes made overseas, and more expensive shoes made here, and allow the market to decide between them?  Please say no, as you would have to be completely naive to believe that mans good nature would cause the more expensive product to outsell the cheaper one.  As far as letting supply and demand move the price Nike charges; it does that now.  Nike can charge $80-$100 for sneakers because people are paying it.  If they didn't, they would lower their prices or go out of business.  Don't like it?  Don't buy them.

I don't have the time to make an exhaustive search of government programs designed to change outcome, but as a rule of thumb, any program which takes from one and gives to another, does just that.  I didn't say that government does make the playing field level, only that doing so is its natural function.  What I mean by that is that government exists to ensure force or fraud isn't used against individuals.  When government expands beyond this, they move into the realm of advancing the values of some over the rights of others.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Um... what? Americans do have jobs you know. And they work for companies that are profitable. We wouldn't need pay $300 if sneakers were made here. You sound like you fucking work for NIKE.
It's a simple request:  Name some VERY PROFITABLE companies that do their manufacturing IN the US.  Please.

To be clear: I'm not thinking of high tech (GE, Boeing, etc.), I'm talking about consumer goods.  Good luck.

Erkut.hv wrote:

I never said it wasn't possible, I just think that the avenues offered to immigrants isn't as glamorous as most think.
I am under no illusions regarding the desirability of the illegal immigrants lifestyle.  I'm sure it is difficult and dangerous.

Erkut.hv wrote:

the way it is being offered to illegals does not make it very likely that they will attain it. It is enough to make it seem like they are getting a better life. By third world standards I am sure it's great, but it's not the American Dream.
No, but it is a possibility at attaining it, which is an improvement over their lot elsewhere.

Erkut.hv wrote:

I would just like to see that everything is done fairly and according to the law. It will never happen, but you can always dream.
As do I.  Which is why I support a liberal guest worker program.

IRONxWyvern wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

Why bother legislating anything when we can't enforce laws already on the books?
Amen, That can be applied to almost all of the laws and regulations we have.  I submit that most of our laws are created as a knee jerk reaction by our politicians to curry the favor of us, the unwashed masses.
I mostly agree.  Some of the laws, however, are made to advance the various economic and social preferences of the legislators at the time.  It's pretty sad that they run roughshod over the explicitly stated powers of government in the Constitution, and legislate on pretty much anything they have a mind to.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-09 11:20:58)

2006-05-09 11:20:14
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7118|Cologne, Germany

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Can you honestly tell me that shoes costing Nike $10 or less to produce and put on shelves couldn't be made in the US without changing the prices?
Didn't say they COULD not.  Said they WOULD not, and I stand by that.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

So how do you keep companies competitive and keep the incentive of moving up in life while also de-emphasizing profit motive?
You don't.  Humans are selfish creatures.  The only thing you can be sure of is that people will act in a way that maximises their own self interest.  If you rely on their kindness or philanthropy, you will fail.  This applies to the rich, the poor, and everyone in between.  That is why I don't believe that the government should do anything other than ensure that the playing field is level.  Any attempt to adjust outcome is destined to be perverted or fail outright.
well, keeping the playing field level ain't that easy. Every human being is unique in its talents and genetic predispositions. Moreover, levelling the playing field would also have to mean that everyone must have the same access to quality education, regardless of you social background. And that is simply not the case today.

I am all for liberalism, and there is the saying that if everyone would take care of himself, everybody would be taken care of. The harsh reality is though, that not everybody can be a winner in this society. If someone wins, then normally somebody else looses.

People are different. Levelling the playing field is an illusion. That's why social systems exist in the first place.
2006-05-09 11:25:59
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

B.Schuss wrote:

well, keeping the playing field level ain't that easy. Every human being is unique in its talents and genetic predispositions. Moreover, levelling the playing field would also have to mean that everyone must have the same access to quality education, regardless of you social background. And that is simply not the case today.

I am all for liberalism, and there is the saying that if everyone would take care of himself, everybody would be taken care of. The harsh reality is though, that not everybody can be a winner in this society. If someone wins, then normally somebody else looses.

People are different. Levelling the playing field is an illusion. That's why social systems exist in the first place.
When I say levelling the playing field, I am not referring to ensuring that everyone has what everyone else has.  What I mean is that everyone should be limited (or aided) only by their own potential (i.e. - playing on a level field).  I mean that it is the task of government to ensure that citizens are not held back by the predatory force or fraud of others; but not to advance them on the labor of their fellow citizens.  Success is the responsibility of the citizen, not something to be handed out by the government.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-09 11:29:30)

2006-05-09 11:32:38
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6909|949

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Thats the driving force behind capitalism - profit.  That is what drives our economy.  How do you have capitalism coexist with the idea of a living wage?  I personally believe capitalism is a great idea, and probably the best economic system to date, but strongly disagree with the maximization of profit as the driving force behind it.  So how do you keep companies competitive and keep the incentive of moving up in life while also de-emphasizing profit motive?
That's why we don't have a pure capitalistic economy.  However, that hasn't stopped people from striving to beat the system in any way possible.
What is the reason why we don't have a pure capitalist system?  I am not sure what you are getting at in your post.  We don't have a pure capitalist system because of profit motive?  I was under the impression that we don't have a pure capitalist system because of policies we implement to affect it, not becase we are ideologically opposed to it.
2006-05-09 11:42:08
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7013|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Most of what I said was supposed to be generic, but for the sake of argument, I will use Nike as a discussion point.  Are you saying they should have cheaper shoes made overseas, and more expensive shoes made here, and allow the market to decide between them?  Please say no, as you would have to be completely naive to believe that mans good nature would cause the more expensive product to outsell the cheaper one.  As far as letting supply and demand move the price Nike charges; it does that now.  Nike can charge $80-$100 for sneakers because people are paying it.  If they didn't, they would lower their prices or go out of business.  Don't like it?  Don't buy them.
No I'm not saying that.  What I'm saying is that the company doesn't have to use what amounts to overseas slave labor.  What I'm saying is that at the prices they charge now, versus what it costs them to actually make the shoes, the shoes could still be made in the US, and Nike still wouldn't need to raise the price to make a profit. If Nike wanted to maintain the exact same level of profit, then they would obviously have to raise the prices charged.
2006-05-09 11:45:58
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7118|Cologne, Germany

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:


Yes, we would easily be able to afford them if they were produced in the U.S. You know how many hugely profitable companies there are in the U.S. that don't use foreign labor? The problem is greedy fucking people in charge of these corportations.
Please enlighten us as to how many 'hugely profitable companies' actually manufacture their products in the US.  I think B.Schuss is right - we'd be paying $300 for a pair of sneakers if they were made here.
Um... what? Americans do have jobs you know. And they work for companies that are profitable. We wouldn't need pay $300 if sneakers were made here. You sound like you fucking work for NIKE.
well, there are a couple of possibilities here:

- Nike ( and othe companies selling consumer goods ) produce overseas because people are unwilling to pay what the product would cost if it was produced in the US
- Nike and other such companies produce overseas because everybody else does and they wouldn't be able to compete if they produced at home
- The price of a sneaker has nothing to do with supply and demand but rather with good marketing and branding. Nike could easily produce in the US,  with american union employees, but choses not to do so to maximize profits.

I am not an expert in economics. You guys tell me what the truth is. I suppose it is a mix of all of the above, possibly more.

I work in the private sector. I know all companies think about is maximizing their profits.
But I also think that companies also have a responsibility towards their employees. You wanna stay competitive, that's for sure. But what good does it do if there is no one left to actually buy what you have to offer ?
2006-05-09 11:54:08
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

No I'm not saying that.  What I'm saying is that the company doesn't have to use what amounts to overseas slave labor.
For starters, let's not bandy the words 'slave labor' around like that, when we both know it isn't true.  Are their laborers getting paid a pittance?  Yes.  Are their working conditions poor?  Yes.  Can they stop working for Nike any time they want?  A thousand times, yes.  Given this, the fact that they continue to work in these conditions for poor pay inclines one to believe that the alternative is no work and starvation.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

What I'm saying is that at the prices they charge now, versus what it costs them to actually make the shoes, the shoes could still be made in the US, and Nike still wouldn't need to raise the price to make a profit. If Nike wanted to maintain the exact same level of profit, then they would obviously have to raise the prices charged.
Nike is a corporation, the primary function of which, like all other corporations, is to make money.  As much as possible.  We can be reasonably certain that they cannot sell their product for more money than they do, without losing customers...if that were the case, they would do so, and maximise their profits.  Therefore, if Nike were to manufacture its product IN the US, it would without question, reduce its profits because (and I don't think anyone doubts this) their labor costs would be several times higher than they are now.  Given that Nike exists to make as much money as possible, what is the motivation for them to use American labor, and in all likelyhood, reduce their profits dramatically?

I'd just like to add, that as a (potential) consumer of Nike, this is all academic to you - at most you are economically involved with Nike a couple of times a year.  But if you were a shareholder with your life's savings invested in the company, you would cry for blood if the company ever made a move like the one you outlined.  It's all about motivation...there is nothing motivating people to act in the way you suggest.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-09 11:57:34)

2006-05-09 11:55:37
OpsChief
Member
+101|6953|Southern California
Are we (USA) trying too hard to "keep people out"? 

I find it one of the most absurd events that millions of people would go to a foreign nation (US) and protest a potential loss of jobs in that foreign nation. Why aren't they protesting in their own countries? ROFLMAO
Alot of good that will do them and they know it. This is not racism it is about law and taxes and being good neighbors. I suggest applying an Eastern philosophy to solve the problem - let illegal immigration fall under it's own weight.

Problem Statement: Corruption and incompetence resulting low standards of living in neighboring countries are driving good people into foreign nations to seek a better life but causing damage to the very nation that provides relief for their problem.

Here is my solution for immigration to start a corrective process.
All peoples from countries with a significant illegal presence in the US will be in the plan, say 100,000 or more.
Build 100 Temporary processing buildings along the border. These are cheap, quick and will create a lot jobs for a couple of months.
Create a rapid work permit process taking only a few days to complete.
Make work available for any non-felon foreigners wanting work in the US.
Require anyone already in the states to go through the processing centers.
Anyone failing to do this within 90 days of the start-date will be tried and receive a bar from re-entry and be deported to the country of their choice, thats right any country on earth (see if any other nice country is as accomodating as the evil US).
Now the people completing the work permit will be given bus tranportation back to the destination of their jobs, fully documented and no criminal smuggling. Employers will submit locations and numbers needed through job recruitment centers adjacent to the processing centers.

Now comes the key to the success of this problem....wait for it......

Anyone working in the USA for 1 year is automatically enrolled in the naturalized citizen program. To work in the US for more than one year requires enrollment in the citizenship program.
If they work for more than three years they become a naturalized citizen automatically at the five year mark(dual citizenship will be allowed for an extra fee).
Any felony convictions by a naturalized citizen results in permanent loss of citizen status and deportation to any country of choice.
Offspring born in the US of non-citizens must graduate high school to earn full citizenship.
If they decline citizenship their permit is permanently pulled and they must go back and invest their hard earned US money on a busines in another country of their choice.
Within 5-10 years 90% of all long term immigrants will be US citizens.
At this point the US will be able to assert pressure on Mexico and other nations to get the corruption fixed, allow foreigners to buy property in Mexico (idk do other countries allow foreign land ownership?) and that will bring prosperity to other countries.
Once land ownership is allowed everywhere by anyone borders will be less important. Wealthy US citizens will begin buying up land and demand reform and rule of law which will clean up the messy dealings in foreign countries. This will also make immigration a two-way street.

If Mexico or other nations petition for statehood we will gladly accept.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-05-09 11:56:19)

2006-05-09 11:59:18
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6944

whittsend wrote:

It's a simple request:  Name some VERY PROFITABLE companies that do their manufacturing IN the US.  Please.

To be clear: I'm not thinking of high tech (GE, Boeing, etc.), I'm talking about consumer goods.  Good luck.
Hansen Natural
NutriSystem
MedImmune (albeit manufacturing facilities in the US and Europe).


But yeah, all the major consumer goods are now manufactured in China/Taiwan/Malaysia/etc...
2006-05-09 12:01:13
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

OpsChief wrote:

Here is my solution for immigration to start a corrective process.
I like it.  Except for the part about deporting felons.  Once we have given them citizenship, I believe it is our responsibility to deal with them.

Ilocano wrote:

Hansen Natural
NutriSystem
MedImmune (albeit manufacturing facilities in the US and Europe).


But yeah, all the major consumer goods are now manufactured in China/Taiwan/Malaysia/etc...
Ok, you found some (I'm as glad as you that some exist), but you do see my point?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-09 12:02:59)

2006-05-09 12:42:56
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7114
I got this From the LA times. I don't know if it is a Reputable Paper. I have no Strong feelings on the Subject.

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and    not paying taxes. This was because they are  predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal  aliens.

4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal
alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are
Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in  garages.

( BFD  I lived in a Garage once for a Year. )

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

( this kinda proves they are consumers at least )

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 were taken from the from the Los Angeles Times!)


Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
        http://www.cis.org


Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.


The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET  (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor  Donald Huddle, Rice University].


The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the  average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.


29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Some Stunning stats huh ? Anyone else come across this ?

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-09 12:45:42)

2006-05-09 14:14:28
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7013|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

No I'm not saying that.  What I'm saying is that the company doesn't have to use what amounts to overseas slave labor.
For starters, let's not bandy the words 'slave labor' around like that, when we both know it isn't true.  Are their laborers getting paid a pittance?  Yes.  Are their working conditions poor?  Yes.  Can they stop working for Nike any time they want?  A thousand times, yes.  Given this, the fact that they continue to work in these conditions for poor pay inclines one to believe that the alternative is no work and starvation.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

What I'm saying is that at the prices they charge now, versus what it costs them to actually make the shoes, the shoes could still be made in the US, and Nike still wouldn't need to raise the price to make a profit. If Nike wanted to maintain the exact same level of profit, then they would obviously have to raise the prices charged.
Nike is a corporation, the primary function of which, like all other corporations, is to make money.  As much as possible.  We can be reasonably certain that they cannot sell their product for more money than they do, without losing customers...if that were the case, they would do so, and maximise their profits.  Therefore, if Nike were to manufacture its product IN the US, it would without question, reduce its profits because (and I don't think anyone doubts this) their labor costs would be several times higher than they are now.  Given that Nike exists to make as much money as possible, what is the motivation for them to use American labor, and in all likelyhood, reduce their profits dramatically?

I'd just like to add, that as a (potential) consumer of Nike, this is all academic to you - at most you are economically involved with Nike a couple of times a year.  But if you were a shareholder with your life's savings invested in the company, you would cry for blood if the company ever made a move like the one you outlined.  It's all about motivation...there is nothing motivating people to act in the way you suggest.
Yes, a company is in business to make money, no one has said anything to the contrary.  The point was that they could still make a profit if their manufacturing was in the US.  I also question when corporations pay their executives on order of 200-300 times what their US workers make, and justify sweatshop labor to keep profits high.  I also question when the top 10% of the wealth in this nation owns 90% of the resources.  This ultimately boils to not doing any manufacturing in the US which maximizes profits mostly for the already wealthy, while having doing nothing to support the economy that allowed them to become a profitable entity in the first place.
2006-05-09 16:10:06
OpsChief
Member
+101|6953|Southern California
There are some inspiring comments on this thread - I just figured out what the UN should be doing about all of this unfair labor wages....establish and enforce an international minimum wage!  lol
2006-05-09 16:12:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6909|949

OpsChief wrote:

There are some inspiring comments on this thread - I just figured out what the UN should be doing about all of this unfair labor wages....establish and enforce an international minimum wage!  lol
Except that here in the US, $7.00 an hour is nothing, whereas in East Timor, that's a pretty penny.
2006-05-09 16:15:19
OpsChief
Member
+101|6953|Southern California

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

There are some inspiring comments on this thread - I just figured out what the UN should be doing about all of this unfair labor wages....establish and enforce an international minimum wage!  lol
Except that here in the US, $7.00 an hour is nothing, whereas in East Timor, that's a pretty penny.
lol I didn't say it would be easy.....
2006-05-10 03:55:39
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7118|Cologne, Germany

I guess from a global point of view, a lot of the consumer goods we have in the west are as "cheap" as they are because they are largely produced for slavery wages in third world countries or asian tiger states.

I can only imagine what those products would cost if there were something like a world wide minimum wage...

It may be true that no one is forcing the people in indonesia to work for a slavery wage in a nike sweatshop, but then again, what are they supposed to do when there is no other work available ?

The fact remains, the west profits from the exploitation of cheap labor. And as long as that is the case, there will be immigration issues.
2006-05-10 06:42:05
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yes, a company is in business to make money, no one has said anything to the contrary.  The point was that they could still make a profit if their manufacturing was in the US.  I also question when corporations pay their executives on order of 200-300 times what their US workers make, and justify sweatshop labor to keep profits high.  I also question when the top 10% of the wealth in this nation owns 90% of the resources.  This ultimately boils to not doing any manufacturing in the US which maximizes profits mostly for the already wealthy, while having doing nothing to support the economy that allowed them to become a profitable entity in the first place.
I don't think it is fair to say they do nothing for the economy here.  Manufacturing is only one part of the business.  Administration, Marketing, Sales, Distribution and all the other support services are done here in the western countries, and there is no way they can get out of paying them high wages.  Don't forget to add all those expenses in when it's time to tally up the cost to them of those sneakers.  They still probably make high profits, but not every penny they save on labor is profit.

As far as exectives go, if they believe that a certain exectutive can turn around a multi billion dollar business, then it's worth paying him millions.  What is to question?  A person's labor is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it, not a penny more, and not a penny less.

The only people to blame for the flow of capital in this economy are the consumers.  If you don't want a certain corporation or executive to get your money, don't give it to them.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-10 07:04:15)

2006-05-10 07:06:47
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7013|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yes, a company is in business to make money, no one has said anything to the contrary.  The point was that they could still make a profit if their manufacturing was in the US.  I also question when corporations pay their executives on order of 200-300 times what their US workers make, and justify sweatshop labor to keep profits high.  I also question when the top 10% of the wealth in this nation owns 90% of the resources.  This ultimately boils to not doing any manufacturing in the US which maximizes profits mostly for the already wealthy, while having doing nothing to support the economy that allowed them to become a profitable entity in the first place.
I don't think it is fair to say they do nothing for the economy here.  Manufacturing is only one part of the business.  Administration, Marketing, Sales, Distribution and all the other support services are done here in the western countries, and there is no way they can get out of paying them high wages.  Don't forget to add all those expenses in when it's time to tally up the cost to them of those sneakers.  They still probably make high profits, but not every penny they save on labor is profit.

As far as exectives go, if they believe that a certain exectutive can turn around a multi billion dollar business, then it's worth paying him millions.  What is to question?

The only people to blame for the flow of capital in this economy are the consumers.  If you don't want a certain corporation or executive to get your money, don't give it to them.
Okay, let's not forget that manufacturing is not the only thing that gets outsourced.  Programming, web development, engineering, accounting/payroll services, (one I know many computer owners adore) technical support, and many other things that can be done without the physical presence of the person to be at a specific site.

I also never said that top level executives were not due proper compensation, but their compensation has grown excessively.  If minimum wage had gone up at the same pace as executive salaries, minimum wage would be ~$20/hour.  Sorry, but I just can't justify 7 figure salaries, 6 figure bonuses, all the perks, and "Golden Parachute" retirement plans that many current executives get while saying they have to outsource all these jobs to stay competitive and profitable, all the while using tactics like setting up nothing more than a PO Box in Bermuda and claim it as the companies headquarters to avoid paying taxes in the US.

We won't even go into great detail on companies like Enron, World Com, Tyco, Adelphia, and others that cooked the books to make top level execs rich, while destroying the retirements/investments of their employees and many investors.  You also need only read the newspapers to see, almost daily it seems any more, the SEC and/or FTC starting new investigations into the same types of activities as those companies perviously mentioned.  The current corporate culture seems to have become one of get rich by any means necessary, then get out before you get cought.
2006-05-10 11:34:08
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6909|949

Horseman 77 wrote:

I got this From the LA times. I don't know if it is a Reputable Paper. I have no Strong feelings on the Subject.

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and    not paying taxes. This was because they are  predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal  aliens.

4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal
alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are
Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in  garages.

( BFD  I lived in a Garage once for a Year. )

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

( this kinda proves they are consumers at least )

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 were taken from the from the Los Angeles Times!)


Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
        http://www.cis.org


Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.


The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET  (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor  Donald Huddle, Rice University].


The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the  average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.


29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Some Stunning stats huh ? Anyone else come across this ?
Ok, I have finally found evidence that this list is not from the LA Times.  What it is is a bunch of misrepresented statistics glossed over by saying it is from the LA Times.  Here's a link explaining it more in depth.  CLICK FOR LINK
2006-05-10 12:50:47
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7035|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Okay, let's not forget that manufacturing is not the only thing that gets outsourced.  Programming, web development, engineering, accounting/payroll services, (one I know many computer owners adore) technical support, and many other things that can be done without the physical presence of the person to be at a specific site.
So, are you suggesting that qualified foreign competition that underbids US labor should be excluded?  We are no longer talking about people who work in horrible conditions for a pittance.  The people you are talking about now are professionals, and get paid for it (even if they make less than their American competetors.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I also never said that top level executives were not due proper compensation, but their compensation has grown excessively.
They are due proper compensation, but their pay has grown excessively?  That doesn't make sense.  If a man is an experienced CEO, with a track record of turning around Billion dollar organisations, and two corporations wish to hire him to save them Hundreds of Millions of dollars a year, that man is, quite simply, worth millions of dollars.  Just like a Sports player with proven ability, and top of the league talent; if that talent draws in spectators and helps propel the team to the playoffs, he more than makes up for the millions he is paid.  As I said before, everyone's labor is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.  If someone will pay millions for your labor, it is worth it, regardless of whether someone else beleives that person is overpaid.  I'm pretty sure that few organisations will pay an individual a seven figure salary just because they like him.  One way or another, they expect a return on their investment.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

If minimum wage had gone up at the same pace as executive salaries, minimum wage would be ~$20/hour.
It is silly to compare a fry cook at McDonalds with the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation.  THe latter is expected to save (or make) his firm much more than he is paid.  A minimum wage worker is unlikely to justify a $20/hr wage - especially in a service industry, where it is a necessity to keep overhead low.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't justify 7 figure salaries, 6 figure bonuses, all the perks... [snip].
Then I suggest you shouldn't pay anyone a seven figure salary.  If it is worth it to a corporation there is no reason they shouldn't.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

We won't even go into great detail on companies like Enron, World Com, Tyco, Adelphia, and others that cooked the books to make top level execs rich, while destroying the retirements/investments of their employees and many investors.  You also need only read the newspapers to see, almost daily it seems any more, the SEC and/or FTC starting new investigations into the same types of activities as those companies perviously mentioned.  The current corporate culture seems to have become one of get rich by any means necessary, then get out before you get cought.
Those things you mentioned are crimes.  Their crimes have nothing to do with executives who have not committed crimes.  It's this thing we have here called, "Innocent until proven guilty."  The idea you are peddling is called, "Guilty by association," and it has been found to be less effective at identifying criminals than the other method.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-10 12:53:38)

2006-05-10 14:08:24
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7013|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Okay, let's not forget that manufacturing is not the only thing that gets outsourced.  Programming, web development, engineering, accounting/payroll services, (one I know many computer owners adore) technical support, and many other things that can be done without the physical presence of the person to be at a specific site.
So, are you suggesting that qualified foreign competition that underbids US labor should be excluded?  We are no longer talking about people who work in horrible conditions for a pittance.  The people you are talking about now are professionals, and get paid for it (even if they make less than their American competetors.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I also never said that top level executives were not due proper compensation, but their compensation has grown excessively.
They are due proper compensation, but their pay has grown excessively?  That doesn't make sense.  If a man is an experienced CEO, with a track record of turning around Billion dollar organisations, and two corporations wish to hire him to save them Hundreds of Millions of dollars a year, that man is, quite simply, worth millions of dollars.  Just like a Sports player with proven ability, and top of the league talent; if that talent draws in spectators and helps propel the team to the playoffs, he more than makes up for the millions he is paid.  As I said before, everyone's labor is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.  If someone will pay millions for your labor, it is worth it, regardless of whether someone else beleives that person is overpaid.  I'm pretty sure that few organisations will pay an individual a seven figure salary just because they like him.  One way or another, they expect a return on their investment.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

If minimum wage had gone up at the same pace as executive salaries, minimum wage would be ~$20/hour.
It is silly to compare a fry cook at McDonalds with the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation.  THe latter is expected to save (or make) his firm much more than he is paid.  A minimum wage worker is unlikely to justify a $20/hr wage - especially in a service industry, where it is a necessity to keep overhead low.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't justify 7 figure salaries, 6 figure bonuses, all the perks... [snip].
Then I suggest you shouldn't pay anyone a seven figure salary.  If it is worth it to a corporation there is no reason they shouldn't.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

We won't even go into great detail on companies like Enron, World Com, Tyco, Adelphia, and others that cooked the books to make top level execs rich, while destroying the retirements/investments of their employees and many investors.  You also need only read the newspapers to see, almost daily it seems any more, the SEC and/or FTC starting new investigations into the same types of activities as those companies perviously mentioned.  The current corporate culture seems to have become one of get rich by any means necessary, then get out before you get cought.
Those things you mentioned are crimes.  Their crimes have nothing to do with executives who have not committed crimes.  It's this thing we have here called, "Innocent until proven guilty."  The idea you are peddling is called, "Guilty by association," and it has been found to be less effective at identifying criminals than the other method.
First off, I don't agree with overpayed athlethes getting what they get.  Also, your "they deserve it" agreement with compensation packages doesn't fly.  Most of the boards of large companies that vote on pay and benefits packages are themselves executives of other companies.  Do you not see a self benefitting, "Fox guarding the henhouse" problem with this scenario?  Here is an example of exactly what I'm talking about.  This article is a couple of years old, but that doesn't change the situation any...and this problem isn't just with the airlines, this is just one example.

Every so often, corporate America gives us reason to think that, hey, maybe the Marxists were right about the villainy of capitalists after all. American Airlines has been treating us to a spectacular example in recent weeks. Even as it was using the threat of Chapter 11 to push employees into massive wage cuts, the airline was funneling $41 million into a special bankruptcy-resistant pension trust for 45 executives. And early in 2002, the struggling airline's top six executives were offered "cash retention" bonuses amounting to twice their base salary—just for staying on the job until January 2005. American then hid these sweet payouts until after the unions had voted to cut their own pay. When the news finally broke, it cost American CEO Donald Carty his job—but the executives still get to keep the juiced pension benefits.

The only satisfying part of this turmoil—besides, of course, the cashiering of Carty—is that it shined a high-wattage bulb on the infectious practice of "retention" bonuses—the most recent in a long line of sleazy, undeserved compensation tricks at publicly held companies. Airlines seem particularly fond of the unnecessary executive bonus. Delta Airlines last year also set up special pension trusts for 33 senior executives (neglecting to disclose their existence until this spring) and offered cash retention bonuses to several executives just for showing up to work. Delta noted in its proxy filing that "the business environment presents ongoing risks and creates a significant concern for retention of management personnel."

This would be hilarious if it weren't costing Delta shareholders millions. Who exactly is clamoring to hire Delta or American's top managers? They're lucky to have kept their jobs at all.

A few years ago, boosting bonuses, wages, and benefits to retain managers made sense. In the hothouse economy of the late '90s, large, stodgy companies like airlines routinely lost executives at all ranks to Internet startups and technology companies. But it is ridiculous to use retention to justify massive payouts to unaccomplished executives who are working in a wilting industry, which is in turn bound up in a slack economy. (Especially since these are the very stolid company men who didn't even have the moxie to try something new during the boom.)

Since March 2001, many of the estimated 2.5 million jobs lost have been managerial ones. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows the unemployment rate for management and professional occupations is at to 2.9 percent, compared with just 1.7 percent in 2000.

Indeed, it turns out that high-paid workers are no more immune to the labor market than lower-paid workers. When economic times are tough, their wages tend to stagnate or even fall. Look what's happening to the salaries for software programmers, or Internet business development executives, or professional baseball players. Jonathan Mahler's April 13 piece in the New York Times Magazine nicely detailed the travails of six-figure managerial types who were unable to find any job at all. Rather than paying special bonuses to retain executives, American and Delta could have hired back some of the executives who left three years ago at half what they're paying their current clowns.

An executive vice president at American should be feeling the same pressure and fear that American pilots and machinists do. Sure, the occasional senior manager with transferable skills can go elsewhere. Last June, Tom Horton, chief financial officer at AMR (American's parent company), left for AT&T. But generally speaking, there isn't much of a market for these executives' talent. With the bankruptcy of major airlines and the effects of war and SARS on global travel, the airline industry is in the process of shrinking 20 percent to 30 percent. Executives should be taking the same 25 percent pay cuts that they are forcing down the throats of their employees.

The most troubling aspect of the retention bonuses is psychological rather than financial. American's executives presume that unionized pilots, flight attendants, and baggage handlers will work with the same attention to detail and concern for security as they did when their wages and benefits were 25 percent higher. But the unspoken assumption of retention bonuses and benefits for top bosses is that senior managers simply can't be relied upon to work as hard if their salaries are cut, or if their options are underwater. Isn't it time we stopped applying the soft bigotry of low expectations to senior executives?

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard