The 'What is Wrong With Michigan' Thread

[HolidayInnExpress]

Well then why don't we just go to full-blown socialism and have the government give people lots of money? All that disposable income would get the economy going, according to your theory. Thats essentially what these companies were doing, was it not? Yes, they were profitable, but I would guess that I wouldn't have to spend $18,000 on a car if labor costs were't so high. The car companies made their money selling the cars to consumers (you and me). Since the companies have to turn a profit, the price of a car reflects the cost of labor, does it not?

Oh, so now you want to play the

[GRDadof3]

A high standard of living is a good thing ONLY if it is based on real value brought to the table (skills, ingenuity, creativity, education, hard work), which I think you would agree with HolidayInnExpress. If the current and upcoming lowering of standard of living happens, so be it! People act like society has never been through economic bad times before. This country has, and every other country has, and we always will. Globalization most likely will raise the standard of living in the countries that are benefitting. It's the cycle of life. The more we try to pacify ourselves and take any hardship out of our lives, the more we lull ourselves into creating a "make-believe world", and the worse the fall will be. Suck it up!

[HolidayInnExpress]

A high standard of living is a good thing ONLY if it is based on real value brought to the table (skills, ingenuity, creativity, education, hard work), which I think you would agree with HolidayInnExpress. If the current and upcoming lowering of standard of living happens, so be it! People act like society has never been through economic bad times before. This country has, and every other country has, and we always will. Globalization most likely will raise the standard of living in the countries that are benefitting. It's the cycle of life. The more we try to pacify ourselves and take any hardship out of our lives, the more we lull ourselves into creating a "make-believe world", and the worse the fall will be. Suck it up!

Yes, I agree with your analysis. I will add that all those attributes you mention can manifest in low standards of living as well. You make a solid point though. The problem is that not everyone thinks as you. Americans think a high standard of living is their entitlement for working hard, education and the other things you mentioned. All those things do not guarantee a high standard of living...but Americans expect them to, more so now than ever before in our history. Consequently, handing the correction of our economy is an issue of managing expectations, which I don

[torgo]

Oh, so now you want to play the

[HolidayInnExpress]

Its not a cop-out at all, rather, I am just interpreting what you wrote.

"...high pay created increased consumer consumption and that consumer consumption constitutes 2/3 of GDP"

Simply extrapolating on this theory, we arrive at the conclusion that highly-paid workers with large disposable incomes drive (or drove) the service sector of the economy, and hence created jobs here instead of overseas. But who cares where the extra income came from? If the government were to raise taxes and start doling out checks left and right, people would have extra money spend it on services, thus creating jobs, according to your theory. Is that not at least a step toward a socialistic system?

You also state that companies were profitable, thus, we arrive at the conclusion that these profitable companies were able to cover their production costs, which include labor, overhead, and the like, plus a little extra for "profit". Thus, when I buy a car for $18,000, isn't part of the price going to the wages of the laborers? If unskilled laborers were paid a reasonable $15/hour instead of $45/hour, wouldn't I be able to save some money because that $18,000 car might only cost me $17,000, or $16,000? I could use an extra thousand bucks every bit as some union worker.

You are right about a free market working to one's benefit or detriment. Free markets are a good thing, but many labor unions are fighting against the will of that market by demanding excessively high pay and extravagant benefits. If they were to always get their way, the companies would have to charge $50,000 for every car. That's why the next car I get isn't coming from a "unionized" company

You seemed to have entered the realm of Fiscal policy in regards creating economic activity. I don

[torgo]

You seemed to have entered the realm of Fiscal policy in regards creating economic activity. I don

[HolidayInnExpress]

My overall point here is that people should not be "given" wages that are completely out of whack with market standards. This is what unions are trying to do. You seem to defend the union giveaways by disguising it as "free market" economics, when it is quite the opposite. Maybe I misread your posts. Sheeesh!

The only Market Standard should be profitability of the company. Certainly if these Union workers would have their pay cut in half, such would only increase the profits to the company and shareholders. The drive to reduce wages should not be shareholder driven. If a company can remain profitable while workers earn a high rate of pay and the product that they produce remains affordable...I don

[RustTown]

I see two fundamental points, here, that have either not been covered or touched on, and they are the two most human (and ugly ones) points.

1. A company head(s) will try first and foremost to make as much money as possible, with the only thing holding them back are laws and ethics and minimal protection of it's workers. To think that companies have any interest in their workers beyond that is pie-and-the-ideology. They are not there to provide charity or goodwill, and both conservatives and liberals would be wise to realize this.

2. A worker is going to try and pull as much as he/she can from a company, only working to his/her maximum potential if he/she thinks they are getting a good deal.

That, IMO, is why unions are needed, the help balance the playing field. To try and take unions out of the picture as ancient relics of times gone by that are no longer needed would be like me going in the other extreme and saying that everyone should be given charity, or given equal pay despite their workload (i.e. hardcore social/communism).

[GRDadof3]

I see two fundamental points, here, that have either not been covered or touched on, and they are the two most human (and ugly ones) points.

1. A company head(s) will try first and foremost to make as much money as possible, with the only thing holding them back are laws and ethics and minimal protection of it's workers. To think that companies have any interest in their workers beyond that is pie-and-the-ideology. They are not there to provide charity or goodwill, and both conservatives and liberals would be wise to realize this.

2. A worker is going to try and pull as much as he/she can from a company, only working to his/her maximum potential if he/she thinks they are getting a good deal.

Oyy! As for the first, don't forget the shareholder, for which title many of us now hold with money invested in stocks through our 401K's and mutual funds.

As for the second, if that is your own personal attitude, then yes indeed, you do need a union to represent you. And don't PM me looking for a job when you get out of college

[PBJ]

2. A worker is going to try and pull as much as he/she can from a company, only working to his/her maximum potential if he/she thinks they are getting a good deal.

I'm not a union member, i'm an office worker, and i work my tail off, b/c that's what justifies my healthy salary. Granted there are people here in the office that do enough "to get by" but. Why do I do this, because yes I hope to get a raise/promotion/recognition, and although I may get more responsibility or money, i'll still work just as hard. There are plenty of people that are this way in "corporate america", union, non union, blue collar, white collar. I think people work at thier max if they find the job interesting/challenging and see room to grow.

One thing that is self evident and for sure.....when I was working in factories and low end jobs....I certainly did not have the time to spend on the internet debating whats wrong with Michigan....and neither would any of you

I worked in a union factory as a temp one summer. We had plenty of time to look at the internet when we finished our "daily piece count quota" 2 hours before our official shift was done. They just didn't give us computers. So the union guys made us look busy by cleaning so they wouldn't get an increased work load, or we'd go "hide" someplace remote and play cards

/just sayin'

[HolidayInnExpress]

I'm not a union member, i'm an office worker, and i work my tail off, b/c that's what justifies my healthy salary. Granted there are people here in the office that do enough "to get by" but. Why do I do this, because yes I hope to get a raise/promotion/recognition, and although I may get more responsibility or money, i'll still work just as hard. There are plenty of people that are this way in "corporate america", union, non union, blue collar, white collar. I think people work at thier max if they find the job interesting/challenging and see room to grow.

I worked in a union factory as a temp one summer. We had plenty of time to look at the internet when we finished our "daily piece count quota" 2 hours before our official shift was done. They just didn't give us computers. So the union guys made us look busy by cleaning so they wouldn't get an increased work load, or we'd go "hide" someplace remote and play cards

/just sayin'

That is why I qualified my statement by saying that what was true for me is not true for all. When I worked in factories and restaurants, my supervisors and boss ALWAYS made sure I was busy. If the line was down, they would make me sweep the floor or something menial...but I had better be working. There was no DOWN time for me...except lunch and break time.

What I glean from a few of you is some sort of emotional disdain for unions which I don

[RustTown]

Oyy! As for the first, don't forget the shareholder, for which title many of us now hold with money invested in stocks through our 401K's and mutual funds.

As for the second, if that is your own personal attitude, then yes indeed, you do need a union to represent you. And don't PM me looking for a job when you get out of college

I'm not saying that is my personal attitude (and I don't even know why you went that route in assumming that of someone you don't know), but it is an ugly and unfortunately average human character trait. Now, if you can contrive and effective arguement to why unions don't need to exist or need to be severely crippled or weakened, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm not going to deal in petty jests or jabs at ones character.

[HolidayInnExpress]

I'm not saying that is my personal attitude (and I don't even know why you went that route in assumming that of someone you don't know), but it is an ugly and unfortunately average human character trait. Now, if you can contrive and effective arguement to why unions don't need to exist or need to be severely crippled or weakened, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm not going to deal in petty jests or jabs at ones character.

I heard it somewhere yesterday on radio or TV......"If you want men who give a damn about a job....then you have to give them pay that is worth a damn".

[GaryP]

I'm not saying that is my personal attitude (and I don't even know why you went that route in assumming that of someone you don't know), but it is an ugly and unfortunately average human character trait. Now, if you can contrive and effective arguement to why unions don't need to exist or need to be severely crippled or weakened, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm not going to deal in petty jests or jabs at ones character.

I tried to give an example of a union that needs to be weakened earlier in this thread.

Another exerpt from the same article I mentioned yesterday.

Consider the benefits package, now worth some $40/hr on top of wages, for workers at Delphi, GM and other Detroit car companies.

The gold plated medical benefits provide free choice of treatment with virtually no co-pays or deductibles. Retirees also get defined, and generous, pension payments for as long as they live, instead of the 410(k) accounts more typical nowadays. And workers can collect full pensions after 30 years on the job. They can retire around 50 and collect medical and pension benefits for more years than they actually worked. The contract forbids factory closings, and requires that laid-off workers get close to full pay and benefits while waiting in the "jobs bank" for real work. Delphi is paying out $100 Million per quarter to 4,000 idle workers, Mr. Miller (idiot) says.

[HolidayInnExpress]

I tried to give an example of a union that needs to be weakened earlier in this thread.

You did not post the evidence of why this is a problem economically. Indeed, it is a problem due to the company not being able to maintain profitablity in the global market.....but thats NOT the argument your making. You are making the argument based upon what OTHER people outside the industry earn....which is totally unrelated. So what that other people don't get such good benefits? How is it hurting them that these Delphi workers are? Again...it sounds like jealousy and envy. The only people that this is an issue for is owners and workes. If a company can maintain healthy profitablity with the ability to reinvest and consumers can and do support the price point of the product......unions and workers are justified in maintaining their wage and benefit levels.

[GRDadof3]

I'm not saying that is my personal attitude (and I don't even know why you went that route in assumming that of someone you don't know), but it is an ugly and unfortunately average human character trait. Now, if you can contrive and effective arguement to why unions don't need to exist or need to be severely crippled or weakened, I'm willing to hear you out, but I'm not going to deal in petty jests or jabs at ones character.

I said "if that's your own personal attitude". If it's not true, then it's not a character jab. My opinion about unions is the same as it has been: they don't create a balance, they have now created an imbalance. Any type of system that lumps people as a commodity, as opposed to individuals, is wrong. I have bargaining power, it's called "go into my bosses office, show him or her what I have done, show why I deserve a pay raise or promotion, and if I am serious enough about it, I look for a job elsewhere if they don't give it to me". All unions do is take that negotiating power away from individuals, and just realigns it with the union bosses. You're still working for "the man" just painted a different color and much smellier. At least managers and senior executives have accountabilty to the shareholders. Who are union representatives accountable to? Certainly not their members. If you're dissatisfied with their performance, what recourse do you have?

BTW: Have a sense of humor, would ya.

[HolidayInnExpress]

I said "if that's your own personal attitude". If it's not true, then it's not a character jab. My opinion about unions is the same as it has been: they don't create a balance, they have now created an imbalance. Any type of system that lumps people as a commodity, as opposed to individuals, is wrong. I have bargaining power, it's called "go into my bosses office, show him or her what I have done, show why I deserve a pay raise or promotion, and if I am serious enough about it, I look for a job elsewhere if they don't give it to me". All unions do is take that negotiating power away from individuals, and just realigns it with the union bosses. You're still working for "the man" just painted a different color and much smellier. At least managers and senior executives have accountabilty to the shareholders. Who are union representatives accountable to? Certainly not their members. If you're dissatisfied with their performance, what recourse do you have?

BTW: Have a sense of humor, would ya.

Under our economic construct, workers are simply a form of capital investment. They are not seen as

[GRDadof3]

Under our economic construct, workers are simply a form of capital investment. They are not seen as

[GaryP]

You did not post the evidence of why this is a problem economically. Indeed, it is a problem due to the company not being able to maintain profitablity in the global market.....but thats NOT the argument your making.

That is the argument I was making.

You are making the argument based upon what OTHER people outside the industry earn....which is totally unrelated. So what that other people don't get such good benefits? How is it hurting them that these Delphi workers are?

Making a comparison to OTHER people INSIDE the industry; this contract is making them uncompetetive.

Again...it sounds like jealousy and envy.

I am making observation and analysis; I am not passing judgment and will not pass judgment. Passing judgment corrupts the intellectual integrity that allows discovery and openness.

The only people that this is an issue for is owners and workes. If a company can maintain healthy profitablity with the ability to reinvest and consumers can and do support the price point of the product......unions and workers are justified in maintaining their wage and benefit levels.

can we agree that Delphi is not maintaining a healthy profitability?

[HolidayInnExpress]

I'll disagree with this, and then we have to go get some Halloween "stuff" at the store. I believe that I personally make more money, and also contribute more to my company, as an individual than as part of a "team". When I get asked in interviews "are you a team player", my answer is always "depends on what you mean by team player". I have always been a top producer in every position I have held, and the only person I owe any of that to is my Wife. The situation you cited regarding layoffs may be true for large companies, but most Americans work for small companies of less than 100 people (including probably most of us here), where things are much different. Just my $.02, and I'm outta here!

I'll probably check back in later tonight. Welcome aboard HolidayInnExpress!

Well, if that was true it would seem to me that you would not need the job or the co-workers...you could start your own business and do it all yourself. Obviously there is some synergy gained from the symbiotic relationships in the firm you work for. You are correct that most Americans work for small businesses, however, I do not think that changes the fact that companies go into business to make a profit and hence when workers need to be let go in order to maintain that quest...the employee is jettisoned...although likely with a little more grief and with less coldness than in a large corporation. If this was not the case...unemployment would never go up...because compassionate companies would not want to harm the lives of their individual employees, despite what it would do to their company

[HolidayInnExpress]

That is the argument I was making.

Making a comparison to OTHER people INSIDE the industry; this contract is making them uncompetetive.

I am making observation and analysis; I am not passing judgment and will not pass judgment. Passing judgment corrupts the intellectual integrity that allows discovery and openness.

can we agree that Delphi is not maintaining a healthy profitability?

Yes...we can and do agree on this....but it is best that Unions ask for more than they know they can get in order that the can get the most that they can. That is how the bargaining game is played. The Unions would strangle themselves if they did not grant concessions and it made the company go under. Union leadership should have perfect knowlege of the books and economic conditions in order to bargain intelligently. I can only asusme they do....and are not suicidal.

[GaryP]

Yes...we can and do agree on this....but it is best that Unions ask for more than they know they can get in order that the can get the most that they can. That is how the bargaining game is played.

This has always been my position. That's the union's job - go out and get as much as you can. This is a case where the union got a rediculous contract compared to more successful companies in the industry. I don't blame the union for it either. I blame GM for negotiating such a terrible contract. The contract has taken Delphi to bankruptcy. I won't blame Delphi when they beat the hell out of the UAW in bankruptcy and get the best deal possible either.

[HolidayInnExpress]

This has always been my position. That's the union's job - go out and get as much as you can. This is a case where the union got a rediculous contract compared to more successful companies in the industry. I don't blame the union for it either. I blame GM for negotiating such a terrible contract. The contract has taken Delphi to bankruptcy. I won't blame Delphi when they beat the hell out of the UAW in bankruptcy and get the best deal possible either.

I think both the Union and GM were at equal causation to this problem...given that it is both of their responsibilities to look out for the health of the company as well as the workers. They based their decisions upon the market conditions at the time of original negotiation...I think. What I do now is that market conditions have drastically changed. Also, Delphi would not have made the move when it did if not for change in bankruptcy law and their attempt to meet the deadline before filling in the future would be more costly. There was likely little market necessity for them to have done this at this time...but they knew that eventually they would have to based upon trends.

[RustTown]

^Exactly. It seems we can come to some agreement on this.

A corporation and a union are two NEEDED halves of a whole. That's all I was getting at. I'm simply annoyed with the attitude over this way that unions are something that need to be hated, and that offer nothing good to society. That's the attitude that seems to ooze through, here. I'm not some union shrill or hack, I'm simply tired of the conservative mindset in West Michigan that paints them as evily as a few paint corporations.

[GRDadof3]

Uhhh, anti-union sentiment is widespread around the country LMichigan, except maybe in Flint, Saginaw and Lansing. And HolidayInnExpress, I have thought about going into business for myself, and even writing an article/book about how the 90's (and still permeates today) "Teamwork" mentality that many corporations have adopted is not really teamwork, and has led to them to become less competitive in the global economy. But that is for another time. But just a thought, have you ever worked on a "team project", where everyone was was given equal share, there was no defined leader, and it actually turned out well (or got finished at all)?