[J m HofMarN]

http://www.msnbc.msn...world_business/

So, to sum up the article, American companies are posting higher profits than their foreign counterparts. Yay USA right? On the surface that's a great statement, but this article actually looks into things like unemployment rate, job security, etc. America has one of the highest unemployment rates of any of the G8 industrialized nations (coupled with one of the shoddiest safety nets) and that's because companies in the other developed nations are more willing to share in economic losses than in the US, where profitability is put before all. Also, it points out that its harder for foreign companies to fire their workers due to increased union participation (apparently out of 31 countries rated, the US is one of the bottom 4 in union membership)

So, discuss.

[civilian_number_two]

That's why we must destroy all unions! All collective bargaining on behalf of the workers must be done by the government! The government must have the exclusive contract on how the people it taxes are to make their money! And if the companies that are fed by the stock market need to inflate their bottom line so that their shares can do well, the government will see to it that the workers are taken real special care of! Government must be bigger! Stronger! Slower!

[J m HofMarN]

It's strange though, those unions seem to be lowering corporate profits despite the "fact" that corporations invented unionization in the first place to stop people from coming to work drunk. It's a double edged sword, I suppose.

[civilian_number_two]

[being serious] Yeah let's be careful not to use their rhetoric though. Most of these "struggling" corporations show record incomees. Their profits are down because they spend too much money, and not necessarily on employees. So they look to the employees as the thing they can do without. In some cases, ie with mechanization, it is the case, but in others they're making stupid demands, like "work smarter, not harder' (despite offering no new training) or "do more with less" (despite offering no sensible explanation as to how that can be done).

Our Western governments are increasingly anti-union. To me it looks like they want to remove any competition for control. And they mask it in the same rhetoric used by the corporations, talking of how the unions don't help workers, and only collect dues from them, and can't protect their jobs in bad economies (unions don't claim to be able to do this, but corporate rhetoric insists that they do claim it). What happens if they do destroy collective bargaining? We already know they're not going to increase the minimum wage, or create incentives for corporations to employ Americans. So how will they be working for the citizens of their country? What will they be doing to meet the promises of new jobs? [/being serious]

And while we're at it, let's privatize social security and pensions, and link them to the stock exchange! It worked for Enron!

[Jordan]

I think they're trying to compete with companies abroad, which don't have unions and lower pay. The job market is actually improving the US at the moment. Which is very good, because work is starting to dry up here. My company for the last two years has only done public works contracts. There is little to no private job market at the moment for construction. And public works jobs are on verge of drying up as well. Our local government was smart enough to hold most public funded jobs for when the time came when the economy would halt, and then they filled the void, but now they are running out of money....

Many companies in my field outsource parts of each job to the domincan republic and india, because it's cheaper and clients only ever hire the lowest bidder in consulting. I know from my experience, many of the companies are not making a profit. I'm all for unions, but perhaps they are keeping us from being competative?

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, sure, but the most competitive company would be the one with the most slaves. Fact is, "competitive" wage negotiation only works for skilled labour. Unions are to protect labour; without contracts those workers would be taking risks for minimum wage/ And they'd be glad to be working!

The problem with capitalism is that the incentive is to maximize the bottom line so that the shares go up. There's no incentive to pay for the best labour, since the profit of your company is so closely tied to it's alleged value.

I don't know. This is the first time in years I have smoked weed, so I could be off my nut.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan - The article was really a comparison to those companies and countries, many of which have had net employment growrth in the decade, whereas the US has had net employment loss, and probably will for some time no matter how many jobs they add.

What you describe actually sounds pretty good to me, if that's the way things work in Canada - The companies aren't making a ton of money, but they're keeping people employed. The government seems to be helping this by increasing spending. In the US, most of the workers there would certainly have been laid off already so that the companies could make massive profits and pay their CEOs million dollar bonuses.

I think competitiveness can only really take a country so far, and in times of economic crisis, that should definitely be put aside for the greater good, sharing the burden and all that. In the US, wealth has become even more concentrated than ever before in the hands of 1 percent of the population, whereas the other 99 percent has gotten far poorer. The wealthy are making hard times even harder for the vast majority of people, and that's just not acceptable.

[Zatoichi]

And it's too bad that even with conditions as they are, the US citizenship would never revolt. We as a people are far too comfortable with our lifestyles to actually fight for something. And really, who out there wants to die? Even for their beliefs.

[J m HofMarN]

Well, Deucaon certainly supports a violent revolt. Against what, I have no idea, but he definitely wants a lot more violence and random shootings.

[Zatoichi]

which is odd, because I don't see how random shootings are actually supposed to do anything for anyone. Maybe he just wants to be able to kill people and get away with it. With no authority position in place to stop him killing for the thrill of it or some such. Turn the no consequences realm of various medias into real life. But ah, I think this might be a tad misrepresentational and somewhat off topic.

And while non-violent revolutions are certainly possible, I just don't see that happening here. You know, if we were to have one in the first place.

[J m HofMarN]

Yeah that basically describes most Ayn Randist thought. I remember putting forth situation after situation to him and he repeatedly answered that the solution would be either individual or militia violence, even down to McDonalds putting pickles on a burger that wasn't supposed to get them.

To be more topical, I have recently heard people questioning whether teachers' unions are the problem in the U.S. education system... Really???

[Zatoichi]

I don't think the Unions themselves are a problem, but I think tenure is a HUGE problem. I'd go into detail, but it'd just be a lot easier to rent the documentary Waiting for Superman. It's pretty good thing to watch and you can probably get it from Redbox or Netflix for cheap. Basically though there are loads of teachers who once they get tenure do a shite job and are nearly impossible to fire. They become a waste of money and damage the learning of anyone they get in thier classes.

Well, I could go into detail, but not right now. A bit busy atm. (And yet I still have the time to post about stuff on here )

[civilian_number_two]

Here's a math problem: if all of the companies in a particular industry were signed up with the same union, and all of the labourers earned the same wage for the same work, how would companies reduce costs in order to raise their stock prices? For the purposes of this problem, imagine that delivery costs and the cost of supplies remain the same for everyone.

[Gobbler]

I don't really see the problem there. I work in technology consulting and when we enter a bid, we always have to assume that human resource always cost somewhere around a certain amount per hour or day and that the means of delivery and supplies are also quite stable for everyone, since we're mostly dealing with immaterial goods.

So yeah, basically it always boils down to managerial and operational efficiency (which is where freelancer-consultants usually take the cake). Plus your own brand's strength and a few more details, but again, efficiency rules everything. So by fixing prices for those surrounding factors like wages and all, one might actually argue that you're providing an even stronger incentive for companies to either excel completely or seek out niche markets and start developing those.

[civilian_number_two]

Nice nice. Any other responses before I begin my rant?