unemployement, a possible cause.

Too many people target entitlements too readily, in my view. I would scale back our out of country military operations first. Quit occupying so many places, stop spending billions at the drop of a hat. Then quit giving welfare to big businesses.

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I do agree with you though about our collective need to worry more about our competitiveness and less about our entitlements.
Nope… given that the net result of automation / robotics / artificial intelligence is underemployment, a large fraction of the population will not have conventional gainful employment, and thus may well need so-called "entitlements".

What if - as Europeans are now discovering and Americans just beginning to - the cost of these entitlements exceeds what those who work produce? The largely unskilled auto workers of Michigan and Ontario believed that they were "entitled" to the continuation of their high-paying jobs and that they could continue to resist (and strike against) automation that would raise their productivity (at the cost of the loss of some jobs). It turned out their "entitlement" (and their labor contract) were worthless as the industry collapsed and most of their entitlements vanished.

Meanwhile other, more modern (and non union) plants in Kentucky and Tennissee continue to operate and to flourish as they and their workforce adapt to changing conditions.

Human history is the story of dissappeared cultures that failed to compete.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Please re-read my post more carefully as your response is more of a short-term, knee-jerk; it lacks references to the changes I refer to as per "… given that the net result of automation / robotics / artificial intelligence is underemployment, a large fraction of the population will not have conventional gainful employment, and thus may well need so-called "entitlements".

You are confusing so-called “competition”, conventional gainful employment, economic success, and the net result of automation / robotics / artificial intelligence; plus you are trying to drive by looking in the rear view mirror.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Perhaps you should specify just what you assume will be the results of "automation / robotics / artificial intelligence; " etc on overall economic performance and the behavior of people.

These factors have been operating in the West for a long time already, and, as we are finding out, even with their effects, we can no longer sustain even existing levels of entitlements, much less a significant increase in them.

You can label a future projection based on past behavior and the observed results of analogous factors as "driving while looking in the rear view mirror". However, what would you call a future projection based on assumptions quite unrelated to observable reality?

0 Replies

@Chumly,

I've searched the house from one end to the other and have yet to find a dribble-cup. Could you suggest an alternative?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sometimes I think the only exercise you get is from jumping to conclusions ob.

Quote:

It turned out their "entitlement" (and their labor contract) were worthless as the industry collapsed and most of their entitlements vanished.

Of course management and owners in the US auto industry had nothing to do with the sorry state of the auto industry. Right?

Anyone who bought a Toyota in the 90's can attest to the fact that the big 3 were churning out garbage and those "unskilled" Detroit workers were hardly the cause.

You hate the unions at a gut level ob. Just like Mitch McConnel and Bob Corker do. And their right to work states(Kentucky and Tennessee) landed foreign plants only because Heckel and Jeckel promised no union involvement, lower wages and benefits and less adherence to safe working conditions.

You know what's really funny? Those same foreign auto makers have unionized workers in their home country.

Some people would rather see our auto industry go down the tubes than to see the union survive.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

You hate the unions at a gut level ob. Just like Mitch McConnel and Bob Corker do. And their right to work states(Kentucky and Tennessee) landed foreign plants only because Heckel and Jeckel promised no union involvement, lower wages and benefits and less adherence to safe working conditions.

You know what's really funny? Those same foreign auto makers have unionized workers in their home country.

Some people would rather see our auto industry go down the tubes than to see the union survive.

You sound so obviously like someone in Detroit who is trying to compete with the non-union plants. Who says they are unsafe? Yes, they probably do have lower wages and less benefits, but those new autoworker jobs are a lot better than what was there before and still are half the cost of Detroit labor.

Unions have their place, but when they stand in the way of progress, they serve no one. In general, the southern auto plants are excellent, clean, safe, high paying places to work and the workers are glad to have those jobs. BMW is near here in SC and I can tell you it is a great place to work. It's not easy work, but some of the most secure, high-paying jobs in the area. We are very glad they came here. The textile mills failed to compete and are nearly completely gone. And, oh yeah, while Detroit is struggling, BMW is expanding.

3 Replies

I'm thinking and here, the slow sort.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

My mention of unsafe was not germane so I'll withdraw that.

Quote:

And, oh yeah, while Detroit is struggling, BMW is expanding.

If you lay that at the feet of the unions you're mistaken IMO.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Well said!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Oylok wrote:

I'm going to remain neutral until someone directly attacks the insurance industry.

When I said "attack", I was thinking more along the lines of a direct claim that insurance jobs were superfluous, parasitic "service" jobs, because I certainly do not believe that. There are many service jobs we could do without, but any well-functioning capitalist economy needs a vibrant insurance industry. Socialist economies need doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers. Capitalist economies also need advertising and insurance people.

The closest things to an attack on actuaries that I have heard have been complaints about bankers and about costly malpractice insurance. But neither of those really concerns me: banking isn't my industry, and the high costs of malpractice insurance are more the fault of our tort law than anything else.

CI wrote:

the consumers are attacking the insurance companies by dropping their high premium insurance

(BTW, I don't consider it an "attack" if consumers drop their coverage because of the ridiculously high premiums. It's completely rational, which is why insurance companies hate charging such high premiums to healthy people. It's really the government that is attacking us, when they tell us we have to charge everyone the same rate Shocked

, but that's a bone to gnaw in another thread.)

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Osso wrote:

I'm thinking and here, the slow sort.

I hear you there, as I am also the "slow sort". Could it be a sign that you like to take the time to understand the issue before deciding which side you are on?

I'm thinking of getting a turtle as my avatar, albeit a snapping turtle.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

I have had extensive dealings with Labor unions (both the metal and the building trades) in managing two large companies, each with fairly large union memberships of about 2,000 members. I signed three collective bargainning agreements and put up with the intransigence and self-seeking behavior of labor unions that took no interest whatever in the health of the enterprise that employed their members and wired their dues directly into the Union's accounts. They invariably stood in the way of any productivity-enhancing change in method or routine and worked incessantly to chisel a little more money, a little less work, a few more restrictive work rules, and new requirements to have multiple union workers with slightly different "skills" on the scene of any work activity that should have taken only one of them.

In nature an intelligent parasite doesn't kill its host - instead it saps him of energy and nutrients, but is careful to keep him alive. Labor Unions are not intelligent parasites.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I have had extensive dealings with Labor unions (both the metal and the building trades) in managing two large companies, each with fairly large union memberships of about 2,000 members. I signed three collective bargainning agreements and put up with the intransigence and self-seeking behavior of labor unions that took no interest whatever in the health of the enterprise that employed their members and wired their dues directly into the Union's accounts. They invariably stood in the way of any productivity-enhancing change in method or routine and worked incessantly to chisel a little more money, a little less work, a few more restrictive work rules, and new requirements to have multiple union workers with slightly different "skills" on the scene of any work activity that should have taken only one of them.

In nature an intelligent parasite doesn't kill its host - instead it saps him of energy and nutrients, but is careful to keep him alive. Labor Unions are not intelligent parasites.

Let me guess: Millrights and pipe fitters??? And what is self seeking... Is That is what I do before a pee break when for hours in the cold I have been working with numb hands, and a face too frozen to talk with??? I will grant you that some people take advantage of every union just as some people carry their unions... Would you rather that the government do its job and in doing so make all unions unncessary??? Would that be the same thing??? People ride the form now that others carry, and they may always do so... Only certain death will stop them...

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

If you lay that at the feet of the unions you're mistaken IMO.

I would never say it's that easy. In fact, I think GM is making somewhat of a come back. Time will tell. I certainly hope they do well. GM's problem was one of arrogance. That existed in upper and middle management. They took way too long to make the drastic changes they are finally making.

This whole unemployment issue is very complex. There are many feet at which to place blame. As a country we are really dragging our feet to change our workforce into something more flexible and talented. I think education is the first answer. But here in SC, all I hear about are cuts in education. I don't understand that approach when it looks to me as the solution to many of our state problems. We are far down the list in so many areas. They are even proposing to shorten the school year to save money. Sometimes I think the 'powers that be' think a dumber workforce means lower wages and that is a good thing. dumb, really dumb.

I would propose huge investment in two areas, education and infrastructure. More technical schools. Highway improvements. New bridges. New parks.

Why not? What's more important? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Apparently.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In nature an intelligent parasite doesn't kill its host - instead it saps him of energy and nutrients, but is careful to keep him alive. Labor Unions are not intelligent parasites.

Certainly there is some truth to that, but horrific examples exist at the other end as well. The coal mining tragedies in Kentucky come to mind. Labor Unions are not the only parasites.

I had a job doing field service on programmable controllers years ago (1970s). I was sent out from our plant to a new Monsanto plant being built to repair some of our computers. At first they weren't going to let me into the building because I wasn't union, but when I explained there were only two of us that could fix this equipment, they relented. It took 3 men to hook up a power cord to our computer. One guy stood there and watched me work all day and turned the equipment on and off when I ask him to. They weren't going to let me touch the circuit boards until I showed them one and explained that it cost over $5k and if their fat fingers damaged it, who would pay? I also realized these guys were making three times what I was but could never do what I was doing. Ah, the good old days. It turned out they moved some of the wires in our equipment when attaching the external wiring.

2 Replies

@Oylok,

Hi, Oylok. Yes. I often see the points of differing sides, sometimes more than two sides. This is probably why I'm an addict of a2k, in that in contrast to some of my reading elsewhere, I can get a bath of opinions on one thread here, and in the best threads many well worded reasoned posts that conflict with each other. I've been known to myself to change my mind as I read more nuanced information.

Turtles, of course, are swell.

My father was an early union guy (film editors). I've been, on some issues, pro union. I've also moved away from just agreeing.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
In nature an intelligent parasite doesn't kill its host - instead it saps him of energy and nutrients, but is careful to keep him alive. Labor Unions are not intelligent parasites.

Certainly there is some truth to that, but horrific examples exist at the other end as well. The coal mining tragedies in Kentucky come to mind. Labor Unions are not the only parasites.

I had a job doing field service on programmable controllers years ago (1970s). I was sent out from our plant to a new Monsanto plant being built to repair some of our computers. At first they weren't going to let me into the building because I wasn't union, but when I explained there were only two of us that could fix this equipment, they relented. It took 3 men to hook up a power cord to our computer. One guy stood there and watched me work all day and turned the equipment on and off when I ask him to. They weren't going to let me touch the circuit boards until I showed them one and explained that it cost over $5k and if their fat fingers damaged it, who would pay? I also realized these guys were making three times what I was but could never do what I was doing. Ah, the good old days. It turned out they moved some of the wires in our equipment when attaching the external wiring.

The truth is that they are not parasites at all except on their members... It is the member's labor which supports both the contractors and the union, and the contractors are just a parasitic as the unions... It is a lousy analogy based upon the mistaken notion that capital supports the workers... Nothing could be further from the truth...

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Agreeing, you just said it for me.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
In nature an intelligent parasite doesn't kill its host - instead it saps him of energy and nutrients, but is careful to keep him alive. Labor Unions are not intelligent parasites.

Certainly there is some truth to that, but horrific examples exist at the other end as well. The coal mining tragedies in Kentucky come to mind. Labor Unions are not the only parasites.

The coal mining companies in question had all been thoroughly unionized for many decades. Apparently the UMW is not an adequate remedy for these employeer abuses.

I agree that some companies do indeed exploit their workers. However, that is not generally true. In contrast, I have not yet encountered a Labor Union that did not cynically exploit both its members and the enterprise from which it extracted its (ample) revenues. Union bosses live very well - many union officers get salaries (and pensions when they retire) from both their local union and the national union. The law (except in right to work states) gives them monopoly control of their membership or industry that no company enjoys. They spend huge fractions of their revenues on buying political favor to extend their monopoly control. (it's a great racket - you don't even have to invoice your clients or make any effort to collect your dues: the law requires that employers prededuct the dues from employee wages and deposit them in union accounts on payday.)

They, of course, rationalize their behavior by citing abuses of the past and their noble intent to improve the lot of the working person. In fact they encourage complacency and dependence on the part of their members and almost always end up destroying the industries they infect.

Perhaps no union so amply exemplafies these behaviors as well as the American Federation of Teachers. That union made massive financial contributionsd to the recent defeat of a Mayor of Washington DC who (along with Michelle Ree the head of the school administration) alone among their predecessors over the last four or five decades had made real improvements in the performance of one of the most costly (in terms of per student spending) and ineffective (in terms of measured learning achievement and graduation rates) school systems in the country. Ten years earlier the head of the AFT local union in Washington was convicted of embezzling about three million dollars from the local. When the head of the national AFT union was questioned before a Congressional Committee why despite the provision in its charter requiring an annual audit ofr the local's financial records, no such audit had been conducted for the previous ten years. His answer was "there is no legally enforcable requirements for the performance of these audits".

1 Reply

unemployement, a possible cause.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know