"It's Boeing, and the Union's Going"

[BehindBlueI's]

Now hold on, I'm not trying to get all up in your ****. I know where I am. You said, And I'm just saying, no, the competition involved isn't just what the competitors are willing to work for. There's a total cost, which is what I thought was BH's point. I wouldn't put taxes as far up on that list as he does, but it's not insignificant either.

I still don't think you are getting what I was saying. Note:

Good luck competing on taxes and wages.

If someone is going to whine that Unions drove wages too high and that's what drove the companies overseas, then you are saying we can compete if only wages were lower. We can't. Union or non-union, your wage is significantly higher than what wages are for the same work in other parts of the world.

And as for the gov't teat, is anyone here advocating corporate welfare? Please point them out. I'll join the pile on.

Honestly, tell me its viewed the same that GE gets corporate welfare vs welfare for individuals. Head on over to the drug testing thread if you need an example. Criminals shouldn't get welfare, right?

 

[jblomenberg16]

I still don't think you are getting what I was saying. Note:



If someone is going to whine that Unions drove wages too high and that's what drove the companies overseas, then you are saying we can compete if only wages were lower. We can't. Union or non-union, your wage is significantly higher than what wages are for the same work in other parts of the world.

This is true. Fortunately our standard of living in higher here in the USA too. Its still better to be an unskilled or semi-skilled laborer in the US than it is to be in a similar position in the developing world. As those countries see an improvement in their standards of living, their wages will go up as well. We're already seeing it in India.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I still don't think you are getting what I was saying. Note:



If someone is going to whine that Unions drove wages too high and that's what drove the companies overseas, then you are saying we can compete if only wages were lower. We can't. Union or non-union, your wage is significantly higher than what wages are for the same work in other parts of the world.



Honestly, tell me its viewed the same that GE gets corporate welfare vs welfare for individuals. Head on over to the drug testing thread if you need an example. Criminals shouldn't get welfare, right?

It wasn't foreign competition which drove PanAmerican, Eastern, Continental, and Alaska Air Lines out of business; it was (to a certain extent) de-regulation - requiring a new business model - higher expenses, and intransigent labor unions who had rather shut the airline down than make concessions. And even with those ongoing examples, I was another self-immolator (on a much smaller scale) at the small helicopter company I worked for in 1983. The company was experiencing a simultaneous downturn of business in the "Oil Patch" and a couple bad business decisions (PEMEX had the company rebuild a couple helicopters and then couldn't pay for them). The owner wanted us to transition from 7 days on / 7 days off to 5 days on and two days off until business got better. We refused and the the company laid us all off.


Edit: The helicopter company remained in business for another 10 years or so, after surviving the business downturn, but I never went back there, nor did most of my co-workers. I _did_ however, learn a lesson about researching the ramifications of potential job decisions. . .

 

[Arthur Dent]

What happens when these countries become more westernized, and start asking for comparable wages and benefits? I am of the belief that if companies paid based on the actual value of labor instead of "hey you're someone in SE Asia, so we can pay you less" then any incentive to hire people abroad is gone.

Chinese and Mexican workers are fast figuring out that they can demand higher wages.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Does anyone remember what a new car (domestic or foreign) cost in 1971? My Datsun 1200 sedan cost $1800; a new Datsun 240Z cost @ $4000; a new Corvette cost $7000. All of those cars had seat belts, front head rests, and darn little other "safety equipment." I'm not sure what the National Traffic Safety stats were for traffic fatalities in 1971, and I wonder if they're much different in 2014 (or the last year we had stats). Yes, I know "inflation," but consider all the other "environmental & safety features" that we have mandated on today's new cars, and how they simultaneously affect "safety" and "the environment" and how much they've added to the costs of buying a new car (or an air conditioner, or a refrigerator or . . . ). Are we getting our money's worth?

Oh, oh, oh, I love this! It's worthy of its own thread, IMO, but let's do it here. I actually started paying attention to this when I noticed that my 1980 Corvette was outclassed in every way by a 1997 Camaro Z-28. Now my 2008 Taurus, not exactly a performance car, makes more power, gets better milage, etc. than my old 'Vette did.

So, let's see. 1971 Datsun 240Z new was $3550-ish base. That's a fuzz over $20,500 in today's money.

1971 240Z stats:
151 hp
0-60 in 8 seconds
21 mpg average fuel economy

To put that in perspective, many of today's econoboxes can whip it in everything but sex appeal.

10 Fastest New Cars Available Under $20,000

Focus SE
Kia Forte (???!!!)

The Mazda 3 spanks it at $17k MSRP.

I won't argue cars haven't gone up in price compared to both inflation and wages when taken as a whole, however its a far cry to blame it all on safety and environmental regs. The performance is better, the longevity is much better, and there's a lot more capability in today's cars.

 

[terrehautian]

CSB: I had a former coworker who's son got a job at Kroger as a night stocker while he was in school many moons ago. So because of his position he was required to join the union. This kid was working less than 20 hours a week, and the union dues were not prorated... they were the same flat fee for every employee regardless of hours worked or hourly rate. thanks to his low hours and low pay as an entry level stocker, the union literally cost him almost 50% of his pay, with his final paycheck being somewhere around 70% less than gross. It was sickening to hear his dad describe it. I think the kid wised up and found a new job as soon as he could.

One of my jobs was a utility clerk at Krogers (sacking/getting carts). I was required to join the union, but I made more then minimum wage (which is what I probably would have got). Also, I got raised at 6 months and another one (can't remember, I quit due to school and my last check had the raise on it). Union wages are based on earnings (so if you only make 5k a year, there is a scale for how much you pay). It isn't like everyone pays $50 out of their pay check to the union, even if you pay check was $100. If it wasn't for being union at my current job for many years, I wouldn't make near what I do. Sadly, the company went cheap and pays the part timers minimum wage. Before the union was voted out, the contract they were working on had the part timers making more. Since the company choose not to do that and pay them minimum wage, I felt it was in their best interest to let the union go (I was shop steward by default when the other one retired). We were a small union shop (two full timers and five part timers). Both of us full time were already at the top of the pay scale, so contract or not, our raises didn't change.

 

[jamil]

Does anyone remember what a new car (domestic or foreign) cost in 1971? My Datsun 1200 sedan cost $1800; a new Datsun 240Z cost @ $4000; a new Corvette cost $7000. All of those cars had seat belts, front head rests, and darn little other "safety equipment." I'm not sure what the National Traffic Safety stats were for traffic fatalities in 1971, and I wonder if they're much different in 2014 (or the last year we had stats). Yes, I know "inflation," but consider all the other "environmental & safety features" that we have mandated on today's new cars, and how they simultaneously affect "safety" and "the environment" and how much they've added to the costs of buying a new car (or an air conditioner, or a refrigerator or . . . ). Are we getting our money's worth?

I don't know how much the NTSB required stuff affects the current price. Cars today are way more complicated than they were back then. Some of that is because of needless regulation. A lot of it is evolution. I'd say we get a lot of bang for the buck compared with 1971. Every year car companies offer more featues and quality improvements to get you to buy their products. If no car companies added those things I imagine the price would probably be about what it was then without inflation.

I think the market should handle the saftey concerns and fuel efficiency. But I don't yern for the old days when my oldsmobile rusted after just 5 years. Heck, my mother-out-law has a 5 year old car now and it still looks new.

 

[jamil]

I still don't think you are getting what I was saying. Note:



If someone is going to whine that Unions drove wages too high and that's what drove the companies overseas, then you are saying we can compete if only wages were lower. We can't. Union or non-union, your wage is significantly higher than what wages are for the same work in other parts of the world.



Honestly, tell me its viewed the same that GE gets corporate welfare vs welfare for individuals. Head on over to the drug testing thread if you need an example. Criminals shouldn't get welfare, right?

I think you can't tell on which parts I am agreeing with you. I didn't say that we can compete only if our wages are lower. In fact I said that there are a lot more elements involved than just the cost of labor and taxes. I've stayed away from the drug testing thread. Are the capitalists over there unbearable?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think you can't tell on which parts I am agreeing with you. I didn't say that we can compete only if our wages are lower. In fact I said that there are a lot more elements involved than just the cost of labor and taxes. I've stayed away from the drug testing thread. Are the capitalists over there unbearable?

We're talking past each other. I get that you're agreeing with me, I'm simply saying I was not attempting to address all of the various costs and decision points that go into moving a business overseas or domestically. I was simply addressing the single point I quoted about "jobs move overseas because of wages and taxes being too high" as a fallacy. Taxes for these multinationals are already very low in effective tax rates. Wages are not something we can compete on if we wish to maintain our standard of living. Comments I directed at other posts were not directed toward your more indepth post about those various costs, etc.

 

[jamil]

Comments I directed at other posts were not directed toward your more indepth post about those various costs, etc.

Ah. There's the disconnect.

 

[jblomenberg16]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It wasn't foreign competition which drove PanAmerican, Eastern, Continental, and Alaska Air Lines out of business; it was (to a certain extent) de-regulation - requiring a new business model - higher expenses, and intransigent labor unions who had rather shut the airline down than make concessions. And even with those ongoing examples, I was another self-immolator (on a much smaller scale) at the small helicopter company I worked for in 1983. The company was experiencing a simultaneous downturn of business in the "Oil Patch" and a couple bad business decisions (PEMEX had the company rebuild a couple helicopters and then couldn't pay for them). The owner wanted us to transition from 7 days on / 7 days off to 5 days on and two days off until business got better. We refused and the the company laid us all off.


Edit: The helicopter company remained in business for another 10 years or so, after surviving the business downturn, but I never went back there, nor did most of my co-workers. I _did_ however, learn a lesson about researching the ramifications of potential job decisions. . .

I'm no expert in commercial aviation and the business aspect of it. In the business classes I took in college it was basically described as a monetary blackhole that required constant monitoring if you wanted to invest there for some delusional reason. I guess my question would be, how much does the union have to give to support a failing business model, and at what point is it simpler better to say "if you can't make these requirements, its better for us just to leave."

This pretty well sums up what I recall. Big airlines suck. Small airlines suck less, but are still risky ventures:

Why Airlines Aren't Profitable (DAL,UAL,AAL,LUV)

Funny aside from the article:

United, for instance, spends staggering amounts on union labor and, not coincidentally, lost $723 million in 2012. Some older airlines eventually do figure it out, however. 2013 was an exceedingly profitable year for Delta, as the company made $11 billion on sales of $38 billion.

Funny how they mention union labor in the sentence about United losing money, but neglect to mention that Delta is also using union labor when they talk about them being profitable in the next line.

 

[rhino]

Still sticking with labor unions sucking. And political parties too.

 

[MisterChester]

Still sticking with labor unions sucking. And political parties too.

Labor unions didn't suck years ago. We can thank them for many things most employees enjoy today and take for granted. Nowadays a lot of them are there simply to keep themselves intact instead of helping their workers.

I could say the same about political parties, but that's simply because they don't have any serious competition and they are rarely held accountable for their actions. Trying to keep themselves intact and relevant before actually listening to their members.

 

[jamil]

Labor unions didn't suck years ago. We can thank them for many things most employees enjoy today and take for granted. Nowadays a lot of them are there simply to keep themselves intact instead of helping their workers.

I could say the same about political parties, but that's simply because they don't have any serious competition and they are rarely held accountable for their actions. Trying to keep themselves intact and relevant before actually listening to their members.

I kinda think it's more about keeping themselves rich.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I don't know how much the NTSB required stuff affects the current price. Cars today are way more complicated than they were back then. Some of that is because of needless regulation. A lot of it is evolution. I'd say we get a lot of bang for the buck compared with 1971. Every year car companies offer more featues and quality improvements to get you to buy their products. If no car companies added those things I imagine the price would probably be about what it was then without inflation.

I think the market should handle the saftey concerns and fuel efficiency. But I don't yern for the old days when my oldsmobile rusted after just 5 years. Heck, my mother-out-law has a 5 year old car now and it still looks new.

The market wasn't making any changes regarding safety and fuel efficiency because big business decided what you wanted to buy. THAT is what nearly doomed GM, Ford and Chrysler.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I'm not sure what the National Traffic Safety stats were for traffic fatalities in 1971, and I wonder if they're much different in 2014 (or the last year we had stats).

FARS Encyclopedia

Doesn't go back to 1971 but I think you can see that even since 1994 traffic fatalities have been trending downward.

Wikipedia goes back a bit further. But it's Wikipedia so it may not be as accurate. Although the sources cited are credible.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Oh, oh, oh, I love this! It's worthy of its own thread, IMO, but let's do it here. I actually started paying attention to this when I noticed that my 1980 Corvette was outclassed in every way by a 1997 Camaro Z-28. Now my 2008 Taurus, not exactly a performance car, makes more power, gets better milage, etc. than my old 'Vette did.

So, let's see. 1971 Datsun 240Z new was $3550-ish base. That's a fuzz over $20,500 in today's money.

1971 240Z stats:
151 hp
0-60 in 8 seconds
21 mpg average fuel economy

To put that in perspective, many of today's econoboxes can whip it in everything but sex appeal.

10 Fastest New Cars Available Under $20,000

Focus SE
Kia Forte (???!!!)

The Mazda 3 spanks it at $17k MSRP.

I won't argue cars haven't gone up in price compared to both inflation and wages when taken as a whole, however its a far cry to blame it all on safety and environmental regs. The performance is better, the longevity is much better, and there's a lot more capability in today's cars.

I don't know how much the NTSB required stuff affects the current price. Cars today are way more complicated than they were back then. Some of that is because of needless regulation. A lot of it is evolution. I'd say we get a lot of bang for the buck compared with 1971. Every year car companies offer more featues and quality improvements to get you to buy their products. If no car companies added those things I imagine the price would probably be about what it was then without inflation.

I think the market should handle the saftey concerns and fuel efficiency. But I don't yern for the old days when my oldsmobile rusted after just 5 years. Heck, my mother-out-law has a 5 year old car now and it still looks new.

I won't argue that our personal transportation vehicles have evolved over the years, but how much of that evolution has been market-driven (increased horsepower, more comforts) and how much has been driven by regulations (mileage requirements, EPA requirements, NTSB requirements)? I can make similar arguments for aviation safety - specifically in Army Aviation - that new aircraft have evolved to be more "comfortable" and "safe", but the ostensible safety features in both ground and air transportation have been far eclipsed by the efforts to prevent accidents through human error (as an example).

In other words, the ostensible goals which supposedly drive the regulations: safety, economy, clean air, etc. have actually been achieved at less front-end cost by education rather than by engineering.

 

[jamil]

I won't argue that our personal transportation vehicles have evolved over the years, but how much of that evolution has been market-driven (increased horsepower, more comforts) and how much has been driven by regulations (mileage requirements, EPA requirements, NTSB requirements)? I can make similar arguments for aviation safety - specifically in Army Aviation - that new aircraft have evolved to be more "comfortable" and "safe", but the ostensible safety features in both ground and air transportation have been far eclipsed by the efforts to prevent accidents through human error (as an example).

In other words, the ostensible goals which supposedly drive the regulations: safety, economy, clean air, etc. have actually been achieved at less front-end cost by education rather than by engineering.

Increased HP is definitely market driven. If the EPA had it's way all that extra efficiency would be put into fuel economy and we'd all be driving these: