Fox news idiots owned by mayor of Lansing MI

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

The fox news anchor whines like a little bitch because auto industry workers have the temerity to want decent wages and health care. The Mayor sets him straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-nLS6FJtSM

[Sephiroth]

The auto industry works already have decent wages and healthcare, so much so along with shitty management it is bankrupting the US auto industry.

I find it hypocritical for the auto unions to claim they are the middle class, and all this shit when its billions of tax payer dollars that is paying for all their wages and perks. Management isn't paying its the real hardworking american taxpayers now.

Yes thank the mayor for standing up for the poor Auto Execs private jets, they might actually had to start driving the POS cars they sell.

Meanwhile CNN gets pwned by peanuts... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8yJVnPO5Y)

[Signa]

I can only hope that if that mayor is as mad at wall street as he sounds he will be the president in a few years. We don't need "change" we need some one to balance the inequities from the working class and the rich bastards who step on everyone else.

[Hath]

That was so awesome. Words cannot describe the respect I have for that Mayor. :P

[mountain_rage]

I'm a little confused here, did the "newscaster" make insinuations in past shows, or was the mayor being asked questions by someone else? Because his initial rant did not fit the question. Good rant, but I can't figure out whether is just went on a tangent or was antagonized before the interview.

[Signa]

The Fox guy was pretty much goading him into saying something he didn't feel by asking him a question a certain way. The mayor is a smart one, he didn't fall for it, and it threw him off the handle.

[beat@pp]

man i love it when once in a blue moon fox lets someone actually speak from the otherside, have you ever noticed that when someone actually begins to win the arguement that whoever is interviewing laughs at them and implies they are mental? theyve got a new guy on there called glen beck and hes the worse, i never thought id say that bill orielly isnt the most crazy person but this guy is a real nutjob. and of course the mayor is spot on about they way they bailed the wall street fat cats out but then start to moan when the working man is getting a fair wage for once.

[don webb]

I'm a little confused here, did the "newscaster" make insinuations in past shows, or was the mayor being asked questions by someone else? Because his initial rant did not fit the question. Good rant, but I can't figure out whether is just went on a tangent or was antagonized before the interview.





Just another Liberal foaming at the mouth

The big three American auto companies, Ford, American Motors and Chrysler are trying once again to convince Congress to give them the billions they had asked for the other day. They say it is the only way to save the American auto industry from bankruptcy

Their most vocal advocate is the mayor of Lansing, Michigan Mayor Virg Bernero. He sits in front of the television cameras time and time again speaking in an arrogant aggressive voice, demanding that we the tax payers step up to the plate and rescue the auto industry with a thirty-five billion plus dollar bailout or he predicts, the world as we know it will collapse.

Bernero is chairman of the newly established Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition. Bernero says the group wants Congress to approve $6 billion to replace old industrial sites and retrain workers.

The $6 billion is not part of the trillion dollar economic stimulus bill being debated by Congress.

He has visited Washington a few times in the past few months to lobby for the approval of a federal bailout for the Detroit Three automakers.

I watched Mayor Virg Bernero speaking with numerous auto industry employees standing behind him and shouting their support and cheering him on.

I wondered if Mayor Virg Bernero palms were coming a bit sweaty at the thought that prehaps,Congress might decide not to bail out the auto industry, that his constituent would hold him personally to blame, especially the unions whom surely supported his election.

So is it possible that an auto bailout might also be a bailout for the honorable mayor's future political aspirations that just might dissipate into the smog surrounding Lansing, Michigan.

Just some random thoughts going around........................:drunken_s

.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Just another Liberal foaming at the mouth

The big three American auto companies, Ford, American Motors and Chrysler are trying once again to convince Congress to give them the billions they had asked for the other day. They say it is the only way to save the American auto industry from bankruptcy

T

I wondered if Mayor Virg Bernero palms were coming a bit sweaty at the thought that prehaps,Congress might decide not to bail out the auto industry, that his constituent would hold him personally to blame, especially the unions whom surely supported his election.

So is it possible that an auto bailout might also be a bailout for the honorable mayor's future political aspirations that just might dissipate into the smog surrounding Lansing, Michigan.

Just some random thoughts going around........................:drunken_s

.

Those aren't random thoughts at all, they are the thoughts of a blogger whose sentences you have once again stolen without providing attribution.

A sorry creature is our don: so little going on between his ears that he relies on right wing bloggers to do his writing (and thinking) on his behalf.

[don webb]

Those aren't random thoughts at all, they are the thoughts of a blogger whose sentences you have once again stolen without providing attribution.





I did forget to mention that he is also known as the Angriest Mayor, I got 21,300 hits on Google on the search this mornig……..……..:icon_thum


PS..... Since you like rants so much............:drunken_s

TRADERS REVOLT: CNBC HOST CALLS FOR NEW 'TEA PARTY'

'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers'


http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853


.

[MoonMan]

It's really easy to knock the 3 automakers of Detroit, but their collapse will have devastating ramifications to the region. The national unemployment rate is at an "amazing" 7.6%.. but it's over 10% in Michigan.

What can be done? It seems like these roll backs in worker pay and benefits are futile and ultimately harmful since these companies are likely going to implode pretty soon regardless. That's just what I have been reading though (everywhere).

[Mels_Smileys45]

About the only thing they can do is what they are about to implement. Cut thousands of jobs and stop making shitty vehicles like the Hummer. Unless they cut the fat they will burn through the next billions about to be handed to them just as fast as they did the first. Its troubling that it took them so long to figure out how to cut cost to save the companies IMO. The government had to make them come up with a plan, other wise they would have simply let the industry burn around their heads as they wondered how to put out fire.

[Sephiroth]

My biggest problem with the auto industry both the unions and the companies themselves is that they are all so arrogant that they truly believe that the world will stop spinning if they go under.

The problem with the US Auto Industry has existed for decades, they stopped listening to the marketplace and what people want. A recent example is when they continued to make and push SUVs and Trucks when gas was $5 a gallon. GM has mismanaged Saturn so badly (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_09/b4121025530123.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories) that they are probably going to drop it.

A chapter 11 reorganization may be the only thing that can truly fix the US auto companies. I don't see how continuing to pump billions of taxpayer dollars is going to fix the real problems with these companies.

Any government plan is just for show, the Democrats will not allow these companies to fail because they benefit too much from them.

[thelastfreeman]

http://www.cubicdesign.fr/Back.jpg

[Mels_Smileys45]

And Saturn has a HUGE following among the young people. Its hard to believe they might drop it. I bet the Satty Fan forum is buzzing right now. I love my Satty. Ive never had a car that gets such good gas millage. 40MPG on the highway

[thelastfreeman]

Mels we could use your input in another thread involving Clint Eastwood.

[freeloader105]

Well I'm glad that not everyone agrees with the OP. This mayor is no better than the assholes at Fox News. He was off-topic, blurting out his agenda in a way no different than Bill O'Reilly might. Logic, reason, or debate are not allowed.

"Has the average worker given up enough?" No, more like HAVE THE UNIONS GIVEN UP ENOUGH? While it's true that the unions provide unrivaled benefits to such low-skilled workers, they're also partly responsible for the likely demise of the Big Three, because these benefits are unsustainable. In general, unions exist to exist. This isn't early 20th century where little kids work 14 hours in a coal-mine factory or something.

The workers at Japanese and German auto manufacturers get by just fine. And those companies, while not at their best, are certainly not even to be compared to the Big Three.

Is this really so complicated? Why does this incredible sense of entitlement exist? Me me me, gimme gimme gimme! Let's get the govt. to help us so we could burn through some more cash.

And comparing this to the things going on Wall Street is ridiculous. You know why? Because 2 wrongs don't make a right!

[Signa]

Well I'm glad that not everyone agrees with the OP. This mayor is no better than the assholes at Fox News. He was off-topic, blurting out his agenda in a way no different than Bill O'Reilly might. Logic, reason, or debate are not allowed.

"Has the average worker given up enough?" No, more like HAVE THE UNIONS GIVEN UP ENOUGH? While it's true that the unions provide unrivaled benefits to such low-skilled workers, they're also partly responsible for the likely demise of the Big Three, because these benefits are unsustainable. In general, unions exist to exist. This isn't early 20th century where little kids work 14 hours in a coal-mine factory or something.

The workers at Japanese and German auto manufacturers get by just fine. And those companies, while not at their best, are certainly not even to be compared to the Big Three.

Is this really so complicated? Why does this incredible sense of entitlement exist? Me me me, gimme gimme gimme! Let's get the govt. to help us so we could burn through some more cash.

And comparing this to the things going on Wall Street is ridiculous. You know why? Because 2 wrongs don't make a right!
My view on it is much more of the lack of balance, and not what they are getting now. Why is it that some one who sits in a chair all day crunching numbers deserves to be paid more than some one who sweats blood to make their living.

Agreed, unions are generally retarded, and you are quite likely right about them bleeding the companies dry and still asking for more. Thing is, do you know how many of those union workers are rich off their ass? I certainly don't hear of (m)any. It also pisses me off that unions pretty much give employees the right to just slack off because they can't really get fired that easily.

Obviously, there are two sides to this coin, but I'm going to take the unions side on this one. Wall street has more money than what they deserve, and even greedy unions aren't getting a fair share.

[don webb]

Why is it that some one who sits in a chair all day crunching numbers deserves to be paid more than some one who sweats blood to make their living.


Obviously, there are two sides to this coin, but I'm going to take the unions side on this one. Wall street has more money than what they deserve, and even greedy unions aren't getting a fair share.






Here we go with Wealth Envy again.............Fair Share………:hi

These people who "sit on their ass" and make the Big Bucks went to school prepared themselves for their future by getting an education and making the right decisions thru out their lives. They took the responsibility upon themselves to do so, they don't need a UNION MOUTH PIECE to speak for them.

They did not want to settle for a measly "Skilled or Unskilled Laborers Job"

Just getting through the educational part of their lives was hard and costly enough to be deserving of more. Normally these "Undeserving" are salaried employee's whom work many hours a week and do not get the benefit of OT.

These folks you claim work their fingers to the bone, sweating and bleeding for pitiful wages didn’t make these same decisions, they settle for their comfy simple lifestyles instead, without the responsibilities of a cushy job.

.

[Excrement_Cranium]

It isn't wealth envy. It's a ridiculous explosion of compensation that happened since the late 70's and ever since. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth, but the reckless greed exhibited in the past 30 plus years by executives, stuffing their pockets while driving their companies into the ground, has no logical or ethical defense, period.

These "fat cats" are defrauding boards and investors, costing the world economy billions, and laughing all the way to the bank. And then they go out and do it again.


Wealth envy? Bullshit. How about fed up with regulations that impede small businesses, at the same time rewarding corporate theft.

[Mels_Smileys45]

In the long run the Union is going to lose a ton of money because the auto industry is going to have to close down many operations to stay a viable company. They will still provide some high paying jobs but probably only about 1/3 of the total jobs they offer today.

The companies and the union have their blame to share and they will have to work together to get the costs under control while trying to figure out what products they can offer that will keep the industry alive. They can either get the spending under control or fold up shop. There is not going to be a quick turn around in the market so taking the billions in bail out funds and trying to ride it out will not work. I hope they worked really hard on those presentations they presented to congress because business as usual is not gonna cut it. Its a completely different market and most everyone is not gonna buy a new car unless the absolutely have to do so. Impulse spending on cars is not happening any longer. Huge car dealers have folded near me. The Mazda dealer is gone. I am not sure what other cars they offered but I found that shocking as they had been there as long as I can remember. Okay...I will stop rambling now but I can not see a way for the auto industry to support all it workers even if they cut their pay to the bone. Most will lose their jobs and that is actually already happening.

[don webb]

It isn't wealth envy. It's a ridiculous explosion of compensation that happened since the late 70's and ever since. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth, but the reckless greed exhibited in the past 30 plus years by executives, stuffing their pockets while driving their companies into the ground, has no logical or ethical defense, period.

These "fat cats" are And then they go out and do it again.


Wealth envy? Bullshit. How about fed up with regulations that impede small businesses, at the same time rewarding corporate theft.




I do not believe that Signa was speaking in the context of the "Big Fat Cats" defrauding boards and investors, costing the world economy billions, and laughing all the way to the bank.

I took his comments as defending Union Workers “Skilled/Unskilled Laborers” against lets say a Supervisor at work, Accountant or someone in that type of capacity only.

I was not defending “Fat Cats” or anyone else that would defraud boards and investors, and cost the world economy billions, and laugh all the way to the bank.

I agree with you totally on that front…………..:icon_thum

.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I do not believe that Signa was speaking in the context of the "Big Fat Cats" defrauding boards and investors, costing the world economy billions, and laughing all the way to the bank.

I took his comments as defending Union Workers “Skilled/Unskilled Laborers” against lets say a Supervisor at work, Accountant or someone in that type of capacity only.

I was not defending “Fat Cats” or anyone else that would defraud boards and investors, and cost the world economy billions, and laugh all the way to the bank.

I agree with you totally on that front…………..:icon_thum

.

I'm not a huge fan of union executive compensation, either. No single person who works directly for the union should earn a single dollar more than any given union member working for an employer, due to the fact that their pay comes from the pockets of the membership.

I was a Union worker in Grocery for 11 years, and I can say that the compensations for store-level management were often offset simply by benefits. For the first 8 years my healthcare coverage was an "invisible wage" that provided 100 percent coverage. After that, the coverage wasn't as full, and we had to do an "out of pocket" contribution each week (OMG 11 bucks), but compared to the packages and costs for store and assistant managers, what we had was gold.

[don webb]

.


GM shares hit 74-year low


GM Auto shares on Friday tumbled to their lowest level in more than 70 years, pulled down by a drop in the broder marketsand continued speculation about the future of the struggling automaker.


Shares hit a low of $1.52 in early afternoon trading, before rebounding to $1.82 later in the session. .....................


The low matched a record set on July 26, 1934, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago.

GM shares were worth $3.50 just a month ago and $25.54 a year ago.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_stock

.

[Signa]

I do not believe that Signa was speaking in the context of the "Big Fat Cats" defrauding boards and investors, costing the world economy billions, and laughing all the way to the bank.

I took his comments as defending Union Workers “Skilled/Unskilled Laborers” against lets say a Supervisor at work, Accountant or someone in that type of capacity only.

I was not defending “Fat Cats” or anyone else that would defraud boards and investors, and cost the world economy billions, and laugh all the way to the bank.

I agree with you totally on that front…………..:icon_thum

.
no, EC's post was exactly what I was talking about. I know that those office jobs are held by people that have educations. that doesn't make them entitled to fuck the rest of us over.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Damn Don, how can you miss the point so utterly and entirely?

Its the exploitation of the workers thats the problem. A line worker who does his job very well is just as important as a pencil pusher. In fact, I would say more important because he has the know how and ability to do a hard job very well and likely makes the company FAR more money than the pencil pusher ever will. The line worker keeps the quality of the product high by doing a good job. This is very important and the pencil pusher doesn't offer that much of a valuable service to the company. The fact that the pencil pusher gets to sit on their ass all day and take it easy should be the compensation they get, not the huge bonuses on their paycheck while the line workers go home with aching backs and swollen feet. The working class hero in the glue that holds these industries together and its high time its recognized. The pencil pusher should have the same low wage. Then there will be none of this so called "wealth envy" and the company will be able to hold down their costs and stay in business.


These companies could fire almost all the pencil pushers and the line would still keep pushing out product but they can't fire the working class man and expect that result. Who is more important? I think its very obvious and its time the people are compensated. Its time to stop all the outsourcing of the pencil pusher jobs as well. American has to take back our jobs if we ever expect to improve the economy. We are all in this sinking boat together so its time we work together and bail our own selves out of this mess and stop fighting amongst ourselves.

[mountain_rage]

Its the exploitation of the workers thats the problem. A line worker who does his job very well is just as important as a pencil pusher. In fact, I would say more important because he has the know how and ability to do a hard job very well and likely makes the company FAR more money than the pencil pusher ever will. The line worker keeps the quality of the product high by doing a good job. This is very important and the pencil pusher doesn't offer that much of a valuable service to the company. The fact that the pencil pusher gets to sit on their ass all day and take it easy should be the compensation they get, not the huge bonuses on their paycheck while the line workers go home with aching backs and swollen feet. The working class hero in the glue that holds these industries together and its high time its recognized. The pencil pusher should have the same low wage. Then there will be none of this so called "wealth envy" and the company will be able to hold down their costs and stay in business.

These companies could fire almost all the pencil pushers and the line would still keep pushing out product but they can't fire the working class man and expect that result. Who is more important? I think its very obvious and its time the people are compensated. Its time to stop all the outsourcing of the pencil pusher jobs as well. American has to take back our jobs if we ever expect to improve the economy. We are all in this sinking boat together so its time we work together and bail our own selves out of this mess and stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Actually with automation, the companies can fire almost all the line workers. Line workers are a dime a dozen, and rarely require special skills that can't be trained on the job. Some workers are better than other, and that is why you generally have promotions. A good company will even pay for training so the skilled workers can bring even more value to the company, and allow for that advancement. Certain skilled trades are a little less expendable, but that is why they are paid more than the unskilled line worker. So I would have to say the line worker is replaceable either with other workers, or increasingly with machines.

Now without the pencil pushers you would have no supplies to process, no deals signed, no product to build. The engineers design the products, the machines to manufacture the products, the process the worker uses to work on the product. You have marketing who checks for demand of a product, how to market it and what market to sell it in. The economist checks to see if the numbers make sense before manufacturing, ensuring that its even worth while to make the product. Management is a little more expendable, there are a lot of terrible managers right now, but a good manager is not so expendable. Good managers will increase moral, lower accidents and increase production numbers through process improvements. Its not sweat, pain and blood, but they are definitely not the easy job you make it out to be, hell the stress alone makes most of them die by 50.

The pencil pusher is personally responsible, which is another reason for the higher pay. Managers, engineers, doctors, scientists can all be sued for negligence if they fail to do their job properly, causing harm to others. Hell in places like China you get executed for screwing up. Companies can loose millions if these people don't do their job properly. Line workers screws up, than its not their ass on the line, its the engineers doing quality control.

Also who in their right mind would sacrifice tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school. Spending multiple years of dept or little spending money. Study their ass off to the point of having no social life, only to come out getting paid the same as the guy who got trained on the job in a week? Who is going to put their ass on the line to get paid the same as the guy working the floor?

Pay differences are there for a reason, and often it represents the value being generated by the worker, expendability and knowledge the worker brings. But it seems that things have gotten out of hand, and I question why some top managers are getting paid 20 million a year for making very simple decisions. But even more disturbing is the owners, and investors getting billions for simply having the capital to invest. Quite frankly I would like to see a more socialist system with a better distribution of wealth. Capitalism works only if there is social responsibility from those with capital, sadly its never true, as it tends to allow those with money, and no sense of responsibility to keep acquiring more and more capital until you have an unstable economy.

[carpefile]

Automation can replace most line workers, but not skilled trades. Automation can't fix itself, at least not yet and not for a long time to come.
Capitalism works when its left untainted. The risks have to be left in place with the benefits, something our mixed economy government still hasn't learned.

Another item you left unfactored in the equation, you need people able to purchase your product. Automation doesn't drive cars, people do, which is why Henry Ford paid his workers the highest wages of the time, $5 a day, so they could afford to buy his cars.

[mountain_rage]

Automation can replace most line workers, but not skilled trades. Automation can't fix itself, at least not yet and not for a long time to come.
Capitalism works when its left untainted. The risks have to be left in place with the benefits, something our mixed economy government still hasn't learned.

Another item you left unfactored in the equation, you need people able to purchase your product. Automation doesn't drive cars, people do, which is why Henry Ford paid his workers the highest wages of the time, $5 a day, so they could afford to buy his cars.

Quite frankly I disagree with your view of free market forces. As that would simply centralize funds even further. You would have huge monopolies that could demand exorbitant sums for products that should be sold for much less. The risks for big firms are not that high when they can simply buy out their competition. You need to have a balance between socialism and capitalism, including checks to ensure a company does not take over everything. Under a unregulated market you would be moving back to having huge single retailers like the Hudsons bay company.

The purchasing power I did cover because I mentioned pay inequality as being unbalanced. But unlike the rest of you I don't see it as a problem of the middle, but that of the two extremes. The salaries of the poorest and of the richest Americans needs to be pulled in closer to the mean salaries. There is no logical reason to allow one person to sit on billions of dollars of wealth. In fact I would argue that I touched on your point 100% sine I mentioned that there used to be social responsibility in the heads of companies, and that is what is currently lacking.

[carpefile]

I think you don't truly understand free market then, you only understand a mixed market. What we have now in the US is a mixed bastard of socialism and capitalism already. The profits are capitalized and the risks are socialized.
Obviously given the current state, it doesn't work.

There are at least ten line workers for every office worker, narrowing the gap in wages isn't going to offset the purchasing power of the many over the few.
The office worker isn't going to buy ten cars to replace the ten not being bought by the automation replacing the line workers.
Social responsibility for the wealthy is something that comes from a free market.
Monopolies come from government favoring corporate over citizens.

Companies can try to charge exorbitant prices in a free market but they can't last long doing so, because in a free market someone else can always offer the same goods and services or better for a more affordable price.

In a free market, competitive companies succeed and greedy ones fail.
A successful company is one who knows the value of its employees and recognizes that being socially responsible allows them to maintain their profitability over the long haul.

It's difficult to see this sometimes, because our economy has been so skewed for so long, and has been touted as a free market when it isn't.

When the government backs up a company with tax payer's money, its socialism not capitalism.

In a free market, none of this nastiness that has occurred over the last 20 years would have even been possible.
There would be no Central Bank, no Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

I got this from Cafe Hayek (http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/02/regulation-of-financial-markets.html), and it pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say, better than I do.
The notion that we have an “unregulated free market” is false.
If we had an unregulated free market, the organizations and individuals that made stupid investment decisions — those “jokers on Wall Street” — would now be bankrupt, to be replaced by more competent organizations and managers. Instead, under the current system, they are “bailed out” — at your expense — and allowed to continue operating.
If we had an unregulated free market, the investment rating agencies that rated securities containing subprime loans as “AAA” would be disgraced, bankrupt and out of business — no one on earth would deal with them any longer — they wouldn’t be able to pay people to use their services. Instead, under our current system, not only are all those rating services still in business, the S.E.C. requires that all issuers of investments use those rating agencies.
If we had an unregulated free market, no one would be forcing bankers to make riskier loans than they wish to, as is currently done by legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act and threats of lawsuits from organizations like ACORN and from the Federal Government‘s Justice Department (Clinton‘s DOJ filed 13 major lawsuits against banks for failure to lend to “minorities“).

If we had an unregulated free market, there would be no central banking entity in charge of a fiat money supply with the ability to:
a) Make vast amounts of credit available at below-market interest rates.
b) Follow such a persistent policy of inflation as to convince virtually everyone in the country that purchasing a house is “a good investment”.
c) Eliminate ( or at least significantly reduce) risk aversion by guaranteeing bankers that they (the Fed) will always be there as “lender of last resort”.
d) Condone and make possible a preposterously over-leveraged fractional reserve banking system under which banks currently hold total reserves of only about 4% and are thus extremely vulnerable to any sort of a run or loss of confidence in the bank.
If we had an unregulated free market there would be no quasi-government entities like Fannie and Freddie and the FHA to insure that trillions of dollars of that cheap credit made possible by the Fed was directed into the residential housing market, producing an unsustainable boom in housing construction, which, when it ends, leads inevitably into an economic bust.
If we had an unregulated free market, the Federal Government would not now be contemplating looting the American taxpayers of another trillion dollars or so to pay off various special interests that helped the latest collection of looters get into power.

We don’t have an unregulated free market. We have a “mixed economy”, with a few elements of capitalism struggling under the weight of literally thousands of pages of rules and regulations and dozens of government agencies interfering in virtually every aspect of our economic lives.
And under this set-up, it is you, the “little guy”, the individual who doesn’t have a powerful lobby in Washington to get the rules bent in your favor — you, who cannot command an audience with Congress to beg for your personal bailout — you, who can do nothing as government uses your funds to save the incompetent and the dishonest from the consequences of their own actions — it is you who gets screwed.
We don’t have an unregulated free market; we have an out-of-control government intent on looting us blind.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Edit: Addressed at MR. Took me a bit to write this post so Carpy had a chance to get in first!

People have to run the machines. Its impossible to make a man less factory. I don't see that happening. There are some processes that can be stream lined but most jobs require a person to be there. Automation has not nearly reached the point where a robot can do quick decision making that is needed for many operations. Robotic machines mostly make jobs easier for an operator and many factories will not invest in robotics because right now it would end up being more costly to them. Hiring knowledgeable people that can run and maintain complex machines is VERY costly. Its much easier and cost efficient to keep it simple. Thats why cars are still made by PEOPLE! I have had to sit through a few films on this subject during my factory days and you really don't know what youre talking about. Sorry but there it is. When you get out in the field for a while come back and talk to me. Until then stick to your school books. I can see computers pretty much replacing most engineering fields so pull up your boot straps buddy. Computers can let one person replace an entire office of engineers! Its going to be tough for you to find a decent job, Believe that or not. I have seen so many college graduates working in the factory you wouldn't believe it. College is great but it can be a huge waste of time. I myself went to a trade school and I think thats the best decision I made in my life. I wish I would have paid more attention during class, industrial electronics, but over all it gave me the knowledge to do a lot of things.


A good worker is VERY hard to replace. From my YEARS of experience in the work place I have found that a lot of people don't want to work or can't learn how to do things that I consider elementary. The job I use to have dealt a lot with math and I was shocked at many people who lacked basic math skills. No, its not easy to replace a good worker for many jobs and good workers deserve to be paid.

Now there are jobs out there that are very simple and they usually pay very little because simple people seek simple jobs. Just because a job is classified as manufacturing doesn't mean its "simple" though.



My perception of you, from reading your posts, is that you think most workers are simple monkeys and people in the field youre trying for are superior humans. I am telling you, you have a HUGE shock coming man. There was another post you made somewhere about how you wouldn't have any problems when you were on your own because you were use to living on the money you "receive" every month. Give me a break! Life can throw a curve ball at you at any second and suddenly youre struggling to get by week to week. It must be nice to have such an oblivious outlook on the world but sooner or later things get real. Sorry for the long post but come on, you havent been out there yet but youre filled with wisdom beyond your years? Yep, good luck with that.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

I f you had a completely unregulated free market you would have a handful of corporations owning and running everything and the rest of us would be slaves.

[Sephiroth]

I f you had a completely unregulated free market you would have a handful of corporations owning and running everything and the rest of us would be slaves.

In that case it wouldn't be a free market anymore.

[carpefile]

I f you had a completely unregulated free market you would have a handful of corporations owning and running everything and the rest of us would be slaves.

That would be called communism then.
In a completely unregulated free market a monopoly is next to impossible.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Also I want to add one more thing.

Most operations can not replace people with robotics because just like cars, the models change often. This mean the company would have to buy new robotics every year or so and that is way too expensive and not to mention wasteful. People can adapt where as fully automated robotics can not. At least not very much. People running and using robotics to assist them does help and cuts down man hours but it does not replace human workers and never will. When robots become advanced enough to be human then no one will have to work, except to build robots I guess, and then we will be faced with lots of new problems associated with that scenario.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

That would be called communism then.
In a completely unregulated free market a monopoly is next to impossible.

I'd imagine it would be very similar to Soviet totalitarianism, but instead of a politburo you'd have the chairs of a few corporations calling all the shots.

I can't imagine how monopoly would be "next to impossible", it's natural for most marketplaces to tend towards monopoly. Can you imagine how microsoft or some of the big pharmaceuticals would crush all the little guys if given carte blanche to do whatever they like?

Of course workers rights and such costly extravagances as health and safety regulations, paid vacation time, maternity leave and so on would go down the toilet, working hours would be extended and wages slashed, after all if you give employers a free hand to squeeze every last drop out of their workers they will naturally do everything they can to increase profit.

All this is pretty much hypothetical anyway, because these "libertarian" type economic solutions have no record of success anywhere, ever.


In that case it wouldn't be a free market anymore.

The market would be free, it's just people who would have no freedom's.

[carpefile]

They seemed to work fine in Hong Kong right up till it was handed back over to Chinese rule.

[Excrement_Cranium]

That would be called communism then.
In a completely unregulated free market a monopoly is next to impossible.

I'm having trouble working this out in my head.

So, how does this completely unregulated market prevent monopoly?

Use... hmmm... Walmart as an example. How would the free market, completely unregulated, prevent Walmart from putting everybody they compete with completely out of business?

[carpefile]

I'm having trouble working this out in my head.

So, how does this completely unregulated market prevent monopoly?

Use... hmmm... Walmart as an example. How would the free market, completely unregulated, prevent Walmart from putting everybody they compete with completely out of business?

Well for instance, they would not be receiving 1.5 billion in tax funded subsidies, tax abatements, free land, and no competition clauses from the cities they build stores in.

There would be no barrier of entry for other retailers to compete right next store to them.
You could open a "100% made in the USA" store right next store if you wanted to.
They would be vulnerable to anti-forced chinese labor marketing.

They wouldn't be able to push out their competitors by lobbying for higher minimum wages and would have to deal with their employees, either individually or collectively on a contract basis.

Having the lowest price isn't necessarily always the deciding factor on where people shop.
"Buy American" is still a strong mantra in a lot of places.

There will always be alternatives to Walmart.

[mountain_rage]

Mels

Manless factories will follow the creation of cheap automatons, but you are right, that is not going to happen for a good while. Factories that have eliminated the untrained line worker will start to prop up soon, the technology is there its just not yet economical. If people demand higher wages it may however becomes economical, or it may simply become cheaper to export the labor to other countries. Tradesmen are a main work force of the factories and they, unlike unskilled workers, are not expendable. Tradesmen go to school and some are well paid for it. The longer they spent in school, generally the more they are paid for their work. Its also why some workplaces will pay for the untrained worker to seek education at a college to advance in the company. Its the companies way of encouraging the workers to seek a better life for themselves through development and at the same time improves the companies work force.

Any manufacturing job, that does not require a trade college degree is expendable. You will always be able to find someone who can do those jobs. Hell, I worked a monkey job before starting school. Worked as a lumber stacker, that job could be automated but for the volume of wood being processed it just didn't make sense. Did it however require a genius to work the line, hell no. Were there people too stupid to do the job, sadly yes. All you had to do was identify the length of the lumber and stack it accordingly, apparently some people can't even do this task. But for 90% of the population, the job was simple and any new idiot could perform the task. Interestingly enough, one worker had a chemistry degree, sadly I don't think he had the social skills to get a job with his degree.

What jobs are you referring to that requires a smart unskilled worker? Putting a piece of metal in a hydraulic press? Screwing together an assembly? Grinding down a casting to remove the channels left behind? Pouring the molten metal into casts, setting up the mold form for the cast? Quality control? The above don't require a special skill and can all be automated, its just not economical at this time. Other than quality control, 90% of the population could perform the tasks, some are just unwilling.

On the other hand CNC operator, Rapid prototyping, welder, electrician, and mechanics do require special training at a college. The only position that I know of being replaced is the welder. So those are specially trained workers that are not expendable, and are generally appropriately paid for their skills.

I also feel you have no understanding of the technology used in manufacturing. Any process you need to do can be automated, currently some are too costly to automate but anything can be automated, we have the technology to copy any human action. You may have experience in factories, but just because the factories you worked don't automate doesn't mean others don't, or that the process can't be automated. Often the costs associated to automating manufacturing processes are too large for small operations. But really it depends on what they are manufacturing and technology is always getting cheaper. Sometimes its just the unwillingness from an owner to spend great sums of money on the technology that limits its adoption. Its an expensive risk many are just unwilling to undertake, but that can lead to huge value, depending on the market they are currently perusing. To simplify a process to the point an idiot can perform the task is even more feasible. Often a well designed chuck or dispenser can render a task stupid easy.

Also you mentioned car manufacturing, saying its all line workers putting them together. Here you are also wrong, the car manufacturing field has had a surge of automation. Its what made Toyota and Honda take the lead as their welding robots are faster, more precise and dependable than human welders. This has improved the quality of their vehicles allowing them to surge ahead of the North American brands. The robots used for these tasks are multi axis arms that can have any attachment designed for them, this makes them versatile for a multitude of jobs. Again it does take an operator, but as I said before, people with a trade degree cannot easily be replaced. You were talking about unskilled workers, and those are expendable in almost all circumstances either by machines or other workers. Another interesting automation is the supply management system, in some factories the parts are electronically delivered to the workstations, removing the need for forklift operators.

Also calling automation wasteful is a bit of a stretch. For one, very few machines are limited to one process. Most can be adapted with different rollers, tools and heads, various molds, and dies. Its also less wasteful than a human worker as it reduces errors causing less byproduct. It also increases the utilization raw metal, lowering the volume of reprocessed waste. Read any report you want, they will all tell you automation, if properly run, will lower waste.

Again pencil pushers are paid more for a reason, if you can't recognize that and seriously think they should be paid the same as line workers than you have a lot of growing up to do. Such a social system simply would not work, but by all means, if you think you can start such a company go for it. If you can create wage equality all the power to you. An engineer getting paid $80 000 to $100 000 does not seem unreasonable to me. Lawyers getting paid millions for a single case does seem stupid. As I said its not the middle earners that need to be helped, the the outliers, those making very little or exuberant amounts of money for doing no more than their peers making only average salaries.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Well for instance, they would not be receiving 1.5 billion in tax funded subsidies, tax abatements, free land, and no competition clauses from the cities they build stores in.

There would be no barrier of entry for other retailers to compete right next store to them.
You could open a "100% made in the USA" store right next store if you wanted to.
They would be vulnerable to anti-forced chinese labor marketing.

They wouldn't be able to push out their competitors by lobbying for higher minimum wages and would have to deal with their employees, either individually or collectively on a contract basis.

Having the lowest price isn't necessarily always the deciding factor on where people shop.
"Buy American" is still a strong mantra in a lot of places.

There will always be alternatives to Walmart.

Not enough people exercise those alternatives. And that's how local - and eventually major - competitors are edged out area by area when Walmart comes to town.

[carpefile]

The thing about a monopoly in a free market system is that it is very very hard to hold onto. You can only maintain it as long as you provide the lowest prices or best bang for the buck.
As soon as you try to jack your prices or lower your service, someone else moves in to fill the gap.

And ya know, if the market decides it will give its business to walmart, then that's the way it is. No one is forced to shop there.

[mountain_rage]

The thing about a monopoly in a free market system is that it is very very hard to hold onto. You can only maintain it as long as you provide the lowest prices or best bang for the buck.
As soon as you try to jack your prices or lower your service, someone else moves in to fill the gap.

And ya know, if the market decides it will give its business to walmart, then that's the way it is. No one is forced to shop there.

So are you proposing the elimination of patent and copyright laws also than, because otherwise you're whole plan makes no sense. But by unilaterally removing to systems, you go back to lots of research stopping due to lack of incentive. Hell I think both systems are broken, but they are needed to a certain extent.

[Excrement_Cranium]

The thing about a monopoly in a free market system is that it is very very hard to hold onto. You can only maintain it as long as you provide the lowest prices or best bang for the buck.
As soon as you try to jack your prices or lower your service, someone else moves in to fill the gap.

And ya know, if the market decides it will give its business to walmart, then that's the way it is. No one is forced to shop there.

So, what you are saying, is that monopolies are impossible in this mythical, unicorn-like free market, because you can "choose not to shop" the only business in 100 miles?

[carpefile]

So are you proposing the elimination of patent and copyright laws also than, because otherwise you're whole plan makes no sense. But by unilaterally removing to systems, you go back to lots of research stopping due to lack of incentive. Hell I think both systems are broken, but they are needed to a certain extent.Copyright and patent are whole other animals and would need to be addressed on their own.


So, what you are saying, is that monopolies are impossible in this mythical, unicorn-like free market, because you can "choose not to shop" the only business in 100 miles?
If you choose to believe that Walmart will be the only retailer within 100 miles I suppose there's not much more to discuss. Even in this age of noncompetition contracts and land usage agreements designed not to let others build nearby, that isn't the case.

[mountain_rage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwZXHYxjn4U