Labor or Management?

[VirginiaCougar]

May Day had me thinking about this. We face a lot of serious economic problems in the US. The reasons are complex and multifaceted. But if push came to shove and you had to pick one - who do you think is more responsible for our economic challenges?

1) The Laborer. Arguments would involve labor unions, expected wages and benefits, productivity, work ethic, etc.

2) Management. Those managing America's banking and finance sectors, CEOs of corporations who see jobs as the first place to cut to increase profits, short-term vs. long-term considerations, risk taking, etc.

Support your answer. I was surprised at how strongly I came down on this issue when I thought about it at length, but I won't prejudice the argument with my position just yet. Convince me you are right.

[Goatnapper'96]

May Day had me thinking about this. We face a lot of serious economic problems in the US. The reasons are complex and multifaceted. But if push came to shove and you had to pick one - who do you think is more responsible for our economic challenges?

1) The Laborer. Arguments would involve labor unions, expected wages and benefits, productivity, work ethic, etc.

2) Management. Those managing America's banking and finance sectors, CEOs of corporations who see jobs as the first place to cut to increase profits, short-term vs. long-term considerations, risk taking, etc.

Support your answer. I was surprised at how strongly I came down on this issue when I thought about it at length, but I won't prejudice the argument with my position just yet. Convince me you are right.

I think it is neither. I think the biggest culprit is a growing world economy bolstered by economic and political development in many countries of the world. The world has become our campus! But like a Liberal you look at it as a small pie and are trying to figure out which players that you hope you can control are responsible for the unfair way the pie is cut up.

I do think that management and shareholders are better equipped to deal with/take advantage of the changing dynamics of the world economy but as the ever charming Judge Smails said: "the world needs ditch diggers too!"

[Indy Coug]

In addition to Goatnapper's post I would submit that the unwillingness/inability of the laborer to get sufficient education and expanded skillsets to respond to the shift in the types of jobs available in America.

[Goatnapper'96]

In addition to Goatnapper's post I would submit that the unwillingness/inability of the laborer to get sufficient education and expanded skillsets to respond to the shift in the types of jobs available in America.

Which is my next opinion of who to blame - the government/American People. What has prevented this shift from taking place is because the government created a fiscal environment where both households and the government have taken upon themselves ungawdly amounts of debt to subsidize a lifestyle that was inflated, disastrous and entirely disconnected from the country's genuine economic ouput/capacity. The government/people have allowed this day of reckoning, both we should spend less and change our skillsets for the brave new world, to consistently be put off into the future.

[byu71]

I think it is neither. I think the biggest culprit is a growing world economy bolstered by economic and political development in many countries of the world. The world has become our campus! But like a Liberal you look at it as a small pie and are trying to figure out which players that you hope you can control are responsible for the unfair way the pie is cut up.

I do think that management and shareholders are better equipped to deal with/take advantage of the changing dynamics of the world economy but as the ever charming Judge Smails said: "the world needs ditch diggers too!"

What he said.

[Blueintheface]

I think it is neither. I think the biggest culprit is a growing world economy bolstered by economic and political development in many countries of the world. The world has become our campus! But like a Liberal you look at it as a small pie and are trying to figure out which players that you hope you can control are responsible for the unfair way the pie is cut up.

I do think that management and shareholders are better equipped to deal with/take advantage of the changing dynamics of the world economy but as the ever charming Judge Smails said: "the world needs ditch diggers too!"

Now how 'bout a Fresca!?

[VirginiaCougar]

I think it is neither. I think the biggest culprit is a growing world economy bolstered by economic and political development in many countries of the world. The world has become our campus! But like a Liberal you look at it as a small pie and are trying to figure out which players that you hope you can control are responsible for the unfair way the pie is cut up.

I do think that management and shareholders are better equipped to deal with/take advantage of the changing dynamics of the world economy but as the ever charming Judge Smails said: "the world needs ditch diggers too!"

I found your quote interesting. Do you think the question has less merit in a globalized economy where capital and labor demands can flow so freely? I think that is probably has more merit. It is interesting that you then try to pigeon-hole the conversation into a liberal vs. conservative false dichotomy as if just throw out the evil pejorative "liberal" (misapplied by the way) negated any discussion of the issue.

The static vs. growing pie argument is also weakly and falsely applied. Does my question lose merit because world economies and the size of the pie has grown larger? Does the fact that the US economy is many times larger today than it was in the 1900s mean that we don't have any economic problems and because those problems don't exist they cannot have any inherent causation?

[VirginiaCougar]

In addition to Goatnapper's post I would submit that the unwillingness/inability of the laborer to get sufficient education and expanded skillsets to respond to the shift in the types of jobs available in America.

I accept much of your argument. I think some are unwilling to get the type of education to compete in today's global economy. I also believe that there is an inability (lack of access for a number of reasons) to acquire that education for many Americans. A good part of that lack of access is cost, particularly higher ed costs too much. Another part is lack of money - the case in many public schools (No, just throwing money at something isn't the answer either.)

Perhaps more fundamental is the disparagement of education in today's society where public school teachers are attacked as lazy moochers, the acquisition of knowledge mocked, etc. Sadly, this has become a key argument of certain political philosophies these days.

[Pelado]

In general, a management team who doesn't treat its best producers as well or better than its competitors will lose its best producers to its competitors. The resulting company, devoid of its best producers, will not last in the global marketplace.

A union who protects its worst producers at the expense of its best producers doom all its producers to a company that will not last in the global marketplace.

[CJF]

Which is my next opinion of who to blame - the government/American People. What has prevented this shift from taking place is because the government created a fiscal environment where both households and the government have taken upon themselves ungawdly amounts of debt to subsidize a lifestyle that was inflated, disastrous and entirely disconnected from the country's genuine economic ouput/capacity. The government/people have allowed this day of reckoning, both we should spend less and change our skillsets for the brave new world, to consistently be put off into the future.

This.

[Goatnapper'96]

I found your quote interesting. Do you think the question has less merit in a globalized economy where capital and labor demands can flow so freely? I think that is probably has more merit. It is interesting that you then try to pigeon-hole the conversation into a liberal vs. conservative false dichotomy as if just throw out the evil pejorative "liberal" (misapplied by the way) negated any discussion of the issue.

The static vs. growing pie argument is also weakly and falsely applied. Does my question lose merit because world economies and the size of the pie has grown larger? Does the fact that the US economy is many times larger today than it was in the 1900s mean that we don't have any economic problems and because those problems don't exist they cannot have any inherent causation?

Perhaps the problem started with my interpretation of your question. You referenced many financial problems here in the US and then asked who was most culpable between labor and management. I read a great deal into that question about income disparity and the loss of US manufacturing which in turn has disrupted segments of our society because the old American dream no longer means an 18 year old from some medium sized town in Ohio can fall out of bed after high school graduation and follow his dad to the mill or the factory while listening to little ditty about two kids growin' up in the heartland! That debate is full of conservative and liberal arguments about who is to blame and how to best handle it. My biggest criticism of the liberal arguments is that it starts from the perspective of who is to blame because IMO too many liberals view the pie as something that cannot grow and hence make their arguments about how to best redistribute the existing pie. I like throwing liberal towards you because it always made me laugh whenever you were trolling cougarboard as you would try to argue that you are really moderate or center-right or whatever you used to describe yourself and then claim it is just this new brand of Republicans are so extreme..yadda..yadda..yadda. I was hoping you would bite more than you did.

I don't think your question loses any merit. I think the economical challenges are real. So I agree with you that the US is facing financial and economic challenges. Where I disagree with your question is I want to quote Yosemite Sam and tell you "no, no, no! You are going about it all wrong!" It is not an issue of labor vs management. It is a global issue where that job that Jackie got when he didn't become a big football star, no longer exists. But the reason it no longer exists is extremely complex. My opinion is that the post WWII US Hegemony facilitated so much wealth being developed in this country that management could afford, and had no choice but to, pay extremely historically abnormal wages and benefits for unskilled labor. The reasons are because the world was aligned with two poles of children of the promise on the right and the gawdless evil empire on the left. Much of the world was not available to unskilled labor, or the selling of products, and of course the cost of travel made supply chains more expensive. Further, other than the US the other countries that were part of the children of the promise (i.e. Europe) has been so successful in totally destroying themselves during WWII that the US had a one-two decade jump on them in establishing the post WWII manufacturing advantages that the US enjoyed. It took a while to rebuild the factories and infrastructure that were decimated in WWII. This reality was a huge advantage for labor as until that infrastructure was rebuilt the representatives of capital had to deal with US labor demands because there was no where else to put the factories because no where else had roads, railroads, ports and airports. Additionally, these advantages along with the good ol Yankee aggressive entrepenurial spirit produced a hegemony that provided us enough wealth to pay our unskilled laborers the demanded wages and benefits. However, the times started a-changin' in the 70's and 80's culminating in Ronald Reagan's noble victory over the gawdless evil empire. Which wasn't so much US victory as it was a victory of free markets. Starting then the world became more open, transportation costs began to decrease and products began being consumed in places not on the North American or European continents thus allowing and forcing supply chains to get smaller. These are different circumstances than what our hegemony was based upon. As our hegemony has been systematically eroding and that wealth which had been more focussed within the US has diffused internationally, the way we reacted was by going into debt both privately and publicly to falsely prop up a lifestyle growing at the same rate as it did while the hegemony was alive and kicking. I think the financial and real estate crisis of the last 5 years was the biggest adjustment back to reality we have had to deal with.

Now as for liberal, it seems to me that when I listen to the President or read Paul Krugman they seem to not want to face the reality that the circumstances of that hegemony have changed and that is what is most responsible for the loss of manufacturing and all those kids who didn't become football stars from finding great work after the grow up in the heartland. Obviously, this change has hurt labor more than capital because capital can react to the changing circumstances and still earn a great ROI. However, I frequently read about US manufacturing not being able to fill its higher skilled positions because our laborers lack those skills. I think the culture of blaming the owners of capital for the present circumstances only lead to reinforcing the lack of skills in our laborers. I can understand why, if one were to speak with them like adults and say those simple jobs are not returning and unless you equip yourselves with skills the US market needs you are going to stay poor is likely to be what the pundits call "out of touch with the American people" and will not win many elections.

[Eddie]

I don't think it is hard to argue either side (labor or management).

It is managements fault when they: fail to provide fair compensation and recognize/reward producing workers, fail to provide a safe work environment, fail to make good decisions with regard to management of the company (to expand or not, at what rate; providing a desired product at the right price point) to keep it viable, strong and growing. And doing all of these in a way that labor doesn't feel the need to have a union because their needs/interests are met.

It is labors fault when they: choose to work jobs that don't meet the above conditions. If workers were picky about the kind of management they worked for - bad businesses wouldn't be businesses very long. It is also labors fault when their sole focus is on what is in it for them without realizing that they benefit from producing a great product as efficiently as possible thereby increasing the value of the company and their own value to the company. (of course, this is assuming that it is a good company with good management to begin with.)

So - this is my answer to your "who's fault is it" question.

But the reality is more along the lines of a couple of the other posts that point to a culture of entitlement.

[wuapinmon]

I think labor wants an industrial economy, management wants an information economy, and consumers want an experience economy.

[Uncle Ted]

In addition to Goatnapper's post I would submit that the unwillingness/inability of the laborer to get sufficient education and expanded skillsets to respond to the shift in the types of jobs available in America.

Life after being replaced by a robot.

[UVACoug]

May Day had me thinking about this. We face a lot of serious economic problems in the US. The reasons are complex and multifaceted. But if push came to shove and you had to pick one - who do you think is more responsible for our economic challenges?

1) The Laborer. Arguments would involve labor unions, expected wages and benefits, productivity, work ethic, etc.

2) Management. Those managing America's banking and finance sectors, CEOs of corporations who see jobs as the first place to cut to increase profits, short-term vs. long-term considerations, risk taking, etc.

Support your answer. I was surprised at how strongly I came down on this issue when I thought about it at length, but I won't prejudice the argument with my position just yet. Convince me you are right.

It depends on what economic problems you are referring to. The issues are way too complex to place on any narrow group of people. There is plenty of blame to go around, and you left out the biggest culprits ... politicians.

I also think it is overly simplistic to lump together unions and labors, though they are obviously very closely related logically and practically. I think it is completely unfair to blame our economic problems on "labor", meaning salaried employees doing their jobs. I think the productivity of the American worker is outstanding, generally ... and the vast majority of American workers have excellent work ethics. Our current economic problems have little to do with work ethic.

In today's economic world, however, Unions are destructive of efficiency and do cause harm to the economy. Collective bargaining isn't any different than monopolistic price fixing by colluding corporations. Collective bargaining causes the price of labor to exceed the market clearing level and leaves people that would otherwise be employed out of work. That has a real impact, and the NLRB's pro-union policies under Obama have only made a bad job market worse. Unions were important and necessary during the industrial revolution to guarantee worker safety and a livable wage. To some extent those benefits are still gained by the existence of unions today, although federal law guarantees a minimum wage and OSHA has imposed strict safety requirements on employers. The main purpose of unions in today's world is to remove the element of competition in the marketplace for labor, which will always lead to inefficiency.

Management is not blameless either though, although I believe the real problems with the economy are institutional rather than the result of management excesses. Obviously there are bad apples ... but that is no different than saying there are some employees that have poor work ethics or cheat on reporting their hours worked. The impact of a scumbag manager will have a bigger impact than the impact of a scumbag employee.

Excluding the politicians, who are all crooks ... I think the biggest problem was the arrogance of the academics that thought they could eliminate risk. The managers weren't being "risky" as it were. They were falling for the theory, which seems absurd in hindsight, that you could eliminate or significantly reduce risk with some accounting tricks.

And thus we discover that, besides our crooked politicians, the true villains here are the academics. Maybe you need to find a new profession. (TIC)