Labor or Management?

[UVACoug]

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.)

And yet, there are more institutions of higher learning, including an unprecedented number of community colleges and trade schools, in existence now than ever in history. Many of these institutions are heavily subsidized by the state, making getting a college degree quite affordable. The federal government also hands out more pell grants than ever before ... and the expansion of government subsidized student loans has been constantly expanding. Under Obama, these loans will be forgiven by the government completely if you work for the government for ten years. Higher education has never been more accessible. The high cost of higher education exists almost entirely at the elite level, and can easily be handled with pell grants and student loans.

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.

This is such a straw man argument. For going to such an excellent graduate school. i would hope you would be above that. There is, admittedly, a fringe element on the far right that holds this position, but it is completely insignificant.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[UVACoug]

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.

Bingo.

[UVACoug]

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.

^^^^^Genuis^^^^^^^


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[frank ryan]

Management. They have the most power by far. Productively of American workers goes up while compensation drops. The union movement is (sadly) not a mighty juggernaut who dictates the direction of all our industries.

[LeedsCougar]

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.

all are to blame and the reason is obvious, lad.

[clackamascoug]

I'll take a stab at this - INVESTORS are the problem.

Investors seeking high ROI put pressure on management. Management makes decisions which are short sighted, and self preserving (keeping jobs) to keep "the numbers up." Many company's can only improve the numbers by expansion which creates debt, and artificially supports growth. Artificial growth has its day in the Sun, and all of a sudden when Peter needs to be paid back for Paul's expansion, we all go to hell in a handbasket when the roof falls in.

Investors are Management and Employees. The system is to blame, not the people.

[statman]

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.

You had me at "hegemony."