Page 1 of 1
Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:05 pm
by dales
....LABOR DAY IN AMERICA IS NO PICNIC FOR SOME
By Georgie Anne Geyer | Georgie Anne Geyer –
This is a funny kind of Labor Day. It seems that everybody in America is looking for work -- but the country that put capitalist success on the map for ordinary people can't remember how to do it now. That if you'd like to interview American CEOs, you'd better go to Beijing or Shenzhen rather than Cleveland or Detroit.
Yes, I am old enough, and my memory polished enough, to remember the "days of yore." Friends and relatives would come to our family cottage in Wisconsin and sit cozily on the porch over the lake. The men, who were the only ones who then "worked," barely talked about their jobs. It was a given that they had some kind of labor.
After all, this was America. This was the country that developed big industries. In Chicago, we didn't live too far from the enormous steel mills. There were small companies in most of the neighborhoods. We didn't go elsewhere for work; the foreign immigrants, who included many of my grandparents' generation, came HERE for work.
We were not rich, but we were happy. Most of all, we were confident. The future would be even better.
All that has changed. The unemployment rate soars, the deficit and debt go through the roof, and -- most odd of all -- no one talks about the real cause of the problems, which is something we are finally beginning to face this year: globalization.
Last week while going through my papers, I came upon a notebook from 1997 about the annual meeting of the leaders and thinkers of the world at Davos, Switzerland. Reviewing the endless speeches and seminars, I was struck by how everyone there simply assumed that globalization was going to save the world; that even laborers would have their lives transformed by corporations that relocated to labor-cheap countries overseas. Of course, there were no laborers at Davos.
The idea that American corporations should have any loyalty to the nation that spawned them and helped build them up by providing them with roads, airports, ports, the education of workers, a beautiful land and dignity in the world, would have been laughed out of the halls. But no one even spoke of this, much less laughed about it.
Men who went proudly to work at those steel mills in South Chicago and Gary, Ind., now work not at all. And despite all the talk that they would be "retrained" for the "service economy" to come, that isn't happening. Ah, but some people ARE getting rich.
"The simple fact is," Jeffrey Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, wrote in one of the few honest pre-Labor Day columns, this one in the Financial Times, "that globalization has not only hit the unskilled hard but has also proved a bonanza for the global super-rich. They have been able to invest in new and highly profitable projects in emerging economies. Meanwhile, as Warren Buffett argued this week, they have been able to convince their home governments to cut tax rates on profits and high incomes in the name of global tax competition. ...
"In the end, the poor are doubly hit, first by global market forces, then by the ability of the rich to park money at low taxes in hideaways around the world."
The run-up to Labor Day saw a few articles that showed how we Americans should be ferociously mad at our corporations. The Washington Post ran a front-page story about how some of the country's most famous multinational corporations refuse to give out figures on numbers of employees in the U.S. and those abroad.
"So secretive are these companies that they hand the figure over to government statisticians on the condition that officials will release only an aggregate number," the article says. "The latest data show that multinationals cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States and added 2.4 million overseas between 2000 and 2009. Some of the same companies that do not report their jobs breakdown, including Apple and Pfizer, are pushing lawmakers to cut their tax bills in the name of job creation in the United States."
Apple and Pfizer, indeed, are part of a coalition pushing Congress to give them a tax break on money they have outsourced overseas -- they argue that bringing the money "home" would spur hiring.
But then, even some of the CEOs whom President Obama has hired to advise him come from some of the companies that have ceased to call America "home." GE's chief executive Jeff Immelt is one. GE, as it happens, no longer pays taxes in America, and its number of overseas workers now exceeds 54 percent of its total employment.
Immelt recently said that companies just "got carried away" with outsourcing. "I'm a GE leader first and foremost," he insisted. "At the same time ... I work for an American company."
Could have fooled me.
Even the great Steve Jobs came in for some "constructive criticism." According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Apple says it directly employs 47,000 worldwide, approximately 30,000 of them working in the United States. But it employs no production workers; they work in China through Foxconn, a Taiwanese-owned contractor with at least 250,000 people working on Jobs' creations. They were paid 50 cents an hour until a number of suicides, plus labor unrest, shook things up.
Happy Labor Day!
..
Got my super-sized tube of KY Jelly right here!
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:54 pm
by quaddriver
At the same time, consumers demand more product for less money. Workers demand more pay for same work. Walmart, for all its evils, is nothing more than a lens focusing consumer sentiment.
*you* (royal) wanted cheaper goods. you forced companies to close, or cut the largest single manufacturing cost: labor (70% on avg) and they did it by......
My first client for my consulting biz was Centroid CNc. while starting the automotive division I remarked to the head engineer one day: we no longer even make the tooling for our tooling. Used to be Japanese was junk, then jap was ok and taiwan was junk, now china is junk, taiwan is ok and jap is premium.
china is soon to be the dominant economy and the much larger population is going to be living just as happy if not happier, on a lower salary structure.
what item is to blame the most?
housing speculation. price of land.
when a house originally purchased for 20K fetches 300K at retirement, the entry level costs for the buyer skew the whole picture in an unrecoverable fashion. its going to drive salary demands/expectations far more than the price of a buick or dvd player (which reminds me, the price of technology based luxuries has become a fraction of what it once was thanks to Mr Moore, giving the poor cells, flat screens and blue ray)
and lastly, the last few items we DO make/produce or grow our own are being fought by the govt to cease and desist. Steel is a good example. so is fossil mining. so is mining in general (that is not entirely true, we still mine stuff, it is however highly frowned upon if we use it HERE, witness:coal)
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:00 am
by oldr_n_wsr
I've been out of a job for 6 months. Happy Labor day indeed.

Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:58 pm
by Guinevere
I'm heading north to Vermont to take supplies and to volunteer in the clean-up effort. So I will be laboring.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:09 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
I salute you
Guinevere.

Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:52 pm
by dgs49
Notice the insidious use of the expression, "the poor," as though it were a nationality or something completely outside the control of those whom it describes.
I was born poor, and got nothing from my parents (no assistance with college, etc), so does that make me "poor"?
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:40 pm
by Grim Reaper
dgs49 wrote:Notice the insidious use of the expression, "the poor," as though it were a nationality or something completely outside the control of those whom it describes.
Notice the insidious implication that "the poor" was used in an insidious way.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:20 am
by rubato
1/5th of US households live on $20,000/yr or less. They are Poor. They are poor even if they're working full time for more than the minimum wage. They have chosen to live honestly and work for a living and are poor as a result.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:25 am
by BoSoxGal
I have a good job doing meaningful work with people I genuinely like and/or admire at which I earn a modestly comfortable salary. Our annual budget was just approved which means I'm safe from layoff another year, and I even got a wee small wage increase. I'd love more time off, but I get more than most folks, so I am grateful and will spend my labor day mindful of my blessings and wishing for a better job market for my comrades still looking.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:08 pm
by dgs49
Rube, you are such a tool.
A household which was formed by a woman who had a child out of wedlock, and remains a "single parent" household, is very likely to be "poor," by any economic definition. Such households, by and large, are "poor" for principally one reason - the head of the household has made one or more disastrous lifestyle choices. And given the prevalence of this sort of households - the statistics are well-publicized - this phenomenon alone accounts for the majority of the bottom 1/5 you mention.
A married couple, both working full time and earning minimum wage, will be at the poverty level, but not for long. Anyone earning minimum wage for more than a year or two is either an idiot or so lethargic as to be worth, in economic terms, even less than the wage they are making.
But my sympathy goes out to many friends and acquantances who, like me, lost their jobs through no fault of their own and have not been able to find another.
This economy sucks, big time, and one fears that the "light at the end of the tunnel" might just be an oncoming freight train.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:44 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Being one of the "soon to be UNDERemployed" I can say that while I am happy to once again be a productive member of society, it is anything but "Happy". I was making over $100K and now will be making just above $41K. In this economy I suppose I should be happy just to have a job, but in reality, I will not be contributing to the restoration of the economy. At $100K, I had some extra spending money, be it clothes (made in India, China, Viet Nam) or power tools (made in Taiwan or China) or even having my driveway redone (made in USA). But not now, any "extra spending" is gone.
Talked to my dad over the labor day weekend and he expressed similar problems. Where is investments for many years allowed him extra spending money (bars, resturants, snowmobiles, motorcycles) now he doesn't have that extra money. Why? Interest rates render any returns he had made in the past to next to zero. He used to be able to keep the premium and discretionary spend the interest (leaving the premium untouched) but now ha has to tap the premium periodically just to make expenses.
The move from a "production" industry to a "service" industry has come to fruition. We make less, spend less and thus have more unemployed, less money overall with no end in sight. Thankfully we saved and saved and saved when we were young, but passing anything on to my kids is probably out of the question.
Sad times. First generation to do worse than their parents.
Trickle up poverty. You can be next.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:51 pm
by dales
Only the most mean-spirited and small-minded (you know who you are) would deny such a fact.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:58 am
by rubato
Thank you BushCo. And all you BushCo voters!
You've fucked the country into the worst disaster in 80 years and still have not acknowledged it.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:06 pm
by dgs49
Some thoughts on the Big Picture, Intergenerationally speaking, if you please...
Through the 1950's, the traditional working-class nuclear family in this country contained an employed father, a stay-at-home mom, and 2.3 kids. Often it also included a grandparent. The employed father, probably a high school grad, but not a college grad, had a Good Job, probably in manufacturing, construction, or mining. With his "good" income, there was enough to pay the mortgage, a car payment, and all the day-to-day expenses of the household. By the time he was 45, his house was paid off, he had a couple cars, there was enough money to help the kids through college, and they could afford to take a nice summer vacation without going significantly into debt. He probably had a "defined benefit" retirement program with his employer and expected to be able to retire at age 55, having the world by the ass. The Wife might have gotten a part-time job after the kids were through with high school, but maybe not. Nobody judged her for it, one way or another. If she held a full-time job while her kids were still school age, she was considered to be a bit selfish and not really living up to her maternal obligations.
Most Men in America believed in the philosophy that the Wife should not work (outside the home).
Then you had "Women's Liberation." Women wanted to realize their potential. Get into the workplace. Do something other than being a teacher, a nurse, or an airline stewardess. Their husbands, at first discouraging this movement, shortly realized that the wife's income could be the extra boost that paid for a second nice car, a better vacation, more toys for him, so we went along with it.
Women's Liberation inevitably led to rampant inflation, as consumers quickly had more money to spend than they ever had before (on a household basis). Housing costs skyrocketed, as two-income families could allofasudden afford much more expensive houses. The economy had to absorb forty million more workers: the women who would have, a generation ago, been out of the workforce. It led to a dramatically increased divorce rate, as women who would otherwise have struggled with "bad" marriages, now found that they had the wherewithal to lose The Bum. It led to a rise in delinquency rates, as working-class kids got less supervision and control. It led to a slow decline in school performance, as mothers had less patience and enthusiasm for sitting with a child to ensure that s/he did the homework properly.
Globalization then lured many of America's manufacturers overseas, where production costs were (theoretically) so much cheaper that goods could be manufactured overseas, shipped back to the U.S., and STILL be cheaper overall than if manufactured here.
If we went back to one full time wage-earner per household, like we had in the 50's, there would be plenty of good jobs to go around, and the unemployment rate would, effectively, be zero. That is to say, everyone who really wanted to work could find a job. We would still have slugs and idiots around - maybe 10% of the adult population, but they would not be "unemployed," merely not working.
I personally am willing to do my part and stop "working" - leaving the wage-earner role to my wife, who makes more than I do anyway.
Re: Happy Labor Day?
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:40 pm
by Scooter
Of course, such a simplistic view of economic history completely ignores all of the other economic forces of the period which both necessitated the shift to two-income families, as well as what actually fed inflation throughout the 60s and 70s. An econonics textbook might be a start. Try something 10th grade level if you can manage to read it without needing to move your lips.