Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
EFCA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 481696" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>JimJimmyJames;</p><p> </p><p>You seem to forget that it wasn't all THAT a long time ago that THIS country had the true working class that will willing to "prey on [other[ working classes through the use of cheap labor", etc. itself. Or are you one of those who think that we were the first industrialized country in the world? Or the first one to be diminished by another country with workers who were willing to be more competitive? If so, then I suggest you take a closer look at your history.</p><p> </p><p>As for your "this was working out for America", I'm not sure I see it. Was it "working out" for that short post-war period when the U.S. - by virtue of conquest - was able to walk roughshod over the rest of the world with seven league boots while mortgaging its future to pay for the present? I'd guess that you might be one of those who say that it was. But did you really expect the rest of the world (and its workers) to lie dormant and acquiesce to that form of imperialism forever? Really?</p><p> </p><p>Not denying that it would be nice to keep the jobs at home and all that other good stuff. But I'm here to tell you that screaming and bitching at those who actually PROVIDE the jobs, thus giving them reason to dispense them elsewhere, as opposed to making it attractive for them to keep them on these shores, just isn't going to cut it. You can scream and yell and claim "unfair" all you want...but those jobs are going to seek competitive, APPRECIATIVE labor, WHEREVER it is.</p><p> </p><p>Now, if unions can provide and/or support that labor, more power to them. If they can't, then they - and the [displaced] workers that belong to them - are going to drop by the wayside.</p><p> </p><p>In the end, "fair" (as in "fair days work") is determined by the market; over the long term, there simply is no other method. Of course, if unions want to choose to be one of those entities who would PROVIDE such employment opportunities (i.e. - not cognizant of market realities), then they can go right ahead. But, for some reason, I suspect that they - like the VAST majority of "unionists" I've run into - haven't the slightest capacity to actually PROVIDE jobs.</p><p> </p><p>Beyond that, I think I need to take exception with your claim that [in reference to "protectionism and isolationism") "we haven't practiced neither in the past 60 odd years", do you happen to recall just WHY there are foreign automobile manufacturers on our shores today? Have you forgotten, perhaps, the cries by the unions (particularly the UAW) demanding tariff protection on products manufactured overseas, and requirements that such manufacturing occur "on shore"? Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to hoist you on your own petard on that one. The truth is that a major part of the predicament this country finds itself in is attributable to the fact that it was TOO protectionist and TOO isolationist...and that it coddled way too many minority interests (read "unions" especially here), permitting them to think that it was possible to prosper without real effort.</p><p> </p><p>Agreed, "hardly anybody anymore is in fact in a union". Of course, that's primarily because the unions have virtually destroyed so many domestic industries and/or the employers that hired them. Again, look at textiles. Or steel. Or the automotive industry. Or take the trucking industry...and see just how many Teamster employers (and employees) are left today over a period of time that the industry, as a whole, has waxed tremendously.</p><p> </p><p>Lastly, subsidized wealth is not real "earned" wealth except in the minds of those receiving it; rather, it's represents the wealth that others earned....and had stolen from them. For a long time (under "regulation"), Teamsters were major thieves of such wealth....and the consumers they were robbing it from were the victims. The same can be said of unions in other industries (the UAW in the automotive industry today stands out). And, in truth, in comparison to the rest of the world, the average, non-organized U.S. worker - who's remained competitive on the world stage - has shown himself to STILL be remarkably capable of EARNING "wealth". The trouble, I suspect (at least from the perspective of some), is that he isn't all that willing to share it with those who refuse to make the effort to earn it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 481696, member: 16651"] JimJimmyJames; You seem to forget that it wasn't all THAT a long time ago that THIS country had the true working class that will willing to "prey on [other[ working classes through the use of cheap labor", etc. itself. Or are you one of those who think that we were the first industrialized country in the world? Or the first one to be diminished by another country with workers who were willing to be more competitive? If so, then I suggest you take a closer look at your history. As for your "this was working out for America", I'm not sure I see it. Was it "working out" for that short post-war period when the U.S. - by virtue of conquest - was able to walk roughshod over the rest of the world with seven league boots while mortgaging its future to pay for the present? I'd guess that you might be one of those who say that it was. But did you really expect the rest of the world (and its workers) to lie dormant and acquiesce to that form of imperialism forever? Really? Not denying that it would be nice to keep the jobs at home and all that other good stuff. But I'm here to tell you that screaming and bitching at those who actually PROVIDE the jobs, thus giving them reason to dispense them elsewhere, as opposed to making it attractive for them to keep them on these shores, just isn't going to cut it. You can scream and yell and claim "unfair" all you want...but those jobs are going to seek competitive, APPRECIATIVE labor, WHEREVER it is. Now, if unions can provide and/or support that labor, more power to them. If they can't, then they - and the [displaced] workers that belong to them - are going to drop by the wayside. In the end, "fair" (as in "fair days work") is determined by the market; over the long term, there simply is no other method. Of course, if unions want to choose to be one of those entities who would PROVIDE such employment opportunities (i.e. - not cognizant of market realities), then they can go right ahead. But, for some reason, I suspect that they - like the VAST majority of "unionists" I've run into - haven't the slightest capacity to actually PROVIDE jobs. Beyond that, I think I need to take exception with your claim that [in reference to "protectionism and isolationism") "we haven't practiced neither in the past 60 odd years", do you happen to recall just WHY there are foreign automobile manufacturers on our shores today? Have you forgotten, perhaps, the cries by the unions (particularly the UAW) demanding tariff protection on products manufactured overseas, and requirements that such manufacturing occur "on shore"? Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to hoist you on your own petard on that one. The truth is that a major part of the predicament this country finds itself in is attributable to the fact that it was TOO protectionist and TOO isolationist...and that it coddled way too many minority interests (read "unions" especially here), permitting them to think that it was possible to prosper without real effort. Agreed, "hardly anybody anymore is in fact in a union". Of course, that's primarily because the unions have virtually destroyed so many domestic industries and/or the employers that hired them. Again, look at textiles. Or steel. Or the automotive industry. Or take the trucking industry...and see just how many Teamster employers (and employees) are left today over a period of time that the industry, as a whole, has waxed tremendously. Lastly, subsidized wealth is not real "earned" wealth except in the minds of those receiving it; rather, it's represents the wealth that others earned....and had stolen from them. For a long time (under "regulation"), Teamsters were major thieves of such wealth....and the consumers they were robbing it from were the victims. The same can be said of unions in other industries (the UAW in the automotive industry today stands out). And, in truth, in comparison to the rest of the world, the average, non-organized U.S. worker - who's remained competitive on the world stage - has shown himself to STILL be remarkably capable of EARNING "wealth". The trouble, I suspect (at least from the perspective of some), is that he isn't all that willing to share it with those who refuse to make the effort to earn it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
EFCA
Top