This saves money?

[klein]

PobreCarlos,

do me a favour, find out the profits, or losses from USA UPS only.
I would love to see those.

Because , from what I learned on here, UPS workers in the US are earning $60+ an hr with all bennies included.
While , other countries are subsidizing the US worker.

Even Canada, at $24 max per hr (no health insurance or huge pension to be paid).

But, go to asia, africa, etc... they work a whole day for $12.00 ! TWELVE per day, not per hr !

And China , probably did the right thing, why support american or german workers ?
Lets take care of our own first.
To take it further, if China, started it's own UPS, it's no way you could compete.
They have 10fold the population, access to all of Asia (where all the cheap walmart items and electronics come from ).

And if offerd a job in the US or Canada for $20.00/hr, people would go for it, too.

So, watch out, maybe we might get a CPS (china parcel service) ?
Never know.

 

[PobreCarlos]

browniehound;

Perhaps you're right....although I doubt it. Note that there ARE non-union employees (see the post following yours) who's work is just as cost-effective. On the other hand, if labor COSTS are reduced, there quite well COULD a reduced labor expectation. With HIGH labor costs, however, there's an automatic demand that the very last iota be squeezed out of that labor; nothing "maybe" about it.

And that high labor cost is at the direction of the union. Perhaps the labor demands would be less if UPS labor was more market-based....but we'll never know, because it's NOT market-based, at the insistence of the union.

 

[Catatonic]

PobreCarlos,

do me a favour, find out the profits, or losses from USA UPS only.
I would love to see those.

Because , from what I learned on here, UPS workers in the US are earning $60+ an hr with all bennies included.
While , other countries are subsidizing the US worker.

Even Canada, at $24 max per hr (no health insurance or huge pension to be paid).

But, go to asia, africa, etc... they work a whole day for $12.00 ! TWELVE per day, not per hr !

And China , probably did the right thing, why support american or german workers ?
Lets take care of our own first.
To take it further, if China, started it's own UPS, it's no way you could compete.
They have 10fold the population, access to all of Asia (where all the cheap walmart items and electronics come from ).

And if offerd a job in the US or Canada for $20.00/hr, people would go for it, too.

So, watch out, maybe we might get a CPS (china parcel service) ?
Never know.

Klein,
No other UPS country has the profitability that the US has... not one even remotely close.
Canada in particular was never profitable for many years. For years and years Canada has lost money up through the 90's. Last I heard they had finally made a profit somewhere around 2003.
Next to the US, the last I heard, in profitability order, it was Germany, UK and then Canada.
The biggest reason is stop density and packages delivered per stop.
Last time I took the time to dig out the details for Small Package operations, US represented 92% of the profit and 8% for the rest of the world.
In your spare time (I assume you still have plenty) you could research the latest financial reports of UPS.

 

[cachsux]

Klein,
No other UPS country has the profitability that the US has... not one even remotely close.
Canada in particular was never been profitable for many years. For years and years Canada has lost money up through the 90's. Last I heard they had finally made a profit somewhere around 2003.
Next to the US, the last I heard, in profitability order, it was Germany, UK and then Canada.
The biggest reason is stop density and packages delivered per stop.
Last time I took the time to dig out the details for Small Package operations, US represented 92% of the profit and 8% for the rest of the world.
In your spare time (I assume you still have plenty) you could research the latest financial reports of UPS.

Hoax, you know better. He`s watching Maury so he can tell us why Canadian baby mommas are better than U.S. baby mommas.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JimJimmyJames;

If those jobs are destroyed (and, granted, many have been), they will have been destroyed by the American "worker" by his refusal to be competitive. The fact is that there's an intrinsic value to goods and services produced and if a certain group can no longer effectively produce those goods and services at a level commensurate with their value, then they no longer will be capable of buying those "products and services" you maintain that is needed to keep the economy afloat....unless, of course, you're talking about OTHERS who ARE willing to compete SUBSIDIZING them!

If that's the case, and you're talking a gigantic American welfare state, in which those who DO compete are asked to diminish what they EARN in order to subsidize the lives of those who are unwilling to earn their OWN way in this world (i.e. - won't compete), then I thinks there's some disillusionment there. Over the long term, people just don't like to get screwed-over like that. They expect to dispense with what THEY earned THEMSELVES....and not chuck it over to people who expect to be "middle class" simply on the basis of their existing as Americans.

There was a time when American workers were among the most competitive in the world. And, in many areas, they still are. But, in case you haven't noticed, our "organized" labor just isn't cutting it. The most ready example, of course, is the auto industry. The "organized" segment of it has tanked, and exists only on the basis of welfare. Meanwhile the "non-organized" parts of it - brought to our shores primarily because this country decided to set-up exclusionary tariffs which backfired - is prospering.

"Organized labor" seems to be engaged in a massive pissing contest with itself...bound and determined to see how many jobs, and how much of this country's economy it can piss away. While a few seem, at least temporarily, to prosper from the process, the masses are kicked to the curb. Look at the Teamsters, or the UAW, or the Steelworkers by way of verification; how many of their members jobs have these union pissed away? It's MILLIONS! And for what?

 

[klein]

browniehound;

Perhaps you're right....although I doubt it. Note that there ARE non-union employees (see the post following yours) who's work is just as cost-effective. On the other hand, if labor COSTS are reduced, there quite well COULD a reduced labor expectation. With HIGH labor costs, however, there's an automatic demand that the very last iota be squeezed out of that labor; nothing "maybe" about it.

And that high labor cost is at the direction of the union. Perhaps the labor demands would be less if UPS labor was more market-based....but we'll never know, because it's NOT market-based, at the insistence of the union.

You lost me there. All the union will ask for is a wage increase according to inflation !
And, that is reasonable.

UPS is still making profit in the worst recession in our lifetime !
And still paying out 55cents dividends on a share. Which is about 1% "interesst" !
Try to get 1% in a savings account these days ! More like 0.1% !

It's not the company they work for, it's the shareholders they work for !

And if labor costs went down, shareholders would be first in line to profit, and workers last, if not, even putting more pressure on them. With even adding more technoligy, and faster methods, filled to the roof trucks, cut runs, etc. Since, it worked before.

 

[PobreCarlos]

klein;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't UPS just report a 48% decline in quarterly year-to-year earnings? And how long can it continue to pay that "55cents dividends" on that basis?

Those are the owners EARNINGS...the exact equivalent of a workers EARNINGS! How would the Teamsters working for UPS like to take a 48% CUT in THEIR earnings? Got that! TAKE HOME 48% LESS THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR!!!

How about it? You go for that? Sound like a plan?

You go on to say how "shareholders would be first in line to profit, and workers"...but the simple fact is that, right now, the shareholders are getting clipped, while Teamsters have suffered virtually nothing. As I see it, not only are the UPS Teamster workers not only NOT "last in line"...but rather they're virtually the only people "in the line" PERIOD! Compared to everybody else, they're hogs at the trough, so to speak.

Lastly, I have to get into your argument about....

"All the union will ask for is a wage increase according to inflation! And, that is reasonable."

...in that it's that type of comment that irritates me no end. Having grown up, and taken my first economics class in the era of "stagflation" and then, for what passed in this country at least, as the "hyper inflation" of the Carter era, I'm not going to buy for a moment that "it's reasonable". In fact, I can't help but believe that so-called "COLA" labor contract clauses - designed to "keep up with inflation" - are the CAUSE of wage inflation! Note that I state "INFLATION" of wages; NOT higher wages earned on the basis of increased LABOR productivity (but how much of that has this country seen over the last 50 years?). Nor do count market increases of commodities and/or labor and services based on natural scarcity as "inflation".

Nope, if labor wants wage increases, then it should EARN wage increases....based on increased productivity and/or cost-effectiveness. And that should be based on LABOR'S increased productivity (i.e. - that it accounted for ITSELF), NOT that of new systems and or inventions, etc. introduced by others.

Look at history. Look at Great Britain pre-Thatcher, for example. To put it bluntly, just handing labor money that it hasn't earned does nothing but drive the capital upon which national economies are based across the borders. No capital, no jobs. And that's how countries go to crap.

Again, THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! Someone, somewhere, has to pay for it! And until organized labor realizes that if it wants to EAT the lunch, it's going to have to PAY for the lunch, then I think it's going to suffer through some hard times....and deservedly so.

 

[klein]

Those are the [-]owners[/-] Shareholders EARNINGS...the exact equivalent of a workers EARNINGS! How would the Teamsters working for UPS like to take a 48% CUT in THEIR earnings? Got that! TAKE HOME 48% LESS THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR!!!

corrected that for you.

Profits are also not earnings !
(CEO, shareholders, took same pay home - it's extra money in the bank).
Besides, what did the company do years before with 200% earnings ?
I'm sure they handed every employee a bonus, eh ?

And where do these pecentage points come from ?
1st quarter in March, earnings will be up 300% because of xmas...!

So, where do these percentages come from (last yr, 10 years ago, 20 yrs ago) ?
Thats the problem.
They don't even have a standard what 100% would be.
Or , maybe you know it ?

 

[JimJimmyJames]

If I am asked to directly compete against foreign workers who are not regulated under the same safety, labor, and environmental laws as I am, I cannot hope to compete.

Also, if those same workers benefit from socialized medicine and retirement that relieves their corporations from that burden.

I also cannot compete with countries who use a VAT as a weapon to encourage industry in their own countries, while discouraging imports from mine.

I also cannot compete against companies who manipulate laws regarding subcontrating to create a business model that is anything but the definition of subcontracting.

At least I cannot compete and maintain the standard of living that has made America the economic powerhouse it is.

China, Japan, etc. did not grow their economies by producing for their own people, but by undercutting us at every turn in order to grow at our expense.

Unfortunately for them it is reaching the point where we will no longer be able to do them a favor and commit economic suicide in order to buy their products. With all our good jobs going, or being cheerleaded to go, by, ahem, certain people, we simply won't be able to afford it.

Here is a link to an article that describes the coming death of the middle class and the reasons behind it, enjoy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091015052644/http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/welcome_back_lenin

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Hmm, I just read that the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector is 7.4%

7.4%

Can anyone answer how the unions can still be the whipping boy for Wall Street at this point?

Let's face it, the corporations have won, the oligarchy is established, and notions of labor being able to control their destiny can be swept aside once that last 7.4 bites the dust.

I guess instead of my next Harley I will have to consider a Schwinn.

I am strongly suggesting to my children to not persue employment in the private sector but get a good government job instead. In the future it is going to be better to be a part of the Inner Party, then the Outer party.

Maybe being a Prole is the best any of us can hope for.

 

[klein]

At least I cannot compete and maintain the standard of living that has made America the economic powerhouse it is.

China, Japan, etc. did not grow their economies by producing for their own people, but by undercutting us at every turn in order to grow at our expense.

The world does see it the other way around :
Companies like UPS, coca cola, pepsi, microsoft, IBM, kodak, Ford ...endless list..

Make profit everywhere in the world for Americans.
You syphon it from other countries.
Oil included.

Even most of the chinese and asia manufactured stuff has an American owner, such as "fruit on the loom", RCA, Texas Instruments, etc. (another endless list).

Those workers overseas, work for less, to pay out the americans and american workers.

What do you think got America there in the first place ?
(high living standard).

Money is still rolling into America, by the billions... you can't visit one single place on earth that doesn't sell something american like coke or a big mac.
But, capitalisum does have it's downsides.....

 

[Just Numbers]

You lost me there. All the union will ask for is a wage increase according to inflation !
And, that is reasonable.

UPS is still making profit in the worst recession in our lifetime !
And still paying out 55cents dividends on a share. Which is about 1% "interesst" !
Try to get 1% in a savings account these days ! More like 0.1% !

It's not the company they work for, it's the shareholders they work for !

And if labor costs went down, shareholders would be first in line to profit, and workers last, if not, even putting more pressure on them. With even adding more technoligy, and faster methods, filled to the roof trucks, cut runs, etc. Since, it worked before.

And why shouldn't shareholders be first in line to profit? Aren't they the ones who took the risk, used their money and bought the stock? Guess what...workers who did the same would be at the front of the line also!

 

[Just Numbers]

But once all the jobs that created the "middle class" in America are destroyed, it will be easy for any company to get labor at the right price.

I just don't know who will be buying the products and services that are required to keep our consumer economy afloat. At least at the level we have grown accustomed to.

Very true...just my opinion and I hate to say it but...I believe it is the government and unions that created the middle class and....the same two entities have destroyed it.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

These American corporations are making a profit, no doubt about it. And the American military machine is doing it's best to make the world safe for these corporations (and we thought it was for democracy, ha!)

But is the average American profiting?

Right after WWII we profited tremendously, as did Canada, because we were the only game in town. The rest of the world being in rubble at the time.

And I will admit, America did not, does not, hesitate to use underhanded methods to maintain our version of Pax Americana.

But the smart countries figured out how to beat America at it's own game.

It's simple, on a national level, retool your industry for export production. Of course, your own nation must sacrifice for a time in order to accomplish this. But given time, and Wall Street greed for profit, the Americans will step over a dollar to pick up a dime and soon enough the tables will be turned.

But let's just hope for the world's sake, their own citizens will be able to purchase the products Americans will no longer be able to buy in mass quantities.

 

[upsgrunt]

Klein,
I "try" to respect all opinions.
It is my opinion that you should quit "doggin" on the USA!
99% of your posts are what Canada is and what the USA isn't.
Take a break for a while.

 

[klein]

Klein,
I "try" to respect all opinions.
It is my opinion that you should quit "doggin" on the USA!
99% of your posts are what Canada is and what the USA isn't.
Take a break for a while.

You must only read 1.1% of all my posts then !
This one is about asia and cheap labor.

You don't think we face the same problems, with outsourcing ?
Or Europe, Austrailia, NZ ?

Our levi Jeans factory shut down here, originated here, was fabricated here, - yet moved to Asia !
It hurt my city, and it's history.

But, I wished you had better mathskills..
Unless, you're one of those people that think that you can have 1000% in total.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JimJimmyJames;

{1) Yes, but that 7.4% represent the "most failed" aspects of our economy. Steel, automotive, etc. And you also realize that the percentage is considerably higher "in the public sector"; i.e. - a burden on the private sector, which creates the wealth the economy spins on.

(2) Put simply, if you can't compete [using "you" generically), then, over the long term, you're going to be kicked to the wayside. The only other option is to depend on people subsidizing you (i.e. - living off "welfare"), which may work for a while, but it won't be THAT long before those who ARE competing will get sick of supporting "you"

There are all sorts of excuses, but, in the end, that's all they are - excuses. They may sound good, and they may even be true to a degree...but they are all irrelevant! The ONLY thing that matters regarding labor is its ability to compete in terms of cost-effectiveness. Just as water seeks its own level, capital will find labor's level.

Dim outlook, perhaps..but true. And it's a truism that American labor once prospered under. And it's a truism that much of American labor - that aspect of it which *IS* willing to compete! - prospers under today. And my contention is that those who prosper under it - who labor competitively - can't afford to keep having a large segment of society that is unwilling to earn their way mooching off of them.

 

[PobreCarlos]

Don't be quite so quick with what you term a "correction"; that's nothing of the sort. UPS shareholders ARE owners..and the owners of UPS ARE shareholders.

As for your....

"profits are not earnings" (CEO, shareholders, took same pay home - it's extra money in the bank).

....you do realize, of course, that profits ARE earnings, and that which is "taken home", at least by management in terms of salary - to say nothing of shareholders return - is economically classified as "normal profits"; i.e. - that amount necessary to retain company management and thus keep the company going. In other words, without that (standard definition) "normal profit", companies will go out of business.

As for the percentages; well please!!!! I think you know what percentages are being compared; I specifically stated year-to-year. In that case, what "100%" was was the amount of a year ago. And it's also very much a "standard"...and to say that "They don't even have a standard what 100% would be" in that regard would be rather foolish.

And, in that vein, I think that I can guarantee that the potential validity of your statement...

"1st quarter in March, earnings will be up 300% because of xmas"

...is very low if - as intended - comparing that quarter with the quarter of a year before, which is the standard. In fact, I think there's a strong presumption that the number might well be DOWN.

And, while there may have been quarters when the earnings RATIO from a previous quarter was up 200% (after all, if you earned a dollar the year before, and earned $3 the next year, you've had your "200% gain"), I don't recall (grin...nor is anyone else likely to, I'm afraid!) remember a time when there were "200% earnings" in absolute terms. "Nothing today, but twice as much tomorrow" math doesn't work when you're actually trying to operate a company.

 

[Captain America]

I am glad to have Carlos here. The forums need an Uber-capitalist to give me someone to dislike. Tieguy is to reasonable. Poor Carlos has completely bought into the every man for himself philosophy that is bringing this country down. You will go far in management or union leadership, if you can make yourself see others as something to be manipulated instead of human beings. (Insert more attacks here.) LOL

 

[upsgrunt]

You must only read 1.1% of all my posts then !
This one is about asia and cheap labor.

You don't think we face the same problems, with outsourcing ?
Or Europe, Austrailia, NZ ?

Our levi Jeans factory shut down here, originated here, was fabricated here, - yet moved to Asia !
It hurt my city, and it's history.

But, I wished you had better mathskills..
Unless, you're one of those people that think that you can have 1000% in total.

Math skills are not the point. The point is you are always so quick to defend Canada, but then downgrade the US.

By the way, you ridicule my math skills, but I said 99% and then you countered with 1.1%. Doesn't add up. Laugh at yourself equally.