This saves money?

[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]

Originally Posted by klein

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]

Originally Posted by JimJimmyJames

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by klein

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.

[klein]

Originally Posted by upsgrunt

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.

You know, thinking about it, it does seem that way. But, to my defence, there are certain words I can't mention, without specifying the country.
Like, jobs, housing, health and welfare, heck not even wages or prices.

Now how many other posts do you read about "government" ?
I will need to write US government infront of it, or Cdn government.
Besides, the percentage of bashing the current or last US goverment on here is atleast 75% and up.
But, ofcourse, if I have my little weigh in, (at times), then I do need to use the word "US", again.

And yes, I will defend Canada, regarding it's health and welfare system.
That is no secret. Even in most politics, because they are much more people oriented here.
We don't work to threaten or fight wars with other countries.
Yes, you had a few years war free, too - but supporting the Taliban against Russia at the time, or whatever group, somewhere.

Not all is well here either, we have lower wages and higher prices.
Even sent a flyer to someone online here, (that person was shocked).

[PobreCarlos]

Captain America;

Yeah, it's that "every man for himself philosophy that is bringing this country down" alright. (smile)

By that I mean have you LOOKED at the gov't deficit lately...and how it's grown just in the last year or so? I'd submit that it's not "every man for himself"; rather, it's "those who can't-or-won't compete on a world-scale ganging up on those who do". The result? Capital flees the country to more friendly climes; climes where labor wants to be competitive. Climes where the future isn't mortgaged for generations forward. Climes where gov't is actually FRIENDLY to productive entities, as opposed to trading everything for votes to those who simply demand it.

Of course, as capital flees, so do the jobs that capital offered. Oh, it might be preserved for a while on the basis of loans from entities that ARE efficient and productive (look how much debt China, for example, has assumed on our governments behalf...but, in the long run, someone has to pay. Moreover, there have to be entities that PRODUCE efficiently in order to be able to pay. Think unions have had a place in that formula? Some have, perhaps - after all, there's no law that unions HAVE to act stupidly and short-sightedly. But they're (obviously!) few and far between.

In the end, those who complain about "capitalism" seem to be those who simply want an unearned handout; they seem to be the LAST ones to construct and maintain entities that PROVIDE meaningful jobs. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for temporary voluntary aid for those who legitimately try and just can't cut it. But the path we seem to be on seems to be the path of pre-Thatcher Great Britain, or post-war Argentina, or that of any of the other myriad countries who's citizens thought that there was a way to have a "free lunch"...and learned the hard way that there isn't.

[klein]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

In the end, those who complain about "capitalism" seem to be those who simply want an unearned handout; they seem to be the LAST ones to construct and maintain entities that PROVIDE meaningful jobs. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for temporary voluntary aid for those who legitimately try and just can't cut it. But the path we seem to be on seems to be the path of pre-Thatcher Great Britain, or post-war Argentina, or that of any of the other myriad countries who's citizens thought that there was a way to have a "free lunch"...and learned the hard way that there isn't.

Wow, you seem to be a sup. So, please hire everyone that wants to work !
And, maybe other companies may follow ?
There are almost 60 Million Americans out there, without a job...but atleast half of them would love to work, pay thier bills, etc.
People losing thier homes is a "free lunch" ?

Build it, and people will come !

[soberups]

Originally Posted by 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!

It doesnt matter how hard an American worker tries to "compete"....he will never be able (nor should he be able) to produce goods as cheaply as a 9 year old Chinese child working for $3 a day in a sweatshop with none of those pesky labor or enviornmental laws to contend with.

I am all for competition...but it needs to be a fair competition, on a level playing field.

What you propose is nothing more than a race to the bottom. Cheaper doesnt always mean better.

[klein]

Originally Posted by soberups

It doesnt matter how hard an American worker tries to "compete"....he will never be able (nor should he be able) to produce goods as cheaply as a 9 year old Chinese child working for $3 a day in a sweatshop with none of those pesky labor or enviornmental laws to contend with.

I am all for competition...but it needs to be a fair competition, on a level playing field.

What you propose is nothing more than a race to the bottom. Cheaper doesnt always mean better.

Or making milk with white paint and water ?

[PobreCarlos]

klein;

H.m.m.m.m.....so there are "60 Million Americans out there, without a job". What a wonder! Since the official unemployment rate is around 10% (9.8% last I read), that would mean that, on the basis of those working and "without a job" the workforce of the country would be around 600,000,000...around TWICE what the TOTAL population - including every man, woman, and child - is of the ENTIRE country.

Of course perhaps you're saying that there are "60 million Americans" NOT working...to which I would say "so what!" Again, I point to that "every man, woman, and child" aspect of the situation. In short, please don't try to B.S. me. "60 million is an absolutely RIDICULOUS figure...and absolutely FALSE in any meaningful sense of the word.

No doubt there are people who WOULD like to have a job. And no doubt the close to 3/4s of a million Teamsters who pissed their jobs away when de-regulation came in and they decided they didn't want to compete make up a segment of them as well. Maybe some of them lost their houses....house which, if REASONABLY purchased on the basis of their ACTUAL productive/buying power they could have kept...IF they had decided to be competitive. Note we're not talking minimum wage here, or anything like it....but one might also note that there are "minimum wage" jobs still available. Jobs individuals COULD survive on, UNLESS they're unwilling to survive on what they're economically worth and expect a handout instead.

No, people "losing their homes" is NOT a "free lunch". Asking OTHERS to SUBSIDIZE their existence so they can keep those homes which they can't maintain on the basis of their OWN productivity *IS* asking for a "free lunch".

You sound as though it's the responsibility of OTHERS to act as "parents" in a manner of speaking for those who aren't willing to earn their own way. Don't see it now...and doubt if I ever will.

If "build it, and people will come", then why don't "the people" BUILD IT THEMSELVES? Is there some natural "right" that maintains their "betters" (in the economic sense) are somehow RESPONSIBILE for them? Wouldn't that be a form of slavery of the grossest sort? I.e. - demanding that OTHERS work involuntarily to subsidize YOUR existence?

Again...60 MILLION!!!! S.h.e.e.e.e.s.s!!

[PobreCarlos]

soberups;

Yet you seem to have no problem with that [alleged!]....

"9 year old Chinese child working for $3 a day in a sweatshop with none of those pesky labor or enviornmental laws to contend with"

....subsidizing YOUR existence! Make no mistake; that's EXACTLY what's happening now! The productivity of those [competitive] Chinese workers - and the excess they produce and save - is what's backing the IMMENSE loans to the United States, which are being used to [temporarily, at least] subsidize those American workers who CAN'T (or, more truthfully, "won't) earn their OWN way on this earth!

Perhaps "cheaper doesn't always mean better". But, over the long term, more cost-effective and more efficient DOES mean survival. And do you think that even those [again, "alleged"] "$3 a day" Chinese laborers are going to be satisfied forever subsidizing the craven rear-ends of those who aren't willing to work as hard as they do? Do you think that they're going to continue not gathering-in the fruits of THEIR labor? Remember, LABOR HAS AN INTRINSIC VALUE! On that basis, even "$3/day" is better than NOTHING. And, of course (as can already be seen in the dramatic consumption increase in China, which is based on its increased productivity), wealth will follow to THOSE WHO CREATE IT!

Don't get me wrong; it saddens me to see so many workers (or, more to the point, "could be" workers) on the slippery slope. But, in a general way, they're almost always at fault themselves! Like it or not, "fair" or not, capital is going to seek the most efficient, most cost-effective labor alternative. And those that provide that labor are going to gather in the fruits of it.

Once upon a time (and, in many, MANY instances, they still do!) American workers richly EARNED the wealth the gathered in. Today, far too many want to keep the wealth...but without putting forth the effort to maintain it.

People can weep and gnash their teeth all they want about the situation but, in the end, THERE'S SIMPLY NO ALTERNATIVE TO BEING COMPETITIVE! THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!

As for the "level playing field", that seems to be the problem with far too many American workers as well; the LAST thing they want is a "level playing field". Rather, they want it tilted in their direction, or the other side handicapped. Look at the Teamsters now in regards to car haul; they don't want to be competitive, so they're asking the government to step in and UN-level the "playing field" in such a way that those who ARE competitive aren't allowed to play on it. Or take the port situation, for example; do you REALLY believe that the Teamsters primary concern is environmental? Nope...they want favor (read "subsidy"). And don't get me started on the auto workers union, or the steel workers, etc.

Sorry, but "fair is fair"...and I have little sympathy for those who think "fair" means that things ought to be tilted in their direction.

Lastly, I'm not PROPOSING any "race" of any kind. I'm simply pointing out that there *IS* a "race"...or a game of "musical chairs", if you would. And if the American workers wants to win, he has to compete. Because, you see, ANY seat is better than none at all. Just a fact of life.

[klein]

Originally Posted by PobreCarlos

klein;

H.m.m.m.m.....so there are "60 Million Americans out there, without a job". What a wonder! Since the official unemployment rate is around 10% (9.8% last I read), that would mean that, on the basis of those working and "without a job" the workforce of the country would be around 600,000,000...around TWICE what the TOTAL population - including every man, woman, and child - is of the ENTIRE country.


Again...60 MILLION!!!! S.h.e.e.e.e.s.s!!

10% unemployed is a figure from the Unemployment office.
Many have dropped out, as thier benefits ran out.
The unofficial unemployment rate in the US is 18+% !
ok, forgot the kids and housewives , my mistake 20 Million might be closer.

You as a sup, with no union back-up. Might become one of those numbers.
Then, you'll think why you paid soo much in taxes over soo many years, and are then taking trips to the foodbank.
You can get a job at Mac'd's , might just pay your UT bills, and thats it.
But, if everyone had the same idea, even those jobs would be hard to get by. (which you are probably already experiencing, with less "Help wanted signs" in those establishments).

Everybody should get a fair pay for a fair days work.
Atleast, something, someone can live on, independently, if they have some skills and brains.

Forget your chances of UPS union workers taking a pay cut.
Maybe, less wage increases in an upcomming contract, but NEVER a cut !
Unless, you're willing for a strike !
UPS isn't losing money, no matter how you want to turn those numbers.
Less profit, but NOT losing !
Then see what happens to the shares when they are on strike.....and profit losses, and customer losses.

Just an add on from Cheryls post:
UPS: A classic economic recovery play - Blogging Stocks
Not all stocks rise on cue. Despite a decent Q3 EPS performance of 55 cents, United Parcel Service, Inc.'s (NYSE: UPS) shares have lagged, but I'm nevertheless Reiterating my Buy rating for the company, first recommended on April 7, 2009 at a price of $51.28. Here's why:

Increased pricing power, in some delivery segments, and higher volumes will ensue in the quarters ahead, as the U.S./global economic recoveries strengthen. Overall, revenue should increase 7-9% in FY2010 after a difficult FY2009. The First Call FY2009/FY2010 EPS estimates for UPS are $2.17 to $2.70.


55 cents to $2.70 per share earnings estimated.... thats 500% increase !
And , you're asking for a paycut ? S.h.e.e.e.e.s.s!

[PobreCarlos]

klein;

H.m.m.m.....so the "unofficial" (I might add VERY "unofficial"!...as in "ludicrous" -grin!) unemployment rate is around 18%, 'eh? With closer to "50 million" (which, I note, you later edited-out after I started my response to "20 million") out of work? Well, in case you hadn't noticed, that would STILL result in a WORKFORCE figure that is greater than the ENTIRE population of the country...man, woman, child, nursing home inhabitant, congenital idiot, etc. And, of course, even "20 million" at the rate of unemployment that you stated would be far higher than the TOTAL workforce the country ever had.

Keep backing up, son. Maybe sometime you'll actually get in the ballpark.!

Sorry, "klein", but you're rapidly losing any credibility you might have had with me. You're bullsh_tting figures out there like there's no tomorrow...and like there aren't people out there who have a modicum of reasoning ability.

As for your other assumptions ("you as a sup", etc.); sorry, Sport, but they're just that....assumptions. And pretty poor ones at that.

I do agree, however, that there should be a fair days pay for a fair days work. But I also understand that the only way that "fair" can be calculated is on the basis of market value. Anything else is just opinion...or, in your case, more likely "assumption" (I think you can take it to the bank that I don't highly value the opinions OR assumptions of someone who pitches numbers like "60 million" or "50 million" unemployed at me...nor do I think any other reasonable person would either)

Lastly, I don't recall saying that UPS workers, per se, deserved a "pay cut". But, as for a "strike", you might be advised that, given the attitude of the Teamsters throughout the last few decades - particularly their almost total dependence upon UPS, and their absolute failure to make any effort worthy of the name in organizing UPS's competition - I and many of my associates would actually look forward to a strike, if that's what it comes to.

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but UPS isn't above simply pulling out of a situation if economic circumstances recommend it; witness Philly in the late 60's (or early '70's...been a long time, and I'll admit that I'm not sure). And note that, minus it's domestic operations, UPS would *STILL* be a much larger and more profitable (in absolute terms) company today than it was minus the Philly metro area 40 years ago. Yep, the company would take a "hit", but I've explained in other venues just how it could absorb that hit and go on to prosper quite well - and probably better - in the long run. Could the same be said of the Teamsters?

Side note: do you think over the long term that the stock market values companies that are "union" HIGHER? REALLY!?

Furthermore, I don't determine "fair" wages based on what people think it takes "to live on". Rather, I think wages should be based ON WHAT THE LABOR PROVIDED IS WORTH! Sometimes that's next to nothing. And, in many cases, it's LESS than nothing (I've known several employees over the years at UPS who the company would gladly have paid to get rid of)

[scoutjumper]

China which has the worlds highest tariffs is the worlds fastest growing economy. Most of the world econmies is built on export to the U.S. I wish we would use the same trade laws with them that they use with us. Free trade means we allow them acess to our markets and they keep theirs close to exports.

[klein]

Originally Posted by scoutjumper

China which has the worlds highest tariffs is the worlds fastest growing economy. Most of the world econmies is built on export to the U.S. I wish we would use the same trade laws with them that they use with us. Free trade means we allow them acess to our markets and they keep theirs close to exports.

I dare you to enforce that.
Unless you wanna ride a bicylce to work.
Because, without oil, it's game over !

[scoutjumper]

How can American workers compete with Chinese workers when they hid behind a wall of tariffs. China seeks to be self- sufficient and then and only ten will they inport. Why does the Japanese have such a high price on rice when they can not grow enough to feed themselves. Because tariffs protect the family rice farms , which the Japanese have deem for what ever reason inportant to there way of life. Britian embraced free trade in the 1850's the result was repeal ofthe Corn Laws. They went from being able to feed themselfs to near starvation in WW1. Why? Because cheap grain from the USA wiped out the family farms. China deems it more inportant to build things steel, ships, textiles etc. then having inexpensive items at the local market. American went from an farming economy to a world super power behind the highest tariffs in the world.. That lesson has not been lost on China.

[scoutjumper]

We have plenty of oil here if the anti-business class would get out of the way and lets go get it.

[scoutjumper]

PobreCarlos, I agree with you 99.9%, except on tariffs. I am a free market economic nationalist. Most drivers do not understand that if you earn more you have to be more productive. Working harder and longer.

[klein]

But, back to the topic :
If UPS really wants to save money, use the darn UPS stores they have in place.
Pay these independents extra dollars.
Be more like a post office :
Make 1 attempt, and thats it !
Customer will need to go to the store to retrieve it.

Nothing wrong with that.
Businesses, yes, do your 3 attempts, but rezis.... waste of time and money.