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 Discussions
This saves money?
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: 625729" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>JustTired;</p><p> </p><p>I think you're making a couple of suppositions there. First of all, many prices HAVE been lowered...or haven't you noticed all the products that are produced overseas that are purchased here because they're cheaper...and, in many cases, so much cheaper that they drove the domestic production out of business. Just as a quick example, when was the last time anyone you know purchased a domestic-produced TV? Yet, for years, there was parallel production vis-a- vis domestic/foreign. Or CD/DVD players? The list goes on and on.</p><p> </p><p>Secondly, I think you're of the mind that companies are somehow tied to nations...and that they don't exist internationally. "Yes", perhaps the consumer base DOES deteriorate here...but, like I said, labor has an INTRINSIC VALUE, and the producers of that value become the consumers based on the wealth the created. I.e. - while domestic markets may be going down here, they're going UP in the countries which are doing the "producing". For example, take that [alleged] $3/day wage in China. That $3/day wage can be quite equal - in terms of wealth created - to a wage 30 times that in the U.S. And that wealth, sooner or later, in one way or another, is going to benefit it's creators. Right now, those "$3/day" wage earners are SAVING money to the extent that they're subsidizing (via HUMONGOUS loans to our country) the American consumer. Meanwhile, their consumption is growing by leaps and bounds...and it's NOT based on being subsidized, but via actual wealth creation.</p><p> </p><p>In short, companies can find a balance between production and consumption....and that balance does NOT have to be made in this country. Rather, it will be made where it's most financially suitable. And, if you think such enterprises can be tied-down over the long term via overly-restrictive governmental regulation, think again; all they'll do is simply pull-up stakes and go someplace where their wealth creation is appreciated. Look at DHL (primarily because it's already been brought up in this thread). When it began losing money on the basis of what it thought was excessive regulation (specifically airline ownership issues, and labor law), it pulled up stakes. And surely you're aware how much pressure was put on the government to FORCE it to keep operation here; hell, the entire governmental structure of Ohio was up in arms trying to keep Wilmington from closing down. Yet it closed down anyway.</p><p> </p><p>The point being, of course, is that you can't FORCE companies to create wealth (or, over the long term, to maintain jobs, etc); at best, you can only create an environment in which it's to their ADVANTAGE to.</p><p> </p><p>I kinda' agree with you (although not to the point that I used to; I'm pretty much convinced now that actual physical production of goods is going to parceled-out to emerging economies) that it would appear difficult to have solely a service-based economy. But if labor is unwilling to make the effort to retain goods production (i.e. - remain competitive on the world stage), then over the long haul, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THAT PRODUCTION HERE!</p><p> </p><p>That's simply a fact of economic existence. "Yes", if you don't produce, you'll find it difficult to consume. And those who do produce - again, over the long haul - aren't going to be willing to subsidize those who don't produce. Just the way things are.</p><p> </p><p>Which brings me to the point that most large companies today are not only international in their operations, but international in their ownership as well. Like it or not, national "loyalty" isn't their primary concern, simply because they're not exclusively tied to any one nation.</p><p> </p><p>You're right in that I don't like to see our country (or at least it's economy) destroyed....which is why I have the point of view that I do. One can point to industry after industry - auto, steel, ocean shipping, etc. - and readily see what's been the basis of destruction. And it has NOT been the investors or the firms they formed.</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, but as I see it, until "organized" labor (I limit it to that because, in case you hadn't noticed, this countries "unorganized" labor is still extremely competitive...and I'm not just talking in terms of wages/hour) comes to it's senses and realizes that it's cutting it's own throat, then you're going to see more and more of the jobs they once held (and they hold far less than half of them now that they once did) disappear.</p><p> </p><p>Again, just an economic fact of life. You (or I!) don't have to like it; but, if we want to succeed, we HAVE to recognize it. There's STILL no "free lunch".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 625729, member: 16651"] JustTired; I think you're making a couple of suppositions there. First of all, many prices HAVE been lowered...or haven't you noticed all the products that are produced overseas that are purchased here because they're cheaper...and, in many cases, so much cheaper that they drove the domestic production out of business. Just as a quick example, when was the last time anyone you know purchased a domestic-produced TV? Yet, for years, there was parallel production vis-a- vis domestic/foreign. Or CD/DVD players? The list goes on and on. Secondly, I think you're of the mind that companies are somehow tied to nations...and that they don't exist internationally. "Yes", perhaps the consumer base DOES deteriorate here...but, like I said, labor has an INTRINSIC VALUE, and the producers of that value become the consumers based on the wealth the created. I.e. - while domestic markets may be going down here, they're going UP in the countries which are doing the "producing". For example, take that [alleged] $3/day wage in China. That $3/day wage can be quite equal - in terms of wealth created - to a wage 30 times that in the U.S. And that wealth, sooner or later, in one way or another, is going to benefit it's creators. Right now, those "$3/day" wage earners are SAVING money to the extent that they're subsidizing (via HUMONGOUS loans to our country) the American consumer. Meanwhile, their consumption is growing by leaps and bounds...and it's NOT based on being subsidized, but via actual wealth creation. In short, companies can find a balance between production and consumption....and that balance does NOT have to be made in this country. Rather, it will be made where it's most financially suitable. And, if you think such enterprises can be tied-down over the long term via overly-restrictive governmental regulation, think again; all they'll do is simply pull-up stakes and go someplace where their wealth creation is appreciated. Look at DHL (primarily because it's already been brought up in this thread). When it began losing money on the basis of what it thought was excessive regulation (specifically airline ownership issues, and labor law), it pulled up stakes. And surely you're aware how much pressure was put on the government to FORCE it to keep operation here; hell, the entire governmental structure of Ohio was up in arms trying to keep Wilmington from closing down. Yet it closed down anyway. The point being, of course, is that you can't FORCE companies to create wealth (or, over the long term, to maintain jobs, etc); at best, you can only create an environment in which it's to their ADVANTAGE to. I kinda' agree with you (although not to the point that I used to; I'm pretty much convinced now that actual physical production of goods is going to parceled-out to emerging economies) that it would appear difficult to have solely a service-based economy. But if labor is unwilling to make the effort to retain goods production (i.e. - remain competitive on the world stage), then over the long haul, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THAT PRODUCTION HERE! That's simply a fact of economic existence. "Yes", if you don't produce, you'll find it difficult to consume. And those who do produce - again, over the long haul - aren't going to be willing to subsidize those who don't produce. Just the way things are. Which brings me to the point that most large companies today are not only international in their operations, but international in their ownership as well. Like it or not, national "loyalty" isn't their primary concern, simply because they're not exclusively tied to any one nation. You're right in that I don't like to see our country (or at least it's economy) destroyed....which is why I have the point of view that I do. One can point to industry after industry - auto, steel, ocean shipping, etc. - and readily see what's been the basis of destruction. And it has NOT been the investors or the firms they formed. Sorry, but as I see it, until "organized" labor (I limit it to that because, in case you hadn't noticed, this countries "unorganized" labor is still extremely competitive...and I'm not just talking in terms of wages/hour) comes to it's senses and realizes that it's cutting it's own throat, then you're going to see more and more of the jobs they once held (and they hold far less than half of them now that they once did) disappear. Again, just an economic fact of life. You (or I!) don't have to like it; but, if we want to succeed, we HAVE to recognize it. There's STILL no "free lunch". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
This saves money?
Top