Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2014, 05:45 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
.

But I am damn tired of corporate apologists claiming that a company being cheap by outsourcing and cutting wages to workers is a "sensible business decisions" - with flags waving in the background - while ignoring the catastrophic economic effects, and then on the other hand blasting individuals for doing the same thing - being cheap - their personal lives.

.
I agree with both the corp and the consumer never paying more. Each should seek out the most efficient means to obtain what it needs as possible. Those are both sensible business and sensible personal decisions. It is up to each of us, whether we represent ourselves as a worker, or our corps, to become everyone else's most efficient method to obtain what they need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2014, 05:58 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
I agree with both the corp and the consumer never paying more. Each should seek out the most efficient means to obtain what it needs as possible. Those are both sensible business and sensible personal decisions. It is up to each of us, whether we represent ourselves as a worker, or our corps, to become everyone else's most efficient method to obtain what they need.
Fair enough - I can't fully agree with that mindset since, when carried out to its logical conclusion, it results in a race to the bottom, but you are consistent in your beliefs. At some point, the individual's (or corporation's) goal to make the most individually efficient decisions starts to harm others. Still, that's a debate for another time and probably one without a clear answer, and I do respect you for maintaining a consistent viewpoint when comparing corporate and individual decisions.

It is certain other people who keep espousing hypocritical views, believing companies should be free to minimize their expenses no matter the cost, but that consumers are "sell outs" and traitors for doing so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:00 PM
 
64 posts, read 84,161 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Oh, we are cheap as a nation - I never disagreed with that - and it does need to change or the whole nation death-spirals.

But I am damn tired of corporate apologists claiming that a company being cheap by outsourcing and cutting wages to workers is a "sensible business decisions" - with flags waving in the background - while ignoring the catastrophic economic effects, and then on the other hand blasting individuals for doing the same thing - being cheap - their personal lives.

Because we're to believe that a company that off-shores to China is "doing the right thing" if it's cheaper, but the now laid-off worker who buys Chinese goods is a "sell-out" Right...

Just more double-speak and hypocrisy from people who consider their fellow man infinitely less valuable than their stock portfolio.
I am not sure if we disagree here or not. But, in many cases (not all), if the company does not reduce the quality of their products/services and offshore, they will inevitably go bankrupt due to the unfair competition. The FIRST businesses that did it, should certainly be blamed. But businesses that do it now I do not think can be blamed just because they are now doing it. Although, most of the businesses that do it now just so happen to have lobbyists (either directly or indirectly) in Washington who are actively supporting these unfair trade policies, along with other sources of influence supporting these policies. Those companies absolutely can be justly blamed, and so can any of their management that are personally voting for and/or supporting and/or contributing to politicians supporting these policies.

However, I am sure there are some cases where there are businesses not partaking in any of the corrupt influence of government, are rapidly losing market share to competition using offshore labor, and have two choices: a) offshore some of their work, or b) shut down due to unbeatable competition offering lower quality, cheaper products, while using offshore labor. I do not blame these businesses for something that is out of their control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:04 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post

Fair enough - I can't fully agree with that mindset since, when carried out to its logical conclusion, it results in a race to the bottom, but you are consistent in your beliefs. At some point, the individual's (or corporation's) goal to make the most individually efficient decisions starts to harm others.
It does not have to, nor seek a race to the bottom. The other possibility is, in aggregate, we improve ourselves (I'd like that former #1 global rank in median population educational attainment back-being #10 is mot satisfactory), and we improve , again in aggregate, the median quality of available job.

30 years ago, Chinese were in rice paddies. Now they make socks and shirts, stuff that may have represented what we should do in 1914, but not necessarily what we should even want to do in 2014. But notice who has gotten most accounting outsourcing-nations like the Philippines. Each nation would naturally come up with different levels of jobs on the global food change, and IMO, we haven't raised our capability enough. We can do much better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:08 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheQuestioner View Post
I am not sure if we disagree here or not. But, in many cases (not all), if the company does not reduce the quality of their products/services and offshore, they will inevitably go bankrupt due to the unfair competition. The FIRST businesses that did it, should certainly be blamed. But businesses that do it now I do not think can be blamed just because they are now doing it. Although, most of the businesses that do it now just so happen to have lobbyists (either directly or indirectly) in Washington who are actively supporting these unfair trade policies, along with other sources of influence supporting these policies. They absolutely can be justly blamed, and so can any of their management that are personally voting for and/or supporting and/or contributing to politicians supporting these policies.

However, I am sure there are some cases where there are businesses not partaking in any of the corrupt influence of government, are rapidly losing market share to competition using offshore labor, and have two choices: a) offshore some of their work, or b) shut down due to unbeatable competition offering lower quality, cheaper products, while using offshore labor. I do not blame these businesses for something that is out of their control.
We are generally in agreement - I never said the consumer was free of blame, and the death-spiral cannot be denied. It doesn't matter technically which started first since the effect is the same: lower pay = buying cheap products from overseas = more jobs lost = more lower pay and more cheap products bought, and so on.

There is strong evidence that the blame lies more on corporations for getting the ball rolling because they are able to make massive changes far faster than consumers and tend to drive markets. As they reduced wages, off-shored, or just plain eliminated jobs, they drove the market. Even if the new, imported stuff was junk, people no longer had a choice because it was all they could afford. It is far easier and faster to force a market change by closing a dozen factories and putting people out of work than it is to convince people to abandon established US brands in favor of cheaper unknown imported ones, especially in the days before the internet.

Let's go back to the day in which all of this was just beginning and a consumer was faced with the choice of buying a US-made TV set or some new, cheaper one made overseas. Back then, there was no internet and reviews were limited to subscription magazines, so he or she would probably just stick with the known-factor - the US TV set - until proven otherwise.

While most of this happened before I was buying my own products, I still remember hearing plenty of adults complain about "cheap imported junk" back in the day, so I find it very hard to believe that US consumers threw away known, quality brands just to buy cheaper, unknown brands. Maybe they did in some markets, like socks or t-shirts, but nothing more than that. Heck, back in the day Wal-mart - the modern whipping boy for imported junk - focused almost entirely on "made in America" products, so, again, I find it very hard to believe that the consumer "demanded" a change to imported junk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:18 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post

. Maybe they did in some markets, like socks or t-shirts, but nothing more than that. Heck, back in the day Wal-mart - the modern whipping boy for imported junk - focused almost entirely on "made in America" products, so, again, I find it very hard to believe that the consumer "demanded" a change to imported junk.
What junk?

By lowering prices so dramatically relative to average wages (When I was a kid, if I wanted to get a simple coffee maker as a gift -it was about 15-18 hours work at a teenager's typical minimum wage job), we have simply changed stuff we'd have bought 25 years ago and repaired (tvs for example) to throwaway items. But even if I buy say 5 tvs a decade as these HDTV's burn out quickly, it is still cheaper, adjusted for median wages, than the first color tv we had- a 19" Zenith at $400 in the early 70s.

My first 2 head VCR mid 80s-$450. Even in an office, that represented a lot of pay. Contrast that with DVDs 10 years ago at what, $90. Blu Rays under $200.

Now by lowering prices so much, we changed the mantra to disposable. Use it til it breaks, than replace it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:29 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
What junk?

By lowering prices so dramatically relative to average wages (When I was a kid, if I wanted to get a simple coffee maker as a gift -it was about 15-18 hours work at a teenager's typical minimum wage job), we have simply changed stuff we'd have bought 25 years ago and repaired (tvs for example) to throwaway items. But even if I buy say 5 tvs a decade as these HDTV's burn out quickly, it is still cheaper, adjusted for median wages, than the first color tv we had- a 19" Zenith at $400 in the early 70s.

My first 2 head VCR mid 80s-$450. Even in an office, that represented a lot of pay. Contrast that with DVDs 10 years ago at what, $90. Blu Rays under $200.

Now by lowering prices so much, we changed the mantra to disposable. Use it til it breaks, than replace it.
Eh... you're comparing prices from different eras.

You have to go back to when this started, when your American TV cost $400 and the imported one maybe cost $350 or so. I can't see Americans back then - especially before internet reviews and such - eagerly throwing aside their trusted brands for unknowns, even if they are cheaper. People complained about "imported junk" back then, too, and even Wal-mart based it's growth on US products.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Eh... you're comparing prices from different eras.

You have to go back to when this started, when your American TV cost $400 and the imported one maybe cost $350 or so. I can't see Americans back then - especially before internet reviews and such - eagerly throwing aside their trusted brands for unknowns, even if they are cheaper. People complained about "imported junk" back then, too, and even Wal-mart based it's growth on US products.
Americans are much better off today, not paying so much for electronics. But it did change these items to disposables.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:37 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Americans are much better off today, not paying so much for electronics. But it did change these items to disposables.
Overall, yes, though I was comparing the price of US-made vs. imported products back in the day and the effects of consumer choice vs. corporate choice. For example, if we still made TV's in the US, they wouldn't be $400 Zeniths of old. They'd cost more than imports, sure, but not like that.

Also, while electronics and other goods have gotten cheaper, college, health care, college costs, and even energy have all increased greatly in recent decades. This is the era where you can easily afford several nice TV's, but probably not a nice house in which to put them, oddly enough. As you've said before, we can do better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2014, 06:59 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post

. As you've said before, we can do better.
You bet, and I worry about any day when we cannot. I wonder how much of the "the world is in ruins, we compete with no one 1950s economic era" played in our getting complacent until about 20 years ago. We didn't care that we had lost the quality war to Japan (who listens to Deming, right?), we were fat, dumb, and happy. We didn't even care that we were setting up unsustainable business models (who cares about the next generation, right? I'll set up BIG pensions for all-no one will hit 65 and live until 90 under my stewardship, anyway?).

I have seen awesome documentaries on many corps, WM amongst them. An analyst described them as constantly paranoid about their future. In some ways, I think that is when people do their best work, while I wouldn't say worried/paranoid, I would say when cognizant they can be knocked down. When taking nothing for granted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top