I god damn knew someone was going to take that the wrong way. I just god damn knew it! But I left it in because I figured no one would want to split hairs like that. Wouldn’t be worth the time I reckoned. Well, I was wrong.
Fine…
The whole state is more or less one big wide open area outside the major cities. A few farmhouses and small towns dot the landscape, but most of the land is clearcut and all of it is connected by the thruway.
There, are you happy?
Justin_Bailey and Susanann, both of you need to make your arguments without personal insults and calling each other racists. Terms like that should be used sparingly, if ever, in this forum.
I never called anyone a racist. I said her argument was racist, BIG difference.
Her argument is also bunk, but I suppose that’s neither here nor there when it comes to modding.
Thank You.
The whole idea that we are working together is gone. We used to believe the company interests and ours were the same. If the company prospered, we could thrive. But now the company makes huge profits while slashing pay and benefits. They pay the execs huge salaries and incredible stock options while offshoring jobs.
Eliminating security does not make people work harder. Fear does not make a happy workplace.It stifles creativity .
We did? When? The whole reason unions were set up was because workers didn’t trust the company to treat them fairly (or frankly, like any more than disposable slave labor).
This condition arose after the unions came in. and were able to have power Before then, it was as adversarial as you could imagine. Workers got no respect at all before unions. Workers were powerless in the face of the company. A lot of fools on this board want to go back there. they are too young to know what it was like. It seems they will get their wish and will suffer badly for it.
There was a good time for workers and corporations working together. it is almost over now. We will go backwards a long way.
The ability to work the same job to retirement is a function of manufacturing stability. After WWII the United States had 75% of all the world production facilities because of the destruction the war wrought. It was a one-time bonus of stability that will not be repeated. Those who entered the work force after the war stepped into an artificially ramped up manufacturing arena with no competition.
So if a company is doing well nowadays, cutting employees, offshoring work and slashing wages is just business. If maximizing profits includes firing you and replacing you with someone cheaper that is fine? The company owes you nothing. You however, should work harder and harder for less and less.
It is well known that newspapers were gutting bureaus and cutting reporters when they were making nearly 20 percent profits. Why? Because for a short time, they could make even more. They could greatly enrich themselves and please their stockholders as they take as much money out of the company as possible. They destroyed the ability of the paper to do its job. But that does not matter. They see their job as making as much as possible.
I’m not sure what your rant has to do with what I said or with reality in general. Newspapers are dying because nobody buys them anymore. We no longer hold any kind of monopoly on production like we did following WW-II. It was easy to sell a product when Europe and Asia lay in rubble.
The reality of the world today is that India and Asia represent substantial cost differences in production. We can’t even drill for oil without our own government fighting against it.
They also have significant population base and are developing. For my firm, most of our product is sold in Asia. Makes sense to build it where we are going to sell most of it.
So its 1) cheaper to do it over seas. 2) there is less regulation and 3) the majority of your customers are in Asia.
As transportation costs increase and robotics get cheaper, manufacturing - but not jobs - will move back to service this population.
Their economys were in rubble too and they weren’t buying anything from us. The graphs tell the story.
EDIT:
OK, it’s just not working for some reason. Basically the imports graph corresponds with the exports graph. You can go to Fred and search for it.
Nobody? My Detroit newspapers are on line now. The problem is that papers have eliminated so many bureaus that they don’t keep up at all. The quality of news and writing has dropped drastically. I am turned off by the terrible coverage of our papers, that have no competition. We used to have 3 papers. Now we have 1.5. If it were not for sports and cartoons, they would have nothing.
So did people quit the papers because they turned sour or was it because of online competition?
Both.
Online competition meant they started losing customers. Losing customers meant they had to charge less for advertising. Having to charge less for advertising meant that they had to spend less on content - reporters were let go, content subscriptions dropped. Less content meant they lost customers, losing customers meant they lost advertising. At the same time, the price of paper went up increasing cost of goods sold at a time when the industry was feeling a lot of pressure.
If you maintained a newspaper that was far better than what is available on line, you could succeed. The gutting of papers made it impossible for them to compete. They were offering a weaker product for more money.
How would you manage that? The volume and ability to self craft internet contact makes it impossible to give you what is far better than what is online for free - even if you spent a lot of money, which newspapers do not have to spend as their advertising dollars have dried up.
Sure, but what does “better” mean in this context? For most of us young’uns (okay, I’m not very young, but I’m of the generation that abandoned newspapers), “better” news sources are immediate, update dozens or hundreds of times a day, have easy mechanisms for consumer input on individual stories, allow for individuals to create news stories to share, have short, easy to read articles with quick mechanisms to allow more in depth coverage if we wish to know more and incorporate multimedia in their presentation of the news. How do you do that in a newspaper, no matter what your budget?
We want immediacy, customizability and democratic input. Those are fairly antithetical to the newspaper format, and excellent for internet and social media. So to us, the internet and social media are going to be “better” news sources than anything you could print on dead trees once a day.
I mean, do you seriously think they didn’t try? Here in Chicago, we have a “better” news rag put out by The Chicago Tribune which tries to do these things and appeal to younger people who aren’t buying newspapers. The Tribune is still sinking fast. The Sun-Times canceled their direct competitor, Red Streak, years ago because it didn’t work, either.
In the 60’s we had 2 newspapers. Then one newspaper. In the mid 70’s my college professor (journalism class) used it as an example of poor writing and I don’t think he was being too picky. That was back when it was a full production paper with journalists who wrote well. There were still enough good writers on staff to offset the poor quality of the rest of the paper.
I realized how far the paper had sunk when I happened to read a smaller paper from a nearby city. I read the thing from front to back. It was well written, informative and everything a newspaper should be. I happen to mention this to a local person and it started a discussion on specific articles from the larger paper. They were so poorly written we remembered them. This was 5 years ago. The paper now has cancer and is losing weight with each issue.
In an age of instant information you can’t continue with the same marketing mix that worked over the last century.