I think companies will hire who they need, like they do now, only slower. And once hired, less people will become unemployed, which will balance out the slowness in hiring. LOL.
In my business, a few months delay in time to market means you may have missed the wave and lost out on a major business deal. Sorry, it’s not an option.
- Jobs overseas where hiring and firing are easier.
- Contractors where the job can’t be moved overseas - hiring and firing are easier and you don’t pay benefits!
Who says businesses have to work the way they do now?
Those exist now. Why do American businesses even exist when they can get Haitian slave children to make all their products now?
Damn kids lack reliability due to excessive morbidity and mortality.
It’s alwys nice to see someone with no knowledge of business or economics make an half-assed argument that they’ve put absolutely no thought into.
A lot of American manufacture is already being sent overseas, as you’ve no doubt heard. However, and this may come as a shock, there are many jobs here that can not be sent overseas, or require a certain amount of skill to perform. Those jobs, under your restricted-termination scenario, are likely to be performed by contractors. This has been pointed out to you already, but you have conveniently ignored those posts.
Because we’re competing against people who do, and they’re not going to give up an advantage. Unless you can tell me that our competition in other countries is going to give up the flexibility and time-to-market advantages they have for no apparent reason then you are effectively killing off entire industries.
You can make changes to the way businesses operate, but not unilaterally and not with such a heavy hand.
I ignore you mostly because you have nothing new to say that’s been already addressed, or imagine fantasy worlds where basic logic doesn’t apply. And for some reason you’re unusually angry at the suggestion that we protect employees more. Maybe when come back bring pie, lose the attitude :dubious:
All countries have protections on certain industries, its not a radical idea to extend that protection with incentives for companies to voluntarily locate here. Yes, many jobs cannot be outsourced, but of the ones that aren’t, I don’t see the industries losing bucketfuls of money. Apple can just as easily use American laborers, tech companies can just as easily use American tech support personnel and still make a profit. The problem is that people think that companies need to be able to exploit their workers AND are entitled to that amount of profit they get by outsourcing.
Is there really anyone here that supports outsourcing unless they are an executive at a large company? Are all of you CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies? If Apple doesn’t want to use American workers because we’d have union bylaws to protect them, then they can stop selling in the US permanently. That would be radical, and no, I don’t think they’d do that. I think many people underestimate access to the American marketplace is a boon that more than makes up for its labor costs.
Plus, its not true that companies simply outsource and that the US cannot compete without it. There are actual manufacturing jobs in the US. Less than 30 years ago, sure, but companies do open new factories here. Why? With all of the pennies they can pay in South America or Africa or Asia to workers who don’t need to be paid a living wage, why are ANY factories in the US at all? By that logic, the US or any first world country should not have any manufacturing because they can all be done for pennies on the dollar in these 3rd world countries with zero worker protections. I think that apocalyptic scenario will never happen, there will be a balance between worker pay and the incentives that goes on right now, and will continue to go on
Lastly, and this is the most important point. So what if the companies can’t do business here? So what if the worst happens? Much of the world is sustained by American and first world spending, if our economy goes bust, so does theirs. Why should companies hold American workers hostage so that they can maximize their profits on the backs of low wagers with little protection? I’d rather have companies deal with that fallout and have maximum union protection for all workers because its the right thing to do, not because I’m afraid WalMart’s not going to be in my city. The status quo right now, with workers being fired for no reason, is worse than whatever scenario you can conceive of. Its unrealistic to think that all companies will simply bail out if we suddenly went BACK to the union levels we had 50 years ago (and herein lies another contradiction: I’m not advocating anything new, we’ve done this before and so change can happen. America and companies will survive)
Really? Then it should be very easy for you to show us all where you addessed the point I made about contractors. We’ll all wait patiently.
The fact is, your entire argument is so terribly crafted that it’s impossible for anyone in this thread to take you seriously. Your entire point begins and ends with the idea that freedom is so important that it needs to be protected, not only from the government, but also from various other consequences. It’s so important, that we need to infringe upon the freedoms of other people. Freedom of speech is so importatn that, in your mind, we need to retool our entire market enconomy to suit your uneducated whim. But wait a second, freedom isn’t a good thing in and of itself, right? That’s why it’s so important that we protect this particular freedom.
Seriously, excellent job making sense.
There’s another cold beer I wish I could deliver through the monitor.
My company lays people off, and might go out of business. That’s pretty bad. Your turn.
And those laid off people have families. And those families have no safety net. These are bad things. So dozens of people enter the ranks of the unemployed and destitute. All because the company in question wasn’t allowed to part company with a bad employee. You know, because we have to protect ALL workers. Yogi, your vision of protecting ALL workers will end up protecting NO workers.
That company does, but of the ones who stay, there are more employees, better paid ones, with health care and safety nets that won’t reduce them to poverty in case they get into an accident or contract some illness. There’s a cost/benefit to each side and I think people are skewing it too much on the side of little worker protection
Look at what we have now. Plenty of industries have unionized workers. And unless they are all on the brink of bankruptcy and have closed down most of their factories in the US, then it doesn’t fit into your assertion that this will kill employers. Work with employees, make a fair offer to them, provide them stability, and they will do a good job. Claiming catastrophe is kind of odd when anyone can see all around them that there are good union jobs with worker protections in thriving industries
And there is the PR nightmare for using Haitian slave children. Far better to use Chinese factory workers - they are usually adults (or claim to be) and have the illusion of being able to leave their jobs.
The competitors aren’t just in the US - they aren’t playing the same game. The ones in the US will outsource and use contractors. The end result is jobs leaving the US, and more people unemployed or underemployed.
Take a look at the industries that still are unionized. They are mainly work that can’t be outsourced (local, state, and federal public sector, manufacturing, transportation, retail, construction, leisure/hospitality, and education). Huge numbers of jobs in the US can be outsourced if economics make it more profitable to do so. Only 7% of private sector workers in the US are unionized, and that number is going down. So your argument doesn’t hold up.
Sounds like we need protective laws that reduce outsourcing or incentives to keep them here. Those aren’t radical ideas if done property, balancing out profits with employment.
Wait, manufacturing can’t be outsourced? Isn’t that among the easiest to outsource? Haitian children have nimble little fingers…
And maybe the way to solve problems is to unionize all of those jobs that can’t be easily outsourced first, then move on to the others.
Ah, protectionism. You can’t force people to employ Americans. There are plenty of foreign competitors who are using labor in India, China, and elsewhere to create products. Are you telling our customers that they can’t buy their products and services?
You might wish to take a look at the diminishing percentage of unionized jobs in manufacturing over the past century. For example, the new auto plants that have been built in the US in the last few decades are all non-unionized. There was a lot of unionized manufacturing in the US so it’s not difficult to see why there is still a strong representation. But the numbers are declining rapidly, from 15% in 2002 to under 11% in 2012. While manufacturing in the US may be making a recovery, the gains aren’t being made with unions.
OK, you reverse the trend of the last 50 years first and then we’ll talk.
Its not that simple. Protectionism already happens, it won’t destroy the economy or get countries to war, there are balances that must be achieved but it can be done. Give incentives to companies that employ Americans. We’re generally better trained and more dependable than a lot of low-wage, low-skill workers elsewhere, there are good reasons to maintain jobs here or else no jobs would be here in the first place and all companies would have outsourced 100% of their outsourceable labor years ago. Our customers can buy what they want, but a balanced tariff would make sure prices aren’t wildly different from foreign companies that use cheaper labor. Hell, just shipping things from overseas incurs a price
I think one reason you’re overlooking is that we simply have less manufacturing jobs now than decades ago. More work is being automated every year and we require less workers to do the same job as 10 or 20 years ago. Its a natural evolution of the industry
Are we arguing about what should be done or are we simply arguing on how things are and leaving it at that?
The issue with protectionism is that it is a two way street. When you put protectionism in place, you have a hard time selling your goods and services overseas. Since most of the market isn’t in the U.S. that means less business for U.S. businesses. Which means fewer jobs. You need to make sure that the price you pay to protect those jobs is worth it. Because you will very likely pay for it in other jobs,
That goes without saying in everything we do. Raise the price of grapes a nickel and people will buy less, and grape growers will plant less grapes and fire more workers, leading to a worldwide grape catastrophe. Believe me, I understand that concept that you all are trying to drill into my head: unintended consequences. But that stuff happens all the time and we deal with it and the world hasn’t come to an end. Neither will the world come to an end if American workers have more protections