I’m always amused by the claims that the unions somehow single-handedly drove wages out of sight and killed the steel industry. Somehow the fact that the corporate management never bothered to re-invest in better technology and improved production techniques throughout the 1950s and 1960s (because even with the wages that they were conceding the unions, they found it cheaper to run labor-intensive industries that to actually invest in their own production) never makes it into the discussion. It is always “unions drove up wages” and never “management easily agreed to unreasonable union demands.”
I suspect that there is quite enough blame to be shared by all the parties without trying to pretend that one side caused all the problems.
The pathos almost knocks you over, doesn’t it? Horatio Alger you ain’t!
If you’re really encompassing the “world”, I’ll have to assume you’re right on a gross scale, regarding the poor’s chances of getting out and about. If you’re speaking about America in specific, I still have to believe you’re wrong.
Poverty is not a genetic marker. Most people have the ability to work hard and compete against others (barring mental illness or other physical limitations), getting those scholarships you mentioned, getting that better job, and getting respect and compensation to follow.
Is there a lack of decent jobs in the area in which you live? Move! Do you have family holding you back in the hellhole you call home? Talk to them, they’ll likely understand, nad probably want to jump in the U-Haul with you. Find an urban center that needs blue-collar labor if you’re not educated, find a median white or grey-collar job if you are. Work hard, progress.
Why everyone is bashing Shagnasty for the open market + skill set equation is beyond me. A safety net is for people who don’t care enough to actively improve their marketability. As for those who claim that the absence of the almighty Union would cause regression into a Sinclair Jungle-esque hodgepodge of severed fingers and swallowed effluvium, think again. What distinguishes this time from the Dickensian labor abuses is a healthy media. Does anyone here really think that a non-Unionized GM would resort to 16-hour shifts, metallic lung syndrome and other abuses without getting called to the mat?
IMHO, it’s shameful that people would target Shagnasty for advocating self-reliance. It makes one wonder what the skill sets (and ambition) are of those who carp.
It is simply a bad idea to mix business and charity directly. You will tend to not be very effective at either. The vast majority of small businesses fail within a few years and that is especially true for things like coffee shops and restaurants. The best gift you can you can give to your employees, yourself, and the community is to have a profitable, thriving business. It is terrible for everyone to work in a business that is having financial problems. If you choose to use your business as a way to give something back to people and the community, the way to do that is to be very competitive in your business practices to make sure the business succeeds and then use the actual profits to give back what you choose. In a practical sense, that would involve things like waiting for profits to come in and then giving the employees bonuses rather than simply paying them above market rates before you know what is actually happening financially. Profits should normally be invested straight back in the business for at least the first few years too but that is the the only discretionary money you have at all.
The proceeding was pro bono business efficiency consulting just for you.
Again, unionizing is not a bad thing. It will not drive you under unless you are running a sweatshop.
Actually, my employees care about my business. They have offered to take pay cuts when things are slow, they go out and and promote my business on their own time…handing out flyers etc…
Unions care about the business because its in their best interest to do so. If they kill the company, they arent doing their members any good. Most unions will make reasonable concessions and not ask for unreasonable demands.
If there were scholorships available for everyone who achieved a certain level you might…might have a point.
There arent. There are a limited number…a tiny fraction of the number of people who would need them for your statement to have any merit.
Nice fantasy.
I always love when people pring this crap up…wait…actually I think its tireing and dumb. Moving takes money. If you dont have the money to buy food, how are you going to rent a uhaul? where are you going to stay when you get there. The homeless shelter? Do you know how hard it is getting a job when you live in a homeless shelter?
because its wrong
most people who go on welfare are off it in a couple of years. I have never met a poor person who didn’t care enough to improve their marketabillity. I’m sure they exist some where but they are the exception.
Under this administration? But seriously…not right away. It will take time for those labor laws to be dismantled.
It is shameful that people are so narrow minded and find it easier to assume the worst about people than to face the reality that unbridled capitalism results in poverty.
Yes, we know that. But none of those 26,000 are employed in ‘sweatshops’. The ‘Nike workers’ we are talking about are those workers in the 3rd world who are employed making Nike products. The question is whether there are 650,000 people making Nike products, or whether there are 650,000 people working in factories of which Nike products are only a part of what they make.
In other words, how many people does it take to make all the products Nike sells in a year? Nike seems to claim that it’s 650,000. Other sources seem to agree. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that that’s the right number. Other people in this thread are apparently claiming that the number is much smaller.
The question is important because it goes to Nike’s ability to just ‘spend more money’ and elevate those worker’s salaries to ‘living wage’ levels. Of course, there are other issues involved, but before debating them it would be nice to know if it’s even possible. If in fact it’s correct that about 650,000 people are working full time making Nike products each year, then there’s no way in hell Nike could afford to substantially increase what they are paid. If, on the other hand, those 650,000 people spend only 10% of their time making Nike products, then theoretically Nike makes enough profit that it could substantially increase what they get paid for at least the portion of time they spend making Nike products.
You know, right after you made the first post about the number of employees, I started a reply to say that they probably were only part time employees in the sense that they work at foundries which support other companies as well. Then I got distracted, and just didn’t submit it.
I don’t really think it’s an issue, though, as even in the most extreme case, you’re probably not off by more than a factor of 2. In that case, your point is still well taken.
At this point it may be academic, but since I’ve been accused of shoddy thinking and everyone seems to think I’m wrong by sticking to the 650,000 number, I’d like to know what it really is. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on the problem, and every answer I come up with leads me back to the ballpark of 650,000. But with the sheer number of opposing viewpoints, I’m not curious to understand why I’m wrong, if I am, and what the ‘real’ number is.
If you look back at all the cites I posted, they all lead to that number. For example, a web site for a shoe manufacturing company that I linked to says that they make 80 million pairs of shoes a year, and they employ 140,000 people to make them. They are one of the ‘outsourcers’ used by companies like Nike. Now, if it takes 140,000 people to make 80 million pairs of shoes, and Nike sells 140 million shoes per year worldwide, then doesn’t that suggest that Nike probably directly employs at least 200,000 people just to make their shoes? And shoes are only a portion of Nike’s business.
Since Nike’s own web site says in several places that 650,000 people work making Nike products, why should we disbelieve this number, given that running the calculation numerous different ways as I did earlier seems to corroborate it?
On the other side, the only arguments I’ve seen are ‘common sense’ appeals and comments that some factories make products for more than one company - a point that was never disputed and somewhat irrelevant.
At least you didn’t use “unfettered”…style points!
My coding isn’t up to snuff, so I’ll try to respond to your points in general text.
It sounds cruel, but the fact that there aren’t enough scholarships isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For those willing to compete, there should be a reward that isn’t universal. There are tiers of schools, and unless I’m terribly mistaken, there are needs-based scholarships for those willing to apply. For those that don’t qualify, there are loans. They’re called “guaranteed” student loans for a reason, too. Once you get out of college, pay them off with the job gained from your improved skill set.
I’d love to see a cite (or even a credible reference) for that chestnut “…capitalism results in poverty.”. I think that with some pretty drastic (IMHO) assumptions, you could build a case for that result in extremis , but I hardly think such a blanket statement is warranted. Are there historical examples?
bdgr…you do poor people a disservice when you place them in a passive position. When you state the difficulties in moving, or in getting an education, or in getting a good job, you demean the working poor. To be honest with you, there’s not much I wouldn’t do to get my family out of poverty and into a better situation. I don’t understand people who don’t think the same way.
Lastly, when you state Shagnasty’s (by my paraphrase) equation is “wrong”, are you saying that you (as a business owner) would take a lesser-qualified applicant over a better one if you thought you could do more good in that person’s life with the job offer? If “yes”, then what about when the differential between applicants becomes more extreme? It’s a slippery slope, bdgr… at a certain point, the better skill set has to make sense.
I was suspicious of the number at first simply because I’ve worked with a number of foundries and I know how they work. Granted, my experience is in the electronics business, not clothing, but I think there is some similarity. After your further cites, though, the original number does seem to make sense. At any rate, it’s unlikely that a company like Nike would contract out manufacturing to a small portion of dozens of different factories. That would just create unnecessary overhead to manage all those sites. Sure, you don’t want only one factory, but with the volume they produce, they can take upwards of 50% of quite a few factories and spread the risk around w/o any problem. That still allows them to play the various factories off each other when negotiating contracts.
I give up. You have no clue how to do back-of-the-envelope calculations. You can’t say 2.5 = 3.0, 750,000 = 1,000,000, or “at least 200,000” = 650,000 and expect people to take you seriously. You have to be at least somewhat aware of what margin of error you’re accumulating through your calculations. None of your “double checking” leads to a number like 650,000; it would lead to wild-assed ranges like 120,000 - 4,000,000 if you actually figured in the error your wild guesses contribute. That is not support for your misinterpretation of Nike’s claim.
‘back of the envelope’ calculations are generally designed to see if your numbers are within range of an order of magnitude or otherwise reasonable when doing this kind of estimating. There are so many damned unknowns here that you can’t hope for precision unless you have access to Nike’s manufacturing data. So we’re trying to answer the question, “Does 650,000 sound reasonable?” For that, being in the range of ‘hundreds of thousands just for shoes’ certainly makes the number *reasonable.
And no, the bottom end of the range is not 120,000. One of the companies that does this kind of work employs 140,000 people to make 80 million pairs of shoes. Nike sells almost twice that many, which would put us at well over 200,000 employees just for shoes, and shoes make up less than half of Nike’s revenue. Assuming the other products are roughly as labor-intensive, we’re already up to 400,000 workers. If Nike says 650,000, then we’re in the ballpark already.
And I’ll point out that those who have disagreed with me, including you, have offered NOTHING in refutation of those numbers. I’m the one doing all the work here. If you’re such a genius at doing estimating, SHOW ME. Run some numbers yourself, or find some cites, or do something other than to just carp from the sidelines about how unreasonable these numbers are, especially since Nike mentions the 650,000 number several times in their literature. The last quote I gave you says, “the Nike brand had 137 factories in the Americas (including the US), 104 in EMEA, 252 in North Asia and 238 in South Asia, providing more than 650,000 jobs to local communities. This total excludes the amount of jobs provided by manufacturers of Nike subsidiaries.”
If you want to interpret that as, “Nike subcontracts to factories that make products for many companies as well as Nike, and these factories provide 650,000 jobs”, then the burden of proof is on YOU, since that’s clearly not what Nike is saying.
The original howls of outrage I got over the 650,000 number were because people felt it was unreasonable, that there was NO WAY that Nike could employ half as many people as Wal-Mart, and the number was silly on its face. THAT was the point of my back-of-the-envelope calculations - to determine if the number was silly on its face. It clearly isn’t. It CLEARLY takes hundreds of thousands of people in the 3rd world to make all the products that Nike sells in a year. Nike says it’s 650,000. Nike’s opponents say it’s 650,000. The only people who seem to think the number is much smaller are the people in this forum, and they’re being smugly condescending about it without offering a shred of evidence for their case.
So either put up some numbers, or admit that you were just guessing and could be wrong. If you can prove me wrong, I’ll happily concede.
And once again, before we go down this road, NO ONE is disputing that many factories make products for multiple companies. IT’S IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. Whether Nike’s 650,000 workers are employed by single-source factories, or are just one shift in a multi-shift factory, or whether they are 10% of the work force in factories that employ 6 million people is totally irrelevant.
No it isn’t…but to say that anyone can get one is dishonest. ONly a small percentage can
Absolutely, but you miss my point. Only a tiny percentage of the poor in this country can get a college education no matter how hard they work. The majority of the poor have to make a living doing low paying jobs. If employers keep lowering that standard then eventually we become a third world country…and when that happens and there are no consumers left the whole thing collapses
Again, only a very few have this option.
I would love to see you follow the rules about not misquoting another poster on this board. I didn’t say that. I said unbridled capitalism results in poverty and there is a huge differance. Capitalism is good, as long as it has some controls in place.
Good thing I dont do that.
Not difficulties. Impossibility. It is impossible to move to a new state to find work when you have no money…especially when you have a family.
I do think the same way. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that for a huge portion of our population no matter how hard they work and how able they are the oppertunities are not there for them to take advantage of. I’m saying that we as a society have to make sure that the people who want to work their way out of poverty have that oppertunity.
I did that very thing recently. We had a local kid who found herself homless and needing work. She one of our regular customers who would help out cleaning the place up on her own when we got busy. THe other employees gave up some of their shifts so she could work a few, and we trained her. She slept upstairs on the couch for a few nights in the art gallery till she fould find a room to rent. There were other people wanting work who were more experianced, but none who needed it more. She is now one of our best barristas. You get out of people what you put in. The robber barons miss out on so much.
Actually, I don’t think the comparison with electonics factories or any other high-tech factory is accurate. The ‘factories’ we’re talking about generally consist of thousands of people sitting on chairs doing manual labor. They may have some machines at their disposal, such as power riveters and sewing machines, but the process itself is almost entirely manual. Very little automation. As such, they aren’t going to be very flexible. None of the modern manufacturing techniques such as flexible assembly lines, on-demand inventory, and other techniques that allow factories to reconfigure themselves quickly for different product lines probably apply here.
BTW, my day job is working in industrial automation, making PLC controllers and MES software, sometimes directly with people setting up these kinds of assembly lines. So I do have some knowledge of what I’m talking about.
Why do only a certain few have access to federally-funded GSL programs? If you’re talking about excluding those students from families that earn too much, I don’t think it’s germane. Explain to me why everyone (potentially…I’m sure I’m missing at least one sector that can’t get GSLs) can’t get access to a college and the accompanying GSL/state funding.
In regards to board rules on misquoting…cram it with walnuts. The ellipse was meant to connote a paraphrasing. In regards to directly putting words in your mouth…a coherent thought might not go amiss. The referent was not tagged to you.
“Impossible” for a move to happen without money…if you’d explain what “without money” means, I may agree with you. If you mean 100% without a dollar in your pocket, probably difficult, but not impossible. If you mean with an income provided by Welfare, SS Disability, or a low-paying job, then certainly not impossible.
Again, you switched context on me. When I wrote of having a skill set, perhaps I wasn’t clear. Hiring a homeless girl to sweep floors and be a coffee-jerk is nice, perhaps even noble, but I fail to see what particular skill set is necessary for making cappucino. Also, how is this a job above a subsistence wage? Progression is the point, not entry into the working world. If she builds up her skill set, she will have the ability to move on from your Kona-flavored Utopia and find a job that offers a chance to save, earn credit, and buy a home. It ain’t happening at Bdgr’s Haus of Beans.
Well I can’t possibly read all 300 posts but I wanted to say my piece on this.
Shagnasty’s position is pretty amoral, but it’s not entirely amoral, which the system as a whole in essence is. Morality is for individuals not the system as a whole. His position is one that benefits his stance, and where he looks at the benefits of amorality.
We have unions not because we SHOULD, but because of the balance of power. People form unions to gain power, so that they can push back against a common adversary. It’s not a matter of what we SHOULD do, the government in all it’s glory really only exists to make sure that the balance of power amongst its constituents is maintained. We have Unions because Unions have political influence. If they didn’t have influence, we wouldn’t have them, it’s that simple.
Now Shagnasty can live in a fantasy world where the dark seed of socialism isn’t creeping out from under his bed if he likes, but that’s not reality. Reality is quite simply about power, who has it, who doesn’t and how do two entities with power stack up against one another, and in relation to other entities.
The irony of all this is that without unions Shagnasty might very likely be a serf, in a corporate feudal system that has little care for the individual, and he might find himself on the other side of the coin, as his 40 year strong business might not exist amongst a group of megalithic corporations who’s monopolistic practices cut out nearly all forms of competiation in nearly all sectors, and he might be singing a different tune.
This question is not about right or wrong, it’s not about ideals, it’s about power, who has it, who doesn’t, and who wants to whine about not having more of it. In this case, Shagnasty.
I know I missed a lot of this incredibly long thread. So I might be beating a dead horse for all I know. But that’s my .2 cents.