NRLB shuts down new $2 billion Boeing plant in SC.

[makattak]

Small growth, but steady. (At least until 1998. Obviously the current recession will have lowered it.)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

deselby?  have you any experience with unions? i mean of a non academic sort?  i was in a great union and it sucked.  it raped the workers and convinced them they liked it.  it mandated mediocrity for all.  no merit increase and it stifled advancement based on merit. strangled would be a better word.  we won't even address the institutionalized corruption.  all these costs end up passed on to the consumer

[De Selby]

Small growth, but steady. (At least until 1998. Obviously the current recession will have lowered it.)

That's pretty meagre if you ask me.  Worse when you factor in the large increases in top pay compared to others; that has to throw off the average.

CS&D - no one's arguing that a union can't be bad.  It's better than throwing yourself at the mercy of Government-backed corporations and their Government-funded financiers though.

Getting rid of government interference that actually benefits the majority of the population first will ruin any attempt at a free economy, because corporations will not quit taking government money, and their advantage will only grow as a result.  Impoverishing people does not encourage them to vote for free market principles and individual liberty.

[makattak]

De Selby- I am very much against corporate welfare. It is, however, the necessary result of a government that is too large.

I'm also against an arcane tax system that is willfully complex so that it can be used to rewards politicians' preferred businesses/activities. It is also the result of a government that is too large.

I also don't like how everything in this country has become politically tinged. People's politics shouldn't matter in who I patronize for business or fraternize with as friends. The polarization is a result of a government that is too large.

When the government is involved in every part of your life, you cannot avoid these problems. When liberals win, my freedom and my preferences will suffer.

The greatest genius of the founding fathers was a central government that did a few, specifically defined actions.

Everything else was left to the states and localities. People's lives were not greatly effected (usually, there are exceptions like the Trail of Tears or the late unpleasantness) by the Federal government.

We could have states that follow your preferences for socialism and states that try more free markets. Instead, we have states and localities whose decisions have much less bearing on my daily life and a federal government whose regulations effect even the toothpaste I use every day. We've inverted the system and are suffering for it.

[De Selby]

I'm not sure why the states' rights issue figures into this so heavily - states have all sorts of their own regulations, and the reason for Federal regulations reaching your toothpaste is to avoid the states making it a nightmare for businesses to operate across all fifty, which they otherwise would.  A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.

And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it.  They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money.  Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero.  The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses.  The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.

That situation is not the fault of government that is too large.  It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.

[makattak]

And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it.  They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money.  Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero.  The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses.  The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.

That situation is not the fault of government that is too large.  It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.

Of course businesses like it. Or rather, large businesses like it. Big business LOVES big government and vice versa. Small business (those responsible for most of the job creation in the US) not so much.

Businesses wouldn't waste their money if the federal government was properly constrained. Instead, we decided that "interstate commerce" means the government can do whatever they want and now businesses see return on investment with the federal government.

[TommyGunn]

I'm not sure why the states' rights issue figures into this so heavily - states have all sorts of their own regulations, and the reason for Federal regulations reaching your toothpaste is to avoid the states making it a nightmare for businesses to operate across all fifty, which they otherwise would.  A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.

And that is the point - you can not like the politics, etc, but guess what? Businesses do like it.  They spend money (surprise) to convince the Government to give them more of your money.  Dismantling consumer protections and labor protections without dismantling the corporate welfare first leaves you in a marketplace where business has unyielding government support, and individuals have zero.  The predictable consequence is a decline in wages and standards of living in favour of increased profits for the relatively small number of people who run the larger businesses.  The problem gets worse as their advantage increases; they'll make it tougher for new businesses to compete and continue to pay themselves with public money.

That situation is not the fault of government that is too large.  It's the fault of permitting private businesses to buy influence; instead of resisting that trend, conservatives have eaten the line and now spend all of their energy going after the people whose welfare amounts to scraps from the table.

Do you really think businesses like spending money on politicians and government?   You don't think they have anything better they'd prefer to be spending that $$$ on?
Businesses "buy" influence because they have to.  When government gets too big -- and that's exactly what's happened since FDR and ESPECIALLY since LBJ and thus it's become the only way they can do things.  Both democrats and republicans receive big money from big business.  Obama is in bed with the same people he preaches against to his base.  He's "the same old thing,"  forget the "hopy changy" stuff.
It would be nice if no one could "buy" influence (outside the voting booth that is) but government has become such a Godzilla that it has become impossible to function otherwise.  We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and the regulatory structure is asphyxiating the country.
This is one reason why jobs are leaving America and moving over to China.  It's not just the cost of labor, it's the costs of doing business in America.  It's actually less expensive to open a business in China or another nearby country there than it is here.
 

[MechAg94]

The biggest problem I see with unions is that workers get the idea they work for the union and not the company.  They start seeing the "company" as some monolithic thing that has unlimited amounts of money.  They start getting the idea that they can do crap work and sit on their butt all day long and still get paid since they have seniority and after all, that "company" has unlimited money.  IMO, that is partly the "attitude" of people in unions and also part of the seniority rules that unions usually have.  It is also a problem of union leadership not training workers and not getting rid of the crappy workers who do bad quality work and/or are not pulling their weight.  There is no pride in a job well done.  My Dad was in a journeyman union and ran into that attitude a lot.  Guys would sit on a job and feel that it was best for them if they milked the job for all it was worth and ran up the labor costs.  They didn't seem to understand that if they help the company make money, the company is then much happier to stick with union labor and bring them in for the next job.  Before my Dad retired, there were non-union companies popping up to do the same work with cheaper labor. 

There was also the benefit that foreman who need work done as opposed to just warm bodies usually knew who the good workers were to call.  But was a journeyman union, not a closed union shop. 

[MicroBalrog]

A lot of that Federal regulation isn't the product of socialists, it's the product of corporations acting in their own interests.

The two are joined at the hip. Again I ask, look at the NCF - the corporate-union-socialist-intellectual group that stood at the roots of the modern Progressive movement.

[gunsmith]

What I can't see is how anyone believes that somehow wages will go up without unions.  So most people Are going to get poorer - that is a good thing how?

What you refuse to do is acknowledge it more like it. When I was in the SEIU it was more like a cult than anything else, I was an armed guard in the SEIU, a union that always backed anti gun politicians, union meetings were nothing but orwellian theater -all we ever did was listen to what the union bosses told us to do then we chanted weird military types chants "we are the union mighty mighty union" it reminded me of animal farm more then anything else, they never asked or wanted my opinion on anything, like why does my union support politicians that made my life as an armed security officer more difficult & expensive?   The slightly higher wage was eaten up by union dues, the union made life more difficult and expensive, and we didn't get paid for attending the really cultish meetings either.  SEIU is a drain on time, energy, and is just ripping off tax payers while doing zip for anyone but union bosses.

[RocketMan]

That is obviously not what I'm saying - CEO is a non-union job too.

Hey, thanks for the promotion.  I'm a CEO!  Woohoo!
That was a silly argument, ShootinStudent.  Try again.

It is patently obvious that benefits and decent pay are going the way of the dinosaur for most of the population.

You're going to have to back up this assertion of the patently obvious, as I doubt it is for most of us on this board.  Real facts would be useful, not hyperbole based on your opinion.

[MechAg94]

Yeah, engineering pay has gone up as far as I can see.  Good engineers are still not common place I guess.  Glad I can keep them thinking I am one.     That said, companies will raise pay if they need to do so to find quality employees.  My company has done that in a couple areas that I am aware.  That said, expectations rise with pay.  If an employee wants and demands more money, it is natural for the company to want more/better results.  What the unions want most of the time is more pay for the same results or often worse results since they want to take away all negative consequences.

The simple fact is that unions are an attempt at a monopoly on labor.  IMO, that is just as bad for a free economy as a monopoly from the company side. 

[KD5NRH]

The simple fact is that unions are an attempt at a monopoly on labor.  IMO, that is just as bad for a free economy as a monopoly from the company side.

This.  It's also worth noting that, without government intervention, (generally in the form of ridiculous licensing requirements) it's virtually impossible for any employer to have a monopoly on jobs, even within a single field.  Anyone else can simply start their own business, and if they offer enough to corner the market on that specialty, contract back to the original company at whatever rate they can get away with.

[fionaD]

It is good that the incident was given attention by the company. Test flights are done to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its features.May they come up with air planes that are in good condition and are ready for the passengers to use.There are also other issues taht Boeing is facing.Boeing and a new center opened by the business are at the center of a fantastic political drama that has begun. The new facility will be where the Boeing 787, or the “Dreamliner” will be built Organized labor, with which Boeing has a somewhat tense history, is interpreting the new center to be a slap in the face. I found this here: Boeing and unions, newstype.com

[Jamisjockey]

It is good that the incident was given attention by the company. Test flights are done to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its features.May they come up with air planes that are in good condition and are ready for the passengers to use.There are also other issues taht Boeing is facing.Boeing and a new center opened by the business are at the center of a fantastic political drama that has begun. The new facility will be where the Boeing 787, or the “Dreamliner” will be built Organized labor, with which Boeing has a somewhat tense history, is interpreting the new center to be a slap in the face. I found this here: ]

Die spambot, die!

[kgbsquirrel]

Die spambot, die!

What caliber for spambot, or do we use fire?

[TechMan]

What caliber for spambot, or do we use fire?

Detcord (APS Standard) and Napalm.

[kgbsquirrel]

Detcord (APS Standard) and Napalm.

*rubs chin*  Do I have to use genuine napthalene palmate, or will jellied gasoline suffice?

I've got it, a bolo using detcord for the rope and napalm filled containers for the weights. Where do I get this new device anti-spambot certified?

[TechMan]

*rubs chin*  Do I have to use genuine napthalene palmate, or will jellied gasoline suffice?

I've got it, a bolo using detcord for the rope and napalm filled containers for the weights. Where do I get this new device anti-spambot certified?

Anything that will make the spammers wither in fires of hell for a while.  I am not picky, I trust your judgment.   

[SteveT]

2 words
 1st word begins with an "A"
 2nd word ends with a "d".    

If you're still reading it, I would consider that English may be a second language for you.  Even if it's your only language.   

Outside of the Watchtower Magazine and the Left Behind series there is no more simplistic and badly written English prose than Atlas Shrugged.   

I think it could be read in it's entirety at the checkout line in the grocery store without skipping a single word.

[SteveT]

Sorry, I had to sleep. Allow me to explain.

As union wages go down (and union monopoly disappears through competition) jobs subject to union demands would return to the US. As I said before, a worker in China is not doing the same job as a worker in the United States. US workers command a higher pay because they are more productive. They are SKILLED labor versus unskilled, but cheap, Chinese labor.

As the price of skilled labor decreases, companies will move from using unskilled to skilled labor. (If you had two possible methods of building something and one of the methods became cheaper, what would you do?) As companies bring more of the formerly union jobs into the United States, they now must bid against companies employing skilled labor in other industries. As they do, the wages of those workers who were never in a union will go up.

Unions artificially restrict the supply of labor for the industry they organize. As a result, they increase the wages in that industry and decrease the wages in other industries. Ending the union will have the reverse effect.

Chinese workers are not particularly unskilled (they make Toyotas) nor unproductive, and the level of productivity is increasing in China all the time.

Indian workers (even cheaper) are quite skilled.   Many times more skilled than Americans.   Your x-rays are read in India.   Is that unskilled?   The Java programs the run your e-commerce business or transactions, also done in India.

In Beijing where I've been living for the last year the subway is 10 cents per trip.  It's obviously subsidized.   There's a global market in commodities after all.

[makattak]

Chinese workers are not particularly unskilled (they make Toyotas) nor unproductive, and the level of productivity is increasing in China all the time.

Indian workers (even cheaper) are quite skilled.   Many times more skilled than Americans.   Your x-rays are read in India.   Is that unskilled?   The Java programs the run your e-commerce business or transactions, also done in India.

In Beijing where I've been living for the last year the subway is 10 cents per trip.  It's obviously subsidized.   There's a global market in commodities after all.

ON AVERAGE, though, the workers in China and India are less skilled. The skill level in a particular country is not really the point of the argument as China was used as an example. If you think Chinese workers are as skilled as American workers (I don't), then replace China with Indonesia, or Vietnam, or Burma, or...

[roo_ster]

I've seen some of that outsourced code.  NOT pretty.  I often have issues with the Process Police, but it does have its uses, one of them being to ensure the code is not outsourced to poorly trained hacks in Asia.

There is a reason why many contracts call for CMMI level 3 or 4 or 5.