Why do we need more factory jobs?

[ZiprHead]

And US CEO pay is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Comparing the top CEOs is a deceptive tactic used to pretend there's a problem--what should be compared is CEO pay vs company size. We aren't out of line by that scale, what's really going on is we have bigger companies. Partially because we simply are bigger and partially because our tax code so favors it--acquisitions are done with pre-tax dollars.

Really?

Survey details​

Figure 1 compares total compensation paid to large company CEOs across the five countries, while Figure 2 compares the mix of pay elements. Figure 3 provides a historical view of median CEO compensation over the most recent five years for each country included in the study. Finally, Figure 4 similarly compares the historical typical pay mix for CEOs for the same period.

 

[ZiprHead]

The answer to the OP question is pretty simple to anyone who actually pays attention - manufacturing jobs are synonymous with good paying jobs in the eyes of the public. While that is not necessarily true in practice, it is a commonly accepted meme. Political candidates who campaign on "creating" or "bringing back" manufacturing jobs are promising to the public that cares about such things that there will be more good paying jobs if they are elected.

A secondary rationale that is now becoming more important in the political realm is to avoid supply side disruptions from our trading partners. This is the equivalent of purchasing insurance - paying more for domestic production to avoid possible disruptions to the production process.

And most of them do not realize that an awful lot of those jobs were lost to machinery rather than going overseas. Unions fight tooth and nail to keep the machines out--but end up having their companies eaten by non-union competitors.

What and who are you talking about?

Look how many jobs have gone away from US union production. Detroit's products are simply not competitive with Japanese ones.

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

We just bought a new Kia. I could have bought a similarly equipped US car for $5000 less.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look how many jobs have gone away from US union production. Detroit's products are simply not competitive with Japanese ones.

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

I think it mostly is. There's simply so much more labor cost in a US car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And US CEO pay is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Comparing the top CEOs is a deceptive tactic used to pretend there's a problem--what should be compared is CEO pay vs company size. We aren't out of line by that scale, what's really going on is we have bigger companies. Partially because we simply are bigger and partially because our tax code so favors it--acquisitions are done with pre-tax dollars.

Really?

Survey details​

Figure 1 compares total compensation paid to large company CEOs across the five countries, while Figure 2 compares the mix of pay elements. Figure 3 provides a historical view of median CEO compensation over the most recent five years for each country included in the study. Finally, Figure 4 similarly compares the historical typical pay mix for CEOs for the same period.

View attachment 44455

Look at the second sentence of what you quoted of my post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

We just bought a new Kia. I could have bought a similarly equipped US car for $5000 less.

Probably--but it wouldn't have lasted as long. You're not buying a Kia for luxury, thus you are considering the Kia more than $5k better than the US car.

 

[JohnG]

Biden isn't talking strictly manufacturing jobs. His infrastructure and Green New Deal proposals talk a lot about R & D jobs, service, construction, finance, etc. Manufacturing is just a slice of his plans.

Biden seems more forward thinking than Trump's "Back to the good ol' days" rhetoric.

 

[ZiprHead]

And US CEO pay is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Comparing the top CEOs is a deceptive tactic used to pretend there's a problem--what should be compared is CEO pay vs company size. We aren't out of line by that scale, what's really going on is we have bigger companies. Partially because we simply are bigger and partially because our tax code so favors it--acquisitions are done with pre-tax dollars.

Really?

Survey details​

Figure 1 compares total compensation paid to large company CEOs across the five countries, while Figure 2 compares the mix of pay elements. Figure 3 provides a historical view of median CEO compensation over the most recent five years for each country included in the study. Finally, Figure 4 similarly compares the historical typical pay mix for CEOs for the same period.

View attachment 44455

Look at the second sentence of what you quoted of my post.

Look at the first sentence in my post. They used similar corporate size.

 

[ZiprHead]

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

We just bought a new Kia. I could have bought a similarly equipped US car for $5000 less.

Probably--but it wouldn't have lasted as long. You're not buying a Kia for luxury, thus you are considering the Kia more than $5k better than the US car.

That's not the fault of the UAW and it certainly proves what you said is wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Look how many jobs have gone away from US union production. Detroit's products are simply not competitive with Japanese ones.

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

I think it mostly is. There's simply so much more labor cost in a US car.

And the UAW imposed those labor costs how?

 

[laughing dog]

Biden isn't talking strictly manufacturing jobs. His infrastructure and Green New Deal proposals talk a lot about R & D jobs, service, construction, finance, etc. Manufacturing is just a slice of his plans.

Biden seems more forward thinking than Trump's "Back to the good ol' days" rhetoric.

The key word there is “thinking” something foreign to Mr Trump.

 

[Toni]

I don't think anyone has mentioned two issues with having most manufacturing overseas:

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

2. Supply chain issues which are very significant and costly. We ran into those when we were doing a home renovation and I had difficulty obtaining some pretty mainstream items such as....towel bars. Granted, I wanted a specific towel bar to go with the rest of the bathroom hardware but we're talking months of delays. And it was a stupid towel bar! What if it was something more important, such as a part for an automobile (or a whole line of automobiles), etc. This became a panic inducing issue for patients and their families needing some very common medications.

Have we forgotten the pandemic already?

 

[bilby]

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

They're really not.

Shipping is unbelievably inexpensive. Most of the cost is fuel. Therefore, shipping uses unbelievably small amounts of fuel.

It's far less environmentally damaging to ship a container of cargo from China to an Amazon warehouse in the US, than it is to deliver that cargo from Amazon's warehouse to the end customers.

When you consider that the manufacturing workers in China travel to work by bicycle or public transport, and that if the goods were made by Americans, the workers would commute by car, it's almost certainly better for the environment to make stuff in China and ship it across the Pacific.

Costs are generally an excellent proxy for environmental damage (and certainly a FAR better proxy than mere distance). That long distance transport of goods is bad for the planet is one of those ideas that is obvious, simple, reasonable, and completely wrong. If it's cheaper to ship stuff around the world, it's probably also better for the environment.

 

[ZiprHead]

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

They're really not.

Shipping is unbelievably inexpensive. Most of the cost is fuel. Therefore, shipping uses unbelievably small amounts of fuel.

It's far less environmentally damaging to ship a container of cargo from China to an Amazon warehouse in the US, than it is to deliver that cargo from Amazon's warehouse to the end customers.

When you consider that the manufacturing workers in China travel to work by bicycle or public transport, and that if the goods were made by Americans, the workers would commute by car, it's almost certainly better for the environment to make stuff in China and ship it across the Pacific.

Costs are generally an excellent proxy for environmental damage (and certainly a FAR better proxy than mere distance). That long distance transport of goods is bad for the planet is one of those ideas that is obvious, simple, reasonable, and completely wrong. If it's cheaper to ship stuff around the world, it's probably also better for the environment.

I like not being at the political wims of other countries. As the China situation is brewing, having to depend on them for so much of our economy could become a huge pickle if relations went south.

 

[bilby]

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

They're really not.

Shipping is unbelievably inexpensive. Most of the cost is fuel. Therefore, shipping uses unbelievably small amounts of fuel.

It's far less environmentally damaging to ship a container of cargo from China to an Amazon warehouse in the US, than it is to deliver that cargo from Amazon's warehouse to the end customers.

When you consider that the manufacturing workers in China travel to work by bicycle or public transport, and that if the goods were made by Americans, the workers would commute by car, it's almost certainly better for the environment to make stuff in China and ship it across the Pacific.

Costs are generally an excellent proxy for environmental damage (and certainly a FAR better proxy than mere distance). That long distance transport of goods is bad for the planet is one of those ideas that is obvious, simple, reasonable, and completely wrong. If it's cheaper to ship stuff around the world, it's probably also better for the environment.

I like not being at the political wims of other countries. As the China situation is brewing, having to depend on them for so much of our economy could become a huge pickle if if relations went south.

Yeah, that's a very real concern.

 

[Toni]

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

They're really not.

Shipping is unbelievably inexpensive. Most of the cost is fuel. Therefore, shipping uses unbelievably small amounts of fuel.

It's far less environmentally damaging to ship a container of cargo from China to an Amazon warehouse in the US, than it is to deliver that cargo from Amazon's warehouse to the end customers.

When you consider that the manufacturing workers in China travel to work by bicycle or public transport, and that if the goods were made by Americans, the workers would commute by car, it's almost certainly better for the environment to make stuff in China and ship it across the Pacific.

Costs are generally an excellent proxy for environmental damage (and certainly a FAR better proxy than mere distance). That long distance transport of goods is bad for the planet is one of those ideas that is obvious, simple, reasonable, and completely wrong. If it's cheaper to ship stuff around the world, it's probably also better for the environment.

Sure the costs are enormous. China also saves a lot by insisting people not even leave factories or live in homes or have families or children and stuff like that. China's environmental burden is not inconsequential and a significant part of that is providing 'cheaper' stuff for the world. But why? WHY does the world need cheaper stuff? Look at the cost (to you) for the cell phone that is probably in your hand right now. An enormous portion of the cost of that phone...is to make a few billionaires richer, not to enrich your life.

Why, exactly, do we need so much stuff? Granted, I'm closer to the end of my life than the beginning and have spent the day trying to decide which items of my stuff to pitch--and honestly, I could live a month out of a backpack if I needed to, but I have a closet and a dresser and a couple of storage containers full of....stuff to wear. Granted, we have 4 actual distinct seasons but that's still a LOT of stuff. Most of which I do not need. (even if I consider Lear: Oh, reason not the need!). Most Americans are swimming in stuff. Including poor ones. It is humbling and humiliating to realize that when we tire of our stuff, it is the rare poor person who wants it. Even in an underdeveloped country.

Certainly we would ALL be better off with less stuff, higher quality, made of better materials and by people who are treated like human beings instead of like disposable bits, or like slaves.

Certainly our environment would be much better off if we quit wanting or believing we needed so much stuff. No matter where it is produced or how it arrives at our doorstep.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And US CEO pay is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Comparing the top CEOs is a deceptive tactic used to pretend there's a problem--what should be compared is CEO pay vs company size. We aren't out of line by that scale, what's really going on is we have bigger companies. Partially because we simply are bigger and partially because our tax code so favors it--acquisitions are done with pre-tax dollars.

Really?

Survey details​

Figure 1 compares total compensation paid to large company CEOs across the five countries, while Figure 2 compares the mix of pay elements. Figure 3 provides a historical view of median CEO compensation over the most recent five years for each country included in the study. Finally, Figure 4 similarly compares the historical typical pay mix for CEOs for the same period.

View attachment 44455

Look at the second sentence of what you quoted of my post.

Look at the first sentence in my post. They used similar corporate size.

No. Your first sentence says "large". Therein lies the problem--the US has bigger companies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

We just bought a new Kia. I could have bought a similarly equipped US car for $5000 less.

Probably--but it wouldn't have lasted as long. You're not buying a Kia for luxury, thus you are considering the Kia more than $5k better than the US car.

That's not the fault of the UAW and it certainly proves what you said is wrong.

Except it is the fault of the UAW. Extra labor costs in the US factory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look how many jobs have gone away from US union production. Detroit's products are simply not competitive with Japanese ones.

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

I think it mostly is. There's simply so much more labor cost in a US car.

And the UAW imposed those labor costs how?

They're unions. Strikes. US cars not being competitive in most markets is a direct result of the sort of policy you favor. They get enough government protection that the US carmakers haven't gone out of business but they have been severely damaged by the UAW.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think anyone has mentioned two issues with having most manufacturing overseas:

1. The environmental costs are enormous just in the shipping.

No. Shipping costs are a reasonable proxy for environmental impact of shipping and shipping across the ocean is very cheap. It's an economy of scale thing.

2. Supply chain issues which are very significant and costly. We ran into those when we were doing a home renovation and I had difficulty obtaining some pretty mainstream items such as....towel bars. Granted, I wanted a specific towel bar to go with the rest of the bathroom hardware but we're talking months of delays. And it was a stupid towel bar! What if it was something more important, such as a part for an automobile (or a whole line of automobiles), etc. This became a panic inducing issue for patients and their families needing some very common medications.

Have we forgotten the pandemic already?

This I agree with. Anything essential should be produced locally.

 

[laughing dog]

Look how many jobs have gone away from US union production. Detroit's products are simply not competitive with Japanese ones.

And for some obscure reason you feel that is due solely to the UAW?

I think it mostly is. There's simply so much more labor cost in a US car.

And the UAW imposed those labor costs how?

They're unions. Strikes. US cars not being competitive in most markets is a direct result of the sort of policy you favor. They get enough government protection that the US carmakers haven't gone out of business but they have been severely damaged by the UAW.

You make it seem as if the UAW imposed those costs and that management had no choices.