• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Manufacturing jobs - Read post before voting!

Suggestion on gaining more manufacturing plants within the US a good idea?

  • Total voters
    27
VanceMack said:
I get that companies are in for the bottom line and that labor did a lousy job of recognizing what their exhorbitant demands would do to the jobs. I just hope those folks get some long term vision. Lower profit per item but more over the long term due to a reinvigorated customer base. I dont think it WILL happen. Just that we are on a collision course with economic failure if we dont change.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
I cannot help but be reminded of one the most successful economic lessons from our history that applies here. Henry Ford came to the realization that if the automobile was to ever be anything but a rich mans toy, he needed to sell them to the same audience that built his cars. The result was the birth of the five dollar day at a time when other car makers were paying half of that.

Ford was a visionary who had a long term outlook and understood that saving dollars today did not always benefit him in years down the road. As a result, FoMoCO is alive and well today making a profit of $8 billion dollars last year while almost every one of the many competing auto companies of his time are now consigned to the scrap heap of history.
 
yes. Ford did that along with a number of other industrialists, at the behest of President Hoover. Roosevelt continued the policy of attempting to jack up wages in an attempt to have them buy more stuff and spur the economy (demand side economics, if you will).

the result, of course, was 25% unemployment and a Great Depression.
 
cpwill said:
yes. Ford did that along with a number of other industrialists, at the behest of President Hoover. Roosevelt continued the policy of attempting to jack up wages in an attempt to have them buy more stuff and spur the economy (demand side economics, if you will).

the result, of course, was 25% unemployment and a Great Depression.
Click to expand...

I think you're off a bit?

President Hoover was in office for less than 8 months when the stock market crashed in 1929, which is the generally agreed upon start date of the Great Depression. Last I knew it took longer than 8 months for a recession to build up and hit and since depressions don't happen unless there is first a recession...well the Great Depression had to have been in the making for quite a few years.

The other two Presidents which you mention were Presidents after Hoover and after the Great Depression hit. In fact FDR is accredited with bringing us OUT of the Great Depression.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think you're off a bit?

President Hoover was in office for less than 8 months when the stock market crashed in 1929, which is the generally agreed upon start date of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

the Market Crash produced a collapse in the market and a recession.

which we were generally recovering from.

until Hoover decided that the government could "fix" the economy.

it was Government response that turned the recession into a depression, and made it Great.

The other two Presidents which you mention were Presidents after Hoover and after the Great Depression hit. In fact FDR is accredited with bringing us OUT of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

:lamo considering we didn't fully recover until the 1950's, after he was dead, how, precisely, did he do that? :)
 
cpwill said:
:lamo considering we didn't fully recover until the 1950's, after he was dead, how, precisely, did he do that? :)
Click to expand...

Because it's the Politically Correct thing to believe. He was in a wheelchair after all.
 
I posted this

I cannot help but be reminded of one the most successful economic lessons from our history that applies here. Henry Ford came to the realization that if the automobile was to ever be anything but a rich mans toy, he needed to sell them to the same audience that built his cars. The result was the birth of the five dollar day at a time when other car makers were paying half of that.
Click to expand...

the immediate response was




cpwill said:
yes. Ford did that along with a number of other industrialists, at the behest of President Hoover. Roosevelt continued the policy of attempting to jack up wages in an attempt to have them buy more stuff and spur the economy (demand side economics, if you will).

the result, of course, was 25% unemployment and a Great Depression.
Click to expand...

NO. The five dollar day was started in 1914 when Woodrow Wilson was President of the USA.
 
Last edited:
ah. i was referencing this:

..Hoover's views on wage policy, and his interpretation of the fact that high wages and prosperity go hand in hand, also were different. A number of economists today interpret high real wages as reflecting high worker productivity that results from a skilled labor force working with a large stock of capital and efficient technologies. In other words, worker productivity drives real wages and prosperity. But Hoover interpreted this correlation differently and believed that increasing wages in and of themselves were important for promoting prosperity, while he apparently discounted the impact of raising wages above worker productivity on business hiring decisions.

Hoover's policy views set the stage for meetings he held at the White House with major industry in late 1929 that included General Motors ( GMGMQ.PK - news - people ), Ford ( F - news - people ), U.S. Steel ( X - news - people ) and DuPont ( DD - news - people ), and advised them not to cut wages. Hoover told industry that maintaining wage levels would minimize the severity of a downturn and help him keep peace with labor. Hoover then asked labor leaders not to strike and to withdraw requests for higher wages. Following these meetings, industry publicly acknowledged their compliance with Hoover's wage program as they held wage rates fixed.

But declining prices and productivity, coupled with Hoover's program of fixing wages, significantly increased industrial labor costs. Shortly after Hoover's meetings, the industrial sector began to contract rapidly. Between October 1929 and September 1930, industrial hours worked had declined by nearly 30%. Thus, the industrial sector was severely depressed about a year into the Depression, before most of the large declines in the money supply emphasized by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, and before most of the banking panics emphasized by Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.

As the industrial decline intensified, industry leaders asked Hoover if he would support wage cuts that were proportional to the deflation that had occurred. But Hoover did not support industry requests, despite increasing criticism from various quarters that his program was keeping wages far above their market-clearing levels....
Click to expand...

labor is part of the price of production. raising the price of labor only raises the price of production, thus raising the price of the product. so, for example, let's use the $2.50 to $5 jump and say (for ease of math) that roughly 10 working hours went into building each car. labor prices on the vehicle have now moved from $25 to $50; meaning that the price of the vehicle itself will have to move upwards by $25. so for every dollar spent extra on the worker, the price of the product has to go up by a dollar, meaning that as you pay the worker more, you also continue to move that vehicle higher in direct relation to his previous ability to "reach" it. the "pay them enough to afford the product" model is built on some pretty flawed logic: should we pay burger flippers only $0.89 cents an hour, while we pay garage mechanics enough to purchase a Lexus? should someone who sweeps the floor at said garage be paid enough to purchase the garage, or just the broom? Ford may have been a good businessman and an excellent auto maker; but as an economist he left a good bit to be desired.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
ah. i was referencing this:



labor is part of the price of production. raising the price of labor only raises the price of production, thus raising the price of the product. so, for example, let's use the $2.50 to $5 jump and say (for ease of math) that roughly 10 working hours went into building each car. labor prices on the vehicle have now moved from $25 to $50; meaning that the price of the vehicle itself will have to move upwards by $25. so for every dollar spent extra on the worker, the price of the product has to go up by a dollar, meaning that as you pay the worker more, you also continue to move that vehicle higher in direct relation to his previous ability to "reach" it. the "pay them enough to afford the product" model is built on some pretty flawed logic: should we pay burger flippers only $0.89 cents an hour, while we pay garage mechanics enough to purchase a Lexus? should someone who sweeps the floor at said garage be paid enough to purchase the garage, or just the broom? Ford may have been a good businessman and an excellent auto maker; but as an economist he left a good bit to be desired.
Click to expand...



Your post and the concluding line in it are a wonderful illustration of the profound differences between ideology, theory and belief and the way things actually work in the real world where many other factors come into play that are not part of Econ 101 at a junior college. Ford was a instictive genius who went by his gut and not some theory. He knew that the automobile was a rich mans toy and if it was to ever be more than that it had to be something that the majority of workers could afford. He broke all the rules by more than doubling the prevailing wages at the time and I have no doubt that many theortetical conservative economists would have advised against it. But he followed his gut and the result was that Ford dominated the auto business fo a long period of time.

We would do well to remember the experience of Henry Ford and his instincts about business when we read about the conservative think tanks and the advice they hand out today that often flies in the face of what looks good for the vast majority of average people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Need your opinion on this idea. Hopefully it would bring more manufacturing jobs back into the US.

It is well known that the federal government gives subsidies and grants to corporations for researching various forms of technology. Then once those corporations discover something useful it is often sent across the border or over seas to manufacturing plants to produce en masse. (not saying all of em do...just a good majority). So here is my proposal.

Make a law/rule/regulation...whatever you want to call it...that states that any corporation or organization that uses any form of government assistence would be required to manufacture any and all types of products that was discovered with said assistance inside US borders for X amount of years. (at least 20 imo)

So what do you think? Feel free to give suggestions that would expand on this idea. :)
Click to expand...

Good idea!
 
The ideas that conservative think tanks hand out today are the same, exact ideas they handed out to Hoover. He did what they proposed and created the depression.
 
Dutch said:
I don't mind paying for american made goods, when I can find them. In regards to this idea, I'm not so optimistic. If you want to encourage manufacturing in America lower the cost of doing business here. That's all it takes.
Click to expand...

Yeah !
A reduction in the standard of living for the masses.
Lets hear it for reducing the standard and quality of living for the masses, while the rich become richer.....
Strangely, I have thought of the same thing...simply asking big business exactly what is necessary for the American people to do in order to bring back manufacturing....
Seriously, it past time for big business and government heads to work together.
 
earthworm said:
Yeah !
A reduction in the standard of living for the masses.
Lets hear it for reducing the standard and quality of living for the masses, while the rich become richer.....
Strangely, I have thought of the same thing...simply asking big business exactly what is necessary for the American people to do in order to bring back manufacturing....
Seriously, it past time for big business and government heads to work together.
Click to expand...

Manufacturing is here. Real wages have been rising. What's the problem? Why do we need protectionism? Higher prices for consumer goods! More poverty in 3rd world nations! Great idea!
 
McIntyre said:
The ideas that conservative think tanks hand out today are the same, exact ideas they handed out to Hoover. He did what they proposed and created the depression.
Click to expand...

:lol: really

and what commonalities are those?
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is a perfect example of why I think we need something like what I stated in the OP.
Click to expand...

really? i see this as a perfect example of how state attempts to pick winners and losers in energy are doomed to failure. (incidentally, Spain's unemployment rate is now up over 20%) with the idea stated in the OP in force, all that would be different here is that the company would have started in China.
 
cpwill said:
really? i see this as a perfect example of how state attempts to pick winners and losers in energy are doomed to failure. (incidentally, Spain's unemployment rate is now up over 20%) with the idea stated in the OP in force, all that would be different here is that the company would have started in China.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so long as the state continues on its present course things will be doomed to failure. So, whats your solution?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yeah, so long as the state continues on its present course things will be doomed to failure. So, whats your solution?
Click to expand...

save the state (both on the federal and state level) billions by forcing energy companies to actually compete. if they are unable to provide a better product for a lower price for the American people, let them die; they don't deserve to be able to force all Americans to prop them up via subsidies just because their business plan sucks.
 
cpwill said:
save the state (both on the federal and state level) billions by forcing energy companies to actually compete. if they are unable to provide a better product for a lower price for the American people, let them die; they don't deserve to be able to force all Americans to prop them up via subsidies just because their business plan sucks.
Click to expand...

In such a case then companies would definitely go overseas. This would not work for the simple fact that other countries would give them subsidies and grants, and far less restrictions than the US has. So, where would that leave Americans?
 
Kal'Stang said:
In such a case then companies would definitely go overseas.
Click to expand...

those for whom it would be beneficial; yes. which is fine.

This would not work for the simple fact that other countries would give them subsidies and grants, and far less restrictions than the US has. So, where would that leave Americans?
Click to expand...

..... getting free money from the taxpayers of other nations in the form of lower-costing goods?
 
cpwill said:
those for whom it would be beneficial; yes. which is fine.
Click to expand...

What corporation wouldn't find it beneficial to go over seas once they lost subsidies and grants from the federal government? Especially if those other countries offered em?

cpwill said:
..... getting free money from the taxpayers of other nations in the form of lower-costing goods?
Click to expand...

Sure, lower costing goods..but that is not all. Other countries also offer the same types of subsidies and grant monies that the US currently offers. With your plan they would have extra incentive to move outside the US than they currently have.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What corporation wouldn't find it beneficial to go over seas once they lost subsidies and grants from the federal government? Especially if those other countries offered em?

Sure, lower costing goods..but that is not all. Other countries also offer the same types of subsidies and grant monies that the US currently offers. With your plan they would have extra incentive to move outside the US than they currently have.
Click to expand...

You're basically arguing that the US would lose all of its jobs. A question: why would all of these companies leave the great productive capabilities of the individuals of this nation unused?
 
Kal'Stang said:
In such a case then companies would definitely go overseas. This would not work for the simple fact that other countries would give them subsidies and grants, and far less restrictions than the US has. So, where would that leave Americans?
Click to expand...

It would not hurt us one iota if we had the courage to enforce the provisions of the US Constitution regarding tariffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom