Left behind — or waiting behind?
Your editorial in the Wednesday P-D, Left Behind, about poverty in Missouri and the relationship to the loss of jobs was interesting. But as like others complaining about U. S. jobs going overseas you have not addressed one of the core issues behind jobs migration. Like left-leaning politicians, left-leaning media like the Post do not want to point out the obvious to its readers fearing a loss of readership.
A significant part of the blame for loss of manufacturing jobs is on the doorstep of organized labor. If one really thinks about the cost of any product, it is made up of the cost of labor from raw material to finished product and the related cost of selling the product. It takes labor to dig out the raw material, whether metal ore, coal, oil or whatever. It takes labor to refine the raw material and shape it into finished product at all stages of manufacture. It take labor to transport these products to the point of sale, and labor to sell the product. Even the machinery to dig out the raw material and transport all the intermediate products are the result of series of labor functions.
When the labor unions negotiate a new contract with wage increases for their members they are, in effect, negotiating the resulting increase in the cost of the product, which they prefer not to think about.
Manufacturing management needs to shop around for labor like people shop for merchandise. They look for acceptable product at an acceptable price. If they can find something at a price they are willing to pay, it is a sale. If two essentially identical products are offered, the one that will have the greater sales is the one with the lower price, all other thing being equal.
If people are truly concerned about the loss of U. S. jobs, why do they purchase foreign-made goods? Union workers take their union-earned paychecks and shop at the major non-union super store based in Arkansas. I mentioned this to a retired Teamster friend, and he said that if there were a picket line in front of the store he would not shop there. Seems to be no union solidarity anymore. Is this why there has been a drop in union membership over the last few decades? And why the only way union leaders can increase membership is by government-mandated stealthy card check?
As the Post pointed out, the loss of jobs leads to higher unemployment. And with labor working overtime, with no time-and-a-half, to keep the cost of labor high, jobs will continue to bleed overseas. The only way labor can effectively reverse the trend in a major way is to begin to lower its cost. Labor leaders can point out that they are helping their members have a good quality of life. What quality of life if your high cost of labor puts you out of work?. The Matson editorial cartoon on the same page would have been closer to reality if the person in the cartoon would have been labeled “labor unions” and he had a saw in his hand cutting away the rungs labeled “Missouri jobs.”
As a personal disclosure to some of my above arguments, I was a union member.
The politicians on the Left will brag about doing something wonderful by increasing the minimum wage. Again they are out of touch with reality. Studies have shown that when the minimum wage is increased, unemployment among teens and low-skilled workers goes up along with it. And today’s employment climate makes it even harder for these people to be hired. Democrats claim to be helping people and end up making matters worse.
This holds for the poor as well. In January, 1964, LBJ, a Democrat, declared “all out war on poverty.” By 1988 we had 59 major welfare programs spending $100 billion a year. Why, then, with all the billions spent since then, do we, in 2009, still have poor people in the U. S.? If all the money went directly to the poor, they would no longer be poor. Unfortunately, the federal government cannot do anything in a small way. The first thing they do is set up a humongous bureaucracy with lots of workers that end up soaking up most of the money appropriated for the poor. Perhaps if the federal government had hired the poor for these jobs the result would have been better..
Another major reason, commented on by more than one black columnist, is that the “war” on poverty has destroyed the family structure of the poor because families could be eligible for welfare only if the mothers were single. This one Democrat design element has done more to destroy poverty-stricken families than probably any other reason. Single motherhood and teenage pregnancy has been documented to have soared after the passage of this bill to “help” the poor.
Back to my question of why after 45 years of ‘war’ we still have poverty in this country. Is is because poverty has become an industry? Too many agencies, organizations, and, yes, the government have a vested interest in keeping people in poverty. Democrats and “Progressives” would lose one of their main campaign issues if there were no poverty. Call it loss of job security. If the issue of poverty were solved, these people would have to find real jobs. Think of the additions to the unemployment lines if the federal welfare programs were no longer needed! By keeping these people in poverty they continue to have a campaign issue. How else can Democrat and “Progressive” candidates retain a large voting block by claiming only the government can help. It hasn’t for the last 45 years, why should it start now?
It is time for the poor to realize the government and various welfare agencies have been using and abusing them since Woodrow Wilson in the 1920s. President Harry Truman (Democrat) gets credit for integrating the military during his administration, but it was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat and considered one of the Fathers of the Progressive movement) that ordered the segregation of the military. Wilson also approved racial segregation in government offices, some for the first time since 1863, and in federally funded agencies resulting in black workers being fired. This condition also had to wait until the Truman administration for correction.
The poor can begin accepting responsibility for their own welfare. It is not an easy course, but things like freedom are worth fighting for because the result is better than continuing in the same course. The agencies claiming to advocate for the poor need to teach them to fish instead of occasionally dolling out a fish. The federal government does not have our welfare at heart. Only what they think will get themselves reelected next time around. We need to accept responsibility for our own welfare, anyone can, because no one has our welfare at heart like we do.
Jon Marx
Oakville
Jon: Union workers take their union-earned paychecks and shop at the major non-union super store based in Arkansas.
Good point. I’m not union. No one in my family is union. Yet I haven’t shopped in that “super store based in Arkansas” for years. During the grocery store strike a few years ago, I was shopping at Straub’s and Aldi’s — and then I would hear about the striking grocery workers buying their own groceries at that “super store based in Arkansas.” I think it’s a lot like those low and middle income voters who vote against their own interests by voting republican. Some people just aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.
If that “super store based in Arkansas” were headquartered here
in St. Louis instead, as Mr. Walton originally wished, I guess
Lisa12 would be singing a different tune.
Mr. Marx, a well written article with common sense observations.
However, as you can see by moveon.org/dailykos.com Lisa12’s post, the Left thinks people vote against their own interests. People vote for freedom and what the Left sells is control. Control of your life because they think they know what’s best for you. The Left considers you too stupid to run your own life; you have to be protected from yourself.
As the Great Ronald Reagan said: ”I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” and that is exactly what the Left in this country wants: a government that controls every aspect of your life, from the car you are allowed to drive to the doctor appointed to you by the government. According to the Left, we need the government to make our decisions for us because we are not capable of making our own decisions.
Tango Golf Sierra:
“According to the Left, we need the government to make our decisions for us because we are not capable of making our own decisions.”
Unfortunately, 52.8 percent of the voting public in 2008 did choose government to make their decisions for them. It was not entirely the left, many gulls and saps that belong to no party wait for any candidate to tell them what they want to hear with minimal guarantee of oratory veracity. Independents are hopelessly simple, having learned nothing from previous fence straddling and bitter disappointments.
If I may quote you “It takes labor to dig out the raw material…it takes labor to refine the raw material and shape it into finished product…it takes labor to transport these products to the point of sale, and labor to sell the product…and all the intermediate products are the result of series of labor functions”. So even though every aspect requires labor, workers are supposed to sacrifice themselves to the needs of management, business, money? The worker ants are supposed to carry the burden of labor, accept whatever crumbs are offered by the Company, and live in humble servitude so the aristocracy can get richer? Labor is supposed to produce everything and reap a pittance in return? Labor is supposed to be wage slaves and be thankful to massa for the opportunity?
Labor didn’t drive jobs overseas, and neither did illegal Mexicans. Congress, in the employ of greedy corporations and robber barons and lobbyists, created tax breaks and loopholes and incentives that made it profitable for CEO’s to be showered with millions of dollars for sending jobs overseas.
Without considering government employees, today’s labor unions represent 7% of today’s workforce. Mr Marx seem to give a lot of credit to these unions for ruining our annual $15 trillion dollar GDP economy. The overwhelming majority of work done in this country is non-union from “raw materials to finished products and all stages of manufacturing”.
So, to blame unions in the “free-labor market” is a farce according to your argument. We do allow management to shop around for labor like they do plywood….They do that everyday Mr. Marx, and that’s why we have an increase in poverty, the uninsured, the homeless, and the hungry…And government picks up where corporate management drops the ball as they reap the benefits of unorganized labor.
And to claim that union members shop at Wal-Mart, which is an illogical argument on your behalf ( in one breath you condemn unions asking for decent wages and then critisize workers for buying cloths made in sweat-shops) is a misnomer. I’m sure there are union members who shop at Wal-Mart, but the majority of American who know the damage done by this corporation don’t go near the retail giant…union and non-union workers.
Union workers insurance premiums are high because scabs like Alice Walton raise their cost by skirting responsibilites. And then you have the brass to blame unions for asking too much…while granting Alice a free-ride (literally) as Wal-Mart employees rely on Medicaid.
You want to reduce the labor market to the lowest common denominator just look at Mexico and China. If you want a strong middle-class in this country, just look at 1953 when 38% of American belonged to unions. Parents were able to provide for their families and send their kids to college on a single income as mom stayed home to raise good American citizens. Unfortunately, these kids went to college with union earned dollars only to learn in business classes how to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the same union members who sent them there to learn decency and fair values.
Compare our economy today with that of the “dog-eat-dog” economy you advocate as we compete with 12 year old Asian girls tied to sewing machines for 16 hours a day @ 23 cents per/hr.
“The history of the labor movement should be taught in every school across this country. America is a living testimonial to what free men and free women, organized in free democrat labor unions can do to make a better life. We ought to be proud of it”.
HHH 1968.
PS.. You were never were a union member, you were simply a wage leach.
I’m sure you were the type of union member who didn’t have a problem shopping at Wal-Mart. The type of union member you gleefully criticize today.
certifiable:
“Labor didn’t drive jobs overseas, and neither did illegal Mexicans. Congress, in the employ of greedy corporations and robber barons and lobbyists, created tax breaks and loopholes and incentives that made it profitable for CEO’s to be showered with millions of dollars for sending jobs overseas.”
Created tax breaks and loopholes and incentives? Do give us some specific examples of these dastardly deeds. Should the CEO of any instrument not seek the best return on investment for his shareholders? Do you invest your savings in institutions that have only charitable intentions toward the less unfortunate or is there a touch of “robber baron” in you to choose the best interest rate available to you?
Cockeyed loopies in leper colonies wage the same class warfare as you when another is blessed with more fingers.
Here Sage…Place a cockeye on this.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/ns03312004a.cfm
Corporations have saved billions and spent millions lobbying your Republican heroes to sell-out American workers.
True patriots. The entire bunch, including you.
Garrison;
Typical liberal hype. For at least the last forty years this country has made it harder and harder for businesses in general and specifically manufacturers to do business. When we have people making 50 to 60 grand a year throwing a couple of bolts on a dozen cars or so a day it is easy to see why jobs are going overseas. Yes, big businesses try to maximize their profits, but so does the Union leadership. It is the Union leadership that is the real problem with the unions, not the rank and file. They continually push for higher wages, more benefits, and more power for themselves. Here is a small fact for you, you can only get so much water before the well runs dry. The union leadership has power far beyond their memberships due to the fact that they have married themselves to the liberal cause, despite the fact that many (some say most) of their rank and file are conservative. We have in place some very good labor laws that the Unions got in place, and that was all to the good. But, don’t you see, now all the Unions are good for is supporting the liberals and their cause. And that is sad considering that the liberals really don’t have the good of the workers at heart. All they want is power. And remember, power corrupts.
Give me a break. Turn off the radio.
Union leadership is duly elected by their members every three years.
What is it you have against democratic rule? If the membership believes union officials are not looking out for their best interests, they have the right to change leadership…It’s call democracy. Unions don’t earn a profit. They’re prohibited by ERISA. The highest paid union officer in the country is AFL-CIO President Trumka who earns $248K. A wage some CEO’s earn every hour….Now, go ahead and tell me the healthcare executive who earns $300 million a year is looking out for the best interests of union nurses…Go ahead, tell me..it’s late in the day and I need a good laugh.
The only power unions have is the power of their memberships, which came out in droves to defeat Republicans in ‘06-’08 because they agreed with labor’s message… which was right on target.
It’s called leadership. I only wish corporate management would display the same.