Open Question: Does it matter to you if a manufacturer moves "US" product overseas?

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Not well said.
Many companies and their products that could be made cheaper elsewhere STAY here.
Why?
Because they do what is right. They have a conscience.
They give a shit.
I support those that choose not to make a few less dollars doing it on the cheap in a foreign land.
Not just pool related products either.
....
Hey JB.
You actually shared a booth with someone doing it right.
Chris Renfro. Good example.
Why any one chooses to make anything and where they choose to make what they make is a spectrum of reasons. Chris makes great products and if he ever chose for any reason to produce any of those goods anywhere else then I and sure the quality would adhere to his standards. I certainly wouldn't want to force him to produce only within one location if that location wasn't really beneficial to him.

Made in USA is marketing. Outsville products are not great because they are made in the USA. They are great because Chris Renfro is dedicated to producing quality products.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I am going to guess that most people don't know that they USA was the low wage destination for European brands who were happy to move their textile businesses to America to produce goods that were then sold in England.

I guess I don't understand how it's ok for an employee to quit and seek higher income elsewhere but it isn't ok for the employer to seek cheaper labor elsewhere. People want to attach all these emotions to jobs if a factory closes but how loyal were they to the factory really before it closed? Did they do everything possible to insure that the factory was producing as efficiently as possible so that the cost of production per unit was as low as possible?

If we are being honest we would find that very few employees are loyal in that way. They don't really care about the health of the company as long as they get their paycheck. So there is truly a false nostalgia about what a job is and how secure it is.

That said every maker wants to be producing his goods as close to his customers as possible. So whenever that is financially viable then that is what happens. No one I that I know wants to produce in China for sale in America. They would all prefer to produce in the USA when selling to Americans.

But the fact is that the market will not always support the much higher price that much higher production costs cause.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
Not well said.
Many companies and their products that could be made cheaper elsewhere STAY here.
Why?
Because they do what is right. They have a conscience.
They give a shit.
I support those that choose not to make a few less dollars doing it on the cheap in a foreign land.
Not just pool related products either.
....
Hey JB.
You actually shared a booth with someone doing it right.
Chris Renfro. Good example.

What if you're wrong about it be "right"? That is, what if your way makes things worse, not better? Or what if someone else simply wants it the other way for himself? Is he wrong? No, he's just values things differently. Let him choose. Let you choose. Then we can see how it went.

There is no need for the govt threats intended to stop the freedom to trade. Freedom, alone, really really is better, is right, is defendable always.



Jeff Livingston
 

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
I am going to guess that most people don't know that they USA was the low wage destination for European brands who were happy to move their textile businesses to America to produce goods that were then sold in England.

I guess I don't understand how it's ok for an employee to quit and seek higher income elsewhere but it isn't ok for the employer to seek cheaper labor elsewhere. People want to attach all these emotions to jobs if a factory closes but how loyal were they to the factory really before it closed? Did they do everything possible to insure that the factory was producing as efficiently as possible so that the cost of production per unit was as low as possible?

If we are being honest we would find that very few employees are loyal in that way. They don't really care about the health of the company as long as they get their paycheck. So there is truly a false nostalgia about what a job is and how secure it is.

That said every maker wants to be producing his goods as close to his customers as possible. So whenever that is financially viable then that is what happens. No one I that I know wants to produce in China for sale in America. They would all prefer to produce in the USA when selling to Americans.

But the fact is that the market will not always support the much higher price that much higher production costs cause.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Back at ya, John....well said.


Jeff Livingston
 

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Back at ya, John....well said.


Jeff Livingston

I guess I am never going to "Get It'
5 or10 years from now, when the Unions are all gone and the manufacturers have all moved to a third world country for cheaper labor,how do you think Americans will buy the products that are made overseas, when they are out of a job or working for minimum wage?
It isn't that difficult, why are you having so much trouble understanding .
It's good for the manufacturer to pay less to make his product , but if his customers are not able to buy, it doesn't matter what it cost to make it , it's scrap.
Unless the buying market opens up elsewhere, like I said . Like the Middle East
I guess it doesn't matter to you that most of America goes down the toilet, you and your friends have got yours and tough for everybody else.
Another thing a lot of people have not thought of, is that a huge portion of the people on this planet , believe we are devils and no matter what the price , they will not buy our stoves and refridgerators and cars because of their faith.
Man, those are some big blinders you guys are wearing , better be careful you don't fall over each other in the dark.
 
Last edited:

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
I guess I am never going to "Get It'
5 or10 years from now, when the Unions are all gone and the manufacturers have all moved to a third world country for cheaper labor,how do you think Americans will buy the products that are made overseas, when they are out of a job or working for minimum wage?
It isn't that difficult, why are you having so much trouble understanding .
It's good for the manufacturer to pay less to make his product , but if his customers are not able to buy, it doesn't matter what it cost to make it , it's scrap.
Unless the buying market opens up elsewhere, like I said . Like the Middle East
I guess it doesn't matter to you that most of America goes down the toilet, you and your friends have got yours and tough for everybody else.
Another thing a lot of people have not thought of, is that a huge portion of the people on this planet , believe we are devils and no matter what the price , they will not buy our stoves and refridgerators and cars because of their faith.
Man, those are some big blinders you guys are wearing , better be careful you don't fall over each other in the dark.

Most of those fallacies are covered in that book. Not the false accusation of "I guess it doesn't matter to you that most of America goes down the toilet, you and your friends have got yours and tough for everybody else." You just made that up for some reason. Why would any honest American want the economy to tank, thus harming him, too?

As to your claim that America is hated, thus some won't buy our stuff, could it be that the violence the uS govt spews around the world affects trade?????????? Goodness, who'd a thunk that?:rolleyes: I hadn't heard that exactly like you said it, but it doesn't surprise me if true. That's another reason to lay off the violent controls, tariffs, taxes, embargoes, sanctions, etc....those tend to lead to wars, very costly things that harm every household's budget greatly.



Jeff Livingston
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I guess I am never going to "Get It'
5 or10 years from now, when the Unions are all gone and the manufacturers have all moved to a third world country for cheaper labor,how do you think Americans will buy the products that are made overseas, when they are out of a job or working for minimum wage?

Unions are one of the biggest reasons the jobs are all going overseas to begin with. If we are ever blessed enough to be able to get rid of all the unions we would get a large number of those jobs back.

Unions are nothing more than legalized theft that should have never been allowed to be made legal. You are worth whatever pay you can get in a truly free job market (which means a union free market) and not a penny more--not what you can manage to steal by strong arming and coercion. The theft from unions costs all of us tremendously through significantly higher prices for goods and services, and tons of lost jobs. And then these same idiots want to put the last nail in our coffin with this movement for really large minimum wages. Some people just can't see the forest for all the trees.
 

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member
Silver Member
Unions are one of the biggest reasons the jobs are all going overseas to begin with. If we are ever blessed enough to be able to get rid of all the unions we would get a large number of those jobs back.

Unions are nothing more than legalized theft that should have never been allowed to be made legal. You are worth whatever pay you can get in a truly free job market (which means a union free market) and not a penny more--not what you can manage to steal by strong arming and coercion. The theft from unions costs all of us tremendously through significantly higher prices for goods and services, and tons of lost jobs. And then these same idiots want to put the last nail in our coffin with this movement for really large minimum wages. Some people just can't see the forest for all the trees.

Well 9, next time you or a family member get really ill and require medical treatment, you'll be thanking a union of American workers who fought for that benefit and the government regulations that guaranteed them. Or you or your loved one can go to the company they work for and ask them to pay your medical bills. That isn't going to happen for sure. How many American workers died fighting for rights that YOU take for granted. You must not remember when American workers were LOCKED in their work place. Many were killed by the company's they worked for for demonstrating for better conditions. Days off? When the company thought it was OK not when you needed them.

There is always at least two sides to a story. It seems you only think about what the politicians you agree with have to say. Yes, some unions gained too much power. The UAW might be an example. To condemn all unions is just foolish. Unions have made incredible strides in forcing improvements in working conditions and worker health and safety. Perhaps none of those is important to you. When they are gone, perhaps they will be!

Feel sorry for you that you blame unions for the loss of jobs. Perhaps if you investigate a bit you might find that a very small percentage of American workers are or ever have been unionized. Corporate profit has driven jobs overseas with the help of the American government. Republican or democrat. More jobs outside this country, fewer people wanting to come here for work. There is blame everywhere.

Minimum wages too high? Perhaps you should walk in someones shoes who lives day to day, paycheck to paycheck having to decide whether they can afford to pay for medicine to keep living or food to keep living. Not a choice I would ever want to make. Would you?

Lyn
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I guess I am never going to "Get It'
5 or10 years from now, when the Unions are all gone and the manufacturers have all moved to a third world country for cheaper labor,how do you think Americans will buy the products that are made overseas, when they are out of a job or working for minimum wage?
It isn't that difficult, why are you having so much trouble understanding .
It's good for the manufacturer to pay less to make his product , but if his customers are not able to buy, it doesn't matter what it cost to make it , it's scrap.
Unless the buying market opens up elsewhere, like I said . Like the Middle East
I guess it doesn't matter to you that most of America goes down the toilet, you and your friends have got yours and tough for everybody else.
Another thing a lot of people have not thought of, is that a huge portion of the people on this planet , believe we are devils and no matter what the price , they will not buy our stoves and refridgerators and cars because of their faith.
Man, those are some big blinders you guys are wearing , better be careful you don't fall over each other in the dark.
Well, first the idea that we are uncaring is simply not true. Not from a humanitarian perspective nor from an economic perspective. As a person who employs other humans on both sides of the Pacific I care deeply for those I have hired. Many business owners do see their employees as wards to be cared for and protected as much as possible.

But it is the as possible part that you don't get. When it becomes economically impossible to produce the goods at xyz location then the production facility must move or go out of business entirely. A business is not started with intention to move it. Businesses are started with intention of creating a literal perpetual motion generator of income. The ultimate situation is a humming factory that operates at full capacity and full employment where everyone is happy with the money they are making. But this unicorn situation rarely exists. For most companies it is a daily struggle to keep the doors open.

And the larger the company the more factors they have to deal with. It's not so simplistic as to say you have to employ your customers if you want them to be able to afford your goods.

We could dive deeper into that but at the core it really comes down to supply and demand. Without government support/interference competition drives prices down until the amount of competitors consolidates into monopolies which raises prices.

The bottom line is that many are trying to take a very very complex world and distill it down to black and white choices. Have you ever considered how incredibly complex the global economy is? Now throw in all the government considerations on top of it and the complexity increases exponentially.

Every single move that benefits someone negatively affects someone else. It doesn't matter whether it is a factory that moves from Indiana to Georgia or one that moves from Virginia to China. And by the same token a negative impact for one is a benefit for another. Yes a$40 an hour job might evaporate but the product coming in at half the prices saves millions for those who don't have$40 an hour jobs.

The world adapts, people adapt.

Read Hazlett, read the Way to Wealth if you want to get an introduction into the underpinnings of why protectionism and alternately blaming the government for interference while asking it for protection is naive and a waste of time. Government should work for us to do the things that the power of scale can achieve but government does not need to be used as a shield against competition because that shield is easily turned into a prison.

I am not full on libertarian. Nor am I a socialist. I am a person who understands what capitalism is good for, what mercantilism is good for, what socialism is good for, what independence is good for and what regulation is good for. In all things we should seek balance in order to have a stable foundation from which to build. But never become so attached that we cannot abandon an idea, a concept, an institution, or a job and start over.

That ultimately is what being human means to me. The freedom to use every available way to make my own way in the world. But in order to get to that point I have to hope I was educated to become the type of thinker who can find and use those opportunities.

Dependence is no different whether it is the government teat or the company teat. Assuming one is entitled to either is a failure in oneself. Welfare may be available and one may qualify for help but it is not intended to be a lifelong support. Employment may be available and one may qualify but the employer cannot possibly guarantee a lifetime of employment.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Unions are essential but people who don't recognize that anything good can turn bad are deluding themselves. Workers should have every right to organize and collectively bargain. They should have every right to walk out and cripple a company. The company should have the right to refuse to negotiate and hire other workers. In all things it is either compromise or demise.

Workers who band together run the risk of being unable to work in that factory anymore. Companies that do not treat workers right face the risk of workers forming unions to collectively bargain.

It's a delicate balance. When that balance is upset such as when companies find that their costs are too high due in part to union demands then they have to consider alternatives like robotics or moving to lower labor cost areas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Bella Don't Cry

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, first the idea that we are uncaring is simply not true. Not from a humanitarian perspective nor from an economic perspective. As a person who employs other humans on both sides of the Pacific I care deeply for those I have hired. Many business owners do see their employees as wards to be cared for and protected as much as possible.

But it is the as possible part that you don't get. When it becomes economically impossible to produce the goods at xyz location then the production facility must move or go out of business entirely. A business is not started with intention to move it. Businesses are started with intention of creating a literal perpetual motion generator of income. The ultimate situation is a humming factory that operates at full capacity and full employment where everyone is happy with the money they are making. But this unicorn situation rarely exists. For most companies it is a daily struggle to keep the doors open.

And the larger the company the more factors they have to deal with. It's not so simplistic as to say you have to employ your customers if you want them to be able to afford your goods.

We could dive deeper into that but at the core it really comes down to supply and demand. Without government support/interference competition drives prices down until the amount of competitors consolidates into monopolies which raises prices.

The bottom line is that many are trying to take a very very complex world and distill it down to black and white choices. Have you ever considered how incredibly complex the global economy is? Now throw in all the government considerations on top of it and the complexity increases exponentially.

Every single move that benefits someone negatively affects someone else. It doesn't matter whether it is a factory that moves from Indiana to Georgia or one that moves from Virginia to China. And by the same token a negative impact for one is a benefit for another. Yes a$40 an hour job might evaporate but the product coming in at half the prices saves millions for those who don't have$40 an hour jobs.

The world adapts, people adapt.

Read Hazlett, read the Way to Wealth if you want to get an introduction into the underpinnings of why protectionism and alternately blaming the government for interference while asking it for protection is naive and a waste of time. Government should work for us to do the things that the power of scale can achieve but government does not need to be used as a shield against competition because that shield is easily turned into a prison.

I am not full on libertarian. Nor am I a socialist. I am a person who understands what capitalism is good for, what mercantilism is good for, what socialism is good for, what independence is good for and what regulation is good for. In all things we should seek balance in order to have a stable foundation from which to build. But never become so attached that we cannot abandon an idea, a concept, an institution, or a job and start over.

That ultimately is what being human means to me. The freedom to use every available way to make my own way in the world. But in order to get to that point I have to hope I was educated to become the type of thinker who can find and use those opportunities.

Dependence is no different whether it is the government teat or the company teat. Assuming one is entitled to either is a failure in oneself. Welfare may be available and one may qualify for help but it is not intended to be a lifelong support. Employment may be available and one may qualify but the employer cannot possibly guarantee a lifetime of employment.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Nice words JB
Passionate, simple to the point.
An ethical man in an unethical world...
:thumbup:
 

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member
Silver Member
Unions are essential but people who don't recognize that anything good can turn bad are demising themselves. Workers should have every right to organize and collectively bargain. They should have every right to walk out and cripple a company. The company should have the right to refuse to negotiate and hire other workers. In all things it is either compromise or demise.

Workers who band together run the risk of being unable to work in that factory anymore. Companies that do not treat workers right face the risk of workers forming unions to collectively bargain.

It's a delicate balance. When that balance is upset such as when companies find that their costs are too high due in part to union demands then they have to consider alternatives like robotics or moving to lower labor cost areas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

John,

Your post is a reasoned view of the real world and how it operates. No one factor is the driving force behind the loss of American jobs. Everything seems so simple. The solutions talked about by our leaders seem so simple. If they really were, we'd have fixed them by now. In every form of gamesmanship, there are winners and losers. Sometimes we cheer the winners when we really should have cheered the losers.

As an aside, really liked the 2 x 5 Ultimate you sold me at the BCAPL's. The backpack straps are a godsend. Once Matt showed me the correct way to insert the butts and shafts, it is remarkably easy to use case. Really well made and worth every penny. Thanks!

Lyn
 

Bella Don't Cry

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
John,

Your post is a reasoned view of the real world and how it operates. No one factor is the driving force behind the loss of American jobs. Everything seems so simple. The solutions talked about by our leaders seem so simple. If they really were, we'd have fixed them by now. In every form of gamesmanship, there are winners and losers. Sometimes we cheer the winners when we really should have cheered the losers.

As an aside, really liked the 2 x 5 Ultimate you sold me at the BCAPL's. The backpack straps are a godsend. Once Matt showed me the correct way to insert the butts and shafts, it is remarkably easy to use case. Really well made and worth every penny. Thanks!

Lyn

Some say that both sides will lose.
One side just loses slower than the other.
:wink:
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Well 9, next time you or a family member get really ill and require medical treatment, you'll be thanking a union of American workers who fought for that benefit and the government regulations that guaranteed them.
There are no government regulations that guarantee that everyone or even all workers will have medical coverage (nor should there be), so not sure why you are saying there is or bringing that up since it isn't the case.

Employees should not be allowed to collude in an effort to get more than they are worth, and they are only worth what they can get in a free job market that has no collusion. If employees are to be allowed to collude to try to screw employers, then employers should also be allowed to collude to screw employees with agreed upon salary caps etc. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. What is right though, and much better for everyone (even those that can't see it), is not to allow either of them to collude to coerce though.


You must not remember when American workers were LOCKED in their work place.
Slavery has been illegal for a long, long time. So has locking your employees inside the building. The government provides those laws, not unions. I know your answer is going to be that the unions pushed for them, but people didn't need unions to push for them because they could push for them without unions the same way they try to influence any other laws. Colluding against your employer to try to strong arm demands is unnecessary, unethical, and should be illegal.

Many were killed by the company's they worked for for demonstrating for better conditions.
That is not exactly true. They mostly got killed in self defense when they killed people (or tried, or threatened to try) who were law enforcement or other company employees etc, or when they refused to vacate premises and were trying to disrupt the company and usually while threatening violence, etc. Very few if any were murdered simply for quitting their job and moving on which is what you should do if you don't like the conditions and compensation your company is offering. Not to mention that the things you refer to mostly happened over a hundred years ago. Even if unions were once needed, and that is a real big if, they certainly haven't been needed in close to a century.

Days off? When the company thought it was OK not when you needed them.
That is still the way it should be. Nobody is forcing you to work for any particular company. If you don't like the hours or days off that are offered by a company then don't work there. If they are that bad they will have to change them to be competitive with other companies or else they won't have many employees, and we also have laws that keep it in check as well and have for many, many decades.

Unions have made incredible strides in forcing improvements in working conditions and worker health and safety.
Collusion against your employer isn't the way to do it though. The way to do it is by petitioning for laws and through your votes. And again, even if unions at one time served a legitimate need, that need ended a century ago. We already have all those laws that cover all the things that need to be covered and have for many, many decades. For those many, many decades the sole purpose of unions has literally been to try to get employees more compensation than they are worth in a free market by manner of colluding to screw the employers through coercion and strong arming.

Feel sorry for you that you blame unions for the loss of jobs.
It's a fact though. Unions have caused many of our jobs to be shipped overseas, and it is one of the leading causes for jobs going overseas.

Minimum wages too high? Perhaps you should walk in someones shoes who lives day to day, paycheck to paycheck having to decide whether they can afford to pay for medicine to keep living or food to keep living. Not a choice I would ever want to make. Would you?
I think people should be paid what they are worth in a free market and not a penny more. If that doesn't get you a very good quality of life you have a few choices. Either learn to live poor and make due, or work more so that you can get more money to get more of the things you desire, or get more education or experience so that you can improve your value and get yourself qualified to earn higher paying wages. Sorry but the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr is already more than fair compensation for the skills required to flip burgers.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Unions are essential but people who don't recognize that anything good can turn bad are deluding themselves.
Unions may not have ever been essential, but they certainly haven't been needed for like a century anyway. We already have all the laws in place to cover everything needed and have for a long, long time. The sole purpose of unions now is to get employees more than they are worth by using theft by coercion.

Workers should have every right to organize and collectively bargain.
Only if companies have the same right. Neither side is entitled to the use of collective coercion though and so it should be illegal for both sides.

They should have every right to walk out and cripple a company.
They should, if done individually without colluding with others. Just like employers should be able to offer whatever salary they want for their job opening, so long as they don't collude with other companies to try to put artificial caps on the salaries. But as soon as you start colluding to try to strong arm and coerce, regardless of which side of the equation you are in, it is no longer ethical and should not be legal.

Companies that do not treat workers right face the risk of workers forming unions to collectively bargain.
Then employees that don't treat employers right should run the risk of the companies colluding to coerce employees. Colluding to coerce isn't right for either side, and shouldn't be allowed for either side.

It's a delicate balance. When that balance is upset such as when companies find that their costs are too high due in part to union demands then they have to consider alternatives like robotics or moving to lower labor cost areas.
First we need to do away with the thieves that are trying to get more than they are worth through coercive theft, i.e. the unions. After that the free market fairly takes care of both sides and makes sure that employees get exactly what they are worth, and that employers aren't taken advantage of and forced to have to pay substantially more than what they are worth.
 

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Unions may not have ever been essential, but they certainly haven't been needed for like a century anyway. We already have all the laws in place to cover everything needed and have for a long, long time. The sole purpose of unions now is to get employees more than they are worth by using theft by coercion.


Only if companies have the same right. Neither side is entitled to the use of collective coercion though and so it should be illegal for both sides.


They should, if done individually without colluding with others. Just like employers should be able to offer whatever salary they want for their job opening, so long as they don't collude with other companies to try to put artificial caps on the salaries. But as soon as you start colluding to try to strong arm and coerce, regardless of which side of the equation you are in, it is no longer ethical and should not be legal.


Then employees that don't treat employers right should run the risk of the companies colluding to coerce employees. Colluding to coerce isn't right for either side, and shouldn't be allowed for either side.


First we need to do away with the thieves that are trying to get more than they are worth through coercive theft, i.e. the unions. After that the free market fairly takes care of both sides and makes sure that employees get exactly what they are worth, and that employers aren't taken advantage of and forced to have to pay substantially more than what they are worth.

...........................................................
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Unions may not have ever been essential, but they certainly haven't been needed for like a century anyway. We already have all the laws in place to cover everything needed and have for a long, long time. The sole purpose of unions now is to get employees more than they are worth by using theft by coercion.


Only if companies have the same right. Neither side is entitled to the use of collective coercion though and so it should be illegal for both sides.


They should, if done individually without colluding with others. Just like employers should be able to offer whatever salary they want for their job opening, so long as they don't collude with other companies to try to put artificial caps on the salaries. But as soon as you start colluding to try to strong arm and coerce, regardless of which side of the equation you are in, it is no longer ethical and should not be legal.


Then employees that don't treat employers right should run the risk of the companies colluding to coerce employees. Colluding to coerce isn't right for either side, and shouldn't be allowed for either side.


First we need to do away with the thieves that are trying to get more than they are worth through coercive theft, i.e. the unions. After that the free market fairly takes care of both sides and makes sure that employees get exactly what they are worth, and that employers aren't taken advantage of and forced to have to pay substantially more than what they are worth.
You do make some good points and some of them speak to my point of something good turning into something bad. The point about employers not being allowed to collude to set wages for an industry is a good point and also goes back to what I said about employers having the right to seek lower priced labor if they want to.

The easiest answer I think is, it's complicated.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
John,

Your post is a reasoned view of the real world and how it operates. No one factor is the driving force behind the loss of American jobs. Everything seems so simple. The solutions talked about by our leaders seem so simple. If they really were, we'd have fixed them by now. In every form of gamesmanship, there are winners and losers. Sometimes we cheer the winners when we really should have cheered the losers.

As an aside, really liked the 2 x 5 Ultimate you sold me at the BCAPL's. The backpack straps are a godsend. Once Matt showed me the correct way to insert the butts and shafts, it is remarkably easy to use case. Really well made and worth every penny. Thanks!

Lyn
Thank you. In a lot of ways we are very far from enlightenment in how we operate as a society. People tend to forget that we are still in the industrial revolution and we are only 200 years removed from feudalism.

Scientifically we have only really started to truly understand what makes us tick. Socially we only now have the means to collect and analyze the data from the past couple hundred years to identify the cause and effect of various environments.

There are no ready and easy answers. Any one of us individually can only see a tiny part of the landscape.

I honestly believe that we are still coalescing as a species. We could not now imagine living as it was 100 years ago and 100 years from now people will see this time as simple and unenlightened.

I always think of that timescale where if all known history were expressed as 24 hour period then we have been here for the last four minutes and civilized societies for the past few seconds.

Which means to me that we have a long way to go.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
Well, first the idea that we are uncaring is simply not true. Not from a humanitarian perspective nor from an economic perspective. As a person who employs other humans on both sides of the Pacific I care deeply for those I have hired. Many business owners do see their employees as wards to be cared for and protected as much as possible.

But it is the as possible part that you don't get. When it becomes economically impossible to produce the goods at xyz location then the production facility must move or go out of business entirely. A business is not started with intention to move it. Businesses are started with intention of creating a literal perpetual motion generator of income. The ultimate situation is a humming factory that operates at full capacity and full employment where everyone is happy with the money they are making. But this unicorn situation rarely exists. For most companies it is a daily struggle to keep the doors open.

And the larger the company the more factors they have to deal with. It's not so simplistic as to say you have to employ your customers if you want them to be able to afford your goods.

We could dive deeper into that but at the core it really comes down to supply and demand. Without government support/interference competition drives prices down until the amount of competitors consolidates into monopolies which raises prices.

The bottom line is that many are trying to take a very very complex world and distill it down to black and white choices. Have you ever considered how incredibly complex the global economy is? Now throw in all the government considerations on top of it and the complexity increases exponentially.

Every single move that benefits someone negatively affects someone else. It doesn't matter whether it is a factory that moves from Indiana to Georgia or one that moves from Virginia to China. And by the same token a negative impact for one is a benefit for another. Yes a$40 an hour job might evaporate but the product coming in at half the prices saves millions for those who don't have$40 an hour jobs.

The world adapts, people adapt.

Read Hazlett, read the Way to Wealth if you want to get an introduction into the underpinnings of why protectionism and alternately blaming the government for interference while asking it for protection is naive and a waste of time. Government should work for us to do the things that the power of scale can achieve but government does not need to be used as a shield against competition because that shield is easily turned into a prison.

I am not full on libertarian. Nor am I a socialist. I am a person who understands what capitalism is good for, what mercantilism is good for, what socialism is good for, what independence is good for and what regulation is good for. In all things we should seek balance in order to have a stable foundation from which to build. But never become so attached that we cannot abandon an idea, a concept, an institution, or a job and start over.

That ultimately is what being human means to me. The freedom to use every available way to make my own way in the world. But in order to get to that point I have to hope I was educated to become the type of thinker who can find and use those opportunities.

Dependence is no different whether it is the government teat or the company teat. Assuming one is entitled to either is a failure in oneself. Welfare may be available and one may qualify for help but it is not intended to be a lifelong support. Employment may be available and one may qualify but the employer cannot possibly guarantee a lifetime of employment.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I'd like to say that even though I don't agree with all of John's conclusions in his post here, I most certainly do agree with his type of thinking in it.

John seems to be attempting to integrate both the seen and the unseen, one of the vital concepts covered by Hazlitt's short treatise and elsewhere. Notice how much farther along he is in his understanding of the concept of trade/govt/liberty, compared to those stuck in the political, non-integrated, child-like slogan environment of "make America great again." One produces real value and the other thwarts it, seen or not.

Even Trump, a businessman, knows all of this, but for some reason he's going against what he knows to be best for America AND the world. For what reason, folks, what reason?




Jeff Livingston
 

9andout

Gunnin' for a 3 pack!!
Silver Member
What if you're wrong about it be "right"? That is, what if your way makes things worse, not better? Or what if someone else simply wants it the other way for himself? Is he wrong? No, he's just values things differently. Let him choose. Let you choose. Then we can see how it went.

There is no need for the govt threats intended to stop the freedom to trade. Freedom, alone, really really is better, is right, is defendable always.



Jeff Livingston
The Government tilted the balance with OPIC.

Unions are essential but people who don't recognize that anything good can turn bad are deluding themselves. Workers should have every right to organize and collectively bargain. They should have every right to walk out and cripple a company. The company should have the right to refuse to negotiate and hire other workers. In all things it is either compromise or demise.

Workers who band together run the risk of being unable to work in that factory anymore. Companies that do not treat workers right face the risk of workers forming unions to collectively bargain.

It's a delicate balance. When that balance is upset such as when companies find that their costs are too high due in part to union demands then they have to consider alternatives like robotics or moving to lower labor cost areas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
How about when Unions do take concessions to help their company?
Because they care.
The company gets back on their feet. Doing even better than before.......
Now the wotkers would like to get a little back. They did not.
This happened with Cooper Tire. That was wrong.

Unions may not have ever been essential, but they certainly haven't been needed for like a century anyway. We already have all the laws in place to cover everything needed and have for a long, long time. The sole purpose of unions now is to get employees more than they are worth by using theft by coercion.


Only if companies have the same right. Neither side is entitled to the use of collective coercion though and so it should be illegal for both sides.


They should, if done individually without colluding with others. Just like employers should be able to offer whatever salary they want for their job opening, so long as they don't collude with other companies to try to put artificial caps on the salaries. But as soon as you start colluding to try to strong arm and coerce, regardless of which side of the equation you are in, it is no longer ethical and should not be legal.


Then employees that don't treat employers right should run the risk of the companies colluding to coerce employees. Colluding to coerce isn't right for either side, and shouldn't be allowed for either side.


First we need to do away with the thieves that are trying to get more than they are worth through coercive theft, i.e. the unions. After that the free market fairly takes care of both sides and makes sure that employees get exactly what they are worth, and that employers aren't taken advantage of and forced to have to pay substantially more than what they are worth.
PP9
We have people leaving the Non-Union sector all the time to join us.
Apparently Unions are still necessary.
It us not all about wages either. I hear their many reasons all the time.

You are a little off base.
You seem to only be focused on the wages.

We also have this thing called collective bargaining.
These sessions focus on many things besides pay.
We do quite well.
So do the owners.
 
Top