No more Twinkies - Hostess out of business

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I doubt how they voted has any impact whatsoever to their current situation.

Not a direct result - no - the timeline is too short (10 days). Unless the givebacks were expanded to offset ObamaCare expenses, but even that seems too soon.

But, does it not cause one to question their political alignment? The same union that told you to vote Democratic is the one that lost you your job.

[Danzig]

i'm not a big union fan. i think some of the unions have lost touch with why they ever began.
that said, how many people think there's a possible correlation between lower union membership and lower wages? it's something to consider. there was an article a few months back that said as unions have gone downhilll, so have wages on average.
they aren't the entire solution, nor are they the entire problem. henry ford operated under the belief that the employee should make enough to buy the product he's making. in some places, that holds true. others, not at all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not a direct result - no - the timeline is too short (10 days). Unless the givebacks were expanded to offset ObamaCare expenses, but even that seems too soon.

But, does it not cause one to question their political alignment? The same union that told you to vote Democratic is the one that lost you your job.

that's a hell of a leap to make.

[OldDog]

[Rudeboyelvis]

Unions are a very convenient straw man to absorb the discontent people feel during hard times.

They primarily exist these days to insure a fair wage, adherence to schedules, and healthcare.

Everything that was bargained for years ago and have been history since the '90's (healthcare for life, cradle to grave healthcare for immediate family, lucrative pensions, etc.) have really nothing to do with the current work climate, the folks footing the bill for the last generations of these perks are lucky to be able to keep their union jobs (witness today).

The fact is, that unless and until we lower our standards to that of a 3rd world country, we will never be competitive with the 3rd world for those manufacturing jobs.

And it is spreading well beyond the lower middle class. Engineers graduating from college can't get entry-level jobs because there are qualified engineers with experience ready to do the work remotely in countries like Turkey, Singapore, etc. for a fraction of what an entry-level salary is here.

Blaming unions and union workers in particular for the "downfall of the economy" is simplistic and misguided. in my opinion.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Unions are a very convenient straw man to absorb the discontent people feel during hard times.

They primarily exist these days to insure a fair wage, adherence to schedules, and healthcare.

Everything that was bargained for years ago and have been history since the '90's (healthcare for life, cradle to grave healthcare for immediate family, lucrative pensions, etc.) have really nothing to do with the current work climate, the folks footing the bill for the last generations of these perks are lucky to be able to keep their union jobs (witness today).

The fact is, that unless and until we lower our standards to that of a 3rd world country, we will never be competitive with the 3rd world for those manufacturing jobs.

And it is spreading well beyond the lower middle class. Engineers graduating from college can't get entry-level jobs because there are qualified engineers with experience ready to do the work remotely in countries like Turkey, Singapore, etc. for a fraction of what an entry-level salary is here.

Blaming unions and union workers in particular for the "downfall of the economy" is simplistic and misguided. in my opinion.

It'll go even farther; just wait. A friend of mine who works in the legal profession told me that his law firm is testing out not assigning secretaries to the lower level lawyers; instead, they will email documents and things they need done to a floor of people they will never actually interact with. He thinks they'll eventually look to ship that sort of job overseas, too, or to a state with much lower wages.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It'll go even farther; just wait. A friend of mine who works in the legal profession told me that his law firm is testing out not assigning secretaries to the lower level lawyers; instead, they will email documents and things they need done to a floor of people they will never actually interact with. He thinks they'll eventually look to ship that sort of job overseas, too, or to a state with much lower wages.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the politicians need to give these companies some type of big incentive to stay here. Maybe companies that don't outsource should get big tax breaks. I don't know what else can be done.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the politicians need to give these companies some type of big incentive to stay here. Maybe companies that don't outsource should get big tax breaks. I don't know what else can be done.

I don't know, either. One of the tough things is that in the mid-20th century, we were the only first-world nation that hadn't had the ever-loving sh*t blown out of it by WW2, so we had an edge on the rest of the world. Businesses had to hire workers here because it was the only option, and so workers could demand a middle-class salary because employers didn't have any other option. And union workers drove up everyone else's wages to the middle class.

I assume businesses get to claim employee salaries as business expenses- maybe not permit salaries paid to overseas employees to be counted as expenses. Though there's nothing to stop corporations from just incorporating outside of the country.

I've had so many friends lose jobs to overseas firms. It's really frustrating. And it's not like the jobs were even that good to start with. One hadn't had health insurance in years, and it wasn't until his family got poor enough to qualify for Medicaid that he was able to see a doctor, and found out he was suffering from glaucoma. Lovely.

That said, here's a piece saying the failure of Hostess is the free market at work:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the...-a-good-thing/

[GenuineRisk]

And a timeline of the Hostess failure:

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the politicians need to give these companies some type of big incentive to stay here. Maybe companies that don't outsource should get big tax breaks. I don't know what else can be done.

You mean we should give tax breaks to companies that use all the loopholes to avoid taxes in the first place? And what makes you think the extra money they get from those tax breaks will not go directly into the pockets of Execs? What you are suggesting is paying ransom to those that are holding our country hostage. You and Joey always have the same answer to everything. Lower Taxes and it will create jobs. What is it going to take for you to see that has not worked for many years. Bush lowered taxes and we hemmoraged jobs for nearly a decade. We have 2 choices here. Lower our standard of living to be that of a third world country or Penalize companies with taxes that ship jobs overseas and make the penalty substansial enough that the economics of shipping jobs out of the country doesn't work. Since those that make the rules are owned by the corporate America this has no chance in hell of ever happening. We have a better chance of another American Revolution than our elected officials standing up to corporations.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by jms62

You mean we should give tax breaks to companies that use all the loopholes to avoid taxes in the first place? And what makes you think the extra money they get from those tax breaks will not go directly into the pockets of Execs? What you are suggesting is paying ransom to those that are holding our country hostage. You and Joey always have the same answer to everything. Lower Taxes and it will create jobs. What is it going to take for you to see that has not worked for many years. Bush lowered taxes and we hemmoraged jobs for nearly a decade. We have 2 choices here. Lower our standard of living to be that of a third world country or Penalize companies with taxes that ship jobs overseas and make the penalty substansial enough that the economics of shipping jobs out of the country doesn't work. Since those that make the rules are owned by the corporate America this has no chance in hell of ever happening. We have a better chance of another American Revolution than our elected officials standing up to corporations.

....Too bad we are governed by the Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules..

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by jms62

You mean we should give tax breaks to companies that use all the loopholes to avoid taxes in the first place? And what makes you think the extra money they get from those tax breaks will not go directly into the pockets of Execs? What you are suggesting is paying ransom to those that are holding our country hostage. You and Joey always have the same answer to everything. Lower Taxes and it will create jobs. What is it going to take for you to see that has not worked for many years. Bush lowered taxes and we hemmoraged jobs for nearly a decade. We have 2 choices here. Lower our standard of living to be that of a third world country or Penalize companies with taxes that ship jobs overseas and make the penalty substansial enough that the economics of shipping jobs out of the country doesn't work. Since those that make the rules are owned by the corporate America this has no chance in hell of ever happening. We have a better chance of another American Revolution than our elected officials standing up to corporations.

This Ned Beatty scene from the 1976 movie Network covers the world we live in..Corporations rule


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...CC7EF8&first=0

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

You mean we should give tax breaks to companies that use all the loopholes to avoid taxes in the first place? And what makes you think the extra money they get from those tax breaks will not go directly into the pockets of Execs? What you are suggesting is paying ransom to those that are holding our country hostage. You and Joey always have the same answer to everything. Lower Taxes and it will create jobs. What is it going to take for you to see that has not worked for many years. Bush lowered taxes and we hemmoraged jobs for nearly a decade. We have 2 choices here. Lower our standard of living to be that of a third world country or Penalize companies with taxes that ship jobs overseas and make the penalty substansial enough that the economics of shipping jobs out of the country doesn't work. Since those that make the rules are owned by the corporate America this has no chance in hell of ever happening. We have a better chance of another American Revolution than our elected officials standing up to corporations.

I was simply saying that there needs to be some type of incentive for these companies to stay here. You could raise taxes on companies that outsource. You could lower taxes on companies that don't outsource. I don't care how they do it. They just need to do something that makes it beneficial for companies to stay here and not outsource.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It'll go even farther; just wait. A friend of mine who works in the legal profession told me that his law firm is testing out not assigning secretaries to the lower level lawyers; instead, they will email documents and things they need done to a floor of people they will never actually interact with. He thinks they'll eventually look to ship that sort of job overseas, too, or to a state with much lower wages.

States like West Virginia are absolutely booming, relatively speaking. Companies realize they can find an English speaking, young, energetic workforce that appreciates the work and is willing to perform a lot of the administrative tasks that can be farmed out of the larger metropolitan areas at a fraction of the costs.
Incorporate real-time documentation processing and it's a no-brainer - cost-wise.

The larger issue I have is that even some of the most higher-level, intricate, detailed work is going off-shore. I work for an international corporation that has call centers all over the world. Typically the highest level of support resides here, but we're seeing even those jobs moving to the Philippines and India.

Without sounding obstructionist, I think the answer lies in holding the companies that make a pretty penny selling their goods and services in the USA accountable to paying that back - not by increased corporate taxes, but with a requirement to keep decent jobs here.

You want to sell your products in the US? Then you need to be required to maintain a commitment to the country by employing our labor. Period. Not excusing the practice by semi-enforcing some sort of back handed excise tax that can be manipulated by politicians, but an actual federal mandate.

Considering that these same corporations basically own the legislature, I'm not holding my breath.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It'll go even farther; just wait. A friend of mine who works in the legal profession told me that his law firm is testing out not assigning secretaries to the lower level lawyers; instead, they will email documents and things they need done to a floor of people they will never actually interact with. He thinks they'll eventually look to ship that sort of job overseas, too, or to a state with much lower wages.

That actually has a lot to do with the fact that young lawyers have typing and computer skills. Dictation, in the law firm setting, is becoming more scarce.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

That actually has a lot to do with the fact that young lawyers have typing and computer skills. Dictation, in the law firm setting, is becoming more scarce.

Absolutely, but they still use them for a lot of formatting and editing. The thing that's a change here is that they aren't even on the same floor with the lawyers; they are on a different floor and won't be seen. It's an easy step from that to not in the city or the country, entirely.

Rich partners, of course, will continue to have secretaries because they want to have someone to organize their day for them. And so it has always been- you're rich, you get to have servants.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Absolutely, but they still use them for a lot of formatting and editing. The thing that's a change here is that they aren't even on the same floor with the lawyers; they are on a different floor and won't be seen. It's an easy step from that to not in the city or the country, entirely.

Rich partners, of course, will continue to have secretaries because they want to have someone to organize their day for them. And so it has always been- you're rich, you get to have servants.

It's not about being rich and getting the "servants" it's about having an established and busy practice (something the young and/or new attorney would not have) that requires one or more people to help you manage it.