cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Advisor

Re: a big problem


@kraft-t wrote:

Union workers are only getting compensation that the companies agreed to. If they are overpaid in wages or benefits, then the responsibility lies with those that signed the contract.

 

As far as you are concerned, it is none of your damned business what the terms are of negotiated agreements. It's just not your concern.


Once a company files for bankruptcy those contracts are worthless. Ask the car owners holding the warranties.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Is This Where You Are At?

Re: Is This Where You Are At?  No, I'm behind the "at".  Don't you know you don't end a sentence with a preposition?

Senior Advisor

Re: Is This Where You Are At?

Where are you at......jack a s s?

Senior Contributor

Re: guess you missed the point


@BA Deere wrote:

Hey Canuck, this "legacy costs" were there are too many pensioners to the amount of workers are doomed to fail, that`s exactly what`s going on with the Post Office today.  Free trade is one of my hot buttons. See on your farm you can`t continue to spend more than you take in, that`s what`s happened for probably 30 yrs with the US trade deficit, since we started worshipping at the alter of free trade. Tariffs are the only way to level the playing field, unless you want your citizens drug down to the 3rd world level.  During the Great Depression it was a totally different ball game than today.  Back then 1/3 of the people were farmers, it wasn`t cost effective to pack up a steel mill or packing plant and move it overseas, so while there were tariffs on raw materials coming in, it didn`t totally destroy our manufacturing base like today.  I mean just look, are we supposed to just survive on stocking Walmart shelves and flipping burgers? It seems to me rather than run monthly trade defictshttp://www.usdebtclock.org/   of $400 billion/month we`d be better off doing nothing, instead of digging the hole deeper.


Believe me BA pensions are not simple payouts from existing funds.

Money is set aside as the worker is employed and actuaries crunch numbers all the time to anticipate the amount needed to pay all future requiremnets.

the big problem with 'under funded' plans has to do with investments not increasing in value as anticipated.

Now some employers, and many government employers are in this category, provide 'defined benefit' pension packages which guarantee the pension payment at a certain rate/amount. So when the markets do not provide enough funding for the plan the employer has to make up the difference, not the whole amount of the pension payout.

That is why most plans now are 'Defined Contribution' plans, where the employee and the employer make their regular payments into the 'plan' but it is each individuals plan so when the markets do not do well that individual has to do with less payout. No requirement for the employer to make up the difference.

If you read through the link I provided it sets out how tariffs actually hurt the overall economy. It also costs out what it costs your overall economy to save a job with a tariff.

Examples like $42,000 for each textile industry job and in the steel industry saving 10,000 jobs cost your economy $400,000 per job, that's right for each job and yet you want to cut people with no income off welfare while you pay up to $420,000 to save each job in TV manufacturing so they can make how much per year and those costs are annual costs.

See there is your argument for keeping farm subsidies, you don't get as much as others do. 

The Great Depression was made worse and longer by tariffs enacted by lots of countries, each adding tariffs to counter others tariffs. Actions that brought many countries economies to their knees and sparked majour wars and destruction.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Is This Where You Are At?

Now you've done gone and hurt my feelings, p r i c k!

Senior Advisor

Re: Is This Where You Are At?

Bart, I couldn't help it. It reminded me of a story I heard one time about Lou Pinnela while I was listening to a Reds game while he was manager. It was told through what a catcher had once said.

 

It seems Lou was at bat. The pitcher threw an obvious ball but the ump called it a strike. Lou stepped back from the plate, looked at the ump, and ask, "Where do you think that pitch was at." The ump replied, "Here we are in front of 50,000 people and you just ended a sentence with a preposition." Lou looked down at the ground for a moment, look back at the ump and said, "Where do you think that pitch was at jack a s s.

 

When I saw your comment earlier I just couldn't help myself.

Honored Advisor

Re: guess you missed the point

Canuck, of course you guys like free trade, Canada were from 1976 to 2009 running trade SURPLUSES http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/02/11/tradedeficit.html  See that`s what the US needs, a trade negotiator that screws everyone we deal with  Smiley Wink  Except if you must had gotten rid of him, if you have a couple yrs of deficts now.   Tariffs do not cost money, here`s a partically real life example.  Let`s say I own a company that makes filters in Lake Mills, Iowa Smiley Happy I sell fiters for $6, costing me $3 to produce($1 in factory/materials.  $2 per filter in labor) .  The 400 workers make $20/hr, pay taxes, Gods in his Heaven and all is right with the world, right?   Then I move to Mexico, workers get paid $5/hr, I get to dump waste in the river, if a Mexican worker cuts his finger off that`s his problem.  Look what happens, my labor cost goes from $2 per filter down to 50¢ per filter, I sure the hell ain`t gonna lower my filter cost, that extra $1.50 goes right in my back pocket.   Who benefits?  Well, my wallet is fatter, that`s for sure.  The 400 ex-workers back home?  Not that anyone gives a damned about them, but they scramble to find a below a living wage job and go on food stamps.  Those 400 ex-filter workers go from having a job where they had paid taxes to now working lower paying jobs that don`t make enough that they have to tax Fed income taxes.  So let`s recap, I went from making $3 per filter to now making $4.50 per filter, I`m happy as a lark.  Down in Mexico, 400 Mexicans have $5 jobs as opposed to picking sh!t with the chickens, they`re happy, hell Mexicans are always happy.  Who are the losers? Obviously the US government...400 less taxpaying citzens and of course those 400 poor souls that went from $20/hr down to $8/hr stocking shelves at Wally-Mart.  The solution?  Slap a M.Fin` tariff of at least $1.50 on EACH filter entering the United States.  The only one that would cost is me, the owner of that mythical filter company.     

Senior Contributor

Re: guess you missed the point


@BA Deere wrote:

Canuck, of course you guys like free trade, Canada were from 1976 to 2009 running trade SURPLUSES http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/02/11/tradedeficit.html  See that`s what the US needs, a trade negotiator that screws everyone we deal with  Smiley Wink  Except if you must had gotten rid of him, if you have a couple yrs of deficts now.   Tariffs do not cost money, here`s a partically real life example.  Let`s say I own a company that makes filters in Lake Mills, Iowa Smiley Happy I sell fiters for $6, costing me $3 to produce($1 in factory/materials.  $2 per filter in labor) .  The 400 workers make $20/hr, pay taxes, Gods in his Heaven and all is right with the world, right?   Then I move to Mexico, workers get paid $5/hr, I get to dump waste in the river, if a Mexican worker cuts his finger off that`s his problem.  Look what happens, my labor cost goes from $2 per filter down to 50¢ per filter, I sure the hell ain`t gonna lower my filter cost, that extra $1.50 goes right in my back pocket.   Who benefits?  Well, my wallet is fatter, that`s for sure.  The 400 ex-workers back home?  Not that anyone gives a damned about them, but they scramble to find a below a living wage job and go on food stamps.  Those 400 ex-filter workers go from having a job where they had paid taxes to now working lower paying jobs that don`t make enough that they have to tax Fed income taxes.  So let`s recap, I went from making $3 per filter to now making $4.50 per filter, I`m happy as a lark.  Down in Mexico, 400 Mexicans have $5 jobs as opposed to picking sh!t with the chickens, they`re happy, hell Mexicans are always happy.  Who are the losers? Obviously the US government...400 less taxpaying citzens and of course those 400 poor souls that went from $20/hr down to $8/hr stocking shelves at Wally-Mart.  The solution?  Slap a M.Fin` tariff of at least $1.50 on EACH filter entering the United States.  The only one that would cost is me, the owner of that mythical filter company.     


A couple of assumptions in your 'example' that do not hold up.

You claim Canada won in free trade and you claim labour is cheaper in Mexico because no health care for the worker with cut off finger. So why is Canada doing better when we have health care for all (and lots of regulations to make it a lot harder for the worker to cut off his finger too maybe).

 

Now you make the assumption that business would just pocket all the difference in cost. Not often allowed to do that because competition will push price down close to cost of production.

Go back to my original linked article and it points out the cost of the tariff.

You claim it is good to keep costs high for those buying the filter but the examples in the article show it would be cheaper for 'you' the taxpayer to just pay the workers salary, have him/her sit on their butts and you save the rest of those $400,000 cost of keeping the job in your country. Now that difference could be used to pay down your countries debt or, 'you' the taxpayer, could have that extra $300,000 plus to spend on other things to actually increase your economy.

That is the hidden cost of a tarriff.

Problem is everyone can see the closed 'filter factory' and those few people losing their jobs make a lot of noise. The rest of you paying an extra $1.50 for each filter do not have enough incentive to fight against the tariff although the total cost to your economy is huge.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Is This Where You Are At?

Neither could I.  ;-)