Apple should come back to the US

jclisenby

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2012
1,369
7
0
Visit site
Actually, Hostess came out of their first bankruptcy still millions in debt, rare, and practically unheard of. Yet in light of that fact, they were paying their CEO's millions in salary, some even got insane raises and bonuses within the last few months. That single CEO's yearly salary alone could've paid years in salaries and pensions for the $15/hr workers and that's not even factoring in his massive bonus, the one which he still gets paid despite running them back into a 2nd bankruptcy again so soon after taking the reigns. You do not pay a CEO or any executive a salary of that amount when you are that far in the hole and expect to actually get out of debt. Period. You pay him 1? til they are in the black, as you do all the Sr. Management, THEN you figure out how to deal with his salary and if he gets a bonus when and IF they are ever in the black. Add to the fact that they as a company did NO new product innovation in decades. That is a dying company. Again, not a Union problem, that's management.

So explain to me how that is a Union's fault? The "Union Bosses" weren't making much money, nor were the Union workers. $15 an hour is hardly a lifelong sustainable wage, nor is it one that breaks a huge corporation, nor is it "great money". So how is that an example of why Unions are no good in 2012? Sounds like you have listened to the propaganda and not done a lot of actual research.

I've worked with Union employees on the job, and I can tell you from experience that the entire structure is crap. They make it so that people who are qualified and knowledgeable cant get jobs or appropriate wages because they are forcing companies to pay for people or services they don't need. The number of right to work states is rising and I think we will see an end to unions before too long. Either the unions go or the US economy goes. I'm hoping its not the economy.
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,681
627
113
Visit site
"Republican tactics"? You mean like another Party's deliberate attempt to force "the rich" to pay their "fair share" and prevent them from making money "off the backs of poor people" when in fact that rhetoric filled tactic is essentially to redistribute wealth from the private sector over to the government sector allegedly made of the people, by the people & for the people, yet "we the people" will also be burdened by heavy taxes and forced to be dependent on a new all-powerful government instead of powerfully independent of government? :D I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. ...;)
 
Last edited:

Fausty82

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2010
8,484
286
0
Visit site
"Republican tactics"? You mean like another Party's deliberate attempt to force "the rich" to pay their "fair share" and prevent them from making money "off the backs of poor people" when in fact that rhetoric filled tactic is essentially to redistribute wealth from the private sector over to the government sector allegedly made of the people, by the people & for the people, yet "we the people" will also be burdened by heavy taxes and forced to be dependent on a new all-powerful government instead of powerfully independent? :D I'm sorry. I could t help myself. ...;)

Thanks for saying that... so I don’t have to.

Pick your poison - unions and their corruption or cradle-to-grave handouts and their corruption.
 

ame

Trusted Member
Feb 17, 2011
1,872
31
48
Visit site
This is a great example of the (perhaps) unintended consequences of unions. Ame has made the point for me that unions are definitely an accessory to the problem of "greedy Americans". Sure we all want more. But realistically, it’s not possible. If we all made more money, the widgets that we all produce would cost more, effectively leaving our relative standard of living unchanged.

I used to work for a financial organization with offices in NYC. I am still amazed that the people who worked in their Manhattan office were not allowed to move their own computers from one location to another - it was a "service" provided by a union... so rather than just moving their computers, they would typically waste half a way waiting on the union computer mover to show up and do his 10 minutes of work.

The process of restoring electricity to locations hit by hurricane Sandy was slowed when the union electrical workers at the loca utility companies refused to allow crews from other areas of the country to help them. Instead of welcoming the help to get the city back on the road to recovery, they protested, calling the would be helpers scabs (and worse) and accusing them of trying to take food off of their tables.

Perhaps these are simply anecdotal anomalies... but it has been my experience, as well. BTW, my father was a union carpenter in the midwest for over 40 years. I’ve seen it from both sides.

So why the hate for Unions then? And why bite the hand that fed you and gave you the opportunities beyond being just a white man gives you and probably provided your father and family a living and fair wage for all those years, a pension for your mom after he retired and health benefits far exceeding most other career paths or trades? Your acting like you're owed more than oxygen by this life.? The people of your father's generation and even the ones before him gave their LIVES to fight for a fair wage for all of us to follow. My parents generation, this next upcoming generation, and my own gen x, can't see their hand in front of their face. They don't see the future they're leaving for the next few generations. They don't care about anyone but themselves. They don't care that without Unions, no one is equal or fair, and that we're going backwards. You probably got your job in your Manhattan Financial firm thinking you were qualified on paper. But I would bet you money that you were hired because you were a white man. And if not white, you're just a man. And if you were up against a far more qualified woman, of any race, you being a white dude, you got hired over her regardless of your qualifications. And if she also got hired later, she gets paid significantly less than you, and has far less opportunity for advancement. Regardless of what any "policy" the company states they have, women are far less likely to advance, and do not get paid equally. Without a Union, I as a woman, white or not, have no chance of being promoted or paid equally to you, regardless of my qualifications. Look at it from your wife's perspective (assuming you are married). She's not promoted despite being well earned, or paid equal to a male colleague, simply because of her genitalia. Now--I realize you say Carpenters above, and they are one Union that has a lot of problems within the ranks of the Construction trades, and themselves. They are one that has a lot of corruption, but their rank and file are quite loyal to the membership. So having an issue with a "Union Boss" in the ranks there, not entirely shocking. But not all of the Unions, as I have said before, are corrupt or have issues.

As for the comment above about "greedy Americans" being caused by Unions....Unions have very little to do with this entitlement nonsense. That's across the board, and its been most pronounced with the people who hate Unions the most, the ones who want all the "government handouts" to stop, while complaining about how horrible the roads and traffic are, and how much it sucks to have to pay for health insurance but that feel they should have the best quality health coverage, a safe city and their house safe from fires, how dare anyone get unemployment extended (but when I get laid off I better get it!) but without paying a dime for any of it. ?
 
Last edited:

ame

Trusted Member
Feb 17, 2011
1,872
31
48
Visit site
"Republican tactics"? You mean like another Party's deliberate attempt to force "the rich" to pay their "fair share" and prevent them from making money "off the backs of poor people" when in fact that rhetoric filled tactic is essentially to redistribute wealth from the private sector over to the government sector allegedly made of the people, by the people & for the people, yet "we the people" will also be burdened by heavy taxes and forced to be dependent on a new all-powerful government instead of powerfully independent of government? :D I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. ...;)
Actually I think we should all be paying a TON more in taxes, and I think they should be forcing the 2% who hide their money offshore to avoid paying their taxes at all to actually pay any taxes besides just raising them and close any and all loopholes. We have one of the lowest if not the lowest tax rate in the world, and we're in the hole up to our asses. And privatizing services will not fix the economy, it will just make the same 10 people richer and everyone else poorer.
 

Fausty82

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2010
8,484
286
0
Visit site
Actually I think we should all be paying a TON more in taxes, and I think they should be forcing the 2% who hide their money offshore to avoid paying their taxes at all to actually pay any taxes besides just raising them and close any and all loopholes. We have one of the lowest if not the lowest tax rate in the world, and we're in the hole up to our asses. And privatizing services will not fix the economy, it will just make the same 10 people richer and everyone else poorer.

Everyone should pay their fair share - but those who risk their wealth and means should not be penalized for doing so. The liberals have engaged in class warfare for years - with the express purpose of providing cradle-to-grave "entitlements" ... where do you think that money comes from? As Ronald Reagan said "government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem".
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,681
627
113
Visit site
Actually I think we should all be paying a TON more in taxes,
Why? For the sake of this discussion, let's say that I applied to work for Company A who paid me a generous salary which gave me the means to better provide for my family. Now, being that you think we should all be paying a TON more in taxes, wouldn't that weaken my ability to better provide for my family? How much of my salary that "I" worked for should i keep, in your opinion? please be specific. Furthermore, if I am to pay a TON more in taxes, is that in addition to or separate from income taxes? Speaking of "income taxes", you do realize that it is a tax on income. Those who do not earn an "income" do not pay income taxes and guess what, a great deal of those people are the very people allegedly in need of help while others are certain wealthy people.
I think they should be forcing the 2% who hide their money offshore to avoid paying their taxes at all to actually pay any taxes besides just raising them and close any and all loopholes.
You do realize that many of the left leaning politicians are among that 2% and they, too, hide their money offshore to avoid paying taxes. Think of Warren Buffet. Isn't he still fighting to not pay back taxes while hypocritically claiming to be pro-tax?
We have one of the lowest if not the lowest tax rate in the world, and we're in the hole up to our asses.
Here's a secret. We've been in a hole for a while and up until March 23, 2011 when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became effective, everything was salvageable.
And privatizing services will not fix the economy, it will just make the same 10 people richer and everyone else poorer.
You're kidding, right?
 

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
I'm a part of the federal union of law enforcement and protective services officers...it's one of the strongest unions in the country and they do some great things for us without as much as a finger lifted on our part (though some substantial dollars invested)...that said, they also make bone head moves, push non-issues into major procedural changes that cause nothing but headache and have been known to be quite inconsistent with support of individuals.

I see the good and the bad, but given i have no choice to participate in it, i just go with it and hope for the best...they've increased my salary faster than any local government union would have, but they've also cost me a lot of time with BS changes that require redundant and wasteful training and classes.
 

Fausty82

Well-known member
Jun 23, 2010
8,484
286
0
Visit site
So why the hate for Unions then? And why bite the hand that fed you and gave you the opportunities beyond being just a white man gives you and probably provided your father and family a living and fair wage for all those years, a pension for your mom after he retired and health benefits far exceeding most other career paths or trades? Your acting like you're owed more than oxygen by this life. The people of your father's generation and even the ones before him gave their LIVES to fight for a fair wage for all of us to follow. My parents generation, this next upcoming generation, and my own gen x, can't see their hand in front of their face. They don't see the future they're leaving for the next few generations. They don't care about anyone but themselves. They don't care that without Unions, no one is equal or fair, and that we're going backwards. You probably got your job in your Manhattan Financial firm thinking you were qualified on paper. But I would bet you money that you were hired because you were a white man. And if not white, you're just a man. And if you were up against a far more qualified woman, of any race, you being a white dude, you got hired over her regardless of your qualifications. And if she also got hired later, she gets paid significantly less than you, and has far less opportunity for advancement. Regardless of what any "policy" the company states they have, women are far less likely to advance, and do not get paid equally. Without a Union, I as a woman, white or not, have no chance of being promoted or paid equally to you, regardless of my qualifications. Look at it from your wife's perspective (assuming you are married). She's not promoted despite being well earned, or paid equal to a male colleague, simply because of her genitalia. Now--I realize you say Carpenters above, and they are one Union that has a lot of problems within the ranks of the Construction trades, and themselves. They are one that has a lot of corruption, but their rank and file are quite loyal to the membership. So having an issue with a "Union Boss" in the ranks there, not entirely shocking. But not all of the Unions, as I have said before, are corrupt or have issues.

As for the comment above about "greedy Americans" being caused by Unions....Unions have very little to do with this entitlement nonsense. That's across the board, and its been most pronounced with the people who hate Unions the most, the ones who want all the "government handouts" to stop, while complaining about how horrible the roads and traffic are, and how much it sucks to have to pay for health insurance but that feel they should have the best quality health coverage, a safe city and their house safe from fires, how dare anyone get unemployment extended (but when I get laid off I better get it!) but without paying a dime for any of it.

Ok, I can see that there is nothing to be gained here. You are a liberal, pro union woman with an axe to grind. And I am offended that you continue to state that I am what I am and have what I have because I’m a white male. You don’t know me nor do you know anything about me.

I never said that I hated unions. What I said was that they served a purpose, but IMHO, they have outlived that purpose. My father worked hard for everything he got. He actually grew up in an orphanage, and he never for a moment believed that he was entitled to anything that he didn’t earn. And he taught me that, as well. I have a good job, working in IT. I didn’t get here because I was "white" or "male" - and I am offended that you would even suggest that. I got here because I worked to put myself through school. I earned a degree in IT. I started in an entry level position some 30 years ago worked my way up in this industry. It is by the grace of God and my own hard work that I have been able to create a nice, albeit modest life for myself and my family. My wife works at a local university, and she is paid on par with the other workers in her office - regardless of their gender. She has also been promoted over men in her office. And she has lost out on another promotion to a man in her office. I hate to disappoint you, but genitalia has nothing to do with it.

And I find it incredibly suspicious that the only union in the whole country that has "issues" is the union to which my father belonged for all of his adult working life. When I see my brother-in-law go to the GM shop in Flint Michigan and not work (because he’s been assigned to the "job bank"), I can’t help but believe that the unions have a LOT to do with the entitlement mentality in this country. The liberals in charge of the "cradle-to-grave" handouts are also complicit in this B.S., but by and large they are supported by the unions, so IMO, they are one and the same.
 
Last edited:

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
It's funny that you understand it as being purely a profit driven situation...when in reality, it's a combination of things that keep manufacturing over seas.

For starters, you naively assume that the people who would do the work here would some how increase the QC that goes into the product...have you paid attention to the last 20+ years of American made cars? Only just recently have quality satisfaction ratings risen above "poor" on cars made in the U.S., and that is ONLY because the big three manufacturers are literally walking on egg shells and must over perform to meet the expectations placed on them by the government, tax payers and consumers. Then look at the overseas companies that bring manufacturing here to the states...check out the satisfaction ratings of people who bought BMW models built in Germany vs. those built here in the states. It speaks worlds.

Utter nonsense..

Secondly...the % of money that would be redirected back into the product is not something that a company can just plug in and KNOW consumers will be ok with. You might be, a million consumers might be, but when you're dealing with tens of millions of consumers, you have to look at the whole picture. Let's say your 15% number is right just for arguments sake, at an unlocked price of $649, your % equals almost $100 in extra cost to the consumer...and with a product that costs so little, that amount of increase is going to dramatically effect sales. Look at how people react to gas prices...the changes there are MUCH smaller, and MUCH more spread out...but people absolutely lose their minds about it. This product isn't a necessity, it's a luxury...

Many companies still thrive here, I've never seen a company that went overseas lower their prices to reflect the labor savings, so why would it go up if they returned? Maybe the executives would have to do without the 4th private jet, the horror!

Lastly, the pay to the employees is only one tiny piece of the puzzle when it comes to overseas manufacturing...taxes, pollution and waste disposal regulations, employee benefit costs, etc etc etc...the list goes for MILES vs. overseas production. Take that 15% you blindly estimated and jack it up A LOT more to be realistic.

Our corporate tax rates are very low, all the taxes, regulations, environmental concerns are simple realities we must face, just look at Wal Marts fat profits, they benefit a handful of extremely wealthy people, they pay their employees low wages with little or no benefits. Guess who then pays for it? The US taxpayer. One way or another we all pay, all so the executives and CEO's can live like kings and queens. In the 50's we were better off and mostly everything was made here, this race to the bottom has certainly not improved our situation. It's a sad state we are in, if the only way people can have their toys is to have low wage slaves build them. This is an interesting take on it > The problem: Big business doesn't care about American well-being - CSMonitor.com Just think if corporations didn't leave the taxpayers picking up the tab for their employees healthcare and cost of living how much we could have invested in education and infrastructure in the last few decades with the money instead. We should be investing in our people and improving our country instead of subsidizing the profit margins of corporations. That isn't free market Capitalism, that's corporate socialism.


In the end, the products we know, use and love would end up costing a staggering amount more...with ZERO guarantee of better quality (and based on historic record, a pretty good assumption that QC would maintain or lower).

Henry Ford proved you wrong, you don't see the hidden costs of cheap foreign junk, if the true costs were added they'd likely be more.
 
Last edited:

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
If (or when) that happens, you will have the government and the unions to blame.

Ridiculous.. It's big business and their allies pushing low wages onto the workers.


Unions served their purpose back in the day... but in today's world all they do is screw up everything for everyone.

Please define "screw up everything for everyone", sounds like am radio gibberish to me. I can provide mountains upon mountains of facts about how big business and the top management actually did screw most things up and really screw millions over, so please stick to facts here.

They protect workers who screw up and don?t produce. They have given us the "job bank" mentality where workers with no assignment go sit all day and collect their pay. The unions refused to let the companies reduce staff, even when there is no work for them. My brother-in-law is currently in that situation at a GM plant in Flint, MI.

I don't think anyone believes everything unions do is right, however, the damage done to our economy by the executive class is un-comparable. It is the business lobbying groups that gave us disastrous free trade agreements which only benefited those at the top, unions didn't wreck our economy, Wall st and K street took care of that. Then of course these same people hire pr firms to spread their message of blaming workers and unions, never telling the truth about their incompetence and greed that has vaporized so many people's pensions and jobs. You guys should look up how much those vaunted German workers get paid, funny how it hasn't bankrupted their companies.
 

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
Since we are talking about Unions now, I'll use Hostess as my example. The workers were making great money but the union bosses thought they deserved more. The company couldn't afford to pay more, and the rest is history. Unions are no good in 2012.

I just have to chime in here to agree with ame, you have it completely wrong.

Actually, Hostess came out of their first bankruptcy still millions in debt, rare, and practically unheard of. Yet in light of that fact, they were paying their CEO's millions in salary, some even got insane raises and bonuses within the last few months. That single CEO's yearly salary alone could've paid years in salaries and pensions for the $15/hr workers and that's not even factoring in his massive bonus, the one which he still gets paid despite running them back into a 2nd bankruptcy again so soon after taking the reigns. You do not pay a CEO or any executive a salary of that amount when you are that far in the hole and expect to actually get out of debt. Period. You pay him 1? til they are in the black, as you do all the Sr. Management, THEN you figure out how to deal with his salary and if he gets a bonus when and IF they are ever in the black. Add to the fact that they as a company did NO new product innovation in decades. That is a dying company. Again, not a Union problem, that's management.

So explain to me how that is a Union's fault? The "Union Bosses" weren't making much money, nor were the Union workers. $15 an hour is hardly a lifelong sustainable wage, nor is it one that breaks a huge corporation, nor is it "great money". So how is that an example of why Unions are no good in 2012? Sounds like you have listened to the propaganda and not done a lot of actual research.
 

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
Since we are talking about Unions now, I'll use Hostess as my example. The workers were making great money but the union bosses thought they deserved more. The company couldn't afford to pay more, and the rest is history. Unions are no good in 2012.

I've worked with Union employees on the job, and I can tell you from experience that the entire structure is crap. They make it so that people who are qualified and knowledgeable cant get jobs or appropriate wages because they are forcing companies to pay for people or services they don't need. The number of right to work states is rising and I think we will see an end to unions before too long. Either the unions go or the US economy goes. I'm hoping its not the economy.

Well if your wish comes true, you'll see our economy truly die, and you'll be competing with that Foxconn worker like the corporations would like you to.
 

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
"Republican tactics"? You mean like another Party's deliberate attempt to force "the rich" to pay their "fair share" and prevent them from making money "off the backs of poor people" when in fact that rhetoric filled tactic is essentially to redistribute wealth from the private sector over to the government sector allegedly made of the people, by the people & for the people, yet "we the people" will also be burdened by heavy taxes and forced to be dependent on a new all-powerful government instead of powerfully independent of government? :D I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. ...;)

The elite thank you for doing their bidding for them I'm sure, but they'll still pay you a dollar per day when the unions are gone, the elite don't care about you, they only care about themselves, but you keep believing it will all trickle down someday..
 
Last edited:

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
So why the hate for Unions then? And why bite the hand that fed you and gave you the opportunities beyond being just a white man gives you and probably provided your father and family a living and fair wage for all those years, a pension for your mom after he retired and health benefits far exceeding most other career paths or trades? Your acting like you're owed more than oxygen by this life.? The people of your father's generation and even the ones before him gave their LIVES to fight for a fair wage for all of us to follow. My parents generation, this next upcoming generation, and my own gen x, can't see their hand in front of their face. They don't see the future they're leaving for the next few generations. They don't care about anyone but themselves. They don't care that without Unions, no one is equal or fair, and that we're going backwards. You probably got your job in your Manhattan Financial firm thinking you were qualified on paper. But I would bet you money that you were hired because you were a white man. And if not white, you're just a man. And if you were up against a far more qualified woman, of any race, you being a white dude, you got hired over her regardless of your qualifications. And if she also got hired later, she gets paid significantly less than you, and has far less opportunity for advancement. Regardless of what any "policy" the company states they have, women are far less likely to advance, and do not get paid equally. Without a Union, I as a woman, white or not, have no chance of being promoted or paid equally to you, regardless of my qualifications. Look at it from your wife's perspective (assuming you are married). She's not promoted despite being well earned, or paid equal to a male colleague, simply because of her genitalia. Now--I realize you say Carpenters above, and they are one Union that has a lot of problems within the ranks of the Construction trades, and themselves. They are one that has a lot of corruption, but their rank and file are quite loyal to the membership. So having an issue with a "Union Boss" in the ranks there, not entirely shocking. But not all of the Unions, as I have said before, are corrupt or have issues.

As for the comment above about "greedy Americans" being caused by Unions....Unions have very little to do with this entitlement nonsense. That's across the board, and its been most pronounced with the people who hate Unions the most, the ones who want all the "government handouts" to stop, while complaining about how horrible the roads and traffic are, and how much it sucks to have to pay for health insurance but that feel they should have the best quality health coverage, a safe city and their house safe from fires, how dare anyone get unemployment extended (but when I get laid off I better get it!) but without paying a dime for any of it. ?

So very true, and damn, if we're going to talk about corruption, unions can't hold a candle to corporations, corporations have successfully taken over our entire government, hence why it is so horribly run. Instead of having people who have our interests in mind, they just do what's good for the bottom line of big business and then blame the little guy on their media networks for all our problems. Sad so many fall for it. A man making 50k a year working his ass off who is in a union is "overpaid", but a CEO who spends his days at the country club who makes 50 million is not. What a triumph of Orwellian propaganda that is on their part!
 
Last edited:

redbeard

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2009
1,001
33
0
Visit site
Everyone should pay their fair share - but those who risk their wealth and means should not be penalized for doing so. The liberals have engaged in class warfare for years - with the express purpose of providing cradle-to-grave "entitlements" ... where do you think that money comes from? As Ronald Reagan said "government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem".

Penalized?? Class warfare? Right, because a multi-decade long war on the middle class by the rich which has been very very successful for the 1%, is actually class warfare by liberals. Nothing says entitlements like endless subsidies and corporate welfare for corporations that make billions in profit every year.

It always amazes me how so many people will go to bat for those that are at war with them.

Government is the problem when you're an ordinary American, but when you're a large corporation, government is your best friend.

Where do you think the money for corporate welfare or health costs for Wal Mart employees comes from?
 

cardfan

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2004
2,234
57
48
Visit site
I'm a part of the federal union of law enforcement and protective services officers...it's one of the strongest unions in the country and they do some great things for us without as much as a finger lifted on our part (though some substantial dollars invested)...that said, they also make bone head moves, push non-issues into major procedural changes that cause nothing but headache and have been known to be quite inconsistent with support of individuals.

I see the good and the bad, but given i have no choice to participate in it, i just go with it and hope for the best...they've increased my salary faster than any local government union would have, but they've also cost me a lot of time with BS changes that require redundant and wasteful training and classes.

My wife is in a teacher's union for federal workers. She has no choice and certainly doesn't agree with everything they do. But she's grateful for the protection as well. So I see it both ways.
 

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
Utter nonsense..

Many companies still thrive here, I've never seen a company that went overseas lower their prices to reflect the labor savings, so why would it go up if they returned? Maybe the executives would have to do without the 4th private jet, the horror!

Our corporate tax rates are very low, all the taxes, regulations, environmental concerns are simple realities we must face, just look at Wal Marts fat profits, they benefit a handful of extremely wealthy people, they pay their employees low wages with little or no benefits. Guess who then pays for it? The US taxpayer. One way or another we all pay, all so the executives and CEO's can live like kings and queens. In the 50's we were better off and mostly everything was made here, this race to the bottom has certainly not improved our situation. It's a sad state we are in, if the only way people can have their toys is to have low wage slaves build them. This is an interesting take on it > The problem: Big business doesn't care about American well-being - CSMonitor.com Just think if corporations didn't leave the taxpayers picking up the tab for their employees healthcare and cost of living how much we could have invested in education and infrastructure in the last few decades with the money instead. We should be investing in our people and improving our country instead of subsidizing the profit margins of corporations. That isn't free market Capitalism, that's corporate socialism.

Henry Ford proved you wrong, you don't see the hidden costs of cheap foreign junk, if the true costs were added they'd likely be more.

Utter non-sense? lmao...i quit taking your post seriously when you made the 1950's comparison to modern day manufacturing and being "better off".

Cheap foreign junk...as opposed to the amazing quality of the stuff produced here? Please...you know what the #1 complaint for consumers looking to buy an american made car was for the last 30 years? Cheap, poor quality interior components.

Look, I'm all for bringing jobs to my country, when our country is doing better, even insignificantly, my quality of life increases. At no time would i PREFER, as a citizen, that work and money be sent to another country, but if you deny that our governing regulations, taxations and over bearing stresses they put on companies doesn't send this work else where you're a fool. And if you think the quality of products is some how going to miraculously increase by being produced here, you're not seeing reality. $12/hour laborers in U.S. manufacturing plants = $2/day laborers in overseas manufacturing plants. QC would remain the same or lower in most cases.
 
Last edited: