We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs

from: The Social Machine

Kevin D. Williamson March 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Jobs are a means, not an end.

Funny thing about American manufacturing: The good news about what’s happening at American factories often sounds like bad news to politicians.

American factories are one of the wonders of the world, and, in spite of what President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and other lightly informed populists claim, they are humming. U.S. manufacturing output is about 68 percent higher today in real terms (meaning inflation-adjusted terms) than it was before NAFTA was enacted; manufacturing output is about double in real terms what it was in the 1980s and more than three times what it was in the 1950s. As our factories grow more efficient, output per man-hour has grown, too, which is what troubles the populists and demagogues: Our factories employ a much smaller share of the U.S. work force than they once did

...The purpose of an automobile factory is not to “create jobs,” as the politicians like to say. Its function is not to add to the employment rolls with good wages and UAW benefits, adding to the local tax base and helping to sustain the community — as desirable as all those things are. The purpose of an automobile factory is not to create jobs — it is to create automobiles...

...people who have an explicit legal obligation to work not on our behalf but on behalf of their shareholders do a pretty good job of giving us what we want; the people who vow to work on our behalf do not. That is a paradox only if you do not think about it too much, and not thinking about it too much is the business that politicians are in...​

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *​

This is why the rhetoric about 'we need more high paying manufacturing jobs' is so dumb.

Yeah, this thread will most probably bring out that old tired rant about "people need a living wage", "demand is what makes production", and "people live on Main St., not Wall St.". We've heard it a lot in today's discourse and it usually ends w/ investors throwing up their hands and saying "aw hell, if building factories can't make products I'll just give to charity and go home." Let's face it, high wages sound good to the worker but a factory sees wages as a cost, not an income.

 

And how can you tell when a politician is lying...their lips are moving! They're a bunch of whores who will say anything for a vote. Now they're not all bad and I'm guessing 5% of them are well-qualified for their post. It's the other 95% that are problematic! And I would be remiss if I didn't wonder why so many American voters are so gullible to these snake-oil whores? I know lots of Americans desire better jobs and higher pay, etc. but seldom do we ever talk about what those people 'actually' need to do in their lives to obtain better jobs and higher pay, etc.?

In the SF bay area they recently removed the toll workers on the GG bridge replaced with an automated system. Reading about this, they were union members, and on average earned $55K plus benefits. Sadly, many of them barely had enough IQ to keep their heart beating, no skills, no education, no nothing, and now they need to find a new job. I wonder how many of them found new jobs earning $55K or anywhere near that amount? And to think these same people will go on strike against their employers demanding higher and higher wages? How many American workers gain additional skills, more education, a higher level of performance, prior to demanding higher paying middle-class paying jobs?

Lastly, what few Americans care to think about, is the fact that a business must be run like a business. A company manufacturing automobiles does not have a charter to pay X$ per hour or to create X jobs...regarding labor the only thing they must do is provide work conditions and compensation that allows the company to hire and sustain the labor required to satisfy demands. And industry IMO must have the options to outsource, or advance automation and robotics, to locate factories around the world as it makes sense. To remove these options, and others, simply demanding industry create more higher paying jobs, is not going to work long term...

 

Yet you insist that you need them,.. for something.

 

Knock...knock...they run the government! But this does not mean I need to approve of their performance...

 

One missing key is manufacturing companies need buyers and that's where the wages of the American workers (stagnant basically since the 1970s) has exacerbated the problem. If household incomes don't rise, neither will consumption. It's a two-fold problem. Workers need to earn more to keep factories alive, but factories need lower wages and higher efficiencies to grow profits. First to go when pressure hits profits is usually employee benefits or numbers of workers, then wages themselves.

 

or their character or their motives or their humanity, or the good they do. All you really affirm is their necessity, as if anyone doesn't know that they in fact run the government.

 

I'm not going to judge the representatives or president...this is the job of the voters...they put them in place and they can remove them if necessary...

 

That's not true either.

 

You're just full of alternate facts? If it's not the voters who elect our representatives...who is it?

 

People cast a ballot for which of two possible jackwads, neither of which were selected by them, will hold a given office. One of the jackwads, who are selected by relatively small but powerful and entrenched special interest groups, will take the office regardless of how many voters cast a ballot and which way they cast it.

Anyone with a realistic appreciation of the power of propaganda who's ever tried to get a candidate on a ballot knows that "the people" decide exactly nothing.

There is only one set of facts. We should dispense with all the euphemisms and try to describe things the way they actually are.

 

+1

 

You would be happier if you moved from diatribe to facts. In case you forgot, or never knew, the primary elections select those who will be on the ballot in the general election...and it is voters who vote in the primaries and in the general election. And BTW there were many more than two people on the ballot for president.

Do you know that a 'special interest group' or any 'powerful group' does not have a vote...FYI 'groups' don't vote...people vote.

Sounds like sour grapes to me if a candidate cannot get on a ballot? Candidates are on the ballots all the time!

Sorry but I try to live in reality while it appears you like to 'create' something...

 

and that's all that gets read of that one

 

I think we all learned pretty clearly about how the primary process worked last year - blatant manipulation by the DNC to support their chosen candidate, questionable voting practices, and outright manipulation through the corporate media.

The voters most certainly do not select the candidates in the primaries - at least not in a balanced way.

Even further back in the process, where do those primary candidates come from? They're selected by party officials long before the general public has any sort of voice or input.

 

You should not run and hide from challenges...meet them head on and maybe you'll learn something. Or you can just wallow in biased diatribe...

 

FYI; All of the below determined by voters...by people...

How Does the Presidential Primary Process Work?


The Convention

Prior to a general election, there is a selection process to determine which candidate will appear on the ballot for a given political party in the nationwide general election. Political parties generally hold national conventions at which a group of delegates collectively decide upon which candidate they will run for the presidency. The process of choosing delegates to the national convention is undertaken at the state level, which means that there are significant differences from state to state and sometimes year to year. The two methods for choosing delegates to the national convention are the caucus and the primary.

The Caucus

Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900's. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend. At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state's interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.

The Primary

In the early twentieth century there was a movement to give more power to citizens in the selection of candidates for the party's nomination. The primary election developed from this reform movement. In a primary election, registered voters may participate in choosing the candidate for the party's nomination by voting through secret ballot, as in a general election.

There are two main types of primaries, closed or open, that determine who is eligible to vote in the primary. In a closed primary a registered voter may vote only in the election for the party with which that voter is affiliated. For example a voter registered as Democratic can vote only in the Democratic primary and a Republican can vote only in the Republican primary. In an open primary, on the other hand, a registered voter can vote in either primary regardless of party membership. The voter cannot, however, participate in more than one primary. A third less common type of primary, the blanket primary, allows registered voters to participate in all primaries.

In addition to differences in which voters are eligible to vote in the primary, there are differences in whether the ballot lists candidate or delegate names. The presidential preference primary is a direct vote for a specific candidate. The voter chooses the candidate by name. The second method is more indirect, giving the voter a choice among delegate names rather than candidate names. As in the caucus, delegates voice support for a particular candidate or remain uncommitted.

In some states a combination of the primary and caucus systems are used. The primary serves as a measure of public opinion but is not necessarily binding in choosing delegates. Sometimes the Party does not recognize open primaries because members of other parties are permitted to vote.

Awarding the Delegates

The Democratic Party always uses a proportional method for awarding delegates. The percentage of delegates each candidate is awarded (or the number of undecided delegates) is representative of the mood of the caucus-goers or the number of primary votes for the candidate. For example imagine a state with ten delegates and three candidates. If 60% of the people supported candidate X, 20% supported candidate Y, and 20% supported candidate Z, candidate X would receive six delegates and candidates Y and Z would each receive two delegates.

The Republican Party, unlike the Democratic Party, allows each state to decide whether to use the winner-take-all method or the proportional method. In the winner-take-all method the candidate whom the majority of caucus participants or voters support receives all the delegates for the state. It is essential to remember that this is a general guide and that the primary system differs significantly from state to state. The best way to find information about your state is to contact your state Board of Elections.

 

Correct?

Well, again, nobody outside of party officials selects the primary candidates. Those choices are then presented to me, the voter, as contenders for a party nomination.

So I may or may not - depending on my state - be able to vote for a nameless delegate in each primary, who will travel to the convention and vote for me on a candidate - who may or may not be the one I wanted.

Also, if Republican, said delegate may or may not even transfer my portion of support, depending on my state. And, if Democrat, even their vote may not matter due to the precedence of super-delegates who I did not even get to vote for.

And this strikes you as a system in which I've chosen something?

Yes, you could argue that the party leaders are "voting", and thus the process was decided by a "vote", but that is not the same thing.

 

"Populists and demagogues"? High unemployment and underemployment doesn't bother you and the unpopular "unpopulists"?

At what point does unemployment and increasing impoverishment become more important than producing stuff?

What you don't seem to understand is that we have a huge proliferation of "stuff" to the point where consumption cannot keep up and so the market for "stuff" is inadequate for a robust capitalist economy.

Yeah this society needs to ignore people and just function for the maximization of profits of business. Yeah.​

Let's see you produce evidence of one instance where that ever happened.

Sorry to shock you but society is for people. People devise various structures to benefit them in society. And those structures do not supersede the rights or importance of the people.

 

I endorse this message.

 

My posting was not a question of correct or not...it's the facts on how the presidential election process works.

Reference; https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016

There were many presidential candidates in 2016...including anyone you wish to write-in. Do the political parties and special interests get involved...of course they do! But this does not negate the fact the VOTERS determine who their elected representatives are going to be.

The Electoral College has it's pros and cons but so what...whatever it is applies to all candidates.

To answer your question in bold above, if you don't think your vote counts then what would happen if you and the other 150-175 million voters did not vote?. Therefore, it is logical to assume that voters absolutely are required and they vote. You may not like the exact process in place but it does work.

 

Lol it works to feed the illusion that The People have some kind of power or choice, when they do not. That is the purpose of the system, and it's very good at it.

Yes, you can state that voters have a choice between A and B, and they can all write in Mickey Mouse if they want - that just makes it more easily controlled by the power blocs that want their candidate in power.

The people that do care to vote between the two given choices have almost zero unapproved information about them. The "debates" are a scripted sham, with candidates fed the questions long in advance. No candidate - including Trump - gives the slightest indication of what they'll really do in office.

 

Obviously you hate the current system so not voting is probably your best choice...or move to another country that has the exact voting process you believe is best. This stuff is off topic here so...

 

I can tolerate it, so long as people stop pretending that it "works", or has anything to do with a person being "chosen by the people". Such things are clearly fantasy.

 

On Topic.

We need tax laws that favor profit from product over
profit from paper.

It's that simple. Paper profits do not trickle down to Main St.

 

Nothing "trickles down" in the first place. The rich insulate themselves and buy from the rich. It has ever been thus.