While the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom,
the necessity of listening is what makes the right important.
Walter Lippmann
Worker Quotes You Won't Find on a Union Blog
In response to Apple supplier Foxconn's reduction of hours (including overtime) to 49 hours per week without loss in pay:
- "We are here to work and not to play...We have just been told that we can only work a maximum of 36 hours a month of overtime. I tell you, a lot of us are unhappy with this. We think that 60 hours of overtime a month would be reasonable and that 36 hours would be too little." - Chen Yamei
- "We are worried we will have less money to spend. Of course, if we work less overtime, it would mean less money." - Wu Jun
Apple, under political pressure from American unions and other progressive meddlers, eager to impose our wage standards and cultural bias in the internal affairs of China and other places, has discovered that the average Chinese worker understands basic economics better than American workers and labor union bureaucrats. (Among other things, the cost of living is much less in China, making pay comparisons blatantly misleading.) The motives of American unions are not altruistic, of course; they want to manipulate foreign supplier costs in a vain attempt to sustain a failed American factory business model. There is no gain to the American consumer looking to stretch his discretionary income to find prices artificially higher because of counterproductive economic policies, such as those pursued by the current administration.
Chinese workers are not against better pay, but they may also realize when the cost of anything goes up, you get less of it, and there are probably plenty of other workers elsewhere (in China, Vietnam, and elsewhere) willing to work for their old wages.
The answer to global competition is not protectionist collusion among government, Big Business, and Big Labor; a globally failing business model is not sustainable. The way you provide more American factory jobs is to enable a pro-growth economic policy, including a favorable investment tax environment, globally competitive business taxes, streamlining government regulations, and less government competition for resources. This includes the rapid deployment of improved technology resulting in better worker productivity in value-added manufacturing.
The (Nonpartisan) Comeback America Initiative:
A Brief Look
I have some libertarian positions which contrast with Comeback America's preemptive framework; for instance, I'm skeptical of any plan which merely tweaks entitlement programs, wants new funding for infrastructure and energy (which almost invariably reflects crony capitalist/unionist priorities), seems to accept expiration of Bush's investment tax cuts, and seeks to negotiate prescription drug prices, a long-standing progressive wish list item. The preemptive framework seeks to reduce the national debt to two-thirds of GDP, a laudable goal.
Some of the ideas which I feel merit serious consideration include (note that I have modified wording of some items):
Chinese workers are not against better pay, but they may also realize when the cost of anything goes up, you get less of it, and there are probably plenty of other workers elsewhere (in China, Vietnam, and elsewhere) willing to work for their old wages.
The answer to global competition is not protectionist collusion among government, Big Business, and Big Labor; a globally failing business model is not sustainable. The way you provide more American factory jobs is to enable a pro-growth economic policy, including a favorable investment tax environment, globally competitive business taxes, streamlining government regulations, and less government competition for resources. This includes the rapid deployment of improved technology resulting in better worker productivity in value-added manufacturing.
The (Nonpartisan) Comeback America Initiative:
A Brief Look
I have some libertarian positions which contrast with Comeback America's preemptive framework; for instance, I'm skeptical of any plan which merely tweaks entitlement programs, wants new funding for infrastructure and energy (which almost invariably reflects crony capitalist/unionist priorities), seems to accept expiration of Bush's investment tax cuts, and seeks to negotiate prescription drug prices, a long-standing progressive wish list item. The preemptive framework seeks to reduce the national debt to two-thirds of GDP, a laudable goal.
Some of the ideas which I feel merit serious consideration include (note that I have modified wording of some items):
- Phase out the Affordable Care Act by 2020 and replace it with universal catastrophic coverage and increase cost-sharing in Medicare
- Make Social Security solvent with reforms that include indexing yearly COLAs to the chained CPI, increasing the normal and early retirement ages by two years, and [capping] benefits for high-earners
- Save $1 trillion in defense by reducing DoD overhead by at least 25 percent and requiring the department to implement the acquisition and contracting reforms recommended by the GAO
- Impose a budget cap on all major spending categories except interest on federal debt
- Reduce the maximum individual and corporate rates to no more than 25 percent
- Institute a 5 percent consumption tax
We're Not #1! We're Not #1!
Chinese Oil Producer PetroChina Overtakes Exxon/Mobil
Well, keep in mind we're talking about publicly traded companies, and Exxon is still a larger oil & gas producer when you factor in natural gas. Of course, state-owned Saudi Aramco produces almost 8M barrels a day versus PetroChina's 2.43M or Exxon's 2.3M.
Another Take on the O'Reilly Gas Price "Solution"
(i.e., Government Intervention on Exports)
I did point out that the US still imports most of the oil it consumes daily, oil is fungible, and the relevant exports are generally value-added finished products. (There is a modest amount of crude exported to Canada (probably an artifact of transportation logistics: we are talking 50K exports vs. 2.5M imports).) I also pointed out that Iran is a net importer of refined products, something that the US has used for economic sanctions.
Robert Rapier does a good job of fleshing out that latter point more generally in what I would call a refinery squeeze/bottleneck. Suppose Iran is not the only country lacking sufficient refinery capacity--consider, for example, Mexico and Brazil. Suppose, furthermore, that US refineries has seen a slackening of domestic demand over the past decade (e.g., because of an ongoing conservation trend, including more efficient gasoline engines, and/or driving mileage in struggling economic times): would US refineries with slack capacity consider taking other nations' crude and process it for them? If anything, this additional business might shore up notoriously low profit margin refineries struggling to deal with declining domestic sales.
In fact, that's what's happening. (Indeed, some of the finished products do remain for sale in the US--which actually helps domestic consumers whom might never see them if countries like Mexico and Brazil took their business to another country with slack refinery capacity.) In other words, the oil was never ours to begin with.
A Forbes columnist also points out confounding other factors--a declining currency, a paradoxical oil glut in Cushing, OK, no new refineries and/or limited pipeline capacity to Gulf area refineries. The glut in Cushing reflects new or increased oil supplies from Colorado, North Dakota, and Montana. TransCanada, stymied from the portion of the Keystone pipeline project crossing the northern US border (hence requiring State Department approval), is looking to alleviate the glut by focusing on the pipeline running from Cushing to the Gulf. Ironically this could increase prices because oil prices in Cushing are depressed.
I love "The Prayer". As a fellow overweight male, let me note that it ain't over until the fat boy sings...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Doobie Brothers, "Jesus Is Just Alright"
