How to Make an American Job Before It's Too Late: Andy Grove

hi glynch

actually i haven't drank kool aid in a while. i believe among the jobs here, we need to close the wage gap, by leaps and bounds. I also know that henry ford created a great buying class. I also know that in 1930 people weren't buying model t's in China. so its an apple and oranges argument, we live in a global society. if american companies actually paid the mexican laborers better, it would be better for americans because they can purchase our services.

i believe the we can not go backwards on globalization, the jobs are not coming back here until the wages are competitive, period. major is the only person i believe who has come up with a reasonable suggestion, because if those jobs come back, do you think they will be $50K a year again? that's a pipe dream that americans need to let go.

 

funny, I was thinking if you close the wage gap, that's the key to our economy surviving. americans could spend and save, keeping our service economy blowing and going like it was in the mid 2000's and providing a good savings rate.

 

If people were paid more, things would have to cost even more.

We didn't live in a global society back then. The result of globalization, good or bad, is that quality of life and cost of labor will slowly equalize everywhere. While it sucks for American workers, it's created great opportunities for China and Vietnam, etc. Overall, if you average everyone's quality of life, it's gone up. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily work out so well for each country involved and each person involved.

Instead of pining for the old days - which can't come back - we have to look for solutions that will actually work in today's society. Artificially paying people extra money probably is not an idea that's going to take off.

BTW, when searching for Henry Ford High Wages, here's a sample from the first link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2w5wt14qrnht6f13/


While previous research demonstrates that the effects of the five-dollar day were largely consistent with those predicted by efficiency wage theories, Ford's wage policy was principally motivated by the fallacious wage-aggregate demand link expressed by the so-called“high-wage doctrine”-a belief that many economists claim significantly contributed to the unemployment problem of the 1930s. In addition to exploring Ford's high-wage motives, I discuss the role Ford's wage statements and policies played in the acceptance and implementation of high-wage public policies during the Great Depression.

 

I think our "go to the moon" program should be getting us off of oil. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are given directly to people who, for the most part, hate us. We built the roads after the Great Depression, it is time to build the next major infrastructure upgrade.

 

I don't think vague appeals that US workers must even out with Bangladeshi is sufficient.

 

This requires a sane political system. There are way too many interests to get anything reasonable done.

 

Having worked for 10 years at one of the tech companies listed that shipped a lot of jobs overseas, this article has some merits, and is also lacking as well.

The giant corporation I worked for indeed sent many jobs overseas. Not only in manufacturing (Foxconn), but also in support, etc. In return, they became more profitable and hired more US workers. Every year this company would outsource more and more jobs, yet overall, they increased US employment because they stayed in business and grew the business overall. If they had not shipped the jobs overseas, they very well may have become uncompetitive and gone out of business, thus losing ALL of their US jobs.

Another thing to consider, wages are rising dramatically at these locations overseas. Not just manufacturing, but in tech and engineering as well. While they still have a long way to go, I saw for myself some more analyst type positions come back to the US as it no longer made as much financial sense ot outsource the job. This trend will only continue, in my opinion, and I believe in the next 10 to 20 years you will see jobs balance out a little bit.

Make no mistake, however, it is still dramatically cheaper to manufacture overseas. I hate to sound glib, but as soon as American labor forces in manufacturing were willing to get paid much less, they'd see a dramatic rise in hiring. As long as you want that $500 laptop and $599 flat panel HDTV, these things will be manufactured overseas.

Another thing this article fails to recognize is a global economy. Not just the fact that jobs are sent overseas, but corporations overseas are starting to innovate along the lines of Americans. If a guy in Palo Alto tries to invent some widget and make it here, he will be killed by international companies willing to make it overseas and ship it in much cheaper. Its very simplistic to say "create more jobs here Dell and HP". Acer and Sony will just make their machines overseas and kill those US companies, so the HAVE to produce overseas.

 

What resonates the most to me from Andy Grove's op/ed is a forceful call for the government to step in and facilitate corporate collaboration. Japan and S. Korea have a tightly woven relationship between government, bank and manufacturing arms. I don't think we have to get deep and tangled to that extent but it shows the reach the government has to ensure a company's success and buffers it from short term anxiety over shareholder value and performance bonuses. Even European countries show sustained government involvement and planning while maintaining a balance of intense manufacturing capacity and a free market.

Grove's endgame can be seen as risky and daring, which is to commit to capital intensive investment strategies with several partners before an industry or product is proven. Elected officials are usually risk adverse and large companies usually need a nibble or buzz in order to dive head first on their own, or they'll either buy out a smaller company or wait for the government to do something.

Well, it's already happening elsewhere, and they're slowly kicking our capitalist butts. For the millions of unemployed in the US, their idea of running the globalization game has lost most of its steam. IF wages normalize, our consuming capacity does as well. We're relying upon our brand strength now. What a brand means right now is we slap on a logo on a product another country makes. Who's to say Chinese customers with a bigger share can grow their brands even more? Well what do we have then?

 

Well if you get down to it the "interests" are only for a small part of the upper 1%. Even some large corporations depend on a well paid American working class to make and sell their products to.

The vast majority of those who find solace in the idea that reducing American wages by 90% for a slight reduction in consumer eletctronics are effectively cutting the throats of themselves and their kids.

Another downside to the type of globalization accepted by some in this thread is that you can't just haul virtually every consumer item we buy in the US from Asia in a world in which we have global warming and are nearing peak oil.

Got to overcome the corporate propaganda tha tbenefits so few.

 

It's easy to win the game when one team plays fair and the other team plays with controlled exchange rates, a rigid oligarchy with little dissent, controlled wages, controlled prices, import restrictions, lack if intellectual property laws, lack of work safety laws, government controlled land, and a lack of environmental laws.

The best thing the USA can do is support labor organization in the Far East.

 

The folks that benefit most are even just a fraction of the corporate elite.

Robert Reich talks about the winners and losers among the corporatons for the "free" trade group.
**********
Some giant American corporations depend on a buoyant American economy and a world-class industrial base in the United States. Others are far less dependent. What comes out of Washington in the next few years will reflect which group has most political clout — especially if Republicans take over the House and capture more of the Senate this November.

The first group includes national telecoms like Verizon and AT&T that need a prosperous America because most of their sales are here. Same with finance companies like Bank of America and Travelers Insurance whose business strategy has been built around U.S. consumers. Ditto certain giant chains like Home Depot. Naturally, all these companies were especially hard hit by the Great Depression and its devastating impact on American consumers.

The second group includes companies like Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and McDonalds, that get substantial revenues from their overseas operations. Increasingly this means China, India, and Brazil. Ford and GM are still largely dependent on US sales but becoming less so. GM sold more cars in China last year than in the US. Not surprisingly, American companies that are less dependent on American consumers have been showing the biggest profits.
http://robertreich.org/rss

Krugman talks about how China intimidates US corporations (and hence the US government) into going along with their currency maniplation, but Japan is starting to object.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/opinion/13krugman.html?hp