User profile

kanamit

@ Chunky

Problem construction? Look up Citibank's HQ building in midtown Manhattan. You think a collapse is scary in Las Vegas? Try the high rises near Citibank's building.

@Teamster:

If your general (but grossly oversimplified) message is that all trade policies and foreign imbalances are caused by Republicans, I would suggest you look closer at history.

NAFTA was voted in favor by 102 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 27 Democrats in the Senate.

Which party held the majority in the House at the time? Democrats.

In the Senate? Democrats.

President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. What party did he belong to? Yup, those Democrats again.

Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: ""NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

BTW, something seems lost on the Teamsters' part in allying with a president who specifically said it was wasting money to have conventions in Las Vegas.

@Teamster:

There is no doubt unions had its place in the day of truly protecting against exploitation by ruthless bosses & unsafe work environments. Plus it also helped that the economy was largely domestic in nature; that is, what was produced was kept within the U.S. for consumption. Foreign trade, and thus foreign competition, was relatively minimal and inconsequential with regards to the cost of labor. Companies essentially had no choice but to pay what was demanded by a union as there were no foreign substitutes.

Over the years unions got fatter & fatter with their defined-benefit pensions, "Cadillac" health plans, and overly protective employment terms (look up UAW's "jobs bank" for a particularly extreme example; being paid while doing NO work! What a deal!). As a result to the bottom line: It became more expensive to run a company. In addition, these became a fixed cost of running a business; if the company does great, they can "afford" to pay. If the company does badly, they still have to pay the same union-driven contracts despite lacking earnings. And if earnings don't turn around the following year, the weight of the union contracts becomes amplified in sinking a company's net worth further in the red as they still have to pay what the unions demanded.

In the meantime, trade became more global, Japan became an economic powerhouse and competitor, South Korea & China were entering the radar, with China recently overtaking Japan as #2 in the stage of global trade. There's now competition by other countries to produce the very same things we had been producing for many years before in a "sheltered" minimal-foreign-trade world. While these foreign countries are able to produce everything more cheaply (99% of the time by reasons of pure economics and not by government mandates & protectionist policies), domestic producers saw their share of production get smaller or, in the case of UAW's contracts in the past, their production remain the same that glutted the market. Why? Because there are now better cars for less cost from foreigners; domestic producers could only make items that pass along their higher fixed costs. Result: no one buys domestic because it became more expensive than a foreign option. With their continued inflexibility to lower their built-in costs & distortion from economic realities, it's no surprise unions are a large problem in these economic times. it doesn't take much to see the detrimental effects of entrenched unionization as we saw in the automotive industry.