Consumer Financial Protection Is A Necessary Evil
66
Springboard's Blog
- The Springboard
Random rants by Jim Bauer (a.k.a. Springboard), mostly on politics and money, Springboard style.
I'm not a big fan of government regulation. That said, in order to be a people who are self-regulated, we have to play fair, and we have to have personal standards. That's called being responsible. This latest banking debacle which launched us smack-dab in the middle of one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression, and which did in fact nearly cause our own depression, is an example of too much freedom to do whatever you want with no one really keeping tabs on what exactly was going on. No one was truly being responsible. It was a game of take what you can get, and do all you can after the fact to wash your hands of it.
When people abuse things, someone has to step in to say enough is enough. And while I am certain that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the Obama administration has put Elizabeth Warren in charge of starting up, by all accounts a staunch liberal activist, and a reviled person by Wall Streeters, will probably go too far like most government agencies almost always do, I do think that we've reached a point in regards to credit, that changes are in order. Like it or not, people simply took advantage of the system and we have to do something to address that.
Perhaps it's a mean analogy, but the way I see it, the bankers acted a bit like children. We left them all by themselves in a room full of cookies and told them not to eat them. Of course they did indeed eat the cookies, and used all manners of trickery to make it look like those cookies were still there.
I take the same stand when it comes to the unions. If you are an employer and you have the unions knocking on your door, it's probably because you're doing something to cause your employees to feel like they may not be getting exactly what they deserve. I use the word 'deserve' lightly here because it's a tricky word. It's too close to that other word most of us conservatives despise, which is 'entitlement.' But there is a definable line between what is earned and deserved, and what is not. All one needs to do is look at the numbers. Look at the books. That line is in there, and it's clear as to exactly what an employee's contribution to the company's bottom line is, and what that company should rightly recompense that employee in salary and benefits. Companies do this kind of tracking all the time when they decide how much their CEOs are worth. So, unions really are a product of one main thing. That is, a feeling by employees that they are detached from the company. When the company succeeds, the employees receive no real benefit from that, and so they organize to remind the company that their work is essential in keeping the money train going as much as it is anyone's.
Essentially it also means, "We, the employees, feel that you, the company, are not acting in a manner which is fair and responsible."
Like government regulatory agencies, unions almost always go too far as well. And I think that's a pretty fair analysis of unions as they are today. Still, I'm very inclined to believe that unions once served a very important role in establishing American labor standards, and vastly improved life for everyone involved. Perhaps one of its most important contributions was that it set the bar for where pay should be, based on fair criteria. When employees made more money, they spent more money, and so the story goes about economic prosperity and becoming one of the richest nations in the world. Had the unions not been created, I'm not so sure we could have gotten anywhere near where we did economically—there certainly may never have even been a middle class to speak of.
Unions are an ugly word in corporate boardrooms. But who essentially created them? The corporations of course. Had they played fair and been responsible, employees would never have felt the need to level the playing field.
It's a bit of a double edged sword in a sense. We all want to be left alone. We're all adults and no one wants to be watched over by a babysitter. Certainly no one wants to be told what to do. And if you are a businessman, surely you don't want to be told how to run your business. The reality is that when you don't play fair it hurts the system, and the end result of that is rules and regulation. In the end, the reality is that we've brought this bureau onto ourselves. We absolutely need some reform when it comes to how we handle credit. The banks have certainly shown that they can't handle things on their own. Yes, we can argue all day about exactly who was ultimately to blame for all of our current economic woes, and in that argument it would rightly be pointed out that the bankers were not alone in this debacle—in a way we all were involved. In fact, I spent a little time making this very point in my two part hub series, "After the Great Depression." The consumers were sort of in the same situation as the bankers in that room full of cookies. Everybody was biting off more than they could chew. In the end we all were rudely awakened to find that the number of cookies we thought we all had was actually the count of the crumbs on the floor.
In the end no one really had any cookies left at all.
The issue really is not about the forming of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or adding on layers to the government. The issue is about what led us to believe that such an agency is necessary in the first place. If everything would have been going well, if everyone had been playing fair and acting in a responsible manner, then we most likely would never have gotten to this place. Had companies played fair back before the unions were created, we'd never have had to worry about them knocking on anyone's doors.
These things happen, and these entities are created, as a result of those who profess to being able to be left alone proving that they cannot be, by their very actions. If we don't want these things around, then we have to act accordingly so that we may avoid the necessity of them. The best argument against regulation is fair and responsible behavior that negates it.
Hubs I've Read Recently
- Sarah Palin's Great Toe
flkr i'd give Sarah Palin's great right toe to be able to do the things John Wayne or James Cagney did to their women in the movies. the giant midget in a cowboy hat spanking Maureen; Jimmy slapping Mae... - An Independent Voters View | Burning the Koran
On September 11th , The Pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center, in Florida has made plans to publicly burn copies of the Koran. It is his right to do so, and I have spent a lifetime defending the rights... - U. S. Poverty Level Increasing to Levels of the 1960s
The November election is just around the corner and our president it hot on the campaign trail trying to convince every one of how things are improving, but unfortunately that isnt true because the U. S.... - The Obama Oval Office Makeover
President Obama's Oval Office Makeover was unveiled on August 31, 2010. On August 31, 2010, the White House revealed that the Presidential Oval Office got a "not-so-extreme makeover" while the President was...
Read More by Springboard
- After The Great Recession
Our most recent economic downturn is being called the Great Recession. We're just now starting to finally see some signs that we are in a recovery mode. Still, we have a long way to go... - It's Who You Know, And Who You Blow
Carolina Muscle said a mouthful For the past month or so I've been on a bandwagon about money, elitism, thieving corporate boards of directors, wayward politicians, and the just plain teeming arrogance from... - Corporate Boards Are Glorified Thiefs
I have nothing against the rich. I should set that onto the table right off the bat. In fact, just the other day in my own comments on another hub I made reference to the expiring of the Bush tax cuts as sort... - The Mosque Is Not About Religious Freedom
Allow me to cut right to the chase, if you will, about this whole Mosque thing. This was, without question, a rather hot button topic from the start. But after remarks from President Barack Obama recently...
CommentsLoading...
I certainly agree with you that the unions are a shadow of their former selves. The unions have turned it into more of a strongarm operation against sound corporate objectives and judgement in order to line THEIR OWN pockets at the expense of not only the companies, but the union workers themselves in the end. I DO feel that the presense of stronger unions DOES lift wages for even non-union shops, however, as it creates competition between what the union offers and what companies dictate. If unions are perceived as strong, companies will have to offer employees a higher standard of living in order to keep the unions out of their shops, and out of their employee's minds. The situation here is that even most workers simply don't see much use in union negotiation. They see unions LOSING jobs, and so the companies have the upper hand again and employees are left to take what's offered whether it's fair or not.
That said, I think that might begin to shift as more and more American workers struggle to get back on their feet once we get out of all this other mess. They're going to want more security, and unions might be one way to ensure at least a bit more of that.
As far as jobs moving overseas, there's a much bigger dynamic in play there, and looking at things in hindsight, I'm not entirely inclined to believe that labor costs—or let's just say the AFFORDABILITY of labor costs—is the bigger part of the picture here. When you take into account that executive and CEO pay has increased from 40 times the average worker in the 1970s to 440 times the average worker in the 2000s, it is clear as ever where the motivations are in undercutting employees and shipping jobs away. It's to line their own pockets more than it is for global prosperity and American progress. I say this especially considering that the jobs that have served to replace these old economy jobs have not increased wages and quality of life for most Americans, but have made things more difficult. Wages and benefits are simply not what they used to be. As I pointed out in my "After the Great Recession" hubs, CREDIT, not higher wages was at the root of economic growth and people's ability to buy. Because credit was so widely available and abundant, who needed to raise wages? And who was going to complain? If you at least had a job and a credit score, you could have anything you wanted... Because so long as you were working, hell...you could just keep paying into the entire system a little at a time.
We've sadly found that wasn't the case at all.
I'm not speaking in favor of unions in any of that argument. I'm only pointing out that there was much more going on in the last 30 years that led us where we are today than what meets the eye.
Great to hear from you Pamela, BTW. I always value your opinion.
Wow, that was afascinating hub especially for who hasn't got an idea about it. It learned so much. Thank you.
Glad you liked it Hello. And thanks as always for stopping by and taking the time to read. If I can be enlightening in even the slightest way, that is certainly something I can be happy with. So, thank YOU. :)
Who is going to regulate the regulators. Much of the financial breakdown was due to government interference in terms of pressuring banks to give bad loans.Not to mention the fed messing with the interest rates.
I can't disagree that how we got here was not just due to the actions of the bankers. But I think we've come to a point right now where it's obvious standing back and just letting things go on as usual is a dangerous path. We tried it. It failed. Now we've got to do something to just keep a little better watchful eye. It's a painful realization because you want to believe people can act responsibly. It's apparent they cannot. True, neither can necessarily the government. But you have to start somewhere. Of course there will have to be oversight over the Bureau...That's usually the job of the Congress.
Does it mean it (the Bureau) will solve all of our problems, close all of the loopholes, and make a perfect system? Not at all. Does it mean the government will be able to have the RIGHT oversight? Not at all.
But again. We can't sit on our hands either.
If the bankers can't do it and the government can't do it and the people can't do it...
What's the alternative?
The Texas Teacher's Union that I belonged to as a Dallas I.S.D. maintenance employee certainly helped me out. Those dues I paid in were worth no telling how much more in the end.
Macroeconomics is probably one of the most confusing topics for me. I seriously need to upgrade my understanding there. It's all just. . . . foreign to me.
When you talk about "necessary evils," Jim; don't you think that government itself is a necessary evil? I think that it is. I think that government should always be about leveling playing fields-but that people should just "do the right thing" all of the time, and if that were the case-we'd not need government at all.
Jim - It will be interesting to watch how Elizabeth Warren (who has demonstrated she has a mind of her own) handles this new responsibility and whether she is allowed to do so free of inappropriate Congressional interference.
Jim,
I still think the best regulation is Common Sense. If a person can't afford to repay a loan, there's one answer to a loan request and that word is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you made a fabulous point in saying we bring about too much regulation in proving we aren't resaponsible enough to handle things on our own. If your teenager takes advantage of some new found freedom you give him/her, what is the first thing you do? Step up the regulations until they prove to be more responsible. It's no different. If we want to be treated like adults, it's time to put the big girl panties on and stop acting like wayward teens. Great hub Springboard!
Hi! Jim
Enjoyed your analysis very much for both consumer finance as well as union. Your comment in answer to Pamela's comment is even greater enlightenment about this whole affair.
What you mentioned about unions is also true for Consumer protection NGO etc. I remember one incident related to me by one of my friend during my visit to USA as long back as early seventies. A very small company in Midwest which used to make auto parts for one of three large auto companies (I forget which one), was put on radar by a consumer protection NGO perhaps supported by Ralph Nader (whom I respected in those days quite a bit for some of the changes he was responsible to bring in the society- though as you and Pamela say every thing has its time for a while then it starts dragging- this incident also shows how things start degenerating). They declared publicly that the product of this company is not safe for cars. My friend who was Engineer in this company (an Indian) and the owner of the company, a great American guy full of interesting new ideas, both enjoyed their work and were very unhappy with this declaration. They knew their product is great. They filed a case in the court.
But the main auto company forced them to withdraw the case. Their plea was "you may be right, but we have hundreds of other products on which this NGO will go on troubling us in revenge for your case".
World has essentially only two types of system of rulings. Democratic or feudal (communists/Socialist countries claim being different but so far there is no example where they had any thing much different from feudalistic type of rule). There is no doubt that Democratic set up is the only one -one can wish to have.
But even in democratic set up unions consumer organizations, constitutional authorities do over the years start degenerating and behaving like feudalistic authorities. Media, press, politicians also protect them in the name of democracy or political correctness etc. as if dictates of these organizations are some kind of religion for democracy.
Only way seems to be that one has to fight against this kind of degeneration by creating newer organizations or as you suggest taking things in our hand.
But main question is how? Corporate power, political power, media, press exposure is against such fights. Figures you give in your comment do show that their power and money they have and earn has increased much more (sort of moving towards what I call above feudalistic tendencies- the difference in money itself shows the same). Not that fight can not be done or situation is hopeless. But invention of interesting new ideas and tools are required. For example fight will have to be global. Main goal should be bringing a minimal life style in all countries. Just now for example American administration, Corporate sector etc. are not ready to fight for minimal life style in China. All the money in profit comes from the fact that people there are forced to work without even minimal wages. That results in outsourcing of manufacturing.
For that matter leave life style, American top administrators today do not have much courage to talk about even the currency manipulations done by Chinese government which affect very adversely American manufacturing as well as Chinese labors, who get much less than what they are wroth because of this. Administrators perhaps fear about their election funds which come from corporate sector who make profits from outsourcing using this manipulations as a tool.
It is time that American unions and other consumer organizations as well as people like you and me wake up to reality that their minimal life style in this global economy will not be protected much unless they protect minimal life style not just in their country or all democratic countries but also in countries like China (or India etc. - have you observed by the way that Obama shouts about India with which USA has negligible out sourcing a lot and makes laws against it but not China. I wonder how much it has to do with corporate funds?).
But time being unions, consumer organizations, American administration all seem to be lost in useless quagmires of political power, financial, oil, or war games.
Some new action is needed. Are you ready for it? This is also some kind of globalization. Lot of problems USA is facing is that it is for globalized corporate business which allows it to play financial games but not other ideals.
I do plan to write more details about these ideas in one of my hubs soon. As I wrote earlier also, often I find that your style of thinking is quite similar to mine. I think some of your articles will reflect similar ideas - though of course in your own interesting style, expressions and ideas.
A fair and responsible world? Oh, you are talking about Utopia, right? Maybe I'll go to bed tonight with this notion in my head and have sweet dreams! But really, I think William Bradford tried it years ago when he discovered that communalism doesn't work. When the whole of the community worked together to sow and reap their crops, many did not work so their was less crop than they needed. But when they nearly starved to death, Bradford said enough of this. Here are your seeds. Here is your ground. Grow your own damn food and lo and behold, the lazy folks had to get off their butts and farm their own land or die from starvation. I think that in itself tells us that as humans and certainly less than perfect, people will be unfair and irresponsible. Woe to those of us with a sense of fairplay but such is life. Great work by the way.
Wesman, the only part of your statement that scared me a little was that government should be in the business of leveling playing fields. I don't think that's what the government should be doing at all. In the end, I think it comes down to personal responsibility. The people still have the power to decide in the way they buy goods, and in the way they interact with their employers, and actually those two things are DIRECTLY related to each other as I'll get to in a minute.
If employees get tired of the crap and feel more and more disconnected from their company and its successes, they will revolt and band together and companies will have no choice but to bow down. The trick for a company is avoiding that from happening. The flipside is, how much leverage do employees have with their companies? Here's that part I was getting to.
I should point out that the American people need to be very much more willing to buy American made goods, and need to SPEND MORE TIME LOOKING FOR stuff that's made here when they're shopping. This is essential in negotiating power. If the demand for US made goods is high, companies will put factories here, and in the grander scheme, that creates a bit of leverage for the workers where there might not be as much now. Right now the workers can fight to a point, but if they fight too hard the companies move the jobs away—
Because right now there is no demand for American made, the companies have no real incentive to keep jobs here, and the workers have little leverage to get higher wages and benefits.
I'm not talking about total protectionism here. But we HAVE TO have some protectionism in order to keep American workers viable. Labor costs are not the drivers of jobs being sent out of this country. It's purely about profits. If we, the American people, and the American workers want our jobs back, we need to BUY them back. Our power to earn more is our power to negotiate—if US companies NEED us to do the work, they'll come to the negotiating table with a lot less ultimatums, and workers will have more leverage to get a fairer piece of the pie.
springboard I make no secret that I am a small Government guy but on this one I have to agree with you. I hate the thought of more regulation but the banks and the Insurance companies brought this on themselves. I find it immoral that an insurance company would drop your coverage when you need them the most. And the banks are nickel and diming us to death with all these little fees they keep adding on.I am totally a free market type of guy , however if the titans of their collective industries have proven one thing its that you cannot count on them to do the right thing. So any regulation they have is their fault !
Interesting piece of writing. I can't support unions because in large part they are responsible for a lot of our financial problems. New Jersey is a perfect example. The Governor made a perfectly reasonable request of the teacher's union. He asked that they contribute a small percentage to their health care and they refused. He asked them for a wage freeze for one year and again they refused. Just ask people in the private sector how they feel about the intractable nature of the unions. I agree we do need safeguards i the financial sector but let's be honest about this, Fannie Maie Hand Freddie are perfect examples of the government at work. I am for small government.
Personal responsibility: That's a tough one, and it's easily one of my favorite topics. Figuring out just where our individual responsibility begins and ends is always a challenge. It is never as cut and dried as we would all probably wish it to be. More often than not, we tend to deny any responsibility-it's the easiest thing to do!
Slaves were employees at the end of the line. They ate, and were sheltered for their labor-they were slaves, and who knows how far the abuses went? Government leveled the playing field through war, and whether or not the playing field has ever been leveled (I think it has) is still up for speculation.
I know the "slavery" metaphor might even be offensive to someone. It is what it is. It's certainly an extreme example, but isn't everything less extreme also some sort of balancing act, or war between the have's and have not's?
I certainly agree that we should all buy American, and be willing to spend more of our time, and probably, money, to do so. At the same time, and as I pointed out in a hub of my own-hvac products manufactured here in the states right now are pieces of junk. Some German factory should be making a/c systems that embarrass American made right now-why Japan or Germany hasn't cornered that market I do not know.
American workers. . . . .I'm against illegals right now, but it's only because I'm hungry, not literally hungry, but you know what I mean. I know that the morals in this statement are questionable, but they are realistic.
Banks that are too big to fail are too big! Just like Standard oil was broken down these companies need to be small enough that their failures do not require bailouts from the tax payer! Great hub! Government in general but especially the Federal government is a necessary evil!
Drbj, my only fear of Warren is her leftist ideology. But like you said, she has a mind of her own. We'll have to wait and see what she comes up with.
Tom, I agree with you 100%. The problem is that common sense clearly did not prevail during this entire period, and we're all paying for it now. I do think, as well, that more transparency for credit card customers is a good thing BTW, which is one the main areas of concentration for this agency. Many people can't even figure out a daily periodic rate, and it's the most important factor in choosing between using credit or just taking money from savings to buy an item. Ask most people and they have NO IDEA it will take them 30 years to pay for a $10.00 shirt they put on their charge card if they only make the minimum payment.
Sunflowerbucky, absolutely. It comes back to that old maxim, "You've made your bed. Now you must sleep in it." If we can all act like grownups, then we can all be treated like grownups. Thanks for stopping by.
Sous, wow. Very interesting and enlightening comment, and I look forward to reading more if you ever make a hub out of it. The whole thing is a very complex thing across the board. There's a slippery slope at every corner. How you get away from that is really a fantastic question, because in the end, I don't really think you can. Power and greed simply corrupt.
Even when the right ideas are there, and even good intentions, such as was the the case with Nader in the beginning, things eventually start to get a bit out of control. His views regarding the auto industry today, and certainly his world view IMO, is very skewed. He went too far. The power of his influence got the better of him.
As I pointed out in my hub, we get to a point where we sort of NEED regulation on a variety of aspects of our lives, businesses, and other things, because people have a tendency to take things too far. In this case in particular, the banks certainly took things too far. Investors buying houses took things too far. The government took things too far. So, what we wind up with is a new layer of bureaucracy, which is born out of necessity, to try and put things back into some sense of order and perspective. But guess what...
THAT will eventually go too far as well. lol. Speaking of quagmires, this is actually more like a conundrum.
The thing that's the real stinker here is that ONCE you create these bureaucracies, and install these layers of rules and regulations, they are VERY TOUGH to get rid of, and they just become bigger and bigger entitities that just wind up ultimately doing more harm than good.
The moral of the story should be that if you start on the right foot, you never have to worry about tripping yourself up. This is something we haven't been able to do in all of history, perhaps.
It all comes full circle back to an earlier question I posed...
If the bankers can't do it and the government can't do it and the people can't do it...What's the alternative? If self regulation doesn't really work, and government regulation doesn't really work...
Where do we go from there?
SpringBoard, what a great hub I am in total agreement with ya here brotha. About regulation, I am a regulator for medical gas systems. I inspect and make sure that any medical gas install in a facility is done per code and that it is safe for use. Without this type of regulation many people would have died due to contractors cutting corners, so I am for regulation.
I am not that much of a fan of unions because in my State my company has been in battles with the union. They throw around their power and might and try to smash the little guy like myself. That being said, I understand why unions are necessary. If an employer is unfair to their employees they should have a right to organize. Here in Tucson we had the bus company raise the health care premiums and then cut all employees pay, so the union went on strike. I was in agreement with this action because it was not fair to raise the cost of health care on employees and then cut their pay.
Great hub man!! for once I actually agree with all you said.
Pcoach, certainly one of the ironies of life. If ever there was a reminder of "we reap what we sow," this reality you point out is it. In a perfect world everyone would do the right thing. This is far from a perfect world.
Tony, the issue of the insurance companies is a whole other matter. Yikes, don't even get me started. That said, I certainly agree that what insurance companies have been doing over the course of many years is finding any number of ways to do one main thing...
Find ways to provide insurance no one can actually use. If your house may actually experience a flood, we won't insure, for example. And if you may actually require medical treatment for something, we won't cover you. We WILL, however, gladly take your check for the premiums.
Insurance companies act irresponsibly as well, that much is clear, and in the case of the health care debate I absolutely agree that ONE good thing that came of it (and probably unfortunately the only good thing) WAS the abolishment of the pre-existing condition clause.
I'm with you on the size of government issue and on government intervention. I don't like it, and I certainly don't want it. BUT, that's in cases where we don't need it. And I think where we've gotten to as of now, it's clear that we need something.
POP, I think Christie is doing some amazingly great things. He tells it like it is, that's one main thing. He also knows that in order for his state, and frankly the country, to be sustainable from a financial perspective, the ways of the old have to change. Concessions have to be made in the interest of the common good.
Now, having said all of that, here's where part of the problem is with the pull and tug between the unions and the leaders of governments—and probably with corporate boardrooms to an extent as well. These people hear the talk about sacfrice, concession, give and take, fairness, responsibility...
Yet the words come from the mouths of leaders and politicians who sacrifice nothing of their own, concede nothing of theirs, take and rarely give, who pick and choose who gets and who doesn't, and very often act irresponsibly.
I'm NOT in any way advocating FOR the unions, though it may sound that way. Just trying to keep things in perspective. I LOVE Christies words. I love it that he tells it like it is. The question is, how much of his salary did he cut? How much of his own pension did he cut? How much of his State Congress people took wage cuts? Pension cuts?
Fairness and responsibilty are the keys in almost all of this, whether it pertains to unions, governments, workers, or corporate entities. It's easy to tell someone else what they can afford to give up. It's much harder to actually give anything up yourself.
If you want me to hit the ground running WITH you, I better not be running alongside you while you drive in your car.
Spring, From your writing, I can see you have never sat in on a corporation-Union meeting. I had the pleasure of working for a company that was fantastic to the truck drivers. I bought-sold product, and wore many other hats. The drivers made more money than me.
The Union had a meeting with the drivers, and the drivers laughed at everything the Union said. I think it was because the Union always promised them less than they were given. The only thing they could come back with was, but you'll be Union!
I've also seen Plants closed by the proud Unions. When the workers went to the Union office, it was empty.
I don't absolve all companies. If you owned a company and could get your product produced cheaper someplace else, and sales & profits would go up; what would you do?
Politician's won't give us a level field with taxes & duties. H
There was more positive things that came out of the health care reform Springboard. The negative for me is the damn mandate. My kids can stay on my policy until they are 26. I like the exchange buying across state lines. I like the idea of medical files going electronic a hospital here has done it an the care is much more expedient. I like the idea that insurance has to cover at least 75% of your insurance claim. Right now they don't, they can cover 25% if the want and you get stuck paying the other 75%. Of course the pre-existing conditions is a very good. People can't help it if they were born with some health problem. The incentives for doctors to practice prevention is a great idea. Tax credits for small business for up to 35% of the amount they pay in insurance. For me that is a plus for the small business I run. There is alot more that is very positive you should check it out. You may like alot of the ideas.
The sad part is the crazy right wants to repeal the Reform. That would be ok if they offered something better in it's place.
Yes sir... you are so right!!!!
Wesman, on the note of the "American made junk" theory, I think that's not necessarily the fault of the workers, but of the execs and CEOs. As is the case with shipping jobs away, on the manufacturing side its about cost cutting to line the top pockets as well. Although it's slightly different comparatively than an HVAC unit, packages get thinner, smaller, and this is all obviously to reduce cost. In the case of the HVAC units they can use thinner metals, make plastic parts etc. EVEN IF it compromises quality. These guys are worried about multi-million dollar paychecks, and they want to be sure they can fund their golden parachutes before they leave the company in a shambles.
Certainly it is a fair statement to suggest that failure is rewarded handsomely at the top. But I digress.
American labor is still a strong force when applied appropriately IMO. What's more, I think American quality is beginning to have its day again. I'm seeing more and more made in USA stuff. But then, I'm looking for it more these days as well. There's much more quality made in America stuff than not, I think, and there are a ton of companies I can think of off the top of my head who make things here in America which are the best products the world over. Mining shovels, for example, just to name one.
Nifty@50, I can't disagree. I think, in any event, wouldn't having more, smaller banks increase the benefit to consumers? I think it absolutely would. Too big and too few means less competition. Having more banks competing in the marketplace would mean better interest rates. It would mean better terms. Frankly, I'd like to see smaller not just in the case of banks, but in all business. We need to get back to being personal, and therefore personable. I'm actually making a stronger effort these days to buy American, but moreover, to support smaller, local business whenever I can. I think the money spent here in these kinds of businesses is value-added exponentially.
Thanks very much for stopping in.
Harvey, I'm a bit of a strange breed really. When you ask the question, "If you owned a company and could get your product produced cheaper someplace else, and sales & profits would go up; what would you do?" the answer for me is I wouldn't necessarily do that. I think the workers are important. I think that the worker's motivation should be to help the company, fully knowing that if they work hard and the company succeeds as a result of that, they'll receive more pay. They'll get better benefits. You have to understand the psyche of a worker in order to turn them into money mills. Henry Ford knew a little something about this as well...but that's for another day.
Treat a worker right and he'll work harder, faster, and he'll produce more quality work. If he KNOWS he's working for a slice of the same pie everyone's working for he'll certainly be motivated and interested.
In my opinion shipping jobs away is a slap in the face to hard work. It's a sell-out move. It demotivates (if that's even a word) performance and efficiency. And quite frankly, it says to me for all of these fancy MBAs hanging on the walls in corporate offices across America, there's something seriously amiss.
I think workers are the heartbeat of any company. Most business people will tell you something different. That's amiss IMO.
Again, I think responsibility and fairness is very much important. AND I also think that it is VERY POSSIBLE to do right by your employees, do right by your company, and make enormous profits right here at home. If it's cost one wants to reduce, well, there are a million and one ways to reduce cost. They are HARD to determine and find. Of course, the easiest cost reduction is labor. IMO it's also the wrong one to cut.
In the end the company has to have all of its parts working together in perfect cohesion. If you start stripping things away, every time you do that you lose something. Eventually that catches up, I think. In this country there are actually many companies who operate in the interest of EVERYONE in the company—they operate under the radar, and most of them are privately held, extremely profitable, and in employee surveys they are very highly thought of.
Spring Board you are on point and you are right right right. American labor is a strong force and always will be as long as we continue to produce. On Ed Shutlz web site he list nothing but American made companies and products.
check out the All American Clothing link. Man, they have some durable clothes.
BUY AMERICAN!!!!!
Rasman, I am happy to have found a bit of common ground with you. Thanks for stopping in.
Carolina, it happens now and then. Though it is rare...I am framing that and going to show it to my wife. :)
this is interesting and I too agree that there is some type of regulation needed, but they should be as non-restrictive as possible. You already KNOW how I feel about the evil that unions do, which FAR outweigh anything favorable that they USED to do!!
I agree with you completely concerning American Labor. The problem is that mediocrity is infectious, and over time, becomes the norm.
Workers with high standards will either be conformed, or they will move on to some other field. When the time comes when the exec says, "now we must make solid, dependable products," who will even know how to do that? Will there be anyone with pride in their work left?
I hope there will be.
SheriSapp, I disagree with you. In my industry if we were to be as non-restrictive as possible people will die. You can't have regulation without restrictions. For example in my field of work if we did not restrict installers from using dirty copper pipe then a person on life support could get contamination in their lungs. Or if they were allowed to use any method they want, to braze medical gas piping people will die from heavy particulate. So restriction are definitely needed. You can not trust a company who sole purpose is increasing their bottom line. They will increase their bottom line by using sub standard materials, methods, cutting workers benefits, and/or cutting workers pay. People over profit no matter what.
American workers get the blunt of all the crap running down hill. When the fact is that the CEO or Board makes all the decisions. So if the upper management decides to use cheap parts and materials to make a product, Why does the worker get blamed or his Union?
Unions with to much power is bad, yet unions are necessary for the protection of workers.
@ Shaw it is up to the company to weed out the bad complacent workers.
@ springboard thank you we definitely see eye to eye on this issue. Your observation is a good one. Anyone disagreeing with you is not paying attention.
Rasman, on the health care debate I just cannot find much to like about it. Sorry.
Sheri, I agree they should be as non-restrictive as possible. Any policy setting should accomplish two main goals. Protect the consumer AND allow business to operate in a profitable manner. My ONLY big dislike is that we will probably get it wrong in the longer term...but again, I don't think we have an alternative.
The thing is, Wesman, businessmen used to get paid the big bucks to build their business. Nowadays they get paid BIGGER bucks to make inferior products than the ones they made before, and suck every last bit of life out of their companies until one day they are dissolved. Not all are like this. But a great many are. It's all a short term game to them, and once their pockets are full, who cares what happens to anything else, or ANYONE else for that matter?
A perfect sign to hang in most present day CEO's offices would probably read something akin to, "It's all good so long as I get mines."
Wow...From this hub alone and the responses you can write one chapter of a book!!
I think we should elect people like you and Tom and Pop and Ghost to the cabinets....Why don't we? You are the most sensible people around..no offense to those whose works I have not read yet.
I think she will do a good job.
It would be dangerous territory on Capitol Hill. I envision Cupid-like beings flying around seeking out the honest, the forthright, and the sensible roaming the halls, shooting darts at them which suddenly make them liars and cheats. :)
SOMETHING happens to these guys once they get there—or these kinds of people simply gravitate to such positions.
Though it might be an interesting gig? Hmm. I think I'd rather write a book. lol
Taken from the context of your hub, 'if everyone had been playing fair and acting in a responsible manner' this is the key right there. Too bad for corruption and irresponsible people.
...and of course, wherever there's money in the till there will be someone to find a way to take from it. All we can truly hope for in any society is that the number of good, honest people always outweigh the number of bad, dishonest people. Great to hear from you, Sandy.
 | Amazon Price: $15.50 List Price: $28.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $18.48 List Price: $28.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.79 List Price: $27.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.78 List Price: $14.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $27.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.32 List Price: $26.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.89 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.98 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $19.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $17.95 List Price: $30.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
![And It's Surely to Their Credit [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qKBryqFgL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $18.42 List Price: $30.94 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $49.99 List Price: $99.99 |
Pamela99 Level 7 Commenter 20 months ago
Very interesting hub. I think unions were certainly a necessity when they were formed and in the following decades but I don't feel that way so much anymore. When I lived in Cleveland I do remember when all the main unions raised there wages to $7+ an hour back in the early 1970's and companies started moving out of Cleveland. Gary, Indiana used to be a booming steel town and the cost of the unions ran the companies away, overseas for the most part. Gary, Indiana looks like a ghost town now. I may be off base as I'm no expert but there has to be some kind of balance. I sure don't think people ought to be forced to join the unions nor should there be open ballots as how you vote in any situation ought to be private.