Friday, August 31, 2007

Pandering

Apparently the Republican National Committee is going to ask Larry Craig to resign per CNN.

Let's break this situation down. Taking the facts as alleged, he wanted to have sex. Distasteful for a married man, certainly. A "crime involving conduct unbecoming a Senator," as Norm Coleman alleged, possibly. But, this is a crime that doesn't impact his fitness as a Senator. Apparently, he's enjoyed having sex with men for years and been OK as a member of the Senate. If a Senator likes having anonymous sex, does that by definition make him unfit to be a Senator? I guess not.

This just about makes me ashamed to be a Republican. Some of the members of our erstwhile party are apparently operating under the assumption that it is necessary to pander to the religious right in order to win elections. How about, I don't know, governing effectively? Maybe lowering taxes, cutting spending, fighting terrorists? You think that might be a good way to spend time. Oh wait, never mind, we have to get those gays! That's a much better idea!

Monday, August 27, 2007

I'm back

Sorry about the lack of posts. . .I've been gone for a while, off to NYC and a little relaxing time. But now, it's time for the real world to restart, with a new semester and new projects.

Big series for the Tribe this week -- they got the job done on this road trip but now they'll have to get the sticks out against Minnesota. Now is not the time to let them back into the race.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The Power of Free Trade

This commentary in today's LA Times (by Nathan Gardels) discusses the foremost power of free trade. The U.S.'s dependence on China has been much in the news recently, with China's discussion of a sell-off of U.S. Treasuries leading to dire prophesies of economic collapse.

Like any other transaction, though, real power accrues to buyers, not sellers.

In the name of sovereignty, China's leaders for a long time have gotten away with suppressing their own citizens while ignoring the get-gloriously-rich-quick corruption that has thrived in the absence of the rule of law. But, thanks to globalization, China's export reliance on the U.S. market has imported the political demands of the U.S. consumer into the equation. Americans won't hesitate to cut the import lifeline and shift away from Chinese products that might poison their children or kill their pets.

The Chinese economy is so dependent on selling to the U.S. market that its masters dare not risk anything that will offend the U.S. consumer. Labor standards, a free press, and the rule of law are all more likely to happen now that the Chinese market depends on countries that value them. An engaged society has an obligation to play by the world's rules. The U.S. consumer has, and is continuing to, use its funds for the betterment of humanity, in a more powerful way than any other means could.

Monday, August 13, 2007

If you don't govern, you can't win

Karl Rove is leaving the White House at the end of the month. He is without question one of the foremost political minds of his generation, but the story of the Bush administration generally and him in particular shows that that isn't enough. It's great to win elections but if you don't use the opportunity you're given, you're still not getting anywhere.

Consider this a call for more policy heft in Republican ranks to go along with the political side. The current crop of candidates has had little of substance to say on the economy or tax system, health care, or other domestic policy questions. There are plenty of Republican intellectuals with strong free-market policy solutions -- let's see some of them.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Steve Skvara said. . .

When LTV filed bankruptcy, my Nana lost her eligibility for medical coverage through a technicality. She was a surviving spouse and not the employee himself. My grandmother was forced to spend her hard-earned savings on additional medical coverage through a private insurer, and the cost of healthcare wiped out most of her savings.


Nobody likes it when things like this happen. The people who are doing it don't like it, either. But, sad to say, the only way for government or anyone else to do anything about it is to create enough wealth in the economy to pay for whatever it is you're going to do. The best way to do that, hands down, is free trade.

After all, if nobody earns it, you can't tax it.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Where do capitalist millions come from?

a) Ripping out of the mouths of the poor
b) Stealing from the workers
c) Fleecing from the government
d) Comedy "providing a good or service people want and will pay for" option

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

I Hope I Get A Vote, At Least. . .

before this happens. With that said, would that mean that I could accumulate seniority toward a job at Deadspin or, better yet, the AFL-CIO blog? I think I'd fit right in there, and they can't keep me out. That's arbitrary and capricious refusal to let me exercise my rights in a democratic workplace! Once I accumulate seniority I demand a position on the AFL-CIO blog.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Manufacturing Flexibility

The folks at Future of the Union (which is a highly recommended read, by the way) posted an AP story in which a Ford worker was asking the entirely reasonable question, "Why are the auto companies sticking it to us, when labor is only 10% of the cost of a car?" You can read the story here. The simple answer is twofold:

1. It's harder to fix deeper mismanagement issues; reducing labor costs is the easiest way to show immediate progress. Showing immediate progress is a very important part of convincing investors that the Detroit companies can continue as going concerns, which is obviously in everyone's best interests.

2. There's a lot more to the added costs of the UAW than union wages. In fact, just about all the non-union auto plants pay roughly the same costs. Flexibility is the biggest issue; efficient production is impossible if the workforce isn't able to do different jobs. Toyota doesn't make cheaper cars because they pay less; they can do it because their factories are able to respond to changing demand conditions. To the extent that union rules prevent that, it costs a lot more than a few extra dollars an hour would. Hopefully the auto companies will give on wages to gain on flexibility, recognizing where their true costs lie.

Friday, August 3, 2007

Creating Living-Wage jobs

This (from Jonathan Tasini over at workinglife) was in response to an editorial in today's WSJ blaming Mexican immigration on lack of effective job creation.
After NAFTA passed, the peso crashed and millions of people were pushed further into poverty. The problem is not job creation: the problem is having jobs that allow people to put food on the table--which Mexico cannot do as long as a central driving force behind the economy--as is true in other countries hit by so-called "Free trade"--is to push down wages. Mr. "Heart of Darkness" Kurtz-man, if you generate jobs that don't pay a living wage, why do you expect people to stop feeling that economic disaster?
How, exactly, do you create living-wage jobs? The only answer is to enable the employers to make enough money to pay those wages. A company that carries employees that don't create value commensurate with their wages isn't going to be paying any wages, living or otherwise, for very long.

NAFTA, by increasing the market for Mexican goods, can only increase the inflows into Mexico's economy. This cash will benefit the entire economy, making all kinds of jobs possible that weren't possible before. If you're selling to a small market, it will be hard to generate any jobs, much less the living-wage ones, the lack of which Mr. Tasini so laments.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

CEO bonuses

All thoughts with the victims and families of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

Check out this story arising Northwest's ongoing labor troubles. Of particular interest was the bonus that was paid to the CEO recently. I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it. A successful turnaround would be worth every penny of what he was paid, and then some.

But, what the board apparently didn't think about here was the true cost of giving the CEO that money in a situation where labor dissatisfaction was so high. By giving that bonus, they've riled the situation so much that the workers have apparently decided to try to sabotage the company. This makes it much less likely that the turnaround will ultimately be successful.

I'm not against high CEO pay -- if you want top talent, you need to pay accordingly. But top talent should be willing to wait until the results are in to get paid. Then, there'll be enough to go around.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Capital Costs Money Too

I read with interest the discussions about whether or not GM's and Ford's recent quarterly results announcements will hurt them as they enter negotiations with the UAW and will, no doubt, be looking for conciliatory contracts. (You can see some here.) A couple of comments:
  1. A look at the results indicates that North American operations are still loss-making for both Ford and GM. The fact that both companies are making profits overseas is not any kind of argument that their North American cost structures aren't still out of whack.
  2. (and more importantly) Hard work deserves to be compensated properly; there's no doubt about that. No company can survive without its workers. But, neither can it survive without capital to enable its expansions and fund its strategy. Just like workers who give their time to the company need to be paid, so do the investors that give their money to the company need to paid. Profits are how that happens, and if they are no profits, there is no capital. No jobs and no wages aren't far behind.