To the Unions.... My bad

After considering some of my comments made about Unions in my last post I realize that I should probably clarify what I mean, and where my opinion comes from.  Much of the knowledge of scamming the companies comes from my dad, who was constantly tempted throughout his college days at the University of Dayton to quit school and work in industry.  The enticements were great: great pay, great vacations, great security.  What amplified these enticements was a little exercise in worker's rights--as per the union--that veteran employees had perfected over time.  When you retire you get severance pay, which is calculated by multiple factors--the largest of which is time of employment.  But should you decide that you made the wrong decision in retiring, Jordan wasn't the only one, you are guaranteed your position at the company upon your return.  So what they would do is retire, get their severance pay, and go on vacation for a year then come back and start it all over again.  

In the grand scheme of things this "rotation" of workers minimally effects the coffers of the corporation.  So let's think about what would effect a producers bank statement the most... hmmmm... aha! I've got it, what if nobody bought their product?  Yeah, that would greatly deplete their investment capital because they would be getting 100 percent negative returns on their investment--0 cents to every 100 pennies.  And that is also what happened.  My dad also tells me how he remembers driving by the GM factory and seeing a fleet of toyotas and hondas; rather indicative of the workman's confidence in his own labors.  

Now, that is a micro-example.  It also disregards any price information about American cars versus foreign cars.  The economists, not the magazine, answer to this is quite simple: "American companies were making less attractive products for the price without responding to the market."  The talking head would go on to assert that the competition and lower prices were better for the consumer because it meant more people could get more shit for their money.  Although the economist would not say shit, they would say goods.  I'm inserting shit, because that's what it is.  

In the short term, this is true.  Lower costs help the consumer.  But what if the consumer is working for a company that relies on the American market to sell its products, and yet still refusing to buy from that company?  Then that consumer is essentially buying him or her self out of a job and selling her or his own labor overseas.  Then what are we left with?  Imported goods that we consume, creating a totally consumer culture in which few jobs, if any even exist anymore outside the realm of healthcare, law, politics, and maybe the education that now only the rich can afford with their already accumulated wealth.  Oh yes, I almost forgot, their will also be people working at all these stores, at least until the internet evolves to the point at which everyone will just buy shit online because the cost of transportation to reach these concentrated areas of consumerism (malls) will be so damn high (oil). 

So the story of the Unions is one which we can all sort of learn from on many levels.  I think the first and foremost lesson is that we should all take pride in our work, put in the effort to do a job or make a product that you yourself would want to purchase--it doesn't speak to highly for Ford and GM when all their assembly line workers are driving Toyotas and Hondas.  The next thing I think we can take from this is that short term savings is a false improvement in the market.  Do we really need to accumulate that much shit to make ourselves happy, or should we actually take the time to budget our finances.  Rather than trying to buy the most we could figure what we actually want to spend our money on; this would make each dollar more precious and thus result in more consumer research, which might even cut down on the need for consumer protection laws.

Cheaper is not always better, if you actually want to live on a budget.

Subsidies for Greener Pastures or Protectionism...

...you decide-

WIth burgeoning oil prices the demand for other carbon based resources has flown into full swing. Just yesterday there was an article on the Times website that talked about the revival of a once dead Japanese coal mining town as a result of an increasing demand for coal, due to rising oil prices. The article was heartwarming and talked about the beauty of a once dead industry coming back to life if only for a few last gasps. What's particularly disconcerting about this image is that it talks of revivals of gasping old technologies, it talks of the beauty of stasis, trying to make sure nobody has to change their living to adapt to a modern world. No, I don't think we should stop using our best sources of energy, but I do think the time has come to stop groveling over the paychecks of workers that refuse to change their livelihood and want to be protected as a result; if we're not careful we'll have the 70's Unions all over again that exploited their power to deplete the pockets of industry, effectively forcing companies to move over seas where there are actually employable people. To be sure, not everyone working was involved in the scams; it's more a case of a few ruining it for many.

Which brings me to my next point with regards to a certain pipeline project that is being born on the North Slope of Canada and calls for, according to the Times, a 500 million dollar subsidy to TransCanada (here). This subsidy is designed to jump start the project that, according the pushers of it, will stimulate and stabilize the American economy with jobs. If anyone reading this was around during the New Deal you might think about the huge Public Engineering projects designed to stimulate the economy during FDR's reign: not a permanent, stabilizing solution, not even that long-term as was discovered after enormous amounts of government deficit financing went into the system that, in the future, would provide desert carpets of lush green for anyone willing to pay to play, golf that is.

But it's difficult to argue with the fact that those public works projects provided jobs for many unemployed Americans. That's where this situation in Northern Canada is different. Turns out, even according to the Times that BP and ConocoPhillips-the two companies competing with TransCanada on this matter-have said they already plan to build a pipeline and invest 600 million dollars of their own money to do it without subsidies. This means they will be forced to respond to the market (i.e. the consumer-YOU) and provide gas at rates that people will purchase it, because without doing this they would be making a negative investment. That's not something either of these companies wishes to do, because staying in business is the assumed goal of having a business.

Right now the future of automobile motion looks like a hydrogen fuel cell which depends on a supply of natural gas for re-fueling, so the question becomes do you want to give the government money to invest (keep in mind that they would have gone out of business long ago) or do you want to save that money to buy the gas that is in the interest of BP and ConocoPhillips to supply as dictated by the market demand?

Before you answer that question you might want to know that it seems out of your hands because of the purchasing power we put in the hands of our leaders, according to the governer of Alaska, “We don’t have time to mess around. It is time to get the project built and not just keep guessing what the oil producers want from the state.”

I think it's time they start asking the people that pay their salaries (you, and me) what they want from the state.