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.