Oneida to Shut Last Factory, Cut 500 Jobs

The Centre Daily Times ^ | Thu, Sep. 09, 2004 | Associated Press

[faithincowboys]

So was the economy in the 90s good? Have we ever had a good economy?

[FITZ]

The economy of the 90s was terrible. It might have seemed good in some areas but there were a lot of problems showing up in the early 90s --- the economy we have now is just a continuation of the 90s economy.

The economy of the 80s was good -- a long recession of the late 70s ended and what was called Reagan's "voodoo" economics turned out to be a good plan.

[FITZ]

A good economy is where someone can move into the middle class just by being willing to work hard --- and a middle class job shouldn't require someone have a graduate degree. The middle class should be attainable for the average person -- and the large majority of the population should be middle class --- that makes for the most stability and self-reliance.

[eno_]

Oneida never modernized. Too ugly for Crate and Barrel, too expensive for Target. Stick a fork in 'em.

[laredo44]

Seriously. I love my Oneida flatware!

Apparently you're either unwilling or unable to pay the cost. If only you'd paid an additional $100 million for your last year's order, they factory would have been profitable and presumably still churning out goods.

[laredo44]

I wonder how long America will survive with its working class citizens reduced to minimum wage door greeters at the great-wall mart.

Probably not long if that's what its citizens settle for.

You seem to have a pretty dim view of the average American. If most are like you, I'd say you have a point.

[ARCADIA]

So what do you recommend?

To begin with we need to understand that there is no such thing as a global free market. Each country destorts the markets in their favor and if we are going to play in that environment then we too will have to grow a little less idealistic.

I think Reagan had the right approach when he forced foreign auto manufacturers to build a certain amount of the product content within our borders. That is how most of our trading partners work and it would go a long ways towards leveling the playing field. Beyond that we will need to do some serious work on our regulatory environment. Especially in the area of tort reform, which has become a huge burden for everyone operating within our borders.

Ultimately, we have to consume what we produce. It is healthy for a free society to import some of its goods in order to provide a maximum amount of diversity; we should do it anyway to see how well our products stack up against others. But, we need to live within our means, and import only that which can be fully balanced by our exports.

[Tacis]

"Let's face it if you have any kind of factory job in this country no matter what your supervisor says you should be preparing to do something else."

No, you mean, "No matter what your union steward says." Union interference with day to day operations and the constant threat of work stoppage and job actions coupled with the cost to the company of union personnel doing union business make the costs of doing business in a US unionized environment simply too high!

If we are talking 400 union employees, my bet is that at least 8 and maybe 16 are paid for by the company but do nothing but "union business." Add the management time that is necessary to meet with the union hacks while they do union business and you have a cost burden that outweighs every productivity advantage the US workers have.

[faithincowboys]

So more protectionism?

I too mourn the loss of our manufacturing base, but I don't think it's going to come back. We are going through a transition in this country. We are also a different people. More sedentary, heavy and less likely to want to do factory work. Have you seen MTV lately?

[laredo44]

What is the TOTAL unemployment rate --- what is the percent of people in the population who are over 18 and not working, or not working enough to provide completely for their families?

Better yet, what's the TOTAL, TOTAL unemployment rate. How many are simply out of the workforce because there are are not unlimited government jobs paying $100 million per hour to stick your head out of the door once a quarter and then pull it back in?

[laredo44]

Layoff are not the problem; a shriking economy is.

And you think the economy is shrinking because?

[ARCADIA]

So more protectionism?

I believe our nation, our people, our form of government, and our form of economy; are worth some degree of protection. Would you really disagree with that?

On your other point, who knows. Perhaps we are getting fatter, perhaps it is just our predatory trial lawyers making noise to prep their perspective juries for their next batch of lawsuits. The only thing I know for sure is that I am getting older. Perhaps we will have a nice nationalwide weigh-in one day and remove all doubt. But, one could speculate that in the days when our families operated on a single income, they tended to eat more of their meals at home, and that this was probablly healthier in any number of ways.

[ARCADIA]

And you think the economy is shrinking because?

That is a good question; I would say two things are giving me a negative sense of the US economy:

1) We have enormous amounts of anecdotal information about companies and operations which have either reduced the size of their workforce, or gone out of business. While we have seen very little since 2000 about companies which are either new, or fast growing to exploit new technologies. Their is a real sense that we are loosing ground rather then expanding to conquer the next millennium. To a large degree this is about jobs, and the pool of jobs available within our borders; but, it is also about having a good furture story in palce so that we as a country have a focal point at which to direct our energies. This is probably one of the unforseen circumstances from the end of the cold war.

2) We also have to consider how we are doing on our trade balance. A nation that fails to produce is essentially at the charity of its trading partners. We are a strong nation with a powerful military, a law abiding population, and a stable government; so our partners will do quite a bit to support us out of either respect or fear. But, there is a limit, and as we add $400,000,000,000+ to our official national debt this year, we really should consider that this is one limit that we may not want to test.

[FITZ]

It's difficult to come up with meaningful statistics because it seems they should be based on self-reliance. If someone has no job but has inherited a lot of money --- what difference does it make if they're employed or not? If someone has a job but can't support their family with it, then there is a problem --- maybe with that person because they started a family with no husband, no education, no job skills.

I would think it would be meaningful to look at all the welfare programs combined and figure out how many people lack the ability to support themselves and their families -- total number on welfare programs should be some pretty low number -- whatever the number of people with IQ's under 60 and the number so handicapped they can do no work.

[Zman516]

It's tiresome how the MSM trumpets every "lost job" ad nauseum, but carefully avoids reporting new jobs that are opened up, or any other of the many positive economic statistics that are out there.

[A. Pole]

I believe our nation, our people, our form of government, and our form of economy; are worth some degree of protection.

AMEN! And in spite of freetraders the American steel industry survived difficult moments - thanks to the GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. See Bush’s moles dig for victory

[Leisler]

"I can't wait to see what a truly transient society looks like."

Ah, how about America? Like, leaving Europe. Or moving to the Ohio valley. Or west of the Mississippi. Or California, or bust?

[GOPrincess]

Personally, I've got a beautiful pattern...to each his or her own :).

[LowCountryJoe]

You have never been able to frame an arguemnet 1rudeboy that goes beyond slogans and rhetoric. First off, and I am sure you have read this hundreds of times, restriction of immigration and tariffs are not Socialist in the least, and it is what this country did untill the Carter era. Sen. Taft, who was a conservatives conservative was no free trader for an example. Sadly the GOP has gone further way from mainstreet and has become closer to wall street. It seems like despte lip service to conservatives, the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the GOP has finally won.

Someone else wrote something on this thread that has forced me to revise my free traitor ways of thinking. It was something about being in a "caboose" and then pulling my head out...it was at that point that I really did get it.

Tariffs really are the way to go, ya know. It allows us to manipulate the market for a good in such a way so as to keeps domestic producers from having to find ways to cut costs or improve their products in order to retain customers. We even get a little cash to the treasury to boot - that's why I prefer them over import quotas. And, it's not like the consumers are really feeling it, shoot, it's not like they really notice the tiny amount that they're getting overcharged because it's spread out amongst 280 million people...in fact I wonder why every industry doesn't do this.

Now some may say that we'll face a retaliation by a former trading partner but I say let 'em retaliate. Because the less trade that happens the better off the domestic employers will be and we all know that that's where the jobs come from. And, we all know that American Made means absolutely the highest quality...so why share that with the rest of the world markets anyway; screw them if they retaliate.

OK, it is the government's responsibility to provide for the general welfare of our nation. I think that politicians should get involved in the planning and allocation of resources in our economy even more so than they do right now; they should be on equal footing with the private industries when it comes to guiding our economy through the capitalistic process - nothing could be less socialistic.

Finally, I am for less competition and ,consequently, less product choices - namely foreign crap! You free traitors can spring that product improvement argument on me all day long but you do remember the days when products were constructed heavier and more durable. Ahh yes, those were the days.

So you see, you really are better off because the old products are really an improvement over the newer ones. You get taxed less because of the tariff taking care of some of the costs to run government (even the asshat politicians who now have to calculate tariffs and other well intentioned measures). You get more American made products. And, what's better, you don't have to hear that giant sucking sound as you make a race for the bottom. Sure you may have less choices, have to spend a little more, have a little more central planning, less product improvement, less people with an abundance of human capital seeking whole new products and services to develop, less opportunity to invest capital to find the most gain/profit. And it's also better because there will be no unemployment because you'll be working your ass off at the textile mill cranking out garments just fast enough to clothe all the kids that will be going back to school in the fall - back to school to learn how to sew cloth, forge steel, assemble products, and greet customers on the telephone!!!

[LowCountryJoe]

ping Why ping Willie? He is, after all, the one who posted it. He knows it's there.