News coming on the NAFTA Rail road along the super-corridor.

KCS company news ^ | Aug 30, 2007

[Exton1]

Check this out later this week, to hear about the NAFTA railroad.

For Immediate release:	For additional information contact:
August 30, 2007	William Galligan - 816-983-1551

KCS' Arthur L. Shoener to Address Morgan Keegan 2007 Equity Conference

/ /

Kansas City, Mo., August 30, 2007 - Kansas City Southern (KCS) (NYSE: KSU) president and chief operating officer, Arthur L. Shoener, will address the Morgan Keegan 2007 Equity Conference at approximately 12:15 p.m. Central Time on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Note the updated time.

Interested investors not attending the conference may listen to the presentation via a simultaneous webcast on KCS' website at www.kcsouthern.com. A link to the replay will be available for 7 days following the event. Presentation materials will also be available on the website.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., KCS is a transportation holding company that has railroad investments in the U.S., Mexico and Panama. Its primary U.S. holding includes The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, serving the central and south central U.S. Its international holdings include Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., serving northeastern and central Mexico and the port cities of Lázaro Cárdenas, Tampico and Veracruz, and a 50 percent interest in Panama Canal Railway Company, providing ocean-to-ocean freight and passenger service along the Panama Canal. KCS' North American rail holdings and strategic alliances are primary components of a NAFTA Railway system, linking the commercial and industrial centers of the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

[B-Chan]

I’m with you. I used to think Buchanan was a nutbar, but I don’t think so any more. I still don’t agree with some of the things Pat Buchanan says, but, as time passes, it’s obvious that he was right — and I was wrong — about a great many things.

My wife (the smart one), voted for him, of course.

The RNC is a tool of the same Powers That Be that run the Democrat Party. Voting is like trying to choose between two prison rapists — slow or fast, you’re going to get it in the end no matter what.

[B-Chan]

public decent about NAFTA

dissent

[expat_panama]

"Overall decline"     "...this economy sucks..."

If you ever feel a need to drop the graph from the Economist, you can always get the whole story going back 70 years from other sources online (BLS data link).

What you said was true, that manufacturing employment is down almost 20% since the Clinton days.  Just the same, total jobs in goods production (construction, mining, etc.) is off only 5%, and both are about equal to their long term averages.

Production is at an all time high like Mase was saying in post 60, thanks to all those $70,000/year engineers (Companies Scramble to Hire Engineers).

[expat_panama]

"...public decent about NAFTA..."          "dissent"

I thought it made more sense as "decent".

[blackie]

I’m here to serve!

{{HUGS}}

[mysterio]

That looks like 3 choices. Slaves don't get to make choices.

Sure they do. They can stay and work so they can eat, run away, or overthrow their master. And those are the same choices the Mexican workers have.

Slaves don't earn wages.

They get room and board for their work. Most Mexican workers can just afford room and board on their salaries, so it's the same thing. And Chinese workers are actually housed at the factories.

We should allow illegals to invade because Cuba is bad? Maybe we'd install a puppet regime?

Lie. That's not what I said, and you are well aware of that. I don't support illegal immigration. Your policy is going to result in a communist revolution in Mexico.

Wages are lower than they were before NAFTA?

Business week lists the current salary of an assembly line worker in Mexico to be $1.47 an hour. If that's a stunning climb, I'd be surprised. Do you think they're rushing across the border because they are being paid well? Did the NAFTA proponents predict that Mexican wages would reach the princely level of $1.47 an hour in just ten short years? No. They promised more than that.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They can stay and work so they can eat, run away, or overthrow their master. And those are the same choices the Mexican workers have.

If they were slaves, Mexico would build a wall to keep them in. You need to stop being so sloppy with your language. Not everyone in a 3rd world country is a slave, just because they make less than you. Or because they make less than you feel they should make.

I don't support illegal immigration.

Neither do I.

Your policy is going to result in a communist revolution in Mexico.

Which policy? The one where I want to build a wall and send back the illegals? Or the one where I prefer Mexicans had jobs instead of starving? And if there was a Communist revolution in Mexico, would it reduce the flow of illegals? Would it stop the 30 families who run the country from stealing Mexico's wealth? Would it really make things worse?

Business week lists the current salary of an assembly line worker in Mexico to be $1.47 an hour. If that's a stunning climb, I'd be surprised.

Considering their exports to the US went from $40 billion in 1993 to $198 billion last year, I'd be shocked if it wasn't an improvement. And reducing their exports to the US sure isn't going to improve their wages.

Do you think they're rushing across the border because they are being paid well?

They're rushing across the border because their country sucks and because we refuse to build a wall. If they can't send their poor here, they'll at least have an incentive to try to fix their system, before they get a revolution.

Did the NAFTA proponents predict that Mexican wages would reach the princely level of $1.47 an hour in just ten short years?

I keep hearing about the failed predictions of the NAFTA proponents, but didn't trade expand? What about the failed predictions of the NAFTA opponents? Sucking sound? LOL!

Perhaps you should build a factory in Mexico and pay them a "humane" wage. You'd have your pick of workers and would surely make millions.

[mysterio]

They are rushing across the border because the jobs that are there are absolute crap. The jobs are absolute crap because they pay an extreme poverty wage with no benefits. The results are an increase in the profitability of our corporations in the world market and the absorbing of Mexico's entire peasant class into the US.

We are not going to agree on this topic. You are eager to stump for corporations that ship US jobs to Mexico and I am eager to prevent a communist revolution down there similar to Cuba and Venezuela because of the horrible working conditions.

We agree on the need to stop illegal immigration.

Have a good night.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The jobs are absolute crap because they pay an extreme poverty wage with no benefits.

It's hard to make the big bucks when your productivity is low and you have no skills.

The results are an increase in the profitability of our corporations in the world market

Wouldn't want to do that, eh comrade?

You are eager to stump for corporations that ship US jobs to Mexico and I am eager to prevent a communist revolution down there similar to Cuba and Venezuela because of the horrible working conditions.

Eliminate every low paying job created by an American company in Mexico. Revolution more or less likely?

[mysterio]

It's hard to make the big bucks when your productivity is low and you have no skills.

Doesn't look that way to me.


Eliminate every low paying job created by an American company in Mexico. Revolution more or less likely?

Pay workers a better wage so they don't flood the US mainland. Revolution more or less likely?

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the chart supposed to show? You have a link to the source?

Pay workers a better wage so they don't flood the US mainland.

I already told you that you should do that. So no answer? LOL!

[mysterio]

What is the chart supposed to show? You have a link to the source?

Chart shows productivity in automobile manufacturing. Link

I already told you that you should do that. So no answer? LOL!

Yes, I'm aware of your fallback strategy. Don't like the price of gas? Build a refinery, ha ha ha.

[mysterio]

Wow! Calpacifico agrees, Mexican wages are "stable!"

[servantboy777]

Many are masons as well.

[DoughtyOne]

...and Bilderbergers...

[servantboy777]

Bump your Bilderberger and raise you a Tri-lateralist.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's hard to make the big bucks when your productivity is low and you have no skills.

Doesn't look that way to me.

What is the chart supposed to show? You have a link to the source?

Chart shows productivity in automobile manufacturing.

Despite these glowing assessments, labour productivity in assembly as measured in hours per vehicle (HPV) in Mexican assembly plants typically lags the productivity seen in U.S. and Canadian plants, as we have previously noted in Section 2. Although auto workers in Canada and Mexico work a similar number of hours, the hours spent per vehicle are considerably higher in Mexico (on average 74% higher for the Big Three plants in 1999) such that 45% fewer vehicles were produced per worker in Mexico in 1999

I love it when you prove my point. Thanks.

[mysterio]

For most of these plants, however, the differences are relatively slight, particularly given the large labour cost differential between Mexico and Canada (and the U.S.). Among the newer or recently remodelled assembly plants with lines of annual capacities of over 100,000 units (DCX Toluca, DCX Saltillo, GM Silao, GM Ramos Arizpe, and Ford Hermosillo) only at DCX Toluca were HPV more than 50% greater than at the most comparable U.S. or Canadian plants. Moreover, the DCX Toluca plant was producing a much wider variety of products than its U.S. counterpart as well as undergoing a major model changeover in 1999, which explains a large part of the difference with U.S. facilities. Similar, although less dramatic, differences in product mix also explain a portion of the differences in HPV between the larger Mexican facilities and their U.S. counterparts. Nonetheless, most of the difference is probably due to the deliberate use of more labour intensive methods of production to take advantage of lower Mexican labour costs. For example, in the bodyshop of its Silao plant, GM is reported to be using only 80 robots, and then only for tasks that are mandated by quality or safety concerns, while its factory in Janesville, Wisconsin uses 600 robots.110 With such low labour costs, it is to be expected that OEMs operating in Mexico will choose to use greater labour per vehicle than in higher labour cost environments, such as Canada and the U.S.

They don't use as many robots in Mexico. Those employees are working hard. Probably harder than you have to work as you type all day and shill for slave labor.

[Toddsterpatriot]

In practice, however, these observed aggregate productivity differences are of little economic significance.

Yes, you can use more, cheap, low productivity labor for the same cost. Like I said before, thanks for proving my point.

Nonetheless, most of the difference is probably due to the deliberate use of more labour intensive methods of production to take advantage of lower Mexican labour costs.

I wonder if the lower labor costs are related to their lower productivity? I'm glad they hire more workers than they need, to prevent the revolution.

Your original point was about sweatshop workers. These auto workers are pretty far from sweatshop workers, don't you think? Or should we not buy cars from Mexico, because it's a "sweatshop region"?

Those employees are working hard.

Harder than you work typing your economic ignorance.

[mysterio]

Yes, you can use more, cheap, low productivity labor for the same cost. Like I said before, thanks for proving my point.

Because they aren't given the same equipment as American workers doing the same job are, as I already pointed out.

I wonder if the lower labor costs are related to their lower productivity?

Go back and reread the part you ignored on purpose.

Your original point was about sweatshop workers. These auto workers are pretty far from sweatshop workers, don't you think?

No. They are sweatshop workers. They are working hard with no robotic equipment for $1.47 and hour with no benefits.

Or should we not buy cars from Mexico, because it's a "sweatshop region"?

No, we should tariff them like crazy until they stop running sweatshops.

Harder than you work typing your economic ignorance.

Let's try the Toddsterpatriot debate method! I bet you'd feel much differently if you worked in one of those Mexican sweatshop car plants. Why don't you go try it for a month, come back, and tell us what you find. Make sure and tell your coworkers how lazy, unskilled, and unproductive they are. I expect you to produce at least as many cars per day as an American worker with American equipment.