Levi Strauss cuts another 2,000, shutters U.S. plants

San Francisco Business Times ^ | 9/25/03

[Starwind]

I tried. I explained.

You evaded and obfuscated.

You don't get it and take sides with and against people.

When I see repetitous personal ad hominem attacks such as yours against the messenger when you can't civilly refute the message itself, yes I take sides. Get over it.

I have failed, thus. Let's move on.

You're welcome to post on any thread you chose, and likewise welcome to not post. If you wish to 'move on' you know where the next thread is.

[TopQuark]

you can't reasonably expect people who worked hard and trusted their managers and leaders, to like it.

Trust to do what? No company promises lifetime employment. Trust in what, exactly?

If you opened a textbook, you would learn that management is hired by the owners of the company to produce profit. Naturally, the managers must act within boundaries of law and current standards of civility. That's all. If the manager continues to employ a person that does not justify his keep, that manager does not perform the function he was hired to do.

Trust? Suppose I am really courteous and work on maintaining good relationships with my neighbors. I trust that, should I get laid off, my neighbor will start paying my mortgage. I am laid off, the neighbor does not pay my mortgage, and I get mad at him. You ask, why? I tell you, "I trusted him, and I worked hard at being a good neighbor."

I suppose you'd reply, "Yes, but the neighbor has no obligation to pay your mortgage even if you were honest and worked hard on your relationshipl; he is... a neighbor." In fact, you'd probably suspect that the person claiming that is not well, if you know what I mean, so idiotic and divorced from reality these statements are.

Well, we have a mass idiocy at hand.

But don't try to waive away the culpability of our business and economic leaders I do not know whom YOU mean by "economic leaders." The managers are doing their jobs, just like the rest of us that are hired to perform a specified function. THeir jobs includes buying as cheaply as possible the factors of production, whether domestically or elsewhere. That's what they do.

As I said earlier, it is up to us to be "cheap" enough to keep our jobs. We achieve that (i) either by agreeing to lower salaries or becoming more productive, and (ii) lowering the cost of the benefits package we typically DEMAND from the employers. (To achieve the second we urgently need a tort reform).

and instead blame FR posters who routinely do wish to discuss the real world problems caused by these leaders, The placement of blame from yourself to some "leaders" is precisely what I talked about. It is based on false perceptions and lack of knowledge, and is unethical.

[1rudeboy]

I seriously doubt if there are many socialists on this forum, but you seem to throw the term around when you have nothing material to say.

Are you kidding, up to 75% of the responses on your typical free-trade thread are "socialist" in one form of another, in that the government is seen as the guarantor of high-paying jobs, through various forms of governmental intervention. And then you have:

What you fail to see is that the present path of outsourcing and offshoring leads not only to job loss but socio economic meltdown. Tariffs do not lead to socio economic meltdown. Chronic joblessness is what turns displaced workers into an underclass. Chronic joblessness turns good neighborhoods into bad. Chronic joblessness leads to the first signs of trouble; lots of idle young men hanging out on streetcorners at all hours.

[a member here], September 7, 2003

The protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Karl Marx, January 9, 1848

_____
What do you call that?

[Richard Kimball]

It's considered bad form to mention it, but the Levi's plant closings began shortly after they issued a press release stating they would no longer support the Boy Scouts because they would not accept homosexual scout leaders. A lot of boy scouts quit buying Levis.

I haven't bought a pair of Levi's since then, even though they were my favorite blue jeans. Wranglers since then.

[ARCADIA]

What do you call that?

Those are observations or hypothesis. They are a neutral statement of fact, as in: "The sunrise announces a new morning." You can despute the observation, however, the speaker is not advocating socialism. No one is saying that we should "break(s) up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point." Except, perhaps for those advocating global free trade; then again, they are the ones who are anxious to climb into bed with communist China.

[Starwind]

Trust in what, exactly?

Not violate visa laws. Not misstate pension assets. Not misstate earnings. I won't even get into the Tyco's and Enron's. Not inflate the cost of living beyond real wages and the ability of two peoiple to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not distort the CPI to reduce cola's. To enforce existing laws. To not claim a recovery and jobs are just around the corner when they aren't. That would be a start.

You may argue that there is a recovery and jobs in this 2nd half. The facts are there have not been any for almost 3 years and minimally the public has been mislead (naively by some, maliciously by others) to wait while the economy worsens and their jobs leave. That's 3 years that could have been spent towards tort reform (for instance) you advocate, had an honest airing of these problems started 3 years ago instead of the incessant "next half recovery".

As I said earlier, it is up to us to be "cheap" enough to keep our jobs. We achieve that (i) either by agreeing to lower salaries or becoming more productive, and (ii) lowering the cost of the benefits package we typically DEMAND from the employers. (To achieve the second we urgently need a tort reform).

The worker does not have the flexibility to lower his wage below his contractual obligations to banks and governments. And it is a moot point when there is no job to which they can accept a lower wage.

And the point again was your castigation and ad hominem attacks against those who would bring these issues up.

[B Knotts]

...and Microsoft.

[lasereye]

Half of population has IQ lower than 100. They also should have opportunity to do honest work and make a living. It is a responsibility of government to help it happen.

My impression is that the lower pay jobs are the most vulnerable to government pushing more costs onto business and are the first to go as a result. So the single best thing government could do is to stop piling so many costs on business. Aside from that, I thought the big concern was the lack of higher paying jobs for skilled workers - engineers going unemployed etc.

[TopQuark]

Well, I guess you cannot help it. You are totally disconnected from my post.

And move to some, although unrelated, but preposterous stuff such as this:

The worker does not have the flexibility to lower his wage below his contractual obligations to banks and governments.

Have you heard of a workers ability to anticipate the future? save for the rainy day?

I guess not: daddy-government has to step in and protect the baby; mommy-CEO has to run the company into the ground but keep paying you whatever salary you already promised to banks.

Perhaps, if you do read a book, you'll learn what you advocate is PATERNALISTIC state. As I said, if you are a socialist, at least say so to yourself. In every post you are screaming at the top of your lungs that you are a socialist and you know nothing about how your own country works. You should: this is what made it great.

Have a nice day. Vote Green --- in Germany, please.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Post the "help wanted at American factories" stories if you want to counter Willie Green. The problem is Willie's got more stories than you do.

I'm not a capitalist either if I have to choose between my country and a dollar bill. Those who are capitalists first and Americans second are a lot of what's wrong with this country. I do not favor selling my country to the Chinese (or anyone else) at ANY price.

To hell with the dictators of China and their traitorous accomplices in the United States.

[TopQuark]

Your sound like a very reasoned post. Do you always just assume something to be true and then rant about those that seemingly disagree and call them traitors?

And you think that this is compatible with basic American values?

Thank you for your nice post.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

You accuse people of being anti-capitalists when they want their countrymen to work for a living. If you put a dollar before your country, I don't trust you. I also don't like personal attacks against someone who posts the reality of job losses in American manufacturing.

The fact is the National Assn. of Manufacturers if VERY CONCERNED about this, as well they should be. Willie Green is not blowing smoke. He's in damn good company - nearly three million Americans thrown out of work in the past three years and NAM.

Are the Republican members of congress who recently wrote a letter of concern about this to President Bush also anti-capitalists in your book?

This country's ability to manufacture is being destroyed by turncoat globalists who have no regard for their countrymen.

After you pure capitalists, globalists and assorted traitors have gotten your way and American can't build tanks, ships, fighter airplanes etc, are you gonna expect the Chinese to build your armaments for you to protect your butt?

Pure capitalism is worship of the almighty dollar without regard to any other consideration including the rights and dignity of human beings.. Pure capitalism, in the past, gave us monopolies and ruthless suppression of hard-working people. Try it again and you'll bring revolution. History confirms it.

[Starwind]

Have you heard of a workers ability to anticipate the future? save for the rainy day?

Many spend their entire lives doing just that:

• Budgeting for the mortgage, only to have property taxes exceed their budgets.
• Budgeting for their children's tuition only to have it inflated beyond reach.
• Budgeting for their share of insurance, only to have 'their share' increased year after year.
• Budgeting soundly and rationally for everything, only to lose a job and be unable to meet that budget.
• Or if they withdraw from their retirement in an emergency it is taxed.

Most can't both pay inflated expenses and save enough to live on for 6 months to a year when they lose a job, or both jobs, not on the average wages they are paid by average employers.

They could retrain, but to what? Finance, IT, call centers, Mfg, textiles, lumber, assembly, all moving offshore.

Their current job, and their next job, has left the country. That is the difference between this economy and those which preceeded it. A difference you persist in ignoring because to address it requires recognizing how little the individual worker can do about it except vote and continue to look.

Perhaps, if you do read a book, you'll learn what you advocate is PATERNALISTIC state. As I said, if you are a socialist, at least say so to yourself. In every post you are screaming at the top of your lungs that you are a socialist and you know nothing about how your own country works.

And now the ad hominems start against me. You have failed to provide one shred of fact to support your complaints against why this thread was posted and who posted it, and so you resort to another straw man about my economic and political views.

You could not support your statistics for unemployment, nor post any news reports to support your claim that Willie Green or Arcadia selectively ignores good employment/employer news.

And so you crawl into that last refuge of the bankrupt argument, the ad-hominem attack. As other posters have pointed out, when you lose the argument you accuse the winner of being a socialist, and in your limited myopic intellect, think that you are fooling someone.

[fortaydoos]

He speaks the truth. I understand that sometimes the truth - that the corporate fat cats who have bought and paid for the best politicians money can buy - hurts, but it is still the truth.

We are witnessing the systematic destruction of the middle class, and half of you are cheering it along. Our grandchildren will be suffer for it.

[fortaydoos]

You ignore the fact that millions have simply stopped looking for work and thus are not "unemployed".

President Bush would do well to get some new advisors who understand that Americans are getting impatient with this "recovery" that produces jobs only in the third world.

[Starwind]

Perhaps, if you do read a book, you'll learn what you advocate is PATERNALISTIC state. As I said, if you are a socialist, at least say so to yourself. In every post you are screaming at the top of your lungs that you are a socialist and you know nothing about how your own country works.

What I advocated was:

Not violate visa laws. Not misstate pension assets. Not misstate earnings. I won't even get into the Tyco's and Enron's. Not inflate the cost of living beyond real wages and the ability of two peoiple to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not distort the CPI to reduce cola's. To enforce existing laws. To not claim a recovery and jobs are just around the corner when they aren't. That would be a start.

Which adherence to law you label as PATERNALISTIC, and socialist. Stunning refutation.

[A. Pole]

Pure capitalism is worship of the almighty dollar without regard to any other consideration including the rights and dignity of human beings.. Pure capitalism, in the past, gave us monopolies and ruthless suppression of hard-working people. Try it again and you'll bring revolution. History confirms it.

Have a look at my two posts to TopQuark, please:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977616/posts?page=292#292>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977616/posts?page=294#294>

[A. Pole]

Second link should point another message:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977616/posts?page=294#294

Sorry.

[TopQuark]

You accuse people of being anti-capitalists when they want their countrymen to work for a living.

Not at all: it is the measures they propose that are socialist. I am sorry you misunderstood me.

You are correct, of course, that Willie Green is in good company: a great number of people have never seen a serious downturn in the economy --- we did not have one in 20 years. The core stock market, although a bid down from its high, is also 12 TIMES higer than 20 years ago. We did not have a bear market until the burst of the bubble.

These circumstances made people feel as if they are entitled to have good times at all times. Coupled with poor education and indoctrination of hate to America, this also makes people to look to the government as a savior.

True, Willie Green is in good company. That's what worries me.

[TopQuark]

when you lose the argument you accuse the winner of being a socialist, Sorry your ability to read declines as we speak: I started with that accusation. MP> and in your limited myopic intellect, You make me smile.

think that you are fooling someone. Of course not: you cannot fool a fool.