Posted on 01/29/2007 11:47:35 AM PST by DredTennis
Laura Ingraham, the willowy, conservative radio talker, really nailed it. She was speaking last Friday night as part of a panel discussion at a "conservative summit" in Washington held by National Review magazine. Ingraham said she was impressed by Jim Webb's televised rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address, particularly the part that hit on economics. In his talk, the newbie U.S. senator from Virginia launched a populist attack on the Bush economic years, railing about growing income inequality, skyrocketing CEO pay, outsourcing, and the so-called middle-class squeeze. Although Webb's stern speaking manner and improbable hair are easy to mock, Ingraham urged her fellow conservatives to pay serious attention to his message. "The party that comes off as the party that represents the American worker best is the party that wins in 2008," she said, adding that the GOP will be relegated to the political wilderness if it goes back "to being the party of the elites."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
We also don't know if the old "$20 an hour" or the new "13 an hour" include benefits or not.
Still, I can believe that 20 years of technological advancement has made "skill" less of an issue in the meatpacking industry. I don't know that to be true, but it could be true, which would tend to depress the wages of the workers.
It only took me about 45 seconds to come to the conclusion that you were just pulling all that out your arse.
Don't underestimate Webb. He may be a liar, but he's very smart, and while he's not a good public speaker, he does speak well, meaning intelligently, about things, even things where what he's SAYING makes no sense.
Answer the question. Do you think 19 an hour is appropriate for this job?
There is a river in Egypt...
That's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that someone who used to make $19 and now makes $11 isn't gonna feel all warm and fuzzy about free market economics.
Clinton looked like he was wearing a clown nose and had a horrible accent - but got elected President twice. It is not what you and I think of Webb, he is full of crap, it is the mindless masses I am worried about.
In the case of meat packers, there were several factors at play. The industry consolidated, shutting down inefficient plants. Automation was introduced where possible. Refrigerated transportation allowed plants to locate near the meat, not the cities. And yes, the meat packers hired a lot of immigrants including some illegals.
Since the pay was below union wage, but a multiple of minimum wage, I don't think you can blame illegal immigration. But some will because it's such an easy bogeyman.
The net for most of us is meat prices have fallen. According to Oklahoma State University, after adjusting for inflation, beef, chicken, and turkey prices were all lower in 2004 than 1980. Pork is about the same.
Some union workers have lost their union rules and union pay, but the rest of the country benefitted. What's wrong with that?
Ah, the workers you say. Okay, the CNN article noted that the meat packers were semi-skilled and often lacked a high school diploma. They can't do what they've always done. They've got to pick up some skills to survive.
What kind of skills? There are huge shortages of automotive technicians, HVAC technicians, plumbers, electricians, and other skilled trades. There are jobs open nationwide. The pay is better than the old meat packing industry and on the rise. But, it requires learning new skills.
Face it, change is a constant in a free society. There will always be disruption and displacement. Twenty-five years ago I toured a beautiful manufacturing facility in Lexington, KY. It was an IBM plant. The labor force was productive, seemed happy, and turned out a quality product. I don't know what they're doing today, but I'm sure it's not what they did then. Twenty-five years ago they made typewriters.
It would be silly to pine away for typewriters and to plead with the Democrats to draft regulations requiring the use of typewriters over computers. It's also silly for unionized meat packers to protest because of structural shifts in their industry. The companies that refused to change either had their share taken or their assets acquired by those that did change.
I've changed careers half a dozen times and not always by choice. So can anyone, IF they want to put forth the effort.
I'm sure the Dems can use the media to start a drumbeat about how awful things are economically, no matter what the truth is. Clinton's relentless proclamation that GHW Bush gave us "the worst economy in 50 years" is an example of the Goering school of public relations in action. A lot of people bought it then. A lot of people on FR of all places seem to be buying updated versions of it now.
The fact is the economy is good. No, it's not good. It's great.
I'm looking for an employee now and having a heck of a time. We're paying 50% over the average area pay for the position, with the best medical benefits around. We've interviewed lots of people and only two were worth hiring (we lost one when we delayed an offer and the other took a job closer to home with a Fortune 50 company). We've had numerous flakes, kooks, crooks, and illiterates apply. The people we passed on either lacked skill or possessed an abundance of self-destruction. We'll find the right person, but I'm surprised how difficult it is. If necessary, I'll take someone with deficiency of skills, but an abundance of character and invest in the person. I suspect other employers are similar.
There's plenty of opportunity, but it's not necessarily the same opportunity.
A good example is Nuehoff. They were a major processor and a major brand name. I'm sure they had many processing facilities but I recall the Dallas plant and the details of it shutting down and the employees trying to restart it. You don't think old man Nuehoff and his family didn't make a killing?
Today, you may think the wage rate is too low, but these companies pay much better than anything else around them.
And all those people are happy with free market economics?
The "corporatists" versus "working stiffs?" Man, you sound like Chavez.
The top performers in any industry are paid very well. I can justify top pay for an executive who creates jobs and generates wealth far more than an athlete who's playing a game, a pompous actor who's pretending to be someone else, a musician who's singing songs (sort of singing), or a trial attorney who's sucking wealth away from the productive and stifling innovation.
Your response about those people and free market economics doen't make sense. Maybe you can rephrase it?
Considering the profitability of the indudtry, this could be another industry that is better suited for offshore.
There's a lot of expense in shipping animals from the mid west offshore. Chickens in crates start dropping like flies if you have to ship them more than a couple hours. Beef do better but they need a lot of care to ride a couple days.
The top performers in any industry are paid very well. I can justify top pay for an executive who creates jobs and generates wealth
How much pay can you justify for an executive that alienates customers and runs a company into the ground?
No, but the working stiffs will be drawn to someone like Chavez if the corporatists aren't careful.
If it comes to that, we'll cry for beef from Argentina.
It doesn't make sense to you. It makes sense to them. That's all that matters to the Dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.